I had a reader ask me if I was going to cut and use Cedar posts for my new fencing project, they mentioned that it might be a good way to greatly reduce the costs. A very valid question and a fair assumption as well because if I could find enough Cedar trunks to use it would greatly reduce some of the costs over standard pressure treated posts.
Cutting and using Cedar posts is not a topic I am inexperienced in either. I have been cutting and sinking Cedar posts since before I was allowed to use a chainsaw actually. Most of the posts I help sink 40 or more years ago are in fact still standing today although the fences at the old place could stand to be replaced.
No the problem with Cedar posts today is that pretty much all the good Cedar trees have already been used and the trees that may in fact be of sufficient size just haven't quite developed into suitable post material yet.
Allow me to explain. You see Eastern Red Cedar trees live a very long time. Up to 850 years or so, and although they can sometimes grow really fast the heartwood takes a very long time to truly develop no matter how fast the tree itself and the sap wood grows. Cedars I also understand pull more CO2 out of the air for growth than normal trees which means as those levels increase since the 50's the speed of growth for the trees themselves picked up but it didn't increase the speed that the heartwood develops.
If you take a look at the picture above you can see that many of the trunk sections have a very large band of sapwood. The sapwood does not contain the chemicals which grant the Cedar the rot resistant qualities it is well known for. What happens is that the sapwood begins to rot and in turn that makes the smaller sections of heartwood rot as well. What you need for a proper Cedar post is the smallest band of sapwood around a big heartwood section you can find.
There are several trunk sections in the above picture that would work well for posts. Unfortunately however I have not seen a Cedar cut around these parts that didn't have a wide sapwood band in decades.
Many old timers have told me that second growth Red Cedar is not suitable for fence posts, including my Father actually. What I think is that the generation of the tree makes no difference as to it being a good tree for fence posts but what matters is that the tree has allowed to become quite old, say 200 or more years of growth to get a large enough heartwood section covered with a thin sapwood band. My theory is also that a couple of centuries of these Cedars being harvested for posts has pretty much reduced the numbers of suitable trees around here to nill. At least for the next 100 years or so.
Of course I am not a Cedar tree botanist but I can tell you that the last time I was involved in a big Cedar post cutting project the posts didn't last even five years. Yet posts we had sunk prior to that are still useable. There certainly maybe other inputs I am unaware of but the sapwood to heartwood comparison so far fits the facts of my theory.
Anyway to make a long story short I haven't used Cedar for a while due to the last few failures and the sapwood theory is the best I could come up with. Perhaps your mileage may vary. In a pinch or a grid down situation however Cedar posts maybe the only viable alternative so they shouldn't be discounted but I would recommending checking the sapwood band before putting any Cedar posts in place.
Keep Prepping Everyone!!!!
I won't say it didn't happen but I haven't seen any cedars used for fence posts and the trees came up like weeds when I was a kid. People would use a dull blade on the bush hog to rip them apart as a clean cut would be more likely to let them keep growing. Anyway, people would cut old ones for porch posts and other long term uses. I remember seeing posts that had been square cut at my great grandmother's, the fence had rotted to the ground and looked old in photos from 1910s. The bottom of the posts had rotted to the red heartwood but the posts had lasted in the ground for at lest 80 years. I think the original tree wasn't much wider than a 6 x 6 and they may have grown in the cold period of the late 1800s when they built ice houses around here.
ReplyDeleteYou got me thinking about fences now. I forgot to say that the cedar was used in her picket yard fence. The choice for field fences was locust and chestnut as in the early 1900 there was a huge supply of dead chestnuts. Now we get posts of some unknown chemically treated wood along with metal.
DeleteSf - Locust is a good wood for fence posts too. As I said my theory is that the sapwood band is what causes the rot because there are plenty of old Cedar posts around that last for decades or more. Ya treated and t-posts are about all that is left today. I certainly don't have enough of any tree on my place to put upa fence with :(
DeleteI read that you should char fence post bottoms in a fire first that the char makes them water proof...
ReplyDeleteLW - That would fit my theory as it would at least remove the sapwood or some of it or change the chemical balance on it that's for sure.
DeleteWe have tons of cedar here but they are scrub cedar and far too small for any fence posts. Preppy, do you have locust or catalpa in your area? I remember reading that these can be used for fence posts too.
ReplyDeleteSF makes a good point - we have moved from natural fencing to nameless wood and metal. So much for "green".
TB - Oh we have Locust everywhere. Locust also has a sapwood that rots more easily than the heartwood so most of the Locust posts I have seen are planed down before use too. Cedar was used a lot because supposedly it didn't need to be treated in anyway but that claim eventually started to prove false. Who knows?
DeleteMaybe I am thinking of Black Locust. For some reason these stick in my mind from one of Gene Logsdon's books.
DeleteThis claim was also true of old growth redwood. The second growth, I believe, has the same problem.
Very interesting post. I didn't know about the CO2 and was unfamiliar with the sapwood theory. This is useful information.
ReplyDeleteOur first fence post (braces) were all red cedar because we got them for about $2 each. That was five years ago and so far so good. We have quite a few cedars on our place, but I don't want to cut them because I understand they are slow growing. They make good privacy and wind breaks and so are valuable that way, as well as they look good.
Leigh - The Cedars like to grow int he fence lines here for obvious reasons but in old abandoned cleared areas we can get huge Cedar swamps here quick and they grow in the hardwood areas too. I usually end up cutting at least a few every Winter for one reason or another but due to the last few post attempts failing when I was younger I just don't use em for posts any more.
DeleteThank you for the Cedar lesson, I have always loved cedars, and thought it one of the prettier woods for projects.
ReplyDeleteJuGM - Cedar is some damned fine looking wood when planed and cut I must agree. And it smells wonderful too !!
DeleteHowdy,
ReplyDeleteI'm a "long ago" farmer that now is stuck in the city (thanks g'ma and g'kids!). Any hoo, dumb question #36....why is second growth always given a bad rap? I've heard that same bromide since I was a kiddo. Is it due to different climate and growth rates? Is it just anecdotal? Just curious.
Steve
Steve - I think it's because the second growth is growing faster these days due to more CO2. So while the second growth trees maybe big enough to cut and use they still retain a large segment of the sapwood that rots easier than the heartwood.
DeleteThat's only my theory anyway. I have seen ancient Cedars that were small but had almost no sapwood and then young ones that were huge but had a lot of sapwood. My theory kinda fits the facts but I am not knowledgeable enough really test it.