Regional Wood Differences

[greengiant]

Does anyone have any experience living in different parts of the country, thus having experience burning the different regional woods to know what is the best species around? I understand this can vary based on stove set up, personal preference, etc. I also have seen the btu charts, but I'm not sure they can compare to real life heating experience.

I've been reading various threads, the most recent talked about american elm, red elm, osage orange, and hedge being the best wood ever. Could this be true, but maybe just for those living in the plains/mid-west?

I've seen other threads that speak of red oak and locust as the best, mostly coming from those in the east coast/northeast.

Personally, I live near the Pennsylvania border in NY, and have an ample supply of oak, hard maple, soft maple, and ash. Am I lucky to have those to burn, or would I be just as happy burning mulberry in Kansas?????

 

[Laird]

Basically your looking at BTU's per pound. The heavier denser woods will be the best heat producers regardless of where you live. Some trees are not available in all ares and you have to look for the best firewood available in your area.

The best burning wood in my area would be Black Locust and Hickory. Some Osage Orange/Hedge Apple is available but in very limited amounts.

My experience with the BTU charts has been that they are pretty accurate, and show the heaviest, densest wood is the best firewood.

 

[bobt]

I am originally from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan where Hard Maple is the king of firewood. Anyone who heats seriously with wood tries to get a big supply of it.

We also have an unlimited supply of Quaking Aspen, but most wood burners shy away from it like the plague. I don't mind burning it however.

I now live in theLower Peninsula where White Ash is king. Our section of the thumb area of Michigan is heavily wooded with Ash, and the EAB hasn't arrived yet as far as I can tell.

The biggest difference I see in burning Ash is the amount of seasoning time given the wood before throwing it in the fire. The wood burners around here do not regularly dry the wood for a year before using it. Instead, they may well cut it in the morning and burn it in the afternoon. Haha! I shudder when I see a big wagon load of Ash coming across a field and being thrown right into the basement to be burned without seasoning, but that's how it's done here. They don't see the need to dry it first.

Bob

 

[branchbuzzer]

It's been said before many times, the best wood is what you have the most of and requires the least amount of fuss to obtain. That being said, your sugar maple, oak and ash are all excellent choices.

In my area, people will go absolutely hog-wild over black locust ( but offer them some = BTU sweet birch and they might look at you funny ) and red oak is the staple. One reason people like locust so much is that it is low moisture content even when green, so if you have to buy it from an unknown source, there's only so much that Joe Redneck can do to screw it up. White Ash is similar.

There's also something to be said for harvesting lighter woods, especially if you have limited choices. You can use these on not-so-cold days to extend your supply of good stuff. That's where your soft maple will come in and also poplar, cottonwood etc. They also are good for getting the hard stuff going. A lot of times you can get this so-called "junk wood" already cut to size and ready, because nobody else thinks it will burn ( these are the same people who will cut a tree down and stick it directly into the burner, wondering why it doesn't burn ).

 

[05mxdiesel]

If you talk to the old timers, every wood has its pros and cons. One wood makes too much ash, another wood is too stringy to split, oak takes to long to season. Red oak probably is my favorite, easy as hell to split and high on list for btu's, and the lovely smell. I got some white ash this year and man it was a bear to split, but it was very dry when cut. The Emerald Ash borer has done some extensive damage in PA, last I heard. I prefer the wood that burns and makes heat.

 

[deutzman]

I sold some timber last year. The outfit that cut the timber talked about how much heavier our trees were than what they cut up near Boonsmill Va. This is white oak, red oak, hickory, you name it and they said it all was heavier than the same species in their area. What they judged it by was feller bunchers and load size tons per trailer. They could cut, lift, move and lay the same size trees down in there area and here if they got it moving it would tip the feller buncher when trying to lay the tree down and they'd have to drop the trees right there. So it seems the soil plays a good part in this too.

 

[ks_osage_orange]

Mulberry in Kansas makes pretty good firewood and great homemade jelly, but around here hedge/osage orange (same thing) seam to be tops (if you have the right stove to burn it). Locust/oak is up there too. But its really hard to beat the heat output of hedge.

 

[BPS. LLC]

If you talk to the old timers, every wood has its pros and cons. One wood makes too much ash, another wood is too stringy to split, oak takes to long to season. Red oak probably is my favorite, easy as hell to split and high on list for btu's, and the lovely smell. I got some white ash this year and man it was a bear to split, but it was very dry when cut. The Emerald Ash borer has done some extensive damage in PA, last I heard. I prefer the wood that burns and makes heat.

