26 ms·

Old vs. new growth trees and the wood products they make

365 points by Timothee 3y ago

nothercastle 3y ago
That’s why for structural applications glue laminate are popular.
DudeOpotomus 3y ago
This is also the case with guitars and other musical instruments (pianos, violins etc.). Old growth not only sounds better, it lasts longer and looks better. Salvaged redwood is one particular place that this really stands out. There is no VG Heart available these days. If you want good straight, heartwood, you have to salvage old lumber or scavenge the forest floor for old felled logs. When I see old houses in CA built from old growth redwood torn down and tossed into the landfill, it breaks me.
- downrightmike 3y ago
  Guitars made with soaked logs that have been in the great lakes for the last 100 years sound especially well because the cells get hollowed out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6EnWSwfQ7w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6EnWSwfQ7w
  - DudeOpotomus 3y ago
    Yeah, Sunken wood. Mostly used on electrics. Personally I cannot hear any difference in these guitars. But people seem to like them. Probably for the look...
    - brandall10 3y ago
      They're used in electrics? I've only heard about them in acoustics, ie. 'sinker' mahogany.
    - MSFT_Edging 3y ago
      Tonewood for electrics is mostly a myth anyway. Extremes might play a role but 99% of the time its almost entirely down to the pickups and picking hand. Acoustic guitars are a totally different ball game of course.
    - baerrie 3y ago
      https://youtu.be/n02tImce3AE?si=YWEWhrFWbQFAQOS4 https://youtu.be/n02tImce3AE?si=YWEWhrFWbQFAQOS4 Tone wood is bogus, don’t let anyone fool you. It is very beautiful on the other hand :)
  - nemo44x 3y ago
    Yeah I had a Martin Guitar made from "Sinker Mahogany" harvested from a river in Belize. Amazing to think that these were so plentiful that the British just let the ones that didn't make it sink to the bottom of the water. Literally hundreds if not thousands of them. It's absolutely beautiful wood for a guitar though, especially if paired with red pine for the top.
- jorts 3y ago
  There’s a YouTube video from the 50s or so showing them cutting down old growth redwoods. I tried watching it but couldn’t make it. Made me too emotional.
  - DudeOpotomus 3y ago
    With you on this one. It's impossible for me to fathom the thought of cutting down a tree that took 2000 years to grow. Let alone is so majestic! We humans are incredibly shortsighted. Today, we only have 2-5% of old growth trees left... and that's only because of people like you and me ( who care) fought to purchase them. Otherwise, someone would cut them down and sell them for a few bucks.
- greenie_beans 3y ago
  <3 yamaha nippon gakki red label from the 60s/70s
- duffyjp 3y ago
  Redwood is amazing. My dad has a picnic table with redwood boards he bought in the 1980s which is in basically perfect condition today despite living outside in Wisconsin the entire time.
  - ejb999 3y ago
    Have a set of outside porch furniture as well - that my wife had at her parent's house even before she was born - so the set is at least 58 years old, and besides having weathered a bit in color - are as good as new.
GenerWork 3y ago
>These old windows are structurally superior and can be restored instead of replaced. How do they deal with the superior energy efficiency of new windows? Even basic vinyl windows are better in terms of energy transfer, unless they're replacing the window frame with more modern equipment (factory made vinyl/aluminum) while keeping the original windows.
- sonar_un 3y ago
  He made a video not too long ago about old-school windows and some of the ways that they can be still efficient and beautiful. But the kinds of projects that he works on are not really "passive house" type buildings. https://youtu.be/hLbTpa9uEoY https://youtu.be/hLbTpa9uEoY
  - VHRanger 3y ago
    I mean, he puts vacuum-sealed glass on the performance version of the windows he makes. That's even better as a product than triple-glazed windows.
- onlypassingthru 3y ago
  It's a bit of a kludge but I've used exterior storm windows with old windows. It can make a big difference but doesn't compete with the efficiency of a modern vinyl argon filled double pane.
  - VHRanger 3y ago
    It actually does if your seals are good. Argon sealed double panes aren't magical in terms of R-values.
- anon291 3y ago
  I live in a 100 year old home with old windows. Storm windows work. Also, the panes are fairly easy to replace and if you want to put the money into it, I believe they make a double paned product you can replace the panes with. Despite the large initial investment, it's overall cheaper because you never need to replace. We've actually had a few panes broken, and it's dirt cheap since normal glass is cheap, and the pane replacement is a DIY-doable project (remove glaze, remove plane, place new pane, reglaze).
sonar_un 3y ago
I absolutely love watching Brent Hull videos and I am kind of shocked to see his page on HackerNews. For those of us who are into aesthetic design and back-to-roots craftsmanship, this is the guy to watch. He had a video a couple of years back on this exact subject. https://youtu.be/cWX4PgCFk7c https://youtu.be/cWX4PgCFk7c
- d0gsg0w00f 3y ago
  Came here to see if someone realized it was the same guy who did the videos. Love his stuff.
onlypassingthru 3y ago
SF Fire famously still uses old growth for their wooden ladders. https://gizmodo.com/inside-san-francisos-fire-department-where-ladders-are-1552279252 https://gizmodo.com/inside-san-francisos-fire-department-whe...
- buzzerbetrayed 3y ago
  My initial reaction to your comment was "Why are they using wood ladders at all?". Luckily I clicked and it's the first question answered in the article: > Wood is resilient in ways which aluminum—now standard for fire department ladders—can't even compare. "You know if you take an empty coke can and bend it three or four times and it tears really easy? That's what aluminum ladders will do," Braun says. "They have a seven to eight year lifespan, after which they need to be replaced." > Wooden ladders, on the other hand, can last indefinitely. "You can stress wood right up to its failure point a million times; as long as you don't go beyond that, it will come right back to where it was. They can be involved in a fire for a pretty long time; after that, it's just a matter of sanding off the top coat of material then inspecting the wood. If it's good we'll re-oil it, revarnish it, and put it back in service."
- mikysco 3y ago
  Loved reading this. Here's an archived version that still has the photos: https://web.archive.org/web/20140713012712/https://gizmodo.com/inside-san-francisos-fire-department-where-ladders-are-1552279252 https://web.archive.org/web/20140713012712/https://gizmodo.c...
rbanffy 3y ago
This hints that there is market space for managed forests with slower-growth trees that would yield wood better suited for high-end woodworking. Assuming a 3-to-1 ring density from current fast-growth to this slower variety, one could expect prices similarly higher accounting for the longer growth plus financial cost of the land.
- tivert 3y ago
  > This hints that there is market space for managed forests with slower-growth trees that would yield wood better suited for high-end woodworking. Assuming a 3-to-1 ring density from current fast-growth to this slower variety, one could expect prices similarly higher accounting for the longer growth plus financial cost of the land. We're probably talking about trees that would more than a human generation (and perhaps several) to reach marketable size. There's market demand for consuming that kind of old growth wood, but it's wager that it's impossible for the market to produce it. As an institution, it's just too short sighted.
  - buzzerbetrayed 3y ago
    How does the wine industry overcome this with really old bottles of wine? Who are the people that are preserving bottles of wine for 30 years before selling them? And why wouldn't there be a market for a similar thing in the lumber industry?
    - candiddevmike 3y ago
      A bottle of wine doesn't require at least 50 sqft of open land
    - tivert 3y ago
      > How does the wine industry overcome this with really old bottles of wine? Who are the people that are preserving bottles of wine for 30 years before selling them? And why wouldn't there be a market for a similar thing in the lumber industry? 30 years is less than a human lifetime. Also, that's not the time you need for old growth, it's what you need for regular timber: https://texasfarmbureau.org/timbers-a-crop-that-takes-years-to-harvest/ https://texasfarmbureau.org/timbers-a-crop-that-takes-years-...: > The industry is doing better now. Timber farmers plant trees, thin them out every few years to allow the better trees to grow and then harvest when trees are around 25-35 years old. They then harvest, replant and start the process all over.
