Stoker Vs Handfired Coal Usage?

I've been reading some posts by stoker owners that sounds like a stoker will use more coal than a hand fired for the same heat output. Is that correct &, if so, why?

My theory is that the coal realizes that we are not resolute manly men and it thinks that it can push us around and abuse us by not burning completely.

Are you supposed to give your coal pile a stern talking to?

I have gotten just the opposite impression, people with stokers heating twice the space that I do, but using less coal. Maybe they have much better insulation. And maybe the stoker throttles itself back when not so much heat is needed, whereas my wife sees no reason to adjust it while I'm at work just because the room is 76 degrees.

I run a hand fired and I would think the stoker would use less fuel, the burn is always near the optimum as it has a fairly continuous feed. Whereas a hand fired has three stages of burning and two of them are not as productive.

And maybe the stoker throttles itself back when not so much heat is needed, whereas my wife sees no reason to adjust it while I'm at work just because the room is 76 degrees.

Bingo! I can't compare apples to apples on usage since my Mag stoker heats most of the house, while my old hopper-fed Surdiac only did one room, but the stoker (on a thermostat) can throttle back, keep a very low fire successfully by itself, and just sip coal until needed. That's beautiful in my book for mild days and cold nights.

On the flip side, at full tilt it's possible to feed the stoker too fast and push burning coal right off the grate if you don't have everything adjusted right, thus wasting coal (been there done that )