Fast Firewood

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> I burned wood from a 1993 ice storm for about 6 years, without touching
> a single tree of my own. Also, if you let locals know you'll take down
> (easy) trees in exchange for the wood, you can cut all day, every day
> if you want.
>

Holy Cow Dave! 6 years on a wood pile? Where the hell did you stack this
wood to protect it well enough to last 6 years? That's some longevity for a
pile of firewood.

I do agree with what I snipped from your post though. There's a ton of wood
out there to be had for free. Storm damage, deadfall (10 acres of woods
will provide enough deadfall to provide most homes with casual use firewood
every year), and best of all - follow the loggers around. Most aren't
bothering with firewood much anymore because the market isn't big enough
anymore to warrant the effort. Landowners don't like the tops just left out
in the woods the way loggers like to do and they'll often gladly let you
clean up the mess. Free firewood - don't get much better than that unless
you can actually get someone else to put it up for you.
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

In article <[email protected]>, Doug Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Bottom line: the OP is not thinking realistically. *No* tree that he plants
> is
> going to grow to firewood size in a short time like he wants.

Some of these might work, but I have no idea how they burn...

<http://www.jmbamboo.com/giants.htm>

djb

--
"The thing about saying the wrong words is that A, I don't notice it, and B,
sometimes orange water gibbon bucket and plastic." -- Mr. Burrows

"SteveW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good quality
> firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to me. Does
> anyone have any recommendations?

Depends on where you live. Around here (Pacific Northwest) Alder
and Bigleaf Maple grow relatively quickly. Birch is wonderful for
firewood and Poplar is the nastiest wood I've ever split.
Brian, in Cedar

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Yeahbut in his woods, even with a well thinned woods, the trees are still
> competing for nutrients and for sunlight.

Exactly, that too. I was under the impression that the OP would possibly
grow trees for firewood and would probably put some effort into planting
correctly. Using a setting like Dave mentioned was not a good example of
how fast an Ash tree would grow for this purpose.

Lawn trees don't face this trial.
> Trees in the woods tend to grow taller as they search for the sun.

I have a 5 year old Live Oak in my back yard with a trunk that is 5" in
diameter. The tree came up naturally in a crowded spot. Crowded by a
fence, shrubs, and 12' tall bushes on the other side of the fence. Plus
the Live Oak is coming up under an old Mulberry tree. Since it came up from
a seed 5 years ago it grew straight up. Last fall I took the Mulberry tree
out so that the Live oak can begin spreading out. The lowest limb is about
10' from the ground and the tree stands about 20 tall.

The other responses are pretty much right on, you're not going to get
any usefull firewood in less than 20-30 years. If you are considering
poplar, just save your newspapers and burn them, about the same thing.
I live in the south and trees grow fast but I wouldn't even consider
trying to grow my own firewood. Most National Forest sell firewood
permits, 2 cords for $20, but of course you have to cut and haul. The
only species I can think of that might come close are Green Ash and Red
Maple. Chinese Tallow is considered an invasive species.

Fred

SteveW wrote:
> I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good quality
> firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to me.
Does
> anyone have any recommendations?
>

Black locust grows fast and is reputed to burn quite hot.

--

FF

Steven and Gail Peterson wrote:
> Yes, but the wood has very high silica content and will dull a saw
chain
> quickly. Just a nuisance.
>
> Steve
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > SteveW wrote:
> >> I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good
quality
> >> firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to
me.
> > Does
> >> anyone have any recommendations?
> >>
> >
> > Black locust grows fast and is reputed to burn quite hot.
> >

If you cut it when its green it cuts pretty easy--most woods
do. Locust gets pretty hard as it cures.

--

FF

Leon wrote:
> "Will" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > My old partner was a professional forester. Got him out to look at
the
> > "huge cedars" in my front yard - in a small burb just outside
Vancouver.
> > Had to hold him up - - he was laughing so hard about "saplings".
They were
> > only 30" across and about 90 feet high. Every time he came over
after that
> > he started giggling and smirking when he saw the trees. This was
when I
> > had just moved out there... :-)
>
> Are you saying that your trees are about 36 times as tall as they are
wide?

Sounds about right. There is (or was) a stand of white pines in New
Hampshire called the B-something (bradford?) pines. Planted around
the time of the American Revolution I saw them when they were about
200 years old, they were approaching 200 feet tall and were about three
or four feet in diameter at shoulder height.

>
> >
> > He used to harvest old growth on Vancouver Island and the coast. He
said
> > most of the trees were 20 to 40 feet across near the base when he
started
> > cutting.
>
> If these trees were proportionally as tall to width as your trees
some would
> be over a quarter of a mile high. Those are some trees..
>

They won't be. But I agree that would look way cool. To support
the weight of the tree the cross-section of the trunk has to
grow proportionate to the weight supported above that section,
which is proprotionate to the volume of wood above. Thus trees
become more squat in form as they grow tall and branch out in
the canopy.

Also the maximum height of any given species is limited by ambient
air presssure and humidity. But there is no physical limit on the
girth of a tree. 'Mature' trees have reached their maximum height
but continue to grow in girth. That's why I put 'mature' in quotes,
a tree grows continuously until it dies. Indeed, trees are solar
poswered, the more leaf/needle area a tree has the faster it grows.
The giant Sequoias are among the world's fastest growing organisms,
though the change from one year to the next is hardly noticeable
since the trees are already so big that a few more tons of wood
doesn't change the appearance much.

Also, at the risk of starting a flame-war I take exception to the
use of the term 'harvest' in reference to cutting old-growth.
'Harvest' is appropriate only in regards to what one has planted.
E.g. You reap what you have sown.

--

FF

P van Rijckevorsel wrote:
> Yes, if you assume all that then it is likely to work.
>
> Biggest assumption (besides having OP move out west and learning a
thing or
> two about forests) of course is that OP wants firewood to warm his
house and
> not for some other purpose, such as to bake pottery, generate his own
> electricity, etc.
>
> Not all that many people will want to move out west just to warm
their house
> ;-)

But as Mr Cawthorn points out in a wetter climate less land would be
needed so OP can stay out East, assuming he is out East to begin with.
If he's starting with open land instead of wooded land he can grow
black locust and have fencepost diameter trees in about ten years.
Black locust grows very fast, burns hot, reseeds itself like crazy
and bees feeding on locust blossoms make great honey.

There are also exotics like blue catalpa that grow extremely fast
in places like Georgia (where AC is more of an issue than heat).
Though they are very low density, as some have pointed out, that
just means burning more of it for the same amount of energy.

--

FF

P van Rijckevorsel wrote:
> <[email protected]> schreef in
> > But as Mr Cawthorn points out in a wetter climate less land would
be
> needed so OP can stay out East, assuming he is out East to begin
with.
> If he's starting with open land instead of wooded land he can grow
> black locust and have fencepost diameter trees in about ten years.
> Black locust grows very fast, burns hot, reseeds itself like crazy
> and bees feeding on locust blossoms make great honey.
>
> ***
> Yes, but not many people would be willing to do that for just
firewood and
> fenceposts. You'd really want a tree species that would eventually
yield
> timber, which is not all that likely with black locust:
>
http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/robpse/management_considerati
> ons.html

Black locust currently grows far and wide outside of its original
range precisely becuase of it's utility for fence posts. So it
was worth doing for a fair number of people. If its being grown
for firewood and fenceposts you won't let it get big enough
for lumber anyhow.

If you want lumber, then you'd grow a species good for lumber.
While there may be a tree of two suitable for all three purposes
you'd grow 'em differently so why not grow different trees for
different purposes anyhow?


> * * *
>
> > There are also exotics like blue catalpa that grow extremely fast
> in places like Georgia (where AC is more of an issue than heat).
> Though they are very low density, as some have pointed out, that
> just means burning more of it for the same amount of energy.
>
> ***
> If the stories about prices for Paulownia wood are anything like true
then
> that would be worth thinking about. However it is also regarded as a
pest,
> to be combatted.
> http://www.invasive.org/eastern/srs/P_RP.html
> http://www.se-eppc.org/manual/princess.html

Odd, I remember reading that it germinates poorly but regrows well
from stump sprouts. Not according to those sources though. Other
catalpas grow like weeds too.

--

FF

P van Rijckevorsel wrote:
>
>
> ***
> Now I am curious. What is the difference between growing a tree for a
fence
> post from growing it for lumber? Except for the time of cutting? I'd
imagine
> lots of trees grown for lumber are thinned with the yield going to
fence
> posts.
> * * *

I'd think that very few trees grown for lumber are thinned to make
fence post material becuas most lumber is not durable and would make
poor fencepost material unless pressure treated and that is a
commercial endeavor, not something one would do one a homestead.

If you want fence posts you cut it when the trunk is about the right
diameter for fence posts. If you let it grow larger, it will shade
out the smaller trees so you run out of fencepost material.

Of course you can let the grove expand or only cut your fence post
material from the edge of the grove while letting the trees in the
middle grow big for lumber but instead of doing that, why not just
grow different trees for lumber and have good lumber and good fence
posts instead of one or both being a compromise?

--

FF

P van Rijckevorsel wrote:
> ...
> ***
> Well, for both lumber and fenceposts you want straight trunks and no
side
> branches low down. This is achieved by planting the trees pretty
close. And
> "pretty close" is relative to the size of the trees, what is close
for trees
> six foot tall is ridiculous for trees twenty feet tall. So any lumber
stand
> is being thinned a number of times, leaving only the best trees. The
stuff
> of the first / second thinning is not good for anything except fence
posts,
> so why not use them?

Because they'll rot. Unless they are black locust, sassafrass,
osage orange or a handful of other woods that generally are not
used for lumber they won't make good fenceposts.

--

FF

P van Rijckevorsel wrote:
>
>
> I hardly need point out that there is a few thousand years of
experience
> with this. In practice this approach means a quick disappearance of
forests,
> whenever firewood is important enough (expensive enough). It is
customary to
> have stories expounding why forests will last forever, even while
they
> disappear.
>

In defense of humanity over the last hundred years or so
considerable interest has arisen in both silviculture, that
is harvesting wood in a sustainable fashion and also to a
much lesser and more controversial extent in conservation,
that is preserving some wilderness forestland in its wilderness
form, unmanaged by humanity.

Given the time it takes for a tree to grow to the point where it
is economical to convert it to lumber (around 70-80 years for an
eastern hardwood) humanity is in it's infancy in terms of learning
the ropes. But that is a big improvement over the thousands of
years of 'managing' the forest of Italy, Lebanon, Lybia, England,
Easter Island, etc.

I am hopeful that people like our Mr Cawthorn wil make it psosible
to enjoy wood and wood products and to keep and restore large tracts
of true forest to its natural, unmanaged state.

--

FF

Mon, Feb 7, 2005, 5:55pm (EST+5) [email protected] (SteveW)
claims:
I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good quality
firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to me. Does
anyone have any recommendations?

What's your definition of "good quality", and, "short amount of
time"? Depending how you define "short time", you could grow a redwood,
then probably only one would be needed. Or, maybe not.

I've read that where mesquite grows, one acre will provide all the
firewood you need.

But, if you really want to know. Check nurseries. There's lots of
fast growing trees. There's even one type with "berries" that can be
gathered for fuel. And/or check with a local college forestry program.
That's what I'd do. Then i'd ask my mother. Then I'd ask here.



