My Scientific Observation: Burning elm sucks

  • Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.

    We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.

    We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
Status
Not open for further replies.

GordonShumway

Member
Dec 14, 2010
102
Nebraska
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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jeffm1
Well Gordon, for sure burr oak will burn better but grow a bit slower.
 
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.
 
Lol, that's a good one Michburner.
 
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)...
 
It must be the Nebraska elm cause the Iowa elm aint all that bad, I dont mind it at all.
 
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
 
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)
 
Pat53 said:
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

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
 
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".

:) :) :)
 
curber said:
Pat53 said:
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

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

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
 
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!
 
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.
 
Backwoods Savage said:
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.

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............ ;-)
 
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.
 
"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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.