Letter From Langdon: Nature's Heat
Richard Oswald I heat my home with a corn burner. No wood to chop and everybody always thinks we are having something special for dinner.
Dad once told me that during the depression farmers burned corn in their coal fired furnaces. Nearly worthless corn replaced the coal that had to be bought in town. Today biomass, like corn and cellulose, is replacing coal again. For instance with carbon emission rules set to tighten, some coal burning power generators will soon be mixing renewable cellulose pellets with coal to earn credits for using a renewable source of energy.
I doubt they’ll be using corn that way, but corn is still a renewable fuel in some homes.
Back in the eighties, a handful of entrepreneurs got the idea that wood-pellet stoves used for home heating could be adapted to burn 100% natural clean-burning corn. They were right, and today I and a lot of other people have corn stoves.
Richard Oswald Corn has about as many BTUs per pound as wood.
Like wood pellet stoves, most commercially built corn stoves have three working parts: a fan to force heated air from the stove into the room, a small spiral conveyor known as an auger that supplies corn to the combustion chamber or burning pot, and a blower that provides additional air for combustion.
In the days when guys like Carrol Buckner and Jim Larkin were refining their ideas about home grown energy and corn stoves, the burdensome corn surplus was burning a hole in our pockets. That’s about the same time corn ethanol came on the scene to stay, because people were realizing that the BTU’s in a kernel of corn were more valuable than the calories it contained.
Now I’ll be the first to admit that a roaring mini-fire in the corn stove is a poor second to roasting chestnuts over an open hardwood blaze, but as I told my wood-burning son-in-law not long ago, I don’t need a chain saw or log splitter to fuel a corn stove either.
Here in my community we have at least one or two chimney fires every year. Chimney fires result when wood stoves are vented into old unlined flues, or sometimes when the owner fails to keep creosote, a by-product of burning wood, from accumulating inside the chimney.
What it boils down to is that a pound of corn has about 90% of the heating value of wood. But with corn there is no danger of creosote or a chimney fire because corn stoves don’t require a chimney.
Now you know the truth, corn is safer than wood and cleaner than coal.
There are about 8000 BTUs in a pound of wood, 7000 BTUs in a pound of corn (392,000 per bushel), and 91600 BTUs in a gallon of propane. We happen to have a propane furnace as well. This year we paid about $1.70 for our propane. Compared to propane, corn provides the same amount of heat, 30% cheaper, and corn stoves can’t explode.
On the downside, corn stoves are a little messy. For one thing most corn has an inherent dust problem. It can be a little untidy when filling the stove, and cleanup is the same way. Burned corn leaves a solid block of ash called a “clinker.” Clinkers have to be pried up and out of the firebox and removed with tongs about twice a day. Failure to remove the clinker eventually shuts off the air supply to the fire which can cause it to go out. But removing the clinker is not nearly as messy as cleaning a wood stove. A three pound coffee can holds 2 days worth of clinkers as compared to a 5 gallon bucket full of ash from wood for about the same period.
Richard Oswald About twice a day, you do have to remove the "clinker" from your corn stove.
Clinkers make great garden fertilizer because they are mostly made up of minerals and soil nutrients that won’t burn. Thanks to photosynthesis, corn plants gather up sunlight and store it in each and every kernel. Those tiny yellow grains contain the power of the sun, and when they’re expended all that remains is the good earth.
Best of all is the smell of the corn stove. When people come to the house almost everyone wants to know what’s cooking.
I just tell ‘em it’s OPEC’s goose!
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version


Comments
About Burning Corn
My younger brother is a corn and soybean farmer across the river in Southeast Nebraska. I live in Virginia and raise a few beef cattle. Last year my brother bought one of those outside stoves that burns wood or corn. He heats his house, shop, garage with the thing and gets hot water too.
He was telling me about all the great benefits of burning corn and was thinking about how to hook up an auger to one of his big grain storage bins so that he could just flip a switch and auger in a few bushels of corn up next to his new stove.
I asked him if he was still receiving those nice big fat government corn subsidy checks provided by American taxpayers in the Farm Bill. He said, "Absolutely!" I said, "So, you are burning tax payer subsidized corn to heat your house and shop?" He said, "Yep! Thanks." I said, "It's just like burning tax money isn't it?" He said, "Yeah, but that ain't the half of it. I bought a nice little Kubota tractor with a backhoe to install the lines to the house and outbuildings and I'll be charging that off as a farm expense. Thanks again!"
Burnin' government subsidized corn can create a lot of heat in more ways than one. On the other hand it can also be viewed as just another kind of stimulus program: farmers burning money just like congress, but with better results.
Yeah, but--
Dad used to make fun of my sister and I when he gave us instructions to do something, and we'd argue by saying to him "Yeah, but---"
Here's my "yeah, but";
Livestock raisers aren't totally innocent, because the main purpose behind feed grain subsidies is to stimulate a large enough supply of grain that endusers have adequate supplies. I have lots of industrial markets, and my largest industrial market is industrial food production, but a lot of other farmers grow corn for industrial livestock feed.
At the end of the day, farm policy is more the result of corporate influence than what most farmers really want to admit. Corporations want abundant cheap supplies of raw food materials, hence we subsidize those who can bring those things to market, otherwise lower supplies mandate higher prices.
That makes Cargill Inc and Tyson say "Yeah, but--"
Farmers want to make a living farming. Sometimes the only way we can do that is through legislation like the farm bill. And if the legislation is poor, ill-timed, or skewed to favor one over another?
Then Congress gets a lot more "Yeah, buts".
Yeah, I raise corn, BUT, I don't do it for the subsidy!!!
Yeah But, I Grass Finish Cattle
I agree with your comments about Cargill, Tyson, et al. You are absolutely correct in noting that corporate dicates create government ag policy.
I'm old enough to have been at the front end of the cornfed production model in the 1950's when cheap cattle married cheap corn. I have many memories of learning about acidosis and how cattle easily die after too many days on feed. In the early years we were still trying to find antibiotics that would keep them alive in our feedlots. I didn't think that was such a good production model then and that's still true today. It's one of the main reasons I don't follow the traditional cornfed production model.
One major advantage of being a low cost grass producer is that I'm not impacted by the availability or cost of corn. No corn ever goes into my cattle and when done right they have sufficient intermuscular fat.
Yeah but, I must admit that the fine aroma of burning corn makes the old homeplace smell very nice. Kinda like the smell of (tax) money. Keeps my brother warm too.