# Rock maple versus Red Oak



## gyrfalcon (Jan 2, 2010)

I just noticed on the BTU chart for various kinds of wood that Red Oak is rated the same as Rock Maple at 24.  White oak is higher at 25.7.  But higher still are my staples, Blue Beech and Black Birch, both at 26.8.

So I'm wondering now about all the praise I read regularly here for oak as a great wood to burn.  Is that just because folks don't have access to the higher-BTU wood or is there something else about the way it burns that's not reflected in the BTU charts?

I have to get my firewood c/d/s, and this year about a half a cord was Red Oak, which I split down fairly small (man, is that stuff a dream to split!) and stacked loosely in hopes of being able to use it next winter.

My two-year-seasoned Rock Maple, at the same BTU level as the Red Oak, is noticeably inferior in terms of producing heat than the Black Birch and the Blue Beech, so I'm wondering what all the fuss is about oak.  Am I missing something here?


----------



## LLigetfa (Jan 2, 2010)

Oak has a certain snob appeal.  You see it in flooring and cabinetry too.  It could be "sour grapes" WRT Oak as a fuel since it's not abundant here but in woodworking I just don't care for it.  Never did understand that craze for quartersawn Oak with its characteristic grain.


----------



## smokinj (Jan 2, 2010)

oak fully seasoned it is really good stuff. most just burn it before its ready.


----------



## ansehnlich1 (Jan 2, 2010)

Naw, ain't nothin' special about oak, it's just what is predominantly available here in PA and surrounding states. My supplier is cutting right now in Northern Maryland and told me the other day they're working a massive stand of dead oak. He hauls most to Spring Grove, PA, to a paper mill there. He'd just as soon drop a load at my place for the same price  The stuff probably succumbed to gypsy moth. You just don't see large stands of beech and maple in the woods around here.....at least I never have. I couldn't tell ya what a beech tree looks like.

Check out the regions here at this site...

http://forestry.about.com/cs/treeid/a/hdwd_type_us.htm


----------



## quads (Jan 2, 2010)

Rock Maple, Blue Beech, and Black Birch?  Never seen them before.  All I have is oak.  Yuck.  I think even propane has more BTUs than oak.


----------



## gzecc (Jan 2, 2010)

Oak is a real common wood. Be it firewood, flooring or furniture. People know its hard and heavy.  When sufficiently dried (2yrs) is great firewood. I, myself would rather not wait 2 yrs to use wood. Its enough work when you have to wait 1 yr.
I would choose locust, ash, hickory, cherry, sugar maple any day over oak.


----------



## gyrfalcon (Jan 2, 2010)

smokinjay said:
			
		

> oak fully seasoned it is really good stuff. most just burn it before its ready.



Well, that's my question.  Really good stuff compared to what, Red Maple (bleeaacch!)?  I thought Rock Maple was supposed to be terrific-- until I got a load of Blue Beech and Black Birch.


----------



## gyrfalcon (Jan 2, 2010)

ansehnlich1 said:
			
		

> Naw, ain't nothin' special about oak, it's just what is predominantly available here in PA and surrounding states. My supplier is cutting right now in Northern Maryland and told me the other day they're working a massive stand of dead oak. He hauls most to Spring Grove, PA, to a paper mill there. He'd just as soon drop a load at my place for the same price  The stuff probably succumbed to gypsy moth. You just don't see large stands of beech and maple in the woods around here.....at least I never have. I couldn't tell ya what a beech tree looks like.
> 
> Check out the regions here at this site...
> 
> http://forestry.about.com/cs/treeid/a/hdwd_type_us.htm



I'm embarrassed to admit I wouldn't recognize a beech in the forest if I fell over it, either, I don't think.   My relationship to firewood is like my relationship to shrink-wrapped meat in the supermarket. :-(


----------



## gyrfalcon (Jan 2, 2010)

quads said:
			
		

> Rock Maple, Blue Beech, and Black Birch?  Never seen them before.  All I have is oak.  Yuck.  I think even propane has more BTUs than oak.



