# Large Dead Oak Come Down And Provide 8 Cord Of Wood



## Joey Jones (Sep 28, 2008)

A good friend of mine told me this story today. His cousin live in Danville Maine and he finally cut down dead oak tree. Very large, very old dead tree. After cutting and stacking he ended up with 8 cords of wood from this one tree....I find this amazing...


----------



## Jerry_NJ (Sep 28, 2008)

Wow, just computing the volume of a tress (not allowing for any air space) the volume needed for 8 cords, 1,024 cubic feet would require (for only a trunk) a trunk of average 2 feet diameter 326 feet long.   Guess that's not too much to be in one tree, especially if the trunk is 3 or 4 feet in diameter at the base and it has limbs with diameters over a foot in diameter.  

Just some number crunching, I too was surprised one tree could contain that much wood, good news!


----------



## ISeeDeadBTUs (Sep 29, 2008)

8 cord from one oak tree . . . hmmmm

must be face cord, and like 6" at that.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Sep 29, 2008)

The larger oaks that I've taken down were over 2 cord.  Good sized, but not huge.  When you think about it though- the volume of wood goes as the square of the radius- so those huge trees- 4' in diameter- might be 8 cord I guess.


----------



## jrousell (Sep 29, 2008)

I have always  wondered this... around me  when people say cord- they always mean a face cord. ( in fact most people don't even understand that there is such  a thing as a "full" cord....)
Is there anyone else out there where the local norm is to call a  face cord a cord?


----------



## lobsta1 (Sep 30, 2008)

adkdadto4 said:
			
		

> I have always  wondered this... around me  when people say cord- they always mean a face cord. ( in fact most people don't even understand that there is such  a thing as a "full" cord....)
> Is there anyone else out there where the local norm is to call a  face cord a cord?



When you call someone to order a "face" cord of wood, how is it measured. A cord of wood is a specific amount, 128 cubic ft. Depending on how the cutter does his cutting, you could end up with 1/4, 1/3, 2/5 or 1/2 of a cord. Do you specify what length you want it & then get told a different cost? Also, your local "norm" could be different in the next county or state. I know that at least in some of the states that a "cord" of wood is a legal measurement of 128 cubic feet & only that measurement & specific fractions of that figure are legal. 

Of course, you stand a good chance of not getting that exact amount, but at least when getting price quotes every one is starting with the same measurement.
Al


----------



## jrousell (Sep 30, 2008)

If you call to order wood around here  - you will be quoted the cost for a face cord, they won't even bring up that they mean face cord, if I were to clarify "face cord?"- they would say of-course... 

 The length is hardly ever brought up unless you are getting a rather large order form an automated mill...

 most commonly it would be in the 16-18 inch range...


----------



## jrousell (Sep 30, 2008)

adkdadto4 said:
			
		

> If you call to order wood around here  - you will be quoted the cost for a face cord, they won't even bring up that they mean face cord, if I were to clarify "face cord?"- they would say of-course...
> 
> The length is hardly ever brought up unless you are getting a rather large order form an automated mill...
> 
> most commonly it would be in the 16-18 inch range...



and yes- when I bought wood downstate, and in Massachusettes... full cords were the norm


----------



## gary (Sep 30, 2008)

adkdadto4 said:
			
		

> I have always  wondered this... around me  when people say cord- they always mean a face cord. ( in fact most people don't even understand that there is such  a thing as a "full" cord....)
> Is there anyone else out there where the local norm is to call a  face cord a cord?



Around here, I've seen 3 methods of measurement: a cord, a rick (1/2 cord), and a pickup load (??????)


----------



## JustWood (Sep 30, 2008)

adkdadto4 said:
			
		

> If you call to order wood around here  - you will be quoted the cost for a face cord, they won't even bring up that they mean face cord, if I were to clarify "face cord?"- they would say of-course...
> 
> The length is hardly ever brought up unless you are getting a rather large order form an automated mill...
> 
> most commonly it would be in the 16-18 inch range...



Same here.


----------



## jrousell (Sep 30, 2008)

LEES WOOD-CO said:
			
		

> Same here.



where is that??


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Sep 30, 2008)

In some states it's not even legal to sell a face cord.  You sell a cord, or some fraction thereof- so you might buy a 1/3 of a cord.  This avoids any ambiguity in the measurement.

Whenever I hear people measure in face cord I'm reminded of 2 things- ordring the ladies sized drink in the UK, and when people tell you a kid's age in months until they're in their early teens.  "He's 42 months old..."


