3 ms·

> the wooden beams in a building are usually just 20% of the original wood taken from source. The remaining 80% is lost as production waste in the form of sawdu

> the wooden beams in a building are usually just 20% of the original wood taken from source. The remaining 80% is lost as production waste in the form of sawdust, scraps, discarded parts, and so on. Kinda mind-boggling how this has been parodied since forever [0], yet is still true. And we're not even talking about the Soviet-style production organization where frugality was never paid more than lip service: you'd think that in a competitive environment there'd be enough pressure to save up on the input resources wasted. [0] https://youtu.be/YUQ-v62VqgM?t=188 https://youtu.be/YUQ-v62VqgM?t=188

WJW 1y ago
You can't just say "80% is wasted" when it's just wood that is used for other purposes than timber. Until we can convince Mother Nature to grow trees which are perfectly straight and preferably already square, the process of converting a cylindrical log to a square beam will inherently have some cutoffs. The linked article in turn links to a research paper at https://www.woodresearch.sk/wr/201202/12.pdf https://www.woodresearch.sk/wr/201202/12.pdf, and while that paper does support that only ~20% of a tree gets sawn into long pieces of (construction) lumber, it absolutely does not support that the remaining 80% is waste. For example, ~37+9= 46% goes to the production of chip and particle boards, a decent amount becomes firewood, the paper industry takes some "waste" wood as input for cellulose production, sawdust has a variety of purposes and even the leaves and stumps can simply be composted.
- tomrod 1y ago
  To my understanding, Japan has already done that. https://www.openculture.com/2020/10/daisugi.html https://www.openculture.com/2020/10/daisugi.html
  - WJW 1y ago
    According to the comments that is just a variation of coppicing, which is several millennia old and practiced around the world. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coppicing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coppicing which also mentions the Japanese variant) While coppicing does results in fairly straight trees, they're still circular and will result in large amounts of waste if you try to cut dimensional lumber out of it.
jeffbee 1y ago
It's mind-blowing because it is bullshit and a total misrepresentation of the paper it cites. What the paper says is that less than 20% of the volume of the tree (including the branches and the leaves and the stump) becomes dimensional lumber, 40% becomes chipboard, 7% is firewood, 2.3% is sawdust, and the remainder is burned. Any time you find yourself surprised by a claim, that's your signal to dig into the sources.
- y0eswddl 1y ago
  69.3% still leaves 30% of tree being burned after cut down... An insane amount imo
  - jeffbee 1y ago
    You're never gonna believe how much of the overall volume of, say, a tomato plant, gets "wasted" by this standard.
- sidewndr46 1y ago
  I'm surprised they didn't count the root system as well, those are usually gargantuan for the trees I see raised for lumber. Going by volume is also remarkably useless because if a tree produces some large non-dense structure like a leaf it skews the numbers. The issue with industrial forestry isn't waste, but monocropping and habitat destruction.
- dghlsakjg 1y ago
  The log that makes it to the mill is what those stats are about. Not the tree as a whole. I live in BC and a huge portion of the tree is left in the forest. All of the branches, smaller trees, tops and other bits not worth transporting are burned in slash piles or left in the forest to decompose. There is typically at least a foot thick layer of wood debris left in the cut block after the logging companies come through. Some forestry companies near me allow firewood processors to come through and grab the leftovers out of the clear cuts, but it is pretty close to a rounding error.
  - 1y ago

WJW 1y ago

You can't just say "80% is wasted" when it's just wood that is used for other purposes than timber. Until we can convince Mother Nature to grow trees which are perfectly straight and preferably already square, the process of converting a cylindrical log to a square beam will inherently have some cutoffs. The linked article in turn links to a research paper at https://www.woodresearch.sk/wr/201202/12.pdf https://www.woodresearch.sk/wr/201202/12.pdf, and while that paper does support that only ~20% of a tree gets sawn into long pieces of (construction) lumber, it absolutely does not support that the remaining 80% is waste. For example, ~37+9= 46% goes to the production of chip and particle boards, a decent amount becomes firewood, the paper industry takes some "waste" wood as input for cellulose production, sawdust has a variety of purposes and even the leaves and stumps can simply be composted.

tomrod 1y ago
To my understanding, Japan has already done that. https://www.openculture.com/2020/10/daisugi.html https://www.openculture.com/2020/10/daisugi.html
- WJW 1y ago
  According to the comments that is just a variation of coppicing, which is several millennia old and practiced around the world. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coppicing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coppicing which also mentions the Japanese variant) While coppicing does results in fairly straight trees, they're still circular and will result in large amounts of waste if you try to cut dimensional lumber out of it.

jeffbee 1y ago

It's mind-blowing because it is bullshit and a total misrepresentation of the paper it cites. What the paper says is that less than 20% of the volume of the tree (including the branches and the leaves and the stump) becomes dimensional lumber, 40% becomes chipboard, 7% is firewood, 2.3% is sawdust, and the remainder is burned. Any time you find yourself surprised by a claim, that's your signal to dig into the sources.

y0eswddl 1y ago
69.3% still leaves 30% of tree being burned after cut down... An insane amount imo
- jeffbee 1y ago
  You're never gonna believe how much of the overall volume of, say, a tomato plant, gets "wasted" by this standard.
sidewndr46 1y ago
I'm surprised they didn't count the root system as well, those are usually gargantuan for the trees I see raised for lumber. Going by volume is also remarkably useless because if a tree produces some large non-dense structure like a leaf it skews the numbers. The issue with industrial forestry isn't waste, but monocropping and habitat destruction.
dghlsakjg 1y ago
The log that makes it to the mill is what those stats are about. Not the tree as a whole. I live in BC and a huge portion of the tree is left in the forest. All of the branches, smaller trees, tops and other bits not worth transporting are burned in slash piles or left in the forest to decompose. There is typically at least a foot thick layer of wood debris left in the cut block after the logging companies come through. Some forestry companies near me allow firewood processors to come through and grab the leftovers out of the clear cuts, but it is pretty close to a rounding error.
- 1y ago