MCQ Problems? Better alternatives?

[ThingOfBeauty]

I've seen ads in several trade mags about how MCQ-treated wood doesn't hold up. (=Micronized Copper Quat, a wood preservative)
The ads are paid for by a company that does ACQ treating, and the study they refer to was run by their employees. Having said that the protocol is pretty simple, just stick some stakes in the ground and check them later. The pictures of rot & bug damage are alarming.

http://www.treatedwoodalert.com/

Anyone have any information about the truthiness of the ads? Anyone seen issues with MCQ, or with ACQ for that matter?--love to hear what's out there.

We had the Simpson reps in a couple of years ago and changed over to ZMax for treated lumber; since then we've gone back regularly to inspect decks and the hangers don't seem to be rusting, though they seem to turn more white than they did when we used CCA. So, no looming disaster appears to be on the horizon, but all the same the fact that MCQ is much less corrosive seemed like a good idea. Now I'm wondering.

[BigLou80]

I have seen the same add and I am inclined to belive them.
They admit they don't meet the ASTM test protocol and give a good explanation as to why.

Its not like there has never been a new product rused to market that turns out to be worse then what it was trying to replace.

[Pete Engle]

I attended a seminar a few years back from a company that has developed micronized copper technologies. Their process is used by Jeld-Wen, among others. They have an interesting test facility in Hawaii that they use for termite resistance.

They maintain a Formosan termite "farm" on about an acre of land, and they regularly feed all sorts of wood to the critters to keep them happy. Untreated wood 2x4 can be fully consumed in a matter of months. White pine even faster. Even cedars are fair game, and they've got some great pictures of 6x6 PT (CCA and ACQ) where the hearts are eaten out because the chemicals didn't get all the way in.

According to their chemist (who admittedly is not independent), the MCQ is far more water-mobile, and they regularly achieve full chemical treatment, even in large timbers. If true, that is a big advantage. Their MCQ treated white pine (used for millwork in windows and doors) lasted over one year on their farm with no evidence of termite attack, despite being wrapped with untreated wood that was completely consumed. Pretty convincing.

The stakes are very high here, and we're definitely going to see "scientific studies" by adherents to both technologies that claim their process is better and the other guys suck. Until there's some really good definitive studies done by independent researches at universities, FPL, or something like that, We'll just have to keep watching. So far, I've had no adverse experience with MCQ in wet and termite-ridden NJ.

[Greg Di]

Since there really is no unpartial authority on treated wood, I have a hard time digesting anything printed on a paid magazine ad, where the paying party is knocking their direct competition. That particular ad is convincing, but compared to what? The ACQ guys never fired back and I'm sure they could show some pics of rotting MCQ.

I can no longer buy ACQ even if I wanted to. It's pretty much been phased out here in NJ, probably by some wheelin' and dealin' MCQ sales reps.

Truth be told, I'd rather be buying CCA if I had my druthers.

[Dick Gauthier]

Full disclosure right off the bat: I'm marketing VP for Universal Forest Products, a leading treater of MCQ PT lumber. I'd like to address the various comments in this thread.
1. Yes, ThingOfBeauty, the Viance attack ads are alarming. And, yes they are paid advertising directly attacking their competition. After seeing these I can't blame you for wondering whether MCQ is effective treatment.
2. BigLou80 references products "rushed to market". MCQ is not one of them, having undergone 6 years of extensive field testing.
3. To my knowledge the only claims against MCQ have been made by Viance, author of the attack ads, and the only major treating chemical company that does not have access to the MCQ technology. Viance has lost significant market share because of this. In my view these ads are the work of a company desperate to gain back lost business.
4. GregDi says there is "no unpartial authority on treated wood". Not true. As Pete Engle says, "Until there's some really good definitive studies done by independent researches at universities, FPL, or something like that, We'll just have to keep watching." There is now an unbiased, science-based report on the efficacy of MCQ by Forest Products Journal (editor is an FPL guy), published in Nov 2008. In it, FPJ states unequivocally that MCQ performs as well, or better, than ACQ. Viance does not mention this in any of their communication. Here's a link to the FPJ site if want to look at the 22-page report. http://www.forestprod.org/features.html. Also, MCQ is fully code approved, having earned ICC-ES. It continues to carry a lifetime limited warranty.
5. I work for a company that sells MCQ so if you're suspect about my motives please refer the the FPJ report. Thank you.

[Pete Engle]

Thanks for that link. That's a pretty dense report, but it certainly seems to have been well done, and the authors are unequivocal on the results.

Somehow, I doubt that this will settle the debate, though.

[davenorthup]

We had the Simpson reps in a couple of years ago and changed over to ZMax for treated lumber; since then we've gone back regularly to inspect decks and the hangers don't seem to be rusting, though they seem to turn more white than they did when we used CCA. So, no looming disaster appears to be on the horizon, but all the same the fact that MCQ is much less corrosive seemed like a good idea. Now I'm wondering.

Hmm - I tore off my deck this summer (only 3 years) and the Z-max post cap was severely rusted already. It opened my eyes, I am sold on Stainless in my climate...

