Shop - 1

Design and development of product lines goes on apace, so for those of you wondering whether we will ever get round to announcing opening of the farm shop, here is some insight into what we are working on. There is a gradual confluence of development, and all of the nuts we have harvested to date are stored on the farm for machinery testing purposes. We will update this post regularly as more detail becomes available, so you may want to bookmark it. Until the on-line shop is open, please email for more detail. We will not ship NTTPs into the US.

Non-Timber Tree Products (NTTPs)

Seed

Kernel
Shell
Husk - We have a limited amount of air-dried husk currently available for dyers and other craft purposes.

Timber Tree Products (TTPs)

Wood blanks for joinery/turning
Carbon

Non-Tree Products (NTPs)

Datafiles
Designs
Machines
Biomass Nut Book
Carbon club memberships

As I walk the walnuts - 1

As I walk the walnuts, which I do twice a day when I’m on the farm, Kahlua with her nose in the grass somewhere, I remember comments from some visitors who seem offended by my approach to tree management: you really should get rid of those lower branches. Not everyone tells me why – some assume that I’ll get the message that they know better than I do. Others clearly come from a forestry background, where any branch on the first 30’ of bole is not only an eyesore but probably also an offence punishable by excommunication from the College of Foresters. None actually asks me why I’ve left so many branches.

My purpose is actually to let the trees fill their space. Removal of a branch cannot be undone. Branches subtend the tree’s functional interface with its habitat. Remove a branch and you have reduced that interface. So what?

The conical growth rule discussed earlier ‘builds’ on one simple principal, relative growth, i.e. that growth is a consequence of growth accumulated before. Remove some of that growth and you immediately reduce the tree’s future potential growth. It affects the leaf area the tree can subtend, and the surface area upon which it can lay down the present year’s captured carbon. An open- grown tree explores every opportunity to push its tendrils out into unoccupied territory, and if I leave those lower branches where they are that territory is at my height, where I can see and feel the tree’s features, its health, and thus , in purely practical terms, its productivity.

Of tree equivalents and methane

I am not the only one using tree equivalents to account for carbon offsetting. However, the term clearly means different things to different people. If you enter it as a Google search term, you’ll raise all sorts of esoteric stuff, mainly to do with analytical methods in economics, but here’s an interesting analysis from TransCanada Pipelines (http://www.methanetomarkets.org/events/2005/all/docs/cormack.pdf)

TransCanada Pipelines
Emissions saved in no of tree equivalents
Year	2002	2003
tonnes methane	191,000	223,000
tree equivalents	232,000	270,630
tonnes per tree (CO2E)	1.2	1.2

TransCanada is trying to show what impacts the prevention of emissions (basically leaks) from its pipelines will have. It assigns a factor of 1.2 t of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂E, different from the straight carbon, C_2, that I have been using – the factor would be 0.32 t C₂) to a tree, and claims that it has prevented emissions equivalent to hundreds of thousands of trees. I am assuming that the analysis attempts to quantify the offset tree planting program it would have to launch if it were to address emissions by this means.

If I have tried to do anything so far, it is to indicate that emissions offsetting must be viewed from the point of view of annual increments in sequestration per tree. A tree does not go from zero to 1 t of sequestration of CO₂E in a single year. Perhaps TransCanada wouldn’t actually plant, and has identified a stand of actively growing larger trees somewhere in the tropics of Costa Rica which have been assessed as capable of sequestering this much annually, and it is these which it has selected for its sequestration factor. This analysis is no better than that of my fuel-dump story yesterday. What is essential is to understand that the process of carbon sequestration in trees builds upon that which has already occurred (there is something called a relative growth rate), and that conditions remain such that the trees can grow actively for the period during which sequestration is being sought. In the early years, sequestration is in the order of kg, not t, per tree.

Methane has a much higher (21 times) global warming potential (GWP) than CO_2, so it is not entirely clear to me that the factor of 1.2 t is actually in CO₂E. This is actually 1.2 t of methane, equivalent to 25.2 t of CO₂ in global warming terms, so if I’ve done my calculations correctly, TransCanada’s tree equivalents should more honestly be numbered in the millions. These data were shown in a Powerpoint presentation, so I’m assuming that if no-one questioned the concepts espoused, they all went home feeling warm and fuzzy.

Of tree planting and offset programmes

These posts should tell you one thing - that planting trees is not the immediate solution to offsetting carbon emissions. I remember seeing an article datelined Australia, which indicated that planners of a recent major celebration in Sydney were going to offset the consequences of a spectacular fuel dump by a military jet (and the fuel's ensuing conflagration) by planting 300 trees somewhere. Given the droughts and fires in Australia, my suspicion is that if the trees were ever planted they are probably already dead. But I'd also be intrigued to know who is auditing or will audit this offset, otherwise it is just as much hot air as was left by the jet in its wake. In the case of our example, it would take close to 15 years to reach the point where the number of trees required to offset that fuel dump did not have a lot of zeros attached. In short, it takes an already-planted well-developed tree growing rapidly to offer a short-term outcome. This is why avoiding emissions has to be the first step, and tree planting an associated initiative to get as much of the free atmospheric carbon dioxide as possible fixed back into some longer-term natural form that enhances biological capital, and, hopefully, our appreciation for the aesthetic values of landscapes rather than subdivisions. I think those Aussie planners were more concerned for simple and immediate pleasures ('aaah'), and felt no personal or professional responsibility for the display's effects. I do not actually know whether the display went ahead. I do know that they should be planning to plant trees now for the probability of any such display (or any other flyby, even in Iraq) 15 years from now. Otherwise, don't do it.

So, how many trees to a tank of gas?

Black Walnut Carbon Sequestration, Field 3 Lostwithiel Farm
	2003	2004	2005	2006
Average C per tree (kg)	2.37	3.54	5.56	6.98
Annual C increment per tree (kg)		1.16	2.02	1.42
Annual C increment per tree (%)		49.0%	57.1%	25.6%
Litres of gasoline equivalent in increment (l)		1.88	3.26	2.29
Tree equivalents per 50 litre tank of gas		26.64	15.35	21.82

What I really mean by this is, how many trees of the average age and size of the trees we have in Field 3 will it take to sequester the carbon emitted by combustion of 50 litres of gas? The answer is, currently, about 20. You can see that the trees are growing quite rapidly, increasing in sequestering capacity by about 50% per year (except 2006, which was very wet and cool, and apparently not favourable for growth; a substantially thinner cone was laid down in 2006 than 2005. We won't know about 2007 until we take measurements while the trees are still dormant in April 2008). Annual estimates are made on the increment in sequestration capacity, and not on the basis of total carbon fixed.

Of cones and hemispheres

Here is a visualization of the annual superimposition of cones which represents tree growth (lowest/earliest cones are not shown). We can extend this a little further. At the apex of each cone are laid down the buds which will grow into our new twigs next year. These grow in the same manner, expanding into the branches which subtend our expanding canopy (shown here as successive approximately-hemispherical helmets). The relationships which govern our tree’s physical development (which make a black walnut look like a black walnut, or a Norfolk Island Pine like a Norfolk Island Pine) are under close genetic control, and it is basically the annual variability in the environment which results in our tree in any given year growing a little bit more or a little bit less.

Of straight lines and carbon

At the heart of our understanding of the tree’s storage of carbon (beyond the physiological processes) is the discovery that the black walnut trunk from ground to tip grows as a very slender cone. How did we discover this? We take measurements annually of tree height (H) and diameter at breast height (DBH, a forester’s standard; for us 1.35m from the ground) of the 575 trees in Field 3. All trees grow at different rates, so what we were measuring was diameter (D) at 575 different distances from the tree’s tip (DFT) on our ‘average’ tree. When we plotted D against DFT on graph paper, we saw a straight line. Successive annual measurements of H and DBH, converted to D and DFT, of the same 575 trees gave us the same straight line. ‘Same’ in this regard means parallel to the lines for previous years, but with very small differences in lateral distance between lines. Using trigonometry, we can calculate the tip angle of our cone, which turns out to be very close to 1.5^o. In other words, the tree, every year, lays a new cone down on top of the previous one, of uniform thickness at all points along the length (actually height) of that cone.

Farm Carbon Budget - credit

Lostwithiel Farm, Annual carbon budget (t)
Year	2006
Credit
Item	unit	amount	C/unit (t)	total C (t)
Black walnut, field 1	ha	3.02	0.33	1.00
Black walnut, field 2	ha
Black walnut, field 3	ha	1.92	0.39	0.75
Black walnut, F1 blocks	ha
Black walnut, barn field	ha
Hybrid poplar, clone NM6	ha
Hybrid poplar, clone D34	ha
Hybrid polar, clone D182	ha
Native bush	ha
Total				1.75

The credit side of the ledger shows sequestration of 1.75 tonnes in two of our young plantations in 2006, for a negative balance of about 2.23 tonnes. As I noted earlier, we will quantify the other items on the credit side and deliver a truer picture of overall sequestration and benefit. The principal difference between Fields 1 and 3 is plantation density. Trees in Field 1 are at 6m x 12m (20' x 40') spacing and in Field 3 at 6m x 6m (20' x 20'). Field 1 trees are slightly older on average than those in Field 3. We have less data on Field 1, and estimates are based on similar relative expansion of biomass as in Field 3 (these data are slightly different from those posted this morning – mea culpa).

Farm Carbon Budget - debit

Lostwithiel Farm, Annual carbon budget (t)
Year	2006
Debit
Item	unit	amount	C/unit (kg)	total C (t)
Vehicle fuel (gas)	litres	2500	0.62	1.55
Tractor fuel (diesel)	litres	200	0.73	0.15
House, propane	litres	500	0.62	0.31
All buildings, electricity	kwh	17000	0.12	1.97
Total				3.98

My attempts to make available the spreadsheet linked to an earlier post were unsuccessful. Instead, I found that I could cut and paste from the original Excel file. Here is the debit side of the ledger. We are emitting close to 4 tonnes of carbon (not carbon dioxide) in all energy expenditures linked to the farm.

So, how many generations?

Another doughty question. Generation time in our black walnuts is somewhere from 8-15 years, depending on the individual. This is not necessarily the same as the age at which a tree produces a its first nut. The generation time requires that we, as service managers, have enough time to identify and quantify key abilities. If a tree first fruits at six years of age, it is likely to be year 8 or 9 before we have enough data to decide whether we want to add its offspring to our biomass plantations. The nuts will not germinate before the subsequent year. Some trees are not producing fruit even at 15 years of age. Thus, while they are providing environmental services, unless we can identify an income stream independent of fruit production, these less prolific trees are unlikely to add to the farm's bottom-line. As we use a planting layout which requires that some trees be removed to leave room for others to grow, it is more likely to be these less-prolific trees which pay the ultimate price. The first identification of mother trees for on-planting was made in 2007. Offspring will germinate next year. From here on while those offspring will not be evaluated for several years, we will continue to on-plant from useful mother trees, according to several criteria.

Inter-generational assets - 3

Let's put a bit of a different spin on this. Under Biomass Nut Production (BNP) I gave a definition. But I neglected to take it as far as it must go. If I use non-select material, my first generation of trees (the ones I plant) will have some with useful characteristics (or abilities, to use the service concept), and others with less useful ones. What I want to do is try and increase the gene frequency of the trees with useful abilities in my total population. Unlike the orchard of selected grafts, which I noted was the dominant model, I am not starting with an 'end'-product. By means of generational selection I am looking for the optimal outcome on my particular site (one of the 'land' concepts). In overall terms, I am trying to enhance the overall service value of my inter-generational asset (to me, the population) using the medium the tree gives me to do it - the fruit. In that the genetic content of the fruit (hidden away in the chromosomes of the kernel) allows me to pass on recombined abilities of the known mother and unknown father trees, it is in itself an inter-generational asset. On average, I wish the abilities of the offspring to be enhanced vis-a-vis the known abilities of the mother tree. Only by sowing a large number of nuts from the mother tree can I identify whether the ability(ies) of interest is (are) heritable, that is to say, some quantifiable level of continuity in ability from the mother tree to its offspring. As the black walnut is wind pollinated, the father remains unknown, not unlike, some would say, outcomes of male behaviour in our species.

Inter-generational assets - 2

Assets -1 was important to placing the rest of this in context. My friend's maple is an example of such an asset - it provides services and, to him, has aesthetic value. So, really, does the beaver - he just doesn't know it. And that is the crux of the matter. How do we inculcate this sense of value of invisible processes, and of those silent sentinels of the land which have stood across their own generations passing on carbon at rates and by pathways which we can only imagine? Farmers have spent centuries removing trees from the landscape, an appropriation of environmental processes in order to feed their own families and ours. None of us is innocent. How little hubris we show when we protest at further deforestation, given increasing populations, competing uses of physical space, and systems that demand ever-increasing economies of scale in order to stay in business. We are the asteroid.
You probably realize by now that I think a tree is the prime example of the physical expression of an inter-generational asset. A 50' tree is the outcome of years of metabolic and physiological processes grabbing and storing carbon in the physical form which we label black walnut, oak, Norfolk Island Pine, mahogany. A tree, by definition, given how long it takes to reach its final size, is inter-generational (ours, at least, though I'm not sure about elephants). Embarking, as we have, and my friend Rod Croskery has, on extensive planting of black walnut, has thrust us into thinking about generations and inculcation of values.

Inter-generational assets - 1

At the heart of my discussion is the concept of inter-generational assets. These are assets that get passed down or across generations and contribute to the well-being of the recipients. They may be measured in financial terms, but if we are talking about environmental services then they are more likely to be sustained processes of some importance, such as carbon sequestration. Where I live there is much emphasis on private ownership of land, i.e. 'this' land is 'mine' (There is a very common sign on fences or in windows: Hands off Government, this land is mine). This is an indicator of the very simplistic idea of what we think we are, and what we think we control. 'This' land was here long before 'me', and will be long after. 'I' am therefore no more than a temporary occupant, one more sedentary than your average mammal, but one even more damaging than the beaver (I have a friend with a particular dislike of the beaver, for the damage that particular individuals of the species do to some of his young maples, which he views as inter-generational assets. 'What bloody use are they?' he asks of the beaver. After some thought the answer is clear - to make more beaver). We are beaver to the power of ten, given how we have stripped the land to grow something that we, rather than the beaver, can eat. Our agriculture has largely reduced environmental services from long-term cycles of naturally-sustainable processes to annual cycles of chemically-catalyzed rapid carbon flows, effluents, and other consequences which gradually impoverish the soil's ability to withstand our onslaught. We are really just stewards of the land, during our ownership, but what sort of stewardship is this? Another friend says 'We must leave this land in better condition than we found it'. That is a far better concept of stewardship, and one which can lead to the asking of the key question of 'What is land?' Land is not just the physical 20 acres of real estate. Land is processes, biodiversity, the functional interface between a gaseous atmosphere and a solid mineral base which sustains all beings (seas excepted) in their physical existence, and if we do not come to the realization that these sustain us as well, we are pretty well doomed. This 'land' therefore is the ultimate inter-generational asset.

Biomass Nut Production

My definition is nut production based on extensive plantations (multiples of 1000) of non-select trees where the objective is the production of large volumes of low-cost fruit annually. How does this differ from other models? The majority of farm-scale black walnut nut production (in the US, where the main concentration of the species occurs) is focussed on grafted selections; these selections are clones of trees found in the landscape which generally satisfied the discoverer's criteria of high kernel percentage and supposed ease of cracking and separation. These named selections, because they are all nursery stock, are expensive ($20+ per tree). While I have no axe to grind with nursery-people needing to make a living, because my broader purpose is nut production as an outcome of an environmental service, I cannot see myself getting there by putting $20,000 into 1000 trees. I might instead buy 1000 $1 seedlings from a forest nursery and work with a genetically diverse stand more likely to throw out interesting specimens under our present climate change scenario. We have 2,500 trees on the farm.

IPM 2007

The cracker and separator were displayed on the Croskery Farm during the 2007 International Ploughing Match, near Crosby. During five days of perfect weather about 2,000 people came by the display and were treated to an earful of explanation, and a sample of extracted nut meat. Interest was very high, with many not even knowing black walnuts were edible. It didn't take much arm-twisting to extract confessions of greater tastiness compared to those other nuts on the market. The five days put the machines through some solid testing and they are now back at Algonquin College for improvements.

Northern Nut Growers

Members of the Northern Nut Growers Association in discussion with Algonquin students over the merits of the proofs of concept they demonstrated at the farm in August 2007. Cash offers were appreciated but refused!

Thanks to Gordon Wilkinson for the photo

Algonquin College

Initial support from Canada’s National Research Council (IRAP) allowed us to undertake a State of The Technology Analysis, conducted for us by Brock University’s School of Business. The outcome of this confirmed what we thought: that we would probably have to develop most of the technology ourselves if we were to advance at the scale we wished. Identification of Algonquin College’s Mechanical Engineering Technology Program as the closest fit to our needs was almost immediately followed by the College’s acceptance of our proposal for collaboration. In fact, the College seized it with such fervour that there were almost immediately six teams of three students each working competitively on designs for a harvester, cracker and separator. This collaboration has gone through two complete cycles to date with the result that proofs of concept have been designed and built, and the third cycle of improvement is now underway. Significant funding for student time was obtained from Ontario’s Centres of Excellence. Two students won first prize for Community Colleges at OCE’s Innovations competition in July 2007 for their work on the separator.

