Punky wood, fresh cut and split wood, still in round/log wood...and the universal order of things...

[Intheswamp]

I've mentioned some of the following before, but wanted to sat it apart in it's own thread. Since we're moving into the slow time of the year here I figured it'd give folks something to mutter about.

My perception of storing and drying wood is that the drying process doesn't truly start until the wood is cut, split, and stacked (piled in the case of SandW ).

I've been reading about folks storing wood in log lengths for several years and in stove length rounds for an extended period. It seems most often of the conversation is storing in log length. This has me wondering about the future quality of wood stored in log lengths.

Having recently processed some standing dead oak (>1 year dead) and some clear-cut oak logs (down on the ground for not quiet a year) I have ran into some punky wood...especially with the standing dead wood. It seems to me that it would be natural for a long log to hold in more moisture within the bark envelope and cell structure of the rings than short, stove-length rounds would hold in. It seems to me that holding the moisture inside would give bacteria, bugs, etc., more of a food reserve to draw upon for an extended period of time and thus promote a faster breakdown in the wood fiber. Being as the cellular structure appears to run with the axis of the log, cutting the logs in stove length rounds should let the punk-contributing moisture escape quicker, lessening the formation of punky wood.

In the instance of the standing dead oak mentioned above, most of the logs had an inch of punk on their outer edges while the smaller 3"(?) limbs only had maybe an inch or so of non-punky wood in the center of them.

If I can get some 16"-20" sized *green* oak logs (maybe trying pine would give quicker results) I may try an experiment where I leave a log in a 4' length, cut another 4' log into three 16" rounds splitting one of those rounds into firewood sized splits and see how the outer edges turn out in regards to punk. Gotta get the log first, though...

Seems to me that leaving wood intended to be used for firewood in log lengths would be similar to wrapping a stack of split wood with a tarp...it seems neither should dry well and both would promote mold and mildew. I know that I've gotta take into consideration that I'm in the hot and humid deep south and also that I'm a rank newbie, so...just thinkin'....

I guess my curiosity is whether storing wood in tree length logs promotes more punk to form than:
(1) Storing wood in stove length cut rounds.
(2) Storing wood c/s/s.

Here is an excellent web page dealing with wood structure down in the microscopic range that I stumbled upon while surfing...
Structure of Wood: Society of Wood Science and Technology - Teaching Unit No. 1

Anyhow, anybody wanta comment? Has anybody already ran an experiment like I'm proposing?

Just some (probably very jumbled) thoughts,
Ed

 

[mesuno]

I've noticed with the oak that has been down in our woods for a few years that there is a layer of punky stuff and then the heart wood is like it could have been felled yesterday. Most of those oaks came down in 1988!

I put it down to the outer layer of green wood being more susceptible to rot. The punky rounds I've simply split the punk from the good stuff and stacked to dry.

 

[Intheswamp]

I've noticed with the oak that has been down in our woods for a few years that there is a layer of punky stuff and then the heart wood is like it could have been felled yesterday. Most of those oaks came down in 1988!

I put it down to the outer layer of green wood being more susceptible to rot. The punky rounds I've simply split the punk from the good stuff and stacked to dry.

I agree with the outer wood being more susceptible to rot, but if that wood was cut to stove length and split as soon as it came down would have that outer layer dried good and had minimal punky wood?

That load of standing dead oak that I referenced is a big part of why I posted my message. The first half of cord I didn't split as much punky stuff off of the rounds, but on the second half I got more picky and ended up with a large pile of punky reject wood...probably .2 cord worth. Besides waste wood, there is a lot of extra time involved in splitting off the punky stuff. Seems to be counter-productive to store wood in a fashion that could at a later date cause more work for a less amount of good wood.

What type of climate do you have...I'm thinking humid but not excessive heat...???

