Eucalyptus Trees: Advice Wanted

[basilic13]

Dear all,

I know this subject has been extensively covered in this forum, but as I am about to buy a piece of land in the Petburi (ca 5-6 rai), I would very much appreciate some insightful advice.

Part of the land is currently covered with grown up (about 3-4m high, and 5-10 cm broad) eucalyptus trees, and part of it is covered with small (1.50m high, 3 cm large) eucalyptus trees.

As I do not intend to use the land before a few year (2-3 years), and although I don't want to get into the plantation business, I have the choice of buying the land with or without the trees.

Given the plot is "small" (5-6 rai) and that in the best case there would be only a one-off harvest:

1) does it make better sense to buy the land without the tree now (sparring trouble later with land refurbishment)

2) or does it make better sense to keep the trees for later sale (if yes, how man years), but then incurring the land refurbishment cost as well?

In case of option 2), roughly, what would be the amounts involved (sale of 5-6 rai worth of eucalyptus, versus cost of 5-6 rai land refusbirshment)?

Many thanks to you all for your assistance on this!

[Foreverford]

Dear all,

I know this subject has been extensively covered in this forum, but as I am about to buy a piece of land in the Petburi (ca 5-6 rai), I would very much appreciate some insightful advice.

Part of the land is currently covered with grown up (about 3-4m high, and 5-10 cm broad) eucalyptus trees, and part of it is covered with small (1.50m high, 3 cm large) eucalyptus trees.

As I do not intend to use the land before a few year (2-3 years), and although I don't want to get into the plantation business, I have the choice of buying the land with or without the trees.

Given the plot is "small" (5-6 rai) and that in the best case there would be only a one-off harvest:

1) does it make better sense to buy the land without the tree now (sparring trouble later with land refurbishment)

2) or does it make better sense to keep the trees for later sale (if yes, how man years), but then incurring the land refurbishment cost as well?

In case of option 2), roughly, what would be the amounts involved (sale of 5-6 rai worth of eucalyptus, versus cost of 5-6 rai land refusbirshment)?

Many thanks to you all for your assistance on this!

I'd be sceptical that you would get much refurbishment of your land by the cutters of your trees. You better not give any money until after the job is done or expect that you'll just have a bunch stumps where you once had trees. It is the same story for 95% of these types of deals. don't give a penny even a satang because ''down payment" or deposit money is gone if somehting goes wrong on their part and you don't waNT TO buy it. iF you don't have an attorney drawing up all the papers for you (one you know and trust) you'll get screwed and even with the proper paperwork it can take many many years to get your true justice in the courts of Thailand.

The bottom line looks like you have to look at the value of just the standing trees, to this you would have to deduct the costs of cutting and shipping. At that point I think you should just factor that the owners wouldn't clear the stumps and so the only factors you have to choose is the value of the existing standing trees less costs to market. Don't be fooled by them trying to convince you that they'll be worth "X" times more after three years (they might be worth that and then again they just might burn down a week after you buy them).

If you have been given two prices on the land I would probably think that they valued the trees extremely low (better profit for them) and there isn't a bunch of difference between the two prices. If they will just remove the stumps along with the trees then it is much more of a good deal for you with the low valuation for the price of the trees (but I doubt it especially if they have any of your money, they can keep you in court and legal fees for 5 years easy).

What are you going to eventually do with the land, farm or build a bunch of houses. If houses, leave them there and then remove completely or selectively when you are ready to start your project. If you never build, the land will or should have gone up in value due to more mature trees. If you are going to farm the land get rid of those miserable good for nothing trees as they are ruinous to the land. So either buy with trees and clear them yourself as soon as possible or have the owner remove them and be rid of those miserable things and start your plantings of cover crops for green manuring until you can start yout farm operations. choke dee

[Lickey]

Good post Ford, what we have on our farm is Euca as a border tree, its a bit of a windbreak and every 2 years we have them thinned and cut as planks for various uses, otherwise euca, not for me thanks.

[ozzydom]

Never an opportunity is missed to slam the old plantation Eucalyptus.

A little lateral thinking ,or even an open mind may enable some to see these trees in a different light.

Have you ever ventured into a pine plantation ? the lack of undergrowth is even more pronounced than in a eucalyptus plantation , giving the impression that the soil is completely devoid of nutrients, which to all intents and purposes it is ,hence the large root system they need to search out their requirements.

These are very large organisms and require large amounts of nutrients and water to grow to their potential.

Just think of the amount of nutrient you commonly provide a vegetable during its short life and multiply by the size differential and you will get the idea .

Anybody with experience in old growth AND regrowth native Eucalyptus forests can see what is going on. For a start ,the density of large trees is much lower and there is no shortage of nutrients, (the amount of ground cover flourishing around the trees confirms this).

The difference between native forest and plantation (apart from the obvious )is that plantations are planted with one size seedlings at close spacings where growth is fairly even and ground cover (competition ) is eliminated by tilling and herbicide application until the trees are dense enough to create so much shade that undergrowth struggles to survive, and this creates the "desert" effect that the anti-plantation lobby like to paint as the ruinous effect the plantation tree is having on the soil, but , would these large plants continue to flourish if the soil they sit in is ruined, I think not.

I do not have an axe to grind either way, as I believe there is a place for every species on our planet . As I have previously posted ,having seen eucalyptus forest clearfelled , the ground cultivated and sown to pasture ,(red and white clover, sub clover ,perrenial rye grass etc) which grows to a cows belly in 6 months after the initial cultivation belies some of the arguments I see.

I feel that any problems lie not with the tree but with man, the old adage of "THERE IS A PLACE FOR EVERYTHING AND EVERYTHING IN ITS PLACE " comes to mind.

[teletiger]

The one subject that gets my goat. Eucalyptus. Take 1 rai of Eucalyptus and 1 rai of corn. Thai farmers will put 600+ kilos of npk on the corn over a 6 year period. On a Eucalyptus grove?....nix. Might cut down the weeds once a year. If Euca was grown under the same conditions as any major crop, the soil would be in better condition. Well rooted Euca will take lots of nutrients from far deeper than conventional crops. Not wishing to side with an Aussie though What was the OP's question?

OK...Buy the land without the trees. Demand a huge discount. he'll sell you the land as is. Is it worth his while to hire a backhoe to dig them out? We've got loads ( as in 30 trees) 2nd cut, Euca on our borderline. We cut them for posts. never a cash crop. Grab any discount you can. Think hard about buying it. Good luck.

Regards.

[jandtaa]

 Ozzydom I agree .

Apparently they make a great windbreak thinking of using them myself for such a purpose rather than a plantation. With such a large root system they must be drawing nutrients from the subsoil and by following them with a nitrogen fixing crop such as clover shouldn't be hard to create some fairly good soil fertility though in a plantation situation. Being from the U.K. had no real knowledge of them at all (koalas like 'em right and the oil helps moi sduffy ndose) until I came to Thailand. Just put in a eucalyptus post and rail fence as when I did a spot of googling found their wood to be comparable to English oak but out here a darn site cheaper. So as you say everything has its purpose !! Good luck to the OP whichever way you decide !!

Jandtaa 

[Foreverford]

The one subject that gets my goat. Eucalyptus. Take 1 rai of Eucalyptus and 1 rai of corn. Thai farmers will put 600+ kilos of npk on the corn over a 6 year period. On a Eucalyptus grove?....nix. Might cut down the weeds once a year. If Euca was grown under the same conditions as any major crop, the soil would be in better condition. Well rooted Euca will take lots of nutrients from far deeper than conventional crops. Not wishing to side with an Aussie though What was the OP's question?

OK...Buy the land without the trees. Demand a huge discount. he'll sell you the land as is. Is it worth his while to hire a backhoe to dig them out? We've got loads ( as in 30 trees) 2nd cut, Euca on our borderline. We cut them for posts. never a cash crop. Grab any discount you can. Think hard about buying it. Good luck.

Regards.

Everything in its place. Must be and I can see Eucs at every fencepost around my property and have done it before. I've cut cordwood out of 4 foot diameter felled trees. Cut and split 30 cords in a week with another friend AND hauled it. I know this beast intimately. there are many good uses like erosion control (keep them cut low and not top heavy). The thing is, as must be evident, all plantations of trees are not the most beneficial thing to the earth just like chemical farming of corn. You can reap a harvest from mother earth any time you want to, but the real secret to farming is that every year you try to make your land more fertile and more productive than the previous year this is what the King has designated as sustainable agriculture and is basically known as that throughout the world. Their is a pinned "organic" section for this forum but at this point it appears a "sub-forum" for organic farming has become necessary. In about 6 weeks there have been well over 1000 views, and 100 replies, that's a lot of finger banging with info to share about a very complex science and the same old nuts and bolts subjects also. anyway....

What is the land to be used for ideally in the future? that would dictate your strategy in negotiating a purchase price. Again my advice is to purchase the property with as little dealing as possible which basically says buy and you deal with the trees as it will give the sellers less chance in queering the deal and the bottom line is you want the land. Land is a huge and long term investment so look at any "big" deal you are going to do with these trees now as probably peanuts in the long term outlook of your time and expenditures. Hopefully there will be a chance to have a couple of them grow to an old age along with you. choke dee Hey ain't gone yet anyone know what the difference between these trees and prevelant "blue gum" that is grown throughout California? thanks for any info sorry don't have the botanical on the gums.

[Maizefarmer]

Dear all,

I know this subject has been extensively covered in this forum, but as I am about to buy a piece of land in the Petburi (ca 5-6 rai), I would very much appreciate some insightful advice.

Part of the land is currently covered with grown up (about 3-4m high, and 5-10 cm broad) eucalyptus trees, and part of it is covered with small (1.50m high, 3 cm large) eucalyptus trees.

As I do not intend to use the land before a few year (2-3 years), and although I don't want to get into the plantation business, I have the choice of buying the land with or without the trees.

Given the plot is "small" (5-6 rai) and that in the best case there would be only a one-off harvest:

1) does it make better sense to buy the land without the tree now (sparring trouble later with land refurbishment)

2) or does it make better sense to keep the trees for later sale (if yes, how man years), but then incurring the land refurbishment cost as well?

In case of option 2), roughly, what would be the amounts involved (sale of 5-6 rai worth of eucalyptus, versus cost of 5-6 rai land refusbirshment)?

Many thanks to you all for your assistance on this!

Point 2 hits the nail on the head ......... its a no-brainer in my opinion - if it were me. I'd want them cleared. There's nothing in them at this age, and neither will be in 2-3years time. The work, hassle and time invloved in taking them out then clearign up the mess and levelling out afterwards is not something you will be glad to have taken on.

Ask the seller to get rid of them - can you tie it into the purchase agreement somwhow?

[Lickey]

Dom, its true what you posted and i agree, nothing grows under a euca or a pine tree, unless of course its in a tropical rainforest, September in england in the pine forests and a bit of rain and a warm day, mushrooms can be found add ifinitetem,

The euca on our farm border will only allow bamboo to grow near them, again, nothing grows under bamboo, why is that? is it the ground cover of dead leaves or does Bamboo also de-nutrient the soil? are bamboo and euca friends on this? Sis in laws rubber trees are 5mtr away from the bamboo plantation and have bent over 45degrees away from the bamboo, even against the prevailing breeze,

We have one euca in the middle of the farm, mrs reckons about 8yrs old now, for a few weeks now, there hasnt been a leaf on it, its all branches and twigs, and 40ft high, the ground around the tree is barren, even though it gets over-spray when i put a sprinkler in the makua,

The cassava we planted in the tamarind orchard grew very well, very good tubers, but the price went down with the world reccession thing, but thats neither here nor there, the fact is that the tamarind tree looks after itself, again, nothing much grows under it except the strongest creepers, blimey mate, you can use them as a tow rope for the QE2.

So what im thinking and going by previous posts here is that the euca buggers up ground from deep down right to the surface?and perhaps not a good idea to use euca chips as a mulch? But good to see you posting again Dom, Cheers, Lickey..

[jandtaa]

Got me thinking whether eucalyptus /bamboo/conifers could have alleopathic properties similar to the rye grass I use as a cover crop in the Uk to kill off invasive weeds. Turns out this could well be the case: 

"Abstract; On many hillsides of Taiwan there is a unique pattern of weed exclusion byPhyllostachys edulis (bamboo) andCryptomeria japonica (conifer) in which the density, diversity, and dominance of understory species are very different. Although the physical conditions of light, soil moisture, and soil nutrients strongly favor the growth of understory in a bamboo community, the biomass of its undergrowth is significantly low, indicating that physical competition among the understory species in the bamboo and conifer communities does not cause the observed differences. However, the biochemical inhibition revealed by these two plants appeared to be an important factor. The growth ofPellionia scabra seedlings, transplanted from the study site into greenhouse pots, was evidently suppressed by the aqueous leachate of bamboo leaves but was stimulated by that of conifer leaves. The radicle growth of lettuce, rye grass, and rice plants was also clearly inhibited by the leachate and aqueous extracts of bamboo leaves but not by those of conifer leaves. Six phytotoxins,o-hydroxyphenylacetic,p-hydroxybenzoic,p-coumaric, vanillic, ferulic, and syringic acids were found in the aqueous leachate and extracts of leaves and alcoholic soil extracts ofP. edulis, while the first three compounds were absent in the extracts ofC. japonica. The phytotoxicities of extracts were correlated with the phytotoxins present in both leaves and soils. The understory species might be variously tolerant to the allelopathic compounds produced by the two plants, resulting in a differential selection of species underneath. Therefore, comparative allelopathic effects ofPhyllostachys edulis andCryptomeria japonica may play significant roles in regulating the populations of the understories"

wikipedia alleopathy

This link gives a good explanation of alleopathy and eucalyptus gets a mention. Also of note is the mention of research into whether their chemical properties could be used to produce organic herbicides.

cheers all Jandtaa

[ozzydom]

Millions of years ago ,Australia ( or Gondwannaland ) broke away from the Arctic region , it was covered in Arctic Beech ,one of the oldest known tree.

As the climate of Oz changed ,Eucalyptus evolved to suit the much warmer and dryer conditions, it is a wellknown fact that much of Oz has some of the poorest soils in the world, yet the Eucalyptus has evolved to flourish in these nutrient poor conditions where other species fail .

The pro/con arguments regarding Eucalyptus often fail to take into account the very nature of any growing organism ,whether it be a large tree or a carrot, both will use up the nutrients available and unless these nutrients are replaced the soil will nutrient depleted.

Its a bit like putting a roast turkey in front of 6 hungry men, all you finish up with are bones . Sounds familiar to how some farmers operate doesnt it , all take and no give.

As far as the OP goes, I would tend to follow MF,s advise and negotiate a land price with trees AND stumps removed.

The vendor has probably used the ( possible ) value of the Eucalyptus as a selling point so a decent price reduction should be in order.

[basilic13]

many thanks to all for your pieces of advice!!

I will follow them and ask to get the land cleared of trees before buying (except on the border for windbreaking).

wish me luck...