Suggested firewoods - are there any woods that one should NEVER use for firewood?

[spike60]

I hate following Zogger's posts when I really don't have time to write. :msp_wink:

But quickly, let me add my voice to the white oak crowd here. IMO, it's the best of the oaks. Close to hickory for heat and coals, and dries quicker than other oaks.

As for the small stuff, I'll second everything Zogger said. And 4" to 6" rounds are pretty much the same size that I split my larger blocks down to, so having a bunch of that wood with no splitting to do cuts the work in half. And it could be my imagination, but to me it often seems that those rounds last longer that splits of equal size.

 

[mga]

i usually go by the words FREE, then i make a determination whether or not it's worth it.

 

[IHDiesel73L]

i usually go by the words FREE, then i make a determination whether or not it's worth it.

I just got a bed full of poplar this morning. Normally I wouldn't bother, but it was neatly stacked along the road which is my normal route to work and there was ample shoulder room to pull over-easy peasy. I burn poplar and pine when I'm home on the weekends working outside or in my basement. I just keep the air wide open and feed the furnace often. It keeps the house warm without using any of the high BTU wood (oak, locust, hickory, etc...) so that I can save that for overnights and when I'm at work during the day/the wife is home with the baby.

 

[chopperfreak2k1]

You can burn all that wood you have on your property. So what if one has more BTU per volume? By dry *weight*, they are all roughly the same.

Cut it, stack it off the ground, cover the top. That's it. Better to be years ahead than not.

My rule of thumb on this farm, if I got to touch it to be cut, it goes on the woodstack. I am neither a species snob, nor a size snob, I burn a lot of small branch chunks. I am enjoying a little fire right now that is 1-3" branches. So what I got to throw more in frequently, I am sitting right here, it isn't a hassle.

I cut and haul home one inch to over 30 inch diameter stuff, it all gets used. I actually like a lot of the small stuff that doesn't need any splitting whatsoever, your stacks accumulate real fast that way, skipping that whole splitting step.

Lot of guys don't like to cut small stuff, I think I just fly with a small saw and can knock it out, just from years of doing it. Yep, I can block a big fat trunk of "perfect" hardwood and work it, to me that is by far and away not the hardest but the easiest work with firewood, it's just not that hard at all, takes no huge skill to do it, but I can *also* knock out a ton of smaller stuff and have a big pile of ready to burn soon pieces from the branches on trees as well, using the smallest most fuel stingy and bar oil stingy and easy to run saws, and now including my spiffy battery saw. Because I am *fast* when I want to be.

And if I have to cut it and handle it or move it, I might as well move it to my stacks.

My firewooding to me is *sport*, not drudgery or work. I am amazed I get paid to do it....not complaining at-all.

Stack and burn what ya got man, all of it, you got a real good gig at your new digs sounds like to me.

Why people are snobs about split versus the SAME SIZE AND WEIGHT AND SPECIES wood still "in the round" is beyond me. I have yet to see any difference at all in the heat coming from the stove one versus the other. Like, say you want a four inch across rough size split from your big blocks, swell. Now..what is wrong with cutting the four inch diameter branches and leaving them whole, as opposed to making some huge branch pile mess and calling it "slash"? Same with differing species, your example some neuron calling white oak junk wood! That goes beyond being a species snob right into the walking drool level.

Watch as the economy worsens, people will become a lot less picky on handling their energy requirements. Along with a lot of other snobbish tendencies.

Good luck with your new farm man, always neat stuff to do! You are "energy rich", enjoy it!

very well said! i bring home 1" and up.

As for the small stuff, I'll second everything Zogger said. And 4" to 6" rounds are pretty much the same size that I split my larger blocks down to, so having a bunch of that wood with no splitting to do cuts the work in half. And it could be my imagination, but to me it often seems that those rounds last longer that splits of equal size.

i completely agree

 

[Chris-PA]

I am neither a species snob, nor a size snob, I burn a lot of small branch chunks. I am enjoying a little fire right now that is 1-3" branches. So what I got to throw more in frequently, I am sitting right here, it isn't a hassle.

I gotta thank Zogger for reminding me of this earlier this year. I had about an hour one day so I hooked up the cart to the WheelHorse and fired up the 142 and went after the pile of white oak branches in the field. That's all the time it took to get a pile of smalls on the porch, and we burned them for plenty of nights in the small stove the beginning of the season. There's more and I will be getting them too, and now the pile of junk I gotta clean up is smaller.

