Rock maple versus Red Oak

[gyrfalcon]

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]

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]

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

 

[ansehnlich1]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[gyrfalcon]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[gyrfalcon]

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]

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

 

[gyrfalcon]

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]

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!