I was helping my uncle move into his new house and in the back yard there are 2 huge piles of firewood. The ends are very dark and my first guess is that they are walnut. I live in SE Nebraska, and know nothing about identifying wood. I’ve attached a photo, but can attach more (close ups, smaller, larger, etc) if it would help. The logs are all about 8″ in diameter and anywhere from 18-36″ long. The dark part is the part that was exposed to the air.
I want to know what kind of wood this is and if it would be worth my time to resaw them up and dry them.
Thanks
Replies
Ehrich, it doesn't look like walnut. Can you give us a close-up shot of the tangential (flatsawn) surface that's been cleaned up with a plane or scraper?
Here are a couple more shots of the mystery firewood. All I did was run the log through my tablesaw on both sides using a sled I built, then split it down the middle using a wedge and a mallet because 1. I don't have a bandsaw blade meant for cutting that much wood (I'd buy one if I planned on cutting this stuff up) and 2. someone was curious what the wood looked like when split. If you want me to clean up the wood all the way through I can, or if these pictures are not what you were asking for or not the best I can take some more. The light wasn't the best when I took these.
EW
Ehrich, when you split the log like that, you expose a radial surface. The surface we want to see is the surface perpendicular to this...and up as close as you can get while staying in focus.
Also, do you have a magnifying glass with at least 10X power? I suspect we're going to be asking you to look at the end grain under magnification before the mystery s solved.
Ok, here are a few more pictures that are fairly large. I cropped them so that they wouldn't be tooooo big, but can supply the un-cropped version of these pics if you want. They are taken from the "end" of the log as though it was cross cut. Hopefully these are the right shots you are looking for. If they are not, forgive me for I know very little and would appreciate a picture description to accompany the requested photos so that I am taking the right pictures.
I don't have the bark with me anymore, but I can go take a picture of some more of it tonight or tomorrow.
Ehrich, I think we're making some progress. Notive on these end grain shots that the large earlywood pores are upwards of 4 or 5 rows high...and also notice that the mostly concentric bands of pores (which contain the smaller latewood pores) seem to be mostly discontinuous. I think we can now dismiss elm as a candidate. White elm (AKA American) elm which does display this creamy yellow color, seldom has and earlywood band of large pores that is more than one or two rows high. While red elm may have up to 4 or 5 rows, it tends to be a much more reddish tan wood with a moderately narrow sapwood band...So, I think elm is probably out of the running.
Ash remains a candidate (which we'll likely be able to either accept or reject when we see that more inclusive shot of its bark), but I think it becomes a weaker possibility based simple on these last three shots you've posted...While the wide earlywood pore band and its abrupt transition with the latewood are typical ash features, the arragement of the smaller latewood pores appears to be far less ash-like. The latewood pores in ash tend to congregate in "patches" (as opposed to concentric bands) and are imbedded in non vascular tissue called parenchyma. Occasionally these patches coalesce into short bands, but not usually to the extent shown in you sample...So, Ash remains a candidate, but it's definitely hanging by its twigs.
All members of the walnut family (including the hickories) can now be dismissed. this is because your sample shows the latewwood pores enclosed in either patches or bands of parenchyma. While members of the walnut family do display very fine and continuous bands of concentric parenchyma in the late wood, these bands are not associated with the latewood pores...So, scratch the hickories.
Now , while there are still a multitude of exotics that might come into the picture, given your location and assuming it's either a native species...or a naturalized species commonly used in your area for wind breaks or hedge rows...the most likely candidates remaining are either one of the locusts (in the legume family)...or a member of the Mulberry family (fig family) which would include either mulberry or Osage orange...Althought, judging from color, it doesn't appear to be Osage.
Ehrich, the sad thing is, given that the samples are fresh, the best remaining gross clues are weight and scent...And these I can't very well relay via the internet. Maybe we can offer some weight comparisons down the line, if we can't decide it on visual clues alone ...But lets first take a better look at the bark and also a shot of the flatsawn surface that has been scraped or planed clean.
