Wood ID

[bigealta]

There are a few Very Large Elms (3+ ft. Dia.) around the corner from me. So we do have a few old survivors here. I also spotted an old chestnut tree in a neighbors yard. It's the only one i've seen around here.

I tried to find a pic of the 278 year old "mother" elm but could not locate anything. I thought i did see a pic many years ago when i got my princeton elm but not 100% sure?

 

[bigealta]

This is the bark on my Princeton Elm. Out front.
From the main trunk and up into the branching.
As u can see the bark varies quite a bit as you go up the tree. (It's roughly a 20 year old tree)

 

[all night moe]

There are a few Very Large Elms (3+ ft. Dia.) around the corner from me. So we do have a few old survivors here.

Pics of these when you have time? American elm here do not get that big. Both Siberian and reds do.

I also spotted an old chestnut tree in a neighbors yard. It's the only one i've seen around here

Love the chestnuts. Both for their structural beauty and the Chinese chestnuts are the edible ones with the spiny hull, nuts are inside. Horse chestnuts are extremely bitter.

 

[Woody Stover]

This is the bark on my Princeton Elm. Out front.
From the main trunk and up into the branching.
As u can see the bark varies quite a bit as you go up the tree. (It's roughly a 20 year old tree)

Yep, those pics seem to bear a resemblance to the pics of the firewood you posted on page 1.
The only thing that doesn't seem right is the long, hot burn you say it has. American Elm, which I think is what a Princeton Elm basically is, I've seen BTU ratings of 19.5. That's about like Black Cherry which I've burned a good bit of. It's decent, but a notch or more below the Oaks, Hickories etc. But maybe you mixed in some of the Oak with those loads that were burning so well..

 

[bigealta]

Yep, those pics seem to bear a resemblance to the pics of the firewood you posted on page 1.
The only thing that doesn't seem right is the long, hot burn you say it has. American Elm, which I think is what a Princeton Elm basically is, I've seen BTU ratings of 19.5. That's about like Black Cherry which I've burned a good bit of. It's decent, but a notch or more below the Oaks, Hickories etc. But maybe you mixed in some of the Oak with those loads that were burning so well..

so i just did some reading on btu values/ratings. The points that were interesting is that the ratings can vary by quite a bit by many factors including growth rate, general location (growing season time), location (deep woods to open field) Nutrients available, Sun exposure. Ground composition, etc.
So a 50 year old 12" tree growing in the deep woods in canada with very tight growth rings, would have quite a different rating than the same variety 12" tree grown in an open field in florida which might be only 10 years old with fast grown wide growth rings, and it's much less dense wood.

It seems these factors can help explain why we see different ratings on different charts.

 

[all night moe]

so i just did some reading on btu values/ratings. The points that were interesting is that the ratings can vary by quite a bit by many factors including growth rate, general location (growing season time), location (deep woods to open field) Nutrients available, Sun exposure. Ground composition, etc.
So a 50 year old 12" tree growing in the deep woods in canada with very tight growth rings, would have quite a different rating than the same variety 12" tree grown in an open field in florida which might be only 10 years old with fast grown wide growth rings, and it's much less dense wood.

It seems these factors can help explain why we see different ratings on different charts.

Very good point.

Kudos to your research on all of this.

 

[Woody Stover]

So a 50 year old 12" tree growing in the deep woods in canada with very tight growth rings, would have quite a different rating than the same variety 12" tree grown in an open field in florida which might be only 10 years old with fast grown wide growth rings, and it's much less dense wood.

I'm sure that's true to an extent. Some of the pics the wood in question had both narrow and wide rings. But your White Oak pics had some pretty tight growth rings, for sure.

 

[bigealta]

Those pics from Dieselhead do show his white oak yes. Those growth rings do seem pretty consistent and tight. Not sure what your point is?
I was just saying that an Elm grown here could have a different btu rating for this specific tree vs the general ratings on other elms.
And i'm not even sure it is an elm? or field elm. It's just the closest thing i've found based on end grain which the experts say is the most definitive way to ID a tree.

 

[Woody Stover]

Those pics from Dieselhead do show his white oak yes.

Oops, not your Oak, my bad. If your Elm is burning that long and hot, that's great. The heavy weight you attribute to it could very well indicate that growing conditions were favorable for a higher BTU output than normally expected, as you pointed out.
My experience burning American Elm is quite limited. I get a lot of Red (Slippery) Elm here, which seems to burn and coal well.
This entire wood end-grain ID angle is an interesting approach which I've not come across much until now, thanks for the heads-up on that. 👍

 

[bigealta]

For All Night Moe:
Here are the pics from the Large Elms near me. One on Left (#869) is 4+Ft. Dia. One on Right is 3+ Ft Dia.

 

[bigealta]

And here is the Old Chestnut. Just hanging in there.

 

[all night moe]

Red elms. Bark says no for American elm, and Siberian has a different crown structure.

Edit/add on: look like the smaller ones came from that big mama.

 

[all night moe]

That chestnut is an old girl. Looks to have been possibly topped before.

 

[bigealta]

For those still reading this ID thread here is more info on end grains. The ring of circles or dots you see in grains is the early wood formation. The darker (in this sample), more solid areas, are the later growing wood. The cycle repeats every year.

 

[Woody Stover]

Red elms. Bark says no for American elm

The Red Elms here don't have the deep bark ridges that the OP's latest pics show, it's more flaky/scaly in appearance. That said, the biggest Red bark I've seen here was on a 19" tree, and these are woods trees. Maybe a bigger Red out in the open would have the deeper bark ridges, IDK.

Interesting AI response. Seems like some of the OP's pics may show some of this...nothing very distinctive, though:
Searching
"The primary difference between American elm and slippery elm bark is that the American elm bark has alternating light and dark layers when cut in cross-section, while Slippery elm bark has uniformly dark layers."