Tractors and wood! Show your pics

[Skeans1]

I have a woodworker friend of mine, he is looking to expand his old barn to make a true assembly & finishing room. I have loads of red oak, but he was looking for white oak timbers for the 1st floor girders. Yes the red oak is strong enough, but the white oak is more rot resistant. There is a concrete slab in the basement, but its a tad damp because of the stone foundation walls, so the white oak would just be a little better fit. Maybe like @arrow , I can wish real hard to get them here!! I even have a Cat to move them!

You guys should try some Doug Fir it’d surprise you for its strength as well as having the ability to really have some good spans.

 

[Jstpssng]

You guys should try some Doug Fir it’d surprise you for its strength as well as having the ability to really have some good spans.

It must be heavy. Burning it puts out more BTUs than most hardwoods we have on this side of the continent.

 

[Skeans1]

It must be heavy. Burning it puts out more BTUs than most hardwoods we have on this side of the continent.

It’s not horribly heavy it’s a very unique wood. Looking it up I’m finding 33 pounds per cubic foot so the same as black ash, but this will very depending on age. Take the stuff that’s 100 years or older it’s a lot heavier then the young stuff you would normally find for sale.

Something like that big girl weighed around 30k at 40’ long and around 40” on the top judging by the grapples that’s around 3k board footage in Scribner so it’s not horribly heavy.

 

[John_Mc]

It must be heavy. Burning it puts out more BTUs than most hardwoods we have on this side of the continent.

?? Douglass Fir rated at 17.4 MBTU/cord. That's lower than any of the hardwoods I generally burn. Call me a firewood snob, but I start to lose interest in a species for firewood use if it gets much below about 20 MBTU/cord. I'll occasionally burn some Box Elder, or Red Cedar, but it needs to be really convenient for me to put the effort into it.

 

[Jstpssng]

?? Douglass Fir rated at 17.4 MBTU/cord. That's lower than any of the hardwoods I generally burn. Call me a firewood snob, but I start to lose interest in a species for firewood use if it gets much below about 20 MBTU/cord. I'll occasionally burn some Box Elder, or Red Cedar, but it needs to be really convenient for me to put the effort into it.

Everything I can find shows it at around 26 MBTUs.

Firewood BTU Ratings – Wilson Forest Lands

 

[Skeans1]

?? Douglass Fir rated at 17.4 MBTU/cord. That's lower than any of the hardwoods I generally burn. Call me a firewood snob, but I start to lose interest in a species for firewood use if it gets much below about 20 MBTU/cord. I'll occasionally burn some Box Elder, or Red Cedar, but it needs to be really convenient for me to put the effort into it.

20.7 btu’s but it does depend on age.

 

[LogChain]

Smokeydog,

Must be an East TN thing. Like you, I have my wife do the heavy lifting .

—LogChain

 

[John_Mc]

Interesting. Douglass Fir seems to be all over the map for BTU ratings.

If Douglas Fir is rated at 26 MBTUs/cord. That would put it up there with Hophornbeam (The densest wood I seem to have around here), above Shagbark Hickory, and well above White Oak. I find that hard to believe.

My goto chart for years has been one that was put out by ChimneySweepOnline. Their original web site no longer exists, but Hearth.com has a lot of the old information up on their site:

Sweep's Library - Firewood Heat Value Comparison Charts

Firewood heat value chart

hearth.com

A lot of charts are compiled with data from different sources. Most original sources don't actually burn the wood and measure the output, they calculate the BTUs from the weight of the wood seasoned to a specified moisture content (since just about every species of wood has the same BTUs per pound - the exception being species with a lot of pitch in them). The problem is, that some of these charts don't correct the various sources for different moisture contents.

Chimney Sweep did that work, and their data so far has matched up with my subjective observations and other well-regarded sources.

However, I've never burned Douglas Fir. They certainly could be wrong on this one. It is strange that 3 different sources have such widely varying BTU claims for this species.

 

[Jstpssng]

I was surprised to read the BTUs of Doug Fir, when I first read it on a USDA web page. It's also possible that it was an error on a firewood table someplace, and everybody just keeps using the same data.

I just looked though, and the USDA sheet now lists it as 20.6... just as the man from out west has stated.

 

[John_Mc]

I was surprised to read the BTUs of Doug Fir, when I first read it on a USDA web page. It's also possible that it was an error on a firewood table someplace, and everybody just keeps using the same data.

I just looked though, and the USDA sheet now lists it as 20.6... just as the man from out west has stated.

That's a bit more believable. Interesting that the BTU ratings in the chart Skeans posted seem to be higher across the board than the ones in the chart I posted. I use the chart more as a relative indicator (is this wood higher or lower on the chart), rather than for any actual BTU estimate.