Bob,
I can’t think in terms of cubic feet. Since I’ve always dealt in board
footage, cubic foot measurements are alien to me and therefore
meaningless.
I read that the ratio of board feet to cubic feet ranges from 5:1 to 6:1
depending I guess on which log rule is used and form class.
I can’t believe the waste is as high as 50% what with the newer bandsaws
which reduces saw kerf as compared with the old circular saws. Yes you
will have a lot of waste squaring off a cylinder as well as waste from
the saw kerf but 50%? Mill workers have told me there is a built in
overrun of 15% on the ¼’ International log rule. I remember watching
Gerry Lashway of Lashway Lumber in Williamsburg saw up logs at his mill.
There was a computer in his box which showed him how best to saw each
log to maximize profit and minimize waste. I compared that with the old
hand set circular saw that old man Sisco used to use at his mill in
Hubbardston (1950’s vintage) and it was quite the difference. Bill Sisco
Sr. was from the old school. Whenever I asked him how the tally went he
always said “I come up just a little bit short”. Right!
Volume is important but grading logs is usually far more important in
the forest products industry. I remember watching a log scaler grade
logs and I asked him how he could grade the logs if he wasn’t rolling
them so he could look at all 4 sides. He told me it wasn’t easy! Yeah
it’s not easy unless you’ve got X-Ray vision! He could have saved some
time if he just went back to office and wrote up some fictitious scale
slips because that’s what he was doing anyway. You know it’s the same
old story: logger screws the landowner and the mill screws the logger.
It will be interesting to see those big pines and wonder what makes that
site so superior for growing white pine? In addition, Mohawk State
Forest is pretty much out of the hurricane belt so that allows for a
longer life span than other areas that are frequented more often by
powerful windstorms. The other big factor with white pine is the white
pine weevil. Why do some areas grow the crappiest multi-forked pine
while others grow nice straight beauties? Is it all related to past land
use history, competition early in their life cycle, or something else?
Are weevil populations denser in some areas than others for whatever
reason? In my opinion, the white pine weevil is the biggest hindrance to
forest productivity in the northeast (besides high-grading of course).
Yes if we grow white pine in partial shade early in its life we can
discourage the weevil while sacrificing some growth. But if we could
find a way to eliminate the weevil, we could get some phenomenal
production. Or maybe a forest geneticist could someday breed a weevil
resistant white pine.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 9:21 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ENTS] Re: Back to Mike Leonard about Wednesday
Mike,
There are a number of white pines in MTSF that
we'll see on Wednesday that we in ENTS have modeled to between 400 and
600 cubic feet of trunk volume. Additionally, there are 5 pines in
Mohawk in the 700+ cubic feet class.
I don't have a good handle on how total trunk
volume can be converted to board feet. However, I assume that a 600-cube
pine that theoretically yields 7,200 board feet will actually yield
about 3,600 in lumber - a 50% wastage factor. I think Russ gave me some
realistic factors in the past, but I've forgotten what he said. I'm
curious as to what you will see in the largest trees. BTW, the single
largest pine we'll visit is the Tecumseh Tree in the Elders Grove. Its
dimensions are: DBH=45 inches, height = 163.3 feet, and average crown
spread approximately 45 feet, maybe a little more.
I once asked Karl Davies how many board feet he
thought was in the Tecumseh Pine. To the eye, it didn't look much
different then than now. He said he thought about 5,000 board feet. If
we take the ENTS modeled volume of 779 cubic feet of trunk volume and
run it through the calculation 779 x 12 x 0.5 = 4,674, that isn't far
off Karl's estimate of 5,000. I wish I'd asked him what the waste factor
he was assuming.
By way of comparison, the largest pine we've
modeled in Massachusetts is the Grandfather Tree in Monroe State Forest.
Will Blozan climbed and modeled the tree to 967 cubic feet. The Ice Glen
pine, also climbed and modeled by Will, is second with 933 cubes. I
presume that a typical pine grown for lumber is between 100 and 120 feet
in height and around 2 feet in diameter. If the tree is under 100 years
old, its form factor is likely to be between 0.33 and 0.36. Taking a
pine that is 110 feet in height and 2 feet in diameter and assuming a
form factor of 0.35, the expected trunk volume calculates to 120 cubic
feet. Tecumseh is 6.5 times that volume. No small tree. I think you'll
enjoy seeing it.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Leonard" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2009 2:01:00 PM GMT -05:00
US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [ENTS] Re: Back to Mike Leonard about Wednesday
Bob, Joe;
OK we’ll see you guys at the Charlemont Inn for
breakfast this Wed. at 8:30.
How big is the big Algonquin tree? 2,000 board feet? Wow
we could fill half a log truck with that! OK I promise not to mark that
tree!
It will be interesting to look at some of these monster
pines and think hey we should be growing more of these!
Mike
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
Send email to [email protected]
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
To unsubscribe send email to [email protected]
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