----------



## gpcollen1 (Sep 30, 2008)

Yeah - sounds like face cords.

I had a 100 ft Red Oak drop here over the summer and I got about 1.5 cords (max) out of it.  Ive seen some Big and spread white oaks that could probably yield 2 cords or maybe a tad more.


----------



## Joey Jones (Sep 30, 2008)

No this is a true 8 cords... The girth at the base of this tree was very close to 36" and it did render 8 real cord of 128 cubic feet per cord. Some of the big limbs where over a foot in diameter. I did have a hard time grasping this amount of wood from a single tree. These people I speak of are my best friend and his cousin who did work for Lucas Tree Co for many years and now teaches school. We are all wood burners of 10 plus years and in this part of the country nobody ever speaks in face cords. Although we do know what they are.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Sep 30, 2008)

I  believe it.  When I see those estimators for wood showing that a tree 22" or whatever at chest height is just one cord- I don't get it.  I should measure out the base of the white oak I took down this spring that yielded just about 2 cord of wood before drying- maybe being on the edge of the woods it puts on more mass in the spread limbs.   I can even get a shot of the stump and woodpile in the same picture.


----------



## ISeeDeadBTUs (Sep 30, 2008)

4' X 4' X 8' is the legal definition of a cord in NY as per ag and market law, thus 128cuft * 8 = 1024 ft3

for the sake of argument, lets say the oak is 36" diameter on the stump; at 80' tall it is 0" diameter. Convert to average radius in feet = 0.75'

so . . . 3.14 * 0.75(2) X 80' = 142 cuft

Now lets say the average limb is 1' at the base and 0' at 50'. Convert to average radius in feet = .5'

so . . . 3.14 * 0.25(2) X 50' = 10 cuft

1024-142=882/10 = *88 limbs*

You want to assume this is a monster tree, say 120' tall? you would still need 50 limbs at 80' long . . . Seriously Dude,, whoever told you you got 8 cord from an oak tree either sells OWBs or had one of the limbs knock him on the head!!


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Sep 30, 2008)

Oaks in the forest are up to 1 meter in diameter and 35 meters (110' ?) high.  In the open- 2 meters is not unheard of, but they're shorter and fuller branched.

I just read that the record red oak was in Ashford, CT- an unbelievable 8 meters around.  That's nearly 8' across. 

So- since this has been called a "monster oak"- if we call it 6' across and 80' tall- then half the diameter is 3' (averaged diameter), so the radius is 1.5', and  3.14*1.5'^2 *80 = 565.2 cu ft. 

That's almost 4.4 cord in the trunk alone.  That doesn't count air space- a cord is split and stacked wood, not calculated volume in a log- so calling it 25% airspace stacked wood (a tightish stack) gives: 4.4 cord * 4/3 = 5.9 cord in the trunk alone.

That is a big mo tree.  I've seen a few that made me pause- this one could be.


----------



## Joey Jones (Sep 30, 2008)

ISeeDeadBTUs said:
			
		

> 4' X 4' X 8' is the legal definition of a cord in NY as per ag and market law, thus 128cuft * 8 = 1024 ft3
> 
> for the sake of argument, lets say the oak is 36" diameter on the stump; at 80' tall it is 0" diameter. Convert to average radius in feet = 0.75'
> 
> ...



Gee you seem bent on proving me wrong... So if it makes you happy, he only got 4 cord and you were right all along


----------



## Tfin (Sep 30, 2008)

I had never even heard of a "face cord" until I came to this site.  When folks talk "cord" in my neck of the woods......its 128 cu ft.


----------



## flyingcow (Sep 30, 2008)

Tfin said:
			
		

> I had never even heard of a "face cord" until I came to this site.  When folks talk "cord" in my neck of the woods......its 128 cu ft.



Same here...I assumed that snake oil salesman and the like , only deal in face cords.


----------



## Lifted4x4Astro (Sep 30, 2008)

Tfin said:
			
		

> I had never even heard of a "face cord" until I came to this site.  When folks talk "cord" in my neck of the woods......its 128 cu ft.



I grew up in "true" Upstate NY (not Syracuse or Albany) and now am just outside Oswego and I had never heard of a "cord" until I came to this site! We always dealt in face cords and we burned wood my whole life and even sold around 100 face cord each year. Apparently dad didn't think we were busy enough on our 100 cow dairy farm! LOL


----------



## flyingcow (Sep 30, 2008)

When we buy the wood buy the truckload/treelength(mixed hardwood) its dealt in 5,000lb to the cord. 
    I'm serious when I say this,. I've never heard the term face cord until I came to this site. But most of my wood i cut up into "16/18 lengths, so 3 face cord equals 1 cord.


