# Hornbeam...a suitable decor material?



## oldbloke (29 Aug 2013)

I have a couple of hornbeam trees in the garden. It is a very hard wood. I cut a few twigs off it and to my surprise they sink ......immediately! No soaking required!

Does anybody know if it is ok to use in the aquarium?

Also, I think I have read that you should strip the bark off before immersion. Do you have to do this? And if so, why?

Cheers.


----------



## Tim Harrison (29 Aug 2013)

I think the general consensus is that hard wood is fine to use in an aquarium, I've even used soft wood before; it was OK, but it tends to decompose quicker and add to the organic load of the tank - I image that it's always best to strip off the bark for the same reason, plus there could be subcutaneous saproxylic organisms beneath the bark that will also decompose and pollute the water


----------



## dw1305 (29 Aug 2013)

Hi all,


oldbloke said:


> I have a couple of hornbeam trees in the garden. It is a very hard wood. I cut a few twigs off it and to my surprise they sink ......immediately! No soaking required! Does anybody know if it is ok to use in the aquarium?


I think it is OK, I've used the fallen leaves without any problem, and as you've said the wood is very dense and rot resistant. If you want to prepare wood, either take any dead snags, or the living wood will have least amount of sap in it in January/February.


Troi said:


> it's always best to strip off the bark for the same reason, plus there could be subcutaneous saproxylic organisms beneath the bark that will also decompose and pollute the water


Good point and I bet that  "subcutaneous saproxylic organisms" is a term that has never been used on UKAPS before.

cheers Darrel


----------



## BigTom (29 Aug 2013)

dw1305 said:


> Good point and I bet that "subcutaneous saproxylic organisms" is a term that has never been used on UKAPS before.


 

Or ever before on the internet, according to google -

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=subcutaneous+saproxylic+organisms&oq=subcutaneous+saproxylic+organisms&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=%22subcutaneous+saproxylic+organisms%22&safe=off


----------



## oldbloke (29 Aug 2013)

Untitled Document

There's hardly a day goes by when I don't use it.........

So, is it fair to say removal of bark is not crucial? And I am looking at live wood here so there won't be any subcutaneous saproxylic organisms..................


----------



## dw1305 (29 Aug 2013)

Hi all,


oldbloke said:


> So, is it fair to say removal of bark is not crucial?


 I'd definitely take the bark off. The bark itself is dead, and so is the heart wood, the only living part of the tree wood is the cambial layers at the junction of bark and wood <Vascular cambium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia> & <Cork cambium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia>. Stripping the bark off will allow the layer of living cells to be degraded more quickly, and once the microbial biomass has polished off the available sugars and proteins, the remaining structural carbohydrates (lignins etc) are pretty slow to degrade. Thin twigs are fine to use bark on. With apologies for the cross-post, but there is more of an explanation in this post on "PlanetCatfish" <View topic - Wood for tanks?>


oldbloke said:


> And I am looking at live wood here so there won't be any subcutaneous saproxylic organisms


Very good, although some beetle (and moth larvae) are xylophagous.

cheers Darrel


----------



## oldbloke (29 Aug 2013)

I need to sit down...................


----------



## oldbloke (29 Aug 2013)

Darrel, they are quite thin twigs. I tie a few together with fishing line then place behind a stone or whatever. I think it looks like a piece which has dropped off a tree into the river.


----------



## oldbloke (29 Aug 2013)

This sort of thing...

IMG_5294 by threequartersky, on Flickr


----------



## foxfish (29 Aug 2013)

Hmmm not sure about fresh cut twigs myself?
However I do know a bit about Hornbeam, beautiful wood, used to make wagon wheels & windmill gears or in my case didgeridoos. 
Incredibly hard to work with but because the wood has such a high residence, the effort is well worth the sound!
I am sure a seasoned piece without bark would be fine, just not sure about a fresh twiggy branch?


----------



## oldbloke (29 Aug 2013)

foxfish said:


> Hmmm not sure about fresh cut twigs myself?
> However I do know a bit about Hornbeam, beautiful wood, used to make wagon wheels & windmill gears or in my case didgeridoos.
> Incredibly hard to work with but because the wood has such a high residence, the effort is well worth the sound!
> I am sure a seasoned piece without bark would be fine, just not sure about a fresh twiggy branch?


 
Wow! Didgeridoos!
Yes, amazing wood. Is it harder than oak? It feels it.
With the usual rate of water changes, such a small amount should be ok......maybe?


----------



## dw1305 (29 Aug 2013)

Hi all,


oldbloke said:


> This sort of thing.


Looks good, I definitely wouldn't use any bigger bits with the bark on, after that it is probably going to depend upon the water volume. If it is a 2' tank or larger I'd use it, keep an eye on it and probably just up the water changes a bit. If it was a nano, I'd probably leave it outside for a couple of weeks before use.

Like "foxfish" says it is very hard, dense wood, so the wood itself will degrade slowly, but the sap it contains will be sugar rich and increase the BOD of the tank. I'd also expect some form of fungal growth on the wood (after about 10 days?).

cheers Darrel


----------

