Author Topic: Help with this oak (Read 2441 times)

flip · « **on:** November 29, 2010, 01:04:45 pm »

There is a story and I don't know the "whole" story but here is what was said. This is supposedly an oak that was blown down or fell down on a guy's property by Patoka Resivoir here in Dubois county (about 20 minutes from my house). I have not seen pics. of the tree yet but what was told to me through a friend of the guy that is turning it into fire wood it is 15' (yes feet) across. He has a picture of himself standing up in the middle of the butt, not sure if I believe it or not but where the wood was good they supposedly stopped counting at 300 growth rings. Again, I have not verified this but I am thinking this would have been one of the oldest oaks in Indiana. John said the limbs on this thing are in the 20-30 inch area (what they are wanting us to cut on shares). The pics. I have are a chunk of a limb of a limb. I can't count the rings because either my eyes are that bad or the rings are that tight but I am seeing somewhere around 40 or so to the inch. What I am looking for is ID of the wood, pretty sure it is red oak but not sure what flavor. Any help is appreciated and when I get pics. of this thing I will post them in this thread.

Tom · « **Reply #1 on:** November 29, 2010, 02:31:03 pm »

Along with the identification, be looking for any historical data you can apply to the tree. Cutting a tree like that up for common lumber or firewood is a real waste if it has local significance. Think of the number of generations that grew up within shouting distance of the tree and why it existed for so long without being taken down for expansion or disease.

There might be a fortune in the marketing of the wood of the tree, writing pens, walking sticks, bowls, plaques, as well as tables and chairs that carry a certification.

Can you get acorns? You could even sell seedlings.

beenthere · « **Reply #2 on:** November 29, 2010, 02:31:34 pm »

Question
Is this a pic of one of the limbs?

The red oaks are not identifiable as to which variety (flavor

) from the wood, even microscopically (according to the experts). Need leaves, etc. to do that.

flip · « **Reply #3 on:** November 29, 2010, 03:17:27 pm »

Quote from: beenthere on November 29, 2010, 02:31:34 pm

Question
Is this a pic of one of the limbs?

The red oaks are not identifiable as to which variety (flavor ) from the wood, even microscopically (according to the experts). Need leaves, etc. to do that.

This is a pic of the limb of one of the limbs if that makes sense. It was about 12" dia before it was broken into chunks.

I told them to get leaves, only way I know how to tell. They said the bark looked like white oak and red oak and shag bark hickory

The tree shrunk to 11' after talking to the guy that is cutting it up for fire wood. Still trying to negotiate a deal with him for some scraps. He said it is/was the oldest tree in Indiana, how he knows is anyones guess. AFAIK he does not have any documentation to this or a reference to verify the claim. I don't think this guy cares much as long as it burns in his boiler.

SwampDonkey · « **Reply #4 on:** November 29, 2010, 06:31:12 pm »

It's red oak, but beyond that just a guess as to species. The pores in the heartwood of white oak are generally filled with tyloses (think of hardening of the arteries, all clogged up). You also can't see latewood pores with a 10 x lens even. Just the opposite on both counts when dealing with red oak. This is determined by looking on the end grain.

WDH · « **Reply #5 on:** November 29, 2010, 06:44:28 pm »

It screams white oak to me. The length of the exposed medullary ray in the first pic is more white oakish than red oakish. The bark looks like it might be scaly, another feature of white oak.

The National Champion white oak, in Brunswick, VA, is 8.27 feet in diamater. If your tree is really 11 feet in diameter, then it was the national champion by far. Without an actual measurement, I would be suspicious.

http://www.americanforests.org/resources/bigtrees/register.php?details=3195

SwampDonkey · « **Reply #6 on:** November 29, 2010, 06:52:37 pm »

The rays seem narrow for what I picture white oak rays to be, but maybe it's the scale of the picture. The heart looks like a pinkish hue.

ARKANSAWYER · « **Reply #7 on:** November 29, 2010, 06:54:09 pm »

Looks like white oak to me. Looks like about 15 rings to the inch and at 11' that would make the tree between 950 to 1,100 years old. Tom might have planted it in some of his wonderings.

WDH · « **Reply #8 on:** November 29, 2010, 06:56:27 pm »

The earlywwod pores look occluded, at least from what I can discern from the pic. Most oaks don't make it to 1000 years. Tom just had a birthday, and even he is not close

.

SwampDonkey · « **Reply #9 on:** November 29, 2010, 07:02:42 pm »

You guys have sharper vision than I do, to see occlusions and tape measure marks across them rings.

Who could argue with that, eh?

woodsy · « **Reply #10 on:** November 29, 2010, 07:55:01 pm »

Looks like white oak to me too.

WDH · « **Reply #11 on:** November 29, 2010, 11:29:41 pm »

SD,

I guess that you did not see the mermaid hologram either

.

SwampDonkey · « **Reply #12 on:** November 30, 2010, 03:59:50 am »

I was wondering if the confusion on diameter was in confusing a diameter tape marked in Pi graduations when out measuring trees with a forester and thinking a carpenter's tape was the same thing and then proceeding to wrap the carpenter's tape around the trunk for diameter. Don't forget to divide by PI.

Good luck with your red and white oak.

In your last pic, are those fine lines (rays) an inch or better in length for the most part?

whitepe · « **Reply #13 on:** November 30, 2010, 09:36:03 am »

This sounds like a magnificent tree. Here's a 300 year old (estimated) burr Oak tree located in Peoria, Illinois
I should drive by and take some pictures. I haven't seen it for several years. It's impressive in person.

http://www.peoriaparks.org/giant-oak-park

flip · « **Reply #14 on:** December 03, 2010, 04:47:05 pm »

Got some dried up leaves off the tree today, judging by the rounded lobes I am calling it a eastern white oak.

SwampDonkey · « **Reply #15 on:** December 03, 2010, 05:25:42 pm »

Yup, white oak. Although I must say, I have red oak with rays that wide.

White oak is rare up here and is never sawed (for lumber) here, because of it's rarity. It's actually bur oak up here. Many towns will have English white oak planted a century ago. I do have one white oak, planted 25 years ago from NH. And yes the bark is flaky on it like these gentlemen have stated.

miking · « **Reply #16 on:** December 04, 2010, 09:23:29 am »

Looks like white oak to me too, but the little bit of thick bark suggests bur oak too. Whitepe, you know Peoria? Several oaks in the area are well over 300. I know because I've taken core samples.

beenthere · « **Reply #17 on:** December 04, 2010, 11:05:55 am »

miking
Tell us about taking core samples and determining the tree is over 300 years old.

SwampDonkey · « **Reply #18 on:** December 04, 2010, 11:18:37 am »

Leads to my question, How long is the increment borer? I know a red spruce was determined to be over 400 years old on the Fundy coast during dendrochronology work, but the tree was only 18" diameter, so you only need a borer 9" beyond the handle, well 11" or 12" maybe unless you want to scrape knuckles.

Tom · « **Reply #19 on:** December 04, 2010, 01:00:45 pm »

You would need a borer longer than 9" to count the rings in most 300 year old Loblolly Pines, down here.

Not all old trees have tight rings.

'Course a 300 year old Loblolly pine might be difficult to find.

News:

Author Topic: Help with this oak (Read 2441 times)