which species is better
- Thread starter joop
- 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.
Beech is higher BTU I think, but I like Red Oak for decent BTU and fairly easily splitting. Vast majority of what I get here is dead Red. I've seen Beech in eastern So. IN, but not many here...maybe one I thought I saw, but couldn't stop to check it out. Don't know how it splits.
Now, White Oak BTU would be approaching that of Beech.
Now, White Oak BTU would be approaching that of Beech.
Caw
Minister of Fire
It comes down to Ford or Chevy type debate. IMHO, beech wins out as its got thinner bark. Bark is much lower btu content so for given split the less volume taken up by bark the better and red oak has thicker bark as a response to having high fire resistance. The trade off is well developed beech blight is creating a layer of lower btu content and my guess is that beech with blight stored poorly (not covered or up off the ground) will start rotting quicker as the blight pockmarks are perfect to hold water.
Not buying that Red and White Oak have the same BTU, based on my experience with both.
This list is more in line with what I've seen here, but I haven't burned all of these species. I've also seen a lot of lists with these number and only a couple that claim White Oak is 24 MBTU. One anomaly is Douglas Fir; Numbers all over the board, and I have never burned it so I have no idea..
midwesthearth.com
This list is more in line with what I've seen here, but I haven't burned all of these species. I've also seen a lot of lists with these number and only a couple that claim White Oak is 24 MBTU. One anomaly is Douglas Fir; Numbers all over the board, and I have never burned it so I have no idea..
Choosing Firewood - BTU Content by Species
The quality of your firewood directly affects heat output, duration of burn and performance of your stove. Softwoods generally burn hotter and faster, while hardwoods burn longer and produce better coals. Density and moisture content are two critical factors to consider when purchasing wood for...
midwesthearth.com
Last edited:
Beech seasons faster. I can usually burn beech after 1 summer although 2 is better. Wouldn't try that with oak here.
Beech shows higher in btu rating , however speaking from experience burns with red oak are considerably longer, I know this well as I'm sitting on 25 cords of red oak and 5 of beech, and have considerable experience burning both, either one is outstanding as heat producing goes.
Im a HUGE fan of red oak now! I found a stash of red oak buried behind mixed stuff, and have been having a great experience with red oak. I want nothing else now. Long, even, predictable heat.
Other woods I burn are ash, maple, cherry (lots of cherry for awhile there), poplar, white oak, walnut, some pine, hickory, the list goes on. I toss a piece or two of medium cherry on coals - then load the rest with medium red oak mostly and wow - I get the longest burn times and the most predictable heat. It's like operating a different stove for me.
mikey
Burning Hunk
Red oak is very slow to dry, I live in a small city and storage is a problem so I don’t have time to dry red oak.
Im surprised to see Red Oak so far down the list next to White Ash.Not buying that Red and White Oak have the same BTU, based on my experience with both.
This list is more in line with what I've seen here, but I haven't burned all of these species. I've also seen a lot of lists with these number and only a couple that claim White Oak is 24 MBTU. One anomaly is Douglas Fir; Numbers all over the board, and I have never burned it so I have no idea..
Choosing Firewood - BTU Content by Species
The quality of your firewood directly affects heat output, duration of burn and performance of your stove. Softwoods generally burn hotter and faster, while hardwoods burn longer and produce better coals. Density and moisture content are two critical factors to consider when purchasing wood for...
View attachment 310057
Caw
Minister of Fire
Come on man...lol. You can eyeball the different between 25.7 and 24 million BTU per cord? More power to you.Not buying that Red and White Oak have the same BTU, based on my experience with both.
This list is more in line with what I've seen here, but I haven't burned all of these species. I've also seen a lot of lists with these number and only a couple that claim White Oak is 24 MBTU. One anomaly is Douglas Fir; Numbers all over the board, and I have never burned it so I have no idea..
Choosing Firewood - BTU Content by Species
The quality of your firewood directly affects heat output, duration of burn and performance of your stove. Softwoods generally burn hotter and faster, while hardwoods burn longer and produce better coals. Density and moisture content are two critical factors to consider when purchasing wood for...
View attachment 310057
Either list is fine with me, the point is still the same: beech and oak have about the same BTU value. Beech may be slightly more depending on the species or taking bark volume into account. I'd get whichever is cheapest, in the best shape, easiest access etc.
stoveliker
Minister of Fire
24 (red oak) vs 25.7 (Beech) MBTU per cord is not something easily noticed when burning. (Is blue beech really a beech?).
As mentioned above, seasoning time is where the advantage of beech is.
As mentioned above, seasoning time is where the advantage of beech is.