gmuslera 3y ago
What about flammability? If "new" wood is somewhat less flammable because sap or something like that, replacing old forests with new ones, moving the operations of wood harvesting from forest to forest in a sustainable way may get a bigger time window for freshness and lower a bit the risks of the captured carbon by trees/forests burning down (something that is getting more probable as the world warms up, a positive feedback loop), while getting better quality wood in the process. Of course, a lot of uses of wood is burning it down for home heating, that won't be in the equation, but is something that may be phased down. And not sure how this goes for other uses of wood like making paper.
- VHRanger 3y ago
  Old wood is much less flammable because of the wood density. Timber framed buildings are considered somewhat fire-retardant compared to stud-built buildings. As the exterior of a timber burns, the blackened part insulates the interior of the timber from the fire. That said, timber construction isn't as sustainable as stick-built. But we should preserve old growth wood wherever we find it.
MiguelVieira 3y ago
It's interesting to point out that the wood has tighter rings and is more durable not necessarily because it came from old trees, but because the old growth trees grew in mature forests where they were in the shade of other trees, and thus grew more slowly and had tighter rings. Trees growing in full sunlight grow quickly and have more widely spaced rings. Balsa wood for example, which is very light and soft, comes from balsa trees that have evolved to grow very quickly in sunny gaps caused by fallen trees in tropical forests.
- fireflash38 3y ago
  Great explanation of why certain species of trees are both fast growers and 'fast fallers'. Tulip Poplar trees for example are often first/second growth, and they are also often the trees that will break/fall during storms too. They trade that fast growth for durability it seems.
  - grosswait 3y ago
    In my observation, tulip poplars, get a bad rap. They do drop limbs routinely, but I don’t see them getting knocked over by wind. I see pine trees blow over the majority of the time. Of course, different forest composition might change the odds, but for my area tulip poplars seem pretty strong
- njarboe 3y ago
  The main reason old growth trees have tight rings is not that the tree is growing slowly (in mass) but that the diameter and height of the trunk is so large that the rings are very narrow. A 200ft tall tree with a 8ft diameter trunk with a 50 foot sunny top will put on a lot of mass but it is spread out over the surface of the truck. The added ring each year will be thin. Old growth forests are rare and I think people don't have a good idea of how big old growth trees can be. The old growth redwoods are admired for their size but other trees also get very large. At a small museum in the northern Sierra foothills I saw a photo of a 16ft diameter Douglas fir. It's too bad none of these trees survived (that I have found). Many pictures of logging trucks with just one log on them. You do definitely get thin rings when the trees are shaded but the monster old growth trees, the thin rings are usually due to the size of the trunk.
tehcodez 3y ago
There's a wonderful podcast, Shannon's Lumber Industry update that discusses this topic in detail, I can't track down exactly which episode. The point he makes is, yes, sure they are "better" lumber, but lumber can also be a sustainable resource. We've done a MUCH better job producing construction lumber (what those two-by material is used for in the vast majority of cases) in a sustainable manner. That old framing lumber came from just demolishing old growth trees. You can still find comparable lumber, this is what fine furniture makers do. https://www.lumberupdate.com/about/ https://www.lumberupdate.com/about/
- thekid314 3y ago
  Thanks, I never expected to subscribe to a lumber podcast, but I am now.
Hippocrates 3y ago
Pretty interesting to see the difference in the grain. I do notice the softness of the wall studs when I hang anything in my newer place. Still "they dont build em like they used to" is a bit... wrong. Nimby's or "old heads" as we call em, badmouth new builds for their quality. I've lived in extremely well-built 18th century homes, and now one that is less than a decade old and I greatly, greatly prefer the latter. Newer features I appreciate are engineered joists (stronger, less creaking floors and noise transmission), doors and double pane windows that seal out air and noise, good insulation, central HVAC, PEX plumbing, neutral wiring, and the fact that if I need to fix or replace anything, it can be easily ordered if not found at a hardware store. Yeah, maybe some of these materials are not as "sturdy" to the touch and maybe they have a shorter life-span, but I am positive they work better and are cheaper/easier to maintain.
- eropple 3y ago
  > Yeah, maybe some of these materials are not as "sturdy" to the touch and maybe they have a shorter life-span, but I am positive they work better and are cheaper/easier to replace. They are cheaper, they are easier to replace, and at the moment (wood nerd hat on) we genuinely do not know if they have a shorter lifespan. But it's very likely that they do not, in part because of the construction around them. These concerns are not, in my experience, something that you really hear people who spend much time around structural work bring up. It's mostly a "back in the day" thing. For furniture, on the other hand--things are different. But dimensional lumber as practiced today is a modern miracle.
  - Hippocrates 3y ago
    I'm definitely no wood nerd but, yeah, I wouldn't intuit that a softer, new-growth wood would just disintegrate in 100 years time, or much more, for that matter. As you allude to the material around it, we now have engineered, weather resistant sheathing, house wrap, and vinyl or metal siding, or some such very weather-proof stuff. Most of the issues I have had with "old growth" wood in my 17th century homes were just due to water penetrating where it should not, rotting that wood, and then causing me a headache trying replace it with a similar material.
thekid314 3y ago
Here's a story about Old Growth forests in New England that I shot for Smithsonian Magazine. The most interesting part was seeing archive photos of New England when it was basically clear cut for firewood and pasture. Today we think of it as wooded, but that is relatively recent: https://www.daviddegner.com/photography/discovering-old-growth-forests-in-new-england/ https://www.daviddegner.com/photography/discovering-old-grow...
- soperj 3y ago
  It was wooded before the clear cutting.
- beastman82 3y ago
  Is this true in NH/ME/VT as well? I see western MA in your article. (btw it's cool thanks for sharing)
  - fireflash38 3y ago
    Very much true. Just look at the undergrowth, and the types of trees.
- peteradio 3y ago
  Very beautiful shoot. Some of those trees were rather huge! Wonder what the biggest looked like in the old growth.
  - nemo44x 3y ago
    They looked like this: https://ravenwhimsy.tumblr.com/post/174022634675 https://ravenwhimsy.tumblr.com/post/174022634675 And to think, they were just used for any old thing back then. This lumber doesn't really exist anymore other than reclamations.
    - grosswait 3y ago
      That’s a Douglas for – not native to New England
hfghfgh 3y ago
That banner is so bad I can't read the article at all.
anon291 3y ago
I live in a 100 year old home in the PNW and I've broken dozens of 'wood' rated drill bits trying to drill. It can take upwards of 10 minutes to drill through a single 2x4 stud in my house. It's honestly insane that they're considered the same material. I do a lot of hobby wood working and the old growth pine seems to have more in common with ipe wood and the like rather than the stuff you buy in the stores. I'm holding on to all that old wood like it's gold.
- icameron 3y ago
  Same here, I gave up trying to use a spade bit for drilling that old wood. It’s impact driver and speed bit or auger bits, or bust. Nothing quite like the smell of old lumber!
- Aloha 3y ago
  There is also another survival bias factor. Wood continues to cure and harden (and shrink) when it's put into place in construction - in 70-80 years, It'll be just as hard as the wood in a house from 1890.
  - VHRanger 3y ago
    Incorrect. As the OP post shows, if you cut down a 300 year old tree it won't cure the same as a young-cut SPF piece of wood. It simply can't - it's effectively not the same material. Just in terms of growth rings, wood density, heartwood content, etc.
- VHRanger 3y ago
  I have a 1870s house in Ontario, lots of old growth red pine. This stuff is really heavy and resistant, you keep it indeed.
- specialist 3y ago
  Are those spade bits? Meaning flat with two cutting edges. My home's framing is mostly old growth. I bought an auger bit for rewiring. It's looks like a corkscrew. I won't ever use a spade bit (for making holes in framing) again. My son then brought over his hole hog (?) power drill. It's scary powerful. Mosdef practice with some scrap wood first.
