🌲Get my free guide to DIY forest Management: thetimberlandinvestor.com/how-to-read-your-forest-an-intro-to-diy-forest-management 🍁Join SilviCultural for FREE today: silvicultural.com/sign-up/
Well...I'm another commenter with over 40 plus years in the world of traditional woodworking (et al professions) that also has worked as a Sawyer, Arborist, and I'm still a traditional Timberwright who sadly gave up on debating folks regarding this topic unless they are one of my students or giving a client bad information....OLD GROWTH...IS NOT STRONGER...at all...PERIOD...!!!...It can be denser, and it can be more rot resistant in some species...It can also have other modules of resistance from a engineering perspective depending on how it is milled, processed and depending on species. This topic goes along with the nonsense that trees are cut down in winter because they have less sap which is also too common myth often repeated even in books by "experts" (???)...Thanks for a great and informative video...let the debate comments begin...for all the "trolls" and armchair ultracrepidarian experts bond to say otherwise...LOL!!!
As a carpenter, its been my observation over the past 40 years that the tighter grain from slow, old growth is stronger than faster growing trees that have larger growth rings
Wood implies a manufactured product, old growth implies a long lived organism such as a tree. Using a 2x4 with wide growth rings from a young tree versus a 2x4 cut from an older tree or the outside diameter of that tree is a different comparison.
The actual quality of wood has a lot to do with what you are going to do with it. While tulip poplar isn’t the strongest of woods, I live in a late 1800s post and beam farmhouse built with it. I completely renovated it and found that the only place the poplar was failing to do its job was the second floor joists, which had numerous structural faults. However I consider this to a large extent the fault of the builders, since I don’t know many woods that in 2x8 form would be up to 130 years of supporting a second floor with a 21-foot span. The basic frame and rafters remain as true as the day they were erected. Since I live in the middle of a poplar forest, I've had a number of large poplars milled for constructing out buildings and they are doing just fine. Would I prefer Douglas Fir....hell yes, but there is a lot to be said for using what you have.
That's really good to know. I think the emphasis on 'the best' species is because of industry optimizing for production and uniformity across their distribution - if it was all homebuilders using what they have nearby you'd see A LOT more variation. Tulip poplars are completely unrelated to real poplars (e.g. aspen) though so it's not surprising your tulip poplar wood performed well (although does the name tulip poplar come from similarity in wood between tulip poplar and poplar?). In saying that, I've heard that there are black poplar beams in timber-framed buildings in the UK that are hundreds of years old. I think if you can keep rot and bugs out of it, the lifespan of timber is really just down to strength
Great comment. For others that were wondering as I was, tulip poplar is not actually a poplar (rather a member of the magnolia family). These have a way better quality than the aspen poplar Zach mentions in the video.
Tulip poplar is also the tallest tree east of the Mississippi. Many of the trees go for over 100 feet without limbs or defects. It would also be used for ~75ft ferry boats for keels on occasion simply due to its length and large diameter and the old growth was know to be be very resistant to rot and that
Great video and very good description of how trees grow! Would love for you to travel to/do a video on west coast style forest. Like along the coast were I live here in Oregon. It’s fun to see the similarities and differences between east coast and west coast forests. Not only in the trees themselves but also the logging practices. You really should come see the west coast forests, if you haven’t already.
When you get in a planning mood please reach out to me. I don’t know how this works but you seem to have it figured out. I have a few suggestions of places to visit and have a few contacts in my area. (Mid-Valley/western Oregon) The Timber Company I contract for is always having tree farm tours and overall are good people.
how the trees are sawed and how the milled and dried dimension lumber is assembled into building components and how the house is designed to use the available wood resources is a key to maximizing the utility of available wood resources. The message is - A palmful of tree seeds placed in the up reached hand of the small child - The promise of a home of their own. A little help along The Way. With time, the promise of a home of their own - fulfilled.
Interesting column in the Sept/Oct 2024 issue of Wooden Boat magazine by Dr. Richard Jagels that addresses this topic. Some hardwood species produce superior wood when grown faster.