...Bet you wished you'd never posted here. Your shorts are going to be smoking by the time were're through running you around. :O)
Also, Ehrich, could you give us another shot of the bark that shows it on an entire log, i.e., at a little more distance than in your first shot?
The reason for my asking is that the ray flecks in your second shot of the wood's radial surface have an ash-like appearance and ash bark has a distinctive diamond shaped, or "woven" pattern when viewed at a distance. Your first shot doesn't look like ash bark, but I just want to make sure we can dismiss it.
ehrichweiss, here are some pics of some ash i just cut split this year, look at the bark on the first picture, notice the diamond in the bark. see how it is dark on the ends. This stuff is real stringy when you split it.
Elm?
as long as we are taking WAG's - here's mine...
-mulberry-
>>"-mulberry-"<<
David, given the little evidence we have so far, that's one of my opening guesses, also...Or possibly it is one of the Locusts, given the shell-like bark. That's why I want to see a flat sawn figure.
The bark is definitely not right for ash and probably also not right for elm...And the yellow cast of the wood does suggest mulberry...But we'll see as we get more photos. In my mind, the locusts and even hickory (among others) are still in play. Unless the flat sawn figure offers some dead give-away, we'll probably want to get into weight and scent...or even some anatomical end-grain features.
...I think we're going to be keeping Ehrich busy here for awhile...But fortunately, NE Nebraska isn't a rain forest, so the options are few and we'll probably be able to nail it down eventually.
Edited 8/24/2004 1:29 pm ET by Jon Arno
if it is very stringy, whensplit my guess by its appearance is white ash
Ooh, I love these guess the wood posts. I am so bad at it, but I love to try.
I say -- Osage orange
Where do I collect my prize?
Let me add that if I am right, osage orange may be worth the effort to mill up, even as small as the logs are. But I doubt that I'm right. I still say it is next to impossible to identify wood via photos through the internet.
Edited 8/24/2004 1:20 pm ET by JS_HERBEL
No matter what the wood is, if it is in short lengths and heavily end checked it probably isn't going to be usable.
John W.
Edited 8/24/2004 2:58 pm ET by JohnW
Your picture leans VERY heavy to red mulberry. Rays are plainly visible to the eye, normally spaced. In one of your pictures the rays are forming conspicuous flecks on the left of the split log, the radial surface, true of many species and mulberry is one of them. I have never seen flecks in ash, as the rays in ash are difficult to see with the naked eye. The bark in the first picture is the color and texture of red mulberry.
Ash has more defined diamond pattern and the bark of all the ashes I've seen are not as thick as the firewood picture(s) suggest, . The firewood pictures of the other post looks like hickory all day long, possibly mockernut or black hickory, throw some under the grill and enjoy the taste hickory provides. If you take a clean razor cut on the hickory and look though a 10x glass you will see a rectangle pattern.
Anyway my opinion is to the work the wood, as mulberry is a nice wood.
Enjoy,
Dale
>>"The firewood pictures of the other post looks like hickory all day long, possibly mockernut or black hickory, throw some under the grill and enjoy the taste hickory provides."<<
Dale, what "firewood pictures of the other post" (post # ?) are you refering to? Ehrich's latest end grain shots clearly reject any posibillity of it being a hickory.
Like you, I suspect we're dealing with red mulberry here, but the locusts are still definitely in play...although their native ranges weakens the probablility, I still can't dismiss them on anatomical grounds based on what we've seen so far.
The only reason I'd keep ash in the hunt (at least until we see a definitive photo of the bark) is that in Ehrich's second series of shots showing a perfectly radial surface, there are faint gray ray flecks toward the outer edge. Ash has very diminututive rays that are virtually invisible in all instances except on the perfectly radial surface...although I think the long concentric chains of latewood pores seen in his end grain shots pretty much reject ash and favor either mulberry or locust, ash can't be totally rejected yet.
Another feature favoring mulberry is the way the broken concentric pore bands, as the growing season progresses, seem to begin to form chevron shapes..i.e., begin to look like elongated, inverted "Vs". This is typical of mulberry...but still doesn't rule out locust.
