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>