I like experimenting with how different woods burn. Sometimes I'll get a few pieces of something different, and I'll set that aside to experiment with. I was bummed one time when I spent a lot of effort gathering up some hickory from a neighbor down the road, but I never got to burn much of it as it rotted before I could process much of it. Now there's some persimmon down there and I want it but it's too wet to drive back for it. But oak and ash I got plenty of - I guess I gotta say that ash is the king of firewood. It's not the densest wood, but it has to be the easiest. It'll burn no matter what.

 

[chopperfreak2k1]

I just got a bed full of poplar this morning. Normally I wouldn't bother, but it was neatly stacked along the road which is my normal route to work and there was ample shoulder room to pull over-easy peasy. I burn poplar and pine when I'm home on the weekends working outside or in my basement. I just keep the air wide open and feed the furnace often. It keeps the house warm without using any of the high BTU wood (oak, locust, hickory, etc...) so that I can save that for overnights and when I'm at work during the day/the wife is home with the baby.

i was always told not to burn pine, but i see quite a few on here that say they burn it without issue. if i were to burn some pine is there anything special i would need to do with it or to watch for?

 

[Eric Modell]

The only problem I have with round wood verse split wood, is the bark leaves more ash.

The other thing to keep in mind is if you have an older stove like we do, green wood is your friend.

I also live in the Ozarks and we burn it all.

 

[IHDiesel73L]

i was always told not to burn pine, but i see quite a few on here that say they burn it without issue. if i were to burn some pine is there anything special i would need to do with it or to watch for?

Just make sure it's seasoned (pine will dry out in six months or less as long as its covered) and don't try to choke the air down to get a longer burn. Pine burns hot and quick-its good for taking the chill off first thing in the morning or after getting home from being away from the house for a while. The only way you're going to have creosote problems is if you try to burn it while its still really sappy (green) or you choke the air down on it, or you never clean your chimney-some folks go for the trifecta which almost always results in a chimney fire. :msp_scared: Also remember that not everyone (like us here in the Northeast) is blessed with abundant hardwood. Up in Canada, out West/in the Pacific Northwest, that's pretty much all they have to burn because hardwoods are hard to come by if you can find them at all. That said, if I pulled up to a powerline cut and there were equal piles of pine and oak sitting there and I only had so much bed space, I'd take the oak and not even come back for the pine. However, if my neighbor was having a pine tree taken down I'd gladly roll the rounds over to my house. Basically, I don't go out of my way for it, but I don't turn my nose up at it either.

The other thing to keep in mind is if you have an older stove like we do, green wood is your friend.

How do you figure? My Englander isn't that old, but because it's a furnace it's EPA exempt, no cat, no secondaries, so essentially it functions like an "older stove." The one year I got behind on scrounging and got desperate I started burning stuff that wasn't totally green but wasn't dry either. I had nothing but problems-hardly any heat, the wood was bubbling, hissing and spitting, I couldn't get an overnight burn to save my life, and my chimney was a mess. Fast forward to the following year with more of the same wood (after having sat under cover for nearly 18 months) and the furnace was practically cooking us out some nights! Now I don't burn anything that hasn't been split for at least a year. Really dense stuff like red oak, locust, hickory, etc...gets two years.

 

[Ayatollah]

I got some free eucalyptus this summer, and it is seasoning right now. I've heard some negativity surrounding that tree, but think some of it is undeserved. It's a hot burning wood, and I for one enjoy the aroma. It may junk up the chimney or tube, but I always clean mine periodically anyway. Right now we are burning 3 or more year seasoned oak, and next in line is hard walnut. The walnut is right about at 6 months split, and I have thrown a few chunks in just before sleep time because I wake up to a glowing thick coal in the a.m., but that's been minimal so far. Right now, that walnut trunk pieces are as hard as any wood I've ever handled. Dense it is....
Willow...terrible in my opinion. Took out ours many years ago, and it didn't burn worth squat. Tried burning some that I hauled for somebody too, and same thing happened. From then on, just took to the dump
Manzanita. Extremely hot and volatile, but also very pitchy. Gums up the chimney and also seems to stand out on any day

cottonwood...terrible for many reasons

 

[Deereman76]

The only tree I will pass on is sweetgum. the stuff is just to hard to split to make it worthwhile. Especially when there are plenty other trees to cut down....

 

[Eric Modell]

HDIESEL
I have been burning for 40 years and have only had one stove that did not like green wood.
We mostly burn blow downs and dead trees lots of rot, moisture and other problems.
It always helps to have some green to make coals.
With our current setup we can not make creosote in the chimney, no matter what we do.
I used to sell wood to the old timers they all wanted mostly green because it burned slower.
I am just saying there are a lot of different situations.
I would like to upgrade to a more modern situation but do not have the time or funds now.
I got flamed last year for a comment about green wood, but we are struggling right now to keep coals in the stove. The wood is pretty green, tops from my neighbor who logged last spring freshly cut.

