How old is that tree?

[Little Digger]

Have you ever wondered how old a specific tree might be without felling it and determining the age that way? I know I have on multiple occasions. Recently it was for two Norway Spruce which I determined to be about 95 years old. I'll be felling them possibly in a couple of months to add to my firewood collection. These are sick and dying plus I don't like pine trees unless they are turned into firewood.

Here is a site that might help since it does list a good number of trees and how to calculate their age using the circumference of a given tree.
(broken link removed to http://mdc.mo.gov/your-property/your-trees-and-woods/backyard-tree-care/how-old-tree)

As far as I can tell, the formula is fairly accurate having used it on live trees as well as ones that have been felled to double check.

 

[Lake Girl]

I haven't gone and tried out the math but thanks for the link! Curious on some of our white pines ... a fair number approximately the same size.

 

[Isaac Carlson]

We have a giant white pine in our yard that is ~250 years old.

 

[Oldman47]

Have you ever wondered how old a specific tree might be without felling it and determining the age that way? I know I have on multiple occasions. Recently it was for two Norway Spruce which I determined to be about 95 years old. I'll be felling them possibly in a couple of months to add to my firewood collection. These are sick and dying plus I don't like pine trees unless they are turned into firewood.

Here is a site that might help since it does list a good number of trees and how to calculate their age using the circumference of a given tree.
(broken link removed to http://mdc.mo.gov/your-property/your-trees-and-woods/backyard-tree-care/how-old-tree)

As far as I can tell, the formula is fairly accurate having used it on live trees as well as ones that have been felled to double check.

Norway spruce is not pine. It is spruce. Can you see that?

 

[Oldman47]

I tried that calculator on my green ash. It tells me that a tree I planted myself is 120 years old.

 

[iamlucky13]

Those are, of course, estimates, and there can be a lot of variation. Looking up one timber management study I'd read before, I know that ~50 year old douglas firs can range 5 inches to 24 inches (and probably more) diameter at breast height, depending on growing conditions (especially how close they are to each other).

The smaller sizes overwhelmingly tend to be commercial tree farms that missed a planned thinning and are badly overcrowded. The larger sizes tend to be trees in old growth forests or in yards where there is less sunlight competition and either well-established natural nutrient cycles, or occasionally fertilizer added.

The link lists a growth factor for Douglas Fir of 5 years per inch of diameter growth, but real life growth factors clearly range from as a slow as 10 years per inch of diameter growth to 2 years per inch of diameter growth.

You can also count rings in your wood stack to get an idea of growth rates for your woodlot. Diameter / Number of Rings = Growth Factor.

If you're counting splits, it's (measurement perpendicular to counted rings) * 2 / number of rings.

 

[Bigsby]

I tried that calculator on my green ash. It tells me that a tree I planted myself is 120 years old.

Damn, you are old!

 

[johneh]

New
I tried that calculator on my green ash. It tells me that a tree I planted myself is 120 years old.

You sure look good for that age

 

[Woody Stover]

Yep, growing conditions make a big difference. I counted the rings on a Pin Oak that was down in a valley (lots of water) off a farm field fertilized with hog poo. It was about 65" DBH and 100 yrs. old...

 

[Little Digger]

Norway spruce is not pine. It is spruce. Can you see that?

Yes, I know the difference between pine, fir, and spruce! However I tend to group all of them together in the same category as pine since they all have needles and smell pretty much the same with that same sticky mess (pitch). As for identification of each particular species, I know what each are. Spruce, Pine, and Fir

 

[Little Digger]

I tried that calculator on my green ash. It tells me that a tree I planted myself is 120 years old.

So you lied about your age huh? Instead of 47 plus, your 147 plus. Damn your and old fart!

The link I provided is a guide! Different conditions may result in dwarfed or giant species. I'm also thinking since your so old, you may have miscalculated. Like instead of dividing the circumference by 3.14 to get the diameter, you multiplied.

 

[iamlucky13]

Yes, I know the difference between pine, fir, and spruce! However I tend to group all of them together in the same category as pine since they all have needles and smell pretty much the same with that same sticky mess (pitch)

Technically speaking, pines, firs, and spruces are all scientifically classified in the pine family, so it is correct to call any of them a pine. Usually we mean the pine genus when we use that term, though, which is more specific.

Partial family tree:
(broken link removed)

 

[Lake Girl]

One tree is 103 yo and a slightly smaller one in approximately 70. I have to check a couple of big ones in the corner yard now .... just 'cause. One was blazed to mark one of the corners on the original survey per documents 1948.

 

[Lake Girl]

I tried that calculator on my green ash. It tells me that a tree I planted myself is 120 years old.

About 38 years old? 120/4 = 30 Is that 30 the circumference?

 

[Oldman47]

So you lied about your age huh? Instead of 47 plus, your 147 plus. Damn your and old fart!

The link I provided is a guide! Different conditions may result in dwarfed or giant species. I'm also thinking since your so old, you may have miscalculated. Like instead of dividing the circumference by 3.14 to get the diameter, you multiplied.

That tree came down at 34 years old because it was threatening my 2 story roof with some branches from over 20 feet away. BTW 47 is my year of birth not my age.

 

[Lake Girl]

That tree came down at 34 years old because it was threatening my 2 story roof with some branches from over 20 feet away. BTW 47 is my year of birth not my age.

So the calculation was within 4 years if the circumference of the tree was approximately 30"... not bad for an estimate.

 

[Oldman47]

Backwards calculation Lake girl. It was a little less than 3 feet in diameter but I rounded down to 30 and the 4 means it should only be 1 inch for each 4 years. That means my tree should have only been about 8 inches dbh at 34 years, not over 30 inches.

 

[iamlucky13]

Like instead of dividing the circumference by 3.14 to get the diameter, you multiplied.

Hmmm....I tried that myself. I measured my circumference at breast height and converted to diameter by dividing by 3.14.

If I were a pin oak, the estimate would only be off by 4 years.

 

[Lake Girl]

Hmmm....I tried that myself. I measured my circumference at breast height and converted to diameter by dividing by 3.14.

If I were a pin oak, the estimate would only be off by 4 years.

That's too funny...

 

[MarylandGuy]

Interesting website. I just measured a Tulip poplar in my yard. It measured 112 inches. According to their calculations, the tree is well over 300 years old. I have my doubts on that. Especially how fast Tulips grow.

 

[Little Digger]

I just checked a shagbark hickory I felled a few years back where I took a picture of the stump. The formula showed it to be 90 years of age and when I counted the rings, it showed 85 years, but I could have missed some rings since it was a picture. I looked at several other stumps, including black birch and chestnut oak, but I had too much sawdust on the stumps to be able to make any kind of a count. I also had the diameter already for the poplar, black birch, and chestnut oak because I had a tape measure across the stump. I guess I need to clean off the stump when I'm done before taking pictures. When the weather clears and the ground dries up a bit, I'll go check the actual stumps and see if I might be able to get a count. I realize it is the stump, and not the height your supposed to measure at, but it should be relatively close.