Standing Dead Or Live And Then Cut

[flyboy553]

I was talking to an old timer (83 yrs young) the other day about firewood. Nothing new about that, eh? At any rate, he was looking at my wood stacks, inquiring as to whether or not they were blowdowns or standing dead when cut.

He claims that live trees cut, split and cured properly make better firewood than do standing dead that is cut, split and cured. By cured I mean properly dried in whatever time frame your area requires. Says they have more BTU'S than dead wood.

What do you guys think? I really do not know if there is a difference. I know that standing dead and down dead have a small amount of the outer edge that could be considered punky where as the live cut stuff doesn't. And standing dead or down dead takes far less time to dry than live cut.

I also know that green wood, when stacked, falls over after drying a bit. Don't ask how I know this, k?

Ted

 

[rmount]

He's probably right. Although it really depends on the species, how long it has been dead, why it died. There are way more BTUs in a round of freshly fallen maple than in a round from a standing dead one that is hollow in the middle and punky on the outside. But - it all burns. Take what's available and you'll never go cold.

Standing dead piles fall over also (don't ask).

 

[flyboy553]

We were discussing red oak. I tend to forget to add that to posts because that is all I cut. It is all I have to cut. No ash, maple, or any other species.

Ted

 

[AIM]

Just because he's old doesn't make him right.

Doesn't matter how the tree died. Blow down or cut down. Oak or any other species will have the same value as long as your not comparing punky wood to good hard wood.

Just to clarify.. I mean oak to oak,, ash to ash,, etc.

 

[wagz]

i don't cut down live trees unless they are dying or in danger of falling and doing damage. i try to care for the environment.

 

[3fordasho]

i don't cut down live trees unless they are dying or in danger of falling and doing damage. i try to care for the environment.

I usually don't cut live either but it depends on the situation- for the last two years I've cut almost nothing but live trees. The lots I'm working need to be cleared so it is more saleable, and if I'm not making it into firewood it'll get pushed into a pile and burned or wasted in other ways..

As far as cut live vs dead, I've noticed siberian elm is much better firewood when found as standing dead with the bark gone. as long as the punk has not started. I think this is key, once the punk starts the BTUs are going away.

 

[flyboy553]

To be clear, I do not cut standing healthy live trees either. Only live trees I cut are blow downs. We have plenty of oak wilt to be cutting live trees.
I agree, old does not make a person right, it was just an interesting claim that I was not sure about so thought I would toss it up for discussion.

Ted

 

[Jakers]

in my experience (and its not alot mind you) elm is about the only exception to his rule. id say for ash, oak, and any kind of soft wood there is, cut live and cured gives you the best results. usually when a tree dies its already half rotted. theres always a reason the tree died in the first place and its usually a loss of btu's. that said i have tied into a rare ash and oak that were hard as a rock and long dead. i try to only cut dead as well but also had a lot clearing project that yielded about 20 cords of green wood

 

[Dan_IN_MN]

Interesting thought!

I wonder if he was thinking about the Ash and Elm trees that just dies as opposed to them dieing of a pest or disease? The Ash boar or Dutch Elm disease. These may not have been an issue when he was cutting. (just a thought)

I would like some Red Oak to cut! :hmm3grin2orange: I've been cutting dead standing Elm and it's burning fine. It's not rotten either.

Have the guy make an account here on AS! J/K

 

[turnkey4099]

Just because he's old doesn't make him right.

Doesn't matter how the tree died. Blow down or cut down. Oak or any other species will have the same value as long as your not comparing punky wood to good hard wood.

Just to clarify.. I mean oak to oak,, ash to ash,, etc.

It goes farther than that. Every species will have very near the same btu value per cured pound, e.g., a pound of cured willow will put out nearly the same heat as a pound of cured oak.

To make a laboratory test of the old man's theory you would need to find a block of wood from a tree that was cut live and cured and a chunk from one that was cut standing dead. Both blocks would have to hae the identical moisture content and weigh exactly the same.
I would put money on the result showing no difference.

Harry K

 

[ZeroLife]

Took down a standing dead Elm earlier this year, but I sell to a couple customers that don't care about species. Can't imagine much was lost for BTU value due to dying off. The moisture may start to go out and the pests start to move in, but the fibers still have the same density right? Before rot and insect infesting.

 

[ZeroLife]

As for the old guy stuff, I know a guy that burned green wood because he thought it burned hotter...didn't consider the fact that the fire had to be hotter to burn it.

 

[Whitespider]

in my experience... elm is about the only exception to his rule…

I know it makes no sense, but that’s been my experience also. Pre-seasoned (standing-dead) elm makes for much better firewood than elm cut “green”… the difference is quite remarkable, especially with American Elm. I know it goes against reason, but American Elm cut “green” makes for mediocre firewood at best, whereas “standing-dead” seems harder and burns hotter, longer… like a totally different species of tree altogether. Truth is, I’ll pass on most any American Elm that hasn’t stood dead long enough for the bark to fall off. But if the tree falls, elm lying on the ground turns to mush pretty darn fast.

