I don’t see any “flaws” in quantifying wood by volume, but I see huge “flaws” in quantifying by weight. The thing is, wood is used for thousands of purposes, and the vast majority is not used as heating fuel. Wood fluctuates in weight constantly as it ages and as the ambient humidity changes… set a pile of 2x4’s in Arizona for a year and its gonna’ weigh a whole lot less than if it was sitting in Georgia. And there just flat ain’t any way to conveniently, accurately, quickly and consistently measure the moisture content of wood… because the vast majority of moisture is in the center of the wood. If you take a cubic inch from the center of a piece of firewood, and a cubic inch from the outside of a piece of firewood they will have different moisture contents. It would be impossible to weigh wood, and then deduct for moisture, because the moisture content is not consistent throughout the entire piece. Larger pieces would contain more moisture per cubic inch than smaller pieces, and denser pieces (like from the base of the tree) would have a higher moisture content than limb wood. Using weight to quantify wood just isn’t workable… just flat-out ain’t workable.
Even the argument that corn is bought and sold by weight is incorrect; Corn is bought and sold by the bushel, a unit of volume. A bushel is 1.2445 cubic feet… it does not matter how much that bushel of corn weighs (how much moisture it contains), it is still a bushel of corn. Weight is only used to determine how many bushels (cubic feet) are in a given load of corn, and moisture content is used to adjust the price (because of the cost of drying it). No different than a volume of firewood can be bought cheaper green than seasoned. Using weight and moisture content of corn to determine volume works because the density and moisture content of a kernel of corn is relatively constant within a load… the same can’t be said for pieces of wood, even if all the pieces came from the same tree.
And the argument that a cord of pine isn't the same as a cord of oak doesn't support your "weight" idea. A cord of pine is worth less than a cord of oak, just as 2x4 of pine is worth less per board foot than a 2x4 of oak. Near anything bought and sold by volume has the price set by what it is and/or by what the quality is. Volume is only the amount, measured in three dimensions, it has absolutely nothing to do with value... value is determined by what that volume contains.
So… If I go to the lumber yard and buy a nice load of Walnut boards to build my wife some new kitchen cupboards, how would they measure each board for moisture content without destroying them? After all, they would have to measure each board because the ones on top of the stack would not have the same moisture content as those in the middle of the stack. The answer is they can’t! There just flat ain’t any way to do it… better to sell the lumber (wood) by the board foot (volume) rather than by weight.
Even the argument that corn is bought and sold by weight is incorrect; Corn is bought and sold by the bushel, a unit of volume. A bushel is 1.2445 cubic feet… it does not matter how much that bushel of corn weighs (how much moisture it contains), it is still a bushel of corn. Weight is only used to determine how many bushels (cubic feet) are in a given load of corn, and moisture content is used to adjust the price (because of the cost of drying it). No different than a volume of firewood can be bought cheaper green than seasoned. Using weight and moisture content of corn to determine volume works because the density and moisture content of a kernel of corn is relatively constant within a load… the same can’t be said for pieces of wood, even if all the pieces came from the same tree.
And the argument that a cord of pine isn't the same as a cord of oak doesn't support your "weight" idea. A cord of pine is worth less than a cord of oak, just as 2x4 of pine is worth less per board foot than a 2x4 of oak. Near anything bought and sold by volume has the price set by what it is and/or by what the quality is. Volume is only the amount, measured in three dimensions, it has absolutely nothing to do with value... value is determined by what that volume contains.
So… If I go to the lumber yard and buy a nice load of Walnut boards to build my wife some new kitchen cupboards, how would they measure each board for moisture content without destroying them? After all, they would have to measure each board because the ones on top of the stack would not have the same moisture content as those in the middle of the stack. The answer is they can’t! There just flat ain’t any way to do it… better to sell the lumber (wood) by the board foot (volume) rather than by weight.