HARDWOOD VS SOFTWOOD

[wil lanfear]

I have to admit that I favored using hardwood pellets, I suspect because of burning firewood for around 50 years but.... when the local pellet mill started selling pine softwood pellets I got the urge to try a few bags so as to maybe gather some thoughts to argue the softwood vs hardwood thinking. Well, I don't have any, other than the ash that I noticed from burning them. The ash, very little, looked like real tiny black carbon pieces, (no buildup of this ash in the burnpot at all) not much powder type ash at all. Is this what the ash looks like with a softwood pellet? Also, I noticed the bags of these pellets had in volume more pellets, noticed this when I filled the hopper, took less bags. I didn't weigh the bags, who knows, maybe I got more than 40# per bag.

 

[jtakeman]

Wil,

It took the pellet shortage in the late 90"s for me to try the softwoods(that was all I could find locally). I was a wood burner and had the hardwood is best in the brain too! But since I try to get the best pellet for the least amount of cash.

As long as it is a quality pellet. Who cares if its softwood or hardwood. They both burn great.

Lately the softwoods have the least issues with quality. The lack of good fiber has some hardwood pellet makers struggling to make a quality pellets.

But I guess it will take some time to change the way the die-hard hardwood people look at it.

just my 2
jay

 

[defield]

WIL,

Like yourself, I have burned wood for many years in fireplaces, Franklin stoves, airtight stoves, and a wood boiler.

It took me many hours of reading and listening before I was convinced to try softwood pellets.

The ash does look different. I like your description. My description ( not a good one) would be that the ash is like very very tiny puff balls that are almost weightless.

No build up in the burn pot at all.

Burning LG Granules.

Ranger

 

[wil lanfear]

Wil,

It took the pellet shortage in the late 90"s for me to try the softwoods(that was all I could find locally). I was a wood burner and had the hardwood is best in the brain too! But since I try to get the best pellet for the least amount of cash.

As long as it is a quality pellet. Who cares if its softwood or hardwood. They both burn great.

Lately the softwoods have the least issues with quality. The lack of good fiber has some hardwood pellet makers struggling to make a quality pellets.

But I guess it will take some time to change the way the die-hard hardwood people look at it.

just my 2
jay

I agree, it doesn't matter if its hardwood or softwood, as long as they burn great. I would like to support the local pellet mill but.......... if the pellets I'm burning this year are less expensive than the local pellet mill, I cannot justify paying $25.00 more per ton even if they are giving 2-300 more BTU's per pound. The reality is that, if I'm happy with the way that both pellets burn, it would take maybe 1.5-2 bags of additional pellets to equal the BTU's/ton of the higher BTU pellets.

 

[jtakeman]

Wil,

It took the pellet shortage in the late 90"s for me to try the softwoods(that was all I could find locally). I was a wood burner and had the hardwood is best in the brain too! But since I try to get the best pellet for the least amount of cash.

As long as it is a quality pellet. Who cares if its softwood or hardwood. They both burn great.

Lately the softwoods have the least issues with quality. The lack of good fiber has some hardwood pellet makers struggling to make a quality pellets.

But I guess it will take some time to change the way the die-hard hardwood people look at it.

just my 2
jay

I agree, it doesn't matter if its hardwood or softwood, as long as they burn great. I would like to support the local pellet mill but.......... if the pellets I'm burning this year are less expensive than the local pellet mill, I cannot justify paying $25.00 more per ton even if they are giving 2-300 more BTU's per pound. The reality is that, if I'm happy with the way that both pellets burn, it would take maybe 1.5-2 bags of additional pellets to equal the BTU's/ton of the higher BTU pellets.

Lets see $25x12=$300 yes, I can see why you went that way. That's a free ton plus for you. I would have done the same too!

 

[Havlat24]

Wil,

It took the pellet shortage in the late 90"s for me to try the softwoods(that was all I could find locally). I was a wood burner and had the hardwood is best in the brain too! But since I try to get the best pellet for the least amount of cash.

As long as it is a quality pellet. Who cares if its softwood or hardwood. They both burn great.

Lately the softwoods have the least issues with quality. The lack of good fiber has some hardwood pellet makers struggling to make a quality pellets.

