On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 14:24:05 EDT, Met History <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> [snip] avoiding resinous soft woods and elm.   A good size
>farmhouse in New England burned up to thirty-five cords of wood per year."
>
>What's wrong with elm?     Christopher

Elm is a soft wood with a high water content, and doesn't burn well in the
stove...  a portion of the heat produced is wasted up the flue, energy
locked up in the steam driven off the wood during combustion. We always
called it water elm, and saved it for bonfires. It takes a big bed of coals
to induce it to burn.

Osage orange burns hot and tarry, and pops huge chunks, so it's only good
for airtight stoves, but if you can get up on the roof to clean the chimney
regularly, there's not much better.

Back "home" in southern Ohio, we always figured a cord of good wood per
room per year. At the lake in upper Michigan, John Mcconnell laid up no
less than five per, plus his "stove wood", a variety of choice stuff split
small for his wood burning kitchen range.

http://www.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/for/for35/for35.htm

deb "burned hedge for years" bledsoe

--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>