# My Scientific Observation: Burning elm sucks



## GordonShumway (Dec 4, 2011)

Ok I'm no scientist. But is it just me, or does anyone else find elm to be horrible to burn. Sure it heats the stove up, and not to forget we have an abundance of it here in Nebraska. But wow, it burns down fast and leaves a lot of ash. I'm cleaning out the ashes every 3-4 days. It's about 90% of the wood we have stacked so I am stuck with it this year. Making overnight burns rather obsolete. I guess it beats the "seasoned oak" I paid for last winter, that was so saturated I would get shot in the face with blasts of steam when I opened the door (a bit of exaggeration).


----------



## midwestcoast (Dec 4, 2011)

It's just you  ;-P 
Seriously though, I don't find Elm to be bad to burn (once it's split anyway). It'll be about 1/3rd of my heat this year. It definitely leaves a lot of ash though. 
 Is yours all stringy & pulled apart from tough splitting? That may be what's making it burn-up so fast. Solid splits do pretty well for me.


----------



## LLigetfa (Dec 4, 2011)

Well... it isn't Oak (24 BTU), but then again it isn't as bad a Poplar (13 BTU) either and a lot of folk will burn it or even Pine (14 BTU).

http://chimneysweeponline.com/howood.htm


----------



## Backwoods Savage (Dec 4, 2011)

Gordon, burning elm can be interesting. Sounds like you cut and split the elm while the tree is still alive. Doing this, the elm almost always splits so that it is stringy and the cells just sort of open up. This is why we rarely cut a living elm tree but yet we tend to burn quite a bit of elm. The key here is to wait until the tree is dead and then wait a bit longer; until the bark or at least most of the bark has fallen from the tree. This way we find that 99% of the logs will split without the stringy mess and they split 10 times easier too. The only thing con about this is that the wood tends to really harden and that causes us to have to sharpen the chain a bit sooner than normal but the wood burns very nicely.

A couple years ago I was reminded how bad it can be by cutting a green elm. Nasty stuff it is and yes, lay a log in the fire and whoosh! Fast fire but not lasting.


----------



## GordonShumway (Dec 4, 2011)

Your right Backwoods Savage, the trees were cut down still living causing some massive stringynest. We own a couple of acres and want to put up a fence so the trees had to go. Plan is to go back and plant burr oaks (have plenty of saplings around) in place of the elm on the inside of the fence.


----------



## GordonShumway (Dec 4, 2011)

Also not to forget, when cut green it smelled like a massive pile of cow manure saturated in urine. Sorry for the graphic description, but wow it stinks.


----------



## michburner (Dec 4, 2011)

When I first bought my house my grandpa(who always burned wood) was checking out my woodstove.  He told me that burning elm leads to pregnancy.  I just sat there thinking about it for a minute and couldn't figure it out.  Finally I said "why is that?"  He calmly said "if you load the stove with it at night, you'll be looking for other ways to stay warm".


----------



## Backwoods Savage (Dec 4, 2011)

Well Gordon, for sure burr oak will burn better but grow a bit slower.


----------



## Backwoods Savage (Dec 4, 2011)

GordonShumway said:
			
		

> Also not to forget, when cut green it smelled like a massive pile of cow manure saturated in urine. Sorry for the graphic description, but wow it stinks.



Hence, why it is casually referred to as pi$$ elm.


----------



## GordonShumway (Dec 4, 2011)

Lol, that's a good one Michburner.


----------



## Danno77 (Dec 4, 2011)

Not my favorite wood, but I burn anything.

What I hate about elm is that it weighs about 20x more than wet oak when you first cut it (slight exaggeration)...

What i like about elm is that it dries pretty fast...

What i hate about elm is that it can be a pita to split...

What i like about elm is that it gets the fire hot, and it does it fast...

What I hate about elm is that it's final weight/BtUs is/are about like balsa (slight exaggeration)...


----------



## oldspark (Dec 4, 2011)

It must be the Nebraska elm cause the Iowa elm aint all that bad, I dont mind it at all.