But I guess it will take some time to change the way the die-hard hardwood people look at it.

just my 2
jay

This is especially true this year. The recession has really taken a toll on many pellet mills this year. Even some of the best brands in years past have had to totally adjust their production since they just haven't been able to get enough fiber from their regular sources that they have had to go farther and wider to obtain enough. This cause real problems to get a consistant product out the door. This is why you are seeing alot more comments on here about such and such product not seeming to be as good as remembered...Well it's probably not this year.
Too many of the regular suppliers are either shut down or operating at reduced capacity. This will really cause headaches for the mill and why customers will not be happy with some of the product coming out this season.

We are extremely lucky in that we have a very consistant and plentiful supply from just two mills that are very close to each other and produce the same fiber for our products. That produces a very even quality pellet, bag after bag, after bag. Since the fiber comes from planner shavings, there is NO bark whatsoever, and the product is kiln dried to start with. The raw fiber is so clean, bright and fluffy, it’s a total pleasure to work with and one of the reasons these pellets are a cut above...

Even if you have bought ALL your 2009-2010 season pellet supply in whatever brand, do yourself a big favor and when you see some of this product available in your travels in the next few weeks...pickup a few bags to just try ...you will certainly see a difference and I bet some of you will want to use them NEXT year..

My objective here is very simple...I want you using our pellets in some manner, either this season or in the future. If I can get you to burn just a bag or two, you will see the improved quality that some of you are looking for, but have not found up to now.

Are you guys milling one species in particular?? Or just Douglas Fir??

I used to burn Pinnacle when I lived in Northern Ontario... they were really good pellets. There used to be a small pellet mill called Lakewood Industries about 60kms from where I lived... I switched to them because they were 180/ton.... It was a tossup, both burned pretty good. Both used Planer Shavings as their primary material.

Planer Shavings are good.... I do not know what the desired moisture content of a pellet is for us end users... but the kiln/planer I operate targets 17-19% MC for SPF lumber. I think pellets should be under 7%???

Interesting enough I work across the street from the producers of Spruce Pointe Pellets. They do not use Planer Shavings...they use a rotary drum drier to dry the green sawdust from their sawmilling process. Their planer shavings are used for horse bedding, and some other oil filed spill cleanup kinda product.

 

[imacman]

...... I was a wood burner and had the hardwood is best in the brain too! But since I try to get the best pellet for the least amount of cash. As long as it is a quality pellet. Who cares if its softwood or hardwood. They both burn great........

I agree. I was the "hardwood is best" wood burner for years, and only due to the creosote issues with softwood. That not being the case with pellets, I have finally "come around " on burning either/both.

 

[BIGISLANDHIKERS]

The main dif is cord wood is based on dimension of a cord and pellets is based on weight. 40 lbs of cotton is basically the same amount of material as 40 lbs of iron.

BIH

 

[Havlat24]

Are you guys milling one species in particular?? Or just Douglas Fir??

I used to burn Pinnacle when I lived in Northern Ontario... they were really good pellets. There used to be a small pellet mill called Lakewood Industries about 60kms from where I lived... I switched to them because they were 180/ton.... It was a tossup, both burned pretty good. Both used Planer Shavings as their primary material.

Planer Shavings are good.... I do not know what the desired moisture content of a pellet is for us end users... but the kiln/planer I operate targets 17-19% MC for SPF lumber. I think pellets should be under 7%???

Interesting enough I work across the street from the producers of Spruce Pointe Pellets. They do not use Planer Shavings...they use a rotary drum drier to dry the green sawdust from their saw milling process. Their planer shavings are used for horse bedding, and some other oil filed spill cleanup kinda product.

This actually brings up a good point and one that doesn't get too much attention here. Since the vast majority of people on this forum are in NE, we tend to only talk about this region as to needs. Out west, a Douglas Fir pellet is considered to be "the" pellet to use, but because of frieght costs, you rarely if ever see it offered in the North East.

The Pinnacle/Okanagan pellets are a SPF product and is typically dried to about 4% ... Planner shavings or drum dried will both product a good product as long as you are starting with a good fiber to start with.. I think that Spruce Pointe makes a fine pellet.

Has Pinnacle developed any sort of initiative for turning beetle killed lodgepole pine into pellets?? I believe Pinnacle currently trades round logs for shavings to make pellets.... Imagine as time goes by, those beetle killed tree's won't even be worth milling.... Just hog them up and turn them into pellets??

