Hello!
I'm considering using Siberian larch as a facade material for the house I'm going to build in the spring. Does anyone have experience with the material and maybe a tip on where I can find a reasonable price?
Skärgårdsbon
I'm considering using Siberian larch as a facade material for the house I'm going to build in the spring. Does anyone have experience with the material and maybe a tip on where I can find a reasonable price?
Skärgårdsbon
Take a look at this link, they sell Siberian larch at good prices (100-150 :-/m2)
http://www.modulwindows.se/sib_lark_prislista.htm
http://www.modulwindows.se/sib_lark_prislista.htm
Larch is an excellent material for the facade, but it requires some extra work compared to regular spruce paneling.
Firstly, larch has a tendency to warp quite significantly, and secondly, you should pre-drill before nailing it in place. I don't remember why drilling is recommended, either it's considered hard or there's a risk of cracking.
Firstly, larch has a tendency to warp quite significantly, and secondly, you should pre-drill before nailing it in place. I don't remember why drilling is recommended, either it's considered hard or there's a risk of cracking.
Hello!
Thanks for all the tips! I will get back with info on what we finally choose. I've found a lot of information on Danish and Norwegian sites, but not so much in Sweden!? Waiting for quotes, so we'll see who seems best and cheapest.
Thanks for all the tips! I will get back with info on what we finally choose. I've found a lot of information on Danish and Norwegian sites, but not so much in Sweden!? Waiting for quotes, so we'll see who seems best and cheapest.
I was thinking of leaving my facade untreated so that it gets that nice silver-grey color that Siberian larch develops after a few years. How is it with Swedish heart pine? Can it be left untreated? I'm attracted to Siberian larch partly because of its appearance, but also because it's an ecological option. The only hitch is the long transport distance from Russia and the emissions this journey generates. If there is a Swedish alternative with the same quality, this is indeed interesting!
The beautiful silver-gray color is achieved with both spruce and pine after a few years. In the past, there were many barns in Norrland that were "surface-treated" in this way. Another way to get the desired color faster is to apply iron sulfate.
I've looked into iron vitriol, but I often think that the houses treated with the substance get a greenish tone that I don't like. I don't know if it's due to the wood, humidity, or fungal attack. Does anyone know?
The greenish tint is probably because the vitriol was applied too early, the wood should be left outside to sunbathe for a while.
We built the country house a few years ago and were "diligent" and painted on right after the last plank was nailed. The house looked like it was built of pressure-treated wood for over a year after that. We even added some silver oxide (I think it was) to speed up the process.
We noticed that some planks that had been left outside for a while and got splashed with vitriol turned beautifully silver-gray in a few weeks.
So our own highly unscientific conclusion is that you should let the house stand for quite some time before slapping it on.
We built the country house a few years ago and were "diligent" and painted on right after the last plank was nailed. The house looked like it was built of pressure-treated wood for over a year after that. We even added some silver oxide (I think it was) to speed up the process.
We noticed that some planks that had been left outside for a while and got splashed with vitriol turned beautifully silver-gray in a few weeks.
So our own highly unscientific conclusion is that you should let the house stand for quite some time before slapping it on.
The larch's brilliant rot resistance is a modern myth; common heart pine works just as well, or poorly 
The advantage of Siberian larch is that the proportion of heartwood is higher compared to common Swedish larch or pine. The regular light sapwood, on the other hand, has no rot protection at all, in which case spruce is better. If you want real rot protection, you should clad the house with oak or pressure-treated wood, or you can always paint ;D
But how often does siding actually rot, regardless of wood type or whether it's painted or not? When it does, it usually results from constructional faults, extremely local climate, or old-time plastic paint.
So if the point is the fine silver-gray color, you can probably take anything, spruce is both cheaper and easier to nail, and then it's just a matter of waiting a few years for the natural color.
The advantage of Siberian larch is that the proportion of heartwood is higher compared to common Swedish larch or pine. The regular light sapwood, on the other hand, has no rot protection at all, in which case spruce is better. If you want real rot protection, you should clad the house with oak or pressure-treated wood, or you can always paint ;DBut how often does siding actually rot, regardless of wood type or whether it's painted or not? When it does, it usually results from constructional faults, extremely local climate, or old-time plastic paint.
So if the point is the fine silver-gray color, you can probably take anything, spruce is both cheaper and easier to nail, and then it's just a matter of waiting a few years for the natural color.
Hello!
I've researched further about Siberian larch and want to share my new knowledge. The suspicion that the forest in Siberia is being deforested was incorrect. Forestry in Russia seems to be as regulated as in Sweden.
Larch is the completely dominant tree species in Siberia, occupying 38% of the timber stock in Russia and 45% of the timber stock in Siberia. In total, there are 25 billion m3 of larch in Russia.