----------



## Pat53 (Dec 4, 2011)

LLigetfa said:
			
		

> Well... it isn't Oak (24 BTU), but then again it isn't as bad a Poplar (13 BTU) either and a lot of folk will burn it or even Pine (14 BTU).
> 
> http://chimneysweeponline.com/howood.htm



I would have thought that elm had a much higher BTU rating. I've never burned it, but a local RV trailer park has a monster elm that has been dead for about a year, and they told me I could cut it down next spring and take the wood.  Must be at least 2 cords of wood in it, about 32" diameter at the stump.  Now I'm not so sure I want it, sounds like a PIA ! A lot of work and not a lot of heat?

Pat


----------



## Danno77 (Dec 4, 2011)

There are two different kinds of elm, but I find they burn similarly. One splits way easier than the other, too.

One is American Elm and the other is Siberian Elm, which many people mistakenly call Chinese Elm (or sometimes out of habit even when they know it's wrong)


----------



## curber (Dec 4, 2011)

Pat53 said:
			
		

> LLigetfa said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is the btu chart that I look at and it does list some of the woods higher in btu's, elm and locast. Pat
http://www.thelograck.com/firewood_rating_chart.html


----------



## Shari (Dec 4, 2011)

michburner said:
			
		

> When I first bought my house my grandpa(who always burned wood) was checking out my woodstove.  He told me that burning elm leads to pregnancy.  I just sat there thinking about it for a minute and couldn't figure it out.  Finally I said "why is that?"  He calmly said "if you load the stove with it at night, you'll be looking for other ways to stay warm".


----------



## Pat53 (Dec 4, 2011)

curber said:
			
		

> Pat53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Interesting, one chart shows 18.4 and the other 20.0 for American Elm. I'll probably end up taking it anyway...just in case I need it in 5 years or so ..LOL


----------



## Woody Stover (Dec 4, 2011)

Lately I've been getting a bit of dead standing Red Elm, ready to burn. I think it's got a little more arse, BTU-wise. Doesn't seem to leave a lot of ash but I haven't burned a full load. I usually put a big round in back on the bottom, and there are still some coals left for a restart 12 hours later (hasn't been too cold here yet so I'm not cranking the stove.) I've got a small amount of some American Elm so I guess I'll find out about it pretty soon...




			
				curber said:
			
		

> This is the btu chart that I look at and it does list some of the woods higher in btu's, elm and locast. Pat
> http://www.thelograck.com/firewood_rating_chart.html


I've seen some of those numbers elsewhere, but...Red Oak 21.7, Hard Maple 29.7, Dogwood 24.3? I don't know 'bout all _that_!


----------



## Duetech (Dec 4, 2011)

There are types of elm and the type you have can make a very big difference. Some elm is listed at 22million btu per cord and others are down around 16 or 14 million nillion per cord. Red elm seems to be in the hottest catgory and the rest are down hill from there. Chinese elm being one of the lower btu category. Btu listings I have referenced are somewhat similar at times and some are eye-openers compared to the others. But I have burned red elm and some of the other elms and there is a difference.


----------



## woodchip (Dec 5, 2011)

Backwoods Savage said:
			
		

> GordonShumway said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Which is why I used to dread going to an aunts house every month when young, she burned elm in an open fire, the only way she got the fire to burn slow was to use what I now suspect was fresh logs.

Most unpleasant experience when it backpuffed and smoke came out into the room............  ;-)


----------



## firefighterjake (Dec 5, 2011)

I don't mind elm . . . it's a mid-range wood for me . . . I've always got fairly long burns out of it . . . processed a lot of standing dead elm in my first year . . . got me through that all important, tough first year as a newbie in fact . . . while I will not go out of my way to cut elm, I really, truly don't mind processing it (hydraulic splitter) or burning it.


----------



## oldspark (Dec 5, 2011)

"Winged elm wood is particularly hard and difficult to split. Years ago when early settlers were clearing land they hated to come upon a stand of winged elm, and would exclaim: Phew, elms! "Phew" soon became corrupted to "piss," and winged elms became piss elms"
 And there ya go, I do not think that elm smells that bad.


