Which Native Plants Less Poisonous?
Brian Sandle
planned chopping of 200 and more 50 year old macrocapra trees in Thomson
Park, New Brighton.
A couple of trees planted much earlier, there, not on the Marine Parade
boundary, have shown some weakness.
When I pointed out the risk of poisonoing from ngaio trees, intended as
replacements, the Christchurch City Council tree specialist said that most
native bushes are toxic. How good then is his knowledge?
What poisonings do you know of, animals and children?
Brian Sandle
Bruce Sinclair
well cattle and tutu are a classic :)
Kowhai (seeds ?) are poisonous - there has been discussion about removing
them from 'child care centers' ... BUT try getting the seed out of the
pod/husk ... then try breaking open the seed - pliers/hacksaw usually needed
as i remember :)
Karaka seeds (kernels only ?) ... i'm sure there are others.
Just don't eat them ... then no problems :)
.. and don't forget ... NON natives can be just as (or more) poisonous :) :)
Bruce
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple exclamation marks are the sign of a sick mind !!!!!!
(Work)email SinclairB@Agresearch "dot" cri "dot" nz
NOTE remove the not_ from the reply or see the line above.NO SPAM !
postmaster@localhost,abuse@localhost,ro...@mailloop.com
cat/dev/zero/tmp/...`@localhost,halt@localhost (gotta try this :) )
Peter Kerr
>well cattle and tutu are a classic :)
Tutu has caused the deaths of at least three elephants in NZ...
>Kowhai (seeds ?) are poisonous - there has been discussion about removing
>them from 'child care centers' ... BUT try getting the seed out of the
>pod/husk ... then try breaking open the seed - pliers/hacksaw usually needed
>as i remember :)
How about hydrochloric acid at 37 degrees?
The pods crack open automatically if left hanging on the tree,
then the yellow seeds are attractive and easily swallowed.
>Karaka seeds (kernels only ?) ... i'm sure there are others.
The kernels are edible only after complete washing, then cooking in a
steam oven. The flesh of the fruit is extremely poisonous, but is reported
to be neutralised by 60 minutes exposure to water at 105 degrees C. In
other words they should make good jam, but I've never been game to try...
>Just don't eat them ... then no problems :)
>.. and don't forget ... NON natives can be just as (or more) poisonous :) :)
Tawa and taraire are quite edible and nourishing,
but taste like kerosene.
Originally published 19(47?) several reprints, revisions
usually regarded as a (if not the) classic:
Connor, H. E. (Henry E.)
Poisonous plants in New Zealand
Wellington : Department of Agriculture, 1960.
--
Peter Kerr bodger
School of Music chandler
University of Auckland New Zealand neo-Luddite
Bruce Hamilton
p.k...@auckland.ac.nz (Peter Kerr) writes:
>sinclairb@NOT_agresearch.cri.nz (Bruce Sinclair) wrote:
>>well cattle and tutu are a classic :)
>Tutu has caused the deaths of at least three elephants in NZ...
No wonder there were not any elephants left by the time Europeans
arrived. Tutu also killed some of the first stock bought to NZ, and
bracken is also poisonous to cattle, horses and sheep..
>>Karaka seeds (kernels only ?) ... i'm sure there are others.
>The kernels are edible only after complete washing, then cooking in a
>steam oven. The flesh of the fruit is extremely poisonous, but is reported
>to be neutralised by 60 minutes exposure to water at 105 degrees C. In
>other words they should make good jam, but I've never been game to try...
The fruit cause paralysis of hind limbs and cessation of lactation
in cows. Maori had a method of burying the fruit in wet sand to
destroy the poisonous glucoside in the kernels before cooking.
Karaka nectar is poisonous to bees.
Ngaio is poisonous to cattle.
Ongaonga ( tree nettle ) can kill humans, horses, dogs.
Pinatoro ( strathmore weed ) poisons horses and cattle.
Waoriki poisons cattle.
Facial eczema fungus harms sheep and cattle.
A few of the other plants that are known to contain poisons
are Solanum species ( poroporo), Sophora ( kowhai ), and Pukatea ,
but parts of the plants may also be medicines.
>Originally published 19(47?) several reprints, revisions
>usually regarded as a (if not the) classic:
1951 was the first edition.
> Connor, H. E. (Henry E.)
> Poisonous plants in New Zealand
> Wellington : Department of Agriculture, 1960.
A second edition was published in 1977 by the Government Printer.
There are a large number of books on Maori medicines, and
most also detail many of the known poisous plants as well.
The books by S.G.Brooker, R.C.Cambie, and R.C.Cooper
( such as Economic Native Plants of NZ, 1988 ) also have
information on poisonous plants.
