Milling long dead wood - can you identify?

[DaltonPaull]

Last week I spent several days building a trail and milling wood at my family's property in North Idaho. The tree that started the project was an ancient Ceder that went over roots and all a few years ago that was 36"+ dia with the first branch at 25' - too good to let it rot on the ground. The wood from this tree is great - clear and tight grained but I decided to take a break from milling and continue the trail to the creek. While clearing a path, I cut through a log that looked like it had been dead for ages - no bark and a layer of moss. To my surprise there was minimal rot and it looked great so I decided to try milling it. The result was beautiful CVG slabs but of what type I cant decide for sure. I've attached pictures of the log I milled and a near by standing dead tree that still has some 6" think bark and looks like the same species (this one looks to have started out standing dead as well.) I think it is most likely Douglas fir but possibly Western Larch (aka tamarack.) There are several old stumps (and some butt sections I might try to mill) as well as several standing dead trees in the area that look the same but no living fir trees in the area and only one small tamarack that I can find. Most of the living trees in the area are Hemlock and Ceder but there are some spruce nearby too. Does anyone have an idea of how to tell for sure if this is Fir or Tamarack?

 

[woodsrunner]

I don't know

what species you have there. But, I have had similar experiences on my timber land. A lot of the deadfalls/rootwads are actually in really good condition especially if they have landed in a position that holds the main trunk off the ground. In January of 08, after looking at this kind of stuff for years, I decided to try a salvage operation of this sort of timber. I have a buddy who is a pro logger and I hired him to bring his skidder and truck and in a day and a half we salvaged over $3000.00 worth of logs just like what you are talking about. We had intended to take them to the local sawmill and have them sawed for lumber to use around the farm, but after we got them yarded, we decided to sell them. Everything we pulled out sold for going price according to species and no discount for not being standing live logs! There is a lot more value in timber than most land owners realize! Especially if you are willing to think outside the box. Keep looking, I'm sure you will find more good useable timber on the ground.

Scott

 

[dallasm1]

Looking at the bark I would say that was doug fir, but I would expect more of a color differnce towards the center, the heart should be more red. However this is dead, so maybe that would not be true. Perhaps when dead for a long period the color changes? How about all of the west coasters out there chimining in on this one? Nice looking wood! I would take that in a heartbeat!

 

[deeker]

My guess is Ponderosa pine. Smell the bark when first pulled off, smells kind of like an orange.

Kevin

 

[DRB]

The wood you cut looks like western hemlock to me. It's usually slow growing like the nice tight VG you have there and not as orange as doug fir.

I would say the standing tree is likely doug fir looking at the bark. What diameter is it?

 

[smithie55]

I agree with DRB, the milled wood looks like Hemlock.
The bark on the standing dead tree definitely looks like Doug fir.

 

[DaltonPaull]

The standing tree is about 2' diam. The cool thing about the standing tree and the one I'm milling is that they are almost exactly the same diam for close to 100 feet with no branches. In fact when I stand way back I can see the top of the dead tree and even though it has lost all it's branches it is still possibly the talllest tree in the area (175 ish.) I think the tree I milled is the same species because they are all in a grove, some standing dead, some fallen after being standing dead. Seams like they just rot right at the ground level and finally fall over.

I agree that the wood looks like hemlock with the tight grain and consistent light color but there are at least a few reasons that I don't think it's hem.

-- All of our hems are shorter and wider
-- the bark on even a 3' diamater hem is under 2" thick
-- hems seam to have low rot resistance (I tried to mill one that was only down a few years and it was already too late.)

I'd like to find a good hem to mill and we have some huge one's but they seam to be prone to heart rot.

I don't know about pine, all of the large one's in the area are white pine and have thin bark but there are some small ponderosa. Could a ponderosa be that rot resistant and have such thick bark? The whites are dying a lot from blister rust and once dead the wood really breaks down fast. I'll give it a smell again when I get a chance.

 

[mtngun]

Ponderosa rots quickly, especially if it is laying on the ground. It typically doesn't grow in that type of shady forest, either. It likes partial sun.

The boards don't look like either Ponderosa or Douglas to my eyes.

 

[DaltonPaull]

How about larch then?

 

[Backwoods]

Doug-fir
Not all Doug-fir has the bright red center. Take a good whiff that will confirm it for you.
If you look at the boards that you have laid out you can see a red tint to the wood and the close up shows the red tint in the grain as well. Pine will not have that. The bark is defiantly Doug-fir. There is nothing there to tell me that it is not Doug-fir.

 

[Brmorgan]

Personally I'm going with either Douglas Fir or Western Hemlock, but leaning towards the Hemlock. Here's why:

1. There also appears to be a smaller Hemlock (or maybe a Silver Fir) in the very far upper-right of that photo, and what looks like a very young one right behind the end of the log in the upper-left. Hard to tell without a higher resolution image though.

2. No distinct color difference between sapwood and heartwood. On the other hand, I've often found an old Douglas Fir log that has been down for years and only the sapwood was completely rotted, while the heartwood was just fine. It looks like the outer edge is mostly intact on this log though, so I don't think that's the case. For what it's worth, Larch often has a white sapwood-reddish heartwood coloring much like Douglas Fir too.

3. The color appears more of the pale grayish-purple typical of Hemlock - especially in the "cathedral" grain sections thru the center of the piece. This of course could just be a slight color alteration by the camera. Hemlock also often has dark purple mineral streaks too, though it isn't uncommon to not find any in a piece as big as the one in the photo..

4. Many of the knots are not intergrown, and have a black ring around them as is often the case with Hemlock. But then the largest knot in the piece has more of a reddish-yellow tinge typical of Douglas Fir.

I'd probably have to see some more pictures of knots or some bark from farther up the tree or something to say for sure. But there are some things you can check too. What does it smell like? Douglas Fir smells pretty much like Elmer's white school glue. Hemlock has a bit of a sour smell when it's wet but I can't really compare it to anything. Also Hemlock is a non-resinous tree and as such doesn't have pitch. If you see any pitch pockets or streaks in the wood, it's definitely a Douglas Fir. The standing tree looks like Douglas Fir at first glance, but it's not terribly rare for Hemlocks to get fairly thick bark as well, at least up here inland anyway. It could be Ponderosa but I would doubt it due to the rather wet-looking ecology of the area (base on the picture). And Larch has very quite thin, spruce-like bark.

Following is a photo I just took to compare some Hemlock & Douglas Fir. The 2X6 on the left is a Hemlock, note the grayish appearance and almost black small knots. The small piece on the right is a highly figured piece of Hemlock, which I just put in to show the dark purple mineral streaks I spoke of and how black the knots in Hemlock can really get. The one in the middle is Douglas Fir; you can see the distinct heartwood transition from white to pink at the right-hand edge, and the more yellowish appearance of the larger knots.

Here is a handy chart outlining some species characteristics of common West-coast softwoods:

 

[Matildasmate]

Nice pics , looks like you have a nice little forest there Paull . Cheers MM

 

[mtngun]

A lot of good information in this thread.

I've never seen a doug fir lay on the ground for long without beginning to rot. The heartwood may remain solid, but the sapwood touching the ground would definitely rot.

The forest in the picture looks pretty dark and damp, typical for the panhandle of Idaho. I just can't see a doug fir surviving on the ground in that climate for any length of time.

Tamarack and hemlock don't grow on my mountain, so I am not familiar with their appearance, but tamarack is reputed to be extremely rot resistant. Hemlock, on the other hand, rots easily.

My vote is for tamarack (larch). It is the only species mentioned that has exceptional rot resistance. Plus, it likes to grow in moist, shady areas.

Tamarack is very desirable lumber. It is sometimes used for flooring. I wish it grew in my neighborhood.

 

[DaltonPaull]

I think I'll have to print out that ID chart.

Here's a picture of some larch that I took from http://www.kalesnikoff.com/ To me this looks pretty close, even though the identification chart says that the heart wood should be brown.

Here is an example of engleman spruce from wood-database.com. This looks possible too except for the bark.

Here is some hemlock from bearcreeklumber.com Those little dark areas seam to be common for hem.

And here's one more picture of the standing dead tree from farther back. Those are Hemlocks growing next to it and the log I was milling in the foreground. Hemlocks never stand 'buckskin' like that, they rot before the bark falls off and frequently fall while still live.

I think on my next trip to Idaho in a few weeks I'm going to try to find an 'expert' that I can bring a sample to for identification.

 

[Daninvan]

Interesting thread!

I cannot help on the ID part as I would be just guessing, but I would mention a couple things.

First, be careful of putting too much faith in the colour. It looks to me like the photos, in particular the first and third, may be slightly overexposed due to the flash. Maybe DaltonPaull can comment?

Second, for a positive ID you should plane the end grain with a sharp chisel or block plane, then take a close up shot using the macro feature of your camera. Then I'd go to hobbithouse or the Romeyn Hough book on line (http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/specialcollections/forestry/hough/index.html) and look at the end grain shots of the likely suspects there.

Lastly, great table Brad, thanks for posting that. I plan to print it out, add another column for info about the bark, and keep it with my saw. Very handy!

Dan

 

[wavefreak]

Can't send a sample to a DNA lab, eh?

 

[Backwoods]

I worked in a high production mill where we ran runs of Hemlock, Doug-fir, White fir, Red Cedar and Incense Cedar. If I was sawing I would kick that log out unless I was cutting Doug-fir and if I was running the sorter, I would stick it in a Doug-fir tray. When you look at 3-400,000 bft per shift, you get to where you know which wood is which. Describing the subtle differences in a way that everyone can under stand is another story, but if you take a look at the picture that Brmorgan posted just above his chart you can see that the small knots of the Doug-fir board have the same characteristics as what was milled. Don’t get hung up on the red hart of a freshly fallen Doug-fir as these trees have been down a day or two. If you look at the end of the log that was cut you can see a change in color as well. I stand by my call of it being Doug-fir.

 

[mtngun]

Backwoods, I respect your experience. Sounds like you've been in this line of work most of your life.

I agree that, except for the missing orange tint, the board in the picture could easily pass for doug fir.

But, a couple of things puzzle me. Why didn't the log have any bark ? I'm not smart enough to explain why some species lose their bark and others don't, but I just can't recall seeing a naked doug fir in the woods.

And, if it is true that the tree had been dead for many years, why didn't it rot ? Surely it must be a rot resistant species ?

A dead doug fir with bark will start to get punky after 2 - 3 years, because the bark retains rainwater like a sponge.

On the other hand, I've seen 50 year old doug fir fence posts that were still solid (and ORANGE) on the inside (the above ground portion of the post), despite looking rotten on the outside. .As long as there is no bark to retain moisture, and no contact with the ground, doug fir does last a long time out in the elements.

I hope we get a final answer. This thread has aroused my curiosity.

 

[DRB]

Interesting post looking forward to the diagnosis.

I think the standing tree pictured is likely Doug Fir by looking at the bark. The milled wood still looks like Hemlock to me. Doug Fir would likely have rot in the sap wood when growing in a wet hemlock forest. DaltonPaull did the log you mill have any thick doug fir bark on it? Maybe near the root ball or lay on the ground under the log?

Could it be larch? I don't have experience with this one.

BTW nice stand of hemlock trees. I always loved waking the hemlock cedar forests of the coast.

 

[Backwoods]

Here is the Doug-fir bark on a naked tree. Standing dead Doug fir will shed there bark rather easily. Keeping the bark on a Doug-fir thru out the handling of the log is harder then removing it. The bark will come off in big sheets if the log has shrunk away from the bark.
As a kid my brother and I would find a big dead Doug fir and debark the whole tree from the ground by prying the bark loose and standing back as the loose bark came crashing to the ground from as high as 80’-100’ up, resulting in a naked dead tree.

By the looks of the log that was milled it did have a thin layer of decay, this could be explained by the slow growing nature of the area where the trees are. Meaning that the tree only had a thin layer of juvenile wood 2”-3” and the rest of the wood being more mature wood and less susceptible to decay.