Sure do wish we cound get a sniff of this stuff, since scent (or lack of) would tell us alot. Weight would also allow us to rule out the slim likelyhood that it might be Osage.
Jon,
Look above in post 12 of this thread, their are some pictures of hickory firewood. The author claims it to be ash, don't think so.
Anyway,
The rays in the pictures of question is clearly visible, KAN't be ash. The wood is a different color than most locust wood I've seen. Until a get a sample is pretty dicey, on the species. I think it boils down to how bad does the orginal poster want to know. He can sent us a sample. OTOH it does make for an interesting discussion, as long as we keep the politics out of it, : ' >.....Dale
Dale I reviewed Dem's post #12. And I'm relatively confident that it reveals ash bark. If Dem wants a positive ID and is willing to post a clean end grain view at at least the same magnification as Ehrich provided in his third round of shots, we could easily resolve this. Latewood ash pores are always found in conjuction with (surrounded by) parenchyma. In hickory, the concentric bands of parenchyma form very fine lines that occasionally bump into a latewood pore, but are clearly not in association with pore placement.
I still agree with you that mulberry is our best candidate..., when we combine the clues of general color and end grain anatomy that we've seen so far...but I can't dismiss locust on anatomical grounds yet...And I'll let ash hang around until we see a definitive view of that bark.
...And where the hell is Ehrich? He must be off sleeping, eating, or trying to earn a living. :O)
Well it appears we agree on the possible mulberry. I have attached, hopefully, some pics of hickory and ash bark. We respectfully, we disagree of the ash vs. hickory. This is one of them things "what's it really matter?"
Oak and ash firewood around here sells for 40-45 bucks per rick, hickory 60 dollars. So....in my views, I'd get the hickory for ash~oak prices... what a deal!
Dale
Edit:
It appears my pics are not going to work, the hickory bark link is as follows:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.duke.edu/~cwcook/trees/caal3109.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.duke.edu/~cwcook/trees/caal.html&h=263&w=350&sz=39&tbnid=E_mxSvFn2hYJ:&tbnh=87&tbnw=115&start=12&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmockernut%2Bhickory%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DG
Ash bark link: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Pages/tree/ashwhiteb.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Pages/tree/ashwhite.html&h=235&w=216&sz=31&tbnid=JEHHPSRvy0IJ:&tbnh=103&tbnw=95&start=15&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dash%2Bbark%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8
Edited 8/26/2004 12:50 pm ET by Dale
Dale, your shots of mockernut bark do have a vague similarity to ash, but this is an eastern species and it's native range peters out in extreme south eastern Iowa and northwestern Missouri...so, it's unlikely it figures in Ehrich's mystery.
Dem hasn't given us a location, so it could be what he has. Again, a clean, up-close shot of the end grain would solve this question immediately. There is no way you could confuse ash and hickory anatomy on close examination.
Thanks for the response Jon,
In my years practice forestry I will note where the books say the native range of certain trees are. But, I have found many holes in their maps. Mockernut hickory is all over the eastern 1/3 of Oklahoma, depend on what book a person is using I guess.... Not sure what trees are mapped in Neb. , what ever the "Arbor guy" planted?? Hummmm. J. Sterling Morton, I believe was his name. ...Dale
Dale, I usually use the USDA forest silvics handbook #271 as the primary reference on this subject. It gives ranges by county. Unfortunately, it doesn't plot mockernut...so I referred to what I think is the next best source: Trees of North America, by Thomas S. Elias and he shows Mockernut as just touching the Oklahoma boarder in its Northeast corner...and then possibly penetrating into a county or two in extreme southeast Oklahoma.
In any event, Dem may be located somewhere out east here that is well within mockernut's range...So, his firewood might be that species. One peek at the end grain would quickly resolve the question.
