Pellet Testing

[begreen]

The Alliance for Green Heat just tested several pellet from different companies. The results showed little difference other than color except for the corn product. They are interested in feedback on the usefulness and need for more testing like this.
http://forgreenheat.blogspot.com/2016/01/review-of-wood-pellets-for-btu-moisture_11.html

 

[Lake Girl]

I think John posted a notice about that back at the start of the year. Some manufacturers used to do their own testing and post the twin ports lab results on their webpage. Haven't looked in a while to see if that is still the practice...

Edit: Doesn't seem like many post their test results as they used to but there is always Jay Takeman's informal test lab results
https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/2010-pellet-review-its-that-time-again.54880/#694224

Found this one... (broken link removed to http://www.woodpelletreviews.com/platinum-fire-pellets.html)
Somerset doesn't post it ... just mentions it.
Indecks ... mention but no posting.

 

[purplereign]

Seriously? You may be able to make a broad-based comparison of say wood vs. corn, but even that would be suspect. Without a range of data and suitable number of samples, this snapshot tells you absolutely nothing, period. Would you judge the success of your corn harvest based on the corn on one cob from the middle of the field? Sure, some manufacturer's like to give you their "test results" , which may just be THE best test result they have had in the last 5 years - not worthy of kudos for publishing their test results, in my mind.

 

[Mt Bob]

As it was
almost a year ago they are probably looking for feedback.I just tried,and the chapcha box pops up in front of the question,which is maybe why they have almost no feedback.

 

[Lake Girl]

purplereign, I would suggest that even minimal amounts of testing are better than buying pellets by hit or miss. The PFI mark on the pellet bags doesn't include the BTU average so it is of minimal value. If manufacturers were required to include that info along with the current standard info, I would be happy even if it came from "best test" from the year.

Suggestions for what you would find of value?

 

[purplereign]

purplereign, I would suggest that even minimal amounts of testing are better than buying pellets by hit or miss. The PFI mark on the pellet bags doesn't include the BTU average so it is of minimal value. If manufacturers were required to include that info along with the current standard info, I would be happy even if it came from "best test" from the year.

Suggestions for what you would find of value?

It would be nice if everyone were able to provide a statistical record of their testing, but that isn't going to happen. One of the better tools available now is to see if the mill in question is participating in the PFI Standards Program. Although many here have consistently been of the opinion that PFI Certification means nothing, that is no longer necessarily the case. To participate, a mill has to prove that they have a rigorous quality program in place, tracking everything from raw material through finished product, very similar to an ISO program. The mill will be subjected to regular audits from a third party that tests adherence to the program and takes random product samples for testing. Once the mill has passed the certification process, they are allowed to display a PFI Graded Fuel Quality Mark, which will contain the mill's unique Registration # , Grade Requirements, and a Manufacturer's Guaranteed Analysis. Any other version of "PFI Certified" can now be considered fraudulent. The Quality Mark contains information derived from testing over an extended period of time, and is proof that a robust system is in place to insure that pellets so marked meet or exceed those properties. A certified mill that begins to fail any of these standards can lose the right to display the Quality Mark.

As far as ash content, the standard for premium fuel is less than or equal to 1%. There is no longer such a thing as a recognized super premium grade. Minimum Higher Heating Values (BTU/lb)are in fact displayed on the mark, and these values are considered to be in an "as received" moisture content ( not from a "moisture-free state" that many have used in order to show an artificially high BTU value on their bag).

The program isn't cheap, but some manufacturer's have found it worthwhile in order to provide the best information on the quality of the pellets within that has ever been available to the consumer.