roadmutt Posted August 31, 2015 Report Share Posted August 31, 2015 I wonder how much a board foot it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodbutcher74 Posted August 31, 2015 Report Share Posted August 31, 2015 Sometimes you wonder how there can be any trees left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryMcK Posted August 31, 2015 Report Share Posted August 31, 2015 All stickered too by the looks of it by alternating the board direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wdwerker Posted August 31, 2015 Report Share Posted August 31, 2015 We have more timber on the stump (growing) than we did at the turn of the century(1900). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stampy Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 Found this in the Seattle underground museum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weithman5 Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 looks like a rickety stack of cards about to fall over Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brendon_t Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 We have more timber on the stump (growing) than we did at the turn of the century(1900). steve, what is that information based on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpt life Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) Brendon, I don't remember the last time I saw the source material, but this was part of a college study I did. Steel use in building increased exponentially with the industrial revolution in the 1880s. Take a look at when timber industries became regulated and also when stick rather than beam construction became the norm. Now look at states that used to be short grass prairie and are now partially forested developments and derelict farm lots. While much is immature, there are more trees now than in 1900 in the U.S. The downside is that some timber work just moved north and south and regulation there has been slow. Everywhere I have lived I have planted. It is not a complete picture but a clear snapshot. No link to dataThe data I pulled 15 years ago was in a bound forestry journal. The interweb was a baby... Edited September 2, 2015 by C Shaffer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodbutcher74 Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 I don't know about other parts of the country but around here the farmers can't stand having a single tree on their property. They are constantly pushing out every fence line and every patch of trees within site. Then they complain about the erosion and gulleys that wash into their fields when we get the down pours in the fall and spring. I'm not a farmer and don't make my living feeding the world but I would think a few well placed patches of timber would help the future generations. Just my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brendon_t Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 Cool info C. I wasn't calling bs, just wondering where the statement came from since it seems unlikely with 20th century suburban sprawl.i really don't think residential trees should even be counted. Maybe if the oxygenation is being studied but residential trees do nothing for the commodity that is lumber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom King Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 Mills used to air dry lumber for a year before they kiln dried it. They would leave it stacked like this for that year. Kiln drying was a slow process that used burning sawdust from the mill as fuel. The last one around here that I know of went out of business in 1992. Before then, I could buy Yellow Pine 2x4s that were straight, and stayed straight. These days, they saw it, it goes into a kiln overnight, dress it in the morning, and put bands on the stack. No more straight pine 2x4s, or even 6's, 8's, or anything else. Pick straight stuff off the stack, and you'd still better let it set for a week, or some of it is sure to move.There's still plenty of timber around here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wdwerker Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 I think it was a Forrest Service statement.The railroads were using untreated ties and having to replace them at an alarming rate. Bridges needed constant maintenance too. Then they started using creosote I think, not sure of the timeline. In addition to the steel framing and masonry and all the other things listed above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vyrolan Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 i really don't think residential trees should even be counted. Maybe if the oxygenation is being studied but residential trees do nothing for the commodity that is lumber Do public property trees in urban areas count as "residential"? Almost any tree that is cut in Chicago from all the tree-lined streets or parks is turned into lumber. Ive not checked the place out but I know Mike on here buys from there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpt life Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 Steve, you bring up a local attraction for me with the reference to the railroad. My region has roads and rails lined with catalpa from railroad plantings designed to support the making of ties. I am not sure I have ever seen one harvested. Most are in the 60'+ range. In blossom they can be striking. With the other comments surrounding wind-rows, the blossom of locust tree farm wind-rows is another local occurance I enjoy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RPCV_Woodworker Posted September 4, 2015 Report Share Posted September 4, 2015 It really depends on the state. I don't have the exact figures handy, but the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was 98% deforested during the industrial revolution for coke production (wood becoming charcoal used to cook coal into coke). Of course, it wasn't all done at once, the total canopy staying around 13M acres, but it did eliminate pretty much all of the old growth timber. With the collapse of the steel industry, the migration of farming to more capital intense (and less environmentally sustainable) methods on the west coast, and urbanization the state has returned to almost 60% forest cover across the state (17M acres).I don't know about other parts of the country but around here the farmers can't stand having a single tree on their property. They are constantly pushing out every fence line and every patch of trees within site. Then they complain about the erosion and gulleys that wash into their fields when we get the down pours in the fall and spring. I'm not a farmer and don't make my living feeding the world but I would think a few well placed patches of timber would help the future generations. Just my opinion.This in particular pisses me off. I work in international development, specializing in the Ag sector, namely Agroforestry. There are tons of resources on the ecological value of adding trees to farming landscapes, ranging from reduced erosion, reduced fertilizer use, improved water quality, and secondary income generation. We even have land equivalency ratio studies proving that you get more by mixing these systems in than by doing either separately. But you know what you can't do with them? You can't get a government-subsidized $500K mega-tractor that is GPS guided with AC and a radio. You'd have to hire an actual human being and pay him. Sorry for the rant. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coop Posted September 4, 2015 Report Share Posted September 4, 2015 Rant On. I totally agree! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeslayer Posted September 7, 2015 Report Share Posted September 7, 2015 a study published in the journal Nature says that the earth has 3.04 trillion trees, based on 429,775 ground based measurements and satellite computer models. Yale forestry professor Thomas Crowther says before humans we had 5.6 trillion trees on earth, so the number now is about half of what it once was. he states that 15 billion trees are cut down each year and only 5 billion replanted, for a net loss of 10 billion trees per year, and says at this rate all of the trees on earth will be gone in 300 years. so i guess what we've learned here is get building stuff faster kids because we only have 300 years left Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.