Edited 8/26/2004 5:20 pm ET by Jon Arno
I am located in Wisconsin, the wood i have is definately not hickory, i wouldnt attempt to smoke anything with that stuff, its odor is too pungent. A tornado came through a neighboring community and I ended up with 3 trees. The old timer who lives behing me identified it as ash for me. I use apple, cherry and hickory for smoking. Now the old timer off my back yard tells me to try using box elder for smoking, he says it is in the sugar maple family and will work good for smoking. I dont think that the wood in question is ash, after studying the bark, it could be a differant ash species than what I have? the resemblence was close when split, but the bark seems differant. All I know is that I would rather split oak over that ash any day!
Dem, I guess that tears it. If you're in Wisconsin and it's a native species, it isn't mockernut. Mockernut's range gives out in northern Illinois.
...But your comment about the difficulty of splitting it troubles me. All of the ashes split very easily. Are you sure it isn't elm? Elm is extremely difficult to split.
In any event, if you're burning with curiousity and really want to know...posting a clean close-up of the end grain would probably do the trick...at least to the extent that anatomical features for separating ash-elm-hickory are pretty straight forward...it could be something entirely different, but if it's in that group, it won't be a mystery.
Ok, here's a pic of what is left of the bark from the log I destroyed. If this doesn't do the trick, let me know.
What kind if sickies huddle around their computer screens trying to figure out what kind of tree a pile of firewood came from.
That's the real question here. I guess there's no denying it with this pathetic display, I'm a bonafide wood nympho.
ehrich ,
In my opinion the bark sure looks like Elm , at least it looks like the Elm here in Oregon. A pal gave me some for firewood that he had to trim from a tree in his yard. I couldn't split it when it was green and I still can't split it now that it's dry. When I have used it for campfire wood it tended to be very smokie.The grain in Elm and Ash are often confused in antique pieces and do look quite similar IMHO.
dusty
What else can I say??????? Mulberry, hmmmmmmmm red mulberry, hmmm Morus rubra......
Thanks for the pics,
Dale
Ehrich, given these latest bark shots, you can scratch ash. I also doubt if it's one of the locusts. My first guess is that you have mulberry...
That's about the best I can do, unless you want to send me a sample. If so, just email me and I'll forward my address.
Thanks for for sharing this mystery with us.
> All I know is that I would rather split oak over that ash any day!<
With all due respect call the wood what you wish. My 20 year old son that sell firewood on the side walked past the computer yesterday while I had the "hickory" firewood picture up. My son dislike busting hickory, it tuff and stringy, he said ugg hickory, hate it!
BTW Jon, it is possible I have missed mockernut, but I'm sorry thats a hickory all day long. I think for my peace of mind I'll be leaving.....Good day...Dale
ok here is some pics of the end grain. Dale you sound correct in the description of splitting that stuff. Im going off what my neighbor said it was im no expert. This stuff burns very well, gives off very good heat so im not complaining, if it is hickory i feel stupid for crawling around my woodpile digging out bits of cherry i have mixed in with my oak when it sounds like I have 2 or 3 cords of hickory sitting in front of me. At least I know what oak firewood looks like. Looks like one of my pics uploaded twice.
And Dale your son Describes splitting that wood exactly to how it was to split!
Sorry those end grain shot don't help me much, they need to be razor cut and a 10x close up. The past shots for the split "firewood" and your recent shots along with the bark still tells me hickory. Also, your "hickory, : ' > " heartwood jives, reddish brown. If I'm able I'll attach a pic of a hickory flag case with sap and heartwood.
By the way, I'd still push you to chunk a few small fist size piece of your wood under the grill and smoke some hamburgers. If you still don't like the taste put them in a vacuum sealed bag and overnight them to me, I like mine medium done, : ' >...Dale
Dale
You are 100% correct. Thanks for setting me straight. I did the grill test. Well I have plenty of smoking chips just off the bits and pieces from the splitter. :) Plus I have a huge log from an apple tree (i cut this one down and seen the apples) I think its time for a turkey or some ribs.
I'll be right over, :'>.....Some of the best meat I've smoked has been over apricot wood. To be honest with you I would not know apple wood if it bit me, so I'll take your word, : ' >.....Enjoy the feast and the heat come this winter.......Dale
Sorry Dem. Your end grain shots aren't clean enough or close enough to help...But judging from the multiple rows of early wood poors, I doubt if it's elm.
