Talk:Woodchipping in Australia

New article

Thanks to Moondyne and SatuSuro for various things.(unsigned from Fred e)

Original Research

Statements concerning the economics of woodchipping need to be sourced, not invented out of thin air.Prester John 02:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Please help the article - if you know of some good references for either side of the argument your contributions are most welcome SatuSuro 05:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly some helpful stuff here: http://www.daffa.gov.au/forestry/national/industries. Hesperian 06:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Better yet, follow the link to the ABARE PDF, and have a look at page 50. Hesperian 06:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Better better yet, the very last page. Hesperian 06:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There is misuse of the notion of OR in this article - what is needed are fact tags - not OR tags SatuSuro 04:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation

I have added a few citations and removed a few templates. One or two were repeated or they challenged self-evident statements. Fred 06:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC) ^{(Modified: Fred 02:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC))}

Bias?

Having read around this topic a bit, I now perceive a bias in the article. Rather than argue my point, I'll let you read this quote from Per Christiansen's The Karri Forest. It's a bit long, sorry, but highly relevant and informative, even if you disagree on some points, as I do:

---

Forest managers have long recognized the clearfelling system of silviculture as the most effective and economically efficient way of harvesting and regenerating these forests. However, the alternative system, selection cutting and regeneration has also been used in the karri forest....

In Western Australia, clearfelling and regeneration is regarded by foresters as the cutting of all trees on an area of not less than 10 ha followed by a regeneration burn. Regeneration is achieved through seed from seed trees which are left uncut within the area for the purpose or by planting with karri plants raised in the nursery. Clearfelling and regeneration is easy, cheap, highly successful, disturbs a small area of forest, and produces even-aged regrowth stands well suited to ongoing management for wood production. Rate of regrowth is fast, thinning is easy to program and control, inventory is simple, and fire protection by prescribed burning to reduce fuel is feasible. Against all this, the immediate impact of clearfelling on forest structure is considerable, even though disturbance of this magnitude occurs only once per rotation of 100 years or more (intermediate thinnings require only light machinery and no intense regeneration burn). The appearance of a clearfelled coupe after the regeneration burn is one of devastation. However, karri regeneration is fast, and from about 15-years-old onward, the forest 'feel' returns and progressively improves.

'Group selection' cutting and regeneration in the karri forest, when it is in practice, involved cutting small groups of trees, generally not more than two hectares followed by regeneration burning. Regeneration was achieved by seed from the remaining standing trees. The system is more difficult and expensive to practise than clearfelling, and more prone to regeneration failure, particularly if the regeneration burn exceeds or falls short of the prescribed intensity. Damage to the standing trees by the regeneration fire is also difficult to avoid. Effective growth in the mixed age stands produced can be low, thinnings and inventory are difficult, and prescribed burning for fuel reduction is difficult and risky. In terms of soil disturbance and change to forest structure, however, the impact is less, though still significant because large machinery has still to be used.

A similar harvesting operation using big machinery followed by a high intensity regeneration burn must be repeated after 30 years or so (intermediate thinnings would occur in similar patterns to clearfelled stands). Selectively cut stands have a much better appearance because retained trees still dominate the landscape. These trees also provide nesting places, which are not provided by young stands after clearfelling, for some birds and mammals. In a forest subject to clearfelling, hole-nesting species in particular must be catered for by providing an adequate and well-distributed system of uncut reserves and forest corridors. Successfully managed selection systems can mask the immediate effect of tree harvests with the result that the forest 'atmosphere' is never entirely lost.

...

Though the clear felling and regeneration system used in the 1920s and 1930s was successful, changes were introduced in the late 1930s.

Then, as now, people unfamiliar with natural processes found it difficult to look upon clearfelled areas as other than forest destruction and there was pressure to release such areas for agriculture.

Selection felling and regeneration which left trees standing in cut-over areas of forest helped the Forests Department officers to advocate its retention as State forest in the ongoing agriculture-forestry land use conflict.

A gradual change to a selection felling system and regeneration was occurring, which by 1938 had become officially recognised by the Forests Department.

As the selection cut and regenerated stands developed, and difficulties in management surfaced, professional opinion began to change back in favour of clearfelling and even-aged management. Perhaps the most telling evidence in its favour was the superiority in health and vigour of the extensive even-aged Big Brook and Treen Brook stands over those being produced by the selection system.

...

In 1975, seven years after the reintroduction of the clearfelling system, the marri woodchip industry commenced. This utilised both marri and karri logs of subsawmill standard. For the first time the utilization and proper regeneration of mixed karri-marri stands became feasible. Previously it had not been possible to utilize marri efficiently because most of the stems were unsuitable for sawmilling. So many more logs per unit area of forest were now available that the effective sawlog yield and hence the overall karri sawlog resource, increased by some 15 to 25 per cent. The advent of woodchipping also meant that thinning of regrowth stands established many years earlier also became economically feasible.

