Lets hear what you wood burning connoisseurs have to say about oak "vs" hard Maple??? I say hard maple is hands down the best,Some of you out there must think other wise, I'd like to hear your opinions..
Oak "vs" hard maple
- Thread starter TROY COOK
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
- Status
RAMSAY said:
I've never burned oak but think sugar maple when it gets cold is the wood we use, we have some three year old sugar maple just waiting for the cold weather.
Plus what I like about sugar maple is the seasoning time compared with oak.
zap
I burn 80% oak. I split it a tad smaller than other varieties, so it will dry faster. So far- nothing burns as hot and as long(not even black locust,but close) as oak. It is my 'go-to' wood in the colder months- always has been. ;-P
Like Zap I've never had the opportunity to burn oak . . . although I cut one last year -- next year it's going into my shed . . . and then in 2012-2013 I should be able to tell you what I think of oak. Until then I mostly burn ash, elm, white and yellow birch and red and sugar maple.
I get longer burns from Hard Maple than Oak . . . but Maple will rot if not stored properly. Oak, on the other hand, can be left in the rain and on the ground. And since I have almost no Hard Maple, I burn Oak
Wow, some of you that replied, I thought were oak people... ( deadbtu's ) I thought for sure you were a Oak person.But not much to debate on. I have about 6 cords of oak and about the same of hard maple, mixing it up works good,My wife likes maple way better, she always fills the stove with Maple only!
Oak very rarely grows up in Northern NH, RT 2 was referred to as the "oak line" by loggers. Our pulp mill used to get a premium as our pulp was oak free. I have gotten some over the years but not enough to see much of a difference with my burning style which is to burn a full bore and rarely use the damper. I am seeing more oak seedlings out in the woods so with global warming maybe I will get to burn it someday, if the ALB doesnt eat them first!
Maple much easier to deal with and seasons faster with that said there is more oak around here then hard maple.
They are both real good, I would slightly favor sugar maple due to it's faster seasoning. Also, IMO smells great when cutting and splitting!
Both make excellent firewood. The drawback to oaks is they take so long to season to get to the point of hard maple. If both are the same dryness side-by-side, I still would vote for oak. However, realizing the hard maple seasons faster, that is usually why most prefer it.
As for me, we have no hard maple but I have burned plenty over the years. The same with oak. We do not have much and I have burned plenty over the years. I'll certainly not turn down either oak or maple.
As for me, we have no hard maple but I have burned plenty over the years. The same with oak. We do not have much and I have burned plenty over the years. I'll certainly not turn down either oak or maple.
My personal experience is that oak coals better and puts out more heat (per log of identical dimension). I still buy oak when I can get it, which is rare up here and we only get red oak. There are only a few mature ones on the property and they don't get touched. I cut about a cord of sugar maples this year. The odors of both have their merits.
Incidentally, I took down a sugar maple two springs ago when the sap was flowing and it seemed like someone somehow installed a garden hose in the tree above the cut and turned the water on to about 50%.
Incidentally, I took down a sugar maple two springs ago when the sap was flowing and it seemed like someone somehow installed a garden hose in the tree above the cut and turned the water on to about 50%.
chumby said:
> The oak I have burned in the past is the opposite.coals are hot but they don't last near as long as hard maple, I would trade someone any day 3 cords of oak for 2 cords hard maple!Oh . . . and syrup made from Maple is great on alomost anything (think 9 1/2 Weeks here). Oak syrup, on the other hand, is somewhere between bitter and poisonous.
As the wise - usually old - woodburners say . . . "Burn wat ye gott"
As the wise - usually old - woodburners say . . . "Burn wat ye gott"
Not sure about oak as I have never burned an appreciable quantity, but I burned up about 3 cords of ahrd maple lasy year and it was great...but generated freaking mountinas of ash compared to my prior years of beech, birch, ash, maple and other less hard hardwoods. Had to shovel the firebox out almost daily in the dead of winter.
Not enough difference to make a difference. Each has pros and cons. If you have both or either, you should be happy.
I find that statement true when it comes to most of the woods that are close to each other on the BTU charts.Mike PA said:
About 120 years ago my village planted a ton of sugar maples along the streets. Needless to say I have acquired a good bit of sugar maple over the years as those trees have started to die. In fact I think I burned almost 100% sugar maple a year or two ago. We have lots of oak around here(white, red, burr, chestnut, chinquipin, etc) but I don't seem to either get the calls for it or have the space to let it season for what it takes to properly burn it. I got some swamp white oak from my fil a few weeks ago and liked burning it but it really didn't seem any better that the sugar maple or hickory that I am used to burning.
- Status