Bruce Hamilton
Bruce Sinclair
p.k...@auckland.ac.nz (Peter Kerr) wrote:
>sinclairb@NOT_agresearch.cri.nz (Bruce Sinclair) wrote:
>>well cattle and tutu are a classic :)
>
>Tutu has caused the deaths of at least three elephants in NZ...
>
>>them from 'child care centers' ... BUT try getting the seed out of the
>>pod/husk ... then try breaking open the seed - pliers/hacksaw usually
needed
>>as i remember :)
>
>How about hydrochloric acid at 37 degrees?
>The pods crack open automatically if left hanging on the tree,
>then the yellow seeds are attractive and easily swallowed.
I don't believe that works :) ... ie eating them has no effect :)
I'm prepared to be told this isn't so :)
>>Karaka seeds (kernels only ?) ... i'm sure there are others.
>The kernels are edible only after complete washing, then cooking in a
>steam oven. The flesh of the fruit is extremely poisonous, but is reported
>to be neutralised by 60 minutes exposure to water at 105 degrees C. In
>other words they should make good jam, but I've never been game to try...
but notice that the keruru eats the whole thing and loves it :) ... that's
the outside soft bits ... i think the nut goes through (OW !)
I have heard it makes excellent jam ... but i guess care is needed. The maori
certainly had methods of preparation that removed or neutralised the poison.
>>Just don't eat them ... then no problems :)
>>.. and don't forget ... NON natives can be just as (or more) poisonous :)
>
>Tawa and taraire are quite edible and nourishing,
>but taste like kerosene.
I have heard that ... but can't get up any enthusiasm to try it for some
reason :)
>Originally published 19(47?) several reprints, revisions
>usually regarded as a (if not the) classic:
>
> Connor, H. E. (Henry E.)
> Poisonous plants in New Zealand
> Wellington : Department of Agriculture, 1960.
thanks for that ... i think i remember it from somewhere. I don't think it's
complete tho (probably the 1960 :) ) ... so just because it isn't in there
don't assume it's OK :)
John Cawston
> I have written several articles on on nz.reg.christchurch.general on the
> planned chopping of 200 and more 50 year old macrocapra trees in Thomson
> Park, New Brighton.
>
> A couple of trees planted much earlier, there, not on the Marine Parade
> boundary, have shown some weakness.
>
> When I pointed out the risk of poisonoing from ngaio trees, intended as
> replacements, the Christchurch City Council tree specialist said that most
> native bushes are toxic. How good then is his knowledge?
>
> What poisonings do you know of, animals and children?
>
> Brian Sandle
Apart from Tutu, I am unaware of effects on animals and kids. There will be
some which arn't the best, perhaps, but we would know about them if they were
dangerous.
JC
John Cawston
> sinclairb@NOT_agresearch.cri.nz (Bruce Sinclair) wrote:
> >well cattle and tutu are a classic :)
>
> Tutu has caused the deaths of at least three elephants in NZ...
It wasn't the deaths of the elephants which was the problem, but the 10 people
they fell on which pissed everybody off.
JC
Keith Davidson
Bruce Hamilton wrote:
>
> >>Karaka seeds (kernels only ?) ... i'm sure there are others.
>
> The fruit cause paralysis of hind limbs and cessation of lactation
> in cows. Maori had a method of burying the fruit in wet sand to
> destroy the poisonous glucoside in the kernels before cooking.
> Karaka nectar is poisonous to bees.
I never knew that. I know both deer and goats in NZ eat copious
quantities of ripe karaka berries, both straight from the tree and
windfalls, with no apparent harm. Both species seem to consider the
fruit a delicacy.
Keith Davidson
Brian Sandle
Perhaps it is safer for humans not to eat a plant which birds, also single
stomached creatures, will not eat. Murdoch Riley gives that Maori steamed
it for three days then steeped it in a running stream for three months.
Karaka is also on the list of possible plants to use in Thomson Park.
titoki, kahakaha, Rangiora, tauhinu/cottonwood, sand coprosma, mikimiki.
taupata, karamu, tikouka/cabbage tree, karaka, ake ake, kepuka, koromiko,
Hymentanthera crassifolia, mikoikoi/native iris, rohutu, pohuehue, ngaio,
mapau, kohuhu, tarata/lemonwood, silver tussock, tauhinu, lancewood,
South Island Kowhai, hooked sedge.
Removing trees also removes bird habitat. We are running short of birds.
I do feel some attempt should be made to save these great trees, at least
whilst something as impressive and as great an ecological boon is
started.
Some native plants are growing near single rows of macrocarpas,
further along Thonmson park where the touch rugby fields are. Why not
give them a bit more of a go? The hose for early irrigation seems to be
broken now. Won't a bit of shade from the big macrocapras for some of the
day help those plants retain some water?
Just how great is the risk of a branch falling on someone compared to the
other risks - empoverished environment &c?
Search, if you please for sandle on nz.reg.christchurch.general or
perhaps for macrocarpa and add any voice to help save these 200 20m great
trees.
Brian Sandle
Graeme Butler
Keith Davidson wrote in message <36F627B0...@times-age.co.nz>...
Peter Kerr
>
>Search, if you please for sandle on nz.reg.christchurch.general or
>perhaps for macrocarpa and add any voice to help save these 200 20m great
>trees.
>
I suppose like most open rows of "shelter belt" macrocarpas these will be
split, partly hollow, multi trunked, and branches everywhere. Pity,
because it is damn fine timber if grown carefully.
Around the turn of last century our Forest Service was recommending that
macrocarpa be planted as a replacement for kauri. The timber has very
similar characteristics, a bit lighter, slightly more prone to split, but
best, it returns an equivalent crop in 40 - 60 years.
Bruce Sinclair
Brian Sandle <bsa...@southern.co.nz> wrote:
>In nz.reg.christchurch.general Keith Davidson <ke...@times-age.co.nz> wrote:
>
>:>
>:> >>Karaka seeds (kernels only ?) ... i'm sure there are others.
>:>
>:> The fruit cause paralysis of hind limbs and cessation of lactation
>:> in cows. Maori had a method of burying the fruit in wet sand to
>:> destroy the poisonous glucoside in the kernels before cooking.
>:> Karaka nectar is poisonous to bees.
>
>: I never knew that. I know both deer and goats in NZ eat copious
>: quantities of ripe karaka berries, both straight from the tree and
>: windfalls, with no apparent harm. Both species seem to consider the
>: fruit a delicacy.
>:
>: Keith Davidson
>
>stomached creatures, will not eat. Murdoch Riley gives that Maori steamed
>it for three days then steeped it in a running stream for three months.
keruru do eat it (and love it)
quote (nz encyclopedia,1988 2nd ed) ...
"the fruit ripens to yellow and the outer flesh is edible raw. The
kernel is, however, highly toxic ...."
I suggest the kernel goes straight through :) (necessary for some types of
seed to germinate at all ... though being run over by cars works too :)
Brian Sandle
: Brian Sandle <bsa...@southern.co.nz> wrote:
:>
:>Search, if you please for sandle on nz.reg.christchurch.general or
:>perhaps for macrocarpa and add any voice to help save these 200 20m great
:>trees.
:>
: I suppose like most open rows of "shelter belt" macrocarpas these will be
: split, partly hollow, multi trunked, and branches everywhere. Pity,
: because it is damn fine timber if grown carefully.
It is interesting. You are saying that if the Council had spent money on
maintenance then there would be a great economic drive to cut them.
This is donated park land. The concept of the people of a city, through
its council, being into business to raise money on donated recreational
land, is a bit confusing.
Do you envisage a city in which the wildlife is seen only as an image on
a screen? How can a screen give the feeling of all the yellow pine pollen
lying around and the feeling of bouncing along on a one foot carpet of pine
needles under the shelter belt on the way to school?
: Around the turn of last century our Forest Service was recommending that
: macrocarpa be planted as a replacement for kauri. The timber has very
: similar characteristics, a bit lighter, slightly more prone to split, but
: best, it returns an equivalent crop in 40 - 60 years.
I suppose I could think of analogies in terms of other public areas.
Perhaps the universities should be built with selling off the buildings,
library art works, old music scores &c in mind.
: -- : Peter
Kerr
bodger : School of Music chandler
: University of Auckland New Zealand neo-Luddite
Brian Sandle
Peter Kerr
>
>It is interesting. You are saying that if the Council had spent money on
>maintenance then there would be a great economic drive to cut them.
>
>This is donated park land. The concept of the people of a city, through
>its council, being into business to raise money on donated recreational
>land, is a bit confusing.
Urban Forestry, permitted under the Local Government and Resource
Management Acts, little practised because most councils are too timid to
try something new. There must be others besides Waitakere and ARC doing
it.
>Do you envisage a city in which the wildlife is seen only as an image on
>a screen? How can a screen give the feeling of all the yellow pine pollen
>lying around and the feeling of bouncing along on a one foot carpet of pine
>needles under the shelter belt on the way to school?
Heck no. Plant heaps of trees, all sorts, all over. But plant some on the
good land easy to get at that can return a useful income on a sustained
rotating yield basis. For safety reasons public may need to be excluded
for 3 - 5 years after planting, and during pruning and felling operations.
Fire and vehicle exclusions. But in all other respects it's public land
with public access. This will help pay for the land locked up in slow
growing natives.
>I suppose I could think of analogies in terms of other public areas.
