Toller wrote:
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
news

"Toller" wrote in message
...
Nobody asked you what kind of wood it was. Most wood isn't worth the
effort. What are your trees?


Really? If not wood, what do you burn in a wood burning stove?
Black locust. Best wood there is; only one I use. I sure wouldn't bother
splitting soft woods or many of the lesser hardwoods. I suppose oak, hard
maple, hickory, and a few others are okay if black locust isn't available,
but "most wood isn't worth the effort".

That is the most rediculous thing I have seen in a long, long time.
You just did away with heating with wood for about 90% of the people
living in the north lands. Those cadillac woods you mentioned aren't
available in the needed quantity up there.

The question of "what should I burn?" if being practical abouit it is.
What wood will give me the most BTU per $ I spend. That is how I look
at it.

I cut my own and get it for free from the landowners or (with permit)
the national forests. Here is how it works out.

If I am willing to cut/burn Willow I can get all I want withing 10-20
miles of my house.
If I want Tamarack or Fir I have to go to the forests = 100 mile
minimum round-trip drive.

You do the math on cost/mile of haulage - gas ain't cheap and neither
is my time.

Time wise it was an all day operation to the forests. Yesterday I was
out and back with a load of Willow in 5 hours.

I burn about 1/3 again as much Willow as I will Tam or Fir.

Thus Willow wins out hands down cost/BTU wise.

As for the others you mentioned. You ain't gonna find any of them
except for a few take-downs around this country.

If you are serious about that comment I rank you in with a bunch of
others I call "firewood snobs".

Harry K