Scraps are a biproduct of manufacturing. With any biproduct, we do always have to make sure that we do not retract from the main product when working with a biproduct. So, the first step should be to maximize the main product. With raw wood being perhaps 75% of the value of a product, profit gains in efficient processing (low waste) are tremendous, so long as such processing changes do not affect the primary product quality.
Obviously, we will have some wood waste and it's disposal must be done. People have looked at wood waste for decades to see what value it might have. In a few cases, people have been able to make a profitable product--small boxes, kiln stickers, hobby market, fuel, bedding and compost--but seldom are these products that profitable, especially if handling and government regulations are restrictive.
Burning wood for disposal sounds great and maybe helps cash flow until we encounter various regulations, from fire risks, air pollution and so on. Plus there is handling, including fuel prep and storage over weekends, and so on. Plus, after burning, we have ash disposal concerns which we can ignore if the environment is not important, or we can find out are expensive. Wood has many trace minerals that are concentrated in the ash. Who cares if these are now concentrated in the landfill when we dispose of the ash? It is just a few shovels of ash in a dumpster every week.
One discussion topic is the fact that any organic burning generates CO and CO2. The more long-life wood products we make, the more we sequester carbon and reduce CO2 in the air..etc. so, putting scraps in a landfill helps, except the deterioration of wood in the landfill does release CO2 over time. 9flimsy, short-lived wood products from overseas have a short life' better made products from the USA can help sequesrtor carbon- -buy USA.
All in all, wood manufacturing is a tough job with high complexity if we think about more than profit.