Big log versus many smaller ones, which yeilds more splits?

[Doingitwell]

I cut and sell firewood and I've had some thoughts lately about getting the most bang for the buck in regards to trailer load. Bear with me on this, assuming all things being equal like wood species, moisture content, split size, etc.

If you could get ONE 4000 pound log versus however many 14 inch diameter logs it took to make 4000 pounds, which would yield the most wood? I'm asking this because my theory of thought says that the bigger the log, the less airspace it takes up if having to stack multiple amounts of logs to get to the desired weight.

Lately I've been finding myself trying to cut bigger and bigger diameter trees hoping to maximize my net "split" amount. Yes, those rounds get much heavier the bigger you go, but what the heck. I also forgot to mention I cut the logs at 4' length and then load on the trailer. Two days ago I cut a 34" diameter Ponderosa over 60' tall. 10' from the top it still was 7" in diameter. Totally kicked my A$$ getting what I could loaded but I had to go back the next day to get the rest.

So what you all think?

 

[ropensaddle]

My experience is: you will have more production in 10 to 24 inch diameter wood. I can't be too choosy though so if I get 50 inchers time for noodling.

 

[PA Plumber]

Yep, I think you'd have more wood yield out of a honk'n monster log, but a lot more time tied up in handl'n.

I do prefer the big'uns, though.

 

[turnkey4099]

I cut and sell firewood and I've had some thoughts lately about getting the most bang for the buck in regards to trailer load. Bear with me on this, assuming all things being equal like wood species, moisture content, split size, etc.

If you could get ONE 4000 pound log versus however many 14 inch diameter logs it took to make 4000 pounds, which would yield the most wood? I'm asking this because my theory of thought says that the bigger the log, the less airspace it takes up if having to stack multiple amounts of logs to get to the desired weight.

Lately I've been finding myself trying to cut bigger and bigger diameter trees hoping to maximize my net "split" amount. Yes, those rounds get much heavier the bigger you go, but what the heck. I also forgot to mention I cut the logs at 4' length and then load on the trailer. Two days ago I cut a 34" diameter Ponderosa over 60' tall. 10' from the top it still was 7" in diameter. Totally kicked my A$$ getting what I could loaded but I had to go back the next day to get the rest.

So what you all think?

Well, a bit confusing but:

4000 pounds of big log or 4000 pounds of a bunch of little ones comes out to the same amount of _wood_. If you don't split the big one the little ones will take up more space.

If you split the big and little ones down to the same size, the stack would be equal.

Harry K

 

[spike60]

Well, a bit confusing but:

4000 pounds of big log or 4000 pounds of a bunch of little ones comes out to the same amount of _wood_. If you don't split the big one the little ones will take up more space.

If you split the big and little ones down to the same size, the stack would be equal.

Harry K

Yeah, going by weight, there is no advantage either way. There might be a difference in the amount of wood in a log load depending on the size of the logs.

But I think a lot of the question comes down to efficiency and how you do your splitting. Like PA said, it's going to take a lot more time and effort handling the big blocks. Do you handle them all by hand? Even cutting through something like that 42" tree takes time. You could cut up an entire 14" log in the time it would take to make just one cut on that monster.

All in all, you can work much faster with reasonable size wood. But, that being said, I would love to take a bite out of that big 42" log.

 

[BlueRidgeMark]

If you could get ONE 4000 pound log versus however many 14 inch diameter logs it took to make 4000 pounds, which would yield the most wood?

The smaller ones will get you more splits.

For the same weight, there is more volume, because more of that weight is BARK, which is less dense than wood. For the same reason, you'll get more BTUs out of the big log.

That said, I suspect the difference will be hard to even measure, and you'll get more production from the smaller ones. The big guys (and I do a lot of them) are just way harder to work with. If I had the choice, I'd stick with stuff 24" down to about 8". BUT, free wood is free wood, so I wind up with mostly bigger stuff. Oh well!

 

[turnkey4099]

Yeah, going by weight, there is no advantage either way. There might be a difference in the amount of wood in a log load depending on the size of the logs.

But I think a lot of the question comes down to efficiency and how you do your splitting. Like PA said, it's going to take a lot more time and effort handling the big blocks. Do you handle them all by hand? Even cutting through something like that 42" tree takes time. You could cut up an entire 14" log in the time it would take to make just one cut on that monster.

All in all, you can work much faster with reasonable size wood. But, that being said, I would love to take a bite out of that big 42" log.

SAme here. I am currently working on some very nice Black Locust. Butt ends will be going in the 24" in range. IOW big enough I can't load them whole, will be needing to half them by splitting or noodle. That takes time and labor. Now If I were to take the splitter with me...Nah. I ain't got the 'nads anymore to both cut up and split a load in the same trip. Cut/load/haul split at a later date.

Harry K

 

[wvlogger]

But I think a lot of the question comes down to efficiency and how you do your splitting. Like PA said, it's going to take a lot more time and effort handling the big blocks. Do you handle them all by hand? Even cutting through something like that 42" tree takes time. You could cut up an entire 14" log in the time it would take to make just one cut on that monster.

while that is true look at how many splits one 42" round would yeild it is kind of prefrence if you ask me. I love big trees. when i can pull up to an oak tree cut 4 rounds split them down and have my F-250 loaded to the gills i am happy. I have pics somewere of a tree i did this very thing with i will dig them up

 

[RacerX]

As mentioned pound for pound there's no difference. Smaller logs can be easier to work with. Just for comparison it would take 4-12" logs to equal 1-24" log of the same length. Question remains which is faster to work with. Someone set up to easily process 1-24" log might be faster than doing 4-12" logs.

