# The Megaflora tree for firewood?



## spirilis (Sep 1, 2010)

I just watched that film "FUEL" on netflix (not too bad, but, a lot of the "filler" and "OMG you can make a difference!!@#!@#!@#!" stuff turned me off... the basic message was good, but some of the political insinuations were sketchy IMO) and they mentioned a tree called the Megaflora, more details here:  http://www.emeraldplantations.com/products.html

They say the tree produces no fruit or seeds and therefore is a "non-invasive" species, but it grows to full maturity in 3 years (50ft tall), is a hybrid of the Paulownia tree and a "North American hardwood" and is engineered for high density (i.e. I guess it's a hardwood for all intents & purposes).  In addition you can chop down part of the tree and it will regrow from the remaining stub.  Sounds like a fantastic thing to farm if you have a good bit of acreage (or maybe even a modest amount of it) and want a fast, steady supply of cordwood!  Supposed to be great for poor soil conditions too.  Almost sounds too good to be true!  (Wonder if it is?)

I searched and only found one post mentioning it, someone mentioned it as a potential feedstock for pellet production-- https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/viewthread/41248/#451319


----------



## Dune (Sep 1, 2010)

What does it look like after four years?


----------



## Wood Duck (Sep 1, 2010)

I think it probably is too good to be true. I don't see how a tree could create enough hardwood for a 50 ft tree in three years - there is a limit to how much energy from the sun comes in, how much carbon can be gleaned from the air, etc. Also, I seriously doubt that you'd get 50 ft of growth in the first three years. That growth rate is probably regrowth from the stump of a large one, and in a location with long growing season, tons of water, and tons of fertilizer added. I have a little bit of Catalpa in my wood pile and it is really lightweight. Paulownia is closely related and grows even faster, so i doubt it really is as dense as the better hardwoods. Calling a wood hardwood doesn't mean it is dense, and density is what matters for firewood.


----------



## CountryBoy19 (Sep 1, 2010)

Wood Duck said:
			
		

> I think it probably is too good to be true. I don't see how a tree could create enough hardwood for a 50 ft tree in three years - there is a limit to how much energy from the sun comes in, how much carbon can be gleaned from the air, etc. Also, I seriously doubt that you'd get 50 ft of growth in the first three years. That growth rate is probably regrowth from the stump of a large one, and in a location with long growing season, tons of water, and tons of fertilizer added. I have a little bit of Catalpa in my wood pile and it is really lightweight. Paulownia is closely related and grows even faster, so i doubt it really is as dense as the better hardwoods. Calling a wood hardwood doesn't mean it is dense, and density is what matters for firewood.


I agree with some aspects, but disagree with others. Did you read the linked article? It mentions that years 1 and 2 are mostly spent on root development and year 3 it puts on a lot of size. That would lead me to believe that the 50' growth is not regrowth from an existing stump.

It should also be taken into account that this tree possibly does things so much more efficiently (light gathering, chemical conversion etc) that it really can pack on that much more dense wood. It is widely known that some hybrid trees can do some really amazing things. I have hybrid cedar trees I plant for a windbreak that are supposed to grow up to 6 feet per year in ideal conditions. That is crazy for a tree. This is the first year for them and they've gained about a foot in height (from 3' to 4' tall) but they've really gained a LOT of foliage (they got a LOT thicker). They also had to deal with transplant shock. Next year should be really telling as to what they do.

The part I agree on is, "hardwood" doesn't necessarily mean 24 MBtu/cord. Pretty much all deciduous trees are considered "hardwoods" even though some of them are softer than some pines (softwoods). So saying something is a "hardwood" isn't really saying much.


----------



## Backwoods Savage (Sep 1, 2010)

It has been our experience that hybrid trees are very poor for firewood. They are heavy when cut because they are so sappy but then dry down to very little weight in a short time. This means they are more like a very soft wood and one cannot expect much heat from them.

In addition to that, most of this type of tree have a massive root system and those roots tend to be partially on top of the ground which makes a real mess. In addition to that, there are more limbs on each tree than Carter has liver pills. A lot of trimming for a little bit of poor wood. They also tend to not last very long as they tend to get weak spots and the trees either fall over or the tops break out of them. They are worse than weeping willows for keeping clean under the tree. 

Have I mentioned that I don't like them?


----------



## Delta-T (Sep 1, 2010)

I never discount the ability of plantlife to do miraculous things. though 50' in a few years seems a bit "generous" for most types of trees....there are some really weird plants out there that have unbelievable qualities, like the agave cactus which apparently can grow 3'+ in a day when flowering, you can literally "watch it grow".


----------



## ggans (Sep 2, 2010)

What would be a good tree to plant for wood, fast growing?


----------



## firefighterjake (Sep 2, 2010)

ggans said:
			
		

> What would be a good tree to plant for wood, fast growing?



Locust? My own opinion on planting trees for firewood . . . 1) plant a variety to hedge your bets in case some new bug or disease comes along that just happens to like to eat/kill that one species of tree you planted exclusively, 2) fast-growing trees often do not make the best trees for firewood -- especially since some of the fastest growing ones seem to be hybrids and 3) perhaps the best bit of advice is to plant the trees now, realizing that truthfully it will most likely not be you that enjoys the fruit of your labors, but rather your children or grandchildren.


----------



## billb3 (Sep 2, 2010)

Dune said:
			
		

> What does it look like after four years?



Withered and dead ?


They use the word 'could' a lot in claims to fast growth. Not anywhere have I found the word 'has' achieved those growth rates anywhere.
Fast growth is useless if it can't withstand a 20 mile an hour wind without snapping.
Great if they  have engineered a miracle tree, but all I've seen so far is hype. Course I haven't wasted much time on it either.

I have a  flowering pear that isn't supposed to have fruit or be invasive, too.
The fruit are  the size of my baby fingernail and the root stock  wants to come up all over the lawn.
I have gotten some shade  where I wanted it and pretty fast, too. If I quit cutting the lawn around it I'm gonna have a problem.


----------



## Wood Duck (Sep 2, 2010)

ggans said:
			
		

> What would be a good tree to plant for wood, fast growing?



I would plant Black Locust plus a mix of other trees common in your area, preferably using local sources. It is hard to complain about Black Locust as a firewood tree - it grows fast, the wood is dense yet relatively quick to season, and it sends up suckers that grow even faster than the original seedlins (I guess because they come from an established root system). If it was my land I'd want  mix of trees which is why I would plant variety. I might just toss acorns, hickory nuts, etc. on the ground in the locust plantation and see what sprouts. If you are a reasonable distance from woods you'll also get lots of volunteer seedlings. I'd eventually thin out he seedlings growing under the locust to allow the ones I want to grow better. Many trees grow well under locust.

Locust seems to be an exception to the rule that fast growth generally means low density wood. I am skeptical that the megaflora tree really produces hardwood. I have seen Paulownia trees described as hardwood, but they sure aren't real hard. Besides, I'd want my tree plantation to support wildlife and look natural, not just produce the maximum amount of useable firewood. I doubt a plantation of megaflora trees would support much wildlife.


----------



## FLINT (Sep 2, 2010)

the strangest thing about the description is that they never say exactly what 'north american hardwood' tree they have hybridized this with - why won't they say?  

it is interesting though.  i mean all over the south - they clear-cut hardwood forests and replant in stupid loblolly pine - this can't be worse than that.  as soon as a loblolly gets a little snow or ice on it they all snap over in half and fall across roads and powerlines.


----------



## CJRages (Sep 2, 2010)

FLINT said:
			
		

> the strangest thing about the description is that they never say exactly what 'north american hardwood' tree they have hybridized this with - why won't they say?
> 
> it is interesting though.  i mean all over the south - they clear-cut hardwood forests and replant in stupid loblolly pine - this can't be worse than that.  as soon as a loblolly gets a little snow or ice on it they all snap over in half and fall across roads and powerlines.



Google "MegaFlora Tree" There are a several articles/threads out there. One thread mentioned the north american hardwood is black locust but gives no reference. 

This site is totally negative towards the tree and company. http://megafloraplantations.com/


----------



## bsearcey (Sep 2, 2010)

I think when they mention high density they mean yield per acre, and not density of the wood itself.  From what I saw online this tree would be worthless as a wood burning fuel (unless made into pellets).  The stems are completely hollow this indicates a very light wood.  I don't think a grove of these things would do too well in a wind storm.  I don't know about this cut and the tree regrows from the stump.  Lots of trees do this.  It's called suckering and the tree becomes bushy.  They seem to be claiming that you get one single tree coming up.  Kind of iffy.


----------



## spirilis (Sep 2, 2010)

ya this is a good discussion--in light of what everyone's said here I'd say this tree, if it does in fact grow well as they claim, would probably be better for industrial-scale biomass (i.e. send the stringy mess of wood to a chipper, kiln dry it and burn it in a power plant nearby) or maybe pellets but there are better alternatives for that IMO.


----------



## Dune (Sep 2, 2010)

ggans said:
			
		

> What would be a good tree to plant for wood, fast growing?



Another vote for locust. Grows like a weed, burns hot and long, doesn't rot.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Sep 2, 2010)

If growing on poor soil, I'd guess it would grow much slower- the ability to consume nutrient is important, but so is the amount of nutrient available.

Locust does well partially because it is a legume and forms a relationship with fungi that infect the roots and help it fix nitrogen from the air.  Clover, alfalfa, beans, and peas do the same in organic soil.  In effect- they manufacture their own fertilizer from the air using a fungi factory in their roots.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Sep 2, 2010)

You are probably thinking of hybrid poplar.  The article claims low moisture, and very deep tap root.  The tests were perofrmed somewhere in Spain using municipal sludge as a fertilizer- meaning it was probably fertilized just up to the point before root burn.  Still amazing numbers if true, but one should set the expectation a bit lower than 50' in 3 yrs.  That is crazy kudzu growth.




			
				Backwoods Savage said:
			
		

> It has been our experience that hybrid trees are very poor for firewood. They are heavy when cut because they are so sappy but then dry down to very little weight in a short time. This means they are more like a very soft wood and one cannot expect much heat from them.
> 
> In addition to that, most of this type of tree have a massive root system and those roots tend to be partially on top of the ground which makes a real mess. In addition to that, there are more limbs on each tree than Carter has liver pills. A lot of trimming for a little bit of poor wood. They also tend to not last very long as they tend to get weak spots and the trees either fall over or the tops break out of them. They are worse than weeping willows for keeping clean under the tree.
> 
> Have I mentioned that I don't like them?


----------



## spirilis (Sep 2, 2010)

Black Locust does sound nice.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_locust


----------



## andybaker (Sep 2, 2010)

I stand firmly behind, if it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.  From what I found out about this new tree it looks to be a fraud.


----------

