rel="canonical"
Welcome! I'm Robert.

Ingrained Culture's Eco Policy

All my work is very contemporary in terms of sustainability and environmental responsibility. It is 'Now' with 2020's values. The timber I use is grown in Scotland and sourced from well managed forests, plantations, windblown or from dangerous trees. My supplying Saw Mill is about four hours driving distance from my workshop and apart from a few light weight electric machines, I use only traditional hand held tools to make each piece.

Every piece I produce has a very light foot print on the environment. In my sign making, I do offer an ultimate Eco-friendly specification where the whole product is 100% biodegradable.
 
I exclusively use 100% legal and sustainable Grown in Britain wood. Ingrained Culture is certified by Grown in Britain and Licensed by Scottish Working Woods. 

Let us look at CO2. I have been trying to find a reliable source for information regarding the CO2 status of timber verses Bronze (commonly used in sculpture). So far I have not been successful. However, from the American ‘Pulp and paper resources and information site’:
 
‘Wood is the only construction material which has absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere.’
 
It goes on to explain:
 
‘One tonne of steel releases 1.24 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. I think Bronze (often used for making sculpture) is somewhere between steel and aluminium - more polluting still. Now, I’m not sure if these above figures are entirely accurate but it is a good starting point from which to decide just how serious we are about the environment. If the above figures are reasonably accurate then I might argue that my work comes with a theoretical (or should that be real?) carbon credit.
 
I have taken some advice regarding the CO2 advantages of using wood over bronze for sculpture. It largely depends on how long a period of time the piece will be required for. For example, if you choose my wooden Larch figures as demarcation for a family play zone in a public park. That play zone may have a projected life of say twenty years before it is expected to be redeveloped. With some maintenance and possibly repair my Larch figures will probably be set fair to be reinstalled in the redeveloped play zone (assuming no vandalism). The wooden Larch figures will have locked up the absorbed CO2 all that time. Further, if a piece is to be installed in a spot less prone to extreme weather conditions and unlikely to experience high and low fluctuating temperatures, the maintenance/repair could be considerably reduced. For example, a piece not exposed to direct sun light, sheltered from rain and frost in a steady ambient temperature might well go on and on without any significant repair.
 
Further, the CO2 emissions of forest management and wood processing to make a wooden sculpture are much less than for a similar metal sculpture. I would point out that my wooden sculptures should perform well in relation to their modest cost. I assume that similar comparisons can be made between steel/aluminium signs, and my hard-wearing wooden signs. I pride myself in thinking that my eco-friendly wooden signs are a credible alternative to alternatives made from finite materials.
 
However, if you require a sculpture, say of a prominent person that is expected to last for 100 to possibly 200 years outside in all weathers, then a single bronze sculpture will probably be more CO2 efficient in the very long term because a wooden Larch sculpture would have to be remade several times. On the other hand, I might advise (if the very long term is required) a wooden sculpture protected from the harshest weather conditions could well fit the bill. In which case a Bronze sculpture might have to last nearer 200 than 100 years before it’s environmental case is overwhelming.
 
Before proceeding down the 100 year plus route, I would suggest you also consider the much-publicised case of the sculpture of Cecil Rhodes (stone). The Black Lives Matter protests have taught us times and values change surprisingly quickly and I’m thinking so too will the people we wish to remember.
 
I have no wish to paint an inaccurate picture or mislead anyone and therefore I wish to point out the limitations of my eco policy more generally. To make a piece 'fit for purpose' I do use a marine epoxy resin to laminate the timber. If the piece is made from larch and is to be installed out in the open, I also encapsulate it in marine epoxy resin and then varnish it with a polyurethane varnish. The outer coating has the advantage of preserving the natural colour of the wood and adding significantly to the overall longevity of the piece. However, you may choose for me not to coat your larch piece in either epoxy or varnish preferring the 'weathering' effect of the wood. Some might see an Arty process in the gradual and natural deterioration of the piece - the choice is yours. I am informed by the Epoxy Resin manufacturers, that the epoxy resin I use is biodegradable and once cured it is inert - thus non-polluting.
 
You might also ask why I don't use 'Bio' Resins? Well, those Bio resins I have examined, require 7 days at a steady 25 degrees centigrade to cure. The energy and carbon associated with that temperature and time seems counterintuitive to me. Plus, the fact that I cannot be certain what Bio resin consists of. On balance Epoxy Resin seems to be the better of the two options.  
Share by: