Letters & Advice Choosing Species to Burn


Esmond Harris questions recent comments about burning softwood


issue of Smallwoods [an extract from his new book, Grow Your Own Firewood] I am surprised to see that he dismisses conifer timber as good firewood on the grounds that it takes longer to dry ('up to three years') and because 'it deposits resinous residues on the insides of chimneys and is a common cause of chimney fires'. After 30 years of very satisfactory wood heating I cannot agree with either of these statements. If the chimney collects resin


I


deposits it is because it has not been lined properly. I have burnt a lot of larch and some spruce for 20 years with an old brick chimney, but the chimney was lined before we had the woodburner installed. When I called in the sweep after several years he told me not to waste my money on him again as there was little for him to do! The important thing of course is


to ensure that the wood is properly dry before it is burnt. However, conifers do not need three years if the billets have been cut to short lengths. I used to cut to 50cm because that fitted nicely across the fire. If the logs are more than 15cm in diameter they need to be split and then spruce will dry in one year and larch in two, properly stacked under cover of course with the wind able to blow through the stack. I was also concerned to read in Vincent Thurkettle's The Wood Fire Handbook (which was reviewed in SW49) that merely drying oak 'for a year or more' is recommended. In my experience, albeit in the wet West Country, oak needs at least three years and preferably four, and this only after it has been cut to short lengths and split. Then, and only then, it is an excellent woodfuel. Nor does Michael Littlewood


seem to be aware that weight for weight softwood (coniferous) timber has a higher calorific value that hardwood (broadleaved) timber. Surprisingly, Phil Tidey, in his review of the book from which the article is extracted, fails to


24 Smallwoods New Year 2014


n Michael Littlewood's article on species suitable for firewood in the Autumn 2013


mention this too. Thus a tonne of larch (or spruce) produces more heat than a tonne of oak but of course the tonne of larch takes up more space, ie. is of greater volume, than a tonne of oak and other hardwood timber. Vincent Thurkettle, who is


an experienced forester, also describes conifers as 'more of a challenge than broadleaves' and they are regarded as second-rate firewood, but he fails to mention that the kinetic energy value of coniferous wood is higher than that of broadleaves weight for weight. Coniferous firewood just needs more storage space. Surprisingly Vincent Thurkettle writes that conifers are 'slow to dry and season thoroughly'. My experience of burning a great deal of larch, as well as some spruce and pine, is that their value lies in the short time it takes to dry coniferous wood. They are particularly useful when initially setting up a good reserve of firewood because it can be dried in a year or two, whilst slower-drying oak and most other hardwoods can take three to four years to dry sufficiently to burn well. So don't dismiss coniferous


timber for heating, particularly when you start burning wood because it will take at least three years to build up a winter's supply of dry hardwood logs whilst dry conifer can be used in the first or second winter. My aim is always to have two to three years' supply of woodfuel under cover and a proportion of this is always softwood (conifer). Towards the end of Vincent's book, although not related to firewood, there is a reference to Dutch elm disease, stating that the suckers of dead elms grow from the 'disease-free roots', but that is exactly where the fungus has remained to re-infect the new growth. Having perhaps been over-critical, this is an attractively-presented book, with many personal anecdotes, so it is unfortunate these errors have crept in and may mislead those new to wood burning.


Feedback, questions and comments from woodland owners


Join the Small Woods Association Small Woods aims to support and champion the management of woodlands, with sustainability, biodiversity and enhancement of heritage in mind. We are pioneers in social forestry, helping to pilot projects that benefit both woodlands and people. Call 01952 432769 or visit www.smallwoods.org.uk to join.


Working with hornbeam coppice Bevis Sale asks if it's safe to coppice hornbeam


No Federation launch


I was very sad and disappointed to find no mention in the latest Smallwoods about the National Coppice Federation meeting in April in Worcestershire, when the first committee was elected. Richard Thomason [who is employed by Small Woods] is a co-opted member and I would have thought he would have given you a report. It was an excellent weekend with a good turnout of coppice enthusiasts from across the country, with a long discussed and awaited outcome first suggested at the Marches Greenwood Convention in Herefordshire in 1999. I have also been disappointed about the demise of the short-lived Coppice Cuts section of Smallwoods.


Apologies for not including a report from the first meeting. Other attendees have told us that it was a great success. Since then, of course, there has been the launch of the National Coppice Federation (NCFed) in London in September. There was a series of excellent speeches in a magnificent church in Smiths Square, and then the committee lined up in front of Parliament in pouring rain to celebrate the launch of a champion for coppicing.


www.smallwoods.org.uk


when introducing management. I recently heard of someone who cut two acres of old unmanaged hornbeam stools, only to lose the lot. I am sure very many owners are in the situation of wanting to resume the coppicing of stools not cut for decades, but are worried about killing off the stools rather than revitalising them. One gets advice in a random fashion, and there seems to be little published. There seems to be some advice that long-stored coppice of any species should be cut higher than normally done, but I have heard of a case where this was done to hornbeam, with none growing back. My own woodland is part of a larger SSSI


L Brian Crawley


wood, and last autumn I had just negotiated a coppicing management plan with Natural England, prior to formally submitting it, when Dieback hit the headlines. Our wood is mid-way between the first two sites identified in East Anglia, and is 60% ash. Natural England (NE) won't allow me to coppice, for understandable reasons. They visited in September and say we have Dieback, but I am dubious, as the leaf stems don't show the purplish multi-colouring, and there are no weeping lesions. The wood is very dark, and I think the poor trees continuously try new shoots which often fail due to a lack of light. The ash is mature, having no been coppiced since 1935, and I think it hasn't got it yet due to maturity. Natural England are keen for me to open


up to let the light in, so I shall probably be allowed to make a glade. This will involve cutting the hornbeam, so I might


www.smallwoods.org.uk


ast year a Small Woods mentor mentioned minimising the risk of killing ancient hornbeam stools


experiment with different ways of treating each stool. No management can take place in an SSSI wood without consent from NE. Even having the same place for a camp site needs consent and they are not keen on any camping as excrement can change the soil make-up. Similarly, no huts. I got it in the neck for taking down hung trees without permission when we first got the wood. Although this all sounds draconian, in fact having broken the ice all four owners have found NE helpful, who want owners to understand what their responsibilities are. You are sent a document when you buy the wood which includes a list, something like the Ten Commandments, of things you may not do without permission. I am sympathetic of NE's needs. When


Woodlands.co.uk sell woods they always state whether it is has SSSI status or not, but don't go into what that means, which is really an active guardianship protecting the woodland. Our wood is regarded as 'declining', ie. dying, as it was actively coppiced, probably from the 13th Century onwards, until about 1935. As a result all the ash stools, in particular, are overgrown, and have started falling over and dying. The theory is that one day everything will be dead, although I am sure it won't work like that. Natural England were therefore keen on my coppicing plans until Dieback reared its viral head. They want more diversity in the wood, ie. some parts left as they are dark with rotting tree trunks, and other areas open to the sky. I have already felled every sycamore at NE's request, and although this created only small areas of sunlight, the difference in species attracted to the light was noticeable next spring.


Hornbeam solution


According to Julian Evans, woodland owner and author of Badgers, Beeches & Blisters, it is quite common practice when coppicing hornbeam to leave one branch or shoot attached to the stool. "This is called a 'teller'," he says. "The thinking behind the idea is that the still-attached live branch prevents the stump from dying and so allows new growth to emerge. Once the new coppice is well established the 'teller' or stored branch can be safely cut. The teller to be left needn't, and indeed shouldn't be the biggest shoot on the stump, but it should be more than twig size!" Julian adds that he came across this practice in Hertfordshire many years ago where he says it was being used throughout an area of recently-coppiced hornbeam.


New Year 2014 Smallwoods 25


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15