Well, compared to honey locust, beech, ironwood, and shagbark hickory, elm isn't anywhere as good as those. I'm surprised that you think it burns as hot as mulberry. Elm is great wood, nice and clean with awesome yellow ghost flames, and I'll take all I can get. Sugar maple and even Norway maple is better than elm, heat wise as well. I've burned so little oak in the past few years, but I know any oak will put out more heat, and probably longer than elm. I do get clinkers from elm, must be in our soil, because I'll also get clinkers, although less "solid" ones from box elder.
I thought we had burned all the Elm up 15yrs ago, then one of the locals passed away and the new land owners are letting people cut the dead Elm and Ash. So I'm back in the Elm burning biz and have no problem with Elm, never did...
My last batch of Elm that I burned last winter got soaked just before it got cold.I put it under some rubber roofing and it got bone dry.That Elm burned so hot I got nervous and shut down as much air as I could.The Mansfield never got so hot from any wood I ever burned.That's why I say what I said.Maybe the Elm in my area is of a certain species than where your located but I have a half a cord left that I'm holding for the extreme cold.I'll burn my oak and Maple before I touch my Elm.
Firewood BTU & Drying Chart Elm is in fact quite a bit lower on the BTU chart than any oak or mulberry.
I call BS on that chart...I do however agree that it is not "equal" to oak, but it certainly not as low as that chart puts it!
The chart (as I understand it to be) is a compilation of figures that have been averaged from various sources... I've heard it be said that elm that was cut green and processed right away doesn't throw the same heat as a standing dead elm that has been aged a couple years. (I believe it was Sandhillbilly that said that and he's burned mountains of the stuff) I tend to believe that, noting that the fibers in green elm wood feel softer (hence the shredded cheese effect) than in dead elm which those same fibers seem to harden up and tear less. I suppose it's possible that as the tree is standing dead, the fibers constrict as they wood slowly dries from the outside in, especially after the bark falls off in sheets... But who knows? I know that the dead elm I burned last year not only coaled well, it threw great heat. Not the same blistering heat as when I've been burning sugar maple or beech all day, but still it did the job more than alright. I'll stick to the story that whoever made the chart was no friend of elm and thought they'd get one over on it by scoring it lower. Either that or they loved elm so much that they wanted it all for themselves
Sometime ago there was a poster who called Elm a dangerous wood to burn.He sounded like the only person who knew what I was talking about and had a similar experience with Elm as mine.That so-called chart is misleading what you see and feel trumps that chart.
Yeah, that chart is off on a few things. Shagbark at only 25 mbtus? Lol Siberian elm at more BTUs than American or red elm? Lol. I could go on with a number of inaccuracies on that chart.
Look at the differences in charts! Douglass Fir for example (very good firewood). One chart has Doug Fir at 25 m/btu. Another chart has Lodgepole Pine above Doug Fir for BTU’s. Another chart has Lodgepole Pine at 15.3 m/btu.
Meh,,,not a fan, burn away guys…I’ll take Ash 2 to 1 any day…just nasty, contrary wood-Enjoy and my best to all!
Aside from the variations in a natural product like wood, where one specimen may have different BTUs than another, those charts only account for one parameter: heat content. They don’t (nor are they intended to) account for burning characteristics. When we say a particular species “throws a lot of heat” that has not only to do with its heat content, but also its burn rate. And in addition to the species, the way the wood is handled also matters. As does of course the stove itself, but that is at least more or less constant for any particular stove. For example, 40 pounds of oak is going to have however many BTUs it has. But if I split it into 3 pieces it is going to burn differently than if I split it into 30. Either way, it will put out whatever heat it puts out, but the latter is going to put it out a lot faster so the stove is going to be hotter but for a shorter period of time. Likewise if I take 100,000 BTUs worth of oak vs 100,000 BTUs of pine, even split the same, the pine is going to burn faster and burn hotter, but again, not for as long. Bottom line is a BTU chart gives useful information but that information doesn’t necessarily tell us what wood is going to “burn hot” or “throw a lot of heat”, etc.
