Old Growth

[Wood Butcher]

Having seen something listed in luthier exchange as old growth, I wanted to know what this actually meant. I'd asked it there, but it seems more appropriate to ask it here, rather than on someone's for sale advert.

So what is old growth? As far as I can tell, it's a term that is only used in America (possibly Canada too), no one uses the term in Europe.

By the time trees are large enough to harvest, they will all be quite old, so it can't be that.

Is the wood taken from a tree, which was cut down many years previously, and just left somewhere (to rot)?

Is the wood from a dead standing tree?

Is the wood heartwood from a large tree, and therefore the oldest part? (can't think it is this, because that would have the widest grain)

Is the wood recycled from old buildings?

What advantage might there be in it, over other wood?

Does "old growth wood" cost more from a dealer?

How could one verify it is indeed older than normal?

Is it a real thing, or something completely made up by dealers, just like the AAAAA ratings for figured wood?

[jacobsaunders]

Quote

 

Perhaps the opposite of “new growth”? But what does “new growth wood” mean either?

[Jim Bress]

In ecology, the term "old-growth trees" isn't used. However, "old growth forests" are. An old-growth forest is loosely defined as a primary forests (> 150 years old) with a complex natural ecosystem. This link gives a good discussion on old-growth forests. https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/science-update-4.pdf

My best guess on the common usage of "old-growth wood" is wood harvested from large trees in an old-growth forest. 

-Jim

 

[martin swan]

Yes we used to use this term quite freely in forestry circles in the UK, although there's very little genuine old growth forestry left here. 

Old growth really means not planted and not "regen" or reseeded forestry, or wood from a woodland that's commercially managed for firewood etc.

It doesn't primarily relate to the age of the trees, though even commercially planted forest that's been ignored or forgotten for over a century would probably be classed as "old growth".

I would be a bit suspicious of a wood merchant selling "old growth" timber, since most genuine old growth forestry is in some way protected.

[Wood Butcher]

1 hour ago, jacobsaunders said:

Perhaps the opposite of “new growth”? But what does “new growth wood” mean either?

New growth could be very high tech, using trees from the future

[Wood Butcher]

1 hour ago, Jim Bress said:

In ecology, the term "old-growth trees" isn't used. However, "old growth forests" are. An old-growth forest is loosely defined as a primary forests (> 150 years old) with a complex natural ecosystem. This link gives a good discussion on old-growth forests. https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/science-update-4.pdf

My best guess on the common usage of "old-growth wood" is wood harvested from large trees in an old-growth forest. 

-Jim

 

Thanks, Jim, that made for an interesting read, with some nice pictures.
Reading about the regular forest fires could reveal the secret to Stradivaris wood, the trees were torrefied while still standing

 

53 minutes ago, martin swan said:

Yes we used to use this term quite freely in forestry circles in the UK, although there's very little genuine old growth forestry left here. 

Old growth really means not planted and not "regen" or reseeded forestry, or wood from a woodland that's commercially managed for firewood etc.

It doesn't primarily relate to the age of the trees, though even commercially planted forest that's been ignored or forgotten for over a century would probably be classed as "old growth".

I would be a bit suspicious of a wood merchant selling "old growth" timber, since most genuine old growth forestry is in some way protected.

Reading this makes me think the wood dealers claims are perhaps a bit misleading.
Mentioning that it is "old growth" is implying it has properties which other wood will not, even though there will be no way to quantify any of this for the end user

[martin swan]

3 minutes ago, Wood Butcher said:

Mentioning that it is "old growth" is implying it has properties which other wood will not, even though there will be no way to quantify any of this for the end user

Yes I can't see there is any benefit to "old growth" wood other than some misplaced romantic notions. 

 

[Dwight Brown]

In the US it usually applies to forests that date back to times before significant European settlement.  There are types of pine that are pretty much extinct and other trees that have been made very scarce by blights, etc. There are folks that actually "mine" logs from waterways where they were lost many years ago and have sunk to the bottom.  I really don't think it has much bearing on wood for instruments.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations defines them as primary forests of native species that have no visible indications of human activity.

