Anyone ever bother with willow?

Nope, I wont even bother with it.

Willow, only if you're a 24/7 burner. Willow is a perfect wood for those cold mornings when you know it soon be 60* out. It heats up quick and leaves no coals. Over the years I've burned quite a bit of it, it works out best for you if you can separate it from your other wood. According to my grandmother It's a good wood to cook with too.

Never burned Hemlock.

If good hemlock is available right next to it then I would prefer the hemlock. I burn lots and lots of low btu cottonwood that is similar to willow and it isn't as bad as some people say. Be sure it is dry and it will burn just fine. Hemlock is only slightly better but the grain is straighter and it shouldn't stink as much.

I haven't burnt hemlock. But I do burn willow. But only because I have them around the house. It seems to light up good for me. When the fire is down to coals in the morning I will throw one or two pieces on first then harder wood on top and that gets it going pretty good. I also burn it on warmer days when I do not want to waste good wood just to warm the house up a little.

Billy

Why choose? Why not both?

Pound for pound, wood is wood. 2000 pounds of willow has just as much btu as 2000 pounds of oak. It's only the size which makes a difference - that might equal 1/2 cord of oak and 2 of willow! But assuming you've got the room to store it and aren't expecting long overnight burns with lots of coals left in the morning...might as well grab some.

I would try to get some bed stakes for your truck or trailer - those woods are pretty light so you'd probably run out of space before you run out of weight capacity. As others have said - good for shoulder season burning and times when you just want to take the chill off. The willow I've burned kind of reminded me of 'condensed newspaper' - both in smell and the way it burned.

I burnt about 1/2-3/4 of a cord of willow this winter. Worked just fine for me...I put it in the stove, it got all hot and then turned to dust (as noted before, not much coal value there). Put some more willow in and I got more heat out of the stove. Wouldn't recommend it for an overnight burn though.

If its free and you're out scrounging...take it. Even if its not your preferred wood, it sure beats paying for a delivery or not having any to burn at all.

Dries surprisingly fast. Considering how wet willow really is, I was able to burn it barely a couple month after cutting and splitting it...hardly any hissing to it at all and it burned hot. Probably works even better after a whole summer in the sun and wind.

Cozy Heat, I have to disagree with you on BTU output. You get many more BTUs with hardwoods, especially oak. In no way are they equal.




KC

Per cord, sure. But not PER POUND. A cord (4x4x8) of oak weighs X. A cord of willow would weigh significantly less than "X". Both are 4x4x8 when stacked, but you'll get more heat from the Oak. 2000 pounds of Oak will still put out the exact same amount of heat as 2000 pounds of Willow. It will just be a smaller stack.

I have willow in the stove right now...but the willow I get is a 1/4 mile away, blocked and I can back my trailer up to it. Works fine on a wet 50 degree March day.

Okay then I'll try and disagree with cozy heat. Ha! He and Creek-club are right about the btus per lb though. What I'll disagree with is the weight of the wood when hauling it home. Green/wet willow is extremely heavy and hard to haul. It's every bit as hard to haul as other wood which is why you get lower bang for buck when processing it.

Burning willow from the country club down the road or pine that people leave at the city mulch pile helps me build my stock of hardwood and only burn it when it is ready. As soon as I am 3 years ahead, I probably wont bother. I would also not recommend willow to someone who splits by hand.

Creek-Chub said:

Per cord, sure. But not PER POUND. A cord (4x4x8) of oak weighs X. A cord of willow would weigh significantly less than "X". Both are 4x4x8 when stacked, but you'll get more heat from the Oak. 2000 pounds of Oak will still put out the exact same amount of heat as 2000 pounds of Willow. It will just be a smaller stack.

Click to expand...

Creek-Chub, I'm not sure this is actually true. I know you might think it makes sense that all woods have the same heat output by weight, but they don't appear to in any table I've read. There is a variation of up to 15% of heat output by weight. I know this is a lot less than variation by density,as in weight per cord, when some species like Osage Orange are over twice the weight of others (eg cottonwood, cedar) but it is still a variation, and 15% is 15%, and not "the exact same amount of heat".

There are many tables available listing weight per cord and heat output per cord of many species (here is just one table). If you divide heat output by weight then you get heat output per pound, which varies from ~6,000 to ~7,000 BTU's per pound (well in all of the tables I have seen), hence ~15% variation.

