pine for fire wood?

[220 maple]

We quit using pine many years ago, soot built up on the bottom of pan works as a heat blocker, yea we could use a brush to clean! When we do throw a couple sticks of pine in it is mainly for video purposes, nothing like a big plume of black smoke hanging above the sugar camp, looks like Cass Railroad taking tourist up the mountain to Bald Knob! plus it gives me the feeling that I'm doing my part creating climate change. Lol.
Mark 220 Maple

[Jolly Acres Farm]

After wind storms we had a lot of pine down, so we cut and burned it. It burned hot and fast after it was seasoned, requiring a much faster firing time. The down side was even 2 or 3 year seasoned pine, it still soothed the bottom of the pan some. Now we mix it with Popular and hardwood without much problem with sooting.

[Ghs57]

This year I'm burning pine flitches with poplar and sycamore. None of it burns long, but it gives plenty of heat. It's all garbage wood otherwise.

[Daveg]

on a per-ton basis, pine has more btus than many hardwoods. on a per-cord basis, not so much.

Here in the Northeast, our top trees for BTU's per ton/per cord are Osage Orange, Hop Hornbeam (Ironwood), Hickory, Sugar Maple, Locust, Black Birch, Beech, Apple, Oak. Using anything else is like driving near Lake Ontario in the winter without snow tires: you'll get there eventually, but have a lot less fun doing it.

[bowtie]

It should be against the law to burn sugar maple and apple.lol sucks that three of the hottest burning trees,are ones I will not cut unless damaged, Oak,apple and sugar maple. I try not to cut any tree that is beneficial to wildlife on my property, any mast, soft or hard, maple,birch. Doesn't leave a lot left but I wage war on ash trees, they are going the way of the chestnut around here anyway.

[ToddyKioti]

Pine has treated us fairly well over the past couple of years. The wood is cheap (if not fee) and burns hot! The downfall that we experience is that it burns so fast, your firing time is very frequent and there will be no coal base. Like all wood, it needs to be dry. We ended up with some so called "dry pine" this past week, that turned out to be wet, wet, wet. The amount of sap that "bubbled" out of the wood was our only amusement, as the boil rate was slow.

Like the others have said, I think a mix of hard and soft wood at hand is best. It allows you to control your fire to get the results you want.

[wally]

Here in the Northeast, our top trees for BTU's per ton/per cord are Osage Orange, Hop Hornbeam (Ironwood), Hickory, Sugar Maple, Locust, Black Birch, Beech, Apple, Oak. Using anything else is like driving near Lake Ontario in the winter without snow tires: you'll get there eventually, but have a lot less fun doing it.

you might want to check your sources on that. on a per TON basis, white pine generally has more BTUs available than most (all) northeastern hardwoods. on a per CORD basis, the hardwoods have more BTUs available.

i live in the northeast, and have for virtually my entire life. i've been heating with wood for more than 40 years. we use hardwood for home-heating because it takes up less space per BTU produced, and it burns longer "per piece". but from a pure weight basis, pine will produce more heat per ton (it takes a lot more pieces of pine to reach a ton vs hardwoods).

all are assumed to be dried/seasoned for at least 1.5 years, not green wood.

[bigschuss]

you might want to check your sources on that. on a per TON basis, white pine generally has more BTUs available than most (all) northeastern hardwoods. on a per CORD basis, the hardwoods have more BTUs available.

i live in the northeast, and have for virtually my entire life. i've been heating with wood for more than 40 years. we use hardwood for home-heating because it takes up less space per BTU produced, and it burns longer "per piece". but from a pure weight basis, pine will produce more heat per ton (it takes a lot more pieces of pine to reach a ton vs hardwoods).

all are assumed to be dried/seasoned for at least 1.5 years, not green wood.

I saw you post that earlier in the thread and was skeptical. You posted it again and I wanted to learn something. Figured it was a good opportunity to learn something I didn't know....that is, pine per ton, produces more BTU's than hardwoods. I consulted a firewood BTU chart easily found online and did some quick calculations, and could not corroborate what you are suggesting. Per ton, for example, pine comes nowhere close to Osage Orange. That one is fairly easy to see even without a calculator. I then did Northern Red Oak on a BTU/ton basis and Oak still outperformed white pine. Maybe pine outperforms some northern hardwoods species? But I do not see that this is as universal. And I'm guessing that even if pine does outperform some hardwoods on a per ton basis, that significance is minimal, and probably not worth the extra space and time is takes to burn pine and gain that advantage.

Haven''t been burning firewood as long as you. Maybe 20 years. I do all of my own logging and process about 10 cords a year for my home and the sugar house...hardwoods, pine, spruce, for. I had never heard what you were suggesting before and wanted to check it out.

[Daveg]

You're right. My error and apologies. White Pine 6729.41 BTU/lb.
Sugar Maple 6203.28
Ironwood 6211.76
White Ash 6197.99

From Sweep's Library of Firewood

[wally]

I saw you post that earlier in the thread and was skeptical. You posted it again and I wanted to learn something. Figured it was a good opportunity to learn something I didn't know....that is, pine per ton, produces more BTU's than hardwoods. I consulted a firewood BTU chart easily found online and did some quick calculations, and could not corroborate what you are suggesting. Per ton, for example, pine comes nowhere close to Osage Orange. That one is fairly easy to see even without a calculator. I then did Northern Red Oak on a BTU/ton basis and Oak still outperformed white pine. Maybe pine outperforms some northern hardwoods species? But I do not see that this is as universal. And I'm guessing that even if pine does outperform some hardwoods on a per ton basis, that significance is minimal, and probably not worth the extra space and time is takes to burn pine and gain that advantage.

Haven''t been burning firewood as long as you. Maybe 20 years. I do all of my own logging and process about 10 cords a year for my home and the sugar house...hardwoods, pine, spruce, for. I had never heard what you were suggesting before and wanted to check it out.

sorry that you didn't feel you learned anything. it is a very common misconception that hardwoods have more BTUs per ton than softwoods, but they do not. most resin-containing woods have higher BTU/ton values than most hardwoods. it isn't conjecture; it is verifiable fact.

osage orange is not a common northeastern species.