VisionSet wrote:
Every year I produce many piles of holly clippings like those below from the
trees shown. I'm now sick to death of cutting them up and putting them in
the bin. Holly doesn't compost well, I need a shredder.
How long does it take to shred stuff? How long for the pile in pic?
The max size I would want to shred is ~15mm
Some shredders say 90kg/hr or similar, doesn't sound very fast.
Want to make a model recommendation? (though there are tons of archived
posts on this). Always been pleased with Bosch as a make. Don't want to
spend the earth no more than 150 notes.

http://i3.tinypic.com/wgufdc.jpg

You could always burn them, holly burns very well!

"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
VisionSet wrote:
Every year I produce many piles of holly clippings like those below from
the
trees shown.

http://i3.tinypic.com/wgufdc.jpg

You could always burn them, holly burns very well!

I know, but I've no where to burn it, I don't want to **** the neighbours
off and mulching is more enviro. But I will be burning the bigger stuff in
the fireplace.

--
Mike W

"VisionSet" wrote
"Chris Bacon" wrote
VisionSet wrote:
Every year I produce many piles of holly clippings like those below
from the trees shown.

http://i3.tinypic.com/wgufdc.jpg

You could always burn them, holly burns very well!

I know, but I've no where to burn it, I don't want to **** the
neighbours off and mulching is more enviro. But I will be burning the
bigger stuff in the fireplace.

Get a good sturdy shredder, you won't regret it. That little pile in
your pic would barely take a couple of minutes to be fed through a
decent machine.

We've discussed shredders often here, so if you do a Googlegroups search
you'll find the threads. The cheaper bladed models are pretty useless
imo. You'd do better to spend a bit more and get one of the ones that
chop and crunch, with a screw or cog type mechanism. Bosch ones are
regarded well and Ive had an Alko 'Silent power' model for several years
which has chomped it's way without a hitch through what would otherwise
have been many skips full of branches and prunings by now. It's saved
dozens of trips to the dump and all the material is composted with other
garden and kitchen waste and put back on the garden. AFAIC my shredder
is the best thing since the invention of the wheel.

--
Sue
(If the shed people are Sheddi, are shredder fans Shreddi?)

"Sue" wrote in message
reenews.net...


http://i3.tinypic.com/wgufdc.jpg



Get a good sturdy shredder, you won't regret it. That little pile in
your pic would barely take a couple of minutes to be fed through a
decent machine.

I think you are probably right. So prob 200 - 250 quid then.

--
Mike W

VisionSet wrote:
"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
VisionSet wrote:
Every year I produce many piles of holly clippings like those below from
the
trees shown.

http://i3.tinypic.com/wgufdc.jpg

You could always burn them, holly burns very well!

I know, but I've no where to burn it, I don't want to **** the neighbours
off and mulching is more enviro. But I will be burning the bigger stuff in
the fireplace.

--
Mike W

Why is mulching more environmentally friendly than burning. ok is
doesn't make visible smoke but if was well dried there would be no
smoke. Whether its mulched and decomposes or is burnt the end result is
the same. I would put it that burning is more environmentally friendly
since you have not used electricity to shred the stuff and therefore
did not consume any fossil fuel at all. Also take into account the
carbon produced in making and transporting the shredder and the carbon
cost of recycling it at the end of its life.
I like the way that our local council gave everybody a huge green
wheelie bin then every two weeks come around in a huge diesel lorry
collecting grass clippings then say it is environmentally friendly. Yeh
right.

Kevin

"Kev" wrote in message
oups.com...

VisionSet wrote:
"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
VisionSet wrote:
Every year I produce many piles of holly clippings like those below
from
the
trees shown.

http://i3.tinypic.com/wgufdc.jpg

You could always burn them, holly burns very well!

I know, but I've no where to burn it, I don't want to **** the neighbours
off and mulching is more enviro. But I will be burning the bigger stuff
in
the fireplace.

--
Mike W

Why is mulching more environmentally friendly than burning. ok is
doesn't make visible smoke but if was well dried there would be no
smoke. Whether its mulched and decomposes or is burnt the end result is
the same. I would put it that burning is more environmentally friendly
since you have not used electricity to shred the stuff and therefore
did not consume any fossil fuel at all. Also take into account the
carbon produced in making and transporting the shredder and the carbon
cost of recycling it at the end of its life.
I like the way that our local council gave everybody a huge green
wheelie bin then every two weeks come around in a huge diesel lorry
collecting grass clippings then say it is environmentally friendly. Yeh
right.

Kevin


Burning does produce smoke whether you can see it or not. and produces
carbon dioxide and a plethora of other substances ,some of which are highly
toxic, depending on what plant material you are burning. Composting and
mulching keeps the carbon locked in a more complex form.

On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:30:16 GMT, "VisionSet"
wrote:


"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
VisionSet wrote:
Every year I produce many piles of holly clippings like those below from
the
trees shown.

http://i3.tinypic.com/wgufdc.jpg

You could always burn them, holly burns very well!

I know, but I've no where to burn it, I don't want to **** the neighbours
off and mulching is more enviro. But I will be burning the bigger stuff in
the fireplace.

If you don't want to annoy the neighbours don't get a noisy shredder.
Some of them are _very_ loud.

Mark

Rupert (W.Yorkshire) wrote:
"Kev" wrote in message
oups.com...

VisionSet wrote:
"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
VisionSet wrote:
Every year I produce many piles of holly clippings like those below
from
the
trees shown.

http://i3.tinypic.com/wgufdc.jpg

You could always burn them, holly burns very well!

I know, but I've no where to burn it, I don't want to **** the neighbours
off and mulching is more enviro. But I will be burning the bigger stuff
in
the fireplace.

--
Mike W

Why is mulching more environmentally friendly than burning. ok is
doesn't make visible smoke but if was well dried there would be no
smoke. Whether its mulched and decomposes or is burnt the end result is
the same. I would put it that burning is more environmentally friendly
since you have not used electricity to shred the stuff and therefore
did not consume any fossil fuel at all. Also take into account the
carbon produced in making and transporting the shredder and the carbon
cost of recycling it at the end of its life.
I like the way that our local council gave everybody a huge green
wheelie bin then every two weeks come around in a huge diesel lorry
collecting grass clippings then say it is environmentally friendly. Yeh
right.

Kevin


Burning does produce smoke whether you can see it or not. and produces
carbon dioxide and a plethora of other substances ,some of which are highly
toxic, depending on what plant material you are burning. Composting and
mulching keeps the carbon locked in a more complex form.

And composting produces CO2, the organisms that live on the decaying
fibres produce CO2. I accept that burning does produce some nasties but
then so does using a shredder by virtue of the production on the
electricity, making the shredder, the packaging, transportation etc
etc. Plethora of other substances seems a bit OTT given that a tree is
only made up from CO2 taken from the atmosphere and a few trace
elements taken from the soil.
Given the few other substances given out by burning verses those given
by buring fossil fuels, not to mention the noise pollution, I don't see
why burning is looked down upon.

Kevin

"Kev" wrote in message
ups.com...

Rupert (W.Yorkshire) wrote:
"Kev" wrote in message
oups.com...

VisionSet wrote:
"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
VisionSet wrote:
Every year I produce many piles of holly clippings like those
below
from
the
trees shown.

http://i3.tinypic.com/wgufdc.jpg

You could always burn them, holly burns very well!

I know, but I've no where to burn it, I don't want to **** the
neighbours
off and mulching is more enviro. But I will be burning the bigger
stuff
in
the fireplace.

--
Mike W

Why is mulching more environmentally friendly than burning. ok is
doesn't make visible smoke but if was well dried there would be no
smoke. Whether its mulched and decomposes or is burnt the end result
is
the same. I would put it that burning is more environmentally friendly
since you have not used electricity to shred the stuff and therefore
did not consume any fossil fuel at all. Also take into account the
carbon produced in making and transporting the shredder and the carbon
cost of recycling it at the end of its life.
I like the way that our local council gave everybody a huge green
wheelie bin then every two weeks come around in a huge diesel lorry
collecting grass clippings then say it is environmentally friendly.
Yeh
right.

Kevin


Burning does produce smoke whether you can see it or not. and produces
carbon dioxide and a plethora of other substances ,some of which are
highly
toxic, depending on what plant material you are burning. Composting and
mulching keeps the carbon locked in a more complex form.

And composting produces CO2, the organisms that live on the decaying
fibres produce CO2. I accept that burning does produce some nasties but
then so does using a shredder by virtue of the production on the
electricity, making the shredder, the packaging, transportation etc
etc. Plethora of other substances seems a bit OTT given that a tree is
only made up from CO2 taken from the atmosphere and a few trace
elements taken from the soil.
Given the few other substances given out by burning verses those given
by buring fossil fuels, not to mention the noise pollution, I don't see
why burning is looked down upon.

If you chop the holly cuttings (or whatever cuttings for that matter) in to
reasonably small segments you do not need to use a shredder. I cut my
prunings by hand and throw them on the compost. They make a nice layer of
matter that helps (in a limited fashion) with aeration. It does take a
little longer for them to break down but time is time. Bypasses the
electricity and noise issue.

rob

"Kev" wrote in message
ups.com...

Given the few other substances given out by burning verses those given
by buring fossil fuels, not to mention the noise pollution, I don't see
why burning is looked down upon.

Kevin


Because it destroys all the organic\humus content. Along with any
attendant beneficial micro-organisms which would otherwise thrive
during decomposition.

When the leaves eventually break down, as will all organic matter
eventually, otherwise we'd have been buried in the stuff thousands
of years ago, they will help maintain a better balanced soil
structure. Humus - clay- minerals\sand

That's the actual reason. Whether you want to follow it or not
however, is totally down to you.


michael adams

....

The message
from "Rupert \(W.Yorkshire\)" contains these words:

Burning does produce smoke whether you can see it or not. and produces
carbon dioxide and a plethora of other substances ,some of which are highly
toxic, depending on what plant material you are burning. Composting and
mulching keeps the carbon locked in a more complex form.

However, composting releases methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas
than CO2.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

"Kev" wrote in message
ups.com...

Rupert (W.Yorkshire) wrote:
"Kev" wrote in message
oups.com...

VisionSet wrote:
"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
VisionSet wrote:
Every year I produce many piles of holly clippings like those
below
from
the
trees shown.

http://i3.tinypic.com/wgufdc.jpg

You could always burn them, holly burns very well!

I know, but I've no where to burn it, I don't want to **** the
neighbours
off and mulching is more enviro. But I will be burning the bigger
stuff
in
the fireplace.

--
Mike W

Why is mulching more environmentally friendly than burning. ok is
doesn't make visible smoke but if was well dried there would be no
smoke. Whether its mulched and decomposes or is burnt the end result is
the same. I would put it that burning is more environmentally friendly
since you have not used electricity to shred the stuff and therefore
did not consume any fossil fuel at all. Also take into account the
carbon produced in making and transporting the shredder and the carbon
cost of recycling it at the end of its life.
I like the way that our local council gave everybody a huge green
wheelie bin then every two weeks come around in a huge diesel lorry
collecting grass clippings then say it is environmentally friendly. Yeh
right.

Kevin


Burning does produce smoke whether you can see it or not. and produces
carbon dioxide and a plethora of other substances ,some of which are
highly
toxic, depending on what plant material you are burning. Composting and
mulching keeps the carbon locked in a more complex form.

And composting produces CO2, the organisms that live on the decaying
fibres produce CO2. I accept that burning does produce some nasties but
then so does using a shredder by virtue of the production on the
electricity, making the shredder, the packaging, transportation etc
etc. Plethora of other substances seems a bit OTT given that a tree is
only made up from CO2 taken from the atmosphere and a few trace
elements taken from the soil.
Given the few other substances given out by burning verses those given
by buring fossil fuels, not to mention the noise pollution, I don't see
why burning is looked down upon.

Kevin

By plethora I meant hundreds, if not thousands, of organic substances which
can be analysed and controlled at a power station. In a garden bonfire
environment you do not stand a chance of any control.
You are performing a high temperature reaction on a majority of the
elements in the Periodic table.

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Rupert \(W.Yorkshire\)" contains these words:

Burning does produce smoke whether you can see it or not. and produces
carbon dioxide and a plethora of other substances ,some of which are
highly
toxic, depending on what plant material you are burning. Composting and
mulching keeps the carbon locked in a more complex form.

However, composting releases methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas
than CO2.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Anaerobic fermentation does the methane bit ?

On 26 Apr 2006 01:27:50 -0700 someone who may be "Kev"
wrote this:-

I would put it that burning is more environmentally friendly
since you have not used electricity to shred the stuff and therefore
did not consume any fossil fuel at all.

If the person has 100% renewable electricity then this is not a
factor.

I like the way that our local council gave everybody a huge green
wheelie bin then every two weeks come around in a huge diesel lorry
collecting grass clippings then say it is environmentally friendly. Yeh
right.

The likely alternative is people putting grass clippings into the
"normal" rubbish bin, where it will add to the landfill mountain.
Better to separate it out and use it for composting by the council.
Better still to encourage people to compost most of it themselves.

Burning is for perennial weeds, unless one puts them in the council
composting bin.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

The message
from "Rupert \(W.Yorkshire\)" contains these words:

Anaerobic fermentation does the methane bit ?

My compost heap isn't anaerobic.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.