Tree selection

[markcasper]

I was thinning some red maple today and have a few areas that were thinned about 5 years ago. There were 3 areas where I had left a group of 3-4 trees that were about 10-12 feet apart, which are technically too close. I didn't want to cut them 5 years ago b/c they all were very nice with no defects and almost identical crowns. These trees are around 8 inches diamater.

The dilema is still here, no windstorm to topple any in the last 5 years and here I sit looking at them. What do I do? I guess checking for sugar % would be the next logical step?? Mark

[forester1]

I would check the sugar %. If the spacing is ok and all the trees equal in timber quality, I would keep the highest sugar % trees. I do this all the time at work. I wish I could transplant some because some areas have all junk trees and some areas all the trees are nice. They need room to grow however so something has to give. So sometimes I take out a nice tree to give another nice one room to grow.

[markcasper]

:( :( :( :( :( :(

[markcasper]

Jerry, I forgot to asked about forked tops. According to the producers manual, there is only to be one central leader towards the top. The question I have: What if you have say one tree with bad forking at top, the one next to it has something that resembles skidder damage/canker and still another one looks like something that came up from a stump. Which ones do I get rid of and what if the sugar % is the lowest in the one which you reccomend to keep?? Mark

[forester1]

Mark, This is where the transplanting comes in. You take one of those nice ones from that other group you were talking about and stick it in this group. :) It's difficult to say without seeing them. I would ignore the sugar percent in this case, tree quality and health is more important in my opinion. Sugar % is when you are looking at mostly equal quality trees. If the one tree has a fungus or canker, that one goes first. It would then depend on how low the fork is and how acute or split-prone. If it looks like it is going to split soon and is low on the tree, I would take that one out next. If it is high on the tree and there are live branches below it, I would take out the stump sprout instead, they don't live as long and are prone to rot at the base. In this case it would just be a guess on which is best, hopefully regeneration would begin and you would release the young trees by cutting the one or two you left, but then you couldn't tap in that spot for 50 years or so.

[markcasper]

Jerry, That is what I wanted to hear, especially reguarding sugar content. It seems once one starts looking around, there is alot of trees with forking.

For clarification though, do I have the correct definition of forking? or is my idea of a "forked" top the same as what is normal.?

Now I transplanted some hard maples last fall to my yard. I have a few of them that seem to have a junction 3/4 of the way up with sometimes 3-4 shoots coming from one intersection. Is this forking?? Or is it when say you have a 10-16 ft log and then -boom, you have 2 main terminals going straight up. I know where there is an ash next to a sugar maple that looks like this.

Reguarding the maple in the yard, there is one terminal that is the biggest. So I'd be right to clip the other 3 off, correct? I figured that it would be safe to do this, hence I transplanted it. I am planning to do this this spring after the sap has ran.

Also....In a few years our woods is scheduled for a thinning/timber sale. When we enrolled the woods into the MFL, the forester commented on the diversity and productive trees....etc. The problem that I see is this: Back in 1981-2 my dad had it logged pretty much down to 10 inches i think. The problem that I see is there seems to be lots of old skidder damage, you know...what the bottoms of trees look like and then have grown for 24 years now. Some of the damage has actually been swallowed up in new growth. I am afraid that when I have a consulting forester in, he is gonna want to take out lots of bad trees, yet alot of these are what I am tapping and there wouldn't be anything coming up to tap, at least in my lifetime, if this were to happen. So any advice on how to deal with this?? I admit that I am a lit bit on the perfectionist side, an maybe some people wouldn't think the damage was as bad as I am making it out to be. Either way, back in those days, there was much less effort made to keep the residual trees clean than there is today. Thats my opinion. Mark

[forester1]

Mark, When you get a forester to mark your trees, just tell him what you want. He works for you. If you say you want sap production then he will mark it that way over straight timber production. He will also favor leaving more of the maple over other species. If he doesn't want to, then get another forester. I agree that logging jobs are much better today as far as less damage to the remaining trees. It was hard when I first started trying to get loggers to slow down and be careful. Now most don't even need to be asked, they just do it. The worst forked trees are low on the tree and are just two even-sized leaders meeting at a sharp angle. When they get room to grow, both tops get bigger and eventually the tree splits at the fork due to the weight and weakness at the fork. The higher up, the less weight on the fork, so it is not as bad. It sounds like your land had a typical high grading at the last sale. That's when they take out the best and biggest. It is not a good thing to do. Often it gets opened too much which causes excessive forking on the remaining trees, in addition to leaving too many junky trees that should have been removed instead. It's better to take out the poorest trees first and not open it up too much all at once.

[sweetwoodmaple]

Hearing you guys talk makes me thing I need a good lesson in all of this. Problem is...I'm in an area when there aren't too many producers so there's no one handy to take a glance at my woods.