>Perhaps the universities should be built with selling off the buildings,
>library art works, old music scores &c in mind.
Hmmm, I don't know if it's supposed to be public knowledge, but this
university is actively seeking ways of eliminating its investments in
bricks and mortar, but still retaining use of the buildings. It already
hires out art works from its collection. Music scores, there's nothing of
great value in our lot, the trade is about equal, hireage in and out.
Brian Sandle
:>
:>It is interesting. You are saying that if the Council had spent money on
:>maintenance then there would be a great economic drive to cut them.
:>
:>This is donated park land. The concept of the people of a city, through
:>its council, being into business to raise money on donated recreational
:>land, is a bit confusing.
: Urban Forestry, permitted under the Local Government and Resource
: Management Acts, little practised because most councils are too timid to
: try something new. There must be others besides Waitakere and ARC doing
: it.
On the golf courses or where?
In Christchurch we have Riccarton Bush. It has some remnants of native
bush.
Now how about inner city forests? Mind you forests need old rotting trees
as habits for all the marvellous fungi and other facets of the
ecosystem. In Britain most of that has gone from all the forests.
:>Do you envisage a city in which the wildlife is seen only as an image on
:>a screen? How can a screen give the feeling of all the yellow pine pollen
:>lying around and the feeling of bouncing along on a one foot carpet of pine
:>needles under the shelter belt on the way to school?
: Heck no. Plant heaps of trees, all sorts, all over. But plant some on the
: good land easy to get at that can return a useful income on a sustained
: rotating yield basis.
So what sort of rotating period?
For safety reasons public may need to be excluded
: for 3 - 5 years after planting, and during pruning and felling operations.
: Fire and vehicle exclusions. But in all other respects it's public land
: with public access. This will help pay for the land locked up in slow
: growing natives.
Why should there be any connection? A central city forest is an amenity
like an art gallery or hospital or school. So now you are telling us to
help finance free schools with ones calculated to produce income, and
same with hospitals.
:>I suppose I could think of analogies in terms of other public areas.
:>Perhaps the universities should be built with selling off the buildings,
:>library art works, old music scores &c in mind.
: Hmmm, I don't know if it's supposed to be public knowledge, but this
: university is actively seeking ways of eliminating its investments in
: bricks and mortar, but still retaining use of the buildings.
So as to end up in buildings which produce a maximised profit to an investor?
It already
: hires out art works from its collection. Music scores, there's nothing of
: great value in our lot, the trade is about equal, hireage in and out.
How is a balance been profit and educational accounting achieved in the
long run?
The market system produces lots of competing stores replicating the same
range of products. How does one do the accounting for the effects on
minds some hundreds of years away and more, of course, in terms of the
big trees of Canada which were all turned into ships and used to export
the rest of themselves.
I think that to have New Brighton populated with a few native plants only
is pretty poor when they are all planted for cost reduction principally
though with the argument of their being natives.
The New Brighton macrocarpas, growing on what was bare land, compete with
some of the larger ones in their homeland, the Monterey Peninsula.
Brian Sandle
Sarndra
--
Sarndra
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The gene pool could use a little chlorine
The opinions expressed in my posts are my own and
are entirely seperate from my employer.
Long live freedom of speech :o)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
visit my website www.angelfire.com/ok/nzfamily
Brian Sandle
: Nice piccy in the press this morning Bri :-)
While nz.reg.christchurch.general is in the mood for voting on a
Cantabrian title, perhaps we could have some voting on agroforestry for
Canterbury. How important is it? Not too long ago forestry was seen as an
invading enemy by farmers. ("When macrocarpa means money" - NZ Forest
Industries May 1992, p44.) After some 30 years, it seems 1/4 of macrocarpas
would sell at $2000 per stem (1992 figure). Where would such money go?
Into a consolidated city fund and out again to the park to pay for some(?)
of the proposed modification?
It has been too eerily silent on the macrocapra threads. Is that a don't
mind, a don't know, or an agreement vote? Most people I have spoken too
feel it is very silly to remove those trees. They would cost something to
maintain, but they are an amenity, and how much would the cost be
compared to modifying the park to make it just like others? How much was
spent modifying the changing sheds on the car park at the New Brighton
Surf Club and is it worth the amount spent? The murals on the older one
made it quite interesting. Now I see that modifications
around there are taking money from planting in wider area around there.
It was intended to modify the playground with the pool and concrete whale.
Now it is being accepted as good already.
I am thinking that Thomson Park may be in the North Beach beach park zone,
rather than the New Brighton one? I just hope that unnecessary work is not
to proceed. The part which might bring in money would seem to be an
unfair part to do, especially if the safety angle is only to create a
perception of need to do the work, which is really to be done for other
gains to certain people?
