1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hey Guest, We're having our annual Winter Moot and we'd love you to come. PLEASE LOOK HERE to secure your place and get more information.
    For forum threads CLICK HERE
    Dismiss Notice

Learning about Forest Management

Discussion in 'Bushcraft Chatter' started by Tengu, Nov 24, 2019.

  1. Tengu

    Tengu Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Messages:
    10,452
    Likes Received:
    299
    Location:
    Wiltshire
    I found a book called `Trees and Woodland in the British landscape` by Oliver Rackham.

    Lots of interesting detail about how woods were managed.

    And the difference between `wood` (small stuff) and `timber` (big stuff)

    He claims that coppicing was seldom done in Ireland.

    I was wondering why? I assume that the landowners knew about it. There was political distubances,of course, but the english landowners would have known too.

    Or maybe the forests went in the Neolithic? (But we know from things like the Sweet track that people back then managed their woods)

    Or, since peat was a common fuel, they didnt need coppiced wood, only timber plantations.

    What do you know?
     
  2. Broch

    Broch Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    2,336
    Likes Received:
    1,581
    Location:
    Mid Wales
    I don't think it's that simple TBH.
    There is debate anyway as to whether there was coppice or not. The Viking buildings in Ireland were mainly wattle and daub so would have required coppice.
    Coppice in England was mainly to feed the iron works by producing charcoal - I don't know the state of the iron industry in Ireland to know if there was such a demand.
    I have read somewhere (don't know where) that Irelands woodland would have been better preserved if there was more coppicing - instead the mature woods were felled for fuel (more for industry I think rather than heating).
     

Share This Page