Aurornis 3y ago
> If you have used finger jointed wood, you see the effects of new vs. old wood. Starting in the 1970’s lumber manufacturers began using finger-jointed wood to compensate for poor wood quality; the warping, twisting, and knots in their new growth wood. They took a board of wood, cut out the defects and then rejoined the pieces with finger joints. Finger joining wood in doors windows, moldings, and framing lumber is necessary because the new growth wood quality isn’t as good. Old growth timber is generally free of knots while plantation grown wood is riddled with them. For normal construction tasks, I don't care one bit about this one bit. And you shouldn't either. We've found more sustainable ways to quickly grow trees and use machines to turn them into usable construction lumber. This is amazing! Basic construction doesn't need to have the finest, densest, knot-free lumber. It just needs to work and hold up for a useful lifetime. We don't use this lumber for windows or weather-exposed areas. It's placed neatly inside of your dry home and protected from the elements. Combining multiple boards into a single, more stable board isn't unique to cheap new growth lumber. It's a technique that is even used with more expensive woods to produce a hybrid board that has better properties than could be easily achieved with a single board. Modern adhesives can be stronger than the wood itself, so the existence of a joint shouldn't scare people. If you're doing a high end woodworking project, you're generally not using this type of wood anyway. You're picking a hardwood or one of the fancier softwoods. I love old growth lumber and its properties, but modern construction lumber and the processes that produce it are a great accomplishment. Regardless, it doesn't matter because old growth lumber is a very finite resource and it's not repeatable to reproduce forever anyway.
- coldbrewed 3y ago
  Modern building construction is cheaper and doesn't demand old growth timber, but it's also much less resilient during a house fire. We use smaller dimensional lumber, it has less densely packed tree rings causing it to burn faster, and we use I beams made out of 2x3s and OSB instead of solid lumber. A house made in the 30s could survive a long time before collapse in a fire; what we have now collapses much faster. There are definite benefits to modern techniques that are less resource intensive and protecting our remaining old growth forests is important, but we're sacrificing a lot of valuable properties as well.
waltbosz 3y ago
I group up in an area where all the houses were built in the 1930s. All old growth lumber. At one point, the University of Delaware was buying up houses on my street, including one directly across the street from mine. A crew came along an took the house apart and loaded the lumber onto a flatbed truck. I'm not sure where the lumber went to, but it was pretty cool to watch. They just left the lot empty with grass and a few trees.
User23 3y ago
The sad thing is there’s no good reason not to have 100 year wood readily available. Suppose you have 100 acres. Every year you harvest one, replant it, and move on to the next. In a century you’ll have an annual harvest of excellent wood. But what will happen instead is whoever ends up with the land will clear cut it, take the big payday, and plant fast growing junk if they replant at all.
- ejb999 3y ago
  worse yet, there is a very vocal set of people (many on HN) that want to force you to develop your land in order to build more housing by imposing unaffordable land taxes on undeveloped land - very short sighted. for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38276883 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38276883
  - bluGill 3y ago
    If you have land in a city then you are wasting it by not developing it, and that harms the city. If you have rural land though there isn't any reason not to grow something for long term.
  - ipqk 3y ago
    Yeah, so short-sighted that we now live in the worst housing crisis in history, with rampant homelessness due to lack of housing and people barely being able to afford to live.
ortusdux 3y ago
In my opinion, living old grown trees >> old growth wood > new growth wood. Modern 'new growth' forestry is very sustainable, but old growth poaching still happens quite often in the US. I have friends on the regulatory side of logging and I've see illegal activity first hand. I know that this article is not advocating for the logging of old growth trees, but focusing on the idea that 'old growth is better' can cause customers to value it enough that the extra profit incentivizes illegal harvesting. Personally, I would like to see densified wood become a viable option. Even lightly densified new growth meets or exceeds the qualities of old growth wood. https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/news/new-densified-wood-is-as-strong-as-steel/ https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/news/new-densified-wood-... https://jwoodscience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s10086-022-02028-3 https://jwoodscience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s1008...
- joshspankit 3y ago
  My takeaway was not that we should harvest old-growth (doing so is inherently unsustainable), but that we should not throw out old growth wood when we find it (say for example when tearing down a house)
  - ortusdux 3y ago
    I know that was the spirit of the writeup, but I think it's important to be mindful of the big picture. It reminds me of the struggle with the ivory trade. If you want to stop ivory poaching, the logical step is to ban the sale of ivory. Unfortunately, if the demand is still there, this new scarcity will drive up the price and incentivize more aggressive poaching. The solution is to also target the demand. When billiards had a boom in popularity during the 1860's, a firm put out a $10,000 reward for anyone that could make a better alternative to ivory billiard balls. This led to the invention of the first synthetic polymer. The firm was able to corner the growing billiards ball market while undercutting the demand for ivory. The invention, for better or worse, also created the synthetic/polymer/plastic industry. The problem is that old growth wood is better. This is why I would like to large scale densified wood product production take off. In theory, you can take a cheap sustainable product and turn it into a superior, stronger, longer lasting alternative.
yborg 3y ago
There was actually a company that specialized in salvaging sunken logs from old lumber operations in Lake Superior. https://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/24/us/with-timber-scarce-old-logs-deep-in-a-lake-become-a-sunken-treasure.html https://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/24/us/with-timber-scarce-old... Company went out of business (ran out of logs?) in 2015.
c6400sc 3y ago
There's a movement to leave new growth trees in the ground longer for additional carbon capture: https://www.sightline.org/forest-long-rotation-harvests/ https://www.sightline.org/forest-long-rotation-harvests/ I wonder what impact this has on the final product.
amluto 3y ago
> The value of old growth lumber is the reason we should NOT throw out old windows. Your 100 year old window probably has single paned glass, lead paint (which is an unmitigated disaster on a double hung window, possibly exceeding the degree of hazard from every other lead painted part of a house combined), and is likely installed in an uninsulated wall without a proper sill flashing. That last point is worth some consideration. Essentially every window ever made either leaks or will leak. A small leak from a protected window [0] into an uninsulated wall cavity may not be terribly damaging. Add insulation and it’s a different story. Fortunately (per code! although many contractors completely ignore it for residential construction), newly installed windows are installed over a sill pan or other flashing that collects the water that leaks through the visible sill and directs it toward the outside. So, sure, maybe it’s worth the money to remove a double hung window, carefully and safely remove all the paint, retrofit an insulated glass unit into it, and reinstall it with proper flashings. Or you can buy a new window and trash the old one. [0] Old architecture was generally much better than new architecture at having little details that direct rain away from walls, windows and doors.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  > lead paint (which is an unmitigated disaster on a double hung window, possibly exceeding the degree of hazard from every other lead painted part of a house combined), I'm drawing a blank; why is lead more dangerous there than elsewhere?
  - amluto 3y ago
