Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message
What you get is what's there when you happen to be by.

Despite the other stories, it's not likely there's much (if any) real
difference between the comparable construction lumber at any of the
yards--they're all buying graded material in bulk.


The real problems is the trees. In order to improve the quality, we have to
let them grow another 25 to 50 years for the tight growth rings. We just
have to stop using wood in the meantime.

"Tight" growth rings have less to do w/ age, but to conditions --
closer-spaced growth rings means less annual growth which comes from
poorer growing conditions, not better.

There's little actual difference structurally afaict from USFPA data on
"new" vs "old" as far as measured properties. What's complained of
generally is owing to using all the available tree and cutting
construction lumber from marginally-sized trees to make better use of
the material (as in less waste) than when a 30+ -incher was sawn up into
tubafores and the rest simply left for waste.

--