My condolences... 

It's interesting, though, because what kind of wood you have available really makes a difference in your stove choice, seems to me.  I cannot get enough heat from my little soapstone to keep warm in cold weather with only the Rock Maple, but the beech and black birch burn hot enough to get the stovetop up to the necessary 450-500.  I really can only get away with this stove with those two hot-burning woods.


----------



## wallis54806 (Jan 2, 2010)

I burn mostly hard maple and some red oak. 
I have not noticed any difference in BTU output. My experience is that red oak is easier to split and produces less ash.


----------



## gyrfalcon (Jan 2, 2010)

Guardguy said:
			
		

> I burn mostly hard maple and some red oak.
> I have not noticed any difference in BTU output. My experience is that red oak is easier to split and produces less ash.



No kidding about the splitting.  Take a maul to a nice piece of rock maple and you understand the name immediately.  Less ash from the oak is interesting.  That plus the ease of splitting might be worth putting up with the extra seasoning time.


----------



## gzecc (Jan 2, 2010)

gyrfalcon, I bet your oak is not as dry as your other woods!.


----------



## gyrfalcon (Jan 2, 2010)

gzecc said:
			
		

> gyrfalcon, I bet your oak is not as dry as your other woods!.



I'm sure it isn't.  Because I haven't burned a stick of it yet.  Since I haven't had the experience of burning it, I'm just wondering from folks here whether it's worth getting more of it in for futures if I've got access to higher-BTU (and faster-drying) stuff like beech and black birch.


----------



## ISeeDeadBTUs (Jan 2, 2010)

I burn Oak cause its what I have.

Hard (sugar, Rock) Maple actually seems to me that it burns hard/longer. In my experiance though, if you don't get Maple stored properly, it will rot quite quickly, as will Beech.

If I buy Tri-ax loads they will probably be Beech. Not much Black Birch around here, mostly white and yellow.


----------



## Nic36 (Jan 2, 2010)

Oak is bad bad stuff-not fit for heating. 

Just kidding. I'm now burning two and a half year old white oak and loving it.


----------



## Bigg_Redd (Jan 2, 2010)

gyrfalcon said:
			
		

> I just noticed on the BTU chart for various kinds of wood that Red Oak is rated the same as Rock Maple at 24.  White oak is higher at 25.7.  But higher still are my staples, Blue Beech and Black Birch, both at 26.8.
> 
> *So I'm wondering now about all the praise I read regularly here for oak as a great wood to burn.  Is that just because folks don't have access to the higher-BTU wood or is there something else about the way it burns that's not reflected in the BTU charts?*
> 
> ...




After the 5 years it takes to dry people are so happy to be rid of it that elation is their only possible response.


----------



## iceman (Jan 2, 2010)

red oak is just a common hardwood here in the NE.. and many think because it is so dense its the greatest wood ... and most dont let it dry out ... oak is def a good wood but if i could get my hands on some other stuff that didnt take so long to dry i would be elated!


----------



## gyrfalcon (Jan 2, 2010)

Bigg_Redd said:
			
		

> After the 5 years it takes to dry people are so happy to be rid of it that elation is their only possible response.



HA!  Very funny.  Maybe that's all it is.  People get so starry-eyed, voices hushed in awe, at the thought of oak, I was really surprised to see where it falls on the BTU charts.

At this point, I'm thinking it's just so-so fuel that's fun to split but I can't use very soon.


----------



## Battenkiller (Jan 3, 2010)

gyrfalcon said:
			
		

> gzecc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not to knock blue beech or black birch, but there is more to firewood than just the BTUs listed on a chart.  


Hickory is right up there with those two woods BYU-wise.  I burned dry cherry all day yesterday, and today - nothing but the driest hickory I've got.  I got much more heat out of the stove yesterday with the cherry, which has only about 75% of the stored energy that the hickory has.  

Why?

