Good way to observe, Mr Firewood Splitter.
Mike Maas, all valid points, and all the widely varying points and arguments for and against are creating a boundless arena of infinite argument. Hang with me for a couple minutes.
Yesterday I took down 36" DBH beech tree. There were wound sites of all different sizes, and differing degrees of closure.
One thing I always have done when bucking limbs or logs into firewood is to cut ANY protruberance off flush with the log or limb. Other tree guys think I'm anal, but the firewood guys appreciate it, and it gives me a chance to see some of what's happening just inside the wound bulge, at least in one plane. I attempt to crosscut through, to get a view of another plane if the cavity falls on a crosscut.
It was an unusual day in that I had three guys helping me, actually one ground guy, and two guys there for the firewood. I grabbed my camera and was going to take some shots of these wound sites, before, and after cutting them off flush, but my camera was twinking out. Then the stump guys showed up. Desperately, I'm trying to pull off some shots with 5 guys watching me as I was narrating why I was doing what I was doing, as if anyone there could have cared.
No shots, but a realization set in. This would be very difficult information for ANYONE to collect and document, even if there were a protocol. For PhD's or grad students to collect the data they would need to coordinate schedules with an arborist, or by some impossible circunstance, BE an arborist. Then, the arborist would have to greatly slow his work schedule to accomodate the necessary communuication and allow the data collectors to do their thing, meaning it's costing the arborist money. It would have to be a special arborist.
In streamlining, meaning cutting out the grad students and professors (even if they WERE available) means the arborist would have to do the data collection himself, also costing him time. Much of the data collection would have to be photographic and there would have to be some consistency, rather a protocol, if this were to be data collection to be used for 'research'.
Even if there were a dozen NEWTS aligned and coordinated, I'm not so certain that we could develop a research protocol that would be recognized by a committee, academic or industrial. Research, especially if it is intended for publication, is very, very involved and goes so much further than designing an experiment with results that can be replicated. Without a formal, structured research plan, there will be no definitive results.
I bring this to light because the word research has been used in this thread, rather loosely, and I don't see it as practical Also, research takes work, time and costs money.
A number of doubters have cried, "anecdotal", but gentlemen, I believe that 'anecdotal' is as good as it's going to get. I don't see 'research-proven' being a reality. I think if we were to accept anecdotal as our 'data', over the course of time, 'generally agreed upon' might evolve into 'accepted industry practice'. There's just too many variables, interspecie differences, climate, original wound size, atmospheric spore loads and seasons during which the wound originated to get any sort of consistency. Plus, our results may take years or decades to prove themselves out, and only upon dissection of the tree would the results be observable, and only then possibly definitive.
This does not, however, mean that we are incapable of finding something that works amongst ourselves. It's just getting absolute, definitive, satisfying proof, I feel, is next to impossible, even if the method does work. This is because we will never have the 'research' to back it up; just anecdotal claims from professionals in the field. We might be best to accept that this may be as good as it will get.
will have their membership revoked!
