Reading here for a few weeks and just joined earlier this week. We have had many camp fires over the years and used the fire place occasionally. The end of this July I started collecting and splitting wood to season to supplement the heat.
Most of the wood is Red Oak, some White Oak, Some Maple. And today I got some wild Cherry wood.
I have found many websites that give BTU rating for different wood species. Problem is each website has different BTU ratings. Does the USFS have that info online? I have not been able to find it.
Where do you guy's go to place for correct BTU wood ratings?
Generally BTUs per pound of dry wood is about the same for different species.
So when you are trying to work out BTU's per cord, the denser woods are the best. There may be differences in how well different woods burn, but the BTUs produced in the end is about the same.
Ian
Really no exact number for BTU ratings as there are so many variables that affect that number. They include the range of densities within different species of wood and are affected by growth rate, etc., moisture contents, sapwood, heartwood, etc.
So just a general and relative number is best that can be found.
How much difference have you found on these various websites?
Welcome to the Forestry Forum.
Welcome to the Forestry Forum. :)
All the hardwood you are collecting is great firewood. In order from best to worst it is White Oak, Red Oak, Maple, then Cherry. Drier and seasoned is always best.
I have barbecued with oak lumber scraps for years. I never used a fruit wood. So my plans are to try the Cherry for cooking.
I know that having wood split into various widths has its benefit. What is size is the best for heat?
Besides no bark you decrease the chances of insects, how does bark/no bark effect the fire?
My son works in a wood burning oven pizzeria. They get their wood bark free.
QuoteWhat is size is the best for heat?
The smaller the better for heat... more surface area to burn. Getting all the way down to sawdust size, then it is even explosive.
But also, the smaller the faster the wood is consumed so there is a trade off to consider. i.e. no perfect answer.
I know the smaller pieces burn too fast. And have read here on Forestry Forum where guys save the largest pieces to feed the fire before they go to bed so the fire lasts.
Though there has to be a point where going with a thicker wood thickness will not matter. Any idea what that thickness is?
There has to be a balance between a size that burns long and a size that will dry fast. What size would that be?
Again, like the BTU's, it is not a known, specific, tried, and true size. IMO
That comes with age, and time burning. As I see it, anyway. And size will change as you become more familiar with your wood burner and what works (feels good) for you and what doesn't seem so great. And I think everyone is a bit different as they gain their own experience. Species and how seasoned the wood is will also add to the variables affecting your outcome. Enjoy the ride, burning wood is great fun.
Quote from: 32vld on August 22, 2014, 09:44:24 PM
I have barbecued with oak lumber scraps for years. I never used a fruit wood. So my plans are to try the Cherry for cooking.
Hi,
i'm not sure what kind of cherry you plan to cook with, but what i have herd is that black cherry is not ok to smoke or cook with because the sap inside of the trees is not good for consumption. please correct me if i'm wrong.
besides that, firewood is a great way to heat your house. i've lived with it my whole life. I basically burn anything (including softwood) because of the tops and excess that we drag home when we pull some wood to mill out. the wood i like to burn the most is birch and maple. birch, wet or dry, as long as the bark is on there, starts relatively easy and burns pretty hot. poplar/aspen is one i don't prefer because it does not burn hot, and never starts.
Rather than "scientific" evidence, most people have to find what works best for them. Both types of wood, bark or not, and size of wood are really issues that you need to find what works best for you.
The ONLY time I have ever worried about bark is when I am using the wood to smoke meat with. Because you are smoking the meat, and the bark tends to collect most of the oils in the wood, it can effect the way the meat is flavored, so I make sure I peel the bark on any wood I use for smoking. Now please understand, I have NO scientific evidence to back any of this up...but that was what I was always taught. As was my dad, as was my grandfather, etc. So maybe you really don't have to peel the bark to smoke, but I always have.
So far as cooking, I was raised with a large outdoor firewood barbeque. We burned all black mountain oak, and never worried about bark or bugs. Get a good hot fire going, and it tends to eliminate any issues. Again, we never used Pine or Eucalyptus for the bbq, because we had always heard that the oils in those woods aren't good for bbqing over. Maybe they are fine... but we went with what we had been taught.