That fits with the understanding I've had. My understanding has been that the wood from hardwood species is stronger when the trees were able to grow faster (and the growth rings are larger) but that the reverse is true of softwood species. I remember Roy Underhill of The Woodwright's Shop talking in one episode about the superior strength of fast-grown hickory and doing a strength test with two different samples of wood. I think the guy in this video has missed something.
Wood workers have a lot of lore, but their beliefs are based on observing incomplete parts of a tree. They have no context as to where the wood came from. Hardwoods dont have the same obvious juvenile phase as softwoods, and basically 100% of hardwood lumber on the market came from medium to large size logs, vs softwoods where we utilize a ton of young trees for lumber. And yes, hardwoods DO produce softer wood when they are grown slowly--at an old age when it makes no sense to put more weight on the stem. It would make sense to reach the conclusions of woodworkers based on observations gathered from looking at isolated pieces of dimensional lumber sold on the market, but those conclusions are not accurate.
By the title of the video, I was expecting a comparison on the single variable of rate-of-growth, not an interspecies comparison or the age at harvest. Two trees of the same species, in the same heartiness zone, one which spent most of its life under the canopy of an old growth forest. And the other which spent its life as new growth on a clear-cut lot. The comparison should be based on the actual numbers of bending moment strength. Then we can know if modern wood is just as good as the wood our ancestors were privileged to consume. Will we ever see that again? If we do it will take more than 400 years to recreate that quality of wood, 200 years to create the old growth forest and 200 years for the next generation to grow up in the shade of it.
This is why it is so important to think about it in terms of a tree's ability to survive and not our pre-conceived economic biases: When a tree is grown in dense conditions, it doesn't have to worry about structure. The trees around it work both as wind breaks and literally as a brake, as trees can transfer some of their kinetic energy to others as their crowns push against each other. Why would it build up structure when its primary concern would be growing up to get more sunlight? Now think of a tree standing alone in a clearing. It has to withstand every unimpeded force with no help (thus also growing at peak capacity with full sinlight). Wouldn't this tree have to build itself up more to survive? That's exactly what we see. Open-standing trees have a completely different shape and structure to protect themselves. That includes more taper for a lower center of mass, a higher height to diameter ratio, and denser or lighter wood depending on the age. And when we harvest trees, its the low density stands that see the least amount of post-harvest windthrow, but densely-grown stands can literally be destroyed by a single thunderstorm post-harvest if the silviculturist isnt careful. Anecdotally, these are also usually the stands with the most rot, as the rot begins to grow faster than the growth rings. There is simply no truth to this "old growth is best" meme. That's why the picture shown had to compare two completely different species--that's the only way to make it true.
@@thetimberlandinvestor What I was trying to say is not that “old growth” is better, but that old growth canopies create the environment for ”slow growth” wood. I think most people intuitively and empirically know that when you go to Home Depot and select the 2x4’s which have a tight grain vs the faster-growing 2x4’s, that they will be more dense, heavier, straighter, more-stable and most importantly- stronger. It’s a simple test to get 2 samples like the picture you showed (but of the same species), support them on the ends, load the center and measure deflection. Let's see the stress-strain curves where the only variable is growth rate. I really like Tom Wessels of TH-cam’s New England Forests. He claims that some of the oldest trees in the forest are short little trees which spend their life with incredibly slow growth rates while under the dense canopy of larger trees. Often these trees are actually fed by the larger trees through root-grafting. These trees would sit in that slow growth rate for years and years until the opportunity comes when tall tree dies and opens up a sunspot on the ground, then the growth rate would take off. These trees were once sought out for their high strength for making tool handles and other high stress applications. I have heard, and seen, that on Mount Washington in the spaces between rocks that there are oak trees whose base diameter is 2-3 inches and have been core sampled to be 400 years old . The intense wind and weather keep them from ever poking their heads up above their rock shelters. I'll bet you that that piece of oak is incredibly strong. Imagine 800 growth rings in a three-inch diameter piece of wood.