Well, both burned hotter than hell.  Started right up as soon as I dropped them on the coals.  No sizzle from either.  But the cherry burned hotter and a lot faster, so I was able to fill the stove more frequently.  Folks who are lucky enough to have good dried pine know about this phenomenon.  Makes lots of heat because it burns fast.


A BTU is a unit of energy, and the BTUs in wood charts refer to the total potential energy stored in the wood.  Stove _output_, however, is given in BTUs/hour - a _rate_. Just like a KW is not a KWH in electricity.  Both are units of _power_, or work done over time. Hickory and oak have more potential energy per cord than most woods, but they burn relatively slowly and they are coal forming.  Yes, lots of energy per unit volume, but not as much per unit time.  But I only had to fill the stove twice today because of the hickory.  It was a relatively warm day, so a rest from tending the stove was really appreciated.  It burned away (nice and clean without a trace of smoke from the stack) while I snowblowed the driveway and shoveled the walks and drove to the store and back and wasn't ready for a new load until about 5 PM.  The house, however, was only 72ºF at the same time it was 74º yesterday.


Still, I have burned plenty of beech and it is one of the very best, slightly above hard maple IMHO.  Burns hot and fast, just like hard maple but with (maybe) slightly more heat output.  So I can't blame you for extolling it's virtues.  I'd much rather burn beech than oak or even hickory or black locust (another great but long burning wood), but it's hard to get someone to cut it for me.  If someone says they have beech and the price is the same, I always have them throw it on the truck.  Maple can be iffy because I might end up with red or even silver maple which I really don't want.  But well seasoned _rock_ maple is a juggernaut in the stove, so if I can get it I can be assured of the best heat all day long during cold snaps.

Red oak is great wood, but I think a lot of folks complaining about not getting the heat output they expected from oak can be attributed to its relatively slow burn rate, not just poor seasoning.  If you're paying for it like I do, it's a real good total value because it has more total energy in it (but don't forget the money you have to tie up for three years to age it properly).  But if you're cutting your own and you have a choice, I do believe hard maple will outdo it in BTUs/hr in most stoves and in most situations... and it's ready to burn in a year.


----------



## gyrfalcon (Jan 3, 2010)

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> Not to knock blue beech or black birch, but there is more to firewood than just the BTUs listed on a chart.



Thank you, Battenkiller (love your handle, btw).  This is just the issue I'm clumsily trying to get at, BTU per hour.  My stove is too small to burn very long no matter what you put in it, so I'm less interested in length of burn than I am in immediate heat.  So that BTU per hour is exactly what I'm trying to get a sense of with various woods.

Your experience is different than mine, though, it seems.  I haven't found rock maple -- which is the most common firewood available around here, being as how it's Vermont! -- a "juggernaut" in the stove at all.   After licking my chops in anticipating of burning some I had seasoning out on stacks in the sun and wind for two years, I've been very much disappointed in the heat output.  It's fine, but never gets my little stove above about 400, whether I use bigger or smaller splits or a combination.  Tough with a little stove because there's only so much wood that can burn at once, which puts a limit on how hot you can burn.  Also means every single stick, down to kindling twigs, has to pull its weight, hence my obsession with BTUs.

I can do fine with this stove even down to below-zero temps if I can keep it running 450-500.  I haven't been able to do that with Rock Maple, but it's no problem with the beech and the black birch.  Like you, I've found red maple (haven't encountered silver) nearly useless-- doesn't seem to like to burn much even when it's bone dry and produces very minimal heat.

So oak's virtue, if I can extrapolate here, would be more that it puts out a modest amount of heat over a longer period of time per split-- ie, just what you want to have in your stove overnight when you're heading for the warmth of your bed?

Any other thoughts on BTU per hour characteristics of other woods?

We used to have, but have lost unfortunately, a letter from my great-grandmother to my grandmother that included instructions about which type of wood to put in the cookstove for which purposes-- baking bread versus roasting meat or slow-simmering stews-- and I sure wish I had it now.  I bet it would have a lot of clues about exactly that BTU per hour issue.