Size wise, I have always subscribed to the theory that you need a lot of different sizes and shapes. When you are getting the fire started, kindling and small split pieces, to increase surface area), are your best bet to get a good hot fire started quickly. As you mentioned, having some large "night logs" are also great to have to keep the fire going overnight. How "Big" those should be is really a function of what you are burning in and how heavy you can comfortably lift. We still eat in a local restaurant that has a 6' long fireplace, (though I have never seen it lit). While it was before my time, my step-dad use to talk about cutting custom firewood for the restaurant. Due to having a natural gas starter, and not wanting to have to constantly restock the fire, they wanted all oak, 4' long, and no less than 4" diameter and no more than 12".
In most wood stoves, 18" is about as long as you can go. I generally aim for a 16" average. As far as size, again, I like to have a variety. Unless I am filling a customer's specific request, I like to go with about a 6" to 8" side width. That's generally fairly easy for most people to handle, and will stack well with other pieces in the fire.
I just cut down a standing dead birch tree last week and split it last night. I am taking it over to an 89 year old friend who has a tiny Franklin stove in his trailer that he heats with. For him, I cut the wood 12 to 14" long and probably nothing larger than 6" on a side, simply because anything bigger gets very difficult for him to carry and get into the fire box.
As others have mentioned, I never really cared about what species of wood I was burning. Sure, Black Mountain Oak is my favorite, but I have burned lots of different stuff over the years. If you are buying it, then make sure you are getting a premium hardwood grade for your money. Otherwise, if the price is right.....well once its dry, it all burns good. :laugh:
So again, figure out what works best for you and just work on that.
Quote from: gardenlog35 on August 23, 2014, 11:39:39 PM
Quote from: 32vld on August 22, 2014, 09:44:24 PM
I have barbecued with oak lumber scraps for years. I never used a fruit wood. So my plans are to try the Cherry for cooking.
Hi,
i'm not sure what kind of cherry you plan to cook with, but what i have herd is that black cherry is not ok to smoke or cook with because the sap inside of the trees is not good for consumption. please correct me if i'm wrong.
besides that, firewood is a great way to heat your house. i've lived with it my whole life. I basically burn anything (including softwood) because of the tops and excess that we drag home when we pull some wood to mill out. the wood i like to burn the most is birch and maple. birch, wet or dry, as long as the bark is on there, starts relatively easy and burns pretty hot. poplar/aspen is one i don't prefer because it does not burn hot, and never starts.
Just the standard wild cherry that grows on Long Island. Fruit is size of a pea, turns from light red to the color of a plum and not edible.
I just did a google search and many people use it to cook with. Though I did find out that the leaves are not healthy for livestock to eat. Also one website said to only use wild cherry without bark.
Quote from: SLawyer Dave on August 24, 2014, 06:22:13 PM
Rather than "scientific" evidence, most people have to find what works best for them. Both types of wood, bark or not, and size of wood are really issues that you need to find what works best for you.
The ONLY time I have ever worried about bark is when I am using the wood to smoke meat with. Because you are smoking the meat, and the bark tends to collect most of the oils in the wood, it can effect the way the meat is flavored, so I make sure I peel the bark on any wood I use for smoking. Now please understand, I have NO scientific evidence to back any of this up...but that was what I was always taught. As was my dad, as was my grandfather, etc. So maybe you really don't have to peel the bark to smoke, but I always have.
I do not plan on smoking just grilling. Though they are of the same mind where my son works. Their wood burning pizza oven only gets fed wood with no bark. So if I try to use the black cherry to grill with I probably will not use the pieces with the bark.
You probably have Prunus avium, which is native of Europe. But it's planted all over the world as an ornamental, and the birds spread the seeds, so they have naturalised in some parts of the US. We have them all over the place here in NZ too.
But the wood is perfectly OK, and can be used for woodworking or cooking. For firewood, where the smoke goes up the chimney, bark isn't an issue. But for cooking you probably want to loose that.
All cherry trees create a cyanide compound that gets concentrated enough in the dry leaves to be dangerous to cattle etc. The fruit are not toxic, and can actually be eaten. Not saying they are very nice, but they won't kill you. ;) :D
Ian
Welcome 32vld! As far as your biggest size pieces, I would stick with 1/4 size pieces. A piece larger then 1/4 of a good size log just seems to cool down your output. Best bet would be a variety of sizes. My parents fireplace likes 4x4 size pieces, one customer with a outdoor wood burner is happy with them split in half. The other 7 people like the mixed I split (1"x2"-8"x8" pieces).