Yes, 2x4s with large growth rings will be weaker--but only because of the age of the tree when the wood was grown. If you compare wood on the outside of a slow-grown 20" spruce vs fast-grown 20" spruce, the strength would be the same, otherwise we would be seeing fast-grown trees more prone to windthrow, but in fact we see the exact opposite. And yes, this has been studied scientifically. It has been consistently shown there is no significant difference in density or grain angle. The only problems that have ever arisen have come from poor genetic selection of planting programs when that science was still in its infancy. The trees Tom Wessel is talking about are trees genetically adapted to that environment (we call them shade tolerant) like sugar maple, red spruce, etc. Most trees would just die in that environment. And when these shade tolerant trees are under a canopy, they don't actually put on any volume. They just grow tall because the survival impetus is to reach the sun (I have a video on this called 'how trees think without a brain'). Once they have an opening and have both energy and reason to put on diameter growth, their growth rates and wood quality is the exact same as a tree grown openly from the beginning, putting aside the issue of branches, which is very real. The idea that the mount washington oaks are stronger is still based on the myth that growth rings produce strength. It's just not true. Most mountain wood is usually of exceptionally poor quality. They are stunted and stressed from excessive drainage, low nutrients, and intense weather. Plus, they tend to be genetically isolated, making poor genetics more prominent. Because of that, they are usually warped, twisted, and full of compression wood. Perfecting their structure doesnt solve their environmental problems. And notably you have people in the comments saying the exact opposite--that they were told fast growing hardwood is actually better. It's just lore.
I spoke to a Veneer Buyer and former Forester in Western Maine who indicated that his European clients wanted veneer logs with tight growth rings and that our practice of releasing the tree canopy with selective thinning while generating good growth of saw logs was not conducive to growing veneer quality logs. Great channel!
🌲Get my free guide to DIY forest Management: thetimberlandinvestor.com/how-to-read-your-forest-an-intro-to-diy-forest-management
🍁Join SilviCultural for FREE today: silvicultural.com/sign-up/
Dude, I love these videos. You present such clear, compelling cases in an interesting way. Keep 'em coming!
Well...I'm another commenter with over 40 plus years in the world of traditional woodworking (et al professions) that also has worked as a Sawyer, Arborist, and I'm still a traditional Timberwright who sadly gave up on debating folks regarding this topic unless they are one of my students or giving a client bad information....OLD GROWTH...IS NOT STRONGER...at all...PERIOD...!!!...It can be denser, and it can be more rot resistant in some species...It can also have other modules of resistance from a engineering perspective depending on how it is milled, processed and depending on species. This topic goes along with the nonsense that trees are cut down in winter because they have less sap which is also too common myth often repeated even in books by "experts" (???)...Thanks for a great and informative video...let the debate comments begin...for all the "trolls" and armchair ultracrepidarian experts bond to say otherwise...LOL!!!
I am an aspiring small-time Forest owner and Forster. This was very informative, thank you
As a carpenter, its been my observation over the past 40 years that the tighter grain from slow, old growth is stronger than faster growing trees that have larger growth rings
I don't doubt it, but that's because the faster growing wood has been harvested from younger trees.
Wood implies a manufactured product, old growth implies a long lived organism such as a tree. Using a 2x4 with wide growth rings from a young tree versus a 2x4 cut from an older tree or the outside diameter of that tree is a different comparison.
The actual quality of wood has a lot to do with what you are going to do with it. While tulip poplar isn’t the strongest of woods, I live in a late 1800s post and beam farmhouse built with it. I completely renovated it and found that the only place the poplar was failing to do its job was the second floor joists, which had numerous structural faults. However I consider this to a large extent the fault of the builders, since I don’t know many woods that in 2x8 form would be up to 130 years of supporting a second floor with a 21-foot span. The basic frame and rafters remain as true as the day they were erected. Since I live in the middle of a poplar forest, I've had a number of large poplars milled for constructing out buildings and they are doing just fine. Would I prefer Douglas Fir....hell yes, but there is a lot to be said for using what you have.
That's really good to know. I think the emphasis on 'the best' species is because of industry optimizing for production and uniformity across their distribution - if it was all homebuilders using what they have nearby you'd see A LOT more variation.
