Hubbry Logo
Bark breadBark breadMain
Open search
Bark bread
Community hub
Bark bread
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Bark bread
Bark bread
Bark bread
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Bark bread
Drying inner bark (phloem) from scots pine over open fire
TypeFamine food, Bread
Place of originScandinavia
Main ingredientsFlour, water, inner bark (e.g. phloem) of plants
  •   Media: Bark bread

Bark bread is a traditional food made with the inner bark (phloem) of certain trees and shrubs. It has a history of use as famine food.

History

[edit]

Bark bread seems to be a primarily Nordic tradition.[1] Bark bread is mentioned in medieval literature, and it may have an even older tradition among the Sami people, with the oldest findings of bark harvests being around 3000 years old.[2][3]

During the 18th and early 19th centuries, Northern Europe experienced several very bad years of crop failure, particularly during the Little Ice Age of the mid-18th century. The grain harvest was badly affected, and creative solutions to make the flour last longer were introduced. In 1742, samples of "emergency bread" were sent from Kristiansand, Norway, to the Royal Administration in Copenhagen, including bark bread, bread made from grainless husks and bread made from burned bones.[4] During the Napoleonic Wars, moss and lichen were used for human consumption.[5]

The last time bark bread was used as famine food in Norway was during the Napoleonic Wars. The introduction of the potato as a staple crop gave the farmers alternative crops when grain production failed, so that bark bread and moss cakes were no longer needed.[6] In Northern Sweden, traces of Sami harvest of bark from Scots pine are known from the 1890s, and, in Finland, pettuleipä (literally "pinewood-bark bread", made with cambium [phloem] flour) was eaten in Finland as an emergency food when there has been a shortage of food, especially during the Great Famine of the 1690s,[7] during the second famine of the 1860s, and, most recently, during the 1918 civil war.[3][8]

Examples of production

[edit]

Finger-sized twigs and branches were collected from deciduous trees and shrubs, and the bark split and the inner bark (the phloem and sometimes the vascular cambium) collected while still fresh. The yellow or green inner bark (depending on tree species) was dried over open fires, in an oven, or in the sun. A mortar or mill was used to grind the bark to a fine powder to add to the flour. The dried bark pieces could also be added directly to the grain during milling. The bread was then baked the normal way adding yeast and salt.

Bark bread did not leaven as quickly as normal bread due to bark content. The more bark to flour, the slower the leavening. Bark bread was therefore often made as a flatbread. The bark flour could also be used for porridge.[9]

As food

[edit]

The bark component was usually from deciduous trees like elm, ash, aspen, rowan or birch, but Scots pine and Iceland moss (sometimes named "bread moss" in Norwegian) are mentioned in historic sources. The inner bark is the only part of a tree trunk that is actually edible; the remaining bark and wood is made up of cellulose, which most animals, including humans, cannot digest. The dried and ground inner bark was added in proportions like 1/4th to 1/3rd "bark flour" to the remaining grain flour. Erik Pontoppidan, the bishop of Bergen, Norway in the mid-18th century, recommended using elm, as it helped the often crumbly bark bread hold together better.[10]

The bark will, however, add a rather bitter taste to the bread, and gives bread (particularly white bread) an unappetizing grey-green hue. Another problem is that the yeast cannot break down the ground bark; as a result, the bread will not leaven properly, and will be hard and not hold together well. Though bark today is sometimes added to pastries as a culinary curiosity, bark bread was considered an emergency food, and, as is common with such foods, was phased out as soon as the availability of grain improved.

The bark bread was seen as nutritionally deficient, more as "stomach filler" than as actual sustenance. Both the bishop Pontoppidan and others blamed the high mortality during the famine of the 1740s on the "unhealthy bark bread" and general lack of food.[4][10] Among the Sami, however, the bark and bark bread made from Scots pine served as an important source of vitamin C.[3]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Bark bread

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Bark bread, also known as pettuleipä or pettu in Finnish, is a traditional type of famine bread made by grinding the inner bark (phloem or cambium layer) of coniferous trees such as Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) or birch (Betula species) into flour, which is then mixed with grain flours like rye or wheat to extend limited supplies during food shortages. This resourceful food has deep roots in Scandinavian and Sámi cultures, where it served not only as an emergency ration but also as a regular dietary staple for indigenous groups in northern and from at least the onward, providing carbohydrates to balance high-protein diets from and . Its preparation typically involves harvesting thin vertical strips of bark in spring—when nutrient content peaks—from living trees without fully them, drying the layers over fire or in the sun, or to remove resins, and milling it into a fine meal that imparts a slightly , woody, or resinous flavor to the resulting dense, flat loaves. Historically, bark bread gained prominence during severe famines, such as the 1596–1598 crisis in and the devastating 1867–1868 event that claimed around 10% of Finland's population due to crop failures from extreme weather, prompting widespread adoption among farmers who learned the technique from Sámi communities. Use persisted into the during wartime , though it declined after the 1870s due to improved , alternative foods, and restrictions on harvesting from crown lands. Nutritionally, bark flour is gluten-free, rich in fiber, vitamin C (especially when harvested in spring), and minerals like zinc, magnesium, and iron, though it is low in calories and can be hard to digest in large quantities, making it best as a supplement rather than a sole ingredient. Today, it enjoys a revival in modern baking for its unique earthy taste and health benefits, with commercial producers in Finland offering gluten-free versions and recipes adapted for contemporary kitchens, often substituting up to one-third of grain flour to avoid overly tough textures.

Overview

Definition and Characteristics

Bark bread is a traditional or survival made primarily from the ground inner bark, specifically the layer, of certain trees, typically mixed with a minimal amount of grain to extend scarce supplies. This composition allows it to serve as a caloric extender during periods of , such as historical famines in . Unlike the outer corky layers of tree bark, which are indigestible and discarded, bark bread utilizes only the nutrient-rich , the soft conductive tissue beneath the bark surface. Physically, it features a grey-green color derived from the fresh , a dense and fibrous texture owing to its high content and lack of , and a slow leavening process that results in flat, sturdy loaves. The flavor profile is characteristically bitter and astringent, stemming from present in the bark material. The English term "bark bread" derives from the Swedish "barkbröd," a compound word combining "bark" (bark) and "bröd" (bread), underscoring its origins as a resourceful grain substitute in Nordic cultures.

Common Tree Species

Bark bread is primarily produced from the inner bark, or cambium layer, of select coniferous and deciduous trees that possess nutrient-dense phloem suitable for grinding into flour. Among the most commonly utilized species is the Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris), a conifer native to boreal forests across Europe, particularly dominant in Scandinavia and the territories of the indigenous Sami people. This tree's cambium is valued for its high carbohydrate content, along with notable levels of vitamin C and minerals, which made it a vital supplement during periods of scarcity. Birch trees (Betula spp.), such as the silver birch (Betula pendula), are another key species, especially in Nordic regions and among North American indigenous communities. These trees are favored for their readily peelable bark and relatively mild, neutral flavor profile in the processed flour. Native peoples in areas like the historically dried and ground birch inner bark into flour for bread, leveraging its availability in temperate forests from to . In broader European contexts, elm species (Ulmus spp., such as Ulmus glabra) have been employed occasionally, particularly in historical Scandinavian practices where the inner bark's binding properties helped improve the texture of otherwise crumbly loaves. Regional variations highlight pine's prevalence in northern Scandinavia and Sami lands, birch's widespread use in Nordic and indigenous North American settings, and sporadic incorporation of spruce (Picea spp.) in localized traditions across boreal and temperate zones. Suitability for bark bread depends on the tree having a nutrient-rich layer, whether from or coniferous varieties, with optimal harvesting occurring in spring when the is actively transporting sugars and is thus more palatable and energy-dense. Environmental considerations emphasize sustainable practices, such as avoiding complete —which removes the entire bark ring and can kill the —by instead leaving an unpeeled strip to allow nutrient flow and enable repeated harvesting from the same individual.

History

Origins in Indigenous Cultures

The earliest documented use of bark bread traces back to the Sami people of northern , where inner bark from (Pinus sylvestris) was harvested and processed into as a regular dietary staple approximately 2,800 years ago. Dendroecological analysis of bark-peeling scars on ancient pine trees reveals continuous exploitation from around 800 BCE through the medieval period, indicating that this practice was integrated into everyday sustenance rather than reserved solely for crises. The Sami dried and ground the nutrient-rich layer into , often mixing it with to form breads that provided essential carbohydrates during extended winters when other plant foods were scarce. Parallel traditions emerged among in , where tribes such as the and utilized the inner bark ( or ) of () and species for similar phloem-based foods. The scraped the from paper and eastern white (), boiling it for direct consumption as a source similar to eggs. communities similarly harvested , eating it fresh to supplement diets heavy in animal proteins during seasonal shortages of grains or roots. These practices served as vital sources of seasonal carbohydrates in long, harsh winters, embedding bark-derived foods into routine cultural and nutritional frameworks long before European contact. Archaeological evidence in Nordic and regions primarily consists of culturally modified trees bearing peeling scars, dated via and radiocarbon analysis to confirm bark harvesting for production over millennia. In northern , over 300 such scars on Scots pines date from the 15th century onward, while earlier evidence from 2,800 underscores the antiquity of this resource use among Sami foragers. Comparable indicators in North American sites include scarred lodgepole pines () near Indigenous camps, with dates extending to the 17th century among groups like the Carrier, reflecting sustained integration of bark into pre-colonial diets.

Use During Famines and Conflicts

Bark bread also featured in earlier crises, such as the 1596–1598 in , where crop failures led to widespread adoption of pine bark flour. Bark bread played a crucial role as a food during the in and , where repeated crop failures due to harsh weather forced much of the population to rely on it as a primary sustenance alongside other unwholesome substitutes like and nettles. In , pine bark flour known as pettu was particularly vital, sustaining rural communities amid demographic catastrophe that claimed up to a quarter of the population. This emergency measure highlighted bark bread's function as an extender for scarce , often comprising over 50% of the flour mixture in severe shortages to stretch limited rye supplies. During the in 18th-century , bark bread addressed widespread grain shortages exacerbated by prolonged cold spells. By the in the early 1800s, it marked the last major widespread adoption in , driven by wartime blockades, crop failures, and trade disruptions that compelled Norwegian communities to revert to tree-derived flours for basic bread production. In the 19th and 20th centuries, Finnish famines continued to underscore bark bread's emergency value, notably during the 1866–1868 crisis when pine bark served as a key amid failed harvests that killed nearly 10% of the population. The 1918 saw its renewed use due to disrupted grain imports from , with families harvesting pine bark to produce pettuleipä as a hedge against acute shortages. Limited incorporation occurred during in , where it supplemented controlled grain distributions to maintain caloric intake in rural areas. Governments in encouraged bark flour production during these crises, as seen in Norwegian royal evaluations of emergency breads and Finnish administrative tolerance of peasant harvesting to avert mass . Official recipes often prescribed ratios such as one-third bark flour to two-thirds to balance and digestibility, reflecting efforts to standardize survival rations. However, bark bread's prominence waned after the early 1800s with the importation of potatoes and improved grains, which provided more reliable staples and diminished reliance on forest resources.

Production

Harvesting Techniques

Harvesting of bark for bread production emphasizes to preserve health and allow regrowth. The optimal season is or , when rising flow loosens the layer, facilitating easier removal and maximizing content for better . Harvesting during this period, typically in for species like Scots , ensures the inner bark is tender and less fibrous. Winter harvesting is avoided, as the dormant contains reduced and elevated , leading to bitterness and lower edibility. Traditional tools include drawknives for controlled peeling of bark strips and bark spuds for prying loose sections without gouging the wood. The method involves making vertical slits in the outer bark, then carefully lifting and removing the inner in narrow bands, always leaving a continuous strip of living around the trunk to maintain nutrient transport. To promote , up to 50-75% of the tree's is harvested at a time from mature trees, preventing and allowing the tree to recover over several years. This approach, rooted in indigenous practices, ensures trees can be revisited annually without long-term damage. Species-specific techniques vary to preserve quality. For trees, gentle peeling with minimal force prevents tearing of the thin, flexible inner layers, which are prone to splitting if handled roughly. In contrast, requires precise scraping of the after outer bark removal to isolate and retain the fibrous , avoiding contamination from resinous outer tissues. These methods are applied to suitable species such as (Betula spp.) and (Pinus spp.), selected for their phloem's edibility. Sustainable yields from a single mature tree allow for repeated harvesting over years without long-term damage. This limited take supports ongoing forest health and aligns with traditional foraging limits.

