I had always thought that cork was a renewable natural resource, just one that took decades. On the meat front, it is all a matter of degree with goats and sheep generally less resource intensive. When I could eat meat I always bought it directly from farms where I knew exactly how the animals were raised and what they were fed. 100% grass-fed is best rather than feed-lot beef, which has a massively negative environmental impact.
Yea or Nay on Capsules
- Thread starter Peter Creasey
- Start date
I had always thought that cork was a renewable natural resource, just one that took decades. On the meat front, it is all a matter of degree with goats and sheep generally less resource intensive. When I could eat meat I always bought it directly from farms where I knew exactly how the animals were raised and what they were fed. 100% grass-fed is best rather than feed-lot beef, which has a massively negative environmental impact.
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
From wiki: cork can be stripped from a tree every nine years, (but) it takes at least 40 for the bark to become commercially viable.
Jayson Cohen
Jayson Cohen
It’s not perfect, but it seems to me the environmental effect at this point depends (and here I don’t know the facts on cork production) on whether other trees are being cut down to grow cork oak or we have a steady-state acreage where supply can meet demand without expanding land use. I.e., per Mark, renewable.
I think the same idea goes for barrel production over a longer growth cycle.
It’s always struck me that growing grapes at the scale it’s done worldwide has a much greater negative environmental and biodiversity effect than cork and barrel production (even where vineyard management practices by eco-conscious growers tries to minimize the effect) But we more easily dismiss it as a necessary evil.
Someone who is not just arm chair quarterbacking this like I am, am I wrong about relative environmental effects?
No, you are probably right, except that much of that damage (e.g., clearing of primary forest) was done - at least in the old world - centuries ago. In many places, vineyards use a lot of water resources and create toxic runoff when conventionally farmed (and even organically). But as you mention, too, the biodiversity is pretty much gone in a monoculture. Vineyards probably dwarf the harvesting of cork and cutting timber for barrels in terms of their greater environmental effects.
Bill Lundstrom
Bill Lundstrom
Mark,What toxic runoff is created by organically farmed vineyards? just wondering
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
It isn't hard to plant a tree when you cut a tree.
Anyway, forests do naturally cull so enlightened harvesting should not disturb big-picture cycles very much.
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
I assume a fully-grown tree is converting CO2 into oxygen at a rate that will take decades for the newly-planted tree to achieve. But yes, of course, it's better if a felled tree is replaced.
Yes, though enlightened harvesting of trees must be as common as enlightened harvesting of animals.
It is possible. There is big difference between FSC-certified sustainable forestry and clear-cutting. Yet I suspect the latter is more frequent.
When I looked at land in the CA North Coast years ago I remember being shocked that every parcel listed the timber value assuming it would all be cut.