Tuesday Question
Bill Earl
How much carbon dioxide does it take to grow a 65' sugar maple with an 20" dia trunk?
How much oxygen is given off in the process?
Obviously there is some estimation involved. The closest answer to mine wins.
Est. 1998 — 27 years of woodworking knowledge
Tuesday Question
Bill Earl
How much carbon dioxide does it take to grow a 65' sugar maple with an 20" dia trunk?
How much oxygen is given off in the process?
Obviously there is some estimation involved. The closest answer to mine wins.
Re: Tuesday Question
Thomas Skaggs, Foothills of Mount Level
WAG....1,000 lbs of CO2 and 800 pounds of O2?
T.
Proportions are about right...
Bill Earl
But the magnitude is off. 
Re: Proportions are about right...
Gary Smyth
My proportions were at 1:5. Per year 50 lbs. CO2 to 250 lbs O2/yr. Times say 60 years. 3000 lbs CO2@ vs 15000 lbs O2
Keep in mind that...
Bill Earl
The O2 produced by the tree is liberated from the CO2. The carbon remains behind in the structure of the tree. It can't release more free oxygen than it takes in in carbon dioxide.
So I'll guess 10% of my first guess and say.....
Thomas Skaggs, Foothills of Mount Level
...10 lbs of CO2 and 8lbs of O2?
Other way - hint
Bill Earl
Keep in mind that the mass of a tree is largely made up of carbon. How much does the carbon in a tree weigh and where does that come from?
I will not dispute your answer
Gary Smyth
but I did find this on the web.
"A mature tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide each year, and can be capable of producing enough oxygen to support two people for a year."
"The amount of oxygen produced varies depending on factors like water, weather and sun exposure. A large, mature tree can release about 244.55 pounds of oxygen in a year according to one estimate."
Citations:http://www.coloradotrees.org/benefits.htm#10
http://www.auburn.edu/communications_marketing/askaubie/101205.html
IF I recall correctly...
Dale Lenz
45% of the dried wood is made up from carbon(?)
Re: IF I recall correctly...
Bill Earl
That's in the same ballpark as the formula I was using, although the source didn't specify whether the wood was green or dried.
Re: I will not dispute your answer
Bill Earl
Seems like there are at least as many answers as their are experts.
The more I look the more different formulas I find.
An answer
Bill Earl
I can't claim this is the definitive answer. There are a lot of statistics published on the web, and reliable sources tell me that 98.7% of them are made up. 
The answer I got was: 10519 pounds of CO2 and 7657 pounds of O2.
This is based on a combination of the following formulas:
The American Pulpwood Association's formula for estimating the weight of "Hard Hardwoods" (such as hard maple) with a diameter greater than 11 inches is:
0.11710*(D2)^1.16763*(H)^0.92045
They further estimate that the roots contribute another 20% by weight.
Plugging this into a spreadsheet yields an above-ground weight of about 5963 pounds and a total wood-weight of 7516 pounds.
From a Forestry Fact Sheet published by the University of Kentucky, they claim that it takes 1.47 pounds of CO2 to grow a pound of wood, and 1.07 pounds of O2 is released in the process.
Applying those factors to the weight calculated above yields an estimate of 10519 pounds of CO2 and 7657 pounds of O2.
Re: I will not dispute your answer
Dale Lenz
Wrote my first Forest Management Plan for carbon Sequestration last week, how much carbon is locked up in the trees. The rules say the landowner gets paid, assume the carbon game ever takes off(??), by how much of an increase of carbon is stored. So I spent several hours looking at information for "good" carbon uptake/cubic foot/lbs of wood. The numbers were all over the place, as Gary said. Just wrote the plan that said to do "this" and the landowner will get an increase in carbon storage. The way I understand it, another team of folks will review the plan and set dollar amount of the increase carbon sequestration, if and only if the carbon "thing" comes to play. As of right this minute they have shut the carbon thingy down due to lack of interest(?).