Amused
Elite Member
Originally posted by: Eli
Where is down south? You mean the SE? South of me is the desert SW. 😛 There is still old growth in the east? :Q 😛Originally posted by: C'DaleRider
Originally posted by: Eli
It's not bullsh!t treehugger propaganda! It's common damn sense.Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Eli
Originally posted by: Amused
Trees are a renewable resourse. The trees used in paper production are farmed. They are not cut down out of Bambi's forest.
The tree huggers need to get a grip on reality.
Do they cry when someone eats corn? No? Then why cry when a tree is harvested?right back atcha. You cannot compare corn to trees, corn is an annual.
I'm shocked someone like you didn't come along earlier.
Trees are not renewable enough to be used for paper pulp. It takes 50 years minimum before a tree is harvestable. Have you ever seen a 50 year old tree plantation? You're lucky if the trees are a foot in diameter. They're spindly, and all the lower branches are dead and disease ridden because it is not natural.
There is absolutely no excuse for not using hemp for paper pulp.
...And so it begins.
Bullsh!t. It takes 50 years minimum to grow a tree for use in solid wood furnature. For trees used in pulp products such as paper and particle board, it takes ten to twenty years with fast growing soft pine.
Ever see a Christmas tree farm? Gee, how do they ever stay in business??? Don't trees grow too slow???
I'm all for legalizing hemp. But let's not spread bullsh!t tree hugger propaganda to do it, OK?
They do not use 10 - 20 year old tree plantations for paper pulp. Even if they did... It still takes way too long! Christmas tree sized trees are "only" as you say, 10-20 years old. That's a long time! Assuming you get 2 times(It's more) paper pulp per acre with hemp than trees, you would be getting 20 or 40 times more pulp in the same ammount of time.
Come on. I live in the Northwest, I see tree plantations all around me. I have never seen a tree plantation younger than 50 - 80 years old cut down.. It simply isn't economical.
Trees do not grow fast. Even the fastest growing pines are molasses slow compared to an annual.
As for your Christmas tree farm comment, Jesus H. Christ. Do you realize that I live in Oregon? Do you know why they stay in business? It doesen't cost anything to grow a tree. Most Christmas tree farms are operated by retired folks that enjoy the extra income every 15 years.
Seriously, think about it for a minute. Since trees get bigger around as they grow, each year of growth brings an exponential increase in actual new wood.
I suck at math, so I can't draw it out.. but the ammount of new wood a 1.5' diameter tree grows in a year is many many orders of magnitude higher than a 5" tree grows in a year. Do you see what I mean? Heh.. I've been growing trees since I was around 8.
<-- Conifer connesuer
Sorry you really suck at facts, bucko.......down south tree are one of the largest agricultural farming items here. It takes only 10 years to grow a pine from seedling planting to harvest. Companies around here have rotating "crops" of trees......cut and plant. It IS a renewable resource........and that "cut and leave" crap the NW is now suffering through is non-existant here in the south. It was done decades here and the timber companies moved to the NW. Now they're returning after fast-growing southern yellow pines were hybrided for growth. Southern yellow pines are mature enough to harvest at 10 years' growth......have been watching it done for several decades now. Have several friends who tree farm......and if it wasn't possible or profitible, they surely wouldn't stay in business.
Very little old growth is touched here any longer......no need.
That very well may be the case, and if so.. I think that's great, and more power to them. I just was stating how it is here in the NW.
Even still, 10 years is a long time. Even assuming that you got the same ammount of paper pulp from hemp as trees, you would be getting 10 times the ammount in the same time frame.. but every statstic I've been able to find says that you can get the same ammount of pulp from 1 acre of hemp as you can from 4 acres of trees.
Plus, hemp paper is better for the environment because fewer chemicals are needed to convert low lignin fibers into pulp. Plant fibers are also naturally more white than tree, so they require less bleaching which releases less dioxin and other nasty chemical byproducts.
Like I said before, you can paint it any way you want to.. hemp is a better source of paper pulp because it is even more renewable than even the fastest growing tree, you get more per acre, less pollution, etc.
Eli, face it. You know nothing about the paper industry, or how long it takes to grow a tree. You've obviously never lived in the South, where an unkept tract of land will be overgrown with pines in just a few short years.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for hemp. Hell, I'm 100% against the war on drugs in general. But the hype surrounding wood pulp is just that. It's an easily renewable resource. They do NOT waste old growth trees for pulp. With old growth trees the wood is MUCH more profitable for high grade (not construction) lumber and fine furniture.
