Same here. It would also explain why ricks of wood that should hve been fully cured a year ago will still be "working and settling" a year later.
Harry K
Standing Dead Or Live And Then Cut
- Thread starter flyboy553
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
Same here. It would also explain why ricks of wood that should hve been fully cured a year ago will still be "working and settling" a year later.
Harry K
Yep, which is why heating with wood is carbon neutral...in the long term. But not short term. Nature would release that carbon eventually but what youburn in hours would take nature years.
Harry K
haveawoody
Addicted to ArboristSite
I think the chainsaw tells all.
Cutting standing dead pretty much any wood is much tougher than it's green version.
It must to some extent be true for all species but show up more on only some, i think the ones that are high moisture or high air space are the ones that it shows most on.
Maybe as standing dead it shrinks in to become more dense, split green it shrinks little and dries before the effect.
Punky dead need not apply since green wood can also be punky.
Cutting standing dead pretty much any wood is much tougher than it's green version.
It must to some extent be true for all species but show up more on only some, i think the ones that are high moisture or high air space are the ones that it shows most on.
Maybe as standing dead it shrinks in to become more dense, split green it shrinks little and dries before the effect.
Punky dead need not apply since green wood can also be punky.
Last edited:
Chris-PA
Where the Wild Things Are
I agree. The real problem is that we're releasing incredible amounts of carbon that have not been in the atmosphere for millions of years. Compared to that, the carbon stored in trees in the last few decades has no effect, nor does cow farts. Most of the ways we can capture the flows of solar energy involve binding it up with carbon atoms, which is what trees and cows and us are. Most people don't grasp the ideas of energy flows and entropy, and how we make use of those flows, and so have trouble distinguishing between the short term and long term effects. You can't release all that stored carbon and then expect to make up for it by limiting the real-time flows.
flyboy553
Oakaholic
Glad to see all the comments! Even the ones that are a tad off topic! I just wanted to get a conversation going on a subject with out a ton of argument! So far, so good!
I didn't expect a definitive answer to this, as I don't really think there is one. But it does and has gotten people to think!
And even brought up lots of other things to think about!! :msp_ohmy:
Ted
I didn't expect a definitive answer to this, as I don't really think there is one. But it does and has gotten people to think!
And even brought up lots of other things to think about!! :msp_ohmy:
Ted
Yeah... ain't that the truth... we're even talking entropy :rolleyes2:
Arbonaut
Go Climb It
Wood cut when the sap is flowing and leaves are on has the advantage of drawing the tannins and sap (Sugars) out of the leaves. She'll cure slower with more nutrients to draw from. More complex chemistry. I don't know why they log in the summer, but the tops from this operation make better firewood than the ones from conventional logging.
Standing dead is the best from an ecological standpoint. But old guy was right, the bastard.
Standing dead is the best from an ecological standpoint. But old guy was right, the bastard.
Arbonaut
Go Climb It
I wouldn't worry about carbon.
Uranium...???
Uranium...???
That cutting snags is more environmentally correct is a general and incorrect statement. When you cut down a snag, you may be cutting down some critter's home. You are removing future debris and denning material from the woods. You are removing material that will add to the organic nutrients of the soil.
Cutting green trees MAY be more correct, depending on the circumstances. For instance, I am taking home green Doug-fir because I am thinning a stand of trees--making the leave trees grow faster and improving the health of the stand. The trees were planted. The property owner wants the slash piled and burned because of fire danger.
Just pointing out that there are different methods of thinking.
Cutting green trees MAY be more correct, depending on the circumstances. For instance, I am taking home green Doug-fir because I am thinning a stand of trees--making the leave trees grow faster and improving the health of the stand. The trees were planted. The property owner wants the slash piled and burned because of fire danger.
Just pointing out that there are different methods of thinking.
Chris-PA
Where the Wild Things Are
True, but like everything else, one size fits all solutions usually don't really fit everything.
In reality there is no waste in nature, everything is used by something - so when we use the "waste" we're denying it to something else.
Why is it automatically assumed that something done, or used, by humans isn't "natural"? Are we not the product of nature? Humans are just as much the product of nature as any other living thing... so anything we do, or use, is also nature. Good lord, if a Wood Duck moves into a tree hollow, isn't that denying the use of that hollow to any other "something"? Darn right there ain't any waste in nature, and mankind just does what everything else does. Mankind uses what the natural world provides just like anything else... and uses it more efficiently than any other thing!
Cripes!
WoodHeatWarrior is simply stating another point of view. I don't consider it insulting or denying that people are a part of the ecosystem. We have tree farms, for example, and those stands of timber that have been planted need thinning to get past the doghair stage. Doghair is that spindly hard to walk through overstocked stands of saplings that aren't very healthy looking because there are too many trees competing for water, sunlight and soil nutrients.
Out here, trees are planted heavier than nature would do it. Weyco has studies showing that doing so causes trees to grow better--it has something to do with sunlight bouncing off nearby seedlings and onto other seedlings. So, we do a precommercial thin when they start to crowd each other out. And yet another thinning may take place when they reach a merchantable size. So, humans are using the timber and managing it and are part of the ecosystem---right?
We don't have to use every needle off the tree because what we leave in the woods here--tops, broken off chunks, etc. will decompose and add nutrients. We don't consider that to be waste.
Out here, trees are planted heavier than nature would do it. Weyco has studies showing that doing so causes trees to grow better--it has something to do with sunlight bouncing off nearby seedlings and onto other seedlings. So, we do a precommercial thin when they start to crowd each other out. And yet another thinning may take place when they reach a merchantable size. So, humans are using the timber and managing it and are part of the ecosystem---right?
We don't have to use every needle off the tree because what we leave in the woods here--tops, broken off chunks, etc. will decompose and add nutrients. We don't consider that to be waste.
Arbonaut
Go Climb It
*DING*
He nails it.
I refine it to ash. Then the little soil critters can have 'em some 5% potash. That keeps my lawn healthy so my little critters can go out and practice wrestling and tumbling and play ball.
Chris-PA
Where the Wild Things Are
I made no comment at all about whether our use of stuff was natural or not, I said there was no waste in nature. There are plenty of stories about how we can make use of this "waste" or that - the non-food portions of crops to make fuel, etc. Slowp's comment was that when we cut a snag we're preventing that material from being used by whatever would have used it, and that is true. It's not an issue of whether our use is natural or a judgment of good or evil, it's just a matter of impact. We can divert only so much of that material for our own uses before it starts to have a detrimental effect on the ecosystem it was part of. And when those stop working then we run out of "waste" to divert. I think it's less impact to get my firewood from deadfall and blowdowns, but I don't take everything that falls either. Especially crotches and difficult stuff, I just leave it.
Last edited:
Hmmm.... my apologies your way Warrior, I do tend to get a bit crotchety at times.
mtfallsmikey
Addicted to ArboristSite
Well, I'm cutting standing live ones down, because of thinning out trash trees, overgrown brush, etc. A lot of the live ones I've cut were starting to deteriorate/die anyway, due to the age of the trees, and the poor soil where I live.
Similar threads
