I'm a novice when it comes to woodworking. I'd like to make a fairly
inexpensive cutting board & was wondering whether pine would be too
soft for this. I have an old board that was made out of plywood so I
thought that perhaps pine would do.
Any comments would be really helpful!
Thanks,
Davis
That's a dangerous invitation! ;-)
It's hard to make a cutting board that's _not_ "fairly inexpensive", unless
you get carried away with using exotic wood(s) such as teak, padauk, etc.
If you've been using a plywood (gasp! really?) cutting board 'till now, I
suppose you mightn't find pine to be an unworthy option. Wouldn't last very
long in my house, though. Way too soft for actual cuttin' 'n choppin'.
The best choice IMO for a board that will actually be used for cutting and
gettin' wet is a close-grain hardwood. Lots of choices fill this bill: the
most common are maple (hard or soft) and cherry. Maple is probably about as
cheap as pine, and it'll be a lot more interesting to work with and will
stand up well to kitchen abuse. Both maple and cherry are frequently
available in fairly wide boards, if it is your intention to make your
cutting board from a single piece of stock. Beware of warpage, though, if
this is how you intend to make it. Laminated (edge-glued) strips are
commonly used in order to minimize warp. You also can get an interesting
design if you alternate different wood species.
Phil
--
Phil Rose
> Davis Bennett wrote:
> >
> > Hello folks,
> >
> > I'm a novice when it comes to woodworking. I'd like to make a fairly
> > inexpensive cutting board & was wondering whether pine would be too
> > soft for this. I have an old board that was made out of plywood so I
> > thought that perhaps pine would do.
> >
> > Any comments would be really helpful!
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Davis
>
> Hi Davis,
> Pine is a very soft wood and not recommended for food cutting boards.
> Maple would probably be a better choice. In the last few years wood has
> been banned in commercial operations for use as a cutting board. It was
> suggested that the wood absorbed bacteria that could be present in raw
> meat. Cleaning the wood properly means soaking in a bacterial agent
> which doesn't do the wood a lot of good.
> Based on recommendations from different health organizations I don't use
> wood as a food cutting board. The "plastic" cutting boards and man made
> substances are easier to clean and can be soaked. They tend not to
> absorb the raw meat juices.
> It may be worth considering. Hope this helps.
> Regards,
> Danny
Here we go again!
Danny, et al, *please* have a look at dejanews and read up on the many
dozens of postings in this newsgroup which detail the reliable, published
research data of the past several years that show wooden boards prove to be
_less_ (less!) of a bacterial contamination hazard than plastic
work-surfaces!!
As to pine, I agree, it is too soft and not recommended.
--
Phil Rose
I think there has been a change to the theory that wood pores were a haven
for bacteria. A study was done on both plastic and wood cutting boards and
it was found that the wood was safer. They claimed that the wood would
absorb the moisture and eventually the bacteria would die. The plastic on
the other hand allowed the bacteria to proliferate.
I guess the bottom line is to clean both types on a regular basis.
Joe
Danny Proulx wrote in article <3437B2...@capitalnet.com>...
>Davis Bennett wrote:
>>
>> Hello folks,
>>
>> I'm a novice when it comes to woodworking. I'd like to make a fairly
>> inexpensive cutting board & was wondering whether pine would be too
>> soft for this. I have an old board that was made out of plywood so I
>> thought that perhaps pine would do.
>>
>> Any comments would be really helpful!
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Davis
>
>Hi Davis,
>Pine is a very soft wood and not recommended for food cutting boards.
>Maple would probably be a better choice. In the last few years wood has
>been banned in commercial operations for use as a cutting board. It was
>suggested that the wood absorbed bacteria that could be present in raw
>meat. Cleaning the wood properly means soaking in a bacterial agent
>which doesn't do the wood a lot of good.
>Based on recommendations from different health organizations I don't use
>wood as a food cutting board. The "plastic" cutting boards and man made
>substances are easier to clean and can be soaked. They tend not to
>absorb the raw meat juices.
>It may be worth considering. Hope this helps.
>Regards,
>Danny
>--
>Danny Proulx
>Rideau Cabinets
>P.O. Box 331
>Russell, Ontario. Canada K4R 1E1
>e-mail: rid...@capitalnet.com
>home page: http://www.capitalnet.com/~rideau/
>Phone: 1-613-445-3722
>Fax: 1-613-445-1740
I think there has been a change to the theory that wood pores were a haven
for bacteria. A study was done on both plastic and wood cutting boards and
it was found that the wood was safer. They claimed that the wood would
absorb the moisture and eventually the bacteria would die. The plastic on
the other hand allowed the bacteria to proliferate.
I guess the bottom line is to clean both types on a regular basis.
Joe
Danny Proulx wrote in article <3437B2...@capitalnet.com>...
>Davis Bennett wrote:
(Please, enough on the wood vs. plastic cutting board issue, OK? This
has already been done to death on both sides!)
Peter Tobias