----------



## 3fordasho (Dec 5, 2011)

I've been cutting standing dead elm over the last week, you know the kind that doesn't have a lick of bark on it and the few pieces that remained fell off when I dropped the tree.  Most of the outside is bleached white.   Moisture content checked out at 16-18% and it split like a dream.  I know it's not american so that leaves Siberian or red elm.  Now I'm having trouble telling the difference between red and siberian when the tree is in this state (no leaves) but this is some the the best burning elm I've ever had, low ash, decent weight to the splits @ 18% moisture, excellent overnight burns and coaling.  The site were it came from is predominately siberian elm but this stuff burns much differently (better) than the siberian that I've allow to season from a live tree.  Also no punk like an american elm will have when dead standing.   My hunch is it is Siberian but somehow when seasoned by nature in standing form it somehow makes it better?   As far is btu content I'd rate this on par or better than black cherry, green ash, hackberry, almost as good as red oak!


----------



## lukem (Dec 5, 2011)

I'm in the pro-elm camp if we are talking about red elm.  It is just as good as ash if you catch the tree at the right level of deadness.  The only downside is all the clinkers it leaves behind.

Siberian elm is incredibly aggravating to split and doesn't last long in the stove.  I did a bunch last year and won't waste my time again.


----------



## 3fordasho (Dec 5, 2011)

lukem said:
			
		

> Siberian elm is incredibly aggravating to split and doesn't last long in the stove.  I did a bunch last year and won't waste my time again.




What I'm working with here is quite easy to split, at least compared to american elm.  I believe it is siberian elm based on the leaf size (characteristic elm shape but much smaller than the usual elm leaf).   I find amerian elm easy to identify, siberian vs red elm much more difficult.  Note the fairly clean split here:




The deep coloring will dry out to a reddish-brown hue in a few days,  this coloring will be consistant through-out with the lighter whitish ring just under the bark.


----------



## oldspark (Dec 5, 2011)

Are you sure that is elm?


----------



## Woody Stover (Dec 5, 2011)

3fordasho said:
			
		

> I find amerian elm easy to identify, siberian vs red elm much more difficult.


That doesn't look like the Red (Slippery) Elm Bark I've seen here...


----------



## 3fordasho (Dec 5, 2011)

oldspark said:
			
		

> Are you sure that is elm?




I was quite sure it to be Siberian elm, but it just doesn't fit the descriptions other people have for Siberian.  I need to post a picture of it after its dried out a bit, the coloring really lightens up.


----------



## FireAnt (Dec 5, 2011)

I am pro-elm also. I had some big rounds that I split last year and am loving it so far. I am getting 6 hour burns in my 13 and plenty of coals in the morning to start. House is 75* right now with Elm.


----------



## Backwoods Savage (Dec 5, 2011)

3fordasho said:
			
		

> oldspark said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tim, could that be locust?


----------



## 3fordasho (Dec 5, 2011)

Backwoods Savage said:
			
		

> 3fordasho said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Unfortunately, no.  100% sure as we have both black and honey locust here and I am very familiar with them.


----------



## wishlist (Dec 5, 2011)

I cut down a large standing dead elm last fall. Almost no bark, tree was solid as a rock and split like that too. The larger stuff I finally gave in and took advice from the good people hear at hearth.com and "let that stuff freeze". I split and stacked in late January. It does split sooooo much better frozen! I've burn some this fall along with some softer woods, been balmy for the most part, and I'm  happy with it so far. It produces heat!


----------



## 3fordasho (Dec 6, 2011)

Here is a pic of the standing dead elm I cut down with in the last week.  It's some of the best elm I've ever thrown in the stove.  No leaves or bark to ID by but I've cut enough around this wood lot to know it's elm.   Siberian or red elm is what I don't know.


----------



## BlankBlankBlank (Dec 6, 2011)

GordonShumway said:
			
		

> Also not to forget, when cut green it smelled like a massive pile of cow manure saturated in urine. Sorry for the graphic description, but wow it stinks.