There's a lot of factors to consider, not just BTU content. Plus there are several BTU charts out there. They generally have the same order, but different contents listed.
Oaks are many peoples favorite because of the BTU content and long effective burn time, but it takes a long time to season. Ash is also a favorite because it too has good BTU content (I don't think as good as oak though), lights easily and seasons quickly; but those BTU's are released pretty quickly compared to oak resulting in shorter burn times. Beech is less widespread so many don't have access to it; but I love it because to me it's a good marriage of quick seasoning, excellent BTU's, and long burn time. I am excited to try the ironwood I have seasoning due to the anecdotal BTU's and burn times... Also have some hickory and honey locust seasoning which are other premium ones I haven't burned before. I am considering pushing our move to the Northwoods back just so I get to burn these species 😂.
Oaks are many peoples favorite because of the BTU content and long effective burn time, but it takes a long time to season. Ash is also a favorite because it too has good BTU content (I don't think as good as oak though), lights easily and seasons quickly; but those BTU's are released pretty quickly compared to oak resulting in shorter burn times. Beech is less widespread so many don't have access to it; but I love it because to me it's a good marriage of quick seasoning, excellent BTU's, and long burn time. I am excited to try the ironwood I have seasoning due to the anecdotal BTU's and burn times... Also have some hickory and honey locust seasoning which are other premium ones I haven't burned before. I am considering pushing our move to the Northwoods back just so I get to burn these species 😂.
Woodsplitter67
Minister of Fire
It actually depends on which beech were speaking of.. I get copper Beech which is like 28 million BTUs per cord.. othere beechs are 25/26 million per cord. Beech is an easy splitting wood as well as red oak.. Me personally I think beech produces a bit more ash but seasons faster.. To me .. you cant go wrong with either.. ifs is choice between a 24 million BTU wood and a 28million BTU wood I go 28 million btu wood for the same amount of work.. if its only a different of a million.. that doesn't really make a difference to me.. it will go either way..
But is it really less work?
I find work more related to the pounds of wood vs cords.
It's why I'd rather cut dry spruce than wet birch, the spruce comes in at a higher btu/hrs worked.
I find work more related to the pounds of wood vs cords.
It's why I'd rather cut dry spruce than wet birch, the spruce comes in at a higher btu/hrs worked.
thats the problem i have but if there was a significant difference in heating i could skip a season of burning to season it. i'll go with beech
Yep, seasoning time and splitting ease are in the equation when deciding between woods.
From what I've seen so far "Blue Beech" appears to be a nickname for American Hornbeam, not an actual specie.
In testing the BTU figures I find online, the only thing I "eyeball" is the clock on the wall--My stove temp/cat glow over time, and the amount of wood left in the box over time. I also "arm-ball" the weights of various woods when they are thoroughly dried, since BTU generally corresponds to wood density.
From your posting history, this is only your third year burning wood for heat, and your wood-ID chops don't appear to be all that great. So I'm assuming you haven't really been able to compare many species of wood that are fully dry, to see how the listed BTU ratings actually compare to your experience.
Of the cut-and-paste BTU list I posted above, I've cut, dried and burned 16 of those, and I can definitely tell a difference of two points in BTU ratings. Examples would be the difference between, say, White Ash 23.6 and White Oak 25.7, Black Cherry 19.9 and Red (Slippery) Elm 21.6, or hard (Sugar) Maple 24 and Red Mulberry 25.8--and between Red Oak 24 and White Oak 25.7, despite you lumping them together and calling them "Oak."
There's a pronounced difference in burn time, dry-split weight etc, and I'm pretty sure the majority of experienced burners here would also say they can tell a difference when comparing species with a 2-point BTU gap.
i've burned beech. but not in one load.mine is ordered mixed.found place that will sell one species altogether so was wondering wich way to lean
stoveliker
Minister of Fire
All I'm saying is that, *at least in the way I load my stove*, and with the splits that I have, I can easily have a 2/24 fraction (i.e. 8%) difference in loading density in the stove. This means that any difference of 2 MBTU/cord from 24 to 26 may be present, but would, due to statistical (loading density) fluctuations only become apparent after analyzing burn times for a while and doing a linear regression analysis.
Knots, slightly curved splits, triangular splits with different angles, etc.
But that's my wood (and hand splitting skills).
Knots, slightly curved splits, triangular splits with different angles, etc.
But that's my wood (and hand splitting skills).
"Copper Beech" appears to be the European version but I haven't checked into that enough to say for sure.
Maybe good from a drying standpoint, but how does it split? Depending what specie it actually is, drying may be slower and splitting might be tough unless you use a hydro splitter.