    Because you end up with lead-painted surfaces that rub against each other when you open and close the window, which can turn the paint into a fine airborne powder. Other than that, lead and its common compounds as used in paint are solids and are ordinarily pretty good at staying put. Unless you chew on the wall or the paint is damaged, lead painted surfaces may not be immediate hazards if you leave them alone.
    - ipqk 3y ago
      Paint can flake off in other areas too (like corners where pets & humans brush constantly against it). For adults, this is not a big deal because we'll just eventually sweep it or vacuum it, but for babies or pets, they may eat it which is very bad.
ProllyInfamous 3y ago
A historic home [c1920] in my neighborhood had an elevator installed; I ended up fishing out four 3ft 4x12 segments, and they're absolutely fantastic (color, density, rings, smell). No clue what I'll ever do with these, but they seemed too cool to just garbage.
netcoyote 3y ago
I experienced the decrease in wood quality firsthand when I worked for my dad's business building custom wine cellars. I worked in the factory building wine racks for a couple of years after graduating high school in the 1980's, and then infrequently helped install cellars until he retired in the 2010. (It was a great opportunity to travel the world and install cellars in exotic places like Japan, Singapore, & etc.) The early cellars were all constructed using redwood, which was at that time plentiful and inexpensive ($0.20/lineal foot for 1x2). Redwood is easy to work with because it's harder than pine but softer than walnut and oak, so easy to saw and pin. "Clear heart" wood from the center of the tree doesn't warp much if stored well. It's also absorbent and so takes glue well. We particularly liked using redwood for wine cellars because it's resistive to mold due to the high tannin content. Wine cellars are susceptible to mold because the cellar's refrigeration is designed to keep a high humidity level (70-80%) so as to prevent "ullage" (loss of liquid due to evaporation). Corks are semi-permeable, and so wine evaporates through the corks due to osmotic pressure. Because I visited my dad's factory infrequently, I found the changes in wood noticeable -- the same way it's surprising how much my friend's kids have grown since I last saw them, unlike my kids who I see daily! Over time redwood became increasingly expensive, and the quality lower, with more "A grade" wood containing sapwood instead of the clear heart wood we preferred, and fewer tree rings. Wine racks use quite a large number of small pieces -- lengths of 1x1, about 0.75" x 0.75" -- and at that small size the lower quality of the wood meant more pieces were unusable due to issues with the grain. It's important to select for good wood grain so that folks don't stick their hands in a wine rack and pull back a bleeding stump filled with redwood splinters, which are nasty because the tannin in the wood also prevents the body from disolving them easily. Over time we switched to other sustainably-farmed wood like jarrah and mahogany, though those woods were super hard to work with -- they chewed up saw blades and were hard to get pins through.
carterschonwald 3y ago
Is this true for wood that’s from the same species of tree? How much of the wider growth rings are attributable to increasing co2 levels? I’m really curious what the mechanism is. Like, I’m half inclined to assume the new growth tree is a pine (they grow really fast ) and the old growth is some hardwood.
- VHRanger 3y ago
  Yes, it is for the same species. I have old growth red pine and modern pine in my property, the old growth stuff is so much heavier and stronger it's comical. As said in the OP, it's largely because the old trees are much older, so the wood is simply denser.
  - mlhpdx 3y ago
    I don’t believe they are. I don’t believe it because I’ve removed “new” Douglas fir trees and enjoyed the tight grain lumber. The growing conditions and age are important, not when they were grown. Old growth is just old trees grown in natural forest conditions. That still happens all over Oregon.
    - VHRanger 3y ago
      Yes, growing conditions are certainly most important. Old growth had particular growing conditions - a very high and dense canopy for once. Species is also more important FWIW! If you're making a window you should get a rot resistant species, not old growth stuff. The point in OP is that if you find old growth stuff, hey, try to keep it because it's probably really good wood.
brianm 3y ago
I'm not sure how this applies in softwoods (like the hemlock & fir type stuff usually used in construction), but it is not really so obvious that slow growth (tight rings) is better than fast growth (wide rings) in hardwoods. The fast growth wood is usually much less likely to shatter or split under strain -- which for some purposes (anything delicate, or with staked construction such as Windsor chairs, basically stuff which needs to bend some under use) is preferable. I'd need to break out my [Hoadley](https://www.tauntonstore.com/understanding-wood-2nd-edition-r-bruce-hoadley-070490 https://www.tauntonstore.com/understanding-wood-2nd-edition-...) to confirm, but my belief is that you are trading modulus of elasticity for modulus of rupture.
renewiltord 3y ago
This is pretty convincing. We should all cut down the old trees for homes. The new stuff isn’t very good.
deutz_allis 3y ago
I live in a 'century home'. Old growth is really neat and something to be cherished. At the same time modern engineered lumber products like LVL's, OSB with insulation and weatherproofing and other innovations should be respected for the purpose they help serve. A lot of older homes in my area are using these new methods and products to keep older structures alive for the next century, with improvements in moisture control and insulation/energy usage along the way. Everything in a good balance.
divbzero 3y ago
> Sixty years ago, timber companies began to grow Radiata Pine in countries like New Zealand and Chile. Grown for quick production, these trees produce very little heartwood and these trees have fewer growth rings per inch. So is the difference between old growth and new growth primarily in the type of trees? Or are there other factors that contribute to speed of growth?
JCM9 3y ago
One of the many reasons older homes (especially pre WWII) are way better built. Older homes use bigger timber of old growth. Newer homes used smaller diameter timber of new growth. There’s no comparison. Provided it was taken care of I’d take a pre WWII home over something much newer all day long. You can always update cosmetic issues but you can fix the inferior structural construction of newer homes. There’s a reason why “This Old House” is a popular thing in places like the Northeast.
ourmandave 3y ago
One of my favorite ads was a lumber company showing how they plant two trees for every one they cut down, and framing it like they were preserving nature. When in fact they were planting future trees they planned to cut down, like a farmer planting corn, just on a longer time line.
zip1234 3y ago
The article isn’t fully accurate. For example old growth is not more knot free. That depended on a lot of factors. Maybe the wood used for windows was more knot free but that is a different matter entirely. Here is a counterpoint article: https://www.finewoodworking.com/forum/old-growth-vs-second-growth-or-later https://www.finewoodworking.com/forum/old-growth-vs-second-g...
bitmagier 3y ago
Whether wood grows fast or slow depends mainly on the tree species. Nowadays, you find still good wood for furniture and windows from oak trees for instance. It's just more expensive.
jrexpr 3y ago
> The difference between old growth wood and new growth wood is like the difference between granite and paper. Old growth wood has better stability, durability and longevity. New growth wood and the windows they’re made of, begin to rot and warp after only twenty years. To help salvage, recycle or reuse wood products, the American Wood Counsil has a website: https://reusewood.org/ https://reusewood.org/
Slava_Propanei 3y ago
[dead]
danans 3y ago
If you do't have old growth wood windows to preserve, but are looking for a long lasting alternative, consider fiberglass framed windows. Fiberglass can be made to look like almost anything, and unlike some other modern materials (i.e. metals), it's a good insulator.
DannyBee 3y ago
Any structural engineer or serious lumber person will tell you this is wrong. In fact, if you go over to the Reddit discussion on this post, they all agree. New growth has much fewer knots and issues because they are grown in a way that does not force the trees to compete for sunlight. As such they grow straighter, taller, and with far fewer knots and anomalies. The old stuff is denser but that is the only advantage. It's worth not throwing out but it's not magically better. We don't care about making new growth denser because we created lvl, lsl, psl, clt, etc.