Could we not accept Thomson park as fairly good already, and save the
money intended to be spent after the trees' value pays for some of the
work? Then more could be spent on planting the sandhills with all
sorts of interesting flora, also making all sorts of interesting habitats.
The endangered pied shag is rebounding back somewhat and it can nest in
macrocapra trees, for example. Would it not be wonderful a few years on to
be watching such and other species sharing our suburb?
Would anyone sign a petition or hand one around? What would you put on a
petition?
I have been contacted on the matter through my number in the phone book
because of the picture.
Brian Sandle
Sarndra
Brian Sandle <bsa...@southern.co.nz> wrote in message
[snip]
> Could we not accept Thomson park as fairly good already, and save the
> money intended to be spent after the trees' value pays for some of the
> work? Then more could be spent on planting the sandhills with all
> sorts of interesting flora, also making all sorts of interesting habitats.
>
> The endangered pied shag is rebounding back somewhat and it can nest in
> macrocapra trees, for example. Would it not be wonderful a few years on to
> be watching such and other species sharing our suburb?
>
> Would anyone sign a petition or hand one around? What would you put on a
> petition?
>
> I have been contacted on the matter through my number in the phone book
> because of the picture.
>
> Brian Sandle
Well, personally I think that the trees are nice and the Council is all up the shit
with their spending anyway. Why not just trim them to tidy them up a bit? They do
look overgrown and untidy a bit.
I agree ... Thomson Park is ok as is.....
As for petitions, can't see what good that would do. THIS Council seems to have one
rule for them and another for US. Personally I think Christchurch is being run by a
bunch of drongoes....
Brian Sandle
:>Well, personally I think that the trees are nice and the Council is all
: up the shit
:>with their spending anyway. Why not just trim them to tidy them up a
: bit? They do
:>look overgrown and untidy a bit.
:>
:>I agree ... Thomson Park is ok as is.....
: Unfortunately Sarndra, when macrocarpas get untidy and overgrown to the
: point that ordinary people notice it (and ordinary just means people who
: aren't arborists or foresters ;-), it is often too late.
: The weight of unpruned branches causes splits. Water and debris goes in
: and causes rot. Trimming and tidying up often finishes at ground level :-(
If these trees look a bit untidy the reason is that they have been
pruned and no foliage is showing lower down. And in the touch rugby part
of the park the pine trees on the inward side of them have been removed
leaving no foliage showing except higher up.
But a person who works with trees said he sees no dying out areas in the
crowns.
From "The Tree Grower" November 1988 p91, about a block of macrocarpas:
"Pruning on the first block started at an early age - probably about the
third winter and one third the height of the tree. History now tells us
this was far too early, and far too hard. It would seem that the
Macrocarpa Beast does not respond like its old mate from Monterey - the
Radiata Beast, by putting on epicormic growth. It fights back
immediately, putting on as much wood on its remaining branches as it
possibly can! Advice was sought from far and wide - most of it
conflicting, and all of it confusing. The years went by as debate raged
and nothing was done. We wanted maximum value in the logs and by pruning
down to a realistic branch size wouldn't we be removing too much
greenery stunting the growth? Anyway even knotty old macrocarpas seem to
have this ability to produce a large percentage of clean timber.
Meanwhile Barr and Bunn visited. I was too embarrassed to show them the
older block so we looked at the younger one, five years old and
untouched. What to do? Harry Bunn came up with this brilliant idea of
not touching a cypress with pruning gear until it is seven years old.
[...] the younger trees at seven years old have a mass of branches but
very few thicker than an inch or so. Compare this to some of the 4 to 5
inch boomers on the heavily pruned older block."
So maybe, Peter, you have been thinking of heavily or early pruned
trees.
The tree worker said it is the older trees, on the other side of the
park, beside the golf course, which need attention and possibly removal,
especially the pines. One pine has fallen and one macrocarpa which had
been slant growing did get some rot and broke on that other side of the
park. Now I agree with Sarndra that organisation is not as good as it
could be since these pines and any slant macrocarpas are not the ones
planned for removal and there has not been assessment of the individual
trees. There has just been no attention until the crashes. And the
attention has been only to remove the broken trees. The others on
that side have some obvious problems but nothing is being done there.
There is more attempt at consultation, now, for park changes, but in
this case it was not very wide. The meeting about the trees was
mentioned in a newspaper for the eastern suburbs. In the northern
suburbs a woman wrote to "The Star" two weeks back on the day of the
meeting. The only way she had know of the planned chopping was that
someone else had written to "The Star" about it. The picture yesterday
is the first time "The Press," Christchurch's daily paper, would have
carried anything on it. At the consultation meeting the 13 people,
including 3 council staff, who voted for removal of the trees, had
been influenced by the computer generated projected park picture which
showed nice trees to remain which were actually planned for removal.