Sure wish I could get my paws on some cherry.  Sounds like it's exactly what I need.


----------



## JustWood (Jan 3, 2010)

I'll take silver maple over cherry any day!
  Don't get your hopes up.


----------



## gyrfalcon (Jan 3, 2010)

exactLEE said:
			
		

> I'll take silver maple over cherry any day!
> Don't get your hopes up.



OK, why?

I have little to no hope of getting cherry regularly, so it's not really an issue.  But I'm curious why you say that.


----------



## JustWood (Jan 3, 2010)

Better heat and burn times. I'll burn cherry during shoulder season but not mid winter.


----------



## gyrfalcon (Jan 3, 2010)

exactLEE said:
			
		

> Better heat and burn times. I'll burn cherry during shoulder season but not mid winter.



But, but, but, but, but-- everybody else here says silver maple is low heat and cherry is high.  Not in your experience?


----------



## JustWood (Jan 3, 2010)

yayayayaya!   I know what the BTU charts say!
Red/silver maple is just way more dense and coals better than cherry IMHO.  I'll definetLEE put it in my shed B4 cherry!


----------



## gyrfalcon (Jan 3, 2010)

exactLEE said:
			
		

> yayayayaya!   I know what the BTU charts say!
> Red/silver maple is just way more dense and coals better than cherry IMHO.  I'll definetLEE put it in my shed B4 cherry!



Well, red maple in my experience is about like burning styrofoam cups, so if silver's in the same class, I'll take just about anything over that.

WHat's "notinmass"?  Does that mean "not in massachusetts"?  If so, I'm there too.


----------



## Battenkiller (Jan 3, 2010)

gyrfalcon said:
			
		

> Thank you, Battenkiller (love your handle, btw).



Not too many folks get it.  I get on boatbuilding forums and they think I like to destroy lofting battens.  The Canadian canoeists all think I'm a deranged psychotic murderer.  It's my home trout stream. Do you fish it?




> I can do fine with this stove even down to below-zero temps if I can keep it running 450-500.  I haven't been able to do that with Rock Maple, but it's no problem with the beech and the black birch.  Like you, I've found red maple (haven't encountered silver) nearly useless-- doesn't seem to like to burn much even when it's bone dry and produces very minimal heat.



Looks like a real nice stove, but couldn't you find a smaller one? lol

A firebox that size is hard to heat up to the higher temps you are looking for, particularly a soapstone one.  Larger boxes hold geometrically larger charges of wood and can hold a much larger coal bed beneath it.  The volume increases as the cube of the sides, but the surface area only increases as the square. Therefore, increases in surface area are proportionally smaller than increases in firebox size, so surface temps get higher faster in big stoves. You can't judge a firewood's intrinsic heat qualities by the surface temp of your stove. You just don't have enough room in your stove period. I'm sure that the blue beech and black birch will do it for you better than anything, so you're lucky to get your hands on it.  Stock up whenever you can.

I used to burn a lot of hard maple in my Scandia 118.  That has a very lively burn with a long, hot flame path.  Much bigger box as well.  Split small, it could make that little stove put out a scary amount of heat.  BTW, I didn't say red maple is bad wood, just that if I am paying for maple I much prefer hard maple.  I think it is a better general firewood than cherry, but there are other reasons why I like cherry that have more to do with my acquisition and storage habits.  Like in, I don't like 2-3 years worth of wood crowding up my property.  I used to be (still am, sort of) in the fine musical instrument business, and I already look like enough of a woodchuck to the classical set without my house being surrounded by stacks of cord wood. Come spring, you'd hardly know I'm a full time burner.  I also don't like to double handle the wood, or carry too much too far.  Hence.... I'm a green wood purchaser every fall.

Cherry and white ash fit the bill for me best.  I pay more for less with the cherry, but it dries super fast and burns great within a few weeks inside storage.  Much of its water is free water that releases rather quickly.  Ash is low in water on the stump, and it just gets better as it dries by the stove. It has great heat output and is my first choice, but this year all I could find cheap was cherry. Neither one would be ideal for the heat output you are trying to achieve with a 1.2 cu.ft. stove rated at 36,000 BTUs.  