[ThingOfBeauty]

Scary, Dave. What kind of lumber? Being a post did it have heavier treatment than joists?
We did notice right away that aluminum is a big no-no. One of the first decks we did with ACQ burned through some coil stock in less than six months. I mean ate it away completely, holes the size of my hand. So, we know that one now. I bring the piece around when new guys or sub crews question our edict on aluminum.
I'll wade through that article, thanks for the post and the full disclosure.

[Greg Di]

Thanks, Dick. I just love a little "light" reading.

[Dick Gauthier]

Doug, Greg and Pete: You're right, light reading it's not. To read a page and a half executive summary go here and click the link: http://www.ufpi.com/product/pwmicro/index.htm
Thanks,

Dick Gauthier

[Greg Di]

I might just print that out and keep it in my portfolio just in case some wise guy/know-it-all HO asks me about wood preservatives.

Thanks.

Dick, one of my suppliers hooked up with EcoLife this year, the other is with Microwood. Which product is better or are they equal? EcoLife touted that their boards would be better than ACQ with regard to sizing and shrinkage. The wood was absolute junk--knotty and checked.

[Dick Gauthier]

Greg, here are some comparisons for you. (I am very familiar with both products but since I work for a major supplier of one of them, and want to respect this forum, will consider myself disqualified from making a recommendation.)

Ecolife is uses no copper in its formula. It has added water repellant, hence the claim of better stability. Since it has no copper it has better corrosion properties and can be used with aluminum. It is lighter in color than ACQ. Be advised Ecolife is NOT formulated for ground contact! There is another product called Ecolife GC which can be used for gound contact. It is a copper amine product very similar to ACQ so it has the same corrosion problems as ACQ. Do not use with aluminum. It is the typical green color. To my knowledge Ecolife GC does not have the water repellent. If you want to build an entire deck out of Ecolife you have to buy both formulations. They will be two different colors.

MCQ is lighter in color, has the same corrosion properties as non-treated wood (OK with aluminum), can be used as ground contact, is available with water repellant and has earned Environmentally Preferred Product status (Scientific Certification Systems).

Here are the Web sites so you can check my facts. (The Ecolife Web site does not have an Ecolife GC page; I don't know why.) http://www.viance.net/ecolife/
http://www.ufpi.com/product/pwmicro/index.htm

As regards the poor quality of the treated wood you received (knotty, checked): That responsibility lies with the treater and what grades/mills he buys and has nothing to do with the preservative formulation.

Dick Gauthier

[BigLou80]

Dick,
thanks for the posts I really appriciate it when supplier come here and provide us with real facts.Its often hard to get real data about products, try asking a lumber yard sales rep about the treatment used.

I was not trying to imply that MCQ was rushed to market just that it happens a lot.

Does UFPI own North east treaters in Belchertown MA ?

The grade and general quality of their lumber if great. Most lumber yards stock #1 and better clear 2x12s are not uncommon. The one thing I have noticed is the treating level seems to be minimal compared to the old CCA level usually on the order of 0.1 PCF and ground contact lumber is hard to come across. Is 0.1 PCF adaquate ? and why is ground contact lumber so hard to come across ? I have seen 4x4s stamped "not rated for ground contract"

[Dick Gauthier]

Big Lou:

As regards treated wood retentions, great question.

Ahhhh, remember the simple days when we all just had one preservative, CCA? Well, retentions had meaning then. .40 for ground contact, .25 for above ground. Great, let's go eat. Today, it's almost impossible for the average deck builder to keep track. “But officer, I only had a pint” means one thing if you had a pint of Bud Light and another if you had a pint of single malt. Today there are no less than 15 different preservatives on the market with proper, third party inspected, building code compliant retentions which range from 0.42 pcf to 0.0013 pcf. Our company uses a system called the Use Category System (developed by the American Wood Protection Association), to replace retention references and create a common language applicable to different preservative systems. You can read up on it here:
http://www.awpa.com/standards/ucs.asp

As regards 4x4's stamped "not rated for ground contact", that's like stamping a circular saw blade with "do not spin at higher than 500 rpm". What else is a 4x4 used for if it doesn't come in contact with the ground? We have seen this as well in the market. We do not consider it to be an honorable practice.

Dick Gauthier

p.s. UFP does not own NE Treaters; we do have a treating plant in the same town.

http://www.awpa.com/standards/ucs.asp

[Greg Di]

As regards 4x4's stamped "not rated for ground contact", that's like stamping a circular saw blade with "do not spin at higher than 500 rpm". What else is a 4x4 used for if it doesn't come in contact with the ground? We have seen this as well in the market. We do not consider it to be an honorable practice.

So, Dick, what are we supposed to do? Use them? Special order 4x4s? It's getting ridiculous for "us" to keep tabs on this when we are trusting the lumberyards to deliver outdoor-rated lumber that will actually perform long term outdoors. Kind of like ordering bags of concrete only to find out that "this batch" is not load bearing.