 

[Wood Doctor]

Wrong.

... cottonwood...terrible for many reasons

Sorry, guy, but cottonwood and oridinary poplar have just as much heat content as oak. Measure it using BTU/lb. Nearly all wood is the same using this common denominator as your guide.

If you have a good-size stove, cottonwood will take care of you and perhaps better than so-called premium hardwoods that take forever to light, get got, and warm up your cabin. Nothing beats cottonwood when you want some heat.

 

[Ayatollah]

Sorry, guy, but cottonwood and oridinary poplar have just as much heat content as oak. Measure it using BTU/lb. Nearly all wood is the same using this common denominator as your guide.

If you have a good-size stove, cottonwood will take care of you and perhaps better than so-called premium hardwoods that take forever to light, get got, and warm up your cabin. Nothing beats cottonwood when you want some heat.

My experience has been otherwise

 

[Wood Doctor]

???

My experience has been otherwise.

Please clarify. Remember that I said BTU/lb, not BTU/cu ft. opcorn:

 

[Zale]

petrified wood. Very difficult to get it to catch.:msp_biggrin:

 

[1project2many]

Why people are snobs about split versus the SAME SIZE AND WEIGHT AND SPECIES wood still "in the round" is beyond me. I have yet to see any difference at all in the heat coming from the stove one versus the other.

For explanation, I split almost every piece of wood that goes into the shed. Even as small as 1". For one, split wood stacks better. I've posted pictures of how I stack wood in my shed before. For two, small diameter pieces left round will hold more moisture. I've watched 2 yr old seasoned pieces bubble water out the ends when burning. These are small pieces we're talking. Maybe the humidity in this area plays a part in that, but if the wood is split before stacking it's definitely drier when burned. 2" and smaller rounds of Gray / Paper Birch, Silver Maple, and Pin Cherry can all decompose within a couple of months if stacked wet in the spring. But if they're split they'll make it to the following season without a problem. Again, it's pretty humid here. Larger pieces of these species, and even Black Cherry, will break down starting from the outside and working in if left whole. But if split they dry out much better and last longer.

You can burn all that wood you have on your property. So what if one has more BTU per volume? By dry *weight*, they are all roughly the same.

But the woodshed fills by volume, and that container's size is fixed. I've brought home and burned plenty of wood that many people throw out. I spent three years burning a pile of Butternut that I brought home. I burned a bunch of Silver Maple a couple of years back. Right now I've got almost a cord of Chinese Elm here that I'm just finishing splitting and stacking outside. That will go into a woodshed next summer and will be burned in the winter of 2013-14. If I put too much of that wood in the middle of the shed, during the cold months I won't have as much Oak, or Beech, or other good hardwood to burn. Sleep is hard to come by for me during the winter and getting up multiple times during the night to refill the stove isn't sustainable through the winter. Using large amounts of low density wood during that time period just doesn't work.

I always recommend the same approach to most people. Use the low density wood in the beginning and end of the winter and put more of the good stuff in the middle of the pile. It's not about being a snob. It's the best balance I've found. If a person happens on a huge score of good wood and wants to burn it all in one winter, then fine. But I'd still mix my wood and save the good stuff so I knew I had it a year or two out.

 

[Ayatollah]

Please clarify. Remember that I said BTU/lb, not BTU/cu ft. opcorn:

I'm not in the know about its' btu rating. Just remember it as difficult to split, slow to burn, and not particularly pleasant to smell. There's lots of it around here, and not many want it, so I'm not alone in my preference

 

[Ayatollah]

For explanation, I split almost every piece of wood that goes into the shed. Even as small as 1". For one, split wood stacks better. I've posted pictures of how I stack wood in my shed before. For two, small diameter pieces left round will hold more moisture. I've watched 2 yr old seasoned pieces bubble water out the ends when burning. These are small pieces we're talking. Maybe the humidity in this area plays a part in that, but if the wood is split before stacking it's definitely drier when burned. 2" and smaller rounds of Gray / Paper Birch, Silver Maple, and Pin Cherry can all decompose within a couple of months if stacked wet in the spring. But if they're split they'll make it to the following season without a problem. Again, it's pretty humid here. Larger pieces of these species, and even Black Cherry, will break down starting from the outside and working in if left whole. But if split they dry out much better and last longer.



