I have to do a presentation on genetically modified trees for work, and
I'm wondering what woodworker's opinions are on GE or GM trees. None
have been released to the wild yet, but there are several being
studied. Faster growth rates and timber production in pines,
disease-resistant elms and chestnuts, etc. What do you think?
Andy wrote:
> I have to do a presentation on genetically modified trees for work, and
> I'm wondering what woodworker's opinions are on GE or GM trees. None
> have been released to the wild yet, but there are several being
> studied. Faster growth rates and timber production in pines,
> disease-resistant elms and chestnuts, etc. What do you think?
mixed blessing. we get elm trees back, which were wiped out by human
misbehavior. we are also likely to see corporate interests decide that
their patented super fast growth pine tree should be the only conifer
standing in north america.
it's that law of unintended conscequences. the gene shift that gives
resistance to borer beetle and faster growth, coupled with agressive
government/corporate "forest management" programs replace all or most
of the non-modified trees.... then it turns out that this monoculture
"forest" has no resistance at all to the latest andean root rot, or
whatever....
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> what work that is being done as far as I know is concentrated on
> pulp and lumber species or for enhancing nut/fruit production, not to
> make high quality furniture woods. But, that possibly could be
> something I just haven't seen published research on--you have any
> specifics in mind
lyptus.
Duane Bozarth wrote:
>
> Since can't afford Doug fir any more and it's been probably 10 years
> since I've seen a Doug fir tuba-anything and you're in the West where
> it's grown and the industry, is there any significant increase in the
> rate of growth and if so, can those effects be seen in the wood quality
> as compared to virgin growth?
I've been working as a carpenter in CA.and AZ. for some 25 years, a lot
of it in remodelling. while I can't offer you any kind of
documentation, I can say that I see a dramatic difference in quality
between the fir framing material I can buy today and the stuff I have
pulled out of the walls of 100 year old houses. the old framing stuff
is often better (tighter straighter grain) than the best kiln dried
mondo expensive vertical grain doug fir trim material I can buy today.
my only concern with "fast growing" trees would be the problems associated
with wide grained fast-growth lumber. its not as strong, (and in my opinion
doesn;t look as good).
on the other hand, all ofthe lumber out there now is fast-growth, so I'm not
sure it woud really make a difference. I guess it would really depend on how
fast it really is.
for those of us that do timber framing and post and beam work, the strength
of the wood is very important. fast growth stuff is a lot weaker than old
(slow) growth. All of the beam strength tables I have are from the late
1800s or early 1900s (maybe earlier). A lot of safety factor is engineered
into the structures, but everything is based on those old numbers (which are
mostly from slow-growth timber).... I don't know if anyone has updated the
tables with any real research, but a major change in grain density would
tend to move the models further from truth...
--JD
On 9 Aug 2005 08:28:14 -0700, Andy <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have to do a presentation on genetically modified trees for work, and
> I'm wondering what woodworker's opinions are on GE or GM trees. None
> have been released to the wild yet, but there are several being
> studied. Faster growth rates and timber production in pines,
> disease-resistant elms and chestnuts, etc. What do you think?
Well, hybrid and grafted trees have been with us for centuries, and
people don't seem to have a problem with those modifications. If it
gets me interesting lumber to work with, great. As with anything else,
invasive tendancies would be my concern. But, I find it amusing that
people can get worked up about genetic engineering of plants, when we've
been doing it for centuries or more.
Dave Hinz
Ron Hock wrote:
>
> Andy wrote:
> > I have to do a presentation on genetically modified trees for work, and
> > I'm wondering what woodworker's opinions are on GE or GM trees. None
> > have been released to the wild yet, but there are several being
> > studied. Faster growth rates and timber production in pines,
> > disease-resistant elms and chestnuts, etc. What do you think?
> >
>
> A square cross-section would sure minimize waste...
As would a non-tapering trunk cross-sectional area w/ height... :)
bridger wrote:
>
> it's that law of unintended conscequences. the gene shift that gives
> resistance to borer beetle and faster growth, coupled with agressive
> government/corporate "forest management" programs replace all or most
> of the non-modified trees.... then it turns out that this monoculture
> "forest" has no resistance at all to the latest andean root rot, or
> whatever....
Actually, you raise the primary concern I have--reducing genetic
diversity by overuse of hybrids or other monocultural practices.
bridger wrote:
>
> Andy wrote:
> > I have to do a presentation on genetically modified trees for work, and
> > I'm wondering what woodworker's opinions are on GE or GM trees. None
> > have been released to the wild yet, but there are several being
> > studied. Faster growth rates and timber production in pines,
> > disease-resistant elms and chestnuts, etc. What do you think?
>
> mixed blessing. we get elm trees back, which were wiped out by human
> misbehavior.
Not really...elm disease would have spread eventually, anyway.
> ...we are also likely to see corporate interests decide that
> their patented super fast growth pine tree should be the only conifer
> standing in north america.
Again, not likely imo. There's far more "non-cultivated" acreage than
controlled and there are needs for more than a single species besides.
Andy wrote:
>
> I have to do a presentation on genetically modified trees for work, and
> I'm wondering what woodworker's opinions are on GE or GM trees. None
> have been released to the wild yet, but there are several being
> studied. Faster growth rates and timber production in pines,
> disease-resistant elms and chestnuts, etc. What do you think?
Actually, for "serious" woodworking, I'm not sure it will make a
significant difference at all. The re-introduction of the chestnut may
eventually result in an availability of that wondrous wood again, but it
isn't going to be in my lifetime.
OTOH, what work that is being done as far as I know is concentrated on
pulp and lumber species or for enhancing nut/fruit production, not to
make high quality furniture woods. But, that possibly could be
something I just haven't seen published research on--you have any
specifics in mind or information?
It seems to me unlikely that the production of high-growth-rate trees
will lead to anything except even more open-grain, soft and poor quality
lumber as compared with old, virgin growth forests. Hopefully, that is
wrong, and I stand to be corrected.
I really doubt it will be found to be possible to produce a fast-growing
specimen of mahongony, say, w/ 36" wide planks and the grain of 200
years ago in a 50-yr old or less log.
bridger wrote:
>
> > bridger wrote:
>
> > > mixed blessing. we get elm trees back, which were wiped out by human
> > > misbehavior.
> >
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
> > Not really...elm disease would have spread eventually, anyway.
>
> across oceans? maybe, but I have my doubts.
I suppose you're implying Chris (and Eric ahead of him) should have just
stayed home?
My point is it was inevitable, not a specific "misbehavior" unless one
takes a really narrow view of what proper behavior would have been.
Schroeder wrote:
>
> For what its worth I work for one of those "Corporate" Tree Farms and we
> alter the genetics through tree selection, i.e. cones from the best trees
> and again from those trees and so on. This year we planted 500 thousand
> Douglas-fir, 500k Hemlock, 20k red-cedar and a mixed bag of red-alder and
> pine, hardly a mono culture.
I think I also mentioned I didn't think there was a real problem except
perhaps in limited areas...
> The fast growing species you are refering to are primarily for pulp.
Correct, I think I said that "what work that is being done as far as I
know is concentrated on pulp and lumber species"...
In the SE there's a lot of managed SYP being cut as framing
lumber...while the same species as that from the 30's and earlier, it
isn't the same material is my point.
Since can't afford Doug fir any more and it's been probably 10 years
since I've seen a Doug fir tuba-anything and you're in the West where
it's grown and the industry, is there any significant increase in the
rate of growth and if so, can those effects be seen in the wood quality
as compared to virgin growth?
bridger wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
> > what work that is being done as far as I know is concentrated on
> > pulp and lumber species or for enhancing nut/fruit production, not to
> > make high quality furniture woods. But, that possibly could be
> > something I just haven't seen published research on--you have any
> > specifics in mind
>
> lyptus.
Oh, yeah...I'd forgot about it. It's a servicable wood, nothing really
outstanding imo.
Schroeder wrote:
>
> For what its worth I work for one of those "Corporate" Tree Farms and we
> alter the genetics through tree selection, i.e. cones from the best trees
> and again from those trees and so on. This year we planted 500 thousand
> Douglas-fir, 500k Hemlock, 20k red-cedar and a mixed bag of red-alder and
> pine, hardly a mono culture.
No, actually a bi-culture, effectively... :) (Just a joke, not for
real)
Question since you're obviously on West Coast--
Is it still true they leave such a large number and size of "twigs" when
cutting as they did? When on a tour w/ a Weyerhauser guy a (sizable)
number of years ago, it seemed to be almost a matter of pride commenting
on the size and number...
George wrote:
>
> "Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Since can't afford Doug fir any more and it's been probably 10 years
> > since I've seen a Doug fir tuba-anything and you're in the West where
> > it's grown and the industry, is there any significant increase in the
> > rate of growth and if so, can those effects be seen in the wood quality
> > as compared to virgin growth?
>
> All trees begin the same, so the term"virgin" growth is misleading,
> implying, as the huggers would have you, that superiority arises only from
> being untouched by the evil hand of man. Makes no difference how the seed
> got there - hand of man, ass of bird - it grows as the nourishment and light
> allow. Growth rates are monitored, and conditions modified to produce "good
> enough" and much more of it over the leave it be system, in which
> less-desirable, but faster growing species can outstrip the sapling to the
> sun or starve it.
Spare me the preaching, please...I have no such notion that there's
anything except the difference in environment going on here. But, as
you note, if you modify conditions, there's going to be a difference in
growth rates and that has a discernible effect on growth patterns in the
timber. I was simply asking if you have any data that shows the
difference.
> Same as oil - if we didn't demand so much, we wouldn't have to produce so
> much.
No argument there...
bridger wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
>
> >
> > Since can't afford Doug fir any more and it's been probably 10 years
> > since I've seen a Doug fir tuba-anything and you're in the West where
> > it's grown and the industry, is there any significant increase in the
> > rate of growth and if so, can those effects be seen in the wood quality
> > as compared to virgin growth?
>
> I've been working as a carpenter in CA.and AZ. for some 25 years, a lot
> of it in remodelling. while I can't offer you any kind of
> documentation, I can say that I see a dramatic difference in quality
> between the fir framing material I can buy today and the stuff I have
> pulled out of the walls of 100 year old houses. the old framing stuff
> is often better (tighter straighter grain) than the best kiln dried
> mondo expensive vertical grain doug fir trim material I can buy today.
That certainly mirrors what I see w/ 100 yr old SYP and what I would
<presume> would be true w/ other species such as Doug fir as well...
"George E. Cawthon" wrote:
>
> John McCoy wrote:
> > "jd" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > news:[email protected]:
> >
> >
> >>my only concern with "fast growing" trees would be the problems
> >>associated with wide grained fast-growth lumber. its not as strong,
> >>(and in my opinion doesn;t look as good).
> >
> >
> > Tropical species, like mahogany, often don't have annual growth
> > rings at all. I wonder if one could genetically engineer species
> > grown in the southeast US (and similar "rarely snows" climates)
> > to not go dormant in the winter, and not produce growth rings.
> > If one did, I wonder if the resulting wood would be stronger,
> > weaker, or just boring to look at.
> >
> > John
>
> You're kidding, right? Mahogany has growth rings.
> I've never seen any tree that didn't have
> growth rings. Want to mention another tree that
> doesn't have growth rings--conifer or angiosperm.
I, too, <was> curious about how he was going to have it produce any
additional growth w/o leaving any tell-tale trace... :^)
"Andy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I have to do a presentation on genetically modified trees for work, and
> I'm wondering what woodworker's opinions are on GE or GM trees. None
> have been released to the wild yet, but there are several being
> studied. Faster growth rates and timber production in pines,
> disease-resistant elms and chestnuts, etc. What do you think?
>
I think all trees growing know have been genetically engineered by the
infinite number of monkeys routine.
Giving direction rather than random chance could work to our advantage more
rapidly.
"WillR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Not worried about Frankentrees? :-))
Not really. More likely for a genetic mutation to go unnoticed in the wild
and march toward domination than something produced under observation in a
laboratory.
Though some trees I've harvested have had bolts in them....
"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Since can't afford Doug fir any more and it's been probably 10 years
> since I've seen a Doug fir tuba-anything and you're in the West where
> it's grown and the industry, is there any significant increase in the
> rate of growth and if so, can those effects be seen in the wood quality
> as compared to virgin growth?
All trees begin the same, so the term"virgin" growth is misleading,
implying, as the huggers would have you, that superiority arises only from
being untouched by the evil hand of man. Makes no difference how the seed
got there - hand of man, ass of bird - it grows as the nourishment and light
allow. Growth rates are monitored, and conditions modified to produce "good
enough" and much more of it over the leave it be system, in which
less-desirable, but faster growing species can outstrip the sapling to the
sun or starve it.
Same as oil - if we didn't demand so much, we wouldn't have to produce so
much.
"WillR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Schroeder wrote:
> For what its worth I work for one of those "Corporate" Tree Farms and we
> alter the genetics through tree selection, i.e. cones from the best trees
> and again from those trees and so on. This year we planted 500 thousand
> Douglas-fir, 500k Hemlock, 20k red-cedar and a mixed bag of red-alder and
> pine, hardly a mono culture.
Sounds Like a "BC" mix, or a general west coast mix. :-) Abbotsford by
any chance?
>
> The fast growing species you are refering to are primarily for pulp.
>
> Schroeder
>
>
That's five species though -- hardly the same mix that must have been
removed. But I did not see the TFL's so I cannot but guess... Anyway --
replanting to the same diversity level might be a real challenge.
While no expert on the forests of the west, I am pretty familiar with those
of the Midwest, and adaptation in general. If you find more than a
half-dozen varieties in an acre, it's a cinch that you've had a big terrain
change, or succession hasn't caught up with the rest of the woods. The
best-adapted grow, and shade or starve the others. Climax forest is
anything but diverse, and a mix of five is not a bad approximation.
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> WillR wrote:
> ...
>=20
>>Not worried about Frankentrees? :-))
>=20
> ...
>=20
> Well, the Ents were good guys, best I can remember... :)
But the Trolls were created to mock the Ents -- hence "Frankentrees". :-)=
I'm thinking of some Trollwood Jewel boxes. Should be big sellers=20
amongst the Tolkien Fans.
--=20
Will R.
Jewel Boxes and Wood Art
http://woodwork.pmccl.com
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those=20
who have not got it.=94 George Bernard Shaw
Andy (in [email protected]) said:
| I have to do a presentation on genetically modified trees for work,
| and I'm wondering what woodworker's opinions are on GE or GM trees.
| None have been released to the wild yet, but there are several being
| studied. Faster growth rates and timber production in pines,
| disease-resistant elms and chestnuts, etc. What do you think?
Andy...
[1] Fast growing.
[2] Straight-grained rectangular trunk with growth "flats" parallel to
one side.
[3] Varieties of each species exhibiting distinct colors.
[4] Virus, fungus, and bacteria resistant.
[5] Repellant to pests.
[6] Pitchless.
[7] Varieties that produce cold light (splice firefly gene?).
[8] Hardy in wide range of climatic conditions
[9] Branches that burn hotter and slower than ash (but only after
drying).
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
George wrote:
> "Andy" <[email protected]> wrote in message=20
> news:[email protected]...
>=20
>>I have to do a presentation on genetically modified trees for work, and=
>>I'm wondering what woodworker's opinions are on GE or GM trees. None
>>have been released to the wild yet, but there are several being
>>studied. Faster growth rates and timber production in pines,
>>disease-resistant elms and chestnuts, etc. What do you think?
>>
>=20
>=20
> I think all trees growing know have been genetically engineered by the =
> infinite number of monkeys routine.
I think you mean non-selective random breeding. :-) Right: :-)
>=20
> Giving direction rather than random chance could work to our advantage =
more=20
> rapidly.=20
>=20
Selective breeding or modification of a gene by direct manipulation?=20
Mostly we have used selective breeding to date. At least on animals and=20
plants that I know of... (Of course we have the Canola (Rape Seed)=20
litigation...
Not worried about Frankentrees? :-))
I can see it now Red White and Blue Pine Cones for Patriotic Christmas=20
Tress.
>=20
--=20
Will R.
Jewel Boxes and Wood Art
http://woodwork.pmccl.com
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those=20
who have not got it.=94 George Bernard Shaw
George wrote:
> "WillR" <[email protected]> wrote in message=20
> news:[email protected]...
>=20
> Not worried about Frankentrees? :-))
>=20
> Not really. More likely for a genetic mutation to go unnoticed in the =
wild=20
> and march toward domination than something produced under observation i=
n a=20
> laboratory.
>=20
True. I worry about that on my walks. :-)
> Though some trees I've harvested have had bolts in them....=20
I think that genetic mutation occurred in humans. <grin>
It's the "protect a tree -- kill a sawyer gene" -- little understood as=20
of yet.
>=20
>=20
--=20
Will R.
Jewel Boxes and Wood Art
http://woodwork.pmccl.com
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those=20
who have not got it.=94 George Bernard Shaw
Andy wrote:
> I have to do a presentation on genetically modified trees for work, and
> I'm wondering what woodworker's opinions are on GE or GM trees. None
> have been released to the wild yet, but there are several being
> studied. Faster growth rates and timber production in pines,
> disease-resistant elms and chestnuts, etc. What do you think?
>
I suggest that you look at your terms and define
them narrowly. Most of the comments you have
gotten are about, growth rates and selective
breeding. Neither of these have anything to do
with "genetically modified trees" or "genetically
engineered trees." Those terms indicate
introduction of genes that are not normally in a
tree.
I am sure that some places have introduced genes
that that make the trees more "bug" and disease
resistant as has been done for corn. However,
there is no way a woodworker would be able to tell
that from looking at lumber.
How can a woodworker have an opinion on
genetically altered trees, when he/she has no
experience with the wood produced?
For what its worth I work for one of those "Corporate" Tree Farms and we
alter the genetics through tree selection, i.e. cones from the best trees
and again from those trees and so on. This year we planted 500 thousand
Douglas-fir, 500k Hemlock, 20k red-cedar and a mixed bag of red-alder and
pine, hardly a mono culture.
The fast growing species you are refering to are primarily for pulp.
Schroeder
Schroeder wrote:
> For what its worth I work for one of those "Corporate" Tree Farms and w=
e
> alter the genetics through tree selection, i.e. cones from the best tre=
es
> and again from those trees and so on. This year we planted 500 thousan=
d
> Douglas-fir, 500k Hemlock, 20k red-cedar and a mixed bag of red-alder a=
nd
> pine, hardly a mono culture.
Sounds Like a "BC" mix, or a general west coast mix. :-) Abbotsford by=20
any chance?
>=20
> The fast growing species you are refering to are primarily for pulp.
>
> Schroeder
>=20
>=20
That's five species though -- hardly the same mix that must have been=20
removed. But I did not see the TFL's so I cannot but guess... Anyway --=20
replanting to the same diversity level might be a real challenge.
--=20
Will R.
Jewel Boxes and Wood Art
http://woodwork.pmccl.com
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those=20
who have not got it.=94 George Bernard Shaw
John McCoy wrote:
> "George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>
>>John McCoy wrote:
>
>
>>>Tropical species, like mahogany, often don't have annual growth
>>>rings at all. I wonder if one could genetically engineer species
>>>grown in the southeast US (and similar "rarely snows" climates)
>>>to not go dormant in the winter, and not produce growth rings.
>>>If one did, I wonder if the resulting wood would be stronger,
>>>weaker, or just boring to look at.
>
>
>>You're kidding, right? Mahogany has growth rings.
>> I've never seen any tree that didn't have
>>growth rings. Want to mention another tree that
>>doesn't have growth rings--conifer or angiosperm.
>
>
> I refer you to the US Forest Service's "Wood Handbook - Wood as
> an Engineering Material", 1999 edition, which says:
>
> "In many tropical regions, growth may be practically continuous,
> and no well-defined growth rings are formed".
>
> That said, mahogany was a poor choice of example, since it often
> does show annual growth rings (probably due to rainy season/dry
> season growth patterns).
>
> Note that a lot of tropical trees show variations in pigmentation
> which are not growth rings (e.g. rosewood, which is another
> tropical wood without growth rings).
>
> John
Thanks for the reference. I think the Forest
Service statement is overstated and limited to a
very narrow band and a limited number of species,
i.e., even in the tropics trees without growth
rings, even if faint, would not be the norm.
Probably written by an engineer and not a botanist.
"bridger" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1123697104.201338.165880
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
>
>>
>> Since can't afford Doug fir any more and it's been probably 10 years
>> since I've seen a Doug fir tuba-anything and you're in the West where
>> it's grown and the industry, is there any significant increase in the
>> rate of growth and if so, can those effects be seen in the wood quality
>> as compared to virgin growth?
>
>
> I've been working as a carpenter in CA.and AZ. for some 25 years, a lot
> of it in remodelling. while I can't offer you any kind of
> documentation, I can say that I see a dramatic difference in quality
> between the fir framing material I can buy today and the stuff I have
> pulled out of the walls of 100 year old houses. the old framing stuff
> is often better (tighter straighter grain) than the best kiln dried
> mondo expensive vertical grain doug fir trim material I can buy today.
>
The Doug Fir used to frame my almost 30 yr old house is now harder than the
KD 8/4 red oak I buy today.
Driving screws means pilot holes, even for construction screws. Nails are
best driven by an air nailer.
Too bad the ground moves so much...
Patriarch
Ron Hock <[email protected]> wrote in news:ld-dnWfMxfeZS2XfRVn-
[email protected]:
> Andy wrote:
>> I have to do a presentation on genetically modified trees for work, and
>> I'm wondering what woodworker's opinions are on GE or GM trees. None
>> have been released to the wild yet, but there are several being
>> studied. Faster growth rates and timber production in pines,
>> disease-resistant elms and chestnuts, etc. What do you think?
>>
>
>
> A square cross-section would sure minimize waste...
Ages ago someone (Burpee?) hybridized cylindrical tomatoes,
on the theory that they'd be easier to can (it didn't catch
on - neither did his spineless cactus, intended for cattle
feed).
More recently, someone in Japan has come up with cubical
watermelons, intended to fit into a fridge/freezer more
easily.
John
"jd" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> my only concern with "fast growing" trees would be the problems
> associated with wide grained fast-growth lumber. its not as strong,
> (and in my opinion doesn;t look as good).
Tropical species, like mahogany, often don't have annual growth
rings at all. I wonder if one could genetically engineer species
grown in the southeast US (and similar "rarely snows" climates)
to not go dormant in the winter, and not produce growth rings.
If one did, I wonder if the resulting wood would be stronger,
weaker, or just boring to look at.
John
"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> John McCoy wrote:
>> Tropical species, like mahogany, often don't have annual growth
>> rings at all. I wonder if one could genetically engineer species
>> grown in the southeast US (and similar "rarely snows" climates)
>> to not go dormant in the winter, and not produce growth rings.
>> If one did, I wonder if the resulting wood would be stronger,
>> weaker, or just boring to look at.
> You're kidding, right? Mahogany has growth rings.
> I've never seen any tree that didn't have
> growth rings. Want to mention another tree that
> doesn't have growth rings--conifer or angiosperm.
I refer you to the US Forest Service's "Wood Handbook - Wood as
an Engineering Material", 1999 edition, which says:
"In many tropical regions, growth may be practically continuous,
and no well-defined growth rings are formed".
That said, mahogany was a poor choice of example, since it often
does show annual growth rings (probably due to rainy season/dry
season growth patterns).
Note that a lot of tropical trees show variations in pigmentation
which are not growth rings (e.g. rosewood, which is another
tropical wood without growth rings).
John
John McCoy wrote:
> "jd" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>
>>my only concern with "fast growing" trees would be the problems
>>associated with wide grained fast-growth lumber. its not as strong,
>>(and in my opinion doesn;t look as good).
>
>
> Tropical species, like mahogany, often don't have annual growth
> rings at all. I wonder if one could genetically engineer species
> grown in the southeast US (and similar "rarely snows" climates)
> to not go dormant in the winter, and not produce growth rings.
> If one did, I wonder if the resulting wood would be stronger,
> weaker, or just boring to look at.
>
> John
You're kidding, right? Mahogany has growth rings.
I've never seen any tree that didn't have
growth rings. Want to mention another tree that
doesn't have growth rings--conifer or angiosperm.
In article <[email protected]>,
"Andy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have to do a presentation on genetically modified trees for work, and
> I'm wondering what woodworker's opinions are on GE or GM trees. None
> have been released to the wild yet, but there are several being
> studied. Faster growth rates and timber production in pines,
> disease-resistant elms and chestnuts, etc. What do you think?
Put big light-darkening tents over the trees, some metal halides and get
them used to an 18 hour day... works for chickens. Every four years, an
extra growth-ring..(on the tree.. on the tree.. not the chickens)
May not be cost-effective.
<G>
Andy wrote:
> I have to do a presentation on genetically modified trees for work, and
> I'm wondering what woodworker's opinions are on GE or GM trees. None
> have been released to the wild yet, but there are several being
> studied. Faster growth rates and timber production in pines,
> disease-resistant elms and chestnuts, etc. What do you think?
>
A square cross-section would sure minimize waste...