Though, I did experience the bad end of the forking issue about 2 years ago when a large forked sugar about took out my porch during a micro burst of strong wind. It was forked about three feet above the ground. Probably the worst kind. I don't have too many trees this way, but I do have plenty that have 3 or 4 sections or trees that have grown together. Maybe from a stump, I don't know.

My other problem is that I rent most of my bush, so clearing out would take some permission or $$ exchange or something. I would like to buy the land, but that would make me even more in the Red on this whole bit.

Brian

[forester1]

Brian, In most areas of the country there are county foresters that will come out and look at your trees for free and give advice. They usually work with the landowner but you could ask. Usually they work for the county conservation district or department of natural resources or whatever you have there. One thing about owning land, it probably won't go down in value. So I don't look at it as being in the red, since you could sell it for probably more than you paid.

[sweetwoodmaple]

Yes, I can try that. The Penn State Extension office has some published infomation as well.

This land may hold it's value depending on how much I pay, but the majority of it is swamp (read "wetlands" to the DEP) due to a reroute of a stream during strip mining and clear cut logging, so it cannot be built upon. Plus, as far as sugaring, there are no trees greater than 60 years old or so.

Thanks - Brian

[maple flats]

Check out the wetlands designation. It is my belief that agriculture is the only thing that CAN build on or adjacent to designated wetlands. Maple shugaring IS agriculture. Might not be able to build a home but you may be able to build a sugarhouse. And in many areas ag does not even need a building permit, which I found out after I had mine.
Good luck

[markcasper]

Jerry., Thank-You for all of your information! Its good to have advice from a forester that can relate to my situation. When dad and I drew up the managment plan, he pretty much let me decide what I was going to do with the woods. Of course the plan was drawn up with the idea of tapping and the plan resembles this and was approved by the DNR forester. So...with that in mind there is gonna be a fair amount of marketable timber. There are pockets of big oak that need to be taken out, as well as some areas of birch, soft maple and popple. Along with a few others...some baswood and ash. Maybe should do all the ash since the news is not good for them..eh??

One question: Is there a market for american elm?? It seems they are just a junk tree, but surprisingly there are a few around yet and we have several large ones that have grown up in the fence lines and stuff. My dad claims that they used to use elm years ago for many things, but it seems that you never see any at a mill..ever. I believe the wood is tough as a rag and twists and warps easily and is just basically worthless. Mark

[forester1]

You should have a while on the Ash yet Mark, I wouldn't get rid of it all just because it is ash. I think the ash borer only flies a couple miles per year and it is still being attacked aggressively. But people move firewood around, which is the main problem. Elm used to be used for many things and had a good market. It's hard to split since it is so twisty but it made good lumber. The problem now would be there is so little of it that wood users aren't geared up for it. It would still be used for pallets or other things that could be made with any wood. I'm not sure what the value would be but it would be probably low. The rest of your wood, especially the oak would probably be more valuable.

[maple flats]

I am a sawyer and elm makes excellent planking for heavy equipment trailers. This is a rather small market but that's what to do with it. Must be dried with a LOT of weight on top of the stickered pile or twisting is excessive. by a lot I am talking at least 2000 lbs/ sq yard on top and the planks must be oriented so that every row alternates which way the plank grew (in other words, paint 1 end and after stacking the paint is showing on the even number tiers)

[markcasper]

Jerry, Since we are on this wood subject. There is a smaller weird looking tree (brush to me) that I can't figure out what they are. You'll see them here and there and I think they like the sun though I've seen them in shaded areas too. Its not uncommon to see 10 all in a clump, yet they are not attached. These things never get very big. I don't think I have ever cut one larger than 3- maybe 4 inches max. They have really gray bark and is very smooth (almost gray as young basswood) They are rather hard and kind of hard on the saw. If you put 2 clover leafs on top of one another and give one a slight turn, this would resemble the circufrance shape. These things are seldom perfectly round. In the summer, the leaves resemble ash to elm and they are very fine stemmed, lots of leaves on them. Any clue as to what these things are?? If not, I will try to take a picture and get it on here this weekend. Mark

[forester1]

I think they may be Carpinus carolina called blue beech, musclewood, or ironwood but not the same ironwood as Ostrya virginiana which grows here. That's why I use the scientific name since common names can refer to different plants depending where you are. It also could be juneberry or shadbush Amelachier sp.[/i]

[markcasper]

Jerry, We have lots of ironwood too, but this stuff isn't ironwood. Hopwfully I will take the camera along and will snap a few shots. Mark

[Parker]

Are they a little blue in the middle and often the very middle is hollow? if so that is musclewood

[markcasper]

Jerry, I have the photos , but have not got them on yet. Next week for sure. I'm thinking they were shad. Mark