Rosewood ** Kinda Long

[Guest guest]

Howdy y'all,

 

As I stated in my first post, Martin Watt is my good buddy and we

banter a lot on and off line .. and (for the few who understand what I

mean), we play the " Dozens " from time to time .. but in this post I

will avoid the terms I use when we banter off line .. terms like Left

Wing Socialist, Tree Hugger and Eco-Terrorist. :-D

 

Any of y'all suffering from insomnia, I guarantee that this post will

have therapeutic value to you.

 

In this post, when I use the word " Rosewood " I am talking about

Rosewood, Bois de Rose (Aniba roseodora) .. the Essential Oil used in

Perfumery and Aromatherapy .. NOT .. Dalbergia nigra .. the Rosewood

Tree that loggers are seeking. I'll bet that if folks search for

Rosewood or Brazilian Rosewood on any search engine they will find

that most of the links will be to Dalbergia nigra. Even the so

called " Progressive " organizations report that it is Dalbergia nigra

that is in trouble. http://www.newint.org/issue288/facts.html

 

Martin Watt has two opinionated articles on Rosewood and one on

Conservation .. but then, Martin is a lot like me .. and Liz .. and

Chrissie Wildwood .. we are all opinionated. The difference is that

my opinion is different from the other three folks mentioned .. and I

am not a friend of Chrissie Wildwood .. but Liz and Martin are. :-D

 

http://www.aromamedical.com/articles/rosewood.htm

http://www.aromamedical.com/articles/globalwarming.htm

http://www.aromamedical.com/articles/conservation.htm

 

Chrissie Wildwood has fallen on her sword over Rosewood and other

issues .. at the bottom of the following link she insinuates that she

is wiser than the World Wildlife Federation, Greenpeace International,

the UK Soil Association, Ecocert and the Forest Stewardship Council ..

regarding selective logging of old growth tropical forests.

http://chrissie-wildwood.com/SAVING-ROSEWOOD-THE-FOREST-AND-HER-PEOPLES-2

 

She has also written on Eco Denial .. apparently because she has not

been able to convince all of the people in the industry that she is

all knowing .. http://chrissie-wildwood.com/DEALING-WITH-ECO-DENIAL-

 

If we want to convince others to change their behavior we must make

suggestions without giving offense .. Wildwood once had the audacity

(as in arrogance) to write me and say that she thought I was an

ethical and intelligent person until she learned that I was offering

Rosewood EO .. I did not answer her but I told one of her friends to

advise her that she had crapped in her mess kit. She didn't know me

well .. if she had she would have known that such a presumptuous and

insulting note was all I needed to write her off my list of credible

people and to try to find fault with her claim to fame as an

Eco-Activist who is even more opinionated than Liz, me or Martin. :-D

 

Around 13 years ago .. when I first got into this industry .. I

decided to continue to operate as I had during my 30 years of military

service .. ethics, honor and honesty are qualities that were a norm ..

as was telling it like you really believed it was rather than how you

thought folks wanted to hear it .. but making sure you could justify

your opinions. These traits were not difficult to maintain because

they were expected behavior .. so and it simply took a conscious mind

set to practice them. I decided then which oils I would and would

not offer .. and to this day I have not offered Sweet Birch or

Wintergreen (for example) because I think they are unsafe in the wrong

hands .. but I also dug deeply into the many tales about Rosewood and

Mysore Sandalwood .. did my own research .. and after completing the

initial research I concluded that I would offer these two oils. I've

continued to research these oils over many years and I am convinced

today that it was a sound decision. If I ever change my mind then I

will stop offering them .. but I will never bend to the will of those

who think I should not offer them .. and I will not tolerate their

negativism if it is directed to me.

 

Back at the ranch ...

 

Here ..

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~nodice/new/magazine/crop6/cropwatch6.htm

... Tony Burfield (Cropwatch) assesses a report on Rosewood .. and we

can see that the opinions of the writers he is commenting on lean

toward there being an abundance of wild Rosewood Trees miles from the

streams .. where they are normally harvested., and that the amount of

Rosewood EO produced might not be as large as some folks think.

 

At http://lineout.thestranger.com/2007/10/21-week/ .. it states that ...

 

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (which I

am not impressed by) says:

 

" The activities of the present industry in Brazil are on a much

reduced scale and pose no threat of extinction of the species.

Extensive areas of rosewood remain within the forest which are

inaccessible and would be uneconomic to harvest. However, the

extraction of some 10,000 t of rosewood trees annually results in a

progressive erosion of the germplasm base. "

 

I believe that their figures are way off base ..if the yield of

Rosewood is approximately 1.0%, it takes roughly 1 metric ton (2,205

lbs) of Heartwood to produce 1 kilogram (2.2046 lbs) of Rosewood EO ..

so from 10,000 metric tons of Heartwood (not 10,000 metric tons of

logs/trees) one can expect a yield of approximately 100 kilos of EO.

Some others claim the yield is as high as 1.2% .. but that matters not

since there is always valid controversy on the yield of any aromatic

... too many variables are at work to fix it closely. Using the lower

(1.0%) figure if it is true that during the 1990s, 262 each (180

kilo) drums of EO (47,160 kilos) of Rosewood oil was exported .. it

took but 3,144 metric tons of Heartwood to produce that 47,160 kilos.

Is my calculation wrong?

 

If we accept that the much higher percentage of yield presented by

Cookson is correct .. http://www.cooksonco.com/ROSEWOOD.HTM and

assume that they did not garble their meaning when they state that the

legal amount of Rosewood EO that can now be exported from Brazil in

one year is 23,400 kilograms .. that is, 130 each 180 kg drums .. we

see that Brazil is exporting far more than is legal and if they

exported only the full quota (using their calculations) it would take

but 1,950 metric tons of wood to produce that amount. If I am

reading this wrong, please correct me .. but I think I am not reading

it wrong. And I don't believe the information is true .. likewise, I

don't believe their statement that was supposed to have been made by

Brazilian exporters .. that .. " At this rate, it has been calculated

that there are enough trees currently present to last the next 1000

years. "

 

I do believe that it is hard to get a handle on the correct

information on exports because I believe that the government of Brazil

is in cahoots with the exporters .. having been an exporter of bulk

essential oils for many years I know that if this were not so .. there

would be all kinds of administrative hang fires in getting the product

out of the country. I also believe that if those who really care

about saving the Rain Forests had their crap together .. they would

not be paying much attention to the volume of Rosewood oil exported in

the first place .. they would be concerned about the number of

hectares of land being laid to waste .. and the tonnage of WOOD

exports from Brazil. If one has this information they can do a

fairly rough estimate on the density of Rosewood trees per hectare and

get a more accurate picture of the amount of oil that is exported ..

but again, it is not Rosewood oil that is the issue and to claim that

it is the issue is marginalizing the real problem .. indiscriminate

legal and illegal logging and slash burn tactics!

In my mind, folks lose credibility when they try to boggle our minds

with impertinent facts .. as do those who scream about how use of

Rosewood EO results in the release of more carbon dioxide into the

atmosphere, contributes to Global Warming, and has even contributed

to the death of an activist who got in the way of criminals (illegal

loggers) in Brazil. These are unsound and unproved statements that

smack of incredible sensationalism and even if they were true facts ..

they would not be applicable to the REAL problem..

 

It is similar to the pseudo-science Young Living uses to peddle their

products. Their attempts to intimidate and create feelings of guilt

in the users is presumptuous dirty pool. Few to none of the

Exo-Activists are true Conservationists .. they are generally lay

people who have an opinion .. and to date, their opinions have not

been accepted by the majority of the novices and by even fewer of the

professionals in the field of Aromatherapy .. and this is the cause of

the obvious frustration and anger in their writings .. they are

incensed because people are not saying, " Yes Sir, Yes Sir, Three Bags

Full. " If they want more agreement then they must present more

credible information to support their positions and they must avoid

emotion like the plague.

 

I believe that the truth is .. the full or part time (real)

Eco-Activists don't really care about Rosewood .. others use this

example when they address folks like us who use the EO .. because its

near and dear to us and its something we can relate to. They might

take on this minuscule problem because they are not knowledgeable

enough to discuss the BIG problem .. the REAL problem. What they

really should do is not marginalize the real problem by concentrating

on Rosewood .. if they are sincere they should join those

knowledgeable conservation groups that deal with the Real problem ..

that are trying to Legally STOP indiscriminate legal and widespread

illegal logging operations in the Amazon Rainforest .. this is to me

an admirable goal that I would support 100%! But when they shout

about saving the world by not purchasing Rosewood EO .. they lose as

much credibility in my eyes as do those idiots from PETA who say we

should not eat meat! It is also my opinion that they also focus on

Rosewood and the AT community because we are generally less

knowledgeable of conservation issues and are more susceptible to

swallowing their opinions without question but those scientists who

are knowledgeable would not give them a nod!

 

It is not just the Amazon Rain Forest that is in trouble .. it is but

one of the many on Earth that is being chipped away. It is,

however, the largest and the most famous and it gets the most

attention because, despite the inherent natural dangers lurking there

... and the potential to run afoul of criminals in that area, Brazil is

still safer than most of the other countries in which there are Rain

Forests .. and the government of Brazil is (due to receipt of massive

Western aid) more tolerant of foreign interference than are some other

countries.

 

There is one helluva lot more to biodiversity than the salvation of

one species of tree .. Environmental Biologists recognize that

understanding and predicting the threat of extinction of a species is

difficult .. at best. The science of estimating extinction rates and

risk prediction is difficult to apply .. even for these experts .. and

when determining proper land use they first prioritize their actions

and create an integrated ecosystem management plan .. and balance

their conclusions and recommendations against many factors .. like

community livelihoods and free use of one's own land and the need for

the products being produced from species that are considered to be

endangered.

 

Government control may be the answer in the Developed World ..

primarily in the West .. but it has not worked in China and much of

the Far East where governments typically own and control most of the

land .. where biodiversity is over-exploited and most every species of

plant and animal is used for food, medicine or construction. Those of

you who support Traditional should have watched the

CNN special, " Planet In Peril. " Even the Chinese professor who

taught TCM acknowledged that he and the government accepted that TCM

was the major market for most of the animal parts from endangered

species but there was little they could do about it since it was a

centuries old tradition .. this was coming from a professor who was

paid by the Chinese government to teach TCM!

 

Though I am getting into an area that some say even Angels fear to

tread .. and could be considered as kicking the Sacred Cow .. we must

accept that more than 90% of the species that ever existed are now

extinct ... and though new species are discovered on a regular basis,

many other species disappear from Earth each year .. but this is a

part of the big Circle of Evolution .. which is dependent on Survival

of the Fittest .. those who can overcome their enemies and continue to

procreate will survive and those that cannot will perish. Some are

replaced by other species that are either new .. or have sprang forth

(stronger) from those who perished.

 

Mankind is a natural enemy of Nature .. like it or not it is

Athropocentrism that really drives the train .. and man is the

Engineer. Man can take extraordinary measures to delay extinction of

some species but he can not delay it forever because the world will

continue to change. If we are in trouble today .. considering that

in September 2007 the world population exceeded 6.6 billion .. what

will be our problems 42 years from now (in 2050) when the projected

population will exceed 9 billion? And project even further down the

road!

 

Considering the world population and demand today, it is easier to

list those species that are sustainable (for now) than those that are

being over harvested. And there is less emotion involved in making a

sustainable list (for now).

 

We are doing a poor job when it comes to feeding, clothing and housing

many folks in the world today .. but the many Eco-Activists and a

small number of Eco-Terrorists are generally the same folks who most

want to see an end to war, disease and famine .. and see the world

feeding itself with organic food. Talk about unrealistic!! :-(

 

I will give credit where I think it is due .. and here is a link from

Chrissie Wildwood that I can agree with in part ..

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~nodice/new/magazine/cwood/ChrissieWArticle.htm

... especially this portion concerning Cultivation vs Wild Harvesting

... " Therefore, the problem of over-exploitation of wild plants cannot

be solved by cultivation alone. In any event, most experts believe

there is not enough cultivatable land available to meet escalating

world demand, unless yet more rainforest is destroyed. The only way

forward is to find ways of supporting existing sustainable practices

of wild harvesting, alongside sustainable methods of cultivation (i.e.

without the use of artificial fertilisers and agrochemicals). No

easy task, for we must also make provision for the social and economic

needs of the world's poorest people. Progress will be largely

dependent on support from governments and industry. "

 

Though I will agree with the problem she has pointed out .. this

brings me back to the reality of .. its a heckuva lot easier to be a

critic than it is to be an operator or planner .. and its easier to be

an idealist than to deal with reality. Basically, what she (and

everyone else who is honest) is saying is .. we can't get there from

here. Fix one problem and you create another. The next paragraph

down from that she discusses how Patchouli plantations were abandoned

due to low prices .. this was written back in 2002 and it is no

longer the case .. but then, neither is the conclusion the case .. the

proof is in the pudding. As for her comments on the Rosewood Leaf oil

... as I stated previously, there is but a piddling coming out of

Brazil and it is not only leaf oil .. its oil made from the entire

cuttings of trimmed branches as well as leaves .. and the odor sucks!

 

In 1975, CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered

Species, came into existence and said its illegal to cut down

Brazilian rosewood trees or export any new lumber. CITES also

protects things such as bison and ivory.

The Rosewood Trees they were referring to are the Dalbergia nigra

trees .. and even so, pre-ban old stock can be sold legally if it has

the CITES certificate .. which is not difficult to obtain.. Important

decisions are made at CITES .. by consensus .. and if they fail to do

so then they go with a two thirds majority vote. This sounds like how

some of the restrictive regulations are being passed in the non

democratic European Union.

 

This link http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/cites?q=Rosewood & submit=Go

is concerned with CITES Conventions .. and the Brazilian Rosewood they

mention is Dalbergia nigra. In the Search block at the top left of

the page .. type in Aniba roseodora and see what you get. If you

want to take the time to read all that humma-humma you will see that

they simply mention that replanting projects are underway.

 

And CITES vacillates .. one year this is prohibited then the next year

it is not. Back in 1986-87, while serving in Somalia, I was able to

legally bring into the USA Ivory carved figurines and figurines carved

from Hippo teeth. At the time they were approved items and I have

certificates that allowed importation .. only Indian ivory was

prohibited at that time. In 1988, they decided to include African

ivory in the ban and all it did was create a higher demand .. and

price .. for the ivory. And it probably generated a lot of poaching

activity. Prior to that time there was a sufficient supply of very

reasonably priced African ivory available from government agencies

that regulated the collection of carcasses of animals that had died

from natural causes. I am sure that the fact that government control

often causes more problems than it fixes surprises none of you.

 

It should also not surprise you that most references to Rosewood are

inaccurate .. like this one:

 

" Rosewood (is the) popular name for the ornamental wood of several

species of tropical trees, especially for the heartwood of certain

leguminous trees of the genus Dalbergia of the family Leguminosae (

pulse family). Brazilian rosewood, or jacaranda ( D. nigra ), is one

of Brazil's finest woods, important in commerce for 300 years but now

close to extinction. It is obtained from the purplish-black heartwood

of old trees, is rather oily, fragrant—whence the name—and durable and

is used whole or in veneers for piano casings and other kinds of

cabinetwork and for tools, instruments, brush backs, and other

articles. The oil obtained from the wood and leaves is used in

fragrances and soaps. Honduras rosewood ( D. stevensonii ) is now used

chiefly in percussion instruments (e.g., the marimba and the

xylophone) where Brazilian rosewood was formerly employed. Among Old

World species are the East Indian rosewood, or black rosewood ( D.

latifolia ), which is a deep, rich purple streaked with golden yellow

to black, and the very hard African blackwood ( D. melanoxylon ),

which is used as a substitute for ebony. Rosewoods are sometimes used

locally for domestic remedies, and several—including trees of other

genera also called rosewood - have been introduced into the United

States as ornamentals and for lumber. The genus is classified in the

division Magnoliophyta , class Magnoliopsida, order Rosales, family

Leguminosae.

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition | 2007

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-rosewood.html

 

This link .. briefs a scientific study posted in the Journal of

Genetics and Molecular Research , " Evaluation of genetic diversity in

a natural rosewood population .. it too mentions the Rosewood as

" Dalbergia nigra " and says it is " vulnerable " due to the value placed

on it for use in manufacturing furniture, musical instruments and

decorative objects.

http://www.funpecrp.com.br/GMR/year2007/vol3-6/gmr0325_full_text.html

 

This link of the Non Wood Forestry Products organization has a brief

on Rosewood (paragraph 3) but does not give a Botanical Name.

http://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/webview/pageview.jsp?pageId=15568 & geoId=-1 & lan\

gId=1 & 48312689

 

Regarding perfumeries and Chanel No. 5, it mentions that: " **** In

the forest, Amazonian caboclos have to go ever deeper into the forest

to find the rosewood tree, from which one of the perfume's principal

ingredients is extracted. The tree is in danger of extinction.

 

The rosewood oil extractors spend three months at a time in the

forest. **** . The trunks are cut by hand and then the trunks weighing

100 kilos are carried on the extractivists' backs. They earn very

little for their labour. " This is, to me, significant .. more on that

later. But I will mention now that " having to go deeper into the

forest " is not unusual for seeking anything since folks normally begin

their harvests of plants and animals as close to home as they can ..

and this also points out the fact that the Rosewood Tree is not a

product that is particularly sought after by those who are cutting

down the forests .. it just happens to be there when they are cutting

every tree in their path. And .. it is not that the peasants carry

100 kilo logs to portable stills .. they enter the forests prior to

the annual flooding season, cut the trees, and then when the rains

come and the rivers swell .. they float the Rosewood tree trunks

downstream to the distilleries .. it wouldn't make much sense to put

the distilleries upstream .. huh?

 

Interesting it is that they also appear to be saying that the downside

of loss of this tree will be felt by the perfumeries .. which is

pretty much what I heard on the Clinton News Network (CNN) when they

were visiting the Brazilian Rainforest during the show, " Planet In

Peril " . In fact, they said that indiscriminate logging was

threatening a major source of trees used in the flavoring, perfumery

and pharmaceutical industries .. which is not entirely correct .. but

in any case, they were talking about the Rosewood Tree and viewing it

as a victim of " collateral damage " .. which IS CORRECT! It is a bit

like the tuna fishermen who trap dolphins in their nets .. they

usually release them .. dead or alive .. so not taking the Rosewood

Tree that has already been cut down by the loggers would mean wasting

it .. it would not reduce the number of Redwood Trees cut down .. but

it could reduce the income of the local peasants.

 

My point at this time is .. those who have a need for " warm fuzzies "

and think that an easy and safe way to gain them is by not using

Rosewood EO .. should go for it .. leave the Rosewood EO for the rest

of us. But understand that you are doing No More to save the

Rosewood Trees than Ingrid Newkirk, the ridiculous, media seeker who

heads up PETA, is doing to stop folks from eating animals .. the major

differences would be that PETA would rather euthanize animals than eat

them http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ and nobody will criticize you

for your personal decision to not use Rosewood EO, but EVERY animal

rights organization in the world criticizes Ingrid Newkirk and her

PETA organization . Even CNN did a special that was not at all

favorable to her. Its hard to find anyone who will say anything nice

about her aside from Bill Maher, who is a bit off his extremist rocker

at times and is also a member of her Board of Directors. ;-)

 

Most Eco-Activists are intelligent people .. except for those in

Hollywood :-D and though most of them do not want to accept or

even hear information that is contrary to their positions .. I believe

that some of them are truly sincere .. just a bit misguided .. or

perhaps overzealous in their " altruistic " ? desire to save mankind

from global ecological disaster. On the other hand, some are just

doing a job .. they've built a niche for themselves where they can

earn a living .. not unlike the typical televangelist. Some others

are bored volunteers who can be easily used by those who are earning a

living by screaming every time a tree is cut down. The last group (in

my opinion) are not always sure that they are right but they are

willing to march to the tune of the Eco-Activist drum until they learn

otherwise .. and in the meantime they can feel warm fuzzies by warning

all of the other folks of how wrong they are if they don't think the

same way as the Eco-Activists. :-\

 

My bottom line is .. leave the windmills alone .. go after the real

culprits and address the real problems that are slowly destroying the

Amazon Rain Forests .. Rosewood oil is not the problem and the users

of Rosewood oil are not the culprits.

 

That's enough for now .. y'all have a good one .. and keep smiling. :-)

 

Butch .. http://www.AV-AT.com