> So oak's virtue, if I can extrapolate here, would be more that it puts out a modest amount of heat over a longer period of time per split-- ie, just what you want to have in your stove overnight when you're heading for the warmth of your bed?



Let's say it puts out a large amount of heat over a longer time.  If your firebox is big enough for the coldest weather, it has just about everything going for it except the wait time.  Around here, if you don't specify... you get red oak. My old stove couldn't burn it as hot and fast as a bigger stove can, and I don't have enough seasoned oak on hand to make an accurate assessment in my new stove.  I'm confident I wouldn't be disappointed in the way my stove handles fully seasoned oak.



> Any other thoughts on BTU per hour characteristics of other woods?
> 
> We used to have, but have lost unfortunately, a letter from my great-grandmother to my grandmother that included instructions about which type of wood to put in the cookstove for which purposes-- baking bread versus roasting meat or slow-simmering stews-- and I sure wish I had it now.  I bet it would have a lot of clues about exactly that BTU per hour issue.
> 
> Sure wish I could get my paws on some cherry.  Sounds like it's exactly what I need.



It's really all about learning what your needs are and how your stove(s) burn different wood.  I never used a cat stove, and nobody I know has an EPA rated stove.  My experience is based on what I've used and burned in.  I'm a rather slow and stubborn learner.  I didn't learn as much as I should have in the first 100 cord I burned, but now that I'm well into the second hundred, I'm starting to catch on.

I would absolutely love to have seen the letter you speak of.  My grandmother used to cook on one of those old kitchen ovens. She would keep the tomatoes reducing into paste all winter, then bake guanti on the same stove.  She must have acquired similar knowledge.


I get a lot of my ash and cherry from guys just the other side of the border from you in Argyle.  There should be plenty around you in the hedgerows, white ash as well. If you keep calling and insist that is what you want, someone will cut it for you.  I just don't think it will cut it on your tiny stove.  But, if you want to come and exchange some of your blue beech for some of my cherry....  :cheese:


----------



## gyrfalcon (Jan 3, 2010)

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> gyrfalcon said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Naw.  Wish I did, though.   I only had fresh-caught trout once in my life and I about died from how wonderful it was.  Learning to fish is on my agenda for this spring, but lake perch is going to be more my speed as a latecomer to the sport,  I suspect.




> Looks like a real nice stove, but couldn't you find a smaller one? lol



Yeah, well, you said it.  I'm quite proud, actually, of how well I've been able to get it to do for me.  I picked it up used as a replacement for the toy box the previous owners of this house had, not expecting either the huge rise in oil prices or falling in love with wood heat.  And then the financial crash, which has made it impossible to find the dough for a larger one plus the expansion of the hearth I'd need to accommodate it.



> BTW, I didn't say red maple is bad wood, just that if I am paying for maple I much prefer hard maple.



Gotcha.  Just because it's totally useless in my little firebox, I shouldn't draw the conclusion it's useless in a more reasonable stove.



> I used to be (still am, sort of) in the fine musical instrument business



Meaning you make them?   The classical set I used to hang with would think your wood stacks were marvelously exotic.  They'd shudder at the thought of endangering their own fingers chucking firewood, but an instrument maker would be pretty much expected to be eccentric by their standards.



> My old stove couldn't burn it as hot and fast as a bigger stove can, and I don't have enough seasoned oak on hand to make an accurate assessment in my new stove.  I'm confident I wouldn't be disappointed in the way my stove handles fully seasoned oak.



Gotcha again.  I'll tuck that info away for the day I can get a bigger stove in here.



> I get a lot of my ash and cherry from guys just the other side of the border from you in Argyle.  There should be plenty around you in the hedgerows, white ash as well. If you keep calling and insist that is what you want, someone will cut it for you.  I just don't think it will cut it on your tiny stove.  But, if you want to come and exchange some of your blue beech for some of my cherry....  :cheese:



Heh.   Sorry, no trade.  I'm actually a good bit further north than Argyle, right in the middle of the mess caused by the (late) Crown Point bridge closing.  We get wood around here basically from neighbors with wood lots and a willingness to cut extra for a little cash.  That generally means your standard "mixed hardwoods"-- rock maple, beech, black birch and ash.  But from what I've learned through trial and error, backed up by experience and wisdom from you and others, I'm going to concentrate on the bb/bb combination as long as I'm running this little bitty stove.

Your thoughts on this have been very, very valuable, and I thank you for taking the time to spell them out.


----------



## Wood Duck (Jan 6, 2010)

I think it makes sense to have several types of wood available, so that you can burn differently as needed. For BTUs per hour, and if you are around to reload the stove, I think pine or spruce would be worth a try. Once dry, (and it doesn't take long) softwood burns fast and hot, and might be better for quickly heating the stove, or to mix with denser hardwoods.

By the way, what is the tree you are calling 'Blue Beech?' Beech (Fagus grandifolia - the tree with the three-pointed beechnuts in the hairy cups) grows all over New England and gets to be a large tree. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) is a smaller tree with similar smooth bark, and is often called Blue Beech. Ironwood doesn't get real large, usually not more than 12 inches diameter and really isn't a full-sized tree most of the time. Both are good firewood, but Ironwood is supposed to be among the very best. If you have forests dominated by 'blue beech' then I guess you're talking about Beech, not Ironwood.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Jan 6, 2010)

We talk about oak here because it's most of what's available... seemingly.  Takes longer to season.  Smells good when it burns, splits easy when it's green.

I'd burn maple if that was more available, though they're somewhat in decline, so I'm less likely to cut them.  White ash is excellent- dries super quick, very easy to split, high BTU's.


----------



## gyrfalcon (Jan 6, 2010)

Wood Duck said:
			
		

> I think it makes sense to have several types of wood available, so that you can burn differently as needed. For BTUs per hour, and if you are around to reload the stove, I think pine or spruce would be worth a try. Once dry, (and it doesn't take long) softwood burns fast and hot, and might be better for quickly heating the stove, or to mix with denser hardwoods.
> 
> By the way, what is the tree you are calling 'Blue Beech?' Beech (Fagus grandifolia - the tree with the three-pointed beechnuts in the hairy cups) grows all over New England and gets to be a large tree. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) is a smaller tree with similar smooth bark, and is often called Blue Beech. Ironwood doesn't get real large, usually not more than 12 inches diameter and really isn't a full-sized tree most of the time. Both are good firewood, but Ironwood is supposed to be among the very best. If you have forests dominated by 'blue beech' then I guess you're talking about Beech, not Ironwood.



Good question, and you sent me to The Google to look this up.  It's called "blue beech" around here, but I gather it's actually grandifolia.  I'm mildly ashamed to say I'm familiar with it only from my firewood.  I do know that various kinds of rock maple-- sugar maple -- combined with beech dominate the woods, and I see there's a particular kind of forest called Maple-Beech, which is what we have here.  My area of the state is a good deal flatter (comparatively speaking) than the rest of VT and is primarily farmland, so forested areas are pretty much only along the tops and steeper sides of the low glacial ridges that run up and down the valley and have been used for a couple centuries for both firewood and lumber, so they're not dense.

We're so loaded with hardwood around here that nobody seems to cut softwoods, but if I'm likely to still be using this small stove next winter, I'll certainly ask about getting some pine or spruce thrown in, as you suggest.


----------



## Wood Duck (Jan 6, 2010)

I think you're right that you are burning Beech (F. grandifolia). If it is a dominant large tree, that is Beech. I bet there are a few Ironwood or Blue Beech around too, but they aren't what gives Maple-Beech forest it's name. One nice thing about softwoods is that few people here burn them, so it is often free or cheap compared to hardwoods.