Quote from: Compensation on August 24, 2014, 10:28:13 PM
Welcome 32vld! As far as your biggest size pieces, I would stick with 1/4 size pieces. A piece larger then 1/4 of a good size log just seems to cool down your output. Best bet would be a variety of sizes. My parents fireplace likes 4x4 size pieces, one customer with a outdoor wood burner is happy with them split in half. The other 7 people like the mixed I split (1"x2"-8"x8" pieces).
Thanks to all that have been replying. Most of my pieces are of the 3" x 4" size. Some smaller some larger. I have been getting a lot of large rounds. 16" to 24" diameter that I split up. Pieces are 1" x 2" to 5" x 6".
Though today when I was splitting a red oak round and some of the wood on the inside had a blue black color. Wood did not appear soft. What caused that coloring?
Quotered oak round and some of the wood on the inside had a blue black color.
Contact with iron... along with moisture forms a chemical that turns blue. Has to do with the tannin in the oak.
Maybe from a nail, or some other metal fastener driven into the tree.
Quote from: Ianab on August 22, 2014, 04:58:18 PM
Generally BTUs per pound of dry wood is about the same for different species.
So when you are trying to work out BTU's per cord, the denser woods are the best. There may be differences in how well different woods burn, but the BTUs produced in the end is about the same.
Ian
Don't just burn that Cherry for heat that is great cooking wood.
Quote from: CRThomas on August 30, 2014, 01:58:07 PM
Quote from: Ianab on August 22, 2014, 04:58:18 PM
Generally BTUs per pound of dry wood is about the same for different species.
So when you are trying to work out BTU's per cord, the denser woods are the best. There may be differences in how well different woods burn, but the BTUs produced in the end is about the same.
Ian
Don't just burn that Cherry for heat that is great cooking wood.
The Cherry Tree was cut down on August 22nd. I did not get to it till this afternoon to split it. Those 12" Cherry's were toughest wood that I had yet to split. Even down to the 6" diameter one's.
Though I just read on the forum where people were talking about Elm trees if I remember correct. Part of that thread mentioned how hard Elms were to split. Someone mentioned that instead of splitting in half then quartering. That it was a lot easier if they would work around the outside of the log splitting off outside layers of the log.
So I tried that. And it made a splitting the Cherry a lot easier to me.
Quote from: 32vld on August 22, 2014, 09:44:24 PM
I have barbecued with oak lumber scraps for years. I never used a fruit wood. So my plans are to try the Cherry for cooking.
I know that having wood split into various widths has its benefit. What is size is the best for heat?
Besides no bark you decrease the chances of insects, how does bark/no bark effect the fire?
My son works in a wood burning oven pizzeria. They get their wood bark free.
I give some rock cherry to a fellow who was a big barbacue doer and seller his business doubled in sales in two months
Quote from: 32vld on August 30, 2014, 08:17:00 PM
Quote from: CRThomas on August 30, 2014, 01:58:07 PM
Quote from: Ianab on August 22, 2014, 04:58:18 PM
Generally BTUs per pound of dry wood is about the same for different species.
So when you are trying to work out BTU's per cord, the denser woods are the best. There may be differences in how well different woods burn, but the BTUs produced in the end is about the same.
Ian
Don't just burn that Cherry for heat that is great cooking wood.
The Cherry Tree was cut down on August 22nd. I did not get to it till this afternoon to split it. Those 12" Cherry's were toughest wood that I had yet to split. Even down to the 6" diameter one's.
Though I just read on the forum where people were talking about Elm trees if I remember correct. Part of that thread mentioned how hard Elms were to split. Someone mentioned that instead of splitting in half then quartering. That it was a lot easier if they would work around the outside of the log splitting off outside layers of the log.
So I tried that. And it made a splitting the Cherry a lot easier to me.
You are right on working around the edge I have a semi load of Gum it is hard a stringy you have to work from the edge to the center or live a night mare the logs are four and a half thru in the middle I don't normaly do any thing but ash but they were free all I had to do push the off the trailer they were already sawed half thru or more I work on them when I'm not busy. the truck driver said that that was 32 tons I got them because westvaco turned them down and I thought that they took every thing either firewood or paper but I was wronge. Free wood is free with a little work. I got a 8 ft log Ash that was 7 1/2 ton It was all most as wide as I was tall I'm 6 feet tall
Quote from: 32vld on August 22, 2014, 02:45:48 PM
Reading here for a few weeks and just joined earlier this week. We have had many camp fires over the years and used the fire place occasionally. The end of this July I started collecting and splitting wood to season to supplement the heat.