JOAT
Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
- David Fasold

I have a pin oak that I cut down to make room for a pool. It doesn't
burn well at all. On the other hand, my walnut cut offs burn
beautifully.... the most fantastic no hassle burn... But it is too nice
a wood to burn.... use the wood, burn the discards.

Charlie Self wrote:
> SteveW asks:
>
>
>>I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good quality
>>firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to me. Does
>>anyone have any recommendations?
>
>
> Poplar is lousy firewood, whether hybrid, tulip or popple types. The only fast
> growing hardwood I know of that MIGHT make semi-decent firewood in a few years
> is pin oak. I've got a couple pin oaks that have grown at an incredible pace
> for the past 15 years. Another year or two, and they'd make decent firewood. If
> you expect trees to produce anything in much less time than that, you're
> looking at cordwood and pulpwood.
>
> Charlie Self
> "I think we agree, the past is over." George W. Bush

"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>> "Will" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>My old partner was a professional forester. Got him out to look at the
>>>"huge cedars" in my front yard - in a small burb just outside Vancouver.
>>>Had to hold him up - - he was laughing so hard about "saplings". They
>>>were only 30" across and about 90 feet high. Every time he came over
>>>after that he started giggling and smirking when he saw the trees. This
>>>was when I had just moved out there... :-)
>>
>>
>> Are you saying that your trees are about 36 times as tall as they are
>> wide?
>
> No he is not. Cedars have a very tapered stem. As it grow taller it also
> grows much wider. Cedars don't get much above 200 feet, so a 20' diameter
> would be a 1/10 ratio. Chances are you will never see a Western Red Cedar
> with a 20' diameter as a 10' diameter is considered large. I believe one
> the largest was 62' in diameter (on Vancouver Island) but trees of that
> diameter were never common and anything over 15' is often/usually hollow
> at the base.

Well what does 30 inches across and 90 feet tall mean? Seems that equates
to 1/36th. I am familiar with cedars being wide at the bottom but his
description seemed like pencil junipers.

SteveW asks:

>I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good quality
>firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to me. Does
>anyone have any recommendations?

Poplar is lousy firewood, whether hybrid, tulip or popple types. The only fast
growing hardwood I know of that MIGHT make semi-decent firewood in a few years
is pin oak. I've got a couple pin oaks that have grown at an incredible pace
for the past 15 years. Another year or two, and they'd make decent firewood. If
you expect trees to produce anything in much less time than that, you're
looking at cordwood and pulpwood.

Charlie Self
"I think we agree, the past is over." George W. Bush

Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Brian Barnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:0LXNd.318790$6l.98366@pd7tw2no...
>
>>"SteveW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good quality
>>>firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to me.
>
> Does
>
>>>anyone have any recommendations?
>>
>> Depends on where you live. Around here (Pacific Northwest) Alder
>>and Bigleaf Maple grow relatively quickly. Birch is wonderful for
>>firewood and Poplar is the nastiest wood I've ever split.
>> Brian, in Cedar
>>
>>
>
>
> Birch is pretty firewood, but it all depends on what the OP is after - a
> nice fireplace log or a good woodstove log. Birch is pretty much useless in
> the woodstove, but it does produce some nice looking flames.

Not true. I consider it the best of the available woods
(not that much of it available) here for holding a fire.
But in much of the west, the most common native woods burned
are Doug fir and ponderosa pine.

How about taking up woodworking as a hobby. In the beginning you will make
plenty of firewood.

Joe in Denver
my woodworking website:
http://www.the-wildings.com/shop/

"SteveW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good quality
> firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to me. Does
> anyone have any recommendations?
>
> Thanks
>
> Steve
>
>

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 21:44:47 GMT, patrick conroy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "SteveW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good quality
>> firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to me. Does
>> anyone have any recommendations?
>
> What zone do you live in?
> In my current neck'o'the woods - among the fastest growers are Aspen and
> Maple.

Yabbut, time to grow is inversely proportional to value as firewood. It's
all about how much material (not water) goes into the burnable parts.
Faster growth=less weight=less BTU when burned.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:01:23 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>>Hickory Maple, Ash. They grow relatively quickly for hardwood.
>>
> Never heard of a "hickory maple". Presumably there was supposed to be a comma
> in there? :-)

I dunno, but I bet it's pretty but a bitch to work with.

> Anyway... hickory is *not* a particularly fast-growing tree; neither are most
> maple species, and the ones that *do* grow fast make poor firewood; and the
> same is true of ash -- it's "fast growing" only when compared to oaks.

Right. I've got several thousand Ash trees that are now 8 or so years
old (I'd have to check). Nice & straight, but they're only 1-2 inches
in diameter. My kid, or grandkids, will be able to harvest them.

> Bottom line: the OP is not thinking realistically. *No* tree that he plants is
> going to grow to firewood size in a short time like he wants.

Right. For me, the best way to get firewood has been to drive around
with a truck, trailer, friend, and chainsaws, after ice storms. knock-knock
"Hi, I see you have a tree down in your yard/across your driveway/on your
car/etc. Would you like me to remove it, pile the brush by the road/in a
pile, and haul away the firewood in exchange?" Works about half the places
you ask.

I burned wood from a 1993 ice storm for about 6 years, without touching
a single tree of my own. Also, if you let locals know you'll take down
(easy) trees in exchange for the wood, you can cut all day, every day
if you want.

Dave Hinz

SteveW wrote:

> I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good quality
> firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to me. Does
> anyone have any recommendations?

I'd start here. The National Arbor Day Foundation has been experimenting
with stands of fuel wood that they use for heating. Their stands are
sheared off, and re-grow new tops within 6-7 years, but they are chipping
them rather than sectioning and splitting them I think. Not a lot of
detail here, but it's a place to start:

http://www.arborday.org/programs/farmtour/tourdetails/12.html

I'm sure they'd be happy to provide more information if you asked.

(Or not. They never respond to any of my email, and I'm a contributing
member, dammit. Oh well.)

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 19:45:23 GMT, Charles Krug <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> When the phrase "Fast Firewood" came up on the subject line, did anyone
> else think, "Bulldozer, tow chain, house . . ."

Well, "I wish I still had my backhoe", is that close enough?

"SteveW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good quality
> firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to me. Does
> anyone have any recommendations?
>

As others have stated, poplar is not a good choice. AIUI, osage orange (aka
hedge apple, maclura pomifera) has a rapid growth rate and is the best
firewood out there. Whether it gets to be usable firewood in a short
period, versus a collection of twigs and sticks, I dunno.

Jason

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> I burned wood from a 1993 ice storm for about 6 years, without touching
>> a single tree of my own. Also, if you let locals know you'll take down
>> (easy) trees in exchange for the wood, you can cut all day, every day
>> if you want.
>>
>
> Holy Cow Dave! 6 years on a wood pile? Where the hell did you stack this
> wood to protect it well enough to last 6 years? That's some longevity for
> a
> pile of firewood.


No kidding. He musta had it all pressure treated. LOL

Leon wrote:
> "SteveW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good quality
>>firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to me. Does
>>anyone have any recommendations?
>
>
>
> Well normally I would not say that was possible but I had a Chinese Tallow
> removed and asked the guy taking it down to cut it into pieces 18 to 20
> inches long and put them in my fire wood rack. He asked if I was going to
> burn it and indicated that it did not burn well in a fire place. I told him
> that I wanted to turn the wood. Well 8 months later winter is here and I
> burned it. I was pleasantly surprised that 8 to 10 inch diameter non split
> logs were dried enough to burn and would burn for about 2 hours each and put
> out quite a bit of heat. This tree is a very fast grower.
>
> http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=chinese+tallow&gwp=11&ver=1.0.3.109&method=2
>
>
I know nothing about Chinese Tallow, but what you found is
that talking about wood and wood stoves is about the same as
the arguments you get when talking about Ford, Chevy, GMC,
and Dodge. Much of what people tell you is highly biased
and may be based on one rather exceptional experience.

The only thing that is important is that the wood be dry and
some take a long time to dry.

"SteveW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good quality
> firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to me. Does
> anyone have any recommendations?
>
> Thanks
>

Hybrid poplars, ash, and tamarack are all used for that purpose. Depending
on the type of stove, they'll give you usable wood in 10 years. Note,
however, that a pound of wood is equal in BTU to a pound of wood. Aspen .40
sg, beech .68.

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Those of us that either have burned woodstoves in the past or still do,
> might take exception with that comment George. Unlike the Ford and Chevy
> debate, wood does indeed have certain very identifiable properties when it
> comes to it use as firewood. Some burns fast with low heat output, some
the
> opposite, and this is characteristic of the tree, not an individual
> experience. No one is going to get the BTU's and the longevity and the
> coals out of a nice chunk of pine that can be gotten out of a piece of
> maple. It's just not a subjective thing. While you last statement is
true
> for most woods (ash being just one example of the exception), there is
> indeed more to the matter than whether the wood is dry. At least if
you're
> interested in really getting heat from the stuff..
> --

Sadly incorrect. A pound of wood is pretty much a pound of wood, though
conifers generally yield a bit more per pound because of the volatiles.

The difference is in inconvenience. Poplar is not caller gofer (gopher)
wood for nothing, but the heat it produces per pound is based primarily on
carbon, just like hickory. The trick is to burn and capture that heat
efficiently. The stoves are skewed toward convenience, not efficiency.
Your gas furnace doesn't damp the flame, it just burns it in spurts. With
wood you've got a big pilot light to feed.

Folks back in the old country used to sleep on the stove, which was a long
brick/mortar or mud construct designed to burn grass and twigs - rapidly -
which got the greatest thermal benefit out of them. The mass of the stove
captured BTUs pretty well, and kept things bearable, if not toasty, through
the night.

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
"Virgle Griffith" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Poplar is not a very good firewood. It will create lots of cresote in the
> >chimney.
> >I know from experience. I loaded my stove one night and closed the
dampers
> >so it would burn slow and last all night.
> >The next morning cresote had formed on the door and was running out the
> >door.
> >It looked like tar.
>
> What kind of poplar? The western one that's related to aspen, or
yellow-poplar
> AKA tulip poplar AKA tulip-tree?
>

Wet.

That plus the damper is enough to assure incomplete combustion.

"B Man" <[email protected]> writes:

>Do what I do:

>My fireplace burns quite nicely on skid wood.

>I make regular pickups of skids from local merchants who are glad to be rid
>of them. Every now and then, you even find some wood good enough to use in
>the shop. Most of it is softwood, but hardwood isnt' uncommon. It's free
>and it's a replaceable supply - you just have to spend 20 minutes with a
>cordless circ saw out in the garage cutting it up.

I've burnt pallet wood before. If they are the common softwood pallets,
it is hardly worth the effort to cut them up. The wood burns up in no
time. Hardwood pallets are much better, but the wood is sometimes better
off in the woodshop.

Brian elfert

Yes, it hardly ever is a good idea to grow your own firewood.

However it is not true that all tree species are equal.
Some species will give more useful firewood than others (books do exist).
Mostly everybody who was seriously engaged with such things used a coppicing
system (rotation times much shorter than thirty years). But it is hard work.
There are easier ways of getting firewood.
PvR

* * *
Doug Miller <[email protected]> schreef
> Principal recommendation: abandon the idea, on two grounds.

> First, the best firewood comes from slow-growing trees such as oaks,
hickories, and sugar maples. The wood of fast-growing trees is inherently
less dense, and hence does not make as good firewood, as the wood of
slow-growing trees. Poplar specifically is not good firewood; it burns
rapidly, and has little fuel value.

> Second, and more important, you will not get a reasonable *quantity* of
firewood "in a short amount of time" from *any* tree that you plant. That
just doesn't happen. Not by _human_ standards, anyway. Thirty years *is* "a
short amount of time" _to_a_tree_.

> Secondary recommendation: there are ways of getting cheap firewood, as
long as you're willing to work for it. If your city or state government
removes a tree, you may be able to get the wood just by asking for it (as
long as you're able to haul it away). If you have a chainsaw, you could
offer to cut up fallen trees (or limbs) for your neighbors after a storm, in
exchange for the wood. In some states, you can get firewood *very* cheaply
in state-owned forests. Here in Indiana, for example, the state sells
logging rights to commercial timber harvesters. The commercial guys are
usually interested only in the first 30-40' of trunk, and they leave the
rest on the ground. After they're done, Joe Citizen can come in and take
whatever he wants for three bucks a pickup truck load.

> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
> And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Actually, silica content of black locust is zero
PvR

Steven and Gail Peterson <[email protected]> schreef
> Yes, but the wood has very high silica content and will dull a saw chain
> quickly. Just a nuisance.

> <[email protected]> wrote
> > Black locust grows fast and is reputed to burn quite hot.

P van Rijckevorsel wrote:
> > Yes, it hardly ever is a good idea to grow your own firewood.

George E. Cawthon <[email protected]> schreef
> Depends on what you mean. Buy 10 acres of forest that
hasn't been logged in 20-30 years and you will have firewood
forever.

***
In that case you are not growing your own firewood but harvesting wood that
has grown over the past 20-30 years. Also, "forever" will depend on your
rate of consumption.

"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Birch is pretty firewood, but it all depends on what the OP is after - a
> > nice fireplace log or a good woodstove log. Birch is pretty much
useless in
> > the woodstove, but it does produce some nice looking flames.
>
> Not true. I consider it the best of the available woods
> (not that much of it available) here for holding a fire.
> But in much of the west, the most common native woods burned
> are Doug fir and ponderosa pine.

White birches are a _lot_ lower density than yellow, which is a splendid
firewood.

"P van Rijckevorsel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> P van Rijckevorsel wrote:
> > > Yes, it hardly ever is a good idea to grow your own firewood.
>
> George E. Cawthon <[email protected]> schreef
> > Depends on what you mean. Buy 10 acres of forest that
> hasn't been logged in 20-30 years and you will have firewood
> forever.
>
> ***
> In that case you are not growing your own firewood but harvesting wood
that
> has grown over the past 20-30 years. Also, "forever" will depend on your
> rate of consumption.
>

Baloney. You're splitting hairs. I'm sure you know what he's saying.
After a few years you will be thinning and burning what was only seed when
you purchased the land. Hardwood responds best to that kind of care and,
since land is relatively cheap here, coppicing is not normally practiced.

Of course you will have to pay tax at three times or more the rate the state
pays for wooded acres as the price of your stewardship, but, as liberals
would say, that's what you get for being greedy and trying to keep something
for yourself.

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Steven and Gail Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "P van Rijckevorsel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> Actually, silica content of black locust is zero
> >
> > Not the ones in my yard! Sparks are visible when you cut the wood. The
> > chain has to be sharpened frequently. Chains don't last all that long.
> > Also quite a bit of ash is left. But it burns long and hot.
>
> Maybe a tree hugger got to your tree before you decided to cut it and
drove
> some nails in. ;~)
>
>

Trees with durable wood are able to last through an injury rather than
rotting, often overgrowing the entire insult. Unfortunately, dust, dirt and
other things get in there in the interim.

The Dutchman aside, the same probably pertains to the mesquite mentioned
earlier. I know it does to cedar up here.

"Jason Quick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "SteveW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good quality
> > firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to me.
Does
> > anyone have any recommendations?
> >
>
> As others have stated, poplar is not a good choice. AIUI, osage orange
(aka
> hedge apple, maclura pomifera) has a rapid growth rate and is the best
> firewood out there. Whether it gets to be usable firewood in a short
> period, versus a collection of twigs and sticks, I dunno.
>

As other people have stated and you posted, a pound of wood is a pound of
wood. Since cottonwood grows rapidly, producing two pounds of wood in the
time it takes a hickory to produce one, by the table you referenced, the nod
goes to cottonwood in BTU/annum. This is true regardless of where the wood
is located, Mr. Cawthorne, though if you find the leap difficult, pick two
species which grow near you for comparison. That's why hybrid poplar, ash
and tamarack are planted for rapid pulp and firewood production.

Once again, as other people have posted - that's me, other people - you now
have to learn to burn what you have. You can write all the poorly
researched articles you want, but if you're burning pine the way you would
burn maple, it's chimney fire time. Same with wet wood, where the low heat
of the generated steam keeps other volatiles from igniting. Heat is not
only in the stick, but the stove. Steppe peoples who have only grass and
twigs as fuel hold and trap every bit of heat with thermal mass and baffled
smoke passages.

> > P van Rijckevorsel wrote:
> > > > Yes, it hardly ever is a good idea to grow your own firewood.

> > George E. Cawthon <[email protected]> schreef
> > > Depends on what you mean. Buy 10 acres of forest that
> > hasn't been logged in 20-30 years and you will have firewood
> > forever.

> >> "P van Rijckevorsel" <[email protected]> wrote
> > In that case you are not growing your own firewood but harvesting wood
that has grown over the past 20-30 years. Also, "forever" will depend on
your rate of consumption.

> George <george@least> schreef
> Baloney. You're splitting hairs. I'm sure you know what he's saying.

***
I know what I am saying and I know what he and you are saying.
You are saying that living off capital (harvesting the existing wood) is the
same as earning your own living (harvesting the wood that you yourself grow)
PvR

Yes, if you assume all that then it is likely to work.

Biggest assumption (besides having OP move out west and learning a thing or
two about forests) of course is that OP wants firewood to warm his house and
not for some other purpose, such as to bake pottery, generate his own
electricity, etc.

Not all that many people will want to move out west just to warm their house
;-)

"P van Rijckevorsel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > > P van Rijckevorsel wrote:
> > > > > Yes, it hardly ever is a good idea to grow your own firewood.
>
> > > George E. Cawthon <[email protected]> schreef
> > > > Depends on what you mean. Buy 10 acres of forest that
> > > hasn't been logged in 20-30 years and you will have firewood
> > > forever.
>
> > >> "P van Rijckevorsel" <[email protected]> wrote
> > > In that case you are not growing your own firewood but harvesting wood
> that has grown over the past 20-30 years. Also, "forever" will depend on
> your rate of consumption.
>
> > George <george@least> schreef
> > Baloney. You're splitting hairs. I'm sure you know what he's saying.
>
> ***
> I know what I am saying and I know what he and you are saying.
> You are saying that living off capital (harvesting the existing wood) is
the
> same as earning your own living (harvesting the wood that you yourself
grow)
> PvR
>

Bet you wish you'd thought that analogy through to maturity. Because, as
you no doubt know, while he uses the mature, the rest is sprouting, growing
and maturing. Selective harvest is the very best way to manage hardwoods.

I am at about the northern limit of hardwood forestation, and decent ground
here produces over a cord a year increase - interest, in your example -
while preserving the principle. Point with wood, of course, is you don't
want the stuff until it's a certain size, so you take the crowded, the
overmature, the diseased and damaged to free up the rest to make best
increase. Keeps things even or a bit better on firewood, with maybe a
sawlog or three per acre for woodworking, since I heat the house for six to
seven cords per year.

George <george@least> schreef
> Bet you wish you'd thought that analogy through to maturity. Because, as
you no doubt know, while he uses the mature, the rest is sprouting, growing
and maturing. Selective harvest is the very best way to manage hardwoods.

> I am at about the northern limit of hardwood forestation, and decent
ground here produces over a cord a year increase - interest, in your
example - while preserving the principle. Point with wood, of course, is
you don't want the stuff until it's a certain size, so you take the crowded,
the overmature, the diseased and damaged to free up the rest to make best
increase. Keeps things even or a bit better on firewood, with maybe a
sawlog or three per acre for woodworking, since I heat the house for six to
seven cords per year.

***
Obviously, I did think it through.

I hardly need point out that there is a few thousand years of experience
with this. In practice this approach means a quick disappearance of forests,
whenever firewood is important enough (expensive enough). It is customary to
have stories expounding why forests will last forever, even while they
disappear.

As already pointed out, firewood is not expensive now, at least in the US.

<[email protected]> schreef in
> But as Mr Cawthorn points out in a wetter climate less land would be
needed so OP can stay out East, assuming he is out East to begin with.
If he's starting with open land instead of wooded land he can grow
black locust and have fencepost diameter trees in about ten years.
Black locust grows very fast, burns hot, reseeds itself like crazy
and bees feeding on locust blossoms make great honey.

***
Yes, but not many people would be willing to do that for just firewood and
fenceposts. You'd really want a tree species that would eventually yield
timber, which is not all that likely with black locust:
http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/robpse/management_considerati
ons.html
* * *

> There are also exotics like blue catalpa that grow extremely fast
in places like Georgia (where AC is more of an issue than heat).
Though they are very low density, as some have pointed out, that
just means burning more of it for the same amount of energy.

***
If the stories about prices for Paulownia wood are anything like true then
that would be worth thinking about. However it is also regarded as a pest,
to be combatted.
http://www.invasive.org/eastern/srs/P_RP.html
http://www.se-eppc.org/manual/princess.html

> > Yes, but not many people would be willing to do that for just
firewood and fenceposts. You'd really want a tree species that would
eventually yield timber, which is not all that likely with black locust:

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/robpse/management_considerati
ons.html

------
<[email protected]> schreef
> Black locust currently grows far and wide outside of its original
range precisely becuase of it's utility for fence posts. So it
was worth doing for a fair number of people. If its being grown
for firewood and fenceposts you won't let it get big enough
for lumber anyhow.

> If you want lumber, then you'd grow a species good for lumber.
While there may be a tree of two suitable for all three purposes
you'd grow 'em differently so why not grow different trees for
different purposes anyhow?

***
Now I am curious. What is the difference between growing a tree for a fence
post from growing it for lumber? Except for the time of cutting? I'd imagine
lots of trees grown for lumber are thinned with the yield going to fence
posts.
* * *

> > http://www.invasive.org/eastern/srs/P_RP.html
> > http://www.se-eppc.org/manual/princess.html

> Odd, I remember reading that it germinates poorly but regrows well
from stump sprouts. Not according to those sources though. Other
catalpas grow like weeds too.

***
Likely the 'danger' comes from the enormous amounts of seeds produced by
each tree. Imagine all those seeds germinating! You would not be able to
walk for the small Paulownia trees growing everywhere!
PvR

<[email protected]> schreef
> I'd think that very few trees grown for lumber are thinned to make
fence post material because most lumber is not durable and would make
poor fencepost material unless pressure treated and that is a
commercial endeavor, not something one would do one a homestead.