Thanks for the feedback.
Ed

 

[kettensäge]

It's just the nature of oak, some of the more horticulturally versed experts here may be able to explain. I burn oak almost exclusively. Standing dead develps that punky layer very quickly, has to do with the biology of the wood.
Live cut oak tree's that are felled, bucked, and stacked almost never develop the punky layer and most of the time retain their bark when split a year or 2 later (even when stored uncovered). Standing dead, even with solid bark, will easily loose it's bark when split if in the same storage conditions.

Location, humidity drying practices are of no effect, it all has to do with how quick it is felled and bucked after it dies.

This has been discussed here before, I just don't remember the thread or the technical explaination, something about oaks' ability to create sugars after it dies which feeds bacteria and fuels it's breakdown.

I keep the punky logs just like any other unless they are too far gone. It does make a bit of a mess when moving the wood around or when reloading.

There are standing dead maples on the neighbors lot 4-5 years old no bark, wood is as solid as ever.

 

[snowleopard]

Those who are willing to run experiments move up to the next level of play. They bring in the data that the rest of us endlessly rehash and quote. Deep and humid South? I'm not convinced that the data has to be transferable. That Which is Known about holzhausen was determined by an experiment conducted in Australia. What's critical to the lasting usefulness of this is that it is accompanied by photos of you standing next to the wood in a lab coat with pocket protector and pens, holding a clipboard and a moisture meter. Please do not neglect this seemingly insignificant detail.

Actually, this would be cool stuff. You could even include what you alluded to above--wrapping cut/split wood in a tarp and running the numbers on that for comparison as well. It would also be interesting to vary the environmental conditions to the extent you could--sun and shade, at least. Some on the ground, some off the ground.

We could easily use up your next year's wood supply suggesting variations on this experiment. Your property could end up looking like that forensic science research center in Tennesee where they leave cadavers laying around to measure decomposition under different circumstances, only with firewood. (Now that I think of it, that is probably what my place is starting to look like. The wood version.)

It would also be interesting to have one pile of this wood be left in the log, but with the bark split or skimmed off in a strip with a chainsaw to see if that breaks the rot cycle, or slows it down.

You don't have a pond, do you?

 

[CTYank]

Many oaks are unlike other species in that they have a much higher MC in the sapwood (the outer, whiter part) than in the heartwood. Would you guess that that's related to the sapwood rotting first?

I've seen statements from experts that the moisture in wood primarily diffuses along the grain; IME across the grain also. Thus the smaller splits drying faster than the larger. Much has been written about "loose" inter-cellular, and "bound" intra-cellular water in wood, and the various ways and means for drying lumber. Some aver that wood is not lumber, but don't fool me. Look up the MC of green oaks, and you'll understand why truck springs are compressed. Some are > 80%, that is, the moisture density is > 80% of the dry density. Lots of good reference material out there- check out bookstores and USFS publications.

There's a certain zen or feng-shue to processing fuelwood; bucking and splitting it, even part-way to the final form, is a help to moving and stacking it for initial storage/drying. At least it is to me- it's good to get past the difficult first splitting.

 

[Backwoods Savage]

Contrary to some opinions, I've always noticed that if you leave oak very long, even after being cut to length, split and stacked, that it will get punky on the outer layer quite fast. However, that usually is only the outside inch or so and is nothing to be concerned with.

Ed, your idea of an experiment is good except that you need more than just a few lengths. For example, some of what you store might be from the butt end of the log and some might be from some of the top limbs. You would certainly get different results from those. You would also get some variance in wet years vs. dry years. Forget the heat in your area because we know it is always hot down there. lol

You also would have to consider what type of oak you have. For example, you might get a big difference between your water oak or live oak vs the northern red or white oaks. Even pin and red, which are both red oaks will dry at different rates. Red and white oak certainly dry differently.

I cut a standing dead pin oak this spring. There was more punk than I figured there would be. I'm guessing I threw about 1/3 of it away and I'll be curious to see how long it takes the rest to dry. It was very wet though but I'll still be curious to see the difference.