365 points by Timothee 3y ago

That’s why for structural applications glue laminate are popular.

This is also the case with guitars and other musical instruments (pianos, violins etc.). Old growth not only sounds better, it lasts longer and looks better. Salvaged redwood is one particular place that this really stands out. There is no VG Heart available these days. If you want good straight, heartwood, you have to salvage old lumber or scavenge the forest floor for old felled logs. When I see old houses in CA built from old growth redwood torn down and tossed into the landfill, it breaks me.

downrightmike 3y ago
Guitars made with soaked logs that have been in the great lakes for the last 100 years sound especially well because the cells get hollowed out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6EnWSwfQ7w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6EnWSwfQ7w
- DudeOpotomus 3y ago
  Yeah, Sunken wood. Mostly used on electrics. Personally I cannot hear any difference in these guitars. But people seem to like them. Probably for the look...
  - brandall10 3y ago
    They're used in electrics? I've only heard about them in acoustics, ie. 'sinker' mahogany.
  - MSFT_Edging 3y ago
    Tonewood for electrics is mostly a myth anyway. Extremes might play a role but 99% of the time its almost entirely down to the pickups and picking hand. Acoustic guitars are a totally different ball game of course.
  - baerrie 3y ago
    https://youtu.be/n02tImce3AE?si=YWEWhrFWbQFAQOS4 https://youtu.be/n02tImce3AE?si=YWEWhrFWbQFAQOS4 Tone wood is bogus, don’t let anyone fool you. It is very beautiful on the other hand :)
- nemo44x 3y ago
  Yeah I had a Martin Guitar made from "Sinker Mahogany" harvested from a river in Belize. Amazing to think that these were so plentiful that the British just let the ones that didn't make it sink to the bottom of the water. Literally hundreds if not thousands of them. It's absolutely beautiful wood for a guitar though, especially if paired with red pine for the top.
jorts 3y ago
There’s a YouTube video from the 50s or so showing them cutting down old growth redwoods. I tried watching it but couldn’t make it. Made me too emotional.
- DudeOpotomus 3y ago
  With you on this one. It's impossible for me to fathom the thought of cutting down a tree that took 2000 years to grow. Let alone is so majestic! We humans are incredibly shortsighted. Today, we only have 2-5% of old growth trees left... and that's only because of people like you and me ( who care) fought to purchase them. Otherwise, someone would cut them down and sell them for a few bucks.
greenie_beans 3y ago
<3 yamaha nippon gakki red label from the 60s/70s
duffyjp 3y ago
Redwood is amazing. My dad has a picnic table with redwood boards he bought in the 1980s which is in basically perfect condition today despite living outside in Wisconsin the entire time.
- ejb999 3y ago
  Have a set of outside porch furniture as well - that my wife had at her parent's house even before she was born - so the set is at least 58 years old, and besides having weathered a bit in color - are as good as new.

GenerWork 3y ago

>These old windows are structurally superior and can be restored instead of replaced. How do they deal with the superior energy efficiency of new windows? Even basic vinyl windows are better in terms of energy transfer, unless they're replacing the window frame with more modern equipment (factory made vinyl/aluminum) while keeping the original windows.

sonar_un 3y ago
He made a video not too long ago about old-school windows and some of the ways that they can be still efficient and beautiful. But the kinds of projects that he works on are not really "passive house" type buildings. https://youtu.be/hLbTpa9uEoY https://youtu.be/hLbTpa9uEoY
- VHRanger 3y ago
  I mean, he puts vacuum-sealed glass on the performance version of the windows he makes. That's even better as a product than triple-glazed windows.
onlypassingthru 3y ago
It's a bit of a kludge but I've used exterior storm windows with old windows. It can make a big difference but doesn't compete with the efficiency of a modern vinyl argon filled double pane.
- VHRanger 3y ago
  It actually does if your seals are good. Argon sealed double panes aren't magical in terms of R-values.
anon291 3y ago
I live in a 100 year old home with old windows. Storm windows work. Also, the panes are fairly easy to replace and if you want to put the money into it, I believe they make a double paned product you can replace the panes with. Despite the large initial investment, it's overall cheaper because you never need to replace. We've actually had a few panes broken, and it's dirt cheap since normal glass is cheap, and the pane replacement is a DIY-doable project (remove glaze, remove plane, place new pane, reglaze).

sonar_un 3y ago

I absolutely love watching Brent Hull videos and I am kind of shocked to see his page on HackerNews. For those of us who are into aesthetic design and back-to-roots craftsmanship, this is the guy to watch. He had a video a couple of years back on this exact subject. https://youtu.be/cWX4PgCFk7c https://youtu.be/cWX4PgCFk7c

d0gsg0w00f 3y ago
Came here to see if someone realized it was the same guy who did the videos. Love his stuff.

onlypassingthru 3y ago

SF Fire famously still uses old growth for their wooden ladders. https://gizmodo.com/inside-san-francisos-fire-department-where-ladders-are-1552279252 https://gizmodo.com/inside-san-francisos-fire-department-whe...

buzzerbetrayed 3y ago
My initial reaction to your comment was "Why are they using wood ladders at all?". Luckily I clicked and it's the first question answered in the article: > Wood is resilient in ways which aluminum—now standard for fire department ladders—can't even compare. "You know if you take an empty coke can and bend it three or four times and it tears really easy? That's what aluminum ladders will do," Braun says. "They have a seven to eight year lifespan, after which they need to be replaced." > Wooden ladders, on the other hand, can last indefinitely. "You can stress wood right up to its failure point a million times; as long as you don't go beyond that, it will come right back to where it was. They can be involved in a fire for a pretty long time; after that, it's just a matter of sanding off the top coat of material then inspecting the wood. If it's good we'll re-oil it, revarnish it, and put it back in service."
mikysco 3y ago
Loved reading this. Here's an archived version that still has the photos: https://web.archive.org/web/20140713012712/https://gizmodo.com/inside-san-francisos-fire-department-where-ladders-are-1552279252 https://web.archive.org/web/20140713012712/https://gizmodo.c...

rbanffy 3y ago

This hints that there is market space for managed forests with slower-growth trees that would yield wood better suited for high-end woodworking. Assuming a 3-to-1 ring density from current fast-growth to this slower variety, one could expect prices similarly higher accounting for the longer growth plus financial cost of the land.

tivert 3y ago
> This hints that there is market space for managed forests with slower-growth trees that would yield wood better suited for high-end woodworking. Assuming a 3-to-1 ring density from current fast-growth to this slower variety, one could expect prices similarly higher accounting for the longer growth plus financial cost of the land. We're probably talking about trees that would more than a human generation (and perhaps several) to reach marketable size. There's market demand for consuming that kind of old growth wood, but it's wager that it's impossible for the market to produce it. As an institution, it's just too short sighted.
- buzzerbetrayed 3y ago
  How does the wine industry overcome this with really old bottles of wine? Who are the people that are preserving bottles of wine for 30 years before selling them? And why wouldn't there be a market for a similar thing in the lumber industry?
  - candiddevmike 3y ago
    A bottle of wine doesn't require at least 50 sqft of open land
  - tivert 3y ago
    > How does the wine industry overcome this with really old bottles of wine? Who are the people that are preserving bottles of wine for 30 years before selling them? And why wouldn't there be a market for a similar thing in the lumber industry? 30 years is less than a human lifetime. Also, that's not the time you need for old growth, it's what you need for regular timber: https://texasfarmbureau.org/timbers-a-crop-that-takes-years-to-harvest/ https://texasfarmbureau.org/timbers-a-crop-that-takes-years-...: > The industry is doing better now. Timber farmers plant trees, thin them out every few years to allow the better trees to grow and then harvest when trees are around 25-35 years old. They then harvest, replant and start the process all over.

gmuslera 3y ago

What about flammability? If "new" wood is somewhat less flammable because sap or something like that, replacing old forests with new ones, moving the operations of wood harvesting from forest to forest in a sustainable way may get a bigger time window for freshness and lower a bit the risks of the captured carbon by trees/forests burning down (something that is getting more probable as the world warms up, a positive feedback loop), while getting better quality wood in the process. Of course, a lot of uses of wood is burning it down for home heating, that won't be in the equation, but is something that may be phased down. And not sure how this goes for other uses of wood like making paper.

VHRanger 3y ago
Old wood is much less flammable because of the wood density. Timber framed buildings are considered somewhat fire-retardant compared to stud-built buildings. As the exterior of a timber burns, the blackened part insulates the interior of the timber from the fire. That said, timber construction isn't as sustainable as stick-built. But we should preserve old growth wood wherever we find it.

MiguelVieira 3y ago

It's interesting to point out that the wood has tighter rings and is more durable not necessarily because it came from old trees, but because the old growth trees grew in mature forests where they were in the shade of other trees, and thus grew more slowly and had tighter rings. Trees growing in full sunlight grow quickly and have more widely spaced rings. Balsa wood for example, which is very light and soft, comes from balsa trees that have evolved to grow very quickly in sunny gaps caused by fallen trees in tropical forests.

fireflash38 3y ago
Great explanation of why certain species of trees are both fast growers and 'fast fallers'. Tulip Poplar trees for example are often first/second growth, and they are also often the trees that will break/fall during storms too. They trade that fast growth for durability it seems.
- grosswait 3y ago
  In my observation, tulip poplars, get a bad rap. They do drop limbs routinely, but I don’t see them getting knocked over by wind. I see pine trees blow over the majority of the time. Of course, different forest composition might change the odds, but for my area tulip poplars seem pretty strong
njarboe 3y ago
The main reason old growth trees have tight rings is not that the tree is growing slowly (in mass) but that the diameter and height of the trunk is so large that the rings are very narrow. A 200ft tall tree with a 8ft diameter trunk with a 50 foot sunny top will put on a lot of mass but it is spread out over the surface of the truck. The added ring each year will be thin. Old growth forests are rare and I think people don't have a good idea of how big old growth trees can be. The old growth redwoods are admired for their size but other trees also get very large. At a small museum in the northern Sierra foothills I saw a photo of a 16ft diameter Douglas fir. It's too bad none of these trees survived (that I have found). Many pictures of logging trucks with just one log on them. You do definitely get thin rings when the trees are shaded but the monster old growth trees, the thin rings are usually due to the size of the trunk.

tehcodez 3y ago

There's a wonderful podcast, Shannon's Lumber Industry update that discusses this topic in detail, I can't track down exactly which episode. The point he makes is, yes, sure they are "better" lumber, but lumber can also be a sustainable resource. We've done a MUCH better job producing construction lumber (what those two-by material is used for in the vast majority of cases) in a sustainable manner. That old framing lumber came from just demolishing old growth trees. You can still find comparable lumber, this is what fine furniture makers do. https://www.lumberupdate.com/about/ https://www.lumberupdate.com/about/

thekid314 3y ago
Thanks, I never expected to subscribe to a lumber podcast, but I am now.

Hippocrates 3y ago

Pretty interesting to see the difference in the grain. I do notice the softness of the wall studs when I hang anything in my newer place. Still "they dont build em like they used to" is a bit... wrong. Nimby's or "old heads" as we call em, badmouth new builds for their quality. I've lived in extremely well-built 18th century homes, and now one that is less than a decade old and I greatly, greatly prefer the latter. Newer features I appreciate are engineered joists (stronger, less creaking floors and noise transmission), doors and double pane windows that seal out air and noise, good insulation, central HVAC, PEX plumbing, neutral wiring, and the fact that if I need to fix or replace anything, it can be easily ordered if not found at a hardware store. Yeah, maybe some of these materials are not as "sturdy" to the touch and maybe they have a shorter life-span, but I am positive they work better and are cheaper/easier to maintain.

eropple 3y ago
> Yeah, maybe some of these materials are not as "sturdy" to the touch and maybe they have a shorter life-span, but I am positive they work better and are cheaper/easier to replace. They are cheaper, they are easier to replace, and at the moment (wood nerd hat on) we genuinely do not know if they have a shorter lifespan. But it's very likely that they do not, in part because of the construction around them. These concerns are not, in my experience, something that you really hear people who spend much time around structural work bring up. It's mostly a "back in the day" thing. For furniture, on the other hand--things are different. But dimensional lumber as practiced today is a modern miracle.
- Hippocrates 3y ago
  I'm definitely no wood nerd but, yeah, I wouldn't intuit that a softer, new-growth wood would just disintegrate in 100 years time, or much more, for that matter. As you allude to the material around it, we now have engineered, weather resistant sheathing, house wrap, and vinyl or metal siding, or some such very weather-proof stuff. Most of the issues I have had with "old growth" wood in my 17th century homes were just due to water penetrating where it should not, rotting that wood, and then causing me a headache trying replace it with a similar material.

thekid314 3y ago

Here's a story about Old Growth forests in New England that I shot for Smithsonian Magazine. The most interesting part was seeing archive photos of New England when it was basically clear cut for firewood and pasture. Today we think of it as wooded, but that is relatively recent: https://www.daviddegner.com/photography/discovering-old-growth-forests-in-new-england/ https://www.daviddegner.com/photography/discovering-old-grow...

soperj 3y ago
It was wooded before the clear cutting.
beastman82 3y ago
Is this true in NH/ME/VT as well? I see western MA in your article. (btw it's cool thanks for sharing)
- fireflash38 3y ago
  Very much true. Just look at the undergrowth, and the types of trees.
peteradio 3y ago
Very beautiful shoot. Some of those trees were rather huge! Wonder what the biggest looked like in the old growth.
- nemo44x 3y ago
  They looked like this: https://ravenwhimsy.tumblr.com/post/174022634675 https://ravenwhimsy.tumblr.com/post/174022634675 And to think, they were just used for any old thing back then. This lumber doesn't really exist anymore other than reclamations.
  - grosswait 3y ago
    That’s a Douglas for – not native to New England

hfghfgh 3y ago

That banner is so bad I can't read the article at all.

anon291 3y ago

I live in a 100 year old home in the PNW and I've broken dozens of 'wood' rated drill bits trying to drill. It can take upwards of 10 minutes to drill through a single 2x4 stud in my house. It's honestly insane that they're considered the same material. I do a lot of hobby wood working and the old growth pine seems to have more in common with ipe wood and the like rather than the stuff you buy in the stores. I'm holding on to all that old wood like it's gold.

icameron 3y ago
Same here, I gave up trying to use a spade bit for drilling that old wood. It’s impact driver and speed bit or auger bits, or bust. Nothing quite like the smell of old lumber!
Aloha 3y ago
There is also another survival bias factor. Wood continues to cure and harden (and shrink) when it's put into place in construction - in 70-80 years, It'll be just as hard as the wood in a house from 1890.
- VHRanger 3y ago
  Incorrect. As the OP post shows, if you cut down a 300 year old tree it won't cure the same as a young-cut SPF piece of wood. It simply can't - it's effectively not the same material. Just in terms of growth rings, wood density, heartwood content, etc.
VHRanger 3y ago
I have a 1870s house in Ontario, lots of old growth red pine. This stuff is really heavy and resistant, you keep it indeed.
specialist 3y ago
Are those spade bits? Meaning flat with two cutting edges. My home's framing is mostly old growth. I bought an auger bit for rewiring. It's looks like a corkscrew. I won't ever use a spade bit (for making holes in framing) again. My son then brought over his hole hog (?) power drill. It's scary powerful. Mosdef practice with some scrap wood first.