***
Well, for both lumber and fenceposts you want straight trunks and no side
branches low down. This is achieved by planting the trees pretty close. And
"pretty close" is relative to the size of the trees, what is close for trees
six foot tall is ridiculous for trees twenty feet tall. So any lumber stand
is being thinned a number of times, leaving only the best trees. The stuff
of the first / second thinning is not good for anything except fence posts,
so why not use them?
* * *

> If you want fence posts you cut it when the trunk is about the right
diameter for fence posts. If you let it grow larger, it will shade
out the smaller trees so you run out of fencepost material.

> Of course you can let the grove expand or only cut your fence post
material from the edge of the grove while letting the trees in the
middle grow big for lumber but instead of doing that, why not just
grow different trees for lumber and have good lumber and good fence
posts instead of one or both being a compromise?

***
Well, life is full of choices
PvR

<[email protected]> schreef
> Because they'll rot. Unless they are black locust, sassafrass,
> osage orange or a handful of other woods that generally are not
> used for lumber they won't make good fenceposts.

***
The list of rot-resistant wood is a little longer than that.
Secondly not all fences are there forever.
Some fences are built for a limited time only.
PvR

<[email protected]> schreef
> In defense of humanity over the last hundred years or so
considerable interest has arisen in both silviculture, that
is harvesting wood in a sustainable fashion and also to a
much lesser and more controversial extent in conservation,
that is preserving some wilderness forestland in its wilderness
form, unmanaged by humanity.

> Given the time it takes for a tree to grow to the point where it
is economical to convert it to lumber (around 70-80 years for an
eastern hardwood) humanity is in it's infancy in terms of learning
the ropes. But that is a big improvement over the thousands of
years of 'managing' the forest of Italy, Lebanon, Lybia, England,
Easter Island, etc.

> I am hopeful that people like our Mr Cawthorn wil make it psosible
to enjoy wood and wood products and to keep and restore large tracts
of true forest to its natural, unmanaged state.

> FF

***
Oh yes, it is not inevitable that forest management will go wrong.
Actually there are plenty of examples of it going right.
But making it work does require planning, thought and skills;
and a tradition of transfering those skills to next generations.

An approach of "you start with a bit of forest and do what you will and it
will turn out all right, automatically" is not going to be helpful.

BTW, a "true forest [in] its natural, unmanaged state" is not the only thing
worth striving for. A well-managed forest can come fairly close to a natural
state, close enough to be quite worthwhile and enjoyable.
PvR

Leon wrote:
> "Will" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>My old partner was a professional forester. Got him out to look at the
>>"huge cedars" in my front yard - in a small burb just outside Vancouver.
>>Had to hold him up - - he was laughing so hard about "saplings". They were
>>only 30" across and about 90 feet high. Every time he came over after that
>>he started giggling and smirking when he saw the trees. This was when I
>>had just moved out there... :-)
>
>
> Are you saying that your trees are about 36 times as tall as they are wide?

Not my trees no more. But... Western Red Cedars are big trees. These are
(were) the dimensions measure on the front yard trees. Almost 3 feet
across and about 90 feet high. The root systems spread wayyy out. Many
times the width of the trunk. I know the root system had a diameter of
at least 30 feet on those trees - because I dug into it a couple of
times. (Did a calculation of 80 ft on the height when we bought the
house.) He was quite insistent they were babies - said he could core
them and give me an age - but at east 40 years and maybe as high as 80
years old. Said he didn't cut under-age trees due to high moral
standards. :-))

>
>
>>He used to harvest old growth on Vancouver Island and the coast. He said
>>most of the trees were 20 to 40 feet across near the base when he started
>>cutting.
>
>
> If these trees were proportionally as tall to width as your trees some would
> be over a quarter of a mile high. Those are some trees..
>
> I would love to see those monsters I have always been amazed at their size.
>

Don't think so. It ain't proportional -- If that were true we would not
have a problem with over harvesting. I forget the maximum heights on the
Big Red Western Cedars - but 200 to 300 foot high isn't (ok wasn't
unusual alright?) that unusual -- as I recall -- on old growth Western
Red. we are talking about trees in the range of 800 years to over 2000
years old! eh? Most of the energy goes into the log I think.

Americans used to have the big western reds and cypress on the US west
coast - but engineers just developed ever bigger chainsaws. Bless their
hearts.

Used to take my hat off whenever I saw a barge load or a boom of the old
growth go by. Like to pay my respects before I cut it up.

You should be able to find pictures of trees from Stanley Park and
Cathedral Grove on the Internet.

Some of the foresters I worked with told me that at wholesale they could
often price the logs at $20K to $40K (per log that is) -- this is clear
cedar and cypress - so it's expensive -- and increasingly rare.

But I am sure there are West-coasters on the forum who can give more
current information. :-)


>
>

--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

"Steven and Gail Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "P van Rijckevorsel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Actually, silica content of black locust is zero
>
> Not the ones in my yard! Sparks are visible when you cut the wood. The
> chain has to be sharpened frequently. Chains don't last all that long.
> Also quite a bit of ash is left. But it burns long and hot.

Maybe a tree hugger got to your tree before you decided to cut it and drove
some nails in. ;~)

Thinking back a number of years. In my area, poplar was being
planted to replace what had been harvested. That was the choice
because it was one of the quickest growing species.

Two quick thoughts...

1) Birch is supposed to have the highest BTU output when used as
firewood. Not sure about poplar. You might want to check that
aspect.

2) Local borg charges an arm and a leg for S4S Poplar. Not sure
why. I can't imagine trying to stain it. Price is very close to
S4S Maple. Might be better off selling it, than burning it...

Pat






On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:55:58 GMT, "SteveW" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good quality
>firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to me. Does
>anyone have any recommendations?
>
>Thanks
>
>Steve
>

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Snip


>
> Right. I've got several thousand Ash trees that are now 8 or so years
> old (I'd have to check). Nice & straight, but they're only 1-2 inches
> in diameter. My kid, or grandkids, will be able to harvest them.


Maybe if you water the trees they will grow faster. I watched all the Ash
trees in my neighborhood being planted when the subdivision was brand new.
Those trees had 1" diameter trunks and had trunks 12" in diameter 10 year
later. I have a 10 year old Live Oak with a 10" diameter trunk.

How about trying rec.firewood


"SteveW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good quality
> firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to me. Does
> anyone have any recommendations?
>
> Thanks
>
> Steve
>
>

Left out a comma. TOIEG (There's one in every group.) However, if you do
find a hybrid -- post a picture of the wood..

I thought he said he wanted fast growing hardwood. For Hard wood those
trees DO grow fast. :-) Couple hundred years and you have great trees --
now take western red cedar - that takes a while to reach maturity -- few
hundred years or so (a couple of millenia or so and it's reasonably
large). Now that is slowooooowwww.


Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>Hickory, Maple, Ash. They grow relatively quickly for hardwood.
>>
>
> Never heard of a "hickory maple". Presumably there was supposed to be a comma
> in there? :-)
>
> Anyway... hickory is *not* a particularly fast-growing tree; neither are most
> maple species, and the ones that *do* grow fast make poor firewood; and the
> same is true of ash -- it's "fast growing" only when compared to oaks.
>
> Bottom line: the OP is not thinking realistically. *No* tree that he plants is
> going to grow to firewood size in a short time like he wants.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
> And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

>On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:55:58 GMT, "SteveW" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good quality
>>firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to me. Does
>>anyone have any recommendations?
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>Steve
>>

Not wood, but have you considered a corn stove? There are corn-burning
stoves that produce good heat similar to the pellet stoves. Corn produces
7000 BTU/lb. Since corn weighs 56 lbs per bushel, a good midwest yield of
200 bushel (conservative) per acre would yield 78.6 million BTU per acre
each year from the shelled corn. You could also harvest the cobs and
stalks for additional fuel (realizing that somewhere you are going to have
to put some of those nutrients back into the soil). A sophisticated
operation could utilize a dual system, with one burning the kernels, the
other, if you could locate the equipment to pelletize the stalks could burn
the straw as pellets.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Will wrote:
> George:
>
> If you mean me, If I seemed to take offense I apologize. I really enjoy
> reading the exchanges here - but I usually just get a few minutes
> between tasks for posts. Maybe a bit brusque sometimes I guess. :-)
>
> One of the reasons the ratios get out of whack with "citified" wild
> trees is that they get fertilized and watered -- along with the lawn.
> They sprout up a lot quicker than they would in the wild.
>
> The other issue with the calculations is that the results always form a
> "distribution". Quite frankly I do not know the variation expected in
> "citified" or wild trees. Not sure about the tree in front of our old
> house - maybe it was "normal" -- maybe it was extra-normal. No idea. But
> thinking about it, they were typical of the neighborhood cedars.
>
> Citified cedar and Douglas fir have branches lower on the trunk, and
> they are higher than "normal" --- and from what I saw they are usually
> taller than their wild cousins at an earlier age, and have a wider
> branch spread. In other words they make a great "storm sail" -- catch a
> lot of wind..
>
> Our tree would have fallen on the bedroom in a good storm. Had more than
> a few sleepless nights. :-) Should have cut it when we moved in. A year
> before we moved cutting these trees became illegal in our burb.
>
> Your understanding matches mine -- as I read it below.
>
> George E. Cawthon wrote:
>
>> I think you are taking offense unnecessarily. My favorite climbing
>> tree was about 100 feet in front of our house and I watched it grow.
>> It was never bigger than 30 inches across and it rose to about 100
>> feet; by triangulation we figured it would just touch the house if it
>> fell. The cedar 20 feet from the back of the house was over 3 feet by
>> the time we sold the place. I don't know the height but it wasn't
>> much above 100 feet.
>>
>> BTW, your tree was a sapling only for old timers.
>
>
> Not according to the forester - he said it would usually be left -- not
> big enough yet. Should be 4 foot across by now though - so probably it
> is actually sawdust by now. It was only a foot or so from the house
> eaves when we sold out. One good windstorm and the new owners would have
> lots of firewood -- the splintered timbers from the house, along with
> the tree.
>
> These trees (western reds and Douglas firs) are dangerous in the cities
> and burbs. They seem to need to grow in clumps so they form a mutual
> windbreak. ...Otherwise they topple over in a big wind. Several times a
> year the Vancouver Sun (Vancouver BC) ran photos of the latest smashed
> down house with a tree trunk projecting from a roof or a living room
> wall. :-(
>
> Of course Vancouver city council passed laws preventing anyone from
> cutting down the large trees. You could _apply_ for a cutting permit -
> but they were routinely rejected. --Lot of tree huggers run for council
> out there. I'm surprised they didn't pass a law against harboring logs
> in your living room walls. :-)) I wonder why they call it the Left
> Coast? Or was it Lotus Land?
>
>
> There are lots of
>
>> pictures of logging around Seattle and a 3' diameter tree would be a
>> sapling to them. Today, a 3' tree is considered merchantable. The
>> loggers certainly had no hesitation in cutting 18" cedars on our place
>> and they were one of the more valuable trees; white pine was worth more.
>>
>
>
> They are still logging old growth on the west coast. But yes a 3 foot
> diameter tree would get logged these days. sigh!
>
>
>
Don't know about "citified" trees. All of the experience I
cited was with natural forest. I grew up in a forest with a
few areas cut out for alfalfa or grain fields and houses. I
think only 3-4 acres were cleared out of 130 acres on our
land. Maybe the law against cutting big trees was to
protect against idiots falling trees on houses? Or maybe
the law makers were just idiots?

You are right, most conifers don't do well against wind
unless in a group and shouldn't be in an urban setting.
Even in dense forests, however, a freak downdraft wind can
flatten stretches of mixed fir or fir/spruce forests.
Actually cedars are more resistant because they develop a
relatively wide base of support roots in contrast to a
single tap root of most conifers.

It was probably 3 to 4 feet at the base. As I recall I measured it at
about eye height - around 6 foot. It was a sapling - remember? Who pays
attention to these little details on a sapling? :-)

On the really big cedars the base goes up considerably higher.



Leon wrote:
> "George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Leon wrote:
>>
>>>"Will" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>My old partner was a professional forester. Got him out to look at the
>>>>"huge cedars" in my front yard - in a small burb just outside Vancouver.
>>>>Had to hold him up - - he was laughing so hard about "saplings". They
>>>>were only 30" across and about 90 feet high. Every time he came over
>>>>after that he started giggling and smirking when he saw the trees. This
>>>>was when I had just moved out there... :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>Are you saying that your trees are about 36 times as tall as they are
>>>wide?
>>
>>No he is not. Cedars have a very tapered stem. As it grow taller it also
>>grows much wider. Cedars don't get much above 200 feet, so a 20' diameter
>>would be a 1/10 ratio. Chances are you will never see a Western Red Cedar
>>with a 20' diameter as a 10' diameter is considered large. I believe one
>>the largest was 62' in diameter (on Vancouver Island) but trees of that
>>diameter were never common and anything over 15' is often/usually hollow
>>at the base.
>
>
> Well what does 30 inches across and 90 feet tall mean? Seems that equates
> to 1/36th. I am familiar with cedars being wide at the bottom but his
> description seemed like pencil junipers.
>
>

--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

George:

If you mean me, If I seemed to take offense I apologize. I really enjoy
reading the exchanges here - but I usually just get a few minutes
between tasks for posts. Maybe a bit brusque sometimes I guess. :-)

One of the reasons the ratios get out of whack with "citified" wild
trees is that they get fertilized and watered -- along with the lawn.
They sprout up a lot quicker than they would in the wild.

The other issue with the calculations is that the results always form a
"distribution". Quite frankly I do not know the variation expected in
"citified" or wild trees. Not sure about the tree in front of our old
house - maybe it was "normal" -- maybe it was extra-normal. No idea. But
thinking about it, they were typical of the neighborhood cedars.

Citified cedar and Douglas fir have branches lower on the trunk, and
they are higher than "normal" --- and from what I saw they are usually
taller than their wild cousins at an earlier age, and have a wider
branch spread. In other words they make a great "storm sail" -- catch a
lot of wind..

Our tree would have fallen on the bedroom in a good storm. Had more than
a few sleepless nights. :-) Should have cut it when we moved in. A year
before we moved cutting these trees became illegal in our burb.

Your understanding matches mine -- as I read it below.

George E. Cawthon wrote:
> I think you are taking offense unnecessarily. My favorite climbing tree
> was about 100 feet in front of our house and I watched it grow. It was
> never bigger than 30 inches across and it rose to about 100 feet; by
> triangulation we figured it would just touch the house if it fell. The
> cedar 20 feet from the back of the house was over 3 feet by the time we
> sold the place. I don't know the height but it wasn't much above 100 feet.
>
> BTW, your tree was a sapling only for old timers.

Not according to the forester - he said it would usually be left -- not
big enough yet. Should be 4 foot across by now though - so probably it
is actually sawdust by now. It was only a foot or so from the house
eaves when we sold out. One good windstorm and the new owners would have
lots of firewood -- the splintered timbers from the house, along with
the tree.

These trees (western reds and Douglas firs) are dangerous in the cities
and burbs. They seem to need to grow in clumps so they form a mutual
windbreak. ...Otherwise they topple over in a big wind. Several times a
year the Vancouver Sun (Vancouver BC) ran photos of the latest smashed
down house with a tree trunk projecting from a roof or a living room
wall. :-(

Of course Vancouver city council passed laws preventing anyone from
cutting down the large trees. You could _apply_ for a cutting permit -
but they were routinely rejected. --Lot of tree huggers run for council
out there. I'm surprised they didn't pass a law against harboring logs
in your living room walls. :-)) I wonder why they call it the Left
Coast? Or was it Lotus Land?


There are lots of
> pictures of logging around Seattle and a 3' diameter tree would be a
> sapling to them. Today, a 3' tree is considered merchantable. The
> loggers certainly had no hesitation in cutting 18" cedars on our place
> and they were one of the more valuable trees; white pine was worth more.
>


They are still logging old growth on the west coast. But yes a 3 foot
diameter tree would get logged these days. sigh!



> Will wrote:
>
>> It was probably 3 to 4 feet at the base. As I recall I measured it at
>> about eye height - around 6 foot. It was a sapling - remember? Who
>> pays attention to these little details on a sapling? :-)
>>
>> On the really big cedars the base goes up considerably higher.
>>
>>
>>
>> Leon wrote:
>>
>>> "George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Will" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> My old partner was a professional forester. Got him out to look at
>>>>>> the "huge cedars" in my front yard - in a small burb just outside
>>>>>> Vancouver. Had to hold him up - - he was laughing so hard about
>>>>>> "saplings". They were only 30" across and about 90 feet high.
>>>>>> Every time he came over after that he started giggling and
>>>>>> smirking when he saw the trees. This was when I had just moved out
>>>>>> there... :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you saying that your trees are about 36 times as tall as they
>>>>> are wide?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No he is not. Cedars have a very tapered stem. As it grow taller
>>>> it also grows much wider. Cedars don't get much above 200 feet, so
>>>> a 20' diameter would be a 1/10 ratio. Chances are you will never see
>>>> a Western Red Cedar with a 20' diameter as a 10' diameter is
>>>> considered large. I believe one the largest was 62' in diameter (on
>>>> Vancouver Island) but trees of that diameter were never common and
>>>> anything over 15' is often/usually hollow at the base.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Well what does 30 inches across and 90 feet tall mean? Seems that
>>> equates to 1/36th. I am familiar with cedars being wide at the
>>> bottom but his description seemed like pencil junipers.
>>>
>>

--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

"Brian Barnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:0LXNd.318790$6l.98366@pd7tw2no...
>
> "SteveW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good quality
> > firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to me.
Does
> > anyone have any recommendations?
>
> Depends on where you live. Around here (Pacific Northwest) Alder
> and Bigleaf Maple grow relatively quickly. Birch is wonderful for
> firewood and Poplar is the nastiest wood I've ever split.
> Brian, in Cedar
>
>

Birch is pretty firewood, but it all depends on what the OP is after - a
nice fireplace log or a good woodstove log. Birch is pretty much useless in
the woodstove, but it does produce some nice looking flames.
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

In article <[email protected]>, "Virgle Griffith" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>"Virgle Griffith" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Poplar is not a very good firewood. It will create lots of cresote in the
>> >chimney.
>> >I know from experience. I loaded my stove one night and closed the
>dampers
>> >so it would burn slow and last all night.
>> >The next morning cresote had formed on the door and was running out the
>> >door.
>> >It looked like tar.
>>
>> What kind of poplar? The western one that's related to aspen, or
>yellow-poplar
>> AKA tulip poplar AKA tulip-tree?
>
>Yellow poplar
>Virgle

Well, I think you might've been burning something else... I've burned an awful
lot of yellow poplar in my fireplace, and have _never_ seen even a hint of
creosote from it.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

"SteveW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good quality
> firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to me. Does
> anyone have any recommendations?
>
> Thanks
>
> Steve
Poplar is not a very good firewood. It will create lots of cresote in the
chimney.
I know from experience. I loaded my stove one night and closed the dampers
so it would burn slow and last all night.
The next morning cresote had formed on the door and was running out the
door.
It looked like tar.

Virgle

Leon wrote:
> "Will" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>My old partner was a professional forester. Got him out to look at the
>>"huge cedars" in my front yard - in a small burb just outside Vancouver.
>>Had to hold him up - - he was laughing so hard about "saplings". They were
>>only 30" across and about 90 feet high. Every time he came over after that
>>he started giggling and smirking when he saw the trees. This was when I
>>had just moved out there... :-)
>
>
> Are you saying that your trees are about 36 times as tall as they are wide?

No he is not. Cedars have a very tapered stem. As it grow
taller it also grows much wider. Cedars don't get much
above 200 feet, so a 20' diameter would be a 1/10 ratio.
Chances are you will never see a Western Red Cedar with a
20' diameter as a 10' diameter is considered large. I
believe one the largest was 62' in diameter (on Vancouver
Island) but trees of that diameter were never common and
anything over 15' is often/usually hollow at the base.

>
>
>>He used to harvest old growth on Vancouver Island and the coast. He said
>>most of the trees were 20 to 40 feet across near the base when he started
>>cutting.
>
>
> If these trees were proportionally as tall to width as your trees some would
> be over a quarter of a mile high. Those are some trees..
>
> I would love to see those monsters I have always been amazed at their size.
>
>
>
>

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:7%[email protected]...
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> Snip
>
>
> >
> > Right. I've got several thousand Ash trees that are now 8 or so years
> > old (I'd have to check). Nice & straight, but they're only 1-2 inches
> > in diameter. My kid, or grandkids, will be able to harvest them.
>
>
> Maybe if you water the trees they will grow faster. I watched all the Ash
> trees in my neighborhood being planted when the subdivision was brand new.
> Those trees had 1" diameter trunks and had trunks 12" in diameter 10 year
> later. I have a 10 year old Live Oak with a 10" diameter trunk.
>
>

Yeahbut in his woods, even with a well thinned woods, the trees are still
competing for nutrients and for sunlight. Lawn trees don't face this trial.
Trees in the woods tend to grow taller as they search for the sun.
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>Left out a comma. TOIEG (There's one in every group.) However, if you do
>find a hybrid -- post a picture of the wood..

Sorry about that, just couldn't resist. :-)
>
>I thought he said he wanted fast growing hardwood.

Actually, he said he wanted good quality firewood "in a short amount of time".
The only way that's gonna happen is to cut down a tree that's already been
growing for a long amount of time. By human standards, anyway -- as I pointed
out to the OP, thirty years is a short time, to a tree.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Mike Marlow wrote:
> "George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Leon wrote:
>>
>>>"SteveW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good quality
>>>>firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to me.
>
> Does
>
>>>>anyone have any recommendations?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Well normally I would not say that was possible but I had a Chinese
>
> Tallow
>
>>>removed and asked the guy taking it down to cut it into pieces 18 to 20
>>>inches long and put them in my fire wood rack. He asked if I was going
>
> to
>
>>>burn it and indicated that it did not burn well in a fire place. I told
>
> him
>
>>>that I wanted to turn the wood. Well 8 months later winter is here and
>
> I
>
>>>burned it. I was pleasantly surprised that 8 to 10 inch diameter non
>
> split
>
>>>logs were dried enough to burn and would burn for about 2 hours each and
>
> put
>
>>>out quite a bit of heat. This tree is a very fast grower.
>>>
>>>
>
> http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=chinese+tallow&gwp=11&ver=1.0.3.109&method=2
>
>>>
>>I know nothing about Chinese Tallow, but what you found is
>>that talking about wood and wood stoves is about the same as
>>the arguments you get when talking about Ford, Chevy, GMC,
>>and Dodge. Much of what people tell you is highly biased
>>and may be based on one rather exceptional experience.
>>
>>The only thing that is important is that the wood be dry and
>>some take a long time to dry.
>
>
> George - please ignore my other reply to you. I do believe I completely
> missed you point. I knew I heard this buzzing sound over my head...
>

You'll probably regret that.

"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Not true. I consider it the best of the available woods
> (not that much of it available) here for holding a fire.
> But in much of the west, the most common native woods burned
> are Doug fir and ponderosa pine.

It's interesting to see, as this discussion has opened up, that people from
different parts of the country have different views on the same pieces of
wood. I'm in the Northeast and birch is not as common by a long shot, as
maple and beech and some of the others. It's a wood that a lot of people
like to cook over outdoors and like I said, one that a lot of people like
for their fireplaces, but other hardwoods are preferred over birch for the
most part, around here.
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"SteveW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good quality
> firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to me. Does
> anyone have any recommendations?


Well normally I would not say that was possible but I had a Chinese Tallow
removed and asked the guy taking it down to cut it into pieces 18 to 20
inches long and put them in my fire wood rack. He asked if I was going to
burn it and indicated that it did not burn well in a fire place. I told him
that I wanted to turn the wood. Well 8 months later winter is here and I
burned it. I was pleasantly surprised that 8 to 10 inch diameter non split
logs were dried enough to burn and would burn for about 2 hours each and put
out quite a bit of heat. This tree is a very fast grower.

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=chinese+tallow&gwp=11&ver=1.0.3.109&method=2

When I was at Oregon State, about 1964, we had a big storm with
hurricane-force winds. At OSU, there were trees of all kinds growing on the
quad, including big old conifers (various kinds). Most of the trees were
somewhat isolated(not in clumps) so they formed big, full canopies. Over
100 trees were blown down on the quad alone, as well as others all over
Corvallis. Almost all the trees that went down were hardwoods; the conifers
could bend and survived. FWIW.

Steve
>
> Citified cedar and Douglas fir have branches lower on the trunk, and they
> are higher than "normal" --- and from what I saw they are usually taller
> than their wild cousins at an earlier age, and have a wider branch
> spread. In other words they make a great "storm sail" -- catch a lot of
> wind..
These trees have an ecology that affects when the limbs get dropped. It
depends on how much light they get, to support photosynthesis, balanced by
how much water they lose through transpiration. When they get shaded, as in
a clump, it becomes a liability for the tree to maintain the lower branches,
so they die and fall off. Isolated trees get more light, so they can keep
those lower branches.
>
> Our tree would have fallen on the bedroom in a good storm. Had more than a
> few sleepless nights. :-) Should have cut it when we moved in. A year
> before we moved cutting these trees became illegal in our burb.
>
> Your understanding matches mine -- as I read it below.
>
> George E. Cawthon wrote:
>> I think you are taking offense unnecessarily. My favorite climbing tree
>> was about 100 feet in front of our house and I watched it grow. It was
>> never bigger than 30 inches across and it rose to about 100 feet; by
>> triangulation we figured it would just touch the house if it fell. The
>> cedar 20 feet from the back of the house was over 3 feet by the time we
>> sold the place. I don't know the height but it wasn't much above 100
>> feet.
>>
>> BTW, your tree was a sapling only for old timers.
>
> Not according to the forester - he said it would usually be left -- not
> big enough yet. Should be 4 foot across by now though - so probably it is
> actually sawdust by now. It was only a foot or so from the house eaves
> when we sold out. One good windstorm and the new owners would have lots of
> firewood -- the splintered timbers from the house, along with the tree.
>
> These trees (western reds and Douglas firs) are dangerous in the cities
> and burbs. They seem to need to grow in clumps so they form a mutual
> windbreak. ...Otherwise they topple over in a big wind. Several times a
> year the Vancouver Sun (Vancouver BC) ran photos of the latest smashed
> down house with a tree trunk projecting from a roof or a living room wall.
> :-(
>
> Of course Vancouver city council passed laws preventing anyone from
> cutting down the large trees. You could _apply_ for a cutting permit - but
> they were routinely rejected. --Lot of tree huggers run for council out
> there. I'm surprised they didn't pass a law against harboring logs in your
> living room walls. :-)) I wonder why they call it the Left Coast? Or was
> it Lotus Land?
>
>
> There are lots of
>> pictures of logging around Seattle and a 3' diameter tree would be a
>> sapling to them. Today, a 3' tree is considered merchantable. The
>> loggers certainly had no hesitation in cutting 18" cedars on our place
>> and they were one of the more valuable trees; white pine was worth more.
>>
>
>
> They are still logging old growth on the west coast. But yes a 3 foot
> diameter tree would get logged these days. sigh!
>
>
>
>> Will wrote:
>>
>>> It was probably 3 to 4 feet at the base. As I recall I measured it at
>>> about eye height - around 6 foot. It was a sapling - remember? Who pays
>>> attention to these little details on a sapling? :-)
>>>
>>> On the really big cedars the base goes up considerably higher.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>> "George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Will" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My old partner was a professional forester. Got him out to look at
>>>>>>> the "huge cedars" in my front yard - in a small burb just outside
>>>>>>> Vancouver. Had to hold him up - - he was laughing so hard about
>>>>>>> "saplings". They were only 30" across and about 90 feet high. Every
>>>>>>> time he came over after that he started giggling and smirking when
>>>>>>> he saw the trees. This was when I had just moved out there... :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you saying that your trees are about 36 times as tall as they are
>>>>>> wide?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No he is not. Cedars have a very tapered stem. As it grow taller it
>>>>> also grows much wider. Cedars don't get much above 200 feet, so a 20'
>>>>> diameter would be a 1/10 ratio. Chances are you will never see a
>>>>> Western Red Cedar with a 20' diameter as a 10' diameter is considered
>>>>> large. I believe one the largest was 62' in diameter (on Vancouver
>>>>> Island) but trees of that diameter were never common and anything over
>>>>> 15' is often/usually hollow at the base.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well what does 30 inches across and 90 feet tall mean? Seems that
>>>> equates to 1/36th. I am familiar with cedars being wide at the bottom
>>>> but his description seemed like pencil junipers.
>>>>
>>>
>
> --
> Will
> Occasional Techno-geek

In article <[email protected]>, "SteveW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good quality
>firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to me. Does
>anyone have any recommendations?

Principal recommendation: abandon the idea, on two grounds.

First, the best firewood comes from slow-growing trees such as oaks,
hickories, and sugar maples. The wood of fast-growing trees is inherently less
dense, and hence does not make as good firewood, as the wood of slow-growing
trees. Poplar specifically is not good firewood; it burns rapidly, and has
little fuel value.

Second, and more important, you will not get a reasonable *quantity* of
firewood "in a short amount of time" from *any* tree that you plant. That just
doesn't happen. Not by _human_ standards, anyway. Thirty years *is* "a short
amount of time" _to_a_tree_.

Secondary recommendation: there are ways of getting cheap firewood, as long
as you're willing to work for it. If your city or state government removes a
tree, you may be able to get the wood just by asking for it (as long as you're
able to haul it away). If you have a chainsaw, you could offer to cut up
fallen trees (or limbs) for your neighbors after a storm, in exchange for the
wood. In some states, you can get firewood *very* cheaply in state-owned
forests. Here in Indiana, for example, the state sells logging rights to
commercial timber harvesters. The commercial guys are usually interested only
in the first 30-40' of trunk, and they leave the rest on the ground. After
they're done, Joe Citizen can come in and take whatever he wants for three
bucks a pickup truck load.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Mike Marlow wrote:
> "George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Not true. I consider it the best of the available woods
>>(not that much of it available) here for holding a fire.
>>But in much of the west, the most common native woods burned
>>are Doug fir and ponderosa pine.
>
>
> It's interesting to see, as this discussion has opened up, that people from
> different parts of the country have different views on the same pieces of
> wood. I'm in the Northeast and birch is not as common by a long shot, as
> maple and beech and some of the others. It's a wood that a lot of people
> like to cook over outdoors and like I said, one that a lot of people like
> for their fireplaces, but other hardwoods are preferred over birch for the
> most part, around here.

Absolutely, perceptions are colored by what is available
locally. There is a lot of knowledge here of people living
in very disparate forest regions. But here is still some
Chevy vs. Ford arguments. As another person pointed out,
wood gives the same amount of heat (generally) per pound of
wood regardless of specie, yet some just won't accept that.
However, the amount of heat per pound as Charlie pointed
out is only one aspect of burning wood.

Beech may be great, but I believe I have never seen a beech
tree and it isn't native in the west and it isn't planted as
an ornamental where I live. All one has to do is look a a
rainfall map and it will become clear that the native trees
will be very different. I like people that talk about
Seattle and Portland being very wet and rainy areas, and
they are compared to some western areas. However, with
annual precipitation of 35" they don't compare to most of
the U.S. east of the Mississippi. We hear all the time
about 6-12" of rain in less than a week, especially in the
southeast. That's 1/3, 1/2, or the total average annual
precipitation in many areas west of the Mississippi.

"Will" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> My old partner was a professional forester. Got him out to look at the
> "huge cedars" in my front yard - in a small burb just outside Vancouver.
> Had to hold him up - - he was laughing so hard about "saplings". They were
> only 30" across and about 90 feet high. Every time he came over after that
> he started giggling and smirking when he saw the trees. This was when I
> had just moved out there... :-)

Are you saying that your trees are about 36 times as tall as they are wide?

>
> He used to harvest old growth on Vancouver Island and the coast. He said
> most of the trees were 20 to 40 feet across near the base when he started
> cutting.

If these trees were proportionally as tall to width as your trees some would
be over a quarter of a mile high. Those are some trees..

I would love to see those monsters I have always been amazed at their size.

"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I know nothing about Chinese Tallow, but what you found is
> that talking about wood and wood stoves is about the same as
> the arguments you get when talking about Ford, Chevy, GMC,
> and Dodge. Much of what people tell you is highly biased
> and may be based on one rather exceptional experience.
>
> The only thing that is important is that the wood be dry and
> some take a long time to dry.

Those of us that either have burned woodstoves in the past or still do,
might take exception with that comment George. Unlike the Ford and Chevy
debate, wood does indeed have certain very identifiable properties when it
comes to it use as firewood. Some burns fast with low heat output, some the
opposite, and this is characteristic of the tree, not an individual
experience. No one is going to get the BTU's and the longevity and the
coals out of a nice chunk of pine that can be gotten out of a piece of
maple. It's just not a subjective thing. While you last statement is true
for most woods (ash being just one example of the exception), there is
indeed more to the matter than whether the wood is dry. At least if you're
interested in really getting heat from the stuff..
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Do what I do:

My fireplace burns quite nicely on skid wood.

I make regular pickups of skids from local merchants who are glad to be rid
of them. Every now and then, you even find some wood good enough to use in
the shop. Most of it is softwood, but hardwood isnt' uncommon. It's free
and it's a replaceable supply - you just have to spend 20 minutes with a
cordless circ saw out in the garage cutting it up.

PS - all my workshop "errors" end up in the fireplace too!