 

DLB

[Tom O]

In some US species (hickory, ash), "old-growth" lumber, from trees born (can we say that about trees) in already-established, shady forests, has grown more slowly, and is less likely to be "brashy"--that is, less likely to break under bending or other stresses--than so-called "new-growth" or fast-growing wood.

So wood intended for bending or for use as baseball bats or striking-tool handles ought to be "old-growth" wood.

This might be analogous to the ostensible difference in sonic virtues between very close-grained spruce and spruce with more widely-spaced grain lines.

[sospiri]

7 hours ago, Wood Butcher said:

Having seen something listed in luthier exchange as old growth, I wanted to know what this actually meant. I'd asked it there, but it seems more appropriate to ask it here, rather than on someone's for sale advert.

So what is old growth? As far as I can tell, it's a term that is only used in America (possibly Canada too), no one uses the term in Europe.

By the time trees are large enough to harvest, they will all be quite old, so it can't be that.

Is the wood taken from a tree, which was cut down many years previously, and just left somewhere (to rot)?

Is the wood from a dead standing tree?

Is the wood heartwood from a large tree, and therefore the oldest part? (can't think it is this, because that would have the widest grain)

Is the wood recycled from old buildings?

What advantage might there be in it, over other wood?

Does "old growth wood" cost more from a dealer?

How could one verify it is indeed older than normal?

Is it a real thing, or something completely made up by dealers, just like the AAAAA ratings for figured wood?

Having seen the thread with Simeon Chanbers spruce for sale, I assume it is a reference to the age of the tree being 300  or so years old when it fell?

[jacobsaunders]

2 hours ago, Tom O said:

 

So wood intended for bending or for use as baseball bats or striking-tool handles ought to be "old-growth" wood.

 

Sounds like an enticement to forge a viola joke

[martin swan]

2 hours ago, Tom O said:

In some US species (hickory, ash), "old-growth" lumber, from trees born (can we say that about trees) in already-established, shady forests, has grown more slowly, and is less likely to be "brashy"--that is, less likely to break under bending or other stresses--than so-called "new-growth" or fast-growing wood.

So wood intended for bending or for use as baseball bats or striking-tool handles ought to be "old-growth" wood.

This might be analogous to the ostensible difference in sonic virtues between very close-grained spruce and spruce with more widely-spaced grain lines.

Maybe the terminology is different in the US, but "brashing" is the activity of removing lower branches from trees (particularly conifers) in order to ensure knot-free timber. 

Self-seeded or planted hardwoods grown in existing shady forest are likely to shoot for the light and be less branchy, while conifers will both grow fast and produce a lot of side branches unless inhibited by heavy snow or brashed by a trusty forester.

The speed of growth is a function of climate and of available light and space, but I'm not aware of any correlation between slow growth and resistance to breakage.

The only example I'm aware of where hardwoods are planted in crowded mature forest is the practice of growing oaks for cathedral beams. If you need 40 feet of clean oak that's straight enough to be turned into a single beam, plant an oak in a nice mature oak forest, lop off any side branches that develop in the first 10 yeas or so, then just sit back and wait for 150 years.

 

 

 

[nathan slobodkin]

2 hours ago, martin swan said:

Maybe the terminology is different in the US, but "brashing" is the activity of removing lower branches from trees (particularly conifers) in order to ensure knot-free timber. 

Self-seeded or planted hardwoods grown in existing shady forest are likely to shoot for the light and be less branchy, while conifers will both grow fast and produce a lot of side branches unless inhibited by heavy snow or brashed by a trusty forester.

The speed of growth is a function of climate and of available light and space, but I'm not aware of any correlation between slow growth and resistance to breakage.

The only example I'm aware of where hardwoods are planted in crowded mature forest is the practice of growing oaks for cathedral beams. If you need 40 feet of clean oak that's straight enough to be turned into a single beam, plant an oak in a nice mature oak forest, lop off any side branches that develop in the first 10 yeas or so, then just sit back and wait for 150 years.

 

 

 

Martin

Unfortunately it takes a lot longer than ten years for a tree to reach 40 feet. The oaks in my forest usually take about three or four years before they develop enough root to start growing then make about six feet over the next three years when they settle in to growing about a foot a year in height until reaching 55' to 65'  feet at age fifty. I dream of 40' boles but it would take an exceedingly good site and at least fifty years of pruning to accomplish that. While it is possible that a tree might grow to that height under crowded conditions I suspect it would take much longer. I am currently pruning to 27 feet while  maintaining good rates of growth which will lead to harvest in about 100 years. 

Now, back to spruce for musical instruments. Any tree that is old enough will start growing very close growth rings so I am guessing that the kind of stuff we see on old Nuremburg instruments for example comes from the last 50 to 100  years of life on a 250 year old tree.

Unfortunately really great tone wood is pretty darn rare and always has been. I believe people started trying to grow better trees a couple of thousand years ago but as you know it is frustratingly difficult.

[martin swan]

2 hours ago, nathan slobodkin said:

Martin

Unfortunately it takes a lot longer than ten years for a tree to reach 40 feet.

I said you needed to sit back and wait for 150 years ... 

[sospiri]

3 minutes ago, martin swan said:

I said you needed to sit back and wait for 150 years ... 

I was going to reply to Nathan, but he made some other point about removing the lower branches requiring many years because oaks grow very slowly.

Anyway, if they don't find a way to modify the human genome with Tree telomeres soon, none of us will be around in 150 years.

[Wood Butcher]

6 hours ago, sospiri said:

Having seen the thread with Simeon Chanbers spruce for sale, I assume it is a reference to the age of the tree being 300  or so years old when it fell?

Any tree large enough to provide useable wood for instruments will have a significant age, so if it’s that simple, virtually all spruce would be “old growth”

The way trees are generally harvested for instrument making means that the youngest rings under the bark, are the wide edge of a wedge. 
A very large tree might have finer rings towards the edge, but this is not guaranteed, as several factors are involved in the speed a tree may grow.

[sospiri]

Just now, Wood Butcher said:

Any tree large enough to provide useable wood for instruments will have a significant age, so if it’s that simple, virtually all spruce would be “old growth”

The way trees are generally harvested for instrument making means that the youngest rings under the bark, are the wide edge of a wedge. 
A very large tree might have finer rings towards the edge, but this is not guaranteed, as several factors are involved in the speed a tree may grow.

Strad used wood from trees as little as 100 years old. Very tall, very thin. 

Simeon Chambers logged fallen old trees at 10,000 feet in Colorado.

 

[Jim Bress]

Here's a chart that folks might find interesting,...and if you feel like going down the rabbit hole. https://blogs.napier.ac.uk/cwst/speed-of-growth/ 

[Tom O]

•  

Posted 7 hours ago

Maybe the terminology is different in the US, but "brashing" is the activity of removing lower branches from trees (particularly conifers) in order to ensure knot-free timber. 

I think it's mostly SE US woodworkers who use the term "brashy" for wood that breaks easily under stress.

[sospiri]

21 minutes ago, Jim Bress said:

Here's a chart that folks might find interesting,...and if you feel like going down the rabbit hole. 

It's difficult to relate the information to physical properties for violin making.

Regarding the information about an 83 year old stand of sitka spruce in England  there is a stand of the same age near me and they are huge. Useless for violin making I'm sure, but very impressive from miles away or standing underneath them.

I think for Sitka to be useful, it has to be "old growth" in the US or Canada.

Anyways Jim, you know more about Simeon Chambers Spruce dontcha?

[nathan slobodkin]

1 hour ago, sospiri said:

It's difficult to relate the information to physical properties for violin making.

Regarding the information about an 83 year old stand of sitka spruce in England  there is a stand of the same age near me and they are huge. Useless for violin making I'm sure, but very impressive from miles away or standing underneath them.

I think for Sitka to be useful, it has to be "old growth" in the US or Canada.

Anyways Jim, you know more about Simeon Chambers Spruce dontcha?