Is that poor organisation or dishonesty?
The record for attending to trees is very poor in this area. For a
stretch of half a mile on the beach side of the road pines trees grow to
the height of the sandhills, every 100 metres or so. Over the years the
branches spread out over the seal of the road and would be broken by
passing vehicles and bicycles would have to ride out around them into
the stream of traffic.
I complained every year for quite a few years. The traffic engineer
asked the parks staff to cut the trees back and up to 1.8 metres so that
people coming off the beach could see the road without going right out
on to it. Nothing was done over a year later.
There was a fatality as a car drove into one tree. Later a boy was
knocked off a bike beside one. I kept complaining. That the boy was
knocked was regarded as nothing to do with the trees. Of course it meant
that the tree had not been hit into that time. My complaints continued,
now to the head of the tree care in Christchurch, and pruning started -
on the back side of the trees away from the road.
Eventually the trees were pruned on their road side and a post and wire
fence put in to delineate the edge of the road. The posts have been hit
a few times.
It is still very difficult for the bus drivers to see the bus stop
further along and the bus suddenly lurches to a stop, past the stop and
one nearly falls over. More pruning of one tree at least should be done.
So I am very suspicious about this Thomson Park issue. The street
lighting company have complained and that may be it. In a big wind a few
months ago one branch fell on the two lighting wires, but did not break
them. And there is no house wiring there. It was not five wires
supporting the branch. Some branches are near that wire. It should not
be very dear to put the lighting wiring under ground. When I suggested
to the chairperson of the consultation meeting, after the meeting since
there had been discouragement from speaking more than once during the
meeting, she thought that underground wiring should be done as well as
removing the pines. Why not instead?
But with the record of tree attention I am _sure_ that safety of persons
is not the reason, only an excuse in this case. It is to create a
perception that the job needs doing. Of course it is a very `powerful'
argument the danger of live wires. But I think injuries from power wires
after trees fall are nearly non-existant. And injuries from trees falling on
people? How much have you heard of it compared to cars hitting
children after they run out?
Brian Sandle
Peter Kerr
>The endangered pied shag is rebounding back somewhat and it can nest in
>macrocapra trees, for example. Would it not be wonderful a few years on to
>be watching such and other species sharing our suburb?
>
I welcome any effort which improves the habitat for native birds. The pied
shag however has an unfortunate reputation for severely harming most trees
it nests in...
Peter Kerr
>Peter Kerr <p.k...@auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>: Urban Forestry, permitted under the Local Government and Resource
>: Management Acts, little practised because most councils are too timid to
>: try something new. There must be others besides Waitakere and ARC doing
>: it.
>
>On the golf courses or where?
Now we have water catchment areas up north, oh but Christchurch gets its
water from wells ... ;-)
>: Heck no. Plant heaps of trees, all sorts, all over. But plant some on the
>: good land easy to get at that can return a useful income on a sustained
>: rotating yield basis.
>
>So what sort of rotating period?
Depends on the value of the timber and the growth rates. If you don't mind
the nasty cheap commodity implications of P. radiata, then 20 years is
possible. For matchwood, chopsticks and the like some species of poplar
are ready in 10 yrs. Good furniture/veneer grade timber like C. macrocarpa
or A. melanoxylon need a minimum of 30 - 40 years, and continue to
appreciate after that. It also depends on what number the bean counters
want as the "opportunity cost" for public parkland :-(
>: But in all other respects it's public land
>: with public access. This will help pay for the land locked up in slow
>: growing natives.
>
>Why should there be any connection? A central city forest is an amenity
>like an art gallery or hospital or school. So now you are telling us to
>help finance free schools with ones calculated to produce income, and
>same with hospitals.
Market economy meets socialism. We know humans are not social animals in
the nature of ants, nor are they solitary like the wandering albatross.
Between the two extremes lies pragmatism.
>The market system produces lots of competing stores replicating the same
>range of products. How does one do the accounting for the effects on
>minds some hundreds of years away and more, of course, in terms of the
>big trees of Canada which were all turned into ships and used to export
>the rest of themselves.
If one is totting up this year's profit, one doesn't. If one is genuinely
concerned one could write a book about the theory which will become famous
only hundreds of years after one's death.
>The New Brighton macrocarpas, growing on what was bare land, compete with
>some of the larger ones in their homeland, the Monterey Peninsula.
Amongst the debacles of gorse, ragwort, honeysuckle, briar, etc, the
Monterey Pine, and the Monterey Cypress are two of the fortunate accidents
our ancestors inflicted on us. Should we not attempt to profit from this
good fortune?