I would take the hemlock over the willow ,willow has no weight to it for the size and burns up like cardboard and stinks like pi$$
hemlock burns quick too but at the end of the day provides better heat and much easier to work with and split ,be sure its seasoned though as it retains moisture and takes a while to dry all the moisture out

iskiatomic said:

Cozy Heat, I have to disagree with you on BTU output. You get many more BTUs with hardwoods, especially oak. In no way are they equal.

KC

Click to expand...

I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with your disagreement. The internet is loaded with sources stating the heat content of all wood is approximately equal.

http://tinyurl.com/wood-btu

etc

In fact, many "btu per cord" charts are actually based on the weight of a cord x a fixed btu per pound number. The rate at which it is released is certainly different as is the volume required for an equal weight. But a pound of cellulose is still a pound of cellulose.

cozy heat said:

iskiatomic said:

Cozy Heat, I have to disagree with you on BTU output. You get many more BTUs with hardwoods, especially oak. In no way are they equal.

KC

Click to expand...

I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with your disagreement. The internet is loaded with sources stating the heat content of all wood is approximately equal.

http://tinyurl.com/wood-btu

etc

In fact, many "btu per cord" charts are actually based on the weight of a cord x a fixed btu per pound number. The rate at which it is released is certainly different as is the volume required for an equal weight. But a pound of cellulose is still a pound of cellulose.

Click to expand...

KC, I agree with you disagreeing with the previous disagreement of cozy heat, but I disagree with your reasons

1) I agree there are many internet quotes saying all wood is equal (pound for pound) in BTU's. Dozens of them when googling for firewood species heat output tables. However, that doesn't make them right.

2) Even the link you gave only states "approximately" equal, as you say yourself. I suggest they equate the 15% variance I alluded to as "close enough" and it might be for some people, but it's not "the exact same amount".

3) I worked through a few tables I found listing pounds per cord and MBTU's per cord and all had variance of up to 15%. I even found a table listing BTU's per pound, but frustratingly, can't find it now for an easy link. No matter, it's a simple process to divide one column by the other, or copy and paste into Excel and extrapolate, and the results are the same.

Here is one popular table, link in my sig. I did the Excel bit and added a btu/lb column. As you mention there is about a 12% spread in this table - possibly due to some of the rounding to the nearest 100,000 btu/cord. The surprising thing is - it is not necessarily the 'heavy' or 'hard woods' which have the highest btu/lb. Bitternut Hickory, Honey Locust and hedge do score near the top, but there are several light weight woods up there as well - willow comes within a couple dozen btu/lb of those woods. Oak, shagbark hickory and hornbeam all score less than willow, several pines and white fir.

mattinpa said:

To elaborate on the title, I've got a choice between hemlock and willow. The willow is accesible, the hemlock is a few more steps,
but I gotta think the hemlock is of more value. Besides, I've notice the willow smells bad! Does it have any heat value at all?
I cut a few rounds, and it seems pretty worthless, even coming from a fresh fallen tree.

Click to expand...

Both choices are not ideal . . . but both choices would work well for the Shoulder Season fires. My philosophy is to burn 'em all . . . but if you're short on space or time and really have to make a choice I would go with the hemlock.

Cut it, split it, wait. It will burn.

Knocking the willow or hemlock is like knocking any other low BTU wood - except pine b/c of all that creosote [j/k]...

I just grabbed my first trailer load of willow ever. I thought it was great b/c the big rounds were so light as compared to the oak, maple and cherry I have been blessed with. There is many O time when I am looking for a few pieces of something a bit less dense for a quick start to the coals to get the stove heating in a hurry. I responded to this willow just for that...so 1/2 cord down and another cord or more to pick up...and a cord or two of Beech and chestnut oak to grab froma buddy...

I have to disagree with the pound for pound thing too. When it's wet and green its all heavy to transport. it only gets light and becomes that pound for pound thing two years later stacked up in the back yard after you did the hard work. I brought home a free load of poplar one time and it was just as heavy as any oak i have brought home. Now, two years later it weighs no more then a pile of popcicle sticks.

I will use less desirable woods for campfires. I have a motorhome and use it there

Goog