🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Reed <robert@slipknot.rain.com> writes:

Robert> Actually, "managed" second growth timber generally has lesser
Robert> value than the ancient forest it replaces, especially when the
Robert> replacement is one of these fast growing, tailored species,
Robert> whose coarse grains (which result from the increased growth
Robert> rate) are less highly prised than the fine grained species
Robert> they replace.

There is a good example of this at the Redwood State Park along the
Avenue of the Giants in California.  In the interpretive center they
show the difference in ring pitch between an `old-growth' and a
second-growth.  The ratio is about 10 to 1.  I do not know what the
consequences are for the mechanical characteristics of the resulting
lumber, but the difference is certainly obvious to look at.

Closer to home (mine at least), next time you are hiking in the
Mt. Hood Nat'l Forest, check out the rings in the blown down timber
crossing the trail.  An average, sort of piddly looking 24-inch
diameter log is probably about 300 years old.

So, what _are_ the consequences on the mechanical properties of the
wood?  You may get the same volume in a shorter period of time, but
what about its strength?

-- 
Russell Senior
seniorr@teleport.com