 

[GVA]

Love the signature BTU
Pretty pellets huh.... :lol:

 

[GVA]

Wow they're smokin'......... :cheese:
LOL

 

[Stentor]

LOL, BTU's pictures seem faintly illegal. These are definitely wood stove pellets, right? :coolsmile:

 

[jtakeman]

White Oak 8810 BTU/pound
Yellow Pine 9610 BTU/pound
guess u didnt reads that post. depends on price of pellets to me. i thinx pellet burn has a lot to do with combustion air factors [himidity,temp,wind direction] not excluding how much excess air goes thru the stove maybe just to keep the glass clean. & if pellets get too high i'll burn coal in my pstove, books [non technical] corn

Pook,

Did you find anything on Dug Fur and Spruce.

jay

 

[jtakeman]

White Oak 8810 BTU/pound
Yellow Pine 9610 BTU/pound
guess u didnt reads that post. depends on price of pellets to me. i thinx pellet burn has a lot to do with combustion air factors [himidity,temp,wind direction] not excluding how much excess air goes thru the stove maybe just to keep the glass clean. & if pellets get too high i'll burn coal in my pstove, books [non technical] corn

Pook,

Did you find anything on Dug Fur and Spruce.

jay

The hottest product I know of is Douglas Fir at about 8800-9100 BTU's and .25-.35% ash.

I THINX U MENTIONED OAK PREVIOUSLY & NOW URE ONTO SODTWOOD & I AGREE THAT SWOOD HAS MORE BTU THAN HWOOD BUT MY FIRST ASSERTION WAS THAT PINE PELLETS HAD THE MOST BTU DUE TO RESIN CONTENT.

Oh boy, Now we got pook yelling at use. BTU was answering my Q about Douglas fir and spruce is all.

jay

 

[rona]

comparing corn to coal seems like a stretch to me. about the same as saying 9600 btus for pellets.
Starting to sound like a bunch of politicians.

 

[Havlat24]

All these BTU ratings are subjective, and contain to many variables in my opinion. The lack of real world test results, and accountability to what the producer actually puts on the bag makes me refrain from really commenting one way or the other whether product a is better than product b... . You have to burn it and if you dont get the results your looking for ...TFB

Producer puts a BTU rating on the bag..... if a customer complains they dont burn hot enough.... stove setup...stove maintenance...OAK...pellet storage.... etc gets blamed.


I would expect an associate who makes his living selling one particular brand of pellets would be somewhat biased... Kinda like me saying Alberta Plywood is the worlds best SPF plywood..... I would know... I make it!!


Whether or not Douglas Fir burns "hotter" then pine is a broad claim, we would need to know the specifics...

IE: Both pellets at the same moisture content...density.... (beetle kill wood...) etc.

However Douglas Fir has a Specific Gravity of 0.50, compared to 0.39-0.40 of most Spruce/Pine species. Which is denser...which means burns hotter.... in log form anyways..

 

[BJN644]

I might as well throw my 2 cents in,
I know this is a firewood chart but according to the chart white oak, and a lot of other hardwood has more btu's than douglas fir.

(broken link removed to http://www.chimneysweeponline.com/howood.htm)

 

[jtakeman]

Perfect example of why people think that hardwoods are better. This is a CORD WOOD chart and if I was selling that, this would be a great sales tool. But we are talking PELLETS and when you make a pellet, compressing it to a certain density pretty much equals the playing field. Please someone...anyone show me a pellet that burns hotter than Douglas Fir ...there might be one out there that I'm not aware of.

Showing someone a chart like this to compare pellets is giving out misinformation. Show me a hedge, hickory or ironwood pellet that is made commerically so I can get some species on it.

BTU,

The pellet manufactors used to post the rated BTUs on there sites. lately I see very little BTU rated by them.

Check this old review.

(broken link removed to http://woodpelletreview.blogspot.com/2008/12/energex.html)

I would say over rated at 9000 BTUs.

jay

 

[Havlat24]

All these BTU ratings are subjective, and contain to many variables in my opinion. The lack of real world test results, and accountability to what the producer actually puts on the bag makes me refrain from really commenting one way or the other whether product a is better than product b... . You have to burn it and if you dont get the results your looking for ...TFB

Producer puts a BTU rating on the bag..... if a customer complains they dont burn hot enough.... stove setup...stove maintenance...OAK...pellet storage.... etc gets blamed.


I would expect an associate who makes his living selling one particular brand of pellets would be somewhat biased... Kinda like me saying Alberta Plywood is the worlds best SPF plywood..... I would know... I make it!!


Whether or not Douglas Fir burns "hotter" then pine is a broad claim, we would need to know the specifics...

IE: Both pellets at the same moisture content...density.... (beetle kill wood...) etc.