Most of the wood is Red Oak, some White Oak, Some Maple. And today I got some wild Cherry wood.
I have found many websites that give BTU rating for different wood species. Problem is each website has different BTU ratings. Does the USFS have that info online? I have not been able to find it.
Where do you guy's go to place for correct BTU wood ratings?
If you are going to burn the wood for your heat it all puts out btu of some kind
Quote from: CRThomas on September 14, 2014, 02:23:04 AM
If you are going to burn the wood for your heat it all puts out btu of some kind
[/quote]
Yes that is true. Having wood seasoned enough to burn is my goal.
Though wanting to have the most reliable BTU rating chart for me means that if tomorrow I have the choice to go to two different places for fire wood. Each has a different type of free fire wood and only can go get to one of them I want to go for the better wood.
Though when you have BTU charts that do not agree may not be that important after all this wood is going to get burned. Though it is my nature to be curious at times and want exact as possible information. Though I will not lose sleep if I can not get an answer that I seek.
32vid
You don't have an answer yet?
Quote from: beenthere on September 14, 2014, 09:10:40 PM
32vid
You don't have an answer yet?
Beenthere, I did find BTU charts.
Technically no one ever pointed out the BTU chart that they think is the most accurate. And I understand that most people do not care much about knowing stats. And I can live with the level of knowledge that I have gained so far and not lose any sleep. Though it is my nature to want to know how people base their results.
The chart's that I found are close enough to each other to use. Though I will fault the people that put up results without giving the basis of how their results were reached. Most likely the charts differ because everyone that set out to find BTU of specific woods for fuel left out the key info. Maybe such that the moisture content percentage of their fuel was.
One then could assume that the chart with the higher BTU numbers had less moisture.
Then another assumption could be that the size of the wood burned during the BTU testing is not standard. Again another set of standards that are not very standard or uniform. Sometimes making assumptions will bring you right on target. Other times assumptions will get you lost.
When free logs cut to firewood length is available. I go and get it. Bring it home and split it.
I have to move fast before the pile at the curb gets picked clean of the better pieces. Also knowing BTU's is the deciding factor when I have a choice to go to two different places. Pass on the 19.1 Black Ash and go for the 25.7 White Oak.
So yes this thread has provided me with the answer.
I am glad I found the Forestry Forum and read many of the different sections everyday.
QuoteThen another assumption could be that the size of the wood burned during the BTU testing is not standard. Again another set of standards that are not very standard or uniform.
There are no "standards", but only relative differences. And you are catching on that the numbers presented are not based on "actual" numbers as there are just too many variables.
The "averages" for specific gravity posted in tables found in USFS publications for many commercial species are from many specimens tested over the years, but the variation (standard deviations) around those average figures (published as green and at 12% moisture content) is plenty for any specific species of wood.
The BTU numbers that you find are just a way to compare wood on a relative basis... not what you will actually get when you light a match to your wood. ;) Hope you can enjoy collecting your wood now. ;)
I'll be splitting a mess of Sugar Maple tomorrow that I got Saturday. Healthy trees that were cut down to clear the rear portion of a back yard. Firewood fever has caught me.
A lot of the BTU charts out there are compiled from multiple sources, and are not always adjusted for different moisture content or for the fact that different sources may use different standards for how much wood is in a cord (some use different allowances for how much air space is in that 4' x 4' x 8' stack.
One of the better charts I've seen was done by the Chimney Sweep Online, who did make an effort to correct for these various factors. I've attached a copy (reprinted with permission from ChimneySweepOline.com, as long as their attribution info is kept with it). They have added to it over the years (now it finally includes American Beech - it must not be native in their area, so it didn't make earlier lists). Here's a link: firewood btu chart (http://www.chimneysweeponline.com/howood.htm)
I can't say whether it's 100% accurate, but I have observed that the list that is ranked by BTU content seems to make sense for the ranking of tree species I have burned. For example, I've noticed it takes almost twice as much Eastern Red Cedar to keep my house warm as it does using American Beech (not exactly a scientific test, I'll grant you).
Quote from: John Mc on September 19, 2014, 09:58:47 AM
A lot of the BTU charts out there are compiled from multiple sources, and are not always adjusted for different moisture content or for the fact that different sources may use different standards for how much wood is in a cord (some use different allowances for how much air space is in that 4' x 4' x 8' stack.
