confusion on tree ID

[WhiteMike]

I live in the north Idaho panhandle and have just recently begun cutting my own firewood. i go into the mountains at an elevation of about 4-5,000 feet. trees are mostly pine and fir. ive cut a couple cord of what i thought was red fir but now im second guessing and hoping i havent been cutting a sub-par firewood. i was told by a guy passing by as i was felling a tree that it was red fir and the mountain side that ive been cutting has a handful of nice sized dead ones so i figured i was in business, but after doing a little more research on the idaho forest service web page im second guessing it. here is what ive been cutting: the bark is pretty smooth, a grey, dark grey, greyish brown and sometimes a bit brownish purple with a very significant red rusty color underneath (which is why i figured it to be red fir) and the wood is a very light color. im starting to think this is actually subalpine fir, but the rusty red under the bark has me keeping my hopes up. here are some pictures:

 

[BC WetCoast]

Can you get us a close up pic of the needles? The few needles I see look like sub-alpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) to me.

The bark to me looks like an Abies species, but I've only worked with sub-alpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) and not Red fir (Abies magnifica). In my experience, lasiocarpa had significant pitch pockets in the bark.

Looking up a wood database, the lasiocarpa has a density of 33lb/cuft vs the 27 lb/cuft for magifica. When I lived in an area with lasiocarpa, nobody was looking to use it for firewood as there were better options.

From my perspective, sub par firewood is the stuff you have to pay for or do major work to haul it out of the bush. Free and easily accessible make it great firewood to me. As a tree guy, I can now afford to be picky.

 

[JeffGu]

 

[WhiteMike]

Can you get us a close up pic of the needles? The few needles I see look like sub-alpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) to me.

The bark to me looks like an Abies species, but I've only worked with sub-alpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) and not Red fir (Abies magnifica). In my experience, lasiocarpa had significant pitch pockets in the bark.

Looking up a wood database, the lasiocarpa has a density of 33lb/cuft vs the 27 lb/cuft for magifica. When I lived in an area with lasiocarpa, nobody was looking to use it for firewood as there were better options.

From my perspective, sub par firewood is the stuff you have to pay for or do major work to haul it out of the bush. Free and easily accessible make it great firewood to me. As a tree guy, I can now afford to be picky.

Here is a small branch from one of the rounds. 2 rows per branch, coming out at an angle and about an inch long. Not sure if such a small branch will mimick the rest of the full grown tree? I'm going back up Saturday to fell a couple more so I will get better pictures.

The bark description matches the Douglas fir (red fir) from here...
http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/ipnf/learning/?cid=fsm9_019073

And the needles match the description for grand fir...
http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/ipnf/learning/?cid=fsm9_019112

Can't say much about the color of the needles since I've only taken dead ones. Thanks for your help!

 

[MountainHigh]

Looks like a Fir of some kind for sure! Looks exactly like wood I've burned many times as well. Looks close to Hemlock too. There are about a dozen varieties of Fir and they're all worth burning. Hemlock is a decent softwood as well.

If it's not Doug Fir, never be disappointed in free wood that looks like that. It will burn nicely once dried. The only guys you should pity are those who only have cottonwood, and even then, it sure beats paying for heating fuel if dried thoroughly ;-)

Any Fir, even the lower BTU varieties will keep you nice and warm. You will go through lower BTU softwood faster than the guys back east and their hardwood, but Fir and Hemlock are good fuel nevertheless. Just keep an eye on your chimney as Fir and Hemlock are pitchy woods.