Re. Paper from poplars?

[Geoff Hart <geoff-h -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA>]

     I won't do battle with the estimable John Renish on his opinions of
     forestry (we've sparred lightly in private e-mail), but I did want to
     correct two minor but significant factual errors in his recent posting
     re. paper from poplars (a short rant follows):

     1. Poplars in general produce short cellulose fibers that are good
     enough to use in "fine papers" (e.g., photocopy, some offset printing
     papers) but not in newsprint or packaging material, which requires
     long fibers with high tearing strength. Genetically improved poplars
     are better than natural poplar, but still not as good, and the
     plantations are prone to devastating epidemics that require nasty
     chemicals to control. You can't do away with natural coniferous
     (evergreen) forests just yet.

     2. Poplar plantations aren't any gentler on the soil than natural
     forest stands. Logging them _may_ be, because you usually put your
     plantations near cities or paper mills and on flat ground, thus
     avoiding logging on slopes (as occurs, with often bad results in
     John's native Pacific Northwest). However, poplar plantations grow and
     suck the nutrients (both minerals and water) out of the soil faster
     than natural forests. Lowering the water table is generally bad news,
     as farmers and anyone in the American midwest can tell you. There are
     _no_ long-term studies on whether or not removing the trees to make
     paper eventually impoverishes the soil; short-term studies and the
     experience elsewhere in the world with "short rotation, intensive
     culture" agroforestry (particularly in South America) indicate that it
     does impoverish the soil, and should be monitored carefully.

     It's fashionable to bash the forest industry these days, but do so in
     the right perspective. In defence of forestry, I'd note that the
     biggest and nastiest clearcuts in existence, and those with the most
     serious environmental consequences, can be found surrounding any large
     or midsized city and anywhere we commit agriculture. No one complains
     about cotton bluejeans grown in fields with no natural vegetation
     present within 100 miles, fed with artificial fertilizers and kept
     healthy with nasty pesticides, both of which end up in our drinking
     water; neither do we complain about our tomato fields that have wiped
     out southern and western forests, and that have the same disadvantages
     as cotton fields; neither do we complain about hundreds of miles of
     wheat fields that have eliminated the natural tall grass and
     shortgrass prairie in all of central North America, and that also
     share the problems of cotton. We also don't complain about the
     destruction of fisheries habitat through overfishing and industrial
     pollution, which do a much more effective job than siltation that
     results from careless harvesting of forests. I won't even go into the
     acres of asphalt that surround us and that many city dwellers consider
     the natural equivalent of grass.

     You'd be hard pressed to find any environmentally friendly mass
     industry, but note that forestry _can_ come closer than most... what
     we cut grows back. With recent legislation, even the harvesting isn't
     as damaging as it used to be. You can't say that about the prairies
     and the fish, which get worse annually. There's much to criticize in
     any endeavor, but it helps to understand what you're criticizing and
     what's being done to improve the situation.

     --Geoff Hart     #8^{)}
     geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca

     Disclaimer: These comments are my own and don't represent the opinions
     of the Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada.