Yes, Mr. Longfield.
Each tree species has the capacity to sequester carbon to some extent. The tree species that I showed you at the research site are hybrid poplar. They have a tendency to sequester carbon rapidly, but only after 15 years, so there should be a continuous planting of hybrid poplars. Those trees can be harvested for energy. As long as they are replanted, you can get a continuous sequestration of carbon in trees.
We should also understand that there's carbon sequestration below ground, in soils. In the study we are currently conducting, we are assessing woodlot carbon and soil carbon in the adjacent fields. That woodlot has not been disturbed for many years, so we can fairly assume that in terms of the maximum level of soil-carboning of woodlots, it is the capacity that the particular soil type can carry forward. For the agriculture systems or abandoned land adjacent to a woodlot, if the soil carbon is less than the carbon that is seen in a woodlot, then those soils have an enormous amount of capacity to sequester carbon.
In terms of economic returns, the landowners can integrate nut trees. They can integrate sugar maples, whereby they can get additional revenue from selling maple syrup. Christmas trees are another economic return for the landowners.
We also have to understand that when you put trees into the agricultural landscape, there's a certain percentage of land that is taken out of production, but if you look at the agriculture revenue that came from the land that is lost, it is insignificant. When you get a profit of 20¢ to 40¢ on a bushel of corn, even if you get 100 bushels less on the land where you have integrated trees, we are looking at $30 or $40 in revenue loss. That revenue loss can be easily obtained by the selling of nuts and by syrup production and other economic returns.