Partnerships

It became very clear that we would have to forge some strategic partnerships if we wanted to be successful in our long-term goal of bringing carbon-based black walnut non-timber products to market. We say’ carbon-based’ because everything we use from the tree is the result of carbon partitioning between roots, trunk, branches, leaves and fruits. From this point of view, placing nut-meats in the market is the end point of an environmental service – carbon sequestered and partitioned into that part of the fruit. There are some very basic practical issues around materials handling that any ‘service manager’ has to address: fruit harvesting, processing, component separation. These are technological issues, and as there was no relevant technology available in the market, we had to identify the means of developing it.

Carbon budget

At the core of our Carbon Club will be the annual carbon budget, our calculation of the net annual sequestration over and above our own emissions. The preliminary estimate for 2006 can be seen at http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pu_-I9PdU2MfJcOELwYmOOQ . There are still extensive areas of the farm unaccounted for, but which are contributing fully to an ongoing credit balance. What is important to note is that two of our very young (10-15 years) black walnut plantations have already put us in a credit situation (4.5t at the end of 2006). In these two, sequestration is expanding exponentially. As we perfect our quantitative methods, the other fields will be included. Our methods and assumptions will be verified independently before we launch the Club.

Carbon Club

In these days of emerging offset schemes, where emitters are enabled to buy credits and thus keep emitting, too much is written about national and international schemes and not enough (nothing?) about schemes to which conscientious individuals or small organizations could apply. Through our work at the farm, we have developed an understanding of our own carbon emission and sequestration, and it is our plan to launch a farm-scale carbon club, where our net carbon credit is offered for sale annually. This would probably be as a component of club membership, which would have other associated benefits (e.g. free visits to an open house, nut products). The concept is still under development, as is the carbon price.

Environmental Services

A simple definition would be services provided to recover some of the tremendous environmental costs incurred by society. Most of the environment has, until lately, been considered a free good, and that we (wherever we are) can continue to spend environmental capital as we like. I think Al Gore has more or less laid that assumption to rest. But what, apart from energy conservation as a means of reducing emissions, can we do? How could a landowner provide a service? Even more how could a landowner benefit financially from doing so? Doughty questions, those, and it may take a post or two to crack them.

Multiple Income Streams

If you corner an avid nut-grower he (generally, not she) will be fixated on the amount of edible kernel he can produce and extract. This is his market product. It is peculiar that in a species where edible kernel tends to be the lowest percentage by weight of any of the fruit’s components (shell and husk are the others), and where larger industry has successfully commercialized walnut shell, that the smaller grower has not caught on to the importance of multiple income streams as counting towards the effective bottom line. If shell and husk are trashed without further thought, the bottom line starts to look pretty thin. My calculations have shown, for example, that if shell can be monetized to 25% of kernel value, the general proportions of each allow equal returns from a 20% kernel line if the shell can also be sold, and a ficticious 40% kernel line where the sole product is the kernel. I say fictitious, because I have only seen data confirming occasional 38-39% kernel percentage in some lines, with this value often being influenced by environmental factors.

And what if we could also sell environmental services? What are they? How could we calculate them? Perhaps that is for another post

Carbon balance

Not just another nut website. Black walnut is our vehicle for working towards a low-carbon emissions farming system, with a net storage of carbon back in the landscape. We calculate our carbon balance annually, working out our methods, and as the data become increasingly available; where positive this will then become the basis for small-scale emissions trading through our Carbon Club. This will be launched later in 2008

Use of English

If 'mastery' is the dominance of a particular skill, 'biomastery' is, for me, the successful outcome of 'biomassing' - the amassing of sufficient biomass, or carbon accrual (sequestration), in a low-energy intensity system so that the reversal of past carbon extraction is achieved by cumulative net annual accrual via the carbon balance within the farm limits. There is no point in expending vast amounts of fossil fuel to achieve this outcome. The objective is to achieve a positive annual balance as soon as possible in our annual ledger. The earlier we do it, the more successful we have been in matching our accrual strategy with our expenditures.

Here we go

Please bear with me while I convert most of the website into a blog. It seems to me that this will improve functionality and purpose, which is the way I want to go.