But the woodshed fills by volume, and that container's size is fixed. I've brought home and burned plenty of wood that many people throw out. I spent three years burning a pile of Butternut that I brought home. I burned a bunch of Silver Maple a couple of years back. Right now I've got almost a cord of Chinese Elm here that I'm just finishing splitting and stacking outside. That will go into a woodshed next summer and will be burned in the winter of 2013-14. If I put too much of that wood in the middle of the shed, during the cold months I won't have as much Oak, or Beech, or other good hardwood to burn. Sleep is hard to come by for me during the winter and getting up multiple times during the night to refill the stove isn't sustainable through the winter. Using large amounts of low density wood during that time period just doesn't work.

I always recommend the same approach to most people. Use the low density wood in the beginning and end of the winter and put more of the good stuff in the middle of the pile. It's not about being a snob. It's the best balance I've found. If a person happens on a huge score of good wood and wants to burn it all in one winter, then fine. But I'd still mix my wood and save the good stuff so I knew I had it a year or two out.

I agree with you on the splitting practice. For most woods anyway. There's probably some types that don't cure across the grains as well as they do through them, but mostly more exposure within seems to speed up the process. I've always wondered if the seasoning occurs more when the temperature changes form hot to cool, and warm to cool, than it does when it's mostly warm or hot. Refrigeration is a natural moisture thief, but exposure to it aids that process. So a woodshed might inhibit that when the temperature drops and rises in the cooler months.

 

[Whitespider]

Sorry, guy, but cottonwood and oridinary poplar have just as much heat content as oak. Measure it using BTU/lb. Nearly all wood is the same using this common denominator as your guide.

Not trying to start a big discussion here, but...
I see that statement used on this forum often, and it ain't quite correct. Where it goes wrong is with the word "heat" instead of "energy". Einstein's famous equation E=MC[SUP]2[/SUP] states that any substances of equal mass contain the same stored energy, not heat. Mass is not the same thing as weight... for example, a square yard of concrete weighs less on the moon than it does on earth. Still, if we remain on earth, weight can be used to compare mass... on earth a pound of feathers have the same mass as a pound of steel, and both contain the same amount of stored energy.

When we burn wood we are using a chemical reaction to convert wood into something else, and that reaction releases some of that stored energy in the form of heat. Because a pound of cottonwood has the same mass as a pound of oak, if we could burn both, and trap all the heat energy released from both, it would be the same (in other words, if we had a 100-percent efficient appliance). But there ain't any such thing as a 100-percent efficient wood-burning appliance. A less-dense substance burns faster, or releases its energy faster... which means in a less than 100-percent efficient appliance a larger percentage of the heat energy will necessarily have to go out the flue.

Think of it this way... A pound of toilet paper holds the same stored energy as a pound of oak. For illustration purposes we will unroll that pound of toilet paper so it lays loose (even less dense). Now, take two wood stoves, put that pound of loose toilet paper in one and a pound of oak in the other... light them both. In just a few seconds the toilet paper will be consumed by fire in a massive hot flame, but you can lay your hand on the stove because near none of it was transferred to the steel. The oak is just getting started, and in a few minutes you won't be able to touch the stove without receiving a nasty burn.

It's the same thing, at a considerably lesser degree, with a less-dense wood; A somewhat smaller percentage of the heat produced will be available, or harnessed, to warm your butt. So even though a pound of cottonwood has the same potential heat value as a pound of oak, you would need a 100-percent efficient appliance to realize it. A high efficiency burn will do a better job of harnessing the heat from cottonwood... but at the same time it also does a better job of harnessing the heat from oak, although the gap gets smaller as efficiency increases.

But in the end, no matter how you slice it, you will harness more heat from a denser wood... you will get more heat from a pound of oak than you will from a pound of cottonwood.

 

[logbutcher]

Spidy nailed it....again.
It would be nice to have more intelligent discussions such as his post rather than these righteous declarations of ditzhood.

Well Mr. Ed, you have our permission to burn as many pounds of toilet paper ( please use Charmin :msp_w00t as you like. Perhaps you also have that oh-so-special magic stove that will heat a 5000 ft² house for 80 hours of high BTUs ? No other stove like that ever. Don't tell us how dumb people are. How long did you say you've used wood for a heat source ? And what about that central heating in your place set at 65 F ????

C'mon now enough fool stuff: unless you're in high latitudes where ONLY softwoods thrive, most wood burners use the highest BTU, most dense wood available. You got Cottonwood or Poplar/Aspen, burn it. FOR MANY REASONS, THOSE SPECIES ARE CRAP FOR FIREWOOD where other kinds are available. You need or want to burn green, unseasoned wood, fine. We're not here to approve or not. At least I'm not.:taped:

JMNSHO