Most all oak have a good fire wood ability - I'd think willow oak is poorest.
You don't mention which you have available to you. There are many many.
I have Red, White, live, Bur, Willow, in my front yard area. The back wood lot
contains those and pine and other wood. Including the genetic mixes.
The Red fall more the white I believe is strong along with the Bur.
If you give specifics I think I can come up with real data from a software tool.
Konstabel Els wrote:
Size of log and handling/splitting effort about the only difference
other than split will dry somewhat faster than in-log and makes a more
convenient fire log w/o bark on all sides.
Takes more trees for same amount of wood if smaller, of course, and
depending on what you're expected to do w/ the "twigs" more trouble
there as well.
There's no difference in heating value.
Not so's you'd notice it, no.
Comparison for old, virgin-growth timber vis a vis mill-grown for
pulpwood perhaps a little but even there you'd not notice it for
firewood in all likelihood. A comparison of regrowth 30-50 yr oak vs
smaller stuff, no way.
Depending on how small is "small" and what the price differential really
is and how much one was talking about, I'd probably choose more on
convenience and the resulting log size than anything else. If'en they's
givin' one away and chargin' dearly for the other, that's one thing. If
it's a relatively small amount and not a huge amount of wood, bigger is
probably easier to handle in the end if you can split on location or
have the facilities to move the log to the splitter. If it's all
handwork, otoh, you might opt for smaller for handling...
But, it really isn't going to matter in the end wood at all.
Ring thickness. If there is narrow pith between the hard rings
then it is mostly hard rings and burns slow.
If it is in a rainy open area - the rings will be wide and
more spongy due to fast growth.
Mixture of both is best. The narrow rings is harder to start
but burns well once there.
I wouldn't worry much - just make sure the rings are not massive.
They weigh less when dry and more when wet when large.
That's strictly true but only will be noticeable to any extent at all in
softwoods outside of _extremely_ different growing conditions. In oak
and other hardwoods in a random stand there's going to be essentially no
difference and he isn't going to know before he cuts it anyway... :)
The question was older vis a vis younger/smaller and only if he can
determine accurately age and can tell there's a significant growth rate
difference between the two will he have the necessary information a
priori. In any even, I'd be quite comfortable figuring that the choice
from places he'll have to choose between will lead to the choice being
immaterial outside the physical size considerations previously
I'm cutting out an oak that fell across my fence - sawing up limbs as if they
were trunks. I drag a limb out - 6 to 8" in diameter and start sawing off
firewood logs. The tree is dead and partly decaying.
I think it was a big white. I saw down to 1" or so to have starter wood.
I'll get to the trunk - trying to get it to fall to the ground - it is hung
up on a 6" limb that is now mostly broken. It is high enough to be dangerous
if it falls wrongly. So I bide my time with the large limbs and will work
down to the smaller branches.
Konstabel Els wrote:
Personally, if I had regular access to a power splitter I would
probably go for the older/larger trees. However, if I were splitting
by hand with an ax, sledge and wedge, I would go for the younger
trees. With the older (for the same amout of firewood) you are looking
at less sawing and more splitting. With the younger it is more sawing
and less splitting.
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:44:55 -0800 (PST), Konstabel Els
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.