Norway Maple, Green to 20% in 2 Summer Months and other drying observations.

Same here.

 

I do...my beer style of choice actually. Not into weed though

 

Not sure what all this talk of Norway maple being a hard maple is all about? As an arborist I have to know the difference. I spend a lot of time cleaning up damage from silver, red, and norway maple. I always recommend folks steer clear of them for planting near houses. Those three also won't hold a hinge worth a darn! Sugar and black will hold a hinge when cutting very well.

Acer saccharum (sugar maple) and Acer nigrum (black maple) are closely related and considered hard maple. Acer platanoides (norway maple) is a soft maple similar to Acer saccharinum (silver maple). There are a lot of species in the Acer (maple) genus so it's pretty hard to keep them straight. It gets even more confusing when you factor in regional variation of species. My guess is some have confused black a native tree with Norway an invasive tree.

Acer nigrum Black maple leaf (sorry for the stock photo I didn't have one on my phone)

Acer saccharum Sugar maple leaf


Acer platanoides Norway maple

 

Well said Barcroftb! Huge difference between hard and soft maple.

 

Did someone say hops?

 

What resources are you using to define hard maple vs soft?
From my research, Norway doesn't fit hard or soft category, but carries traits of both. And in the context of BTUs it follows the hard category. It's certainly better than red or silver, and just shy of sugar.
It fits in-between sugar and red as far as janka. In my experience wood working wise -cutting-milling it's very similar to sugar maple, much harder than red or silver as well.

 

What resources are you using to classify the Acer Platanoides (Norway Maple) btu's as hard maple? What are your research resources?

Every arboriculture (tree science) text I've ever read lists hard maple as Acer saccharum (Sugar Maple) and sometimes Acer nigrum (Black Maple) as subspecie. Everything else is soft maple.

If you really want to take a trip down the tree nerd rabbit hole check out anything from doctors Ball, Bond, Gilman, Wiseman, or Wolf. Sharon Lilly also has some solid material to contribute as well. MacFarlane and Cragg at Michigan State University are also very good.

My 20 years tree work experience has taught me Acer saccharum is categorically superior to every other Acer (maple).

Here's the real problem with Norway maple though. It's a nasty invasive species here that is eating up our native maples limited natural habitat. Please cut it down wherever possible and make it into the decent firewood (or furniture) it is.

Edit: to clarify tree nerdery for ease of reading

 

Barcroftb .. interesting information, I guess I learned the Old Farmer's way, if you can put your thumb nail and make a dent it's a softwood. Red maple and Norway in a plank, are soft, sugars are not.
Gramps was a sugar maker, who only tapped sugars and rock maple, his name for the tree and I've never found it anywhere. For very light or fancy syrup. Soft maple made darker syrup for baking. Depression era rules.

 

That's how my Grandpa taught me too. Also an old farmer.

I'm always eager to learn new info my initial question was genuine. Thought maybe there was new information about Norway being reclassified as hard. Doesn't appear to be the case though. I bet you'd be hard pressed to find a sugar producer that would rather have Norway over hard maple.

 

Oh I understand, the "new" way is deciduous trees are hard. That makes tulip popular a hard wood

 

All I know is it's pretty decent firewood! For a tree that seems to be everywhere around here it sure isnt easy finding an actual BTU listed.

I've been splitting a couple that were in my yard that basically were never pulled as weeds, growing about a foot away from eachother and straight as can be. 14-16" diameter, perfect firewood trees. The more mature residential ones can be a pain though.

 

Hey, your the arborist! I guess I'll have to take your word for it....

So your sticking with it's a soft maple? I still can't find it listed as softaple anywhere.......


Should I quote all the places Norway is not listed as soft?

I thought maybe you had new information that I was not aware of classifying hardwoods, you are the arborist......

Maybe I'm re-tarded(very well could be), but I'm having a hard time finding published data on "doctor ball" the first "rescource" you listed....same with bond...
.....I stopped there..seems it is a rabbit hole of tree pruning.....

Oh well, doesn't matter.....this is fhc....

 

IDK should I list all the places it's not listed as hard maple?

The list of hard maple includes, wait for it, Sugar maple and Black maple.

Everything else is simply considered soft maple.



Maybe I'm misreading but your post strikes me as pretty passive aggressive. Not sure what's going on with you, but I genuinely hope your doing alright?


P.s. since you asked nicely here's a link to an article on the emerald ash borer by Dr. Ball:

http://igrow.org/up/resources/06-2001-2018.pdf

I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Ball and a couple others from that list at arborist conventions more years ago than I'd like to admit. Yes they actually have a such thing as a conventions for arborist.

Edited: For gooder spelling.

 

I'd agree, but this Norway maple that I'm burning sure burns nearly as good and long as the sugar maple I'm used to. There is a possibility this isn't Norway maple as it was a tree service freebie. There were no leaves on it to 100% ID it. All I know is that it's maple, heavy, it looks like Norway bark, heats very well, and it's not sugar.

 

Could possibly be black maple. Good pics here from your neck of the woods:

Trees of Wisconsin: Acer nigrum, black maple

Around here in the Mitten black and norway maple can be doppelgangers.

 

Here's a pic of the firewood in all of its Glory. On the right with the dark Heartwood. I'm in a county where black maple is. Looking at the bark, it possibly does have a resemblance to black maple.

 

I could totally see either there really. However, Norway does tend more toward brown than gray/black. What's the diameter? What gets tricky with just bark identification is the differences from young to intermediate and then mature. Then you factor in regional differences and environmental factors and it can become mud quickly.

I will say what I've found with them all is black/sugar maple will be heavy when seasoned and won't dent with your fingernail. Norway will be lighter but not as light as red/silver. But the really neat thing about trees is all that can be different depending on the environment the tree grew in.

 

I will try to see if I have a diameter pic or a note on my thread from the other winter when I processed it. It had to have been at least 20-24" diameter. I can however find the next split and see if I can dent it with my fingernail.

 

Horkn here are there so many specialty varieties that have been grafted to get the full blaze orange and have the hardness of a sugar maple it's very hard to tell. The university did it for a long time. Because people wanted a maple in their front yard, but didn't want it to be a soft maple that has a tendency to break with wind and snow.
By my eye you have Heart wood which is uncommon in the Norway Maples up here.

 

Thanks for the link on the Ash borer, not sure where it talks about classifying maple.

Honestly I'd more more interested in botany than tree cutting articles.

If I have time, I might look into some botany (botany is the study/biology of plants)books /research papers/publications on the subject.

I think I know the problem, and no passive agreesion but a failure to realize what was being said.

I think the problem is you are confusing a noun with an adjective.
In this case an adjective is being used to describe the traits of maple. Just like hardwood is used to describe trees with leaves compared to pine, even though many species of pine are infact HARDER than hardwoods.

The previous discussion you interjected into the term hard was being used as a adjective( a general describing of a woods characteristics).
You are using it as a noun(proper name) to define a specific(person place thing) species.

If this is the case I see your point as being verified. But you must realize the context of the conversation that "hard" was being used for.
We were using it as btu burning/janka hardness not as a species classification.

Or at least I was, maybe it was me that misinterpreted the context of use.