I got a lot of chestnut oak from a friend who is an arborist. Every time he has wood for me, it is bucked, halved and ready to be split. This is a great friend to have. Does anyone know the BTU of Chestnut Oak?
Chestnut Oak
- Thread starter DTB
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
haveawoody
Addicted to ArboristSite
Almost identical to white oak.
Rock Elm …………………………………. 32,000 BTU
Shag Bark Hickory…………………………..30,600 BTU
White Oak…………………………………..30,600 BTU
Bitternut Hickory……………………………29,200 BTU
Sugar Maple…………………………………29,000 BTU
Beech…………………………………….….27,800 BTU
Red Oak…………………………………….27,300 BTU
Yellow Birch…………………………..…...26,200 BTU
Red Elm…………………………………….25,400 BTU
White Ash…………………………………..25,000 BTU
White Elm…………………………………..24,500 BTU
Red Maple………………………………….24,500 BTU
Tamarack……………………………………24,000 BTU
Black Cherry………………………………..24,000 BTU
White Birch…………………………………23,500 BTU
Black Ash…………………………………..23,400 BTU
Green Ash…………………………………..22,600 BTU
Silver Maple…………………………………22,100 BTU
Manitoba Maple……………………………..21,700 BTU
Rock Elm …………………………………. 32,000 BTU
Shag Bark Hickory…………………………..30,600 BTU
White Oak…………………………………..30,600 BTU
Bitternut Hickory……………………………29,200 BTU
Sugar Maple…………………………………29,000 BTU
Beech…………………………………….….27,800 BTU
Red Oak…………………………………….27,300 BTU
Yellow Birch…………………………..…...26,200 BTU
Red Elm…………………………………….25,400 BTU
White Ash…………………………………..25,000 BTU
White Elm…………………………………..24,500 BTU
Red Maple………………………………….24,500 BTU
Tamarack……………………………………24,000 BTU
Black Cherry………………………………..24,000 BTU
White Birch…………………………………23,500 BTU
Black Ash…………………………………..23,400 BTU
Green Ash…………………………………..22,600 BTU
Silver Maple…………………………………22,100 BTU
Manitoba Maple……………………………..21,700 BTU
Sorry, but any listing of wood energy showing
Rock Elm > Shagbark Hickory,
White Oak = Shagbark,
Sugar Maple slightly < Shagbark,
is BOGUS. Who makes this up?
If you research the air-dry density of these woods, you'll see clearly that the above is nonsense,
or someone badly mis-identified wood samples. Recalculate.
Rock Elm > Shagbark Hickory,
White Oak = Shagbark,
Sugar Maple slightly < Shagbark,
is BOGUS. Who makes this up?
If you research the air-dry density of these woods, you'll see clearly that the above is nonsense,
or someone badly mis-identified wood samples. Recalculate.
haveawoody
Addicted to ArboristSite
BTU chart from company that makes Mingo Marker log marking device.
They didn't create the btu list though but forestry Canada did.
Firewood Cutting Accessory - The Mingo Marker®
I've burnt everything on the list but tamarack and at least in my neck of the woods they are all pretty good at real burn values.
Like any place in Na though some species will be quite different growing in different climates.
An Oak growing in Florida's BTU is quite a different than an Oak of the same species growing in Northern Ontario.
Bet that is one reason we get such swings on BTU charts.
I burn lots of Rock elm and if I see a shagbark and a rock elm and can only take one I start sharpening my chain for the Rock elm
Same for the sugar maple here, just not much between it and hickory in the woodstove.
Guess the short growing season here makes for big differences in some species and not much in others.
They didn't create the btu list though but forestry Canada did.
Firewood Cutting Accessory - The Mingo Marker®
I've burnt everything on the list but tamarack and at least in my neck of the woods they are all pretty good at real burn values.
Like any place in Na though some species will be quite different growing in different climates.
An Oak growing in Florida's BTU is quite a different than an Oak of the same species growing in Northern Ontario.
Bet that is one reason we get such swings on BTU charts.
I burn lots of Rock elm and if I see a shagbark and a rock elm and can only take one I start sharpening my chain for the Rock elm
Same for the sugar maple here, just not much between it and hickory in the woodstove.
Guess the short growing season here makes for big differences in some species and not much in others.
Last edited:
Dusty Rhodes
ArboristSite Operative
I won't venture to wade in on the chart. I will say that Chestnut Oak is a member of the White Oak family so would suspect it would have similar BTU values to White Oak. I have searched for specific gravity/density for Chestnut Oak as I have