----------



## ISeeDeadBTUs (Jan 6, 2010)

gyrfalcon said:
			
		

> But, but, but, but, but-- everybody else here says silver maple is low heat and cherry is high.



NOT everybody :smirk: 

Do not put Cherry in the GW when it's a cold night. But I can't compare it to silver maple as I don't cut that. The only Red Maple I end up with is if it was small and got in someone's way.

For all you whineasses . . . I'll trade ya whatever else I got for your Oak :lol:


----------



## CrawfordCentury (Jan 6, 2010)

quads said:
			
		

> Rock Maple, Blue Beech, and Black Birch?  Never seen them before.



Glad that the ironwood/hornbeam/blue beech thing got cleared up. Beech (real beech) is a fine firewood, grows best on rocky slopes. If you're hikin in the woods with someone in front of you that's inconsiderate about not letting branches at face height snap back,  beech stands are the WORST. But fine firewood. 

Now ironwood...yikes! Don't grow big, but what's there is about the most efficient dendrothermal specimen known to man.

Rock maple's what some call the sugar maples I grew up amongst. Compared to red maple, you'd think you were on a chain gang bustin up granite trying to make firewood out of the rounds. Worth the effort tho'. It's deep winter, and I'm well into my sugar stash. Only thing's better is oak.  :coolsmile: 

Black birch? Fine firewood, too. Tough splitting, I was surprised to learn. And the way it tenaciously holds onto the green moisture! Smells like Wrigleys coming outta the ole chimbley on a frosty morn'


----------



## gyrfalcon (Jan 6, 2010)

CrawfordCentury said:
			
		

> quads said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Never had birch beer?  I can easily tell whether a bark-less hunk a wood is some of the birch because of that wonderful smell.  I haven't had that much trouble splitting it, though, but you do get some ornery pieces with very twisted fibers sometimes.  Nice thing about splitting rock maple is if you give it a real hard smack dead on, it just pops apart without any fuss because of that straight grain.  Beech can be pretty twisty, too, sometimes.


----------



## gpcollen1 (Jan 6, 2010)

Beech - My first year with more than a  bit of it - almost 2 cords.  I love this wood and it is bone dry.

Oak - one big ass tree that is the dominant tree in many forest types.  Oak-Hickry Forests are usually red oak.  Oak-Hemlock are usually chestnut oak, a white oak that burns great.  Many others for sure.  I have some white oak mixed in with the dominant red oak, hickory, black/sweet birch and sugar maple on the hillside behind me.

Black birch - another good burner and great to chew the twigs.


----------



## Battenkiller (Jan 6, 2010)

CrawfordCentury said:
			
		

> Black birch? Fine firewood, too. Tough splitting, I was surprised to learn. And the way it tenaciously holds onto the green moisture! Smells like Wrigleys coming outta the ole chimbley on a frosty morn'



So _that's_ what black birch is, the stuff with the reddish bark that smells like birch beer when you split it?

Gotten some in mixed loads before.  Never really impressed me, but then, it was a pretty wet wood when I tried to burn it.  It literally dripped with sweet smelling sap. Seemed to get better after it sat inside for a few weeks.  Seems I should have let it sit for a couple of years and I would have had some prime wood.

Didn't know blue beech was actually ironwood (hophornbeam?) either.  Never burned that before that I know of, but I've burned a lot of American beech, and it is a fine firewood.  Almost bought about ten acres of beech forest at $400/acre about 30 years ago, huge trees.  Didn't really burn back then, but I was going to start once I built my house there.  Never happened.  Life throws you some nasty breaking balls sometimes.


----------



## CrawfordCentury (Jan 6, 2010)

gyrfalcon said:
			
		

> Never had birch beer?  I can easily tell whether a bark-less hunk a wood is some of the birch because of that wonderful smell.  I haven't had that much trouble splitting it, though, but you do get some ornery pieces with very twisted fibers sometimes.  Nice thing about splitting rock maple is if you give it a real hard smack dead on, it just pops apart without any fuss because of that straight grain.  Beech can be pretty twisty, too, sometimes.


