which wood type to buy

If this is your sole source of wood and you're buying 4 cord I'd buy 3 cord ash, half cord maple and half cord tulip. I don't have a lot of experience with ash but with oak and hard maple it's nice having some lighter wood to mix in and to get the stove hot after a cold start.

Ash all day.

White Ash is 23.6 on the charts I look at. Soft Maple is 18 but hard (Sugar) is 24. I would go for White Ash and/or Sugar Maple.

Ash and maple. More ash.

Tell him you need some black locust......
Find out what kind of maple, it makes a difference....

I'd like to meet this Chip guy.
I think its environmentally unethical to burn one single type of wood and with that said,
Cherry.
It appears from your choices you are either getting culled furniture wood or he offered you different price ranges per cord. And you chose the cheaper price.
How come there isnt any locust or oak?

Applesister said:

I think its environmentally unethical to burn one single type of wood

Click to expand...

Please explain. I burn everything that is deadfall but I still don't understand what you are meaning.

maverick06 said:

Prices for the good hardwoods (oak etc, are much higher, so I prefer these mid-grade woods)

Click to expand...

In that case, White Ash and hard Maple are a deal. They are about the same output as Red Oak (not equal to White Oak, though.) If it's soft Maple, get White Ash instead.

DougA said:

Please explain. I burn everything that is deadfall but I still don't understand what you are meaning.

Click to expand...

Diversity is a forestry theory of practice in woodlot management. Not related to landscape contractors culling yard trees.
At the end of the chain of consumer supply and demand it doesn't really apply. Doesn't apply to the OPs question.
What Chip is paid to cut down is merely what Chip is paid to cut down. No ethics issues.
When I read on here about people who have 20 cords of nothing but oak or access to private or federal land where they are cutting, say, only oak, I feel that's unethical. (Its extremely unethical and totally none of my business.)
Like if the OP's question was "which species of tree should I go out to my woods and cut down for the highest heat value?" I would answer that he should choose a diversity of species.
But that is just me. And that is why I talk myself into cutting and burning poplar and cottonwood.
What I cut is ethically sound and geared toward land stewardship. With timber management and species preservation the priority.
Firewood is also a byproduct of agricultural endeavors as well. And I don't mean to sound snobby, I'm just proud of my position.

Applesister said:

When I read on here about people who have 20 cords of nothing but oak or access to private or federal land where they are cutting, say, only oak, I feel that's unethical. (Its extremely unethical and totally none of my business.).

Click to expand...

Okay, I'll bite. I'm one of those with almost 100% ash and oak in my piles, about 50/50% each. In my case, we're cutting trees downed by Sandy, or trees that must be taken down for other reasons (eg. Disease). When there's four white oaks laying on the ground next to four poplars, all Sandy blow down, I take the oak and leave the poplar. There is more wood on the ground from that storm than we can ever scavenge before it rots, so I'd rather let the poplar lay and rot, than ash or oak.

Before I started venturing out, my stacks were all ash and elm, because that's what is dead standing on my property. I never cut a live tree here.

To the original question, I'd take all the white ash I could get. It's as good as oak in my Blaze King. Unless he has hard maple, which is doubtful if they're yard trees. Cherry and walnut smell nice when they burn, but don't make as much heat for me, and walnut leaves lots of ash.

Applesister said:

Diversity is a forestry theory of practice in woodlot management.

Click to expand...

Yup, I cannot disagree with what you are saying. That's why I ask prior to pulling the trigger.

I have a disagreement with my County who plant hard maples almost exclusively. Even though hard maples are great trees and have no major pests, we have no idea what pests might be here to destroy them when they are just reaching adulthood in 50 years. Ash trees made great shade trees a few decades ago and that's all the city planted, now they are in trouble - both the trees and the city with 60,000 dying ash trees.

I've lost track of exactly how many species I have planted on our 11 acres but I know it is over 100. I am only cutting dying trees (ash & elm), deadfall or trees that should be down if they weren't hung up on their neighbor and are dangerous - both for the other trees and the guy with the chainsaw. I've got nearly 20 perfect trunks of Black Cherry & oak I am going to have cut with a sawmill. I couldn't bear to use them for firewood, just way too beautiful. They will end up as new dining room table but also a few hundred feet of very valuable fence boards. Still, much cheaper and more environmentally suitable than pressure treated from HD.

Cherry , maple, or ash. I would lean towards cherry personally because its a great firewood and is great in the smoker too!

