IKEA set to buy up more land in NZ

[C_T_Russell]

This is got to stop.
Its paywalled, but you get the idea.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/dutc...DBWQPWQKY/

[Lilith7]

https://www.odt.co.nz/business/ikea%E2%8...a-forestry

"The applicants were owned by Ingka Investments B.V., the investment arm of Ingka Group, one of 12 different groups of companies that own the Swedish furniture and homeware giant.
In a statement, the company stressed the property — like its other two New Zealand acquisitions — would be planted in plantation forestry, not used for carbon farming.

Last year, it got consent to buy 5500ha sheep and beef station Wisp Hill in the Owaka Valley and it acquired the 610ha Old Hill Rd property in Central Hawke’s Bay in April.
The summary said the company intended establishing and maintaining plantation forest — predominantly radiata pine — over parts of the land at Koneburn assessed as being best suited to forestry.
It estimated new planting of about 977ha of the land which was best suited to planting after allowing for infrastructure (4.9ha), native plantings (52.5ha), unplantable (43.3ha) and various setbacks (31.3ha).
It proposed to subdivide and sell about 9ha, including a house and three sheds."


I can't say I'm happy about too much foreign ownership; imo there should perhaps be a limit of say 40% of any property which anyone non Kiwi can own. Of course, if they want to become a Kiwi then they're welcome to own an entire business or property.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Can't they just bring in some in a container? Flat packed for convenient assembly?

[harm_less]

It's unclear what spin the OP is trying to put on this but there is definitely nothing new about large acreages being retired from livestock farming and converted to forestry. During the mid 1990s I spent time working in the north Hawkes Bay hill country and investment forestry was causing damage to local communities and their support infrastructure by doing just that.

Their business model was to value a property for its forestry potential by carving off roadside flats for sale as lifestyle properties then exclude corridors below HT power lines (which they couldn't plant under) and evaluate the cost of harvest tracks and firefighting. ROI then dictated their development strategy. Interestingly it wasn't unusual to see 'plantings' in the further reaches of such investment blocks poorly implemented, and in some cases missing altogether, as investors very rarely made the effort to inspect their forestry from beyond their car parked on the roadside.

Leaving that fraud aspect out of the equation the primary risks to the rural areas being used was that the previous farmers' requirements of vehicles and machinery purchase and servicing, owners and employees' grocery, education, healthcare and social inputs all but disappear thereby leaving rural communities as ghost towns with rural support businesses left with no viable business opportunities. The availability of ongoing labour requirements also becomes a factor  as forestry's ongoing thinning, pruning, infrastructure input and maintenance and harvesting requirements become reliant on those services being transported in .

Same as it ever was it would seem.

[Lilith7]

Can't they just bring in some in a container? Flat packed for convenient assembly?

Now there's a novel idea -  bet they haven't thought of that one!

[Oh_hunnihunni]

It's unclear what spin the OP is trying to put on this but there is definitely nothing new about large acreages being retired from livestock farming and converted to forestry. During the mid 1990s I spent time working in the north Hawkes Bay hill country and investment forestry was causing damage to local communities and their support infrastructure by doing just that.

Their business model was to value a property for its forestry potential by carving off roadside flats for sale as lifestyle properties then exclude corridors below HT power lines (which they couldn't plant under) and evaluate the cost of harvest tracks and firefighting. ROI then dictated their development strategy. Interestingly it wasn't unusual to see 'plantings' in the further reaches of such investment blocks poorly implemented, and in some cases missing altogether, as investors very rarely made the effort to inspect their forestry from beyond their car parked on the roadside.

Leaving that fraud aspect out of the equation the primary risks to the rural areas being used was that the previous farmers' requirements of vehicles and machinery purchase and servicing, owners and employees' grocery, education, healthcare and social inputs all but disappear thereby leaving rural communities as ghost towns with rural support businesses left with no viable business opportunities. The availability of ongoing labour requirements also becomes a factor  as forestry's ongoing thinning, pruning, infrastructure input and maintenance and harvesting requirements become reliant on those services being transported in .

Same as it ever was it would seem.

Or maybe their future plans include manufacturing plants here. When climate change renders Europe uninhabitable.

[R2x1]

Or maybe their future plans include manufacturing plants here. When climate change renders Europe uninhabitable.

I reckon it'll still be cheaper to grow the plants, especially oxallis

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Which reminds me, I must see if I can find that candy striped form on TM. A pot of that would look superb on my freshly painted deck...

[C_T_Russell]

I wonder if they plan on using the timber to make their products from or just as investment?
Pines are the worst thing we could grow in this country, they are an invasive pest.
Australian gum trees grow just as fast and have extremely hard wood. Would be a far better building product.

[harm_less]

I wonder if they plan on using the timber to make their products from or just as investment?
Pines are the worst thing we could grow in this country, they are an invasive pest.
Australian gum trees grow just as fast and have extremely hard wood. Would be a far better building product.

Careful what you wish for there CT. Eucalyptus have been described as 'The Largest Weed'. They are extremely flammable and toxify the ground in their vicinity to a greater degree than even pines do. Their toxicity also means that very few organisms can eat them, except of course koalas.

Grown in NZ conditions their root systems are meagre due to the abundance of fertility here compared to their native habitat which makes them prone to blowover in strong winds, and they also shed large limbs often without warning. They were planted in large quantities here in the period around WW2 as eucalyptus was seen to be the durable timber of the future, compared to the much less durable pinus radiata, but the CCA 'tanalising' process saw those plantings become historic groves representing the change in timber technology. The timber is also more difficult to mill than the straighter grained pine and twisting and warping of the resulting lumber is problematic.

Current plantings of eucalyptus are primarily for paper manufacture but the processing of this resinous and toxic wood presents added environmental impacts.

Essential exchanging pines for gums is very much a frying pan to fire scenario.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Remember the fad for paulownia? That was going to make us rich...

Pity it didn't catch on. Pretty tree...

[zqwerty]

What are the disadvantages of Paulownia?
Undesirable Attributes. Paulownia tree wood is somewhat brittle. The branches are susceptible to wind damage and can easily crack or break off completely at the crotch. They often droop as well, requiring removal to allow for foot or vehicle traffic.

Capsules have four compartments that may contain several thousand tiny winged seeds. There are many problems with Paulownia tomentosa. Its wood is very brittle causing constant clean-up of fallen limbs in planted landscapes. Moreover, its falling leaves, flowers, twigs and seed pods all create abundant litter.

[harm_less]

Remember the fad for paulownia? That was going to make us rich...

Pity it didn't catch on. Pretty tree...

Promoted heavily by a chap down here in The Naki a few decades back. Fast growth was one of his touted pitches but the idea never really held water. Fast growth typically results in low strength timbers, as demonstrated by high growth factor pine cultivars for example. Probably beneficial for paper pulp processing but not for building usage.

---

I wonder if they plan on using the timber to make their products from or just as investment?[snip]

Did you actually read the NZH article or just post a link to the paywalled edit on speculation of what you thought it would contain?

[C_T_Russell]

Careful what you wish for there CT. Eucalyptus have been described as 'The Largest Weed'. They are extremely flammable and toxify the ground in their vicinity to a greater degree than even pines do. Their toxicity also means that very few organisms can eat them, except of course koalas.

Grown in NZ conditions their root systems are meagre due to the abundance of fertility here compared to their native habitat which makes them prone to blowover in strong winds, and they also shed large limbs often without warning. They were planted in large quantities here in the period around WW2 as eucalyptus was seen to be the durable timber of the future, compared to the much less durable pinus radiata, but the CCA 'tanalising' process saw those plantings become historic groves representing the change in timber technology. The timber is also more difficult to mill than the straighter grained pine and twisting and warping of the resulting lumber is problematic.

Current plantings of eucalyptus are primarily for paper manufacture but the processing of this resinous and toxic wood presents added environmental impacts.

Essential exchanging pines for gums is very much a frying pan to fire scenario.

Well I think NZ only has the male(or female, can't remember) trees just like we do with poplar trees, so they can't reproduce. Aren't all ours grown just taken from cuttings? I've never seen a single one self seeded growing on its own anywhere wild.
Smart move what was done with poplar or else we would have a real problem on our hands.
Yes they are flammable, but less of a problem in our climate, it's not like pines don't catch fire easily though.
We have possums here which I'm sure I've seen eating them, but you would think that if less pests affect the trees, that would be a good thing?
Yes your right, they do shed limbs and have witnessed it before when a branch landed on a car and dented the roof.
Probably a far more of a danger to the public if planted in parks than a stand of them in a forest.
Would be very useful feature in forestry because it requires little to no pruning(they are essentially a self pruning tree)
I do see the odd one blow over and have cut firewood from blown over ones that the owner wanted gone.
It's awesome firewood, that's for sure.

They definitely have their place for timber and would be great to see more grown here.
Treating timber uses a mix of fairly toxic chemicals, you would think that using timber that can last longer without treatment would be a good thing.
But at the end of it all, selective breeding should have gotten us better genetics if researchers wanted to go down that path and we would have varieties available with better properties.

[harm_less]

Well I think NZ only has the male(or female, can't remember) trees just like we do with poplar trees, so they can't reproduce. Aren't all ours grown just taken from cuttings? I've never seen a single one self seeded growing on its own anywhere wild.
Smart move what was done with poplar or else we would have a real problem on our hands.
Yes they are flammable, but less of a problem in our climate, it's not like pines don't catch fire easily though.
We have possums here which I'm sure I've seen eating them, but you would think that if less pests affect the trees, that would be a good thing?
Yes your right, they do shed limbs and have witnessed it before when a branch landed on a car and dented the roof.
Probably a far more of a danger to the public if planted in parks than a stand of them in a forest.
Would be very useful feature in forestry because it requires little to no pruning(they are essentially a self pruning tree)
I do see the odd one blow over and have cut firewood from blown over ones that the owner wanted gone.
It's awesome firewood, that's for sure.

They definitely have their place for timber and would be great to see more grown here.
Treating timber uses a mix of fairly toxic chemicals, you would think that using timber that can last longer without treatment would be a good thing.
But at the end of it all, selective breeding should have gotten us better genetics if researchers wanted to go down that path and we would have varieties available with better properties.

Your memory (or imagination) is far from accurate. Eucalyptus are not a dioecious plant so can produce viable seed readily. Also from this article "For large-scale plantings, seedlings are normally grown as bare rooted cuttings."

The many negative qualities of Eucalyptus are spelt out in this article. They are also a difficult tree to process into lumber due to grain twist and potential for warping. Useful for pulping or firewood especially some varieties that will coppice readily.

Also worth considering that eucalyptus will toxify soil more than pinus do so reestablishing bush after harvest can be problematic. This (and sparsity of wild seedlings) may also be an exhibition of allelopathy though I'm unsure if this trait is that specific for gums.