A young Siberian elm, maybe?

[Jon1270]

I heard a chipper running a couple of hours ago, walked a couple doors down and was quickly offered the remains of a small tree that a neighbor was having taken down. The guys doing the work (more landscapers than tree service, I think) thought it was some sort of elm. I have little experience with elm, and this is not entirely consistent with the little bits of elm I've handled, so I thought I'd ask here to see if anyone can confirm or deny.

This was a young tree, only about 10 years old but fast growing. If I put a magnifier on the end grain the structure does look similar to the elms I've handled, but the pores seem smaller. It was very stringy and difficult to split (by hand), and I had to noodle chunks that were 10" or so in diameter. Even smaller pieces required persuasion with a hammer and wedge. Initial moisture content is in the 70-75% range.

Thoughts?

 

[lukem]

I could believe elm, but can't confirm it. They're all dead here so I've never seen a live one.

 

[ScotO]

I'm thinking red elm (Siberian), we call it red around here. Cut down a monster dead one last summer. Great wood to burn, pain in the azz to split......

 

[Redlegs]

+1 vote for siberian elm. The base forester at Ft Leavenworth told me that the little diamond shaped pattern in the bark ( they look like pointy-triangles to me) was the key ID feature for siberian elm. Tough to split by hand, but a real nice burning wood. Good score!

 

[Jon1270]

Good score!

Not a big score -- only about a sixteenth of a cord, but the distance from where it grew to my woodpile could be measured in paces so I'm not disappointed.

Thanks for the ID confirmation.

 

[Redlegs]

the distance from where it grew to my woodpile could be measured in paces so I'm not disappointed

How can ya beat that?