Peter Kerr
>Well, personally I think that the trees are nice and the Council is all
up the shit
>with their spending anyway. Why not just trim them to tidy them up a
bit? They do
>look overgrown and untidy a bit.
>
>I agree ... Thomson Park is ok as is.....
Unfortunately Sarndra, when macrocarpas get untidy and overgrown to the
point that ordinary people notice it (and ordinary just means people who
aren't arborists or foresters ;-), it is often too late.
The weight of unpruned branches causes splits. Water and debris goes in
and causes rot. Trimming and tidying up often finishes at ground level :-(
--
Sarndra
Peter Kerr <p.k...@auckland.ac.nz> wrote in message
[snip]
Why not just trim them to tidy them up a
> bit? They do
> >look overgrown and untidy a bit.
> >
> >I agree ... Thomson Park is ok as is.....
>
> Unfortunately Sarndra, when macrocarpas get untidy and overgrown to the
> point that ordinary people notice it (and ordinary just means people who
> aren't arborists or foresters ;-), it is often too late.
>
> The weight of unpruned branches causes splits. Water and debris goes in
> and causes rot. Trimming and tidying up often finishes at ground level :-(
Oh...in that case of course pull them out if they are dangerous....
Sarndra
Brian Sandle
:>The endangered pied shag is rebounding back somewhat and it can nest in
:>macrocapra trees, for example. Would it not be wonderful a few years on to
:>be watching such and other species sharing our suburb?
:>
: I welcome any effort which improves the habitat for native birds. The pied
: shag however has an unfortunate reputation for severely harming most trees
: it nests in...
It is interesting to wonder what it did to the total ecological balance
in the earlier days.
Monkeys are a problem for gardeners in South African regions. They break
trees. But it is actually pruning they are doing. Besides the effects on
the trees of new growth I suppose the fallen branches will rot and provide
food for bugs which then provide food for birds and other creatures.
As pointed out on the chch newsgroup the pied shag is not thought of as
endangered. However, though I have seen many as five dead spotty shags
at a time washed up over half a kilometer of New Brighton beach over many
years, I do not remember seeing a pied shag washed up.
Although http://www.oceanwings.co.nz/shag.htm reports the little black
shag in Kaikoura, Moon gives it as uncommon in the South Island. Perhaps
there are too few bullies for it to feed on. I wonder what increases them
in the ecosystem. Water of course and whatever vegetation which falls
into it and they clean up. Do you see the little black shag much up north
now?
Over the last 30 years the bird life has been severely degraded in
Canterbury. Sometimes on a 100 km drive about roosting time hardly any
birds are seen flying about.
Nesting in macrocarpas and pines in the City Council owned Rawhiti golf
course used to be large numbers of starlings and sparrows. They would
have joyous flights in large flocks at sundown. The noise when they were
settling would be heard over hundreds of metres. Now there are few.
Sparrows are not often seen unless there is someone feeding them nearby.
I even remember them feeding in flocks on the marram seeds in the sand
dunes for a year or two. So just having roosts is not enough - there
still are quite a few perching places around the golf course here. But
there are owls, still heard at night, though I haven't heard as many of
them or the recently arrived plovers in this last season. I think we need
to organise a bit better than just wanting the dollars for this
generation and forgeting what life is going to be like next one. Maybe
some are expecting armageddon and have given up painting their houses,
even. But what about a bit of insurance for if it does not happen?
In Switzeralnd there are areas where herbicides are less used so more
wild grasses will grow and produce seed for birds, I have been told.
Brian Sandle
Brian Sandle
: Brian Sandle <bsa...@southern.co.nz> wrote:
:>Peter Kerr <p.k...@auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
:>: Urban Forestry, permitted under the Local Government and Resource
:>: Management Acts, little practised because most councils are too timid to
:>: try something new. There must be others besides Waitakere and ARC doing
:>: it.
:>
:>On the golf courses or where?
: Now we have water catchment areas up north, oh but Christchurch gets its
: water from wells ... ;-)
Of which already one has been showing salt in it. And the nearby back up
Waimakariri river from which we are threatened with chlorinated water, if
we do not conserve, has been very low this season.
There are some pine plantation areas beyond the north east suburbs.
:>: Heck no. Plant heaps of trees, all sorts, all over. But plant some on the
:>: good land easy to get at that can return a useful income on a sustained
:>: rotating yield basis.
:>
:>So what sort of rotating period?
: Depends on the value of the timber and the growth rates. If you don't mind
: the nasty cheap commodity implications of P. radiata, then 20 years is
: possible.
How is it that investment can wait 20 years for a return
For matchwood, chopsticks and the like some species of poplar
: are ready in 10 yrs. Good furniture/veneer grade timber like C. macrocarpa
: or A. melanoxylon need a minimum of 30 - 40 years, and continue to
: appreciate after that. It also depends on what number the bean counters
: want as the "opportunity cost" for public parkland :-(
or 40 years, but is not interested in trading longer terms of maturity?