I have to hijack the thread! We've been looking for land in your neck of the woods! We've looked as far north as Clearfield, but it will be a year or so yet before we make the jump. Beautiful country up there, but close to civilization.

 

[REJ2]

Mulberry in Kansas makes pretty good firewood and great homemade jelly, but around here hedge/osage orange (same thing) seam to be tops (if you have the right stove to burn it). Locust/oak is up there too. But its really hard to beat the heat output of hedge.

I'll take all the Mulberry in Kansas I can get my hands on!! Its a top five wood on just about every wood chart I've seen. REJ2

 

[ks_osage_orange]

I'll take all the Mulberry in Kansas I can get my hands on!! Its a top five wood on just about every wood chart I've seen. REJ2

:agree2: wasn't disagreeing that mulberry makes good firewood, IMO just not as good as hedge for heat and not as abundant in my neck of the woods. I've got a little mulberry to burn this winter and looking forward to it.

 

[rwbinbc]

Ash seems to burn better green than seasoned, We had unlimited supply of ash down in Battle Creek we cut them and sold it as seasoned wood and people called us back time after time for more its good wood for cutting and splitting in the winter. OMG we could do ash all day long it splits with minimal effort to. The fiskar with just a swing and throw and spin and swing again.

I love ash firewood

Now I live north of Muskegon, And where's the ash? There is not that many up here, Oak, Beech, and Hard Maples. I mostly burn Soft Maple, Oak, and Cherry. But everything that end up in the pile gets burnt even a little bit of dead willow< almost burns like gas

 

[eric_271]

Mulberry in Kansas makes pretty good firewood and great homemade jelly, but around here hedge/osage orange (same thing) seam to be tops (if you have the right stove to burn it). Locust/oak is up there too. But its really hard to beat the heat output of hedge.

The coals left in the morning time from the osage are hard to beat not to mention the extended burn time you get with it over other wood. A big plus is how many years it can lay with out rotting. We cut this year for the first time in 4 or 5 years and this time we are going to end up with about 8 or 9 years worth.

 

[StihlyinEly]

The three best woods in my region are black ash, red maple and white birch. They all are very close on the btu charts, but the maple seems to produce the hottest, longest lasting burn. The ash is a very close second, and yields a more even burn and a very fine ash that takes up less volume in the stove (so a little less cleanout). The birch is third in all categories, but not by a lot.

I'll take the ash hands down because it splits easily and straight, and the bark clings very well. Neither of those statements are true about the maple and birch we get.

When I lived at 10,000 feet in Colorado, it was all junk. Spruce, pine, fir and aspen. Yuck!

 

[Mike PA]

You are lucky to have the wood you do. But... you should also be happy to burn whatever wood you've got because it is a great way to heat cheaply.

BTW - for one of the other posts, it is not BTU/lb, but BTU/volume. BTU per pound is approximately equal for all wood, but not BTU per volume.

 

[mtfallsmikey]

Top 3 in my area: Slippery Elm, Locust, Red Oak.

 

[Alaskat]

Matanuska Valley we have Spruce and White Birch used for firewood, there is Alder too but it rarely gets over 6'', not many folks use Cottonwood. I sell mostly beetle kill Spruce seasoned on the stem the birch gets $300.00 per cord but requires lots of drying time if not bucked it will rot pretty fast and best to split and dry for good seasoned product it is a heck of alot heavier to handle than the Spruce.

 

[4seasons]

Around here oak is king. Hickory is plentiful but if you split by hand it is a pain to work with. Some people don't like white oak, but I think it is because it takes too long to season. My white oak is 3 years old so I love the stuff. I burn some beech and locust just because they got knocked down getting the oak out. Maple is ok, but again just cut a little as it was in the way of the good stuff. Most people around here wont touch pine, I have a little that I use to knock the chill off when I don't want an all day fire.

 

[Jredsjeep]

not a scientific opinion, just mine but i think the tree will be denser if it is in a drier climate. if there is less rainfall there would be less growth making the wood a bit denser.

kind of like the tree with the roots dipping into the river would be larger and less dense than the same age tree at the top of the rocky hill that got less excess moisture to "fatten up".

i have been burning cottenwood this year since it was free and easy to get to. i know others wont touch it with a 10 foot pole, my baby sitter had a tree dropped that was about 36" at the base. there were 3 guys working to clean it up and i got 4 cords myself out of it.

it burns well and i have plenty of coals in the morning to just throw more in and walk away. is it as good as the oak and locust i have burnt before, no, but it really is not much worse either. one could argue its better since it burns down a little more and i dont have to clean out the ashes and half burnt coals as much to keep the stove going when burning 24/7.