I'm something of a conoisseur of the beverages of the olde timey sort. Birch beer's good, but make it Moxie for mine. Or else a frosty ginger beer or a sarsaparilla. 

Wish I had your luck on the black birch. What I've handled might as well have been rubber tree the way the maul bounced off it.

The easy-splitting sugar maple I've had has been dead standing seasoned on the stump for a long lotta years. Buddy of mine gave me a half cord in the round a while back. This stuff was only 18 mos. or so. Also, bucked to 22", as opposed to the 16-18 I buck myself. That was some tough wood!




			
				Battenkiller said:
			
		

> So _that's_ what black birch is, the stuff with the reddish bark that smells like birch beer when you split it?
> 
> Gotten some in mixed loads before.  Never really impressed me, but then, it was a pretty wet wood when I tried to burn it.  It literally dripped with sweet smelling sap. Seemed to get better after it sat inside for a few weeks.  Seems I should have let it sit for a couple of years and I would have had some prime wood.
> 
> Didn't know blue beech was actually ironwood (hophornbeam?) either.  Never burned that before that I know of, but I've burned a lot of American beech, and it is a fine firewood.  Almost bought about ten acres of beech forest at $400/acre about 30 years ago, huge trees.  Didn't really burn back then, but I was going to start once I built my house there.  Never happened.  Life throws you some nasty breaking balls sometimes.



I might be misremembering, but I think hornbeam and hophornbeam might be different. Don't handle much. Not a beech, I do know. Wanna say they're relatives of the birches. Correct me if I'm wrong.

At least in Northern New England, American beech is prone to some kind of blight. Makes the smooth bark as pockmarked as an alcoholic Guatemalan whore two Johns from retirement. The blighted stuff is much more difficult to whack apart than the healthier specimens. Can't make any claim to universality on this, just my anecdotal experience.


----------



## gyrfalcon (Jan 6, 2010)

Battenkiller said:
			
		

> CrawfordCentury said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think probably most birch smells a bit like that.  But I don't see much in the way of "reddish" in the black birch, it really is black at least on the outside.  Mature trees have incredibly thick and solid reddish underbark, though, with a surface bark that looks a lot like any birch, only black and certainly not so loosely peeling as the white birches.

My experience with black birch is that it's a bear to burn when it's not dry, but it dries very quickly-- but only after being split.  That heavy bark really seems to keep the moisture in the wood.   I have some of it that was only cut this spring, not split until late August.  Then I split it down further to 2 and 3-inch pieces and stacked it loosely outside in full sun and wind, and I've been burning it easily since November and getting nice hot fires from it without much hissing or charcoaling.  The rock maple that got the same treatment is noticeably less hot in the stove.

The beech -- universally called "blue beech" around here, even though it isn't really, because its bark is distinctly bluish-tinged -- is the same.


----------



## gyrfalcon (Jan 6, 2010)

CrawfordCentury said:
			
		

> I might be misremembering, but I think hornbeam and hophornbeam might be different. Don't handle much. Not a beech, I do know. Wanna say they're relatives of the birches. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> At least in Northern New England, American beech is prone to some kind of blight. Makes the smooth bark as pockmarked as an alcoholic Guatemalan whore two Johns from retirement. The blighted stuff is much more difficult to whack apart than the healthier specimens. Can't make any claim to universality on this, just my anecdotal experience.



Yeah, hornbeam and hophornbeam are different things.  Actual Blue Beech isn't beech, it's really hornbeam, so I read.  What folks around here call "blue beech" I've just learned from a poster here isn't, it's actually American beech.  Both hornbeam and hophornbeam are related to birch, according to what I read.

So hornbeam = "blue beech," but isn't actually beech
"blue beech" in the NE isn't, it's American beech
hophornbeam-- something altogether different

Common names are such fun!! Makes you realize why scientific types stick to the Latin names.


----------