One final consideration might also be some differences I've noticed through the years. I might cut down two trees that are the same but there can be a tremendous difference in how they burn and how quickly or slowly they dry. A simple example is with the white ash. We've been cutting dead ash for a couple years. In the winter of 2009-2010 most of that ash was really dry when we cut and split it. Yet this past winter, most of it was more normal.....and it had been dead longer. How do you figure that? Another observation is that a year ago most of the bark fell off the ash as I was splitting. This spring I do not recall even one piece that had the bark fall off. I say this just to show that a small experiment sometimes can be quite misleading. But do not let that stop you from experimenting. You can learn much by doing so.

 

[Intheswamp]

kettensäge, I'm interpreting what you're saying as being that once the (oak) tree is dead (or a live tree cut down) that if the log is bucked and split relatively quickly then you will circumvent punk from forming. In other words, opening the log up so that the moisture can escape is a biggie (which I figured it was). This is why I'm wondering about the frugality of storing wood in log lengths for a year or two...or three....that just seems like it would cause primo wood to become less than prime.

What about pine? Does log length pine get punky as quickly as oak? Faster than oak?

sl, thanks for the ideas for the experiment...I've got about four cords put up so far...think that'll be enough to run the range of experiments we're talking here? Lab coat, of course How can I do an experiment without a lab coat?! You're a genius!

CTYank, that is interesting info about the higher moisture content of oak in it's outer layers. Yes, I would think that would promote that excellerated punk formation. Thanks, too, for the reality check regarding wood drying through it's split sides (across the grain) also...otherwise why do we split smaller to speed up drying, the smaller ends aren't going to speed things up.

I understand what you're saying about anyagree and again thanks for reinforcing the idea that any wood processing (even partial) is improving the quality of the end product....stacking log lengths off the ground, bucking into stove-length rounds, splitting/noodling large rounds for easier handling...maybe evening quartering large rounds...all of this enhances the drying process, some actions making a larger or smaller difference. Thanks.

Ok, Dennis, now you've thrown me for a loop.

So, even with freshly cut, split, and stacked oak you still get punk forming in the outer layer of wood? This goes back to CTYank's mention of a higher mc in the outer layer...more evidence. I can see from the higher moisture content outer layer how even a freshly split piece of gree oak could form punk in it's outer layer while the split sides dry out to be nice wood. I think the key for me here is that outer layer holding more moisture.

I think I/ya'll have about talked me out of the experiment. The key being the knowledge of the higher mc layer on the outside of the log. By bucking and splitting the wood it exposes the ends and side edges of that layer to the environment for faster drying thus drying up the bacteria's food source quicker and reducing the amount of punk that is formed. It makes sense to me....but that lab coat *is* inviting.

Bottom line appears to be that the quicker the wood is c/s/s the better the end product will be...which really should apply to any wood species.

Ed

 

[wannabegreener]

In the log length wood that I just got, I have 1 oak log with the center of the log very punky. I have cut about 3 or 4 rounds off of it and it is still a little punky.

Just the opposite of what everyone else is seeing. Don't know if it was dead standing, but it seems pretty wet.

 

[snowleopard]

I think I/ya'll have about talked me out of the experiment. . . . It makes sense to me....but that lab coat *is* inviting.

Ed

You've no doubt seen the line, "Pix or it didn't happen."

How about, "Pix; ergo, it happened"?

Lab coat: check.
Pocket protector: check.
Clipboard: check.
MM: check.
Woodpiles: check.
Pictures: check.
Data: oh, sure, why not?

and thus you join the hallowed ranks of hearth.com researchers.

Might think about applying for grants . . .

 

[kettensäge]

kettensäge, I’m interpreting what you’re saying as being that once the (oak) tree is dead (or a live tree cut down) that if the log is bucked and split relatively quickly then you will circumvent punk from forming. In other words, opening the log up so that the moisture can escape is a biggie (which I figured it was). This is why I’m wondering about the frugality of storing wood in log lengths for a year or two…or three….that just seems like it would cause primo wood to become less than prime. What about pine? Does log length pine get punky as quickly as oak? Faster than oak?