Here are my real world tests...hundreds of thousands of tons of these pellets sold over several years, not only in North America, but Europe and Asia, constantly being tested by outside third parties...but since you have stated that you really only use one brand of pellet, I guess that really doesn't make you the best judge of what is good or isn't. Since in the course of my work, I talk to dozens of dealers weekly, on both coasts, you get a pretty good feel for what is good and what isn't.

It's not a case of one or two people burning pellet A or B and not getting the results they feel they should, but many people basically all saying the same thing...Pellet A is very good, pellet B seems to be junk

I have stated many times I am bias, and make no bones about it. I also have an agenda... I want to sell more of these pellets to more people at more dealers...I don't hide that fact..

Obviously you have no idea what yo are talking about when it comes to comparing a Douglas Fir pellet to anything else made into a pellet ...If you ever burned them, you would not make such a comment..

I have no idea if you make the best plywood in the world or not...and if I needed to know that, I would go to a plywood forum, not a pellet blog. Having been in the wholesale lumber business for 20+ year, you don't have to convince me how good SPF is...I sold millions of board ft over the years....but that isn't what we are talking about here

Check your facts as your specifics are wacky...and for the record, beetle kill wood has no bearing on how well a pellet burns. That only applies to how the tree was killed.....

Your right, I know little about pellets. I do have a university degree in wood science though... I dry millions of board feet of lumber a year, and produce millions of feet of Plywood. Specific Gravity and wood density does effect BTU.... wacky perception or not. Your arugment makes no sense, you say that compressing douglas fir sawdust/shavings nullifies the density/btu advantage over hardwood because both pellets can be compressed equally. That statement alone contradicts itself. All things equal, a hardwood pellet with greater density in solid wood form, compressed to the same compression as a douglas fir pellet, would burn hotter.

If I compressed a SPF pellet to a greater than or equal to your Douglas Fir pellet, then I could say SPF pellets burn hotter than Douglas Fir...see what I am saying?

I dont mind your bias.

 

[BJN644]

All these BTU ratings are subjective, and contain to many variables in my opinion. The lack of real world test results, and accountability to what the producer actually puts on the bag makes me refrain from really commenting one way or the other whether product a is better than product b... . You have to burn it and if you dont get the results your looking for ...TFB

Producer puts a BTU rating on the bag..... if a customer complains they dont burn hot enough.... stove setup...stove maintenance...OAK...pellet storage.... etc gets blamed.


I would expect an associate who makes his living selling one particular brand of pellets would be somewhat biased... Kinda like me saying Alberta Plywood is the worlds best SPF plywood..... I would know... I make it!!


Whether or not Douglas Fir burns "hotter" then pine is a broad claim, we would need to know the specifics...

IE: Both pellets at the same moisture content...density.... (beetle kill wood...) etc.

Here are my real world tests...hundreds of thousands of tons of these pellets sold over several years, not only in North America, but Europe and Asia, constantly being tested by outside third parties...but since you have stated that you really only use one brand of pellet, I guess that really doesn't make you the best judge of what is good or isn't. Since in the course of my work, I talk to dozens of dealers weekly, on both coasts, you get a pretty good feel for what is good and what isn't.

It's not a case of one or two people burning pellet A or B and not getting the results they feel they should, but many people basically all saying the same thing...Pellet A is very good, pellet B seems to be junk

I have stated many times I am bias, and make no bones about it. I also have an agenda... I want to sell more of these pellets to more people at more dealers...I don't hide that fact..

Obviously you have no idea what yo are talking about when it comes to comparing a Douglas Fir pellet to anything else made into a pellet ...If you ever burned them, you would not make such a comment..

I have no idea if you make the best plywood in the world or not...and if I needed to know that, I would go to a plywood forum, not a pellet blog. Having been in the wholesale lumber business for 20+ year, you don't have to convince me how good SPF is...I sold millions of board ft over the years....but that isn't what we are talking about here

Check your facts as your specifics are wacky...and for the record, beetle kill wood has no bearing on how well a pellet burns. That only applies to how the tree was killed.....

Your right, I know little about pellets. I do have a university degree in wood science though... I dry millions of board feet of lumber a year, and produce millions of feet of Plywood. Specific Gravity and wood density does effect BTU.... wacky perception or not. Your arugment makes no sense, you say that compressing douglas fir sawdust/shavings nullifies the density/btu advantage over hardwood because both pellets can be compressed equally. That statement alone contradicts itself. All things equal, a hardwood pellet with greater density in solid wood form, compressed to the same compression as a douglas fir pellet, would burn hotter.