One of the better charts I've seen was done by the Chimney Sweep Online, who did make an effort to correct for these various factors. I've attached a copy (reprinted with permission from ChimneySweepOline.com, as long as their attribution info is kept with it). They have added to it over the years (now it finally includes American Beech - it must not be native in their area, so it didn't make earlier lists). Here's a link: firewood btu chart (http://www.chimneysweeponline.com/howood.htm)
I can't say whether it's 100% accurate, but I have observed that the list that is ranked by BTU content seems to make sense for the ranking of tree species I have burned. For example, I've noticed it takes almost twice as much Eastern Red Cedar to keep my house warm as it does using American Beech (not exactly a scientific test, I'll grant you).
There is some pretty good reading on that site.
Another good site for those new to wood burning (as well as experienced wood burners):
www.woodheat.org (http://www.woodheat.org)
Quote from: John Mc on September 19, 2014, 09:58:47 AM
A lot of the BTU charts out there are compiled from multiple sources, and are not always adjusted for different moisture content or for the fact that different sources may use different standards for how much wood is in a cord (some use different allowances for how much air space is in that 4' x 4' x 8' stack.
One of the better charts I've seen was done by the Chimney Sweep Online, who did make an effort to correct for these various factors. I've attached a copy (reprinted with permission from ChimneySweepOline.com, as long as their attribution info is kept with it). They have added to it over the years (now it finally includes American Beech - it must not be native in their area, so it didn't make earlier lists). Here's a link: firewood btu chart (http://www.chimneysweeponline.com/howood.htm)
I can't say whether it's 100% accurate, but I have observed that the list that is ranked by BTU content seems to make sense for the ranking of tree species I have burned. For example, I've noticed it takes almost twice as much Eastern Red Cedar to keep my house warm as it does using American Beech (not exactly a scientific test, I'll grant you).
Lots of good stuff to read there on Chimneysweep.
Quote from: gardenlog35 on August 23, 2014, 11:39:39 PM
Quote from: 32vld on August 22, 2014, 09:44:24 PM
I have barbecued with oak lumber scraps for years. I never used a fruit wood. So my plans are to try the Cherry for cooking.
In my part of the country Rock Cherrys I'd great cook wood I sold half a semi load last year for cooking. I am now on the hunt for more Rock Cherry.
Hi,
i'm not sure what kind of cherry you plan to cook with, but what i have herd is that black cherry is not ok to smoke or cook with because the sap inside of the trees is not good for consumption. please correct me if i'm wrong.
besides that, firewood is a great way to heat your house. i've lived with it my whole life. I basically burn anything (including softwood) because of the tops and excess that we drag home when we pull some wood to mill out. the wood i like to burn the most is birch and maple. birch, wet or dry, as long as the bark is on there, starts relatively easy and burns pretty hot. poplar/aspen is one i don't prefer because it does not burn hot, and never starts.
Quote from: CRThomas on September 22, 2014, 04:57:25 AM
i'm not sure what kind of cherry you plan to cook with, but what i have herd is that black cherry is not ok to smoke or cook with because the sap inside of the trees is not good for consumption. please correct me if i'm wrong.
From a Wikipedia citation on Black Cherry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prunus_serotina): "The foliage, particularly when wilted, contains cyanogenic glycosides, which convert to hydrogen cyanide if eaten by animals." The seeds are also a problem, but the fruit is OK (the seeds contain compounds which can be converted to cyanide by enzymes also found in the seeds. The fruit also contains those compounds, but does not have the enzymes to break them down, so it is safe to eat.) Other articles indicate that the inner bark can be a problem as well.
Another article mentions "Very large amounts of black cherry pose the theoretical risk of causing cyanide poisoning", but goes on to point out that deer browse black Cherry saplings without any apparent ill effects. Most wildlife illness from Black Cherry is from eating wilted leaves (for some reason, the concentration of cyanide is higher when wilted - I assume because the enzymes have started to break down the cyanide precursor compounds).
I did not find any references to smoking with Cherry wood.
Quote... poplar/aspen is one i don't prefer because it does not burn hot, and never starts.
I have no problems getting poplar/aspen to start. It does start out with a rather high moisture content, so it needs to be properly seasoned. I do agree that you don't get many BTUs out of it, however -- it ranks right down there with White Pine as far as BUT output goes.