:>: But in all other respects it's public land
:>: with public access. This will help pay for the land locked up in slow
:>: growing natives.
:>
:>Why should there be any connection? A central city forest is an amenity
:>like an art gallery or hospital or school. So now you are telling us to
:>help finance free schools with ones calculated to produce income, and
:>same with hospitals.
: Market economy meets socialism. We know humans are not social animals in
: the nature of ants, nor are they solitary like the wandering albatross.
: Between the two extremes lies pragmatism.
You hope. Only it is usually of limited viewpoint.
:>The market system produces lots of competing stores replicating the same
:>range of products. How does one do the accounting for the effects on
:>minds some hundreds of years away and more, of course, in terms of the
:>big trees of Canada which were all turned into ships and used to export
:>the rest of themselves.
: If one is totting up this year's profit, one doesn't. If one is genuinely
: concerned one could write a book about the theory which will become famous
: only hundreds of years after one's death.
What is it about Russia as opposed to America in terms of the numbers of
great music composers?
:>The New Brighton macrocarpas, growing on what was bare land, compete with
:>some of the larger ones in their homeland, the Monterey Peninsula.
: Amongst the debacles of gorse, ragwort, honeysuckle, briar, etc, the
: Monterey Pine, and the Monterey Cypress are two of the fortunate accidents
: our ancestors inflicted on us. Should we not attempt to profit from this
: good fortune?
A diet of all the same is like trying to live on pure sugar. Go for the
dollar at the expense of the birds and then will the dollar buy them back
if you like them?
Brian Sandle
DuncanMcC
Yeah! - that could be me swinging on one of those branches.
--
Regards Duncan McC
(remove nosmeggingspam to reply e-mail)
http://www.adrock.com
http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name=DuncanMcC
Peter Kerr
>Peter Kerr <p.k...@auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>: Depends on the value of the timber and the growth rates. If you don't mind
>: the nasty cheap commodity implications of P. radiata, then 20 years is
>: possible.
>
>How is it that investment can wait 20 years for a return
>
> For matchwood, chopsticks and the like some species of poplar
>: are ready in 10 yrs. Good furniture/veneer grade timber like C. macrocarpa
>: or A. melanoxylon need a minimum of 30 - 40 years, and continue to
>: appreciate after that. It also depends on what number the bean counters
>: want as the "opportunity cost" for public parkland :-(
>
>or 40 years, but is not interested in trading longer terms of maturity?
You can run the numbers for rural land, based on whatever crop is
currently being grown, and forestry will have a negative return up to the
age at which the trees can fetch enough to break even (~15 - 20 yrs for P.
radiata). From then on forestry will earn more, over the life of the
project, than pastoral farming, in any part of NZ where pastoral farming
is now practised.
Except, when establishment costs, local body rates, etc, are compounded
from year zero outwards to harvest, the return goes negative again at
around 40 years. This is why private landowners are generally not
interested in long maturity crops, but will practise short term rotation.
It is also a puzzle why some local body administrators insist on using the
private owners' figures to prove long term forestry is uneconomic on
public land, when they are not paying rates, and suffer no loss of other
income...
>: Amongst the debacles of gorse, ragwort, honeysuckle, briar, etc, the
>: Monterey Pine, and the Monterey Cypress are two of the fortunate accidents
>: our ancestors inflicted on us. Should we not attempt to profit from this
>: good fortune?
>
>A diet of all the same is like trying to live on pure sugar. Go for the
>dollar at the expense of the birds and then will the dollar buy them back
>if you like them?
Monoculture pine is a sad symptom of the dollar mentality. I don't agree
with it which is why I suggested other species to plant. Even some
natives, puriri and totara can produce economic quantities of
furniture/joinery grade timber at 40 - 60 years.
>:>The New Brighton macrocarpas, growing on what was bare land, compete with
>:>some of the larger ones in their homeland, the Monterey Peninsula.
It has been suggested that they are almost endangered in their native
habitat, so it is our duty to plant more of them. In the context of
Thompson Park however C. macrocarpa has a finite life as an amenity tree.
Depending on soil & climate, 50 - 100 years.
In a timber context C.macrocarpa has nearly the same value as kauri. If
our ancestors had started planting it 90 years ago when they were told to,
we could be harvesting the second crop now. As it is the largest supply of
kauri timber is now in Sydney NSW.
>
>What is it about Russia as opposed to America in terms of the numbers of
>great music composers?
>
Borscht? Vodka? The climate which defeated Napoleon and Hitler? The great
stores of art in their churches? Or the fact that they all refer to
"Mother Russia"?