Aurornis 3y ago

> If you have used finger jointed wood, you see the effects of new vs. old wood. Starting in the 1970’s lumber manufacturers began using finger-jointed wood to compensate for poor wood quality; the warping, twisting, and knots in their new growth wood. They took a board of wood, cut out the defects and then rejoined the pieces with finger joints. Finger joining wood in doors windows, moldings, and framing lumber is necessary because the new growth wood quality isn’t as good. Old growth timber is generally free of knots while plantation grown wood is riddled with them. For normal construction tasks, I don't care one bit about this one bit. And you shouldn't either. We've found more sustainable ways to quickly grow trees and use machines to turn them into usable construction lumber. This is amazing! Basic construction doesn't need to have the finest, densest, knot-free lumber. It just needs to work and hold up for a useful lifetime. We don't use this lumber for windows or weather-exposed areas. It's placed neatly inside of your dry home and protected from the elements. Combining multiple boards into a single, more stable board isn't unique to cheap new growth lumber. It's a technique that is even used with more expensive woods to produce a hybrid board that has better properties than could be easily achieved with a single board. Modern adhesives can be stronger than the wood itself, so the existence of a joint shouldn't scare people. If you're doing a high end woodworking project, you're generally not using this type of wood anyway. You're picking a hardwood or one of the fancier softwoods. I love old growth lumber and its properties, but modern construction lumber and the processes that produce it are a great accomplishment. Regardless, it doesn't matter because old growth lumber is a very finite resource and it's not repeatable to reproduce forever anyway.

coldbrewed 3y ago
Modern building construction is cheaper and doesn't demand old growth timber, but it's also much less resilient during a house fire. We use smaller dimensional lumber, it has less densely packed tree rings causing it to burn faster, and we use I beams made out of 2x3s and OSB instead of solid lumber. A house made in the 30s could survive a long time before collapse in a fire; what we have now collapses much faster. There are definite benefits to modern techniques that are less resource intensive and protecting our remaining old growth forests is important, but we're sacrificing a lot of valuable properties as well.

waltbosz 3y ago

I group up in an area where all the houses were built in the 1930s. All old growth lumber. At one point, the University of Delaware was buying up houses on my street, including one directly across the street from mine. A crew came along an took the house apart and loaded the lumber onto a flatbed truck. I'm not sure where the lumber went to, but it was pretty cool to watch. They just left the lot empty with grass and a few trees.

User23 3y ago

The sad thing is there’s no good reason not to have 100 year wood readily available. Suppose you have 100 acres. Every year you harvest one, replant it, and move on to the next. In a century you’ll have an annual harvest of excellent wood. But what will happen instead is whoever ends up with the land will clear cut it, take the big payday, and plant fast growing junk if they replant at all.

ejb999 3y ago
worse yet, there is a very vocal set of people (many on HN) that want to force you to develop your land in order to build more housing by imposing unaffordable land taxes on undeveloped land - very short sighted. for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38276883 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38276883
- bluGill 3y ago
  If you have land in a city then you are wasting it by not developing it, and that harms the city. If you have rural land though there isn't any reason not to grow something for long term.
- ipqk 3y ago
  Yeah, so short-sighted that we now live in the worst housing crisis in history, with rampant homelessness due to lack of housing and people barely being able to afford to live.

ortusdux 3y ago

In my opinion, living old grown trees >> old growth wood > new growth wood. Modern 'new growth' forestry is very sustainable, but old growth poaching still happens quite often in the US. I have friends on the regulatory side of logging and I've see illegal activity first hand. I know that this article is not advocating for the logging of old growth trees, but focusing on the idea that 'old growth is better' can cause customers to value it enough that the extra profit incentivizes illegal harvesting. Personally, I would like to see densified wood become a viable option. Even lightly densified new growth meets or exceeds the qualities of old growth wood. https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/news/new-densified-wood-is-as-strong-as-steel/ https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/news/new-densified-wood-... https://jwoodscience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s10086-022-02028-3 https://jwoodscience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s1008...

joshspankit 3y ago
My takeaway was not that we should harvest old-growth (doing so is inherently unsustainable), but that we should not throw out old growth wood when we find it (say for example when tearing down a house)
- ortusdux 3y ago
  I know that was the spirit of the writeup, but I think it's important to be mindful of the big picture. It reminds me of the struggle with the ivory trade. If you want to stop ivory poaching, the logical step is to ban the sale of ivory. Unfortunately, if the demand is still there, this new scarcity will drive up the price and incentivize more aggressive poaching. The solution is to also target the demand. When billiards had a boom in popularity during the 1860's, a firm put out a $10,000 reward for anyone that could make a better alternative to ivory billiard balls. This led to the invention of the first synthetic polymer. The firm was able to corner the growing billiards ball market while undercutting the demand for ivory. The invention, for better or worse, also created the synthetic/polymer/plastic industry. The problem is that old growth wood is better. This is why I would like to large scale densified wood product production take off. In theory, you can take a cheap sustainable product and turn it into a superior, stronger, longer lasting alternative.

yborg 3y ago

There was actually a company that specialized in salvaging sunken logs from old lumber operations in Lake Superior. https://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/24/us/with-timber-scarce-old-logs-deep-in-a-lake-become-a-sunken-treasure.html https://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/24/us/with-timber-scarce-old... Company went out of business (ran out of logs?) in 2015.

c6400sc 3y ago

There's a movement to leave new growth trees in the ground longer for additional carbon capture: https://www.sightline.org/forest-long-rotation-harvests/ https://www.sightline.org/forest-long-rotation-harvests/ I wonder what impact this has on the final product.

amluto 3y ago

> The value of old growth lumber is the reason we should NOT throw out old windows. Your 100 year old window probably has single paned glass, lead paint (which is an unmitigated disaster on a double hung window, possibly exceeding the degree of hazard from every other lead painted part of a house combined), and is likely installed in an uninsulated wall without a proper sill flashing. That last point is worth some consideration. Essentially every window ever made either leaks or will leak. A small leak from a protected window [0] into an uninsulated wall cavity may not be terribly damaging. Add insulation and it’s a different story. Fortunately (per code! although many contractors completely ignore it for residential construction), newly installed windows are installed over a sill pan or other flashing that collects the water that leaks through the visible sill and directs it toward the outside. So, sure, maybe it’s worth the money to remove a double hung window, carefully and safely remove all the paint, retrofit an insulated glass unit into it, and reinstall it with proper flashings. Or you can buy a new window and trash the old one. [0] Old architecture was generally much better than new architecture at having little details that direct rain away from walls, windows and doors.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
> lead paint (which is an unmitigated disaster on a double hung window, possibly exceeding the degree of hazard from every other lead painted part of a house combined), I'm drawing a blank; why is lead more dangerous there than elsewhere?
- amluto 3y ago
  Because you end up with lead-painted surfaces that rub against each other when you open and close the window, which can turn the paint into a fine airborne powder. Other than that, lead and its common compounds as used in paint are solids and are ordinarily pretty good at staying put. Unless you chew on the wall or the paint is damaged, lead painted surfaces may not be immediate hazards if you leave them alone.
  - ipqk 3y ago
    Paint can flake off in other areas too (like corners where pets & humans brush constantly against it). For adults, this is not a big deal because we'll just eventually sweep it or vacuum it, but for babies or pets, they may eat it which is very bad.