But very correct!!


----------



## oldspark (Dec 6, 2011)

3ford the last pictures you posted is what we call red elm here in Iowa.


----------



## wetwood (Dec 6, 2011)

Lots of elm around here so I burn quite a bit of it. We usually cut it live and have to rip through the string fibers splitting it. 2 weeks ago we split some elm rounds I had left piled up for almost 5 years. They split easily and it's the best burning elm I have ever had. Don't know what type of elm it is, but have a photo from when I picked it up.


----------



## oldspark (Dec 6, 2011)

wetwood, it looks like the piece on the right is the same as what 3ford posted, been so long since I have seen live elm I forgot what it looked like, all the elm that grows around here now seems to be much more white.


----------



## Chargerman (Dec 8, 2011)

I cut up a standing dead red elm a few days ago that was so hard it threw sparks off the chain. Smelled like cinnamon too. I consider it to be decent burning all around.


----------



## Woody Stover (Dec 8, 2011)

oldspark said:
			
		

> 3ford the last pictures you posted is what we call red elm here in Iowa.


Now _that_ looks like our Red, split and end grain. In the first pic, those concave channels lengthwise on the bark doesn't look like the Red I've seen with bark still on it...


----------



## uggabugga (Dec 8, 2011)

one winter i burned an entire siberian elm that i had cut down in my front yard and had left lying for about a year and a half. i was surprised at how well it burned, it was hot-burning and had a long burn time. not much fun to hand-split, however.

siberian elm just doesn't give up. some of the cut pieces that were laying on the ground got rained on quite a bit and started growing shoots from the tops.


----------



## Woody Stover (Dec 8, 2011)

3fordasho said:
			
		

> I believe it is siberian elm based on the leaf size (characteristic elm shape but much smaller than the usual elm leaf)


Just looked in the book...Siberian has a much smaller leaf than American or Slippery Elm...


----------



## 3fordasho (Dec 8, 2011)

Woody Stover said:
			
		

> 3fordasho said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yep, that's how I've been identifying my siberian elms, the leaf size.  I'll find a downed branch that I know came off a live Siberian, one thats been there for while and the bark is gone.  I'll split it and it will look like this:




Most will id the wood in this pic as red elm, not siberian.   I guess it really doesn't matter if it's Red or Siberian, I do know when it looks like this it's plenty dry and burns great!   Somehow it's better than the same wood cut live and seasoned the usual way (split and stacked for a year or two)


----------



## Woody Stover (Dec 9, 2011)

3fordasho said:
			
		

> that's how I've been identifying my siberian elms, the leaf size.  I'll find a downed branch that I know came off a live Siberian, one thats been there for while and the bark is gone.  I'll split it and it will look like this
> 
> Most will id the wood in this pic as red elm, not siberian.   I guess it really doesn't matter if it's Red or Siberian, I do know when it looks like this it's plenty dry and burns great!   Somehow it's better than the same wood cut live and seasoned the usual way (split and stacked for a year or two)


Seems to be a law of the woods; Where there's one, there's more. So if you've IDed Siberian in the area, chances are good that you have more there. Not saying there couldn't be some Red there also...
I've wondered if dead standing could burn differently than stack-cured but I can't imagine why it would.
But you're right; It doesn't matter what it is or what someone else thinks of the wood. What BTU info I could find, had Red and Siberian pretty close. As long as something is burning well for us, we're gonna be happy campers!
                                                                                                                 :coolsmile:


----------



## 3fordasho (Dec 9, 2011)

Woody Stover said:
			
		

> 3fordasho said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I have a couple ideas why the standing dead burns better... first when the bark is completely gone and the outer wood is well bleached, it could well be that nature has been seasoning it longer than what we do in our wood stacks,  at least for the upper parts of the tree.  2nd, the bark does not always fall off wood that was cut live and seasoned.  Siberian elm bark burns like poo-poo and leaves alot of ash.


----------



## oldspark (Dec 9, 2011)

We have just entered the twilight zone, standing dead burns better than CSS wood?


----------

