In article ,
David WE Roberts wrote:
"echinosum" wrote in message
...
Michael Bell;878779 Wrote:

Yes, a lot of work is needed. We have plenty of tree FRUIT crops,
apples, coconuts, etc, but we have no tree GRAIN crops, by which I
mean a hard dry thing with good keeping qualities. Tree fix many times
more carbon than herbs; they put more green between the sun and the
ground than herbs, the ground beneath wheat can be quite brightly lit
whereas the ground under trees can be deep shade, and trees can put
out their leaves as soon as it's warm enough to be worthwhile, which
herbs, especially annuals, cannot do. (Some people are trying to
develop a perennial wheat)

My understanding is that the most productive biomass crops in temperate
latitudes are grasses not trees. So I don't think your argument about
the sun collecting efficiency of a taller crop stacks up. It can't
collect more sunlight than there is, and a low-growing crop can do that
just as well.

Must agree - consider the percentage of a modern grain plant that is yield
and it is pretty high.
The straw is useful as well as the grain so very little of the plant is
wasted.

That's irrelevant - it's referring to capital not income. The
relevant figure is yield per acre, and trees ARE good. Also, wood
is more useful than straw ....

Quick to grow, high yielding, relatively low maintenance and also conducive
to crop rotation.

That's not a useful end in itself.

Allegedly in East Anglia some places can produce as many as four crops a
year (although I haven't seen this myself).

I have this bridge that needs to be sold today - how much will you
pay me for it? Look the the UK's insolation pattern.


That being said, the fact is that there are very few trees suitable
as starting points. Chestnuts and oaks are the two main ones I
can think of, and breeding the latter for low tannin would mean
major problems with pests. Most trees produce oily fruits, not
starchy ones.

Michael Bell is right in theory, but not in practice.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.