Okay then, since ash (which I'm fairly certain that the bark alone ruled out) keeps getting mentioned we're obviously throwing out all possibilities.
Yellowwood (cladrastis lutea) needs to be considered. If one is to look at USDA or Audubon guides, yellowwood does not grow in NE, however, I am in northern Kansas and there are hotbeds of old wild yellowoods in the area. They grow like weeds. Seems from the photos that it could be a possibility. From my experience, the coloring, growth rings, etc. would be about right
I'm on the osage orange/mulberry bandwagon still, however.
Yes, yellowwood would be a consideration until I recall the bark of the first post. Mature yellowwood has a smooth bark, similar to beech. Thanks for the observation...Dale
You're 100% correct, I used the bark to disqualify ash (in my mind at least!), but failed to think of the bark when making the yellowwood possibility. Yellowwood definitely has an elephant skin like bark.
I like your description of elephant skin like bark. When I get the chance to teach tree I.D. I often use anouagees(sp?), persimmon=alligator skin, blackjack oak= haunted house tree, hack/sugarberry=warts. Still have not came up with likeness of cherry and others. I only know of one grove of yellowwood around here in a rock outcropping about 30 minutes from here. If I ever show folks yellowwood I'll try to remember your phase: elephant skin like bark.
Thanks,
Dale
Mature black cherry bark - black potato chips <g>Perfect beef stew, perfect meatloaf and perfect wine jelly.How difficult can perfecting creme brulee be?
Thanks PL,
I've used burnt Wheaties, shingles, maybe I'll try burnt potatoe chips.
JS, with the exception that yellowwood is relatively rare and not native to Ehrich's location...it's still certainly not way off the mark. It's become a widely planted cultivar in recent years and it is a legume that is not all that distantly related to the locusts.
Edited 8/26/2004 3:38 pm ET by Jon Arno
My two cents worth would call this wood, what we call in this area, as grey elm.
Just a thought.
-None-
Mulberry.
I grew up on a farm in east central Nebraska and we heated our house with wood. Mulberry makes excellent firewood. It is hard and heavy, bright yellow when cut, sometimes reddish in the center like your photo and turns reddish on exposed surfaces over time. I only have it made into lumber if a really large tree. There are now some sawmills in eastern Nebraska and I have had some mulberry milled on my annual visits to the family farm.
Mulberry I will call it then. Thank you all for you comments, this has been educational and fun for me.
Now I come to the second question in my original post:
"would it be worth my time to resaw up and dry?"
Any comments regarding how mulberry is to work with or how it turns out when finished would be appreciated.
Please read last of post #15. Also, the yellow color in mulberry will darken to a powder chocolate brown rather quickly, especially when exposed to sunlight. As odd as it may sound my first experience with mulberry was in firewood form also. Made a picture frame for one of son's picture to set on my desk. My desk was in front of a east facing window. It seem the yellow picture frame darken to the powder chocolate brown with in a few weeks. Twenty years later the picture frame is still a nice medium brown color. No special instruction on working the wood, just have fun and enjoy. On second thought, you might want to quarter-saw some of the wood to get full benefits of the ray flecks in mulberry.......Dale
P.S. It was a mixed bag of fun.
Ehrich, mulberry is one of a number of our domestic hardwoods that doesn't receive the notoriety it should as a fine cabinetwood. It is strong enough for most woodworking applications and it has a very attractive figure. As Dale has pointed out, it also develops a very pleasing amber-brown patina as it ages...so, its bright yellow color when freshly cut doesn't necessarily require stain to tone it down. In fact, trying to maintain the vivid yellow color (if that's what you want to do) is by far the bigger challenge.
What little notoriety this species has is primarily among turners who enjoy foraging for their woods. In that circle, it is recognized as one of the better finds, because it's figure (dominated by those latewood pore chains we discussed earlier in this thread) is especially attractive on a curved surface.
...Give it a try. You'll lik it.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled