A question for a scientist. I want an answer!

Part of the soil has gone into trees. The trees have gone overseas. Is the hill getting smaller?

I have posed this question before on my blog but nobody responded. It baffles me and I would love to know before the will I signed today is activated. (good grief... got a sore hand from initialing every page and signing several times over!) If you know a scientist could you please pass this on to him, I want to know the answer. The photo above is of a hillside (Mt Kettle I think its called) that I can see from "my" mountain. As you can see it has had trees on it. Those trees have been cut down. Now my question...

Those trees grew by nutriments and minerals rising out of the soil into the tree, feeding it, causing it to grow. The trees after 25 years are cut down and the main trucks are shipped overseas, either chipped up or as several logs. There would have been tonnes of these logs taken off this hillside. My question is, the tree has material out of the soil as part of it, does that mean that the hillside is smaller now? The other question is that from many many acres of land in New Zealand tonnes and tonnes of logs are shipped overseas. Does that mean New Zealand is getting smaller? If not why not?

A similar situation. Grass is grown in many paddocks throughout NZ. Again nutriments and minerals out of the soil go into the grass. There are sheep which eat that grass and grow biiger, are killed and become lovely NZ lamb or mutton. There are tonnes of this mutton refrigerated and sent overseas. Does that mean that New Zealand paddocks are smaller? Is the amount of substance in NZ paddocks smaller because it has become sheep meat and is sent overseas?

In my weird sense of humour I can envisage New Zealand shrinking ever so slowly, and eventually disappearing. I want to know if it is? Why isn't it? Anybody PLEASE give me an answer! There must be somebody somewhere in the world able to work this out.

I eagerly await a response. :-)