Tulip poplars are completely unrelated to real poplars (e.g. aspen) though so it's not surprising your tulip poplar wood performed well (although does the name tulip poplar come from similarity in wood between tulip poplar and poplar?).
In saying that, I've heard that there are black poplar beams in timber-framed buildings in the UK that are hundreds of years old. I think if you can keep rot and bugs out of it, the lifespan of timber is really just down to strength
Great comment. For others that were wondering as I was, tulip poplar is not actually a poplar (rather a member of the magnolia family). These have a way better quality than the aspen poplar Zach mentions in the video.
Tulip poplar is also the tallest tree east of the Mississippi. Many of the trees go for over 100 feet without limbs or defects. It would also be used for ~75ft ferry boats for keels on occasion simply due to its length and large diameter and the old growth was know to be be very resistant to rot and that
Great video and very good description of how trees grow!
Would love for you to travel to/do a video on west coast style forest. Like along the coast were I live here in Oregon.
It’s fun to see the similarities and differences between east coast and west coast forests. Not only in the trees themselves but also the logging practices.
You really should come see the west coast forests, if you haven’t already.
It's definitely on my list!
When you get in a planning mood please reach out to me. I don’t know how this works but you seem to have it figured out.
I have a few suggestions of places to visit and have a few contacts in my area. (Mid-Valley/western Oregon)
The Timber Company I contract for is always having tree farm tours and overall are good people.
how the trees are sawed and how the milled and dried dimension lumber is assembled into building components and how the house is designed to use the available wood resources is a key to maximizing the utility of available wood resources.
The message is - A palmful of tree seeds placed in the up reached hand of the small child - The promise of a home of their own. A little help along The Way. With time, the promise of a home of their own - fulfilled.
Very insightful. Great explanation on age, growth, density and timber quality
Interesting column in the Sept/Oct 2024 issue of Wooden Boat magazine by Dr. Richard Jagels that addresses this topic. Some hardwood species produce superior wood when grown faster.
That fits with the understanding I've had. My understanding has been that the wood from hardwood species is stronger when the trees were able to grow faster (and the growth rings are larger) but that the reverse is true of softwood species. I remember Roy Underhill of The Woodwright's Shop talking in one episode about the superior strength of fast-grown hickory and doing a strength test with two different samples of wood. I think the guy in this video has missed something.
Wood workers have a lot of lore, but their beliefs are based on observing incomplete parts of a tree. They have no context as to where the wood came from. Hardwoods dont have the same obvious juvenile phase as softwoods, and basically 100% of hardwood lumber on the market came from medium to large size logs, vs softwoods where we utilize a ton of young trees for lumber. And yes, hardwoods DO produce softer wood when they are grown slowly--at an old age when it makes no sense to put more weight on the stem.
It would make sense to reach the conclusions of woodworkers based on observations gathered from looking at isolated pieces of dimensional lumber sold on the market, but those conclusions are not accurate.
Great video!
All they want on our property is pulp wood, we have hardwoods but they are difficult to get to.
I would think just as prevalent as the myth of pine firewood being more dangerous, yes? TFP!
I think for red pine to make a pole it needs to have at least 8 growth rings for at least the last inch to meet spec but dont quote me on that😂😂😂
good vid
By the title of the video, I was expecting a comparison on the single variable of rate-of-growth, not an interspecies comparison or the age at harvest. Two trees of the same species, in the same heartiness zone, one which spent most of its life under the canopy of an old growth forest. And the other which spent its life as new growth on a clear-cut lot. The comparison should be based on the actual numbers of bending moment strength. Then we can know if modern wood is just as good as the wood our ancestors were privileged to consume. Will we ever see that again? If we do it will take more than 400 years to recreate that quality of wood, 200 years to create the old growth forest and 200 years for the next generation to grow up in the shade of it.
This is why it is so important to think about it in terms of a tree's ability to survive and not our pre-conceived economic biases: When a tree is grown in dense conditions, it doesn't have to worry about structure. The trees around it work both as wind breaks and literally as a brake, as trees can transfer some of their kinetic energy to others as their crowns push against each other. Why would it build up structure when its primary concern would be growing up to get more sunlight?
