We talk about "first Growth" and "regrowth" timber, and the difference between them. We talk about these things in terms of taper, characteristics of the wood, etc.
I have to ask, are we here speaking in terms of clear-cut or at least heavily forested timber, with the second and regrowth coming as new stands in a wiped-out or nearly wiped-out forest? As in, a significant portion of the canopy has been destroyed by extensive harvesting, and the second growth comes up in the midst of short, scrubby growth, or even nothing?
How does this compare to the state of a forest that is carefully managed, where trees are selectively harvested and a stand of tall, stout growth -a mature forest- has existed, but trees have still been harvested continually for centuries, just in a small scale?
The spruce timbers discussed earlier come from such a situation -forests that have been harvested for a thousands years (or 3) but have never been 'cut down' or excessively reduced. I wonder, in this situation, how the wood compares to a situation where man had never touched that forest at all?