As others have stated, poplar is not a good choice. AIUI, osage orange (aka hedge apple, maclura pomifera) has a rapid growth rate and is the best firewood out there. Whether it gets to be usable firewood in a short period, versus a collection of twigs and sticks, I dunno.
Jason
A good firewood resource page (pretty comprehensive) is:
As other people have stated and you posted, a pound of wood is a pound of wood. Since cottonwood grows rapidly, producing two pounds of wood in the time it takes a hickory to produce one, by the table you referenced, the nod goes to cottonwood in BTU/annum. This is true regardless of where the wood is located, Mr. Cawthorne, though if you find the leap difficult, pick two species which grow near you for comparison. That's why hybrid poplar, ash and tamarack are planted for rapid pulp and firewood production.
Once again, as other people have posted - that's me, other people - you now have to learn to burn what you have. You can write all the poorly researched articles you want, but if you're burning pine the way you would burn maple, it's chimney fire time. Same with wet wood, where the low heat of the generated steam keeps other volatiles from igniting. Heat is not only in the stick, but the stove. Steppe peoples who have only grass and twigs as fuel hold and trap every bit of heat with thermal mass and baffled smoke passages.
I'm not disputing your calculation; I'm just saying the ratio changes with the height and age. I'm not sure what a very young cedar ratio is but likely more than 1:36 and probably as much as 1:72 for a 5-6 year old plant, e.g., 1 inch diameter and 6 feet tall. He also indicated that old growth had very large trunks and the largest probably have a ratio of only 1:4 or 1:5, e.g., 40-60 foot diameter but a height of 200 feet. Other trees such as redwoods and Douglas fir have a much higher ratio of trunk diameter to height since they tend to be less tapered.
I think you are taking offense unnecessarily. My favorite climbing tree was about 100 feet in front of our house and I watched it grow. It was never bigger than 30 inches across and it rose to about 100 feet; by triangulation we figured it would just touch the house if it fell. The cedar 20 feet from the back of the house was over 3 feet by the time we sold the place. I don't know the height but it wasn't much above 100 feet.
BTW, your tree was a sapl> It was probably 3 to 4 feet at the base. As I recall I measured it at
George:
If you mean me, If I seemed to take offense I apologize. I really enjoy reading the exchanges here - but I usually just get a few minutes between tasks for posts. Maybe a bit brusque sometimes I guess. :-)
One of the reasons the ratios get out of whack with "citified" wild trees is that they get fertilized and watered -- along with the lawn. They sprout up a lot quicker than they would in the wild.
The other issue with the calculations is that the results always form a "distribution". Quite frankly I do not know the variation expected in "citified" or wild trees. Not sure about the tree in front of our old house - maybe it was "normal" -- maybe it was extra-normal. No idea. But thinking about it, they were typical of the neighborhood cedars.
Citified cedar and Douglas fir have branches lower on the trunk, and they are higher than "normal" --- and from what I saw they are usually taller than their wild cousins at an earlier age, and have a wider branch spread. In other words they make a great "storm sail" -- catch a lot of wind..
Our tree would have fallen on the bedroom in a good storm. Had more than a few sleepless nights. :-) Should have cut it when we moved in. A year before we moved cutting these trees became illegal in our burb.
Your understand> I think you are taking offense unnecessarily. My favorite climbing tree
Not according to the forester - he said it would usually be left -- not big enough yet. Should be 4 foot across by now though - so probably it is actually sawdust by now. It was only a foot or so from the house eaves when we sold out. One good windstorm and the new owners would have lots of firewood -- the splintered timbers from the house, along with the tree.
These trees (western reds and Douglas firs) are dangerous in the cities and burbs. They seem to need to grow in clumps so they form a mutual windbreak. ...Otherwise they topple over in a big wind. Several times a year the Vancouver Sun (Vancouver BC) ran photos of the latest smashed down house with a tree trunk projecting from a roof or a living room wall. :-(
Of course Vancouver city council passed laws preventing anyone from cutting down the large trees. You could _apply_ for a cutting permit - but they were routinely rejected. --Lot of tree huggers run for council out there. I'm surprised they didn't pass a law against harboring logs in your living room walls. :-)) I wonder why they call it the Left Coast? Or was it Lotus Land?
There are lots of
They are still logging old growth on the west coast. But yes a 3 foot diameter tree would get logged these days. sigh!