During the 1800s, larch was an important export product and eventually became scarce, leading to a logging ban being introduced in the early 1900s.
Larch has high light requirements and generally grows in combination with other conifers. It does not regenerate in closed forests. The larch forests in northwestern Russia are becoming older, and regeneration is getting poorer. Currently, more than 80% of the larch is over 180 years old.
In 1998, the logging ban was lifted to stimulate the regeneration of larch. Only trees that are taller than two meters and have a diameter over 20 centimeters can be logged.
Regarding density, it is about 35 percent higher for Siberian larch than for Swedish heart pine.
As for transport, it is done by both truck and train. (Perhaps one could impose requirements on importers?)
Siberian larch as an alternative to pressure-treated timber? Absolutely! In Norway, pressure treatment has already been completely banned due to environmental effects, and hopefully, Sweden will do the same.
As facade cladding? Still unsure... There's much left to compare, and I need to be convinced by the importer that the timber I receive is of high quality. I have no desire to have to replace panels after just a few years due to rot.
I've researched further about Siberian larch and want to share my new knowledge. The suspicion that the forest in Siberia is being deforested was incorrect. Forestry in Russia seems to be as regulated as in Sweden.
Larch is the completely dominant tree species in Siberia, occupying 38% of the timber stock in Russia and 45% of the timber stock in Siberia. In total, there are 25 billion m3 of larch in Russia.
During the 1800s, larch was an important export product and eventually became scarce, leading to a logging ban being introduced in the early 1900s.
Larch has high light requirements and generally grows in combination with other conifers. It does not regenerate in closed forests. The larch forests in northwestern Russia are becoming older, and regeneration is getting poorer. Currently, more than 80% of the larch is over 180 years old.
In 1998, the logging ban was lifted to stimulate the regeneration of larch. Only trees that are taller than two meters and have a diameter over 20 centimeters can be logged.
Regarding density, it is about 35 percent higher for Siberian larch than for Swedish heart pine.
As for transport, it is done by both truck and train. (Perhaps one could impose requirements on importers?)
Siberian larch as an alternative to pressure-treated timber? Absolutely! In Norway, pressure treatment has already been completely banned due to environmental effects, and hopefully, Sweden will do the same.
As facade cladding? Still unsure... There's much left to compare, and I need to be convinced by the importer that the timber I receive is of high quality. I have no desire to have to replace panels after just a few years due to rot.
Trees under 2 meters aren't much, almost a bush. And under 20 cm, it's not worth sawing, plus that wood will likely contain too little heartwood to have the positive properties you're looking for in the larch. As for density, it doesn't have much to do with durability, for example, beech weighs twice as much as pine but is completely worthless in terms of durability for that reason
A lot can be said about forestry in Russia, but we probably shouldn't believe 100% in its regulation since approximately 1/3 of all timber in Russia is stolen or illegally harvested. This also applies to the timber our own forestry giants buy to make paper. There were a lot of articles about this in the newspapers last fall.
Larch as an alternative to pressure-treated wood, of course, but in the right place and not even half as good (as good as heart pine). You have to use dry tropical wood species if you want to come close to the same standard that the chemicals in the treatment provide.
Sure, larch works as a facade cladding, so do: spruce, pine, and aspen, among others, for several hundred years without surface treatment if built correctly, not exposing the panel to extreme humidity for long periods and allowing the wood to dry out after heavy rain, just look at the Norwegian stave churches that have stood since the 1200s. Who uses pressure-treated as cladding today?
But go with the larch if you get it at a good price and think that pre-drilling isn't too much of a hassle, it looks nice and not like everyone else's
A lot can be said about forestry in Russia, but we probably shouldn't believe 100% in its regulation since approximately 1/3 of all timber in Russia is stolen or illegally harvested. This also applies to the timber our own forestry giants buy to make paper. There were a lot of articles about this in the newspapers last fall.
Larch as an alternative to pressure-treated wood, of course, but in the right place and not even half as good (as good as heart pine). You have to use dry tropical wood species if you want to come close to the same standard that the chemicals in the treatment provide.
Sure, larch works as a facade cladding, so do: spruce, pine, and aspen, among others, for several hundred years without surface treatment if built correctly, not exposing the panel to extreme humidity for long periods and allowing the wood to dry out after heavy rain, just look at the Norwegian stave churches that have stood since the 1200s. Who uses pressure-treated as cladding today?
But go with the larch if you get it at a good price and think that pre-drilling isn't too much of a hassle, it looks nice and not like everyone else's
Thank you Betula for an interesting post. We almost started a debate here! Right now, I have received a very good quote from Småland (at least I think it's good - needs to be checked) on SVENSKT timber. I believe the larch will be about three times more expensive. I discussed the transport aspect with a Swedish importer, and he candidly said he couldn't justify it. However, he did have export certificates from the Russian authorities, however much they are worth.