Processing and Baking Methods

The of bark for bread begins with drying the harvested inner bark () to remove moisture and prevent spoilage. In traditional Scandinavian practices, particularly among the Sami, the bark is hung on racks for 1-2 days to air-dry, or dehydrated using sun, fire, or smoke to inhibit mold growth. Finnish methods often involve initial roasting or boiling of the fresh sheets to eliminate resins, waxes, and other bitter compounds before drying for several days until brittle. Once dried, the bark is torn into small pieces and ground into a coarse using stone mills, mortars and pestles, or modern blenders, yielding a fine powder suitable for incorporation into . Bark flour is then mixed with grain flours to form the , as pure bark yields a dense, unpalatable result. Historical ratios vary by region and scarcity, but typically range from 15% bark flour in modern recreations to over 50% in famine-era preparations, blended with or , water, and salt for basic loaves. Optional with starter or natural yeasts for 12-24 hours improves digestibility and texture, as seen in Sami and Finnish recipes where bark flour constitutes 25-40% of the total dry mix. Baking methods emphasize slow, even heat to prevent scorching the fibrous bark. Flatbreads are commonly formed from the and baked on hot stones or in earthen pits lined with and , where a low fire is maintained for several hours, turning the reddish and slightly sweet. In -based techniques, loaves bake at moderate temperatures around 180-230°C for 45-60 minutes, often starting covered to retain moisture. As an alternative to , bark can be boiled into by simmering the mixture with water or until thickened, providing a quicker preparation. Regional variations highlight adaptations in form and ingredients. Among the Sami, pine bark flour is used to make söyr, a simple boiled from the ground bark mixed with water or reindeer milk, valued for its portability during herding. In broader Scandinavian traditions, or flour is incorporated into denser loaves, often combining both barks with for a fibrous, nutty baked in wood-fired ovens.

Nutritional Aspects

Chemical Composition

Bark bread is primarily derived from the inner bark ( and layers) of trees such as and , which forms the basis for its . On a dry weight basis, the macronutrient profile of pine inner bark , such as that from Scots pine (), consists of high content, predominantly in the form of starches and sugars stored in the for energy reserves. content is notably high at approximately 50%, encompassing both soluble and insoluble types that contribute to its structural integrity. Protein levels are relatively low at 5.3%, while fat content is about 6.5%, mainly comprising mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acids. inner bark has a comparable nutrient profile, high in and minerals, though specific macronutrient are less detailed, with digestible calories around 110-130 kcal per 100 g and rich in polyphenols such as . Micronutrients in bark flour vary by tree species and harvest timing, but inner bark contains variable or low levels of (historical sources suggest sufficient to prevent , though modern analyses often show undetectable or low amounts around 5 mg per 100 g dry weight), varying by harvest timing. Minerals are abundant in the layer, rich in calcium (specific values vary by and location) and (approximately 37 mg per 100 g dry weight), along with notable amounts of magnesium, aiding in balance and bone health. similarly contributes these minerals, though concentrations can differ based on conditions. Other bioactive compounds include , present at 5-15% in extracts, which impart a characteristic bitterness and astringency. In , polyphenols such as and phenolic acids serve as antioxidants, comprising a substantial portion of the extractives. Comparatively, bark flour exhibits higher than refined (typically 2-3% fiber) and exceeds (about 12% fiber), but lacks proteins, resulting in a denser, less elastic texture in baked products.

Health Benefits and Potential Risks

Bark bread, derived from the inner bark or of trees such as and , offers several health benefits primarily due to its profile, which includes high content that promotes digestive health and provides a sense of during periods of food scarcity. The fiber in inner bark, comprising about half of its dry weight, slows the of sugars and helps maintain stable blood glucose levels, potentially acting as a prebiotic to support . Additionally, bark contains antioxidants such as polyphenols and , which may bolster immune function and reduce . In -based varieties, the content has historically prevented , serving as a vital source for indigenous groups like the Sami people, though modern measurements indicate low levels. Despite these advantages, consuming bark bread carries potential risks, particularly from anti-nutritional compounds like , which can bind to proteins and minerals, inhibiting their absorption and leading to , , or gastrointestinal discomfort if overconsumed. may trigger allergic reactions in sensitive individuals, including skin rashes or respiratory issues, due to cross-reactivity with allergens. Furthermore, its low caloric density—approximately 80-130 kcal per 100 grams—makes it insufficient as a sole long-term food source, potentially exacerbating in prolonged reliance. Historically, bark bread mitigated starvation during famines in and , with Sami communities showing reduced incidence compared to others, though excessive use often resulted in increased gastrointestinal problems and overall nutritional deficiencies. Modern analyses confirm these patterns, noting that while it provided essential and vitamins for short-term , overdependence led to digestive distress without balanced intake. To maximize benefits and minimize risks, bark bread should be limited to 20-30% of the diet and prepared through drying and heating to degrade and improve digestibility.

Cultural and Modern Significance

Traditional Culinary Roles

In traditional Sami cuisine of northern , bark bread served as a vital winter staple, incorporated into flatbreads and occasionally porridges to sustain communities during harsh seasons when grain supplies were scarce. The inner bark of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) and (Betula spp.) was harvested, dried, and ground into flour, mixed with milk or water to form doughs that symbolized the people's resilience and deep connection to the forest environment. In Nordic indigenous traditions, such as those of the Sami, the preparation and sharing of bark-based foods during seasonal gatherings reinforced and ecological knowledge passed down through generations. Representative recipes highlight bark bread's versatility in historical diets; for instance, Swedish Sami communities baked flatbreads, often flavored with wild herbs, while in , pine bark flour was blended into simple loaves or thickened broths enhanced with local berries for subtle sweetness during communal meals. These preparations, requiring careful harvesting to avoid harming trees, underscored adaptive culinary skills. Socially, bark bread fostered and communal bonds in historical Nordic societies, where it was shared at gatherings to embody resourcefulness and equality, transcending its origins as a basic food to represent collective endurance against environmental challenges. Upper classes sometimes stigmatized it as inferior, yet among rural and indigenous groups, it affirmed shared values of and mutual support.

Contemporary Uses and Revival

In recent decades, bark bread has experienced a revival within and communities, particularly since the early 2000s, as part of broader wild food movements emphasizing self-sufficiency and connection to . Enthusiasts in training programs and often incorporate or inner bark flour into recipes as a nutrient-dense extender for or doughs, highlighting its role in emergency rations and primitive skills workshops. For instance, modern guides recommend harvesting the layer during spring for optimal starch content, blending it into flatbreads or porridges to demonstrate sustainable wildcrafting techniques. Culinary innovators, inspired by the New Nordic cuisine movement that gained prominence in the mid-2000s, have elevated bark bread from famine staple to gourmet ingredient, often in Scandinavian restaurants. Establishments like Aanaar in feature pine-bark bread in desserts such as the "Forest" plate, pairing it with berries and ice cream to evoke woodland flavors, while Restaurant Grön in Helsinki, Finland serves roasted pine bark with koji ice cream for a resinous, tannic profile. The Nordic Food Lab has contributed recipes like birch bark bread—combining 75g birch flour with and tipo 00 flours for a reddish, raspberry-aromatic loaf—and pine bark cookies, blending 60g pine flour with for crisp, spiced textures suitable for contemporary . These adaptations typically use bark flour at 15-30% ratios to balance flavor and texture, transforming traditional methods into accessible, innovative dishes. Scientific interest in bark flours as alternatives has grown in the , focusing on their high content for potential gut benefits, with studies exploring applications in gluten-free and nutrient-enhanced . Research on bark flour, for example, demonstrates its efficacy at 15% substitution in improving dough and quality while boosting intake, suggesting broader viability for phloem-based flours in functional . Commercially, small-scale products have emerged in markets, such as Finland's Ämän Leipä Oy, which has produced gluten-free pettuleipä ( bark ) since 1977 using pettu flour, and suppliers like Willit offering inner bark flour for home at 20-30€ per kg. These developments position bark as a sustainable, low-calorie option in niche wellness sectors. Sustainability challenges persist with wild harvesting, prompting regulations and best practices to prevent of trees like and . In the United States, the requires permits for collecting forest products, including bark, limiting personal use to reasonable amounts from public lands to protect ecosystems. European guidelines, such as those from the Nordic Food Lab, advocate the "1-in-20 rule" for harvesting no more than 5% of general populations and recommend peeling bark only from felled trees, while prioritizing fallen or damaged specimens and using species-specific techniques like narrow strip harvesting from living trees to allow regrowth and minimize harm. Efforts to promote cultivated bark sources remain limited, but these measures support ethical revival without ecological strain.