In areas where karri occurs approximately half of its occurrence is with other species, especially marri. Prior to 1970 karri harvesting and regeneration operations were confined largely to stands of pure karri. At the time there was no market for marri and so the trees had to be left standing and it was difficult to properly regenerate the karri component of the stands with the marri still present. Following the establishment of the marri woodchip industry marri trees became commercially valuable and it was then possible to harvest and regenerate the mixed stands.

State forest was not the only beneficiary of the woodchipping industry. Stands of regrowth karri and/or marri on private property became valuable almost overnight, and hence could be viewed by their owners as permanent income generators in their own right rather than area to be converted to pasture or crop as soon as possible. Such stands conserved by farmers for wood production are a gain for conservation.

---

Based on this material, I would have to query the correctness of the following assertions in the lead:

• that clearfelling usually results in deforestation;
• that regeneration is not possible except with introduced species;

plus I perceive an anti-woodchipping tone in the whole article. Hesperian 13:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

At least a link http://www.antiqbook.com/boox/bfi/69247.shtml SatuSuro 13:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Or more accurately - from the liswa catalogue...

• Christensen, P. The karri forest : its conservation, significance and management / compiled and written by P.E.S. Christensen ; edited by Marianne R.L. Lewis.

Published Como, W.A : Dept. of Conservation and Land Management, 1992. ISBN 0730946762 (pbk.) Note "A CALM publication". "February 1992" - t.p. verso. No doubt the various conservation/environment groups either wrote or replied to this foresters views at some stage... SatuSuro 13:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Heavy bias

For the record, I detest clear-felling practices and the political mis-information that so often surrounds them but I'd have to agree this article appears heavily biased against the woodchip industry. Even the opening sentence "Woodchipping is an Australian forestry production method of clearcutting,..." seems excessively emotive since woodchipping is surely the act of chipping wood for pulp and not a method of felling trees. One would be hard-pressed to fell a mature karri tree with a woodchipper. Chipping may follow clear-felling activity but it is not, in itself, a method of cutting forests. I am also astounded that an article on the (Australian) woodchip industry can go for so long without ever mentioning the Tasmanian Blue Gum (Eucalyptus globulus) plantation industry which is in a major expansion phase across the country, especially in the Great Southern region of WA. As far as I'm aware, Tassie Blue Gum is now the major, perhaps only, source of woodchip for pulp in WA but I'm no expert, nor am I a big fan of the Blue Gum industry practices, so don't quote me on that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndrewD MBarker (talk • contribs) 12:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

I think you've identified the problem Andrew. The article conflates woodchipping with clearfelling. These are different things. Woodchipping can, theoretically, be done without clearfelling, although it would not be economically feasible to do so. Clearfelling can be undertaken without the felled timber being used for woodchipping purposes; indeed, clearfelling was a common forestry practice before there was a woodchipping industry.

The solution is to remove all commentary on clearfelling to the clearcutting article. The only thing we need to say about clearfelling in this article is that:

1. Timber for the woodchipping industry is usually provided by the clearfelling method of forestry;
2. The woodchipping industry made it economically feasible to clearfell areas of substandard and mixed forest such as Karri-Marri forest.

Hesperian 05:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

After reading the talk page and giving time to the authors, I have rendered the article NPOV. Prester John 05:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we were working on it at the same time; you might like to check that my version remains NPOV in your view. Hesperian 05:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. It's a lot shorter but way more succient IMO. It now reads like an encyclopedia article. Prester John 05:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalsim

It seems that someone vandalised this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.158.4 (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Hesperian 03:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Poorly structured section

Wood chips, as a by-product of the timber industry, have been used in many ways for centuries, for example as a material for the production of wallpaper or as a disposable floor covering in butchers shop or drinking houses. Wood pulp is the primary market for the woodchipping industry in Australia. The practice, known as woodchipping, was to make use of the entire plant in the production of wood chips. This was then converted into paper, softwoods generally used for newsprint and packaging, while hardwoods for high quality printing paper.[3] An energy intensive process, it also involved the use of bleaches and other toxic chemicals. This stage of the process, known as Kraft pulping, was primarily performed in Japan and elsewhere. High demand for paper products saw purpose built bulk carriers increase the export of woodchips from Australia to Japan.

This section has numerous errors and loosely related concepts jumbled together. For example, sawdust was used on butcher shop floors not woodchips and who cares anyway! Also, bark and leaves can't be used to make paper so the statement about "make use of the entire plant" is completely wrong!

114.76.20.237 (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Martin

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Woodchipping in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070921092202/http://www.daffa.gov.au/rfa/publications/deferred/wood-paper/why to http://www.daffa.gov.au/rfa/publications/deferred/wood-paper/why
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fpc.wa.gov.au/content/education/pulp_and_paper.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/forests/victoria/royalty2/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.daff.gov.au/ministers/tuckey/releases/00/00_66tu.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060906224715/http://www.shoalhaven.net.au/nbt78/wchip.html to http://shoalhaven.net.au/nbt78/wchip.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101126222752/http://www.chipstop.forests.org.au:80/ to http://chipstop.forests.org.au/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)