ProllyInfamous 3y ago

A historic home [c1920] in my neighborhood had an elevator installed; I ended up fishing out four 3ft 4x12 segments, and they're absolutely fantastic (color, density, rings, smell). No clue what I'll ever do with these, but they seemed too cool to just garbage.

netcoyote 3y ago

I experienced the decrease in wood quality firsthand when I worked for my dad's business building custom wine cellars. I worked in the factory building wine racks for a couple of years after graduating high school in the 1980's, and then infrequently helped install cellars until he retired in the 2010. (It was a great opportunity to travel the world and install cellars in exotic places like Japan, Singapore, & etc.) The early cellars were all constructed using redwood, which was at that time plentiful and inexpensive ($0.20/lineal foot for 1x2). Redwood is easy to work with because it's harder than pine but softer than walnut and oak, so easy to saw and pin. "Clear heart" wood from the center of the tree doesn't warp much if stored well. It's also absorbent and so takes glue well. We particularly liked using redwood for wine cellars because it's resistive to mold due to the high tannin content. Wine cellars are susceptible to mold because the cellar's refrigeration is designed to keep a high humidity level (70-80%) so as to prevent "ullage" (loss of liquid due to evaporation). Corks are semi-permeable, and so wine evaporates through the corks due to osmotic pressure. Because I visited my dad's factory infrequently, I found the changes in wood noticeable -- the same way it's surprising how much my friend's kids have grown since I last saw them, unlike my kids who I see daily! Over time redwood became increasingly expensive, and the quality lower, with more "A grade" wood containing sapwood instead of the clear heart wood we preferred, and fewer tree rings. Wine racks use quite a large number of small pieces -- lengths of 1x1, about 0.75" x 0.75" -- and at that small size the lower quality of the wood meant more pieces were unusable due to issues with the grain. It's important to select for good wood grain so that folks don't stick their hands in a wine rack and pull back a bleeding stump filled with redwood splinters, which are nasty because the tannin in the wood also prevents the body from disolving them easily. Over time we switched to other sustainably-farmed wood like jarrah and mahogany, though those woods were super hard to work with -- they chewed up saw blades and were hard to get pins through.

carterschonwald 3y ago

Is this true for wood that’s from the same species of tree? How much of the wider growth rings are attributable to increasing co2 levels? I’m really curious what the mechanism is. Like, I’m half inclined to assume the new growth tree is a pine (they grow really fast ) and the old growth is some hardwood.

VHRanger 3y ago
Yes, it is for the same species. I have old growth red pine and modern pine in my property, the old growth stuff is so much heavier and stronger it's comical. As said in the OP, it's largely because the old trees are much older, so the wood is simply denser.
- mlhpdx 3y ago
  I don’t believe they are. I don’t believe it because I’ve removed “new” Douglas fir trees and enjoyed the tight grain lumber. The growing conditions and age are important, not when they were grown. Old growth is just old trees grown in natural forest conditions. That still happens all over Oregon.
  - VHRanger 3y ago
    Yes, growing conditions are certainly most important. Old growth had particular growing conditions - a very high and dense canopy for once. Species is also more important FWIW! If you're making a window you should get a rot resistant species, not old growth stuff. The point in OP is that if you find old growth stuff, hey, try to keep it because it's probably really good wood.

brianm 3y ago

I'm not sure how this applies in softwoods (like the hemlock & fir type stuff usually used in construction), but it is not really so obvious that slow growth (tight rings) is better than fast growth (wide rings) in hardwoods. The fast growth wood is usually much less likely to shatter or split under strain -- which for some purposes (anything delicate, or with staked construction such as Windsor chairs, basically stuff which needs to bend some under use) is preferable. I'd need to break out my [Hoadley](https://www.tauntonstore.com/understanding-wood-2nd-edition-r-bruce-hoadley-070490 https://www.tauntonstore.com/understanding-wood-2nd-edition-...) to confirm, but my belief is that you are trading modulus of elasticity for modulus of rupture.

renewiltord 3y ago

This is pretty convincing. We should all cut down the old trees for homes. The new stuff isn’t very good.

deutz_allis 3y ago

I live in a 'century home'. Old growth is really neat and something to be cherished. At the same time modern engineered lumber products like LVL's, OSB with insulation and weatherproofing and other innovations should be respected for the purpose they help serve. A lot of older homes in my area are using these new methods and products to keep older structures alive for the next century, with improvements in moisture control and insulation/energy usage along the way. Everything in a good balance.

divbzero 3y ago

> Sixty years ago, timber companies began to grow Radiata Pine in countries like New Zealand and Chile. Grown for quick production, these trees produce very little heartwood and these trees have fewer growth rings per inch. So is the difference between old growth and new growth primarily in the type of trees? Or are there other factors that contribute to speed of growth?

JCM9 3y ago

One of the many reasons older homes (especially pre WWII) are way better built. Older homes use bigger timber of old growth. Newer homes used smaller diameter timber of new growth. There’s no comparison. Provided it was taken care of I’d take a pre WWII home over something much newer all day long. You can always update cosmetic issues but you can fix the inferior structural construction of newer homes. There’s a reason why “This Old House” is a popular thing in places like the Northeast.

ourmandave 3y ago

One of my favorite ads was a lumber company showing how they plant two trees for every one they cut down, and framing it like they were preserving nature. When in fact they were planting future trees they planned to cut down, like a farmer planting corn, just on a longer time line.

zip1234 3y ago

The article isn’t fully accurate. For example old growth is not more knot free. That depended on a lot of factors. Maybe the wood used for windows was more knot free but that is a different matter entirely. Here is a counterpoint article: https://www.finewoodworking.com/forum/old-growth-vs-second-growth-or-later https://www.finewoodworking.com/forum/old-growth-vs-second-g...

bitmagier 3y ago

Whether wood grows fast or slow depends mainly on the tree species. Nowadays, you find still good wood for furniture and windows from oak trees for instance. It's just more expensive.

jrexpr 3y ago

> The difference between old growth wood and new growth wood is like the difference between granite and paper. Old growth wood has better stability, durability and longevity. New growth wood and the windows they’re made of, begin to rot and warp after only twenty years. To help salvage, recycle or reuse wood products, the American Wood Counsil has a website: https://reusewood.org/ https://reusewood.org/

Slava_Propanei 3y ago

[dead]

danans 3y ago

If you do't have old growth wood windows to preserve, but are looking for a long lasting alternative, consider fiberglass framed windows. Fiberglass can be made to look like almost anything, and unlike some other modern materials (i.e. metals), it's a good insulator.

DannyBee 3y ago

Any structural engineer or serious lumber person will tell you this is wrong. In fact, if you go over to the Reddit discussion on this post, they all agree. New growth has much fewer knots and issues because they are grown in a way that does not force the trees to compete for sunlight. As such they grow straighter, taller, and with far fewer knots and anomalies. The old stuff is denser but that is the only advantage. It's worth not throwing out but it's not magically better. We don't care about making new growth denser because we created lvl, lsl, psl, clt, etc.