----------



## gpcollen1 (Sep 30, 2008)

I still have a hard time swallowing the 8 cords .... that would mean my 100ft oak would somehow be 4 times as large, whether in the trunk or with branches - just to get 6 cords.  That is nuts.


----------



## Rockey (Sep 30, 2008)

ISeeDeadBTUs said:
			
		

> 4' X 4' X 8' is the legal definition of a cord in NY as per ag and market law, thus 128cuft * 8 = 1024 ft3
> 
> for the sake of argument, lets say the oak is 36" diameter on the stump; at 80' tall it is 0" diameter. Convert to average radius in feet = 0.75'
> 
> ...



At least try compare apples to apples.

4X4X8 is stacked with lots of air gaps

Your volumetric calculation of the tree is 100% wood density.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Sep 30, 2008)

CT- it is a HUGE number, but remember- when you double the width- the volume is 4x as large!  Those big looking trees have more wood in them than the simple ratio would imply!


----------



## myzamboni (Sep 30, 2008)

I'd believe it if it was a Live Oak


----------



## Jerry_NJ (Sep 30, 2008)

Gee happy someone else made up an approximate geometry for a tree 3" in diameter and did the math.    Given joyej gave us the 3' diameter, seems the calculation has merit for the subject tree.  But, it is also clear that a tree with a 6' diameter could make the big 8 cord delivery.  Using ISee.. model this tree would have 565 cubic feet in just the trunk.  I can believe it would have about that much more in limbs.  Yes, 8 cords in a real tree,  BIG real tree.


----------



## smokinj (Sep 30, 2008)

i have seen them 54in across was in the ball park of 8 cords


----------



## JustWood (Oct 1, 2008)

I believe the 8 cord figure.
Once cut a sycamore 42" across the stump and 132' to the end of the highest branch.No limb logs ,all trunk logs. Took 2 tri-axels to haul it to the mill and there was still a few logs left at the landing. Most tri-axels average 7 cord.


----------



## thebeatlesrgood (Oct 1, 2008)

8 cords in one tree was hard for me to swallow until i saw the second tree myzamboni posted. if that tree at 3 feet in diameter was anywhere near 8 cord the second oak has to be 14 or more cords. hell from the base of the tree you could carve 3 or so 4'x4'x8' blocks or a solid cord. now all you'd need is a stove big enough to burn it.


----------



## ISeeDeadBTUs (Oct 1, 2008)

Actually, I'm not intent on proving anyone wrong. In fact, two of those trees would heat my house all season plus my DHW all off-season.

But if the oaks in Maine are the same as the rest of the NorthEast, then 80' is the TYPICAL max height. And they don't typically run a trunk the entire 80'.

Consider this . . . most Tri-ax loads run approximatly 6 full cord. Thats cut and stacked cord not vulumetrically perfect cord.

And lastly, I'm no logger. Ask any man - or woman, I guess - that makes his or her living cutting wood in the NE about getting 8 cord from one oak tree. Just prepare yourself for the response :lol: 

If they cut and stacked this oak and it came to 6 * 20 * 8, or some derivation thereof, then it's 8 cord. Screw the calculations!

You might - and might not - find this interesting :

http://www.holdenmaine.com/conservation commission/Big Tree Contest Entries for Website.pdf 

Note this prize winning Red Oak from Maine at 150" . . . unless my math is bad thats a radius of 2'. I used 1.5 in my half-assed calculation 'cause the 3' diameter was given.

How did Rodney King put it? . . . "Can't we all just get along?"


----------



## Joey Jones (Oct 1, 2008)

I didn't mean to stir up a hornets nest here.I did speak with the fellow who passed this information on to me again today and told him there were a bunch of doubters about the 8 cords of wood statement. The person that relayed this information is a real estate broker and said the tree was in fact greater than 3' in diameter and closer to 4' and  that the lower limbs were in excess of 2'. He did say the arborist that was called in needed a special chain saw of extreme length to take down the trunk. The arborist further stated that the tree was at least 300 years old. My real estate friend says there are still several live oaks of a similar size out in front of the house and he did promise to take a photo. I will be glad to post the photo when I receive it. These trees are in Cape Elizabeth Maine and apparently did escape the great Portland fire of 1866, which destroyed much of the city.