It has been my experience that any standing dead (non leaf bearing for 1 season) develops the punky layer. The longer it stands the worse it gets, and is usually deeper the higher up the tree you go. Standing dead trees on my lot will drop branches 3" in diameter all punk while the trunk is still somewhat solid and bark covered.

Live cut oak even when stored in say 3' lengths does not develop the punky layer unless it is in direct contact with the ground. Bucking standing dead or live cut to stove lengths helps in all scenarios, no matter what.

I kind of went through the same thing you are looking at here. After splitting 7 cords or so a year for the last 9 years I found myself hauling 1 to 2 pickup loads of what I call splitter waste, mostly oak bark and punky wood away from my wood pile, 2 loads of material that would provide no heat but required work. For me 12 truckloads is equal to about 7 cords so I had to haul 14 just to have the same amount of usable wood. Last year I was fortunate enough to scrounge mostly live cut oak and this spring I didn't even need to use the truck to clean up when I was done. The live cut oak, seasoned about 9 mos. or so, cut both stove length and in 3 to 4' log lengths retains it's bark after splitting and had zero punk, stored uncovered in a pile about 5' high 15' dia. I store log and stove lengths for a year, split and load the shed in the spring, and start burning around the end of October. What doesn't fit in the shed sits until the next spring uncovered, and unsplit.
I know standing dead will burn and has a head start on being seasoned, but between the punk and waste created from splitting I now prefer fresh cut live whenever I have a choice. There is also less mess when moving it around in the winter while burning.

To me it seems red and white oak are quickest to deveolp the punk layer, I think it is the nature of the wood itself, I have cut standing dead maple on my lot and left it lay to use in the outside campfire and even after 3 or 4 years, no punky layer.
As for Pine, I don't know, PA is 1 big Oak forest. My brother claims that is why the anthracite coal is so good, it came from ancient oak tree's.

Hope this helps.

 

[ponyboync]

I have found that if you leave dead oaks standing and wait for them to fall then there is more punk at the of the tree. The the top two thirds or one half of the tree are less punky, dry, and real good to burn. Of course an oak tree that is leaning/not straight might fall sooner than one that is straight so when it goes over there might be even less punk in the bottom of that tree. But that is another experiment.

 

[Backwoods Savage]

Ok, Dennis, now you've thrown me for a loop.

So, even with freshly cut, split, and stacked oak you still get punk forming in the outer layer of wood? This goes back to CTYank's mention of a higher mc in the outer layer...more evidence. I can see from the higher moisture content outer layer how even a freshly split piece of gree oak could form punk in it's outer layer while the split sides dry out to be nice wood. I think the key for me here is that outer layer holding more moisture.

I think I/ya'll have about talked me out of the experiment. The key being the knowledge of the higher mc layer on the outside of the log. By bucking and splitting the wood it exposes the ends and side edges of that layer to the environment for faster drying thus drying up the bacteria's food source quicker and reducing the amount of punk that is formed. It makes sense to me....but that lab coat *is* inviting.

Bottom line appears to be that the quicker the wood is c/s/s the better the end product will be...which really should apply to any wood species.

Ed

Ed, this has been our experience with lots of oak but you don't have the same oaks that we do so it might be different. The punk does not form really fast but within a couple years some punk is quite normal. I had to laugh that time when I was at a friend's house and they were having a yard sale. He had moved some of his oak into the yard and marked it for sale. There was about an inch or so of punk on the outer layer but we thought nothing of it. Some fellow came and was interested and thought the price was good.....until he looked at it close. You could tell he had not burned much wood when he stated that because the wood was all punky that it would not burn and actually got a bit ticked that it was being offered for sale! It was just one more case of someone being told something but not fully understanding. He passed up some mighty fine wood at a decent price. Heck, I would have bought some if I hadn't had so much on hand myself.