As far as oak, I’d agree with the ol’ boy… at least in a general context. With downed oak it not only makes a difference how long it’s been down, but also where it lays. Last year I cut two downed Bur Oak, the first had been lying in the wet bottom area of my woodlot for two years where it received near nothing in the way of sun/wind, most all of it was junk (and I know from experience that Red Oak will deteriorate faster than Bur Oak). The second had been lying on a high spot in an open pasture for over three years, long enough that a good share of the bark had fallen away, and even the limbs touching the ground were in decent condition. I’ll say this though, that downed pasture oak was the hardest splitting oak I can ever remember… it worked the daylights out’a my splitter, even the straight-grained rounds.

Within seconds of death, nature goes to work on anything… trying to break it back down into the earth it came from. It only stands to reason that any “dead” wood will have some level of deterioration present, and deterioration should equal fewer BTU (at least by volume). I don’t pretend to know why that conspicuous “rule of nature” appears to be the opposite with standing-dead elm…

 

[rmount]

... I don’t pretend to know why that conspicuous “rule of nature” appears to be the opposite with standing-dead elm…

I wonder if elm shrinks as it dries causing the fibres to become more compact as thus increasing the density of the wood? If so the shrinking wood would have a reduced circumference relative to the bark which would also explain the fact that dead elm sheds its bark so readily.

 

[Whitespider]

I wonder if elm shrinks as it dries causing the fibres to become more compact...

Now here's a man thinking outside the box... and some darn good reasoning too. Heck yes "green" cut elm shrinks, and it shrinks a bunch when left in rounds, but not so much when split. So yeah, an un-cut, standing-dead elm would haf'ta shrink a ton as the moisture (large amount in white elms) leaves it. Does it compact the fibers making the wood more dense? Well, I don't know... but that's surely the best, and most logical explanation I've ever heard.

 

[haveawoody]

For me elm and softer maples tend to be much better firewood as either dead standing and split or cut green into log firewood length format and allowed to dry that way for atleast a few months then split.
American elm,rock elm,silver maple,red maple,norway maple and box elder all seem to be in that group for me.

 

[howard270]

I cut some elm and burned it for the first time for firewood last year. From what I experienced, the standing dead made better firewood. Felt more dense than the live tree I cut down and cut up. The cut live seemed to be lighter burned much quicker once it was seasoned than did the standing dead trees.

To also point out, the live tree firewood had a lot of insect damage done to it while in the stacks and the standing dead had none.

I have also noticed this with hedge and black locust. The standing dead will seem more dense as I take it to be burned versus the live cut tree, but the live cut will have noticeable amounts of insect damage/bores in it. I am guessing the bugs don't like the dead stuff and move in while it is still green.



For the record, I only cut live trees when they need to be moved/removed anyway. Most of my firewood is drug out of the dirt and dulls a chain pretty quickly.

 

[Chris-PA]

In my experience dead and dry is dead and dry, and punky is punky. It doesn't seem to matter how it gets that way, standing or down. Standing dead has died for a reason, and sometimes they can be quite deteriorated long before they're dead. I've got some ashes that I thought were totally dead, but they leafed out again. The core of the trunk is completely exposed near the base and quite rotten - I don't know what's keeping them up - and there is a small area of live wood along one side. They won't last long and when they fall they'll be worthless, at least at the bottom. They'd be worthless if I cut them before they die too. OTOH I've cut lots of standing dead ash and red oak that was fabulous firewood. It's all jut a matter of how dry it is and how much mass has been lost to decay.

You can't beat entropy - everything wants to go back to a more dis-ordered state.

 

[Whitespider]

In my experience dead and dry is dead and dry...

Except I would argue this about elm killed by DED...

DED stops or restricts the sap (moisture) from rising up the tree, but doesn't stop or restrict the sap (moisture) from returning down the tree. Once dead and standing from DED, gravity is free to pull (or push?) the remaining moisture down and out of most of the tree. A standing-dead elm isn't dried from evaporation (or at least very little is evaporation) because the bark is still attached... only after the tree is "dried" (to some degree) by gravity does the bark release. It is true, the wood from a standing-dead elm is harder, denser and heavier than the wood from a "green" cut, split and seasoned elm. And apparently, as I read the posts in this thread, I'm not the only one to take note of this fact. With other species of tree (such as oak) this "gravity" effect isn't near as prevalent, or effective, evidenced by how wet and "green" a several year-old standing-dead oak can still be.

 

[Chris-PA]

Could be - I have little experience with elm. Some trees may have unique properties that change the equation.