Regarding monoculture burning, keep in mind that a woodlot is not a forest. It's a farm. As a farm it can be managed as a monoculture crop for maximum yield, or as a mixed crop for diversity, disease tolerance, and if that's important to you, as a mixed environment that wildlife will find habitable.

Mixed lots certainly appeals to me, both because I think they look nicer, and I enjoy having wildlife around, and with larger woodlots that produce an excess there's not really a reason not to maintain diversity.

If that's what you can choose from. Ash cherry and walnut.
Just to comment on the other thing. If your scrounging or cleaning up from storms, I would take the
Good stuff if your there first and doing the work. The late comers or ones who don't care can have the poplar and silver maple or whatever. Never feel guilty taking downed firewood that you have permission to take.

I own 2 wood lots that I planted myself. Needless to say they will not produce much firewood in my lifetime except for the thinning cuts. Even so, I was able to plant 5 species on one lot and 6 on the other. I do not consider that a diverse crop on either planting and, horror of horrors, ash was a significant part of one of my plantings. Neither of my wood lots is a forest even though they might look like one to someone driving by in their car. I have some deer in both, the rabbits are on the increase and the pheasant are doing well so far. The pheasant will go into decline as the woods mature because they are open field type animals not well suited to deep shady areas. Deer are marginal critters that try to occupy the edges between woods and open ground and so far they think my woodlots look about right but again as the wood matures they will thin out or spend more time at the edges. My advantage for wildlife is that my wood lots are surrounded by farm fields so the wildlife can move between my wood lots and those farm fields. I cannot and will not be going out and trying to plant another 75 species just to get the diversity of a true forest for economic reasons as well as reality reasons. In reality, my wood lots have been invaded by species in adjacent areas such as from hedge row plantings and by bird carried seeds. Wild black cherry and mulberry are just 2 of the seeds I know are spread by birds. I have also seen some eastern red cedar on one of my lots. Squirrels are spreading osage orange into my plantings as well. When it comes time to thin my plantings I will probably focus more on the ash than on other species where I have a choice of what to remove but even doing that has its risks because next year the ash may look safe compared to some other species. That is why I tried to get some diversity.
As far as ethical plantings, my wood lots are taking the place of former farm fields that were used for monocultures of field corn and soybeans. I know that for sure since I did not convert either place to forestry use for a few years after I bought it. I see nothing unethical in even a small number of tree species being planted as a first step toward restoring a forest-like environment to the rolling parts of this prairie land. Before the advent of large scale farming in this area the specific areas where my plantings are located were likely forested and much of the nearby land was likely open prairie.

I prefer to have a mix of woods in my firewood supply. I find it more interesting to have variety. There are no bad choices in your list, but obviously the Tulip is lower in BTUs so I wouldn't want to pay the same price for it. I like Tulip and think it is worth collecting, but I wouldn't buy it if I were you.

Oldman47 said:

I own 2 wood lots that I planted myself. Needless to say they will not produce much firewood in my lifetime...

Click to expand...

Crazy question... why would an individual plant a wood lot that will never produce firewood in their lifetime?

Joful, I find it best to think long term on anything I do. I could have gone on making perhaps $1000 per year net on row crops on land that was not well suited to it but chose to look to the future. My first wood lot planting is now at a stage that some people would consider it wooded but a very young woods. Instead of farm land prices, I could probably sell it off in 5 acre lots for home site prices. That alone would be better than what I paid for it, including my lost crop profits. I might end up with double what I would have otherwise made on it. Meanwhile I need to thin that first wood lot in the next few years and that will fill my stove for years to come, mostly with ash, while I wait for the next thinning around 10 to 15 years later. By then the wood lot will look mature to many people and the thinning will be producing 8 to 12 inch dbh wood. I will by then be almost 90 years old so not much chance I will be the one doing that second thinning. Still not mature lumber making stuff but plenty good enough for a stove.
Realize that neither of my wood lots will ever be mature forests unless the people who outlive me decide to leave them alone most of the time.

BrotherBart said:

The definition of an optimist. Plants two acorns and buys a hammock.

Click to expand...

Yep, that's me. The only acorn I have actually planted and not had just fall naturally is now a nice 6 inch dbh yard tree burr oak at my present home, not on one of my wood lots. If I had thought of it at the time I might have planted two of them. That first one is at least 20 feet tall today and I will be planting more, maybe at 10 foot spacings for my hammock when I turn 90.