Now think of a tree standing alone in a clearing. It has to withstand every unimpeded force with no help (thus also growing at peak capacity with full sinlight). Wouldn't this tree have to build itself up more to survive? That's exactly what we see. Open-standing trees have a completely different shape and structure to protect themselves. That includes more taper for a lower center of mass, a higher height to diameter ratio, and denser or lighter wood depending on the age.
And when we harvest trees, its the low density stands that see the least amount of post-harvest windthrow, but densely-grown stands can literally be destroyed by a single thunderstorm post-harvest if the silviculturist isnt careful. Anecdotally, these are also usually the stands with the most rot, as the rot begins to grow faster than the growth rings.
There is simply no truth to this "old growth is best" meme. That's why the picture shown had to compare two completely different species--that's the only way to make it true.
@@thetimberlandinvestor What I was trying to say is not that “old growth” is better, but that old growth canopies create the environment for ”slow growth” wood. I think most people intuitively and empirically know that when you go to Home Depot and select the 2x4’s which have a tight grain vs the faster-growing 2x4’s, that they will be more dense, heavier, straighter, more-stable and most importantly- stronger.
It’s a simple test to get 2 samples like the picture you showed (but of the same species), support them on the ends, load the center and measure deflection. Let's see the stress-strain curves where the only variable is growth rate.
I really like Tom Wessels of TH-cam’s New England Forests. He claims that some of the oldest trees in the forest are short little trees which spend their life with incredibly slow growth rates while under the dense canopy of larger trees. Often these trees are actually fed by the larger trees through root-grafting. These trees would sit in that slow growth rate for years and years until the opportunity comes when tall tree dies and opens up a sunspot on the ground, then the growth rate would take off. These trees were once sought out for their high strength for making tool handles and other high stress applications.
I have heard, and seen, that on Mount Washington in the spaces between rocks that there are oak trees whose base diameter is 2-3 inches and have been core sampled to be 400 years old . The intense wind and weather keep them from ever poking their heads up above their rock shelters. I'll bet you that that piece of oak is incredibly strong. Imagine 800 growth rings in a three-inch diameter piece of wood.
Yes, 2x4s with large growth rings will be weaker--but only because of the age of the tree when the wood was grown. If you compare wood on the outside of a slow-grown 20" spruce vs fast-grown 20" spruce, the strength would be the same, otherwise we would be seeing fast-grown trees more prone to windthrow, but in fact we see the exact opposite. And yes, this has been studied scientifically. It has been consistently shown there is no significant difference in density or grain angle. The only problems that have ever arisen have come from poor genetic selection of planting programs when that science was still in its infancy.
The trees Tom Wessel is talking about are trees genetically adapted to that environment (we call them shade tolerant) like sugar maple, red spruce, etc. Most trees would just die in that environment. And when these shade tolerant trees are under a canopy, they don't actually put on any volume. They just grow tall because the survival impetus is to reach the sun (I have a video on this called 'how trees think without a brain'). Once they have an opening and have both energy and reason to put on diameter growth, their growth rates and wood quality is the exact same as a tree grown openly from the beginning, putting aside the issue of branches, which is very real.
The idea that the mount washington oaks are stronger is still based on the myth that growth rings produce strength. It's just not true. Most mountain wood is usually of exceptionally poor quality. They are stunted and stressed from excessive drainage, low nutrients, and intense weather. Plus, they tend to be genetically isolated, making poor genetics more prominent. Because of that, they are usually warped, twisted, and full of compression wood. Perfecting their structure doesnt solve their environmental problems.
And notably you have people in the comments saying the exact opposite--that they were told fast growing hardwood is actually better. It's just lore.
I spoke to a Veneer Buyer and former Forester in Western Maine who indicated that his European clients wanted veneer logs with tight growth rings and that our practice of releasing the tree canopy with selective thinning while generating good growth of saw logs was not conducive to growing veneer quality logs. Great channel!
Fallout New Vegas certainly is a videogame.
🇺🇸🇩🇰☕😀👍
Jack Pine must be a very dumb tree then
Jack Pine, like aspen, is heavily adapted to disturbances like fires. Its ecological considerations are different than most.