Branches

[sepulvd]

I never before cut branches to burn but since I found a guy that's is letting me cut down 6 50 ft trees for free but he wants me to remove all his branches from prior downed trees holy cow 4 hours and 6 truckloads worth still not finished with the branches maybe 3 more truckloads . Already worn my chain on my saw and still haven't started to bring the trees down. Just need it to vent so much work but I'll will get to the goal

 

[johneh]

What about using a chipper( rent one )
could use the chips for mulch
or just compost
A hole lot less work

 

[melloyello]

Small branches will take a huge toll on your chain that's for sure. If you are having to replace a chain it's costing money. If you have to rent a chipper, that's costing money. Things aren't as "free" then. Did this person approach you to take down the trees or did you approach him?

 

[sepulvd]

He approached me. Yea it is costing money but just in branches alone it's almost 1/2 cord and with the 6 tress it should be around 3 cords.
Most of the branches are 3-5 inches thick

 

[wenger7446]

He approached me. Yea it is costing money but just in branches alone it's almost 1/2 cord and with the 6 tress it should be around 3 cords.
Most of the branches are 3-5 inches thick

And you don't need split the branches at that size....it's worth it

 

[Fred Wright]

It's time consuming, dealing with the little stuff but it'll burn in your stove. That's what matters.

I've been bucking everything 3" and up for years... makes for great starter wood and gets the heat going quick in a cold stove. Last year was a couple red oaks, I got over a face cord of little stuff stacked from those.

Smaller branches and brush, a couple of options: pile it and burn on site if possible. Or drag (or dump) it back in the woods where the critters will enjoy it.

 

[Wood Duck]

If the branches are reasonably straight I'd cut them to stove length and burn them. The really crooked branches I'd make into brush piles or keep for camp fires. I burn lots of small stuff in the 3 to 5 inch range. Like Fred says, it is great for quick heat. If the branches are straight I cut them short enough to go north/south in the stove and split them for kindling.

 

[kennyp2339]

I've seen some youtube videos were they take a bunch of branched like 10ft lengths and put them in a trough that has predetermined cut sizes, then use the saw and make 16" logs but cutting all ten branches at the same time, seems more efficient than one branch at a time.

 

[saskwoodburner]

There's a thread here talking about burning the little stuff, and it works good in my little stove, there's no doubt about that. In this case though, it sounds like you're doing him a bigger favor than he's doing for you, unless you have no access to free wood. He'd probably require a tree service to come take care of all that at some cost to him. Only you can say if it was worth it. How much gas are you going to end up using dragging 6 loads of branches home?

 

[Dune]

Here it comes.
I cut branches to 1"
Yes it is work, but....
1. Small stuff seasons faster and better.
2. I don't make kindling.
3. I would much rather cut than split
4. Because I already have a range of sizes, I don't split anything under 7-8 inches, I just split to make it fit in the stove.
5. Clean up is miniscule.
7. I don't segregate my wood, it is all mixed. When I load up the house I put all the small stuff aside, inside.
When I rake up in the morning I throw a good handful of ultra-dry branches on the coals, then load up. Get's hot fast and easy.
8. Waste not want not.
My uncles back in the old country cut the twigs too, I don't go that far.(My dad was the smart one, he burned coal) I always told him if coal were free I would burn that too.)

I don't count the value of chains versus BTUs, except for keeping them out of the dirt. $18 versus a cord of oak?

 

[Applesister]

I think the easiest thing would be to cut the branches into log length(that you can manage) and bring them home in logs. Pile the small stuff in bundles or piles you can tie. You wont have much left if you cut out usable wood.
If you are commited to getting rid of the small stuff first then renting a chipper to chip it all up wont work. Unless the landowner will let you cut all wood out first.
But that's not practical or manageable.
I use a compound miter saw to cut small branch rounds. Not the chainsaw.
Whats easiest on my back.
I also save everything down to 1"

 

[Applesister]

Though you live in a forest, do not waste wood. -Chinese proverb

 

[Dune]

or ice skates

 

[sepulvd]

I decided to go back today but I took my axe and my skill saw instead way easier and faster then my chainsaw completely finish with branches now to start dropping the trees

 

[Andrewj]

either Im crazy or you guys are! Branches 3-5 inches thick? that is better than split wood! Those branches with all the rings pack more BTUs than splits same size. And you don't hve to split them!

 

[BrotherBart]

They burn slower releasing the BTUs over a longer time because of less exposed surface.

 

[sepulvd]

Yea so far I checked with my moisture meter and over 90% of the branches are reading 23% so I should be able to burn it in my 30 year old stove with no problems

 

[saskwoodburner]

^^^^^ Winning.

 

[rideau]

Dune and Applesister, I do both these. Waste not want not.

Bothers me when people cut trees that took 100 years to grow and leave all the branches. The crown on many trees will provide as many BTUs as the trunk.

 

[sepulvd]

I think most of the problem is that people equate size to heat output. Also the work of cutting the branches to log size and it doesn't look pretty stacked. I notice since I jioned that alot of people really do care how the stack looks chit I pay my daughter to stack it as long as it doesn't fall am ok with it.

 

[firefighterjake]

BTUs are BTUs . . . regardless of the size.

I used to be a wood snob and leave smaller branches behind . . . then I realized that I might as well take as much as I can and then leave the small stuff to provide habitat for critters and eventually fertilizer for the other living trees.

Sometimes it's quite nice to be able to fit in one more small round when loading up the stove for the night.

 

[sportbikerider78]

I cut up the straight stuff. I burn the rest outside with brush. But i'm in the country. I literately have a limitless supply of small branches.

 

[TreePapa]

I decided to go back today but I took my axe and my skill saw instead way easier and faster then my chainsaw completely finish with branches now to start dropping the trees

Be careful with the Skilsaw. Better yet, only use it for cutting lumber, not branches or firewood (unless your firewood is dimensional lumber). i nearly cut my left thumb off w/ a Skill 77 about 10 years ago cutting small firewood. The thumb still aches when I think about, and I didn't touch that 77 for at least 2 years after that. Use the right tool for the job, and a circular saw is the right tool for cutting dimensional or sheet lumber - not branches. A good sharp axe is a good tool for cutting green branches, especially those under 2" or so.

Peace,
- Sequoia

 

[English BoB]

I have 2 +/- cords of branches, small trees from clearing that have been sitting for 2 yrs or more in 8/10 foot lengths. They will come in handy for next year, use them in the shoulder season and to pack the wood furnace in the garage.
I take all my trees from bottom to top, use it all.......that's why it grew IMHO.


Bob