S,

Why would you assume the trees you refer to are not suitable for violin making?

Also wonder if you are holding up the standing deadwood sold by Chambers to be superior to other wood. My experience with it is that while I and others have made good instruments from it at least some of it is rather weak and requires pretty substantial grads to avoid deformation over time. Personally I prefer wood from a number of other suppliers who harvest living trees according to standard practice.

[Wood Butcher]

10 hours ago, Jim Bress said:

Here's a chart that folks might find interesting,...and if you feel like going down the rabbit hole. https://blogs.napier.ac.uk/cwst/speed-of-growth/ 

Thank you, Jim, I've learned a few new things there about strength and density.

[Wood Butcher]

7 hours ago, nathan slobodkin said:

Also wonder if you are holding up the standing deadwood sold by Chambers to be superior to other wood. My experience with it is that while I and others have made good instruments from it at least some of it is rather weak and requires pretty substantial grads to avoid deformation over time. Personally I prefer wood from a number of other suppliers who harvest living trees according to standard practice.

Thank you, Nathan.
I think this comes closest to answering my question of what is this "old growth" wood. Wood taken from trees which had died naturally, and had stood for many years before being harvested & processed.
 

[sospiri]

9 hours ago, nathan slobodkin said:

S,

Why would you assume the trees you refer to are not suitable for violin making?

Also wonder if you are holding up the standing deadwood sold by Chambers to be superior to other wood. My experience with it is that while I and others have made good instruments from it at least some of it is rather weak and requires pretty substantial grads to avoid deformation over time. Personally I prefer wood from a number of other suppliers who harvest living trees according to standard practice.

The trees I refer to are 80 something years old Sitka in England. They are massive trees  visible from miles away. Tall and broad. They were planted for landscaping purposes. They are not even suitable for building purposes. The grain is super wide.

A stand of 50 year old Sitka near me has two fallen trees over 100 feet tall and with massive trunks. Yes I measured them and took a sample of the grain. The local foresters don't use them as they have outgrown the equipment used around here. 

Simeon Chambers' Engelmann Spruce looks awfully nice. Have you seen Jim's photos? 

Maybe Simeon overhyped his wood in a naive belief that low density was always better, but, really, so what? It was keenly priced and it's beautiful and beautiful to work with. I'm saving mine till I'm ready to make something really nice. 

I doubt that there is any significant difference in quality between the best Alaskan Siktka, Engelmann or European Picea Abies.

They will all have a super low runout ratio when bookmatched. As for stiffness to weight ratio and speed of sound that's for the super geeks to figure out. I think the old Italian masters probably bought billets similar to what is available now and has been for centuries.

[nathan slobodkin]

24 minutes ago, sospiri said:

The trees I refer to are 80 something years old Sitka in England. They are massive trees  visible from miles away. Tall and broad. They were planted for landscaping purposes. They are not even suitable for building purposes. The grain is super wide.

A stand of 50 year old Sitka near me has two fallen trees over 100 feet tall and with massive trunks. Yes I measured them and took a sample of the grain. The local foresters don't use them as they have outgrown the equipment used around here. 

Simeon Chambers' Engelmann Spruce looks awfully nice. Have you seen Jim's photos? 

Maybe Simeon overhyped his wood in a naive belief that low density was always better, but, really, so what? It was keenly priced and it's beautiful and beautiful to work with. I'm saving mine till I'm ready to make something really nice. 

I doubt that there is any significant difference in quality between the best Alaskan Siktka, Engelmann or European Picea Abies.

They will all have a super low runout ratio when bookmatched. As for stiffness to weight ratio and speed of sound that's for the super geeks to figure out. I think the old Italian masters probably bought billets similar to what is available now and has been for centuries.

I agree with you that the most important criteria is lack of runout. Cutting trees that have lost their bark and started to check naturally lets you see and select trees for that. Also agree that wood quality varied in Strad's time as much as it does today. Lots of different kinds of wood have made good instruments. Since I have approximately three lifetimes of wood stacked in my shop I probably won't be buying any more myself.