Brian


"SteveW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good quality
> firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to me. Does
> anyone have any recommendations?
>
> Thanks
>
> Steve
>
>

Leon wrote:
> "George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Leon wrote:
>>
>>>"Will" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>My old partner was a professional forester. Got him out to look at the
>>>>"huge cedars" in my front yard - in a small burb just outside Vancouver.
>>>>Had to hold him up - - he was laughing so hard about "saplings". They
>>>>were only 30" across and about 90 feet high. Every time he came over
>>>>after that he started giggling and smirking when he saw the trees. This
>>>>was when I had just moved out there... :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>Are you saying that your trees are about 36 times as tall as they are
>>>wide?
>>
>>No he is not. Cedars have a very tapered stem. As it grow taller it also
>>grows much wider. Cedars don't get much above 200 feet, so a 20' diameter
>>would be a 1/10 ratio. Chances are you will never see a Western Red Cedar
>>with a 20' diameter as a 10' diameter is considered large. I believe one
>>the largest was 62' in diameter (on Vancouver Island) but trees of that
>>diameter were never common and anything over 15' is often/usually hollow
>>at the base.
>
>
> Well what does 30 inches across and 90 feet tall mean? Seems that equates
> to 1/36th. I am familiar with cedars being wide at the bottom but his
> description seemed like pencil junipers.
>
>

I'm not disputing your calculation; I'm just saying the
ratio changes with the height and age. I'm not sure what a
very young cedar ratio is but likely more than 1:36 and
probably as much as 1:72 for a 5-6 year old plant, e.g., 1
inch diameter and 6 feet tall. He also indicated that old
growth had very large trunks and the largest probably have a
ratio of only 1:4 or 1:5, e.g., 40-60 foot diameter but a
height of 200 feet. Other trees such as redwoods and
Douglas fir have a much higher ratio of trunk diameter to
height since they tend to be less tapered.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>Hickory Maple, Ash. They grow relatively quickly for hardwood.
>
Never heard of a "hickory maple". Presumably there was supposed to be a comma
in there? :-)

Anyway... hickory is *not* a particularly fast-growing tree; neither are most
maple species, and the ones that *do* grow fast make poor firewood; and the
same is true of ash -- it's "fast growing" only when compared to oaks.

Bottom line: the OP is not thinking realistically. *No* tree that he plants is
going to grow to firewood size in a short time like he wants.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

P van Rijckevorsel wrote:
>>>P van Rijckevorsel wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Yes, it hardly ever is a good idea to grow your own firewood.
>
>
>>>George E. Cawthon <[email protected]> schreef
>>>
>>>>Depends on what you mean. Buy 10 acres of forest that
>>>
>>>hasn't been logged in 20-30 years and you will have firewood
>>>forever.
>
>
>>>>"P van Rijckevorsel" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>>In that case you are not growing your own firewood but harvesting wood
>
> that has grown over the past 20-30 years. Also, "forever" will depend on
> your rate of consumption.
>
>
>>George <george@least> schreef
>>Baloney. You're splitting hairs. I'm sure you know what he's saying.
>
>
> ***
> I know what I am saying and I know what he and you are saying.
> You are saying that living off capital (harvesting the existing wood) is the
> same as earning your own living (harvesting the wood that you yourself grow)
> PvR
>
>
>
>
>
>
You want to get ridiculously detailed so here is a very
conservative view. Buy 10 acres of coniferous forest that
hasn't been managed for 20 years. Trees will be aged from
40 or 50 years old down to new growth. There will be
branches and downed trees, even old stuff left when the
loggers moved out 20 years ago. Remove as much of the dead
downed and standing stuff and put in your wood pile. There
will probably be enough for the next winter maybe even the
next 2 winters. Go through and pick out the crappy trees
and the ones where thinning is needed. Cut enough of those
for 1 winters supply (you won't burn this until the 2nd or
3rd winter. Every year, harvest enough wood for one year
and stay at least 2nd years ahead. When you are 70 or so
and no longer want to use wood to heat, look at your 10
acres and be proud of the way you managed it and that there
is now more good wood than when you bought it. Sell it to
someone who is just starting out. That's called long term
management and conservation of resources and is not living
off the capital.



10 acres will annually grow more wood than a normal house
would use for heat. That isn't living off the capital, it
is living off the annual yield (or in your terms the
interest). Of course that depends on where you live. It
obviously won't work in an arid region, but it would in a
region with more than 25" of precipitation a year and
reasonable altitude. OTOH, 10 acres would probably have
sufficient yield to support 3 or 4 houses in wetter areas.
This, of course, also assumes that your house is
reasonably well insulated and of reasonable size so that you
don't need more than 3-4 cords per year. Heck, if your
trees are conifers and you start at 20 years old, by the
time you are 50 you would not need to cut more than 10 or 12
trees each year.

Yes, but the wood has very high silica content and will dull a saw chain
quickly. Just a nuisance.

Steve

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> SteveW wrote:
>> I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good quality
>> firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to me.
> Does
>> anyone have any recommendations?
>>
>
> Black locust grows fast and is reputed to burn quite hot.
>
> --
>
> FF
>

In article <[email protected]>, "Virgle Griffith" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Poplar is not a very good firewood. It will create lots of cresote in the
>chimney.
>I know from experience. I loaded my stove one night and closed the dampers
>so it would burn slow and last all night.
>The next morning cresote had formed on the door and was running out the
>door.
>It looked like tar.

What kind of poplar? The western one that's related to aspen, or yellow-poplar
AKA tulip poplar AKA tulip-tree?


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
"Virgle Griffith" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Poplar is not a very good firewood. It will create lots of cresote in the
> >chimney.
> >I know from experience. I loaded my stove one night and closed the
dampers
> >so it would burn slow and last all night.
> >The next morning cresote had formed on the door and was running out the
> >door.
> >It looked like tar.
>
> What kind of poplar? The western one that's related to aspen, or
yellow-poplar
> AKA tulip poplar AKA tulip-tree?

Yellow poplar
Virgle

"SteveW" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good quality
> firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to me. Does
> anyone have any recommendations?
>

The faster the tree grown, the less dense it is and the less quality the
firewood. Most trees would take 20 to 40 years to be worthwhile. Plant now
for your grandchildren.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:55:58 GMT, "SteveW" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good quality
>firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to me. Does
>anyone have any recommendations?
>
>Thanks
>
>Steve
>
HEAT CONTENT (million BTU/cord), 20% moisture:

Hickories 30.8-32.1
Oak: willow, swamp white 29.6-30.8
post, scarlet, swamp chestnut 28.7
chestnut, southern red, white 28.3
northern red, overcup, water 27.0
black 26.1
Locust, black 28.3
Beech 27.4
Maple, sugar 27.0
Elm, rock 27.0
Ash, white 25.7
Walnut, black 23.6
Maple, red 23.2
Sweetgum 22.3
Hackberry 22.1
Pine, yellow 21.8
Cherry, black 21.4
Elm, American 21.4
Sycamore 21.0
Yellow-poplar 18.0
Sassafras 17.5
Cottonwood 17.1
Hemlock 17.1
Willow 16.7
Pine, white 15.0

http://www.state.tn.us/agriculture/forestry/




FAST GROWERS (not in order)

1.)eastern cottonwood
Cottonwood is a fast growing tree when it has adequate moisture and
often grows as much as 8 feet per year.

2.)silver maple
It is a tall, fast-growing tree found on the bottomlands reaching a
mature height of 70 to 80 feet and a crown spread of 50 to 60 feet.

3.)green ash
Average annual height growth of 12 to 18 inches can be expected under
good management.

4.)black walnut
This tree grows about 2 to 3 feet per year

5.) Oak, Red (Quercus rubra)
A native tree with a height of 60-80+’ and width of 40-50’. Leaves
develop excellent fall colors from orange to red. Growth rate is rapid
(fastest of all oaks).

6.) Basswood and
7.) Poplar

8.) "Quick Shade" The Imperial Carolina
Imperial Carolina Poplar hybrid. On average and under normal
conditions, this tree will grow six feet per year

9.) Weeping willow
The willows and poplars typically grow the fastest, up to 8 feet a
year, and some of the others grow anywhere from four to ten feet a
year

10.)The "Red Baron" Willow Hybrid Tree
Under average and normal conditions, the Red baron will grow six feet
per year

11.) Willow Hybrid
on average and under normal conditions, will grow six feet per year

12.)Sweetgum

13.)Sycamore

14.) Honeylocust
Gleditsia triacanthos or thornless honeylocust is fast growing as a
young tree and will grow 2' or more a year over a 10 year period

15.)Willow Oak

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=198432



With a little effort you could graph these out and find the sweet
spot.





tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)

"J T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mon, Feb 7, 2005, 5:55pm (EST+5) [email protected] (SteveW)
> claims:
> I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good quality
> firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to me. Does
> anyone have any recommendations?
>
> What's your definition of "good quality", and, "short amount of
> time"? Depending how you define "short time", you could grow a redwood,
> then probably only one would be needed. Or, maybe not.
>
> I've read that where mesquite grows, one acre will provide all the
> firewood you need.

Mesquite grows wild in Southern and central Texas. It grows very slooooooow
and is a desert tree. Quite scraggy and usually looks like a bush when
relative young. It is best used for cooking. You can find pieces of it big
enough to build with but it is pretty expensive. I doubt you would want to
use it in a fire place. It does burn well and is considered the hardest
domestic wood in the US.

"P van Rijckevorsel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Actually, silica content of black locust is zero

Not the ones in my yard! Sparks are visible when you cut the wood. The
chain has to be sharpened frequently. Chains don't last all that long.
Also quite a bit of ash is left. But it burns long and hot.

Steve

> PvR
>
> Steven and Gail Peterson <[email protected]> schreef
>> Yes, but the wood has very high silica content and will dull a saw chain
>> quickly. Just a nuisance.
>
>> <[email protected]> wrote
>> > Black locust grows fast and is reputed to burn quite hot.
>
>
>
>

In article <[email protected]>,
"Jason Quick" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"SteveW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good quality
>> firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to me. Does
>> anyone have any recommendations?
>>
>
>As others have stated, poplar is not a good choice. AIUI, osage orange (aka
>hedge apple, maclura pomifera) has a rapid growth rate and is the best
>firewood out there. Whether it gets to be usable firewood in a short
>period, versus a collection of twigs and sticks, I dunno.
>
>Jason

I used to camp in HedgeRows back in Scouts in Kansas. Osage Orange also
has some features which reduce it attractiveness around the campfire.
It pop while burning. Maybe OK for stoves but it tends to toss burning
crap out of fireplaces. It's tough to cut and tends to dull cutting
edges. We used to camp mostly in Oak and Hedge woods. when we went to
Colorado, we thought the wood smelled funny while burning.

--
Dana Miller

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:36:57 -0600, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Doug Miller
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Bottom line: the OP is not thinking realistically. *No* tree that he plants
>> is
>> going to grow to firewood size in a short time like he wants.
>
>Some of these might work, but I have no idea how they burn...
>
><http://www.jmbamboo.com/giants.htm>
>
>djb

They burn terribly. Those stems are hollow and the quality of the wood
makes them very poor firewood. They are, however, fast growing under
the right conditions, very strong and you you need posts or beams for
a construction project . . .

--RC (who currently grows three species in his back yard.)


Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit;
Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad

-- Suzie B

Can't resist. :-)

Lived on the west coast for quite a while. Traveled the Island forests
and coastal waterway areas quite a bit. Been through the gulf Islands --
just logged off rocks now -- and traveled through Desolation Sound and
the interior of BC (and Alberta) quite extensively... Spent a fair bit
of time walking "old growth" forests.