Don't know about "citified" trees. All of the experience I cited was with natural forest. I grew up in a forest with a few areas cut out for alfalfa or grain fields and houses. I think only 3-4 acres were cleared out of 130 acres on our land. Maybe the law against cutting big trees was to protect against idiots falling trees on houses? Or maybe the law makers were just idiots?
You are right, most conifers don't do well against wind unless in a group and shouldn't be in an urban setting. Even in dense forests, however, a freak downdraft wind can flatten stretches of mixed fir or fir/spruce forests. Actually cedars are more resistant because they develop a relatively wide base of support roots in contrast to a single tap root of most conifers.
When I was at Oregon State, about 1964, we had a big storm with hurricane-force winds. At OSU, there were trees of all kinds growing on the quad, including big old conifers (various kinds). Most of the trees were somewhat isolated(not in clumps) so they formed big, full canopies. Over
100 trees were blown down on the quad alone, as well as others all over Corvallis. Almost all the trees that went down were hardwoods; the conifers could bend and survived. FWIW.Steve
These trees have an ecology that affects when the limbs get dropped. It depends on how much light they get, to support photosynthesis, balanced by how much water they lose through transpiration. When they get shaded, as in a clump, it becomes a liability for the tree to maintain the lower branches, so they die and fall off. Isolated trees get more light, so they can keep those lower branches.
I used to camp in HedgeRows back in Scouts in Kansas. Osage Orange also has some features which reduce it attractiveness around the campfire. It pop while burning. Maybe OK for stoves but it tends to toss burning crap out of fireplaces. It's tough to cut and tends to dull cutting edges. We used to camp mostly in Oak and Hedge woods. when we went to Colorado, we thought the wood smelled funny while burning.
that has grown over the past 20-30 years. Also, "forever" will depend on your rate of consumption.
I know what I am saying and I know what he and you are saying. You are saying that living off capital (harvesting the existing wood) is the same as earning your own living (harvesting the wood that you yourself grow) PvR
You want to get ridiculously detailed so here is a very conservative view. Buy 10 acres of coniferous forest that hasn't been managed for 20 years. Trees will be aged from
40 or 50 years old down to new growth. There will be branches and downed trees, even old stuff left when the loggers moved out 20 years ago. Remove as much of the dead downed and standing stuff and put in your wood pile. There will probably be enough for the next winter maybe even the next 2 winters. Go through and pick out the crappy trees and the ones where thinning is needed. Cut enough of those for 1 winters supply (you won't burn this until the 2nd or 3rd winter. Every year, harvest enough wood for one year and stay at least 2nd years ahead. When you are 70 or so and no longer want to use wood to heat, look at your 10 acres and be proud of the way you managed it and that there is now more good wood than when you bought it. Sell it to someone who is just starting out. That's called long term management and conservation of resources and is not living off the capital. 10 acres will annually grow more wood than a normal house would use for heat. That isn't living off the capital, it is living off the annual yield (or in your terms the interest). Of course that depends on where you live. It obviously won't work in an arid region, but it would in a region with more than 25" of precipitation a year and reasonable altitude. OTOH, 10 acres would probably have sufficient yield to support 3 or 4 houses in wetter areas. This, of course, also assumes that your house is reasonably well insulated and of reasonable size so that you don't need more than 3-4 cords per year. Heck, if your trees are conifers and you start at 20 years old, by the time you are 50 you would not need to cut more than 10 or 12 trees each year.Yes, if you assume all that then it is likely to work.
Biggest assumption (besides having OP move out west and learning a thing or two about forests) of course is that OP wants firewood to warm his house and not for some other purpose, such as to bake pottery, generate his own electricity, etc.
Not all that many people will want to move out west just to warm their house ;-)
But as Mr Cawthorn points out in a wetter climate less land would be needed so OP can stay out East, assuming he is out East to begin with. If he's starting with open land instead of wooded land he can grow black locust and have fencepost diameter trees in about ten years. Black locust grows very fast, burns hot, reseeds itself like crazy and bees feeding on locust blossoms make great honey.
There are also exotics like blue catalpa that grow extremely fast in places like Georgia (where AC is more of an issue than heat). Though they are very low density, as some have pointed out, that just means burning more of it for the same amount of energy.
Bet you wish you'd thought that analogy through to maturity. Because, as you no doubt know, while he uses the mature, the rest is sprouting, growing and maturing. Selective harvest is the very best way to manage hardwoods.
