Old Timer's Technique

Sounds interesting, guess this is his perception? Presume there isn't an actual monitoring device such as a moisture meter?

There have been many tests of this contention and I have heard it before from old timers but there is no substitute for cutting and splitting ASAP. Old timers tend to have older homes with higher heating loads and older stoves. Odds are he is running the stove hard where creosote doesn't form.

I usually drop trees in late winter if possible as the moisture content is about the lowest. I find cleaning up the slash without leaves on it is way less work.

I suspect that a) the guy has an older pre-EPA stove, b) the guy learned this technique from his father/fgrandfather, etc. and c) he has to deal with creosote every year (or is a chimney fire in waiting.)

While I am sure a tree cut this way -- heck any tree just cut down -- will lose some of its moisture, there really is no better alternative than cutting, splitting and stacking to get the maximum drying out of your fuel (other than kilns). Think of it this way . . . what would dry faster a wet bathing suit left crumpled up on the ground or a bathing suit hanging on a clothesline (where there is more surface area exposed to wind)? Both will dry eventually . . . but one method will dry much faster and better.

This doesnt work with birch, at all.

With other types they might get to fsp, about 30% mc in one summer, but i doubt much below that.

Some of these old guys also intentionally start a chimney fire every so often to "clean it out".

My mom grew up in a farm in Quebec, they heated with wood and pretty well expected a chimney fire every so often. Most farmhouses had unlined chimneys and tin roofs so the sparks usually wouldn't set the house on fire.

My money is on the surface area of splits is greater (and more effective) than leaves on the trees.

Ask him about pine. I bet you'll get a lecture. 50 years of experience does not mean he does something well or bases on actual information.

I'd like to say cut/split/stacked will dry faster. It's what I do and see.

However, it's interesting to consider how much water a tree goes through in a year. For example, USGS says a large oak tree soaks up and transpires 40,000 gallons of water per year. That's 160 tons of water per year for a single large oak tree. Frankly I find that suspicious for a tree that might weigh 16 tons. But if true, that means the oak tree, while alive, can transport 10 times its weight of water through the trunk in a year, yet when the trunk is dead and cut into 16" lengths can't get rid of half of its water weight in a year. So, maybe an alive tree is better at transporting water out through the leaves.

But something doesn't add up for me. I'd still c/s/s.

BrotherBart said:

I bet I am an older timer than he is

Click to expand...

I bet you use to burn American chestnut's when they were still around.