Reading about the old growth timber in the Pacific Northwest got me thinking

I was looking into some history stuff and found out that a single old growth Douglas fir tree can contain over 14,000 board feet of lumber. That's enough to frame like three whole houses, which just blew my mind. It makes you wonder if the push for engineered lumber is purely about efficiency or if we've lost something with that switch. What's your take on using modern materials versus the real, massive timber from back in the day?

4 comments

4 Comments

adam7511mo ago

Actually, @charles_green95 has a point about the math. That 14,000 figure is for a real monster tree, not your average giant. Most big ones were closer to 8,000. You can't just swap board feet for a framed house like that either, it's more complicated. The old wood was special, but the numbers get stretched sometimes.

charles_green951mo ago

Wait, are you sure about that 14,000 board feet number for one tree? That seems really high. I remember reading that a huge old growth fir might yield around 8,000 board feet, and that's already a giant tree. The math for framing three houses with one tree feels off too, since you need different grades and sizes of wood. Modern engineered lumber is definitely different, but it lets us build with smaller, younger trees which we have more of. The old growth had unique qualities, but we just can't build everything that way anymore.

terry_thomas1mo ago

Did you see that article about the old growth yields too?

logan7051mo ago

Yeah but those old growth numbers are real, I saw a forestry report showing some Douglas firs could hit 14,000 board feet. The wood was so dense and clear you could get way more usable lumber from one trunk. Now we're piecing together dozens of smaller trees with glue and staples for the same strength, it's just not the same quality.