If I compressed a SPF pellet to a greater than or equal to your Douglas Fir pellet, then I could say SPF pellets burn hotter than Douglas Fir...see what I am saying?

I dont mind your bias.

That's what I was going to say, but I think you said it better.

 

[Bkins]

I am trying to understand this. I would agree with the stated BTU ratings on logs of solid wood. They did not test BTU ratings using saw dust which is what we are really talking about--compressed sawdust. To me hardwood becomes a less dense product once it is in sawdust, or planer shaving form. What effect does the change from solid wood form to saw dust have on the BTU rating?? My business is not dealing with wood in any way, shape or form but it would make sense to me that when you change the physical properties of a item it may change the burning rate/heat output. Once the properties have been changed wouldn't it tend to mostly equal the playing field once these wood products were compressed using the same amount of compression.

Or am I missing something where the BTU rating of a particular wood is the same no matter wether its physical properties have been changed?

Bkins

 

[mascoma]

For a world wide pellet distribution king Mr BTU spends a lot of time on this forum trying to convince the few hundred end users here his product is the most amazing pellet ever. He often asks for others to show their 3rd party testing results for a product they burn not sell, but I seem to have missed where/when he has provided his 3rd party results he sites for his product.

 

[Havlat24]

I am trying to understand this. I would agree with the stated BTU ratings on logs of solid wood. They did not test BTU ratings using saw dust which is what we are really talking about--compressed sawdust. To me hardwood becomes a less dense product once it is in sawdust, or planer shaving form. What effect does the change from solid wood form to saw dust have on the BTU rating?? My business is not dealing with wood in any way, shape or form but it would make sense to me that when you change the physical properties of a item it may change the burning rate/heat output. Once the properties have been changed wouldn't it tend to mostly equal the playing field once these wood products were compressed using the same amount of compression.

Or am I missing something where the BTU rating of a particular wood is the same no matter wether its physical properties have been changed?

Bkins

The problem is..the argument goes both ways.....if hardwood fibre loses density/BTU when turned into sawdust...... then so should softwood..... Softwood would not be immune to density/btu loss when in sawdust form??

 

[Havlat24]

I am trying to understand this. I would agree with the stated BTU ratings on logs of solid wood. They did not test BTU ratings using saw dust which is what we are really talking about--compressed sawdust. To me hardwood becomes a less dense product once it is in sawdust, or planer shaving form. What effect does the change from solid wood form to saw dust have on the BTU rating?? My business is not dealing with wood in any way, shape or form but it would make sense to me that when you change the physical properties of a item it may change the burning rate/heat output. Once the properties have been changed wouldn't it tend to mostly equal the playing field once these wood products were compressed using the same amount of compression.

Or am I missing something where the BTU rating of a particular wood is the same no matter wether its physical properties have been changed?

Bkins

The problem is..the argument goes both ways.....if hardwood fibre loses density/BTU when turned into sawdust...... then so should softwood..... Softwood would not be immune to density/btu loss when in sawdust form??

why dont u respond to me mr. engineer? ure dancing around the science it seems!

what do you want me to respond to??? your google searched species/btu chart? Or your comment on Pine burning hotter due to resin content?

 

[Havlat24]

I am trying to understand this. I would agree with the stated BTU ratings on logs of solid wood. They did not test BTU ratings using saw dust which is what we are really talking about--compressed sawdust. To me hardwood becomes a less dense product once it is in sawdust, or planer shaving form. What effect does the change from solid wood form to saw dust have on the BTU rating?? My business is not dealing with wood in any way, shape or form but it would make sense to me that when you change the physical properties of a item it may change the burning rate/heat output. Once the properties have been changed wouldn't it tend to mostly equal the playing field once these wood products were compressed using the same amount of compression.

Or am I missing something where the BTU rating of a particular wood is the same no matter wether its physical properties have been changed?

Bkins

The problem is..the argument goes both ways.....if hardwood fibre loses density/BTU when turned into sawdust...... then so should softwood..... Softwood would not be immune to density/btu loss when in sawdust form??

why dont u respond to me mr. engineer? ure dancing around the science it seems!

what do you want me to respond to??? your google searched species/btu chart? Or your comment on Pine burning hotter due to resin content?

respond to the figures on the gov. site & do the math as necessary. if u cant figure it out refer to my prior posts or look at my new post "pellet btu 101"

No one is going to make pellets out of ponderosa pine...and if they did....we couldnt afford them.