My old partner was a professional forester. Got him out to look at the
"huge cedars" in my front yard - in a small burb just outside Vancouver.
Had to hold him up - - he was laughing so hard about "saplings". They
were only 30" across and about 90 feet high. Every time he came over
after that he started giggling and smirking when he saw the trees. This
was when I had just moved out there... :-)

He used to harvest old growth on Vancouver Island and the coast. He said
most of the trees were 20 to 40 feet across near the base when he
started cutting. Most of the cedar trees were about a millenia and older
when he started in the trade. He pushed hard for conservation and a
slower cut rate - everyone told him the forest would go on forever and
thought him a raving lunatic. They had a "log the next hillside"
mentality and could not imagine the end of the forestry trade. Now we
have mostly second and third generation forests on the West coast. Most
if us have never seen a forest of large trees. We see museums like
Cathedral Grove and think it's a big forest... But the trees out there
can be 2000 to 3000 years old - just darn few now.

You can still see some Big Old trees in Cathedral Grove near Nanaimo BC.
Kind of a religious experience if you ask me. Never measured those trees
myself, but I could have parked an 18' canoe or my car inside the trunk
of one and had room to lay the sleeping bag...

George E. Cawthon wrote:
> Will wrote:
>
>> Left out a comma. TOIEG (There's one in every group.) However, if you
>> do find a hybrid -- post a picture of the wood..
>>
>> I thought he said he wanted fast growing hardwood. For Hard wood those
>> trees DO grow fast. :-) Couple hundred years and you have great trees
>> -- now take western red cedar - that takes a while to reach maturity
>> -- few hundred years or so (a couple of millenia or so and it's
>> reasonably large). Now that is slowooooowwww.
>>
>
> Whoa. Let's not exaggerate too much. I lived where there were western
> red cedar. They are relatively fast growing and require lots of
> moisture. Don't believe I ever saw a 200 year old one except in a
> reserve. A 2-foot diameter cedar on our place was usually at most 80
> years old and likely much younger and would have a lot of rot. Since the
> place was logged in the 30's, most of the large trees I saw had to be no
> more than 60 years old. Damn few trees (individuals) of any kind (and
> certainly not Western Red Cedar) live a couple of millenia.

--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

I think you are taking offense unnecessarily. My favorite
climbing tree was about 100 feet in front of our house and I
watched it grow. It was never bigger than 30 inches across
and it rose to about 100 feet; by triangulation we figured
it would just touch the house if it fell. The cedar 20 feet
from the back of the house was over 3 feet by the time we
sold the place. I don't know the height but it wasn't much
above 100 feet.

BTW, your tree was a sapling only for old timers. There are
lots of pictures of logging around Seattle and a 3' diameter
tree would be a sapling to them. Today, a 3' tree is
considered merchantable. The loggers certainly had no
hesitation in cutting 18" cedars on our place and they were
one of the more valuable trees; white pine was worth more.

Will wrote:
> It was probably 3 to 4 feet at the base. As I recall I measured it at
> about eye height - around 6 foot. It was a sapling - remember? Who pays
> attention to these little details on a sapling? :-)
>
> On the really big cedars the base goes up considerably higher.
>
>
>
> Leon wrote:
>
>> "George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Will" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> My old partner was a professional forester. Got him out to look at
>>>>> the "huge cedars" in my front yard - in a small burb just outside
>>>>> Vancouver. Had to hold him up - - he was laughing so hard about
>>>>> "saplings". They were only 30" across and about 90 feet high. Every
>>>>> time he came over after that he started giggling and smirking when
>>>>> he saw the trees. This was when I had just moved out there... :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying that your trees are about 36 times as tall as they
>>>> are wide?
>>>
>>>
>>> No he is not. Cedars have a very tapered stem. As it grow taller it
>>> also grows much wider. Cedars don't get much above 200 feet, so a
>>> 20' diameter would be a 1/10 ratio. Chances are you will never see a
>>> Western Red Cedar with a 20' diameter as a 10' diameter is considered
>>> large. I believe one the largest was 62' in diameter (on Vancouver
>>> Island) but trees of that diameter were never common and anything
>>> over 15' is often/usually hollow at the base.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well what does 30 inches across and 90 feet tall mean? Seems that
>> equates to 1/36th. I am familiar with cedars being wide at the bottom
>> but his description seemed like pencil junipers.
>>
>

Hybrid popular is fast growing, but as others have mentioned, its a
lousy firewood. Its a little hard to get started, and burns quickly when
it does, and does not leave any decent coals.

I've still got most of 2 populars in my woodpile that were planted by my
dad. They were 25 years old or so when they were cut down (they were
starting to drop limbs and look like crap). They were mature much
earlier than that though.

John

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 16:44:49 -0500, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:

>HEAT CONTENT (million BTU/cord), 20% moisture:
>
... snip
>
>http://www.state.tn.us/agriculture/forestry/
>
>
>
>
>FAST GROWERS (not in order)
>
... snip
>
>
>
>

Tom,

That post was a wealth of information, it just got split and filed
in my reference catalog.

Thanks.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:55:58 GMT, "SteveW" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good quality
>firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to me. Does
>anyone have any recommendations?
>
>Thanks
>
>Steve
>
Since you are a wooddorker, you must make sawdust.

"Pressed sawdust firelogs. These are made from tightly compressed 100%
pure wood sawdust, without the addition of waxes, chemicals or other
additives. Pound for pound, these give even more heat than natural
firewood – 8500 BTU per pound in comparison with 6400 BTU for natural
wood. They can be used in fireplaces, woodstoves, inserts, and
campfires. All in all, these firelogs give all the heat and more of
natural wood, and have the convenience of popular wax firelogs."

http://www.worldwise.com/firorfir.html




tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:55:58 GMT, "SteveW" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good quality
>firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to me. Does
>anyone have any recommendations?
>
>Thanks
>
>Steve
>

Some ideas, probably not the best firewood, but it does burn and the trees
grow fast:

Fast growing: Chinese elm if it will survive the beetles (there are some
beetle-resistant trees out there). Quality of firewood is in the eye of the
beholder -- seems to burn reasonably well.

Cottonwood: grows fast, burns pretty fast, doesn't split, so much as
"slabs off" when breaking down larger trunks.


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
> > "SteveW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good quality
> >>firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to me.
Does
> >>anyone have any recommendations?
> >
> >
> >
> > Well normally I would not say that was possible but I had a Chinese
Tallow
> > removed and asked the guy taking it down to cut it into pieces 18 to 20
> > inches long and put them in my fire wood rack. He asked if I was going
to
> > burn it and indicated that it did not burn well in a fire place. I told
him
> > that I wanted to turn the wood. Well 8 months later winter is here and
I
> > burned it. I was pleasantly surprised that 8 to 10 inch diameter non
split
> > logs were dried enough to burn and would burn for about 2 hours each and
put
> > out quite a bit of heat. This tree is a very fast grower.
> >
> >
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=chinese+tallow&gwp=11&ver=1.0.3.109&method=2
> >
> >
> I know nothing about Chinese Tallow, but what you found is
> that talking about wood and wood stoves is about the same as
> the arguments you get when talking about Ford, Chevy, GMC,
> and Dodge. Much of what people tell you is highly biased
> and may be based on one rather exceptional experience.
>
> The only thing that is important is that the wood be dry and
> some take a long time to dry.

George - please ignore my other reply to you. I do believe I completely
missed you point. I knew I heard this buzzing sound over my head...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"SteveW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good quality
> firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to me. Does
> anyone have any recommendations?

What zone do you live in?
In my current neck'o'the woods - among the fastest growers are Aspen and
Maple.

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 13:30:18 -0500, Will <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Also, at the risk of starting a flame-war I take exception to the
>> use of the term 'harvest' in reference to cutting old-growth.
>> 'Harvest' is appropriate only in regards to what one has planted.
>> E.g. You reap what you have sown.
>>
>

<evil grin>

When the phrase "Fast Firewood" came up on the subject line, did anyone
else think, "Bulldozer, tow chain, house . . ."

<\evil grin>

"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
<snip>
>

Bah! Not one exotic on there! C'mon! Wouldn't real men burn Zebrawood,
Wenge or Mahogany???
Whadda about Ebony! That's gotta make great kindling!

Hickory Maple, Ash. They grow relatively quickly for hardwood.


SteveW wrote:
> I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good quality
> firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to me. Does
> anyone have any recommendations?
>
> Thanks
>
> Steve
>
>

--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek

Will wrote:
> Left out a comma. TOIEG (There's one in every group.) However, if you do
> find a hybrid -- post a picture of the wood..
>
> I thought he said he wanted fast growing hardwood. For Hard wood those
> trees DO grow fast. :-) Couple hundred years and you have great trees --
> now take western red cedar - that takes a while to reach maturity -- few
> hundred years or so (a couple of millenia or so and it's reasonably
> large). Now that is slowooooowwww.
>

Whoa. Let's not exaggerate too much. I lived where there
were western red cedar. They are relatively fast growing and
require lots of moisture. Don't believe I ever saw a 200
year old one except in a reserve. A 2-foot diameter cedar
on our place was usually at most 80 years old and likely
much younger and would have a lot of rot. Since the place
was logged in the 30's, most of the large trees I saw had to
be no more than 60 years old. Damn few trees (individuals)
of any kind (and certainly not Western Red Cedar) live a
couple of millenia.

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 08:19:10 -0500, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:


>
>George - please ignore my other reply to you. I do believe I completely
>missed you point. I knew I heard this buzzing sound over my head...

me too! I think it was the black helicopters..


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Not necessarily, some trees only live about 30 years. Of
> course you have already dismissed Lombardy poplar, but their
> average life span is only 25-35 years. We had a neighbor
> down the street plant a row on one side of their lot and cut
> everyone of them in about 20 years when they had bases of
> 18" to 24" and were well over 100' tall. Birch grows fast.
> I cut my clump birch (actually paper birch) after 20 years
> and after fighting a fungus disease for several years. It
> had three major trunks and yielded a lot of wood with many
> blocks in the 10-8" diameter.
>

The birch that grows around here (white birch?) gets punky *really* fast.
Faster than beech. In fact most of it does not come off the stump all that
great.
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 05:14:49 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"J T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Mon, Feb 7, 2005, 5:55pm (EST+5) [email protected] (SteveW)
>> claims:
>> I need to find a type of tree to plant that will give me good quality
>> firewood in a short amount of time. Someone mentioned Poplar to me. Does
>> anyone have any recommendations?
>>
>> What's your definition of "good quality", and, "short amount of
>> time"? Depending how you define "short time", you could grow a redwood,
>> then probably only one would be needed. Or, maybe not.
>>
>> I've read that where mesquite grows, one acre will provide all the
>> firewood you need.
>
>Mesquite grows wild in Southern and central Texas. It grows very slooooooow
>and is a desert tree. Quite scraggy and usually looks like a bush when
>relative young. It is best used for cooking. You can find pieces of it big
>enough to build with but it is pretty expensive. I doubt you would want to
>use it in a fire place. It does burn well and is considered the hardest
>domestic wood in the US.
>
And one acre might provide all the firewood you need once -- it won't
do so continiously. Mesquite is slow growing and has a very large root
syste, so the trees (bushes) usually don't grow thickly.

Darned good thing as that stuff has thorns!

--RC

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit;
Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad

-- Suzie B