mostly OT: genetically engineered trees

I think all trees growing know have been genetically engineered by the infinite number of monkeys routine.

Giving direction rather than random chance could work to our advantage more rapidly.

Well, hybrid and grafted trees have been with us for centuries, and people don't seem to have a problem with those modifications. If it gets me interesting lumber to work with, great. As with anything else, invasive tendancies would be my concern. But, I find it amusing that people can get worked up about genetic engineering of plants, when we've been doing it for centuries or more.

Dave Hinz

A square cross-section would sure minimize waste...

As would a non-tapering trunk cross-sectional area w/ height... :)

I think you mean non-selective random breeding. :-) Right: :-)

Selective breeding or modification of a gene by direct manipulation?=20 Mostly we have used selective breeding to date. At least on animals and=20 plants that I know of... (Of course we have the Canola (Rape Seed)=20 litigation...

Not worried about Frankentrees? :-))

I can see it now Red White and Blue Pine Cones for Patriotic Christmas=20 Tress.

--=20 Will R. Jewel Boxes and Wood Art

mixed blessing. we get elm trees back, which were wiped out by human misbehavior. we are also likely to see corporate interests decide that their patented super fast growth pine tree should be the only conifer standing in north america.

Not worried about Frankentrees? :-))

Not really. More likely for a genetic mutation to go unnoticed in the wild and march toward domination than something produced under observation in a laboratory.

Though some trees I've harvested have had bolts in them....

it's that law of unintended conscequences. the gene shift that gives resistance to borer beetle and faster growth, coupled with agressive government/corporate "forest management" programs replace all or most of the non-modified trees.... then it turns out that this monoculture "forest" has no resistance at all to the latest andean root rot, or whatever....

Actually, you raise the primary concern I have--reducing genetic diversity by overuse of hybrids or other monocultural practices.

WillR wrote: ...

...

Well, the Ents were good guys, best I can remember... :)

Not really...elm disease would have spread eventually, anyway.

Again, not likely imo. There's far more "non-cultivated" acreage than controlled and there are needs for more than a single species besides.

True. I worry about that on my walks. :-)

I think that genetic mutation occurred in humans.

It's the "protect a tree -- kill a sawyer gene" -- little understood as=20 of yet.

--=20 Will R. Jewel Boxes and Wood Art

But the Trolls were created to mock the Ents -- hence "Frankentrees". :-)=

I'm thinking of some Trollwood Jewel boxes. Should be big sellers=20 amongst the Tolkien Fans.

--=20 Will R. Jewel Boxes and Wood Art

Actually, for "serious" woodworking, I'm not sure it will make a significant difference at all. The re-introduction of the chestnut may eventually result in an availability of that wondrous wood again, but it isn't going to be in my lifetime.

OTOH, what work that is being done as far as I know is concentrated on pulp and lumber species or for enhancing nut/fruit production, not to make high quality furniture woods. But, that possibly could be something I just haven't seen published research on--you have any specifics in mind or information?

It seems to me unlikely that the production of high-growth-rate trees will lead to anything except even more open-grain, soft and poor quality lumber as compared with old, virgin growth forests. Hopefully, that is wrong, and I stand to be corrected.

I really doubt it will be found to be possible to produce a fast-growing specimen of mahongony, say, w/ 36" wide planks and the grain of 200 years ago in a 50-yr old or less log.

Duane Bozarth wrote:

across oceans? maybe, but I have my doubts.

lyptus.

For what its worth I work for one of those "Corporate" Tree Farms and we alter the genetics through tree selection, i.e. cones from the best trees and again from those trees and so on. This year we planted 500 thousand Douglas-fir, 500k Hemlock, 20k red-cedar and a mixed bag of red-alder and pine, hardly a mono culture.

The fast growing species you are refering to are primarily for pulp.

Schroeder

I suppose you're implying Chris (and Eric ahead of him) should have just stayed home?

My point is it was inevitable, not a specific "misbehavior" unless one takes a really narrow view of what proper behavior would have been.

I think I also mentioned I didn't think there was a real problem except perhaps in limited areas...

Correct, I think I said that "what work that is being done as far as I know is concentrated on pulp and lumber species"...

In the SE there's a lot of managed SYP being cut as framing lumber...while the same species as that from the 30's and earlier, it isn't the same material is my point.

Since can't afford Doug fir any more and it's been probably 10 years since I've seen a Doug fir tuba-anything and you're in the West where it's grown and the industry, is there any significant increase in the rate of growth and if so, can those effects be seen in the wood quality as compared to virgin growth?