I am at about the northern limit of hardwood forestation, and decent ground here produces over a cord a year increase - interest, in your example - while preserving the principle. Point with wood, of course, is you don't want the stuff until it's a certain size, so you take the crowded, the overmature, the diseased and damaged to free up the rest to make best increase. Keeps things even or a bit better on firewood, with maybe a sawlog or three per acre for woodworking, since I heat the house for six to seven cords per year.
George schreef
you no doubt know, while he uses the mature, the rest is sprouting, growing and maturing. Selective harvest is the very best way to manage hardwoods.
ground here produces over a cord a year increase - interest, in your example - while preserving the principle. Point with wood, of course, is you don't want the stuff until it's a certain size, so you take the crowded, the overmature, the diseased and damaged to free up the rest to make best increase. Keeps things even or a bit better on firewood, with maybe a sawlog or three per acre for woodworking, since I heat the house for six to seven cords per year.
*** Obviously, I did think it through.I hardly need point out that there is a few thousand years of experience with this. In practice this approach means a quick disappearance of forests, whenever firewood is important enough (expensive enough). It is customary to have stories expounding why forests will last forever, even while they disappear.
As already pointed out, firewood is not expensive now, at least in the US.
schreef in
needed so OP can stay out East, assuming he is out East to begin with. If he's starting with open land instead of wooded land he can grow black locust and have fencepost diameter trees in about ten years. Black locust grows very fast, burns hot, reseeds itself like crazy and bees feeding on locust blossoms make great honey.
*** Yes, but not many people would be willing to do that for just firewood and fenceposts. You'd really want a tree species that would eventually yield timber, which is not all that likely with black locust:in places like Georgia (where AC is more of an issue than heat). Though they are very low density, as some have pointed out, that just means burning more of it for the same amount of energy.
*** If the stories about prices for Paulownia wood are anything like true then that would be worth thinking about. However it is also regarded as a pest, to be combatted.
firewood and
Black locust currently grows far and wide outside of its original range precisely becuase of it's utility for fence posts. So it was worth doing for a fair number of people. If its being grown for firewood and fenceposts you won't let it get big enough for lumber anyhow.
If you want lumber, then you'd grow a species good for lumber. While there may be a tree of two suitable for all three purposes you'd grow 'em differently so why not grow different trees for different purposes anyhow?
from stump sprouts. Not according to those sources though. Other catalpas grow like weeds too.
firewood and fenceposts. You'd really want a tree species that would eventually yield timber, which is not all that likely with black locust:
range precisely becuase of it's utility for fence posts. So it was worth doing for a fair number of people. If its being grown for firewood and fenceposts you won't let it get big enough for lumber anyhow.
While there may be a tree of two suitable for all three purposes you'd grow 'em differently so why not grow different trees for different purposes anyhow?
*** Now I am curious. What is the difference between growing a tree for a fence post from growing it for lumber? Except for the time of cutting? I'd imagine lots of trees grown for lumber are thinned with the yield going to fence posts.
from stump sprouts. Not according to those sources though. Other catalpas grow like weeds too.
*** Likely the 'danger' comes from the enormous amounts of seeds produced by each tree. Imagine all those seeds germinating! You would not be able to walk for the small Paulownia trees growing everywhere! PvR
I'd think that very few trees grown for lumber are thinned to make fence post material becuas most lumber is not durable and would make poor fencepost material unless pressure treated and that is a commercial endeavor, not something one would do one a homestead.
If you want fence posts you cut it when the trunk is about the right diameter for fence posts. If you let it grow larger, it will shade out the smaller trees so you run out of fencepost material.
Of course you can let the grove expand or only cut your fence post material from the edge of the grove while letting the trees in the middle grow big for lumber but instead of doing that, why not just grow different trees for lumber and have good lumber and good fence posts instead of one or both being a compromise?
schreef
fence post material because most lumber is not durable and would make poor fencepost material unless pressure treated and that is a commercial endeavor, not something one would do one a homestead.
*** Well, for both lumber and fenceposts you want straight trunks and no side branches low down. This is achieved by planting the trees pretty close. And "pretty close" is relative to the size of the trees, what is close for trees six foot tall is ridiculous for trees twenty feet tall. So any lumber stand is being thinned a number of times, leaving only the best trees. The stuff of the first / second thinning is not good for anything except fence posts, so why not use them?
diameter for fence posts. If you let it grow larger, it will shade out the smaller trees so you run out of fencepost material.
material from the edge of the grove while letting the trees in the middle grow big for lumber but instead of doing that, why not just grow different trees for lumber and have good lumber and good fence posts instead of one or both being a compromise?
*** Well, life is full of choices PvRHomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.