Let's assume that you have a forest and you want to build something, and you don't have any equipment other than hand power tools, a chainsaw and an ATV. You need about 200 pieces of straight wood that are about 4-6 inches thick to build your structure. Here are your choices: 1) You can either cut down a 24" tree, find some way to drag it out of the woods, and have it milled or try to mill it yourself; or 2) you can cut down 200 4-6" trees, buck them up and use those instead. Let's also assume that you have a barn where you can air dry the wood and in each of these cases you are using the same species.
It seems like option number two would be easier. Not only because it's no problem to handle that size of tree with hand tools, but also it only takes 5 years to grow them. Whereas, in option number 1 you have to wait another 50 - 70 years to grow trees that size.
So the question is why do people only use older trees to get lumber? Is there some structural difference?
2006-07-23
13:05:32
·
2 answers
·
asked by
fidowithaspot
2
in
Home & Garden
➔ Do It Yourself (DIY)
Bigg_Dogg I'm not sure you do get more wood from large trees. If you think about all the wood that gets thrown away by slabbing off the sides to make blanks it's substantial. Also to a certain extent stand volume is constant, meaning that a site can only grow so much wood whether that wood is in big trees or little trees. So you see single aged forests with either lots of little trees or a few big ones. If you didn't have to slab off anything and instead used the whole log you would end up with more wood per acre.
2006-07-23
14:00:36 ·
update #1
Yes, I do believe you on the growth ring difference though.
2006-07-23
14:01:30 ·
update #2