I do appologize for misquoting originally the diameter of the trunk and the size of the lower limbs. Those  were his orginal statements said in conversation, but when I told him yesterday that many smart people on this forum doubted the efficasy of his state he did go by the house again today and got some closer numbers. He just lives down the road from the house with the big oaks. 

All I can say is I wish I have a couple of those trees on my land


----------



## Tfin (Oct 1, 2008)

I can tell you right now for a fact that there are MANY red oaks on my mother's property that have WELL over a 2' radius.

Houlton doesn't know jack about trees......that's potatoe country up there.   ;-) 

The largest registered red oak in Maine posesses a 265" circumference, stands 84' tall and has a crown spread of 71'.

http://mainegov-images.informe.org/doc/mfs/projectcanopy/pages/resource/pubs/pdfs/bigtrees_2005.pdf

That's a lot of wood my friends.


----------



## ISeeDeadBTUs (Oct 1, 2008)

LOL, and I don't know Jack about Maine . . . other than a honeymoon over two decades ago in Southeast herbor and a ferry ride over to PEI.

So apparently Maine Red Oaks are different from the rest of the NE. So can someone get me a lead on say 10 acres of these Brutes??

Jimbo


----------



## billb3 (Oct 2, 2008)

They must have cut and stacked every shred including leaf stems and calculated in the cutting teeth losses of sawdust.


Even though New England has very very very few old growth trees still standing there are some. Not all are documented.


----------



## crazy_dan (Oct 3, 2008)

Dont forget that a solid tree is not calculated in to  128 cubic foot cords as that is 128 cut, split, and stacked and contains air space. I would venture to say that is about 1/3 of the space so you really need to figure the tree cord at about 85 cubic foot.

On top of that I have cut some big gnarly oaks that i took 10 - 12 pickup loads from. and that is about 5 - 6 cords. so 8 is not out of the realm of possibility,.


----------



## DexterDay (Sep 19, 2011)

gary said:
			
		

> adkdadto4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A rick is considered a "Face Cord" or a 1/3rd Cord... Measuring Firewood will make you sick.. If everyone bucked there wood to 18", then it would be much more consistant. 


There is an Amish house next door and another about a half mile down the road... Both have Oaks that would contain at least this amount.. Trees are still alive, but have sections that are dead. After a few hundred years. It happens...... Those Oaks have to be 8-10 Across. Or 25-32 in Diameter...


----------



## rdust (Sep 19, 2011)

That's a huge tree, this ash was 48"+DBH along with large limbs, it was right around 5 cords all said and done.  My old man in the one shot is 6' for reference.


----------



## joefrompa (Sep 19, 2011)

Maybe I'm just lucky where I grew up, but I don't doubt this. I've seen some enormous trees and I've seen plenty of trees around me that yielded 2.5-3 cords - and those were from within the past century.

You get into the truly enormous oaks that are a few centuries old, you take the trunk, you take the big limbs, and you account for airspace in the cords........yeah, 8 cords one tree works for me.


----------



## weatherguy (Sep 19, 2011)

I came across this big ass oak in my work and wondered how many cords this one tree could produce


----------



## fabsroman (Sep 19, 2011)

Adios Pantalones said:
			
		

> The larger oaks that I've taken down were over 2 cord.  Good sized, but not huge.  When you think about it though- the volume of wood goes as the square of the radius- so those huge trees- 4' in diameter- might be 8 cord I guess.



A guy I was cutting with today said he got a 6' diameter maple last year from a scrounge and it provided him with 10 cords of wood. He showed me pics of these sections that the tree company cut up. They were 18" by 6 feet and they were huge. He had to saw them in half and then put a single piece at a time in his truck. While I would love to get 10 cords, I think I would have been crying dealing with something like that.


----------



## Constrictor (Sep 19, 2011)

All I've got to say to the doubters is if you don't believe a tree can have 8 cords you've not cut any big trees up. Last week I cut up a 6 cord 42" dia oak. Took me 3 trailers 7'x16 piled 3-4' high in the middle around 10-11,000 pounds each load. It's pretty simple to figure out the cubic footage of a cord of wood.


----------



## woodsmaster (Sep 19, 2011)

I have a white oak in my yard coming down this fall after the soybeans come off so I can drop it in the field, that I suspect is over 6 cord.


----------



## Wood Duck (Sep 19, 2011)

Lifted4x4Astro said:
			
		

> Tfin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are those full cows or face cows?


----------



## quads (Sep 19, 2011)

woodsmaster said:
			
		

> I have a white oak in my yard coming down this fall after the soybeans come off so I can drop it in the field, that I suspect is over 6 cord.


If it isn't hollow.  All the bigger white oaks around here generally are.


----------



## mecreature (Sep 19, 2011)

I've seen some mighty big ones. 8 cord probably.. 

the truth is stranger than fiction.


----------



## Creekyphil (Sep 19, 2011)

https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/viewthread/73887/P0/

Kudos to whoever noted that volume is a function of the SQUARE of the diameter. 

Bad math alert for whoever suggest that 128 cubic feet of wood is a cord.  80 cubic feet is more like it.


----------



## lukem (Sep 19, 2011)

Creekyphil said:
			
		

> https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/viewthread/73887/P0/
> 
> Kudos to whoever noted that volume is a function of the SQUARE of the diameter.
> 
> Bad math alert for whoever suggest that 128 cubic feet of wood is a cord.  80 cubic feet is more like it.



128 cu feet is the well established volume of a cord of wood once c/s/s.  Are you talking about when still in log form?


----------



## SolarAndWood (Sep 19, 2011)

lukem said:
			
		

> Creekyphil said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



yep, someone in this very thread years ago 11 days from now made the statement that a cord is 128 cu ft of wood not stacked wood.

As long as we are pointing fingers, it is the square of the radius not diameter.


----------



## mecreature (Sep 19, 2011)

I read somewhere when they do trials on wood burning to figure its BTU they use 86 cubic ft for volumn figure.
Using something other then cord wood when using cord wood they use 128. YMMV


----------



## Woody Stover (Sep 19, 2011)

SolarAndWood said:
			
		

> yep, someone in this very thread years ago 11 days from now


:lol:


----------



## BrotherBart (Sep 19, 2011)

Yeah. We wish we had something in this software that would close these zombie threads after some pre-determined amount of time. Sigh...


----------



## tfdchief (Sep 20, 2011)

This was a pretty big ash.  Don't remember how much but a lot.


----------



## Swedishchef (Sep 20, 2011)

This would heat a house for several years...

Andrew


----------



## cptoneleg (Sep 20, 2011)

BrotherBart said:
			
		

> Yeah. We wish we had something in this software that would close these zombie threads after some pre-determined amount of time. Sigh...








Something like this


----------



## brianbeech (Sep 20, 2011)

Grew up in South Mississippi - have seen some MASSIVE Oak trees.  Attached are two; a reportedly 2000 year old oak named "The Patriarch" at Mary Mahoney's restaurant in Biloxi and "The Friendship Oak" in Long Beach at Southern Miss Campus.

The Friendship Oak was measured at 6'2" (diameter) - over 19' circumference -  at the base at last measurement (after Katrina).  It's limbs are almost as large as the trunk and seem to sprawl forever.

GREAT TREES


----------



## Creekyphil (Sep 20, 2011)

SolarAndWood said:
			
		

> lukem said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The person in this thread was trying to calculate the solid volume of wood in the tree, and then divide that number by 128 to determine how many cord.  I was just point out that 80, or 86, would be much more appropriate. Unless you are cool with margins of error +/- 50%.

And every time I've seen a large tree described, its by base diameter.  When was the last time somebody mentioned a 21" base radius oak?  Doesn't happen, its 42" base diameter. The volume function maybe (d/2)^2 *pi*length, but thats still a function of diameter. Makes a lot more sense than taking radius measurements off a stump.


----------



## heus (Sep 24, 2011)

[quote author="Tfin" date="1222893061"]I can tell you right now for a fact that there are MANY red oaks on my mother's property that have WELL over a 2' rad

Same here. My aunts woods which is next to ours had a red oak that was close to 100" at the base. The loggers had to split it with explosives to fit on the truck. This was last summer. It was bigger than any of the oaks pictured in this thread. We have a few that are 4-5 feet across at the base. They will hopefully die some day of old age because they will not be cut down.


----------



## ecocavalier02 (Sep 24, 2011)

i have cut up a monster oak that was probably about 50 inches high. i got about two cords out of just the first 8 feet of of the trunk id say. also was the worst splitting of my of my life. Pile 3 and 4 over from the left are just from that bottom trunk of the tree. and the load in my trailer was just a huge branch that fell of a monster oak in a another guys yard. so i think 8 cords is very true.. Ct really has some humungous trees.