 

[ropensaddle]

As mentioned pound for pound there's no difference. Smaller logs can be easier to work with. Just for comparison it would take 4-12" logs to equal 1-24" log of the same length. Question remains which is faster to work with. Someone set up to easily process 1-24" log might be faster than doing 4-12" logs.

24 is optimum now 57 inch gets dicey My splitter will load and quarter 36 to 42 inch ok but its kinda rough I have been noodling over 36 lately.

 

[Wood Doctor]

Go with the Big Logs...

... but only if you can handle them. I have to disagree somewhat with Marc on this issue, but not entirely by any means. If you double the diameter of a big round, you will quadruple the number of logs for the stove that you will obtain. You will also deal with less bark that may fall off, even if the bark on the larger round is a bit thicker.

There are two problems with big logs: (1) First, they are heavy. Doubling the diameter also quadruples the weight. (2) Splitting also becomes much more difficult and you may have to work with the perimeter of the round, knocking off chunks rather than trying to split straight across. The bigger the round, the more likely the splitter may stall.

The big log will produce proportionally less sapwood, and usually the heartwood is considered better firewood because it is denser. That argument fails, however, for trees that rot or are hollow from the inside out, such as soft maple, or for trees that the carpenter ants and grub worms have worked on for years.

 

[BlueRidgeMark]

... but only if you can handle them. I have to disagree somewhat with Marc on this issue, but not entirely by any means. If you double the diameter of a big round, you will quadruple the number of logs for the stove that you will obtain.

Yeah, but we weren't talking about diameter, but weight. THat equalizes the amount of wood.

The big log will produce proportionally less sapwood, and usually the heartwood is considered better firewood because it is denser. That argument fails, however, for trees that rot or are hollow from the inside out, such as soft maple, or for trees that the carpenter ants and grub worms have worked on for years.

Yep, but again, if we're talking weight, that doesn't come into the equation as the question was originally stated.

It's reality, though. Bigger logs are more likely to have hollows or rot. That's why if I had ma druthers, I'd stick with 24" and down.

 

[ray benson]

The big wood seems to rough me up more . More bumps,more bruises, more aches and pains.

 

[Curlycherry1]

Post #3 is this thread answers it definitively. Case closed.

http://www.arboristsite.com/showthread.php?t=132442

 

[Doingitwell]

Hey curlycherry, thanks for the link. That does put things more into perspective in regards to whole and splits.

Thanks all.

 

[BlueRidgeMark]

Post #3 is this thread answers it definitively. Case closed.

http://www.arboristsite.com/showthread.php?t=132442

Curly, yer braggin' again!

 

[Wood Doctor]

Curly, yer braggin' again!

True. I tested Curly's theory once again today. I brought in a huge load of big rounds to the splitter, unloaded, and split them all. Much of it was dry and I may have lost a wheelbarrow full of bark that fell off and chips. Then I loaded the truck back up again with the split wood. At least two full wheelbarrows of split wood had to be left behind for a second load to carry it all home.

Theory confirmed again. Big rounds take up significantly less space than split firewood. The bigger the average round, the less space they require.

However, they are a bear to handle and to get on board the tailgate. Eventually, they can get so big that you have to noodle cut them in half for the splitter to work with them. I have a few of these puppies staring my splitter in the face right now. Naturally, they are American elm--one of the toughest species there is to split.

 

[Tofurkey]

SAme here. I am currently working on some very nice Black Locust. Butt ends will be going in the 24" in range. IOW big enough I can't load them whole, will be needing to half them by splitting or noodle. That takes time and labor. Now If I were to take the splitter with me...Nah. I ain't got the 'nads anymore to both cut up and split a load in the same trip. Cut/load/haul split at a later date.

Harry K

I agree Harry. A few days ago a farmer friend called and asked if I wanted some cherry trees. He had 3 good sized trees that he had drug out in a hay field. Unfortunatly he had mashed them all into a pile with a dozer before he thought of calling me. I never turn down good wood so I said I'd take them. What a tangled mess! It was a lot of work cutting them out and pulling them apart with my winch. All 3 trees were about 20-28" at the base. I like to cut my blocks at 18-20" inches and I just don't have the stones to pick up those big rounds and get them piled in the truck. I ended up hauling my splitter out and quartering the biggest pieces. I did 2 full and 1 half load like that yesterday--I was one whipped pup when I finally hit the lazy boy last nite!!! It was about 80-85 degrees also. Just for the sake of my back, I'd much rather cut 12-16" trees any day!

 

[Woodcutteranon]

Yep, I think you'd have more wood yield out of a honk'n monster log, but a lot more time tied up in handl'n.

I do prefer the big'uns, though.

Oh my!

 

[Wood Doctor]

How Were the Rounds Obtained?

I have to ask PA Plumber this question. The long 42"+ dia. log as shown in the first two Pics had to be rolled somehow before you could buck the logs into separate pieces as shown in the last Pic. Otherwise, the chain hits the ground as you saw and it is ruined (or dulled immediately). If the long log was not rolled, clearance still had to be obtained between the saw chain and the ground to complete the cut.

How did you accomplish this mission?