References

  1. https://www.swedishfinnhistoricalsociety.org/2018/06/13/bark-bread/
  2. https://nordicfoodlab.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/2015-11-24-tree-bark/
  3. https://blogs.helsinki.fi/illuminating-the-collections/2025/06/12/three-pieces-of-bark-bread/
  4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226191994_The_ancient_use_ofPinus_sylvestris_L_Scots_pine_inner_bark_by_Sami_people_in_northern_Sweden_related_to_cultural_and_ecological_factors
  5. https://www.tastingtable.com/1191378/the-bark-bread-that-resulted-from-a-widespread-scandinavian-famine/
  6. https://wildfoodsandwilderness.com/edible-cambium
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7036811/
  8. https://munin.uit.no/bitstream/handle/10037/9295/thesis.pdf?sequence=3
  9. https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2009_ostland_l001.pdf
  10. https://blog.treetime.ca/how-to-make-and-bake-with-bark-flour/
  11. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/trees-for-food-a-3000-year-record-of-subarctic-plant-use/A3A9183B44E1FC67C4FE6C2B9926BB21
  12. https://blogs.nwic.edu/briansblog/files/2013/02/Ethnobotany-of-the-Ojibwe-Indians.pdf
  13. https://www.jkcc.com/birch/
  14. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01300060
  15. https://journals.ametsoc.org/downloadpdf/journals/bams/60/7/1520-0477_1979_060_0775_ghetws_2_0_co_2.pdf
  16. https://www.academia.edu/27801590/The_Social_Stamp_of_a_Substitute_Food_Dispute_on_the_Acceptability_of_Bark_Bread_in_Finland_tortured_by_Mass_Famines
  17. https://www.atlasobscura.com/foods/pettuleipa-pettujauho-bark-bread
  18. https://finland100.fi/2017/08/29/the-end-of-grain-imports-from-russia-caused-a-food-shortage-in-finland/
  19. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232691993_Bark-peeling_Food_Stress_and_Tree_Spirits_-_the_Use_of_Pine_Inner_Bark_for_Food_in_Scandinavia_and_North_America
  20. https://practicalselfreliance.com/birch-bark-flour/
  21. https://appalachianground.com/harvesting-eastern-white-pine-cambium-inner-bark/
  22. https://nordicfoodlab.org/blog/2015/11/sun-wind-and-bark/
  23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43304374
  24. https://www.purdue.edu/hla/sites/famine-foods/famine_food/pinus-silvestris-2/
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6470986/
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9998822/
  27. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11858154/
  28. https://www.webmd.com/vitamins/ai/ingredientmono-352/birch
  29. https://practicalselfreliance.com/pine-bark-bread/
  30. https://nordicfoodlab.org/blog/2025/06/tree-bark/
  31. https://www.motherearthnews.com/real-food/eating-bark-how-to-harvest-and-prepare-edible-bark-zbcz1703/
  32. https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/pine-foods
  33. https://willit.fi/no/product/pettu
  34. https://www.blm.gov/programs/natural-resources/forests-and-woodlands/forest-product-permits
  35. https://nordicfoodlab.org/blog/2012/09/guidelines-for-sustainable-foraging/
  36. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372401419_Importance_of_Sustainable_Bark_Harvesting_in_Medicinal_Trees
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.