----------



## 9050lx (Sep 25, 2011)

I have several live Oaks in my yard.One is around 7 feet at the base with an average of 5 feet diameter up to 25 feet off the ground(estimated).It was hit by lightning in the past, must be several hundred years old.Half of the tree is losing its bark.It will not hit anything when it falls so I will let it come down on its own.


----------



## onetracker (Sep 25, 2011)

CTwoodburner said:
			
		

> Yeah - sounds like face cords.
> 
> I had a 100 ft Red Oak drop here over the summer and I got about 1.5 cords (max) out of it.  Ive seen some Big and spread white oaks that could probably yield 2 cords or maybe a tad more.



indeed.

i have 2 huge oaks in my front yard. a red and a white.

2 1/2 years ago, after some ice storm damage, 3 limbs off the white oak yielded a cord. (3 face cords...  :cheese: )
gonna be burning that during the bowels of winter this year.

before that same storm i paced out the spread or drip line on the red oak and it was 135 feet. its now about 20 feet shorter. 

majestic. its fun to watch people walking up to the house like they are looking at the taj mahal or something.

OT


----------



## firefighterjake (Sep 26, 2011)

ecocavalier02 said:
			
		

> i have cut up a monster oak that was probably *about 50 inches high*. i got about two cords out of just the first 8 feet of of the trunk id say. also was the worst splitting of my of my life. Pile 3 and 4 over from the left are just from that bottom trunk of the tree. and the load in my trailer was just a huge branch that fell of a monster oak in a another guys yard. so i think 8 cords is very true.. Ct really has some humungous trees.



Maybe I'm reading this wrong . . . the oak was a little over 4 feet high?  I assume you meant 50 feet high. 

And just to chime in on this thread . . . I'm a bit picky . . . wood that is too small or too large I leave in the woods . . . I figure the small stuff can grow up to be bigger stuff and the big stuff deserves to live a lot longer and spread its seeds all around . . . plus when it's too large it's a bear to cut down, buck up and haul home.


----------



## Constrictor (Sep 26, 2011)

i love the big stuff. the sawing is fun, the noodling is fun, and i like splits with no bark. I love the fact that 95% of wood scroungers dont have a big saw so they cut up the limbs and leave me the premium big wood.


----------



## ecocavalier02 (Sep 27, 2011)

firefighterjake said:
			
		

> ecocavalier02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 lol i meant the round stood 4 feet high off the ground laying down. the tree was about 50 feet high..


----------



## ecocavalier02 (Sep 27, 2011)

came across this bad boy a couple years ago while hiking the applachin trail here in ct.


----------



## albertj03 (Sep 27, 2011)

I'm here in Maine and I've got some massive red oak trees on my property. There are a couple that I believe may have been used as property lines that have to be 100 years old if not more. One of them has the remains of a really old barbed wire fence going right through the middle of the tree. The fence must have been nailed to the tree and the tree eventually just grew around it. If this tree ever falls down I don't think I'd touch the bottom 5 feet or so as who knows how many nails and pieces of fence are in there. 

Here is a picture of a giant ash tree down the road at my wife's aunt's house. This tree was just recently cut down as part of timber harvest and the bottom 15 -20' of the tree was too big for the logging company to take to the mill so they dragged it with a skidder out back into the woods. If I had a big enough chainsaw I would go cut it up. The picture doesn't do it justice I think just because there is nothing to really reference for size but this thing is a monster.


----------



## firefighterjake (Sep 27, 2011)

albertj03 said:
			
		

> I'm here in Maine and I've got some massive red oak trees on my property. There are a couple that I believe may have been used as property lines that have to be 100 years old if not more. One of them has the remains of a really old barbed wire fence going right through the middle of the tree. The fence must have been nailed to the tree and the tree eventually just grew around it. If this tree ever falls down I don't think I'd touch the bottom 5 feet or so as who knows how many nails and pieces of fence are in there.
> 
> Here is a picture of a giant ash tree down the road at my wife's aunt's house. This tree was just recently cut down as part of timber harvest and the bottom 15 -20' of the tree was too big for the logging company to take to the mill so they dragged it with a skidder out back into the woods. If I had a big enough chainsaw I would go cut it up. The picture doesn't do it justice I think just because there is nothing to really reference for size but this thing is a monster.



I think they did this a lot in Maine . . . I have some sugar maples on the stone wall fence that are quite large and you can see the sheep fence that was attached and has grown into the trees. I ended up cutting one dead tree down in my first year of burning . . . I just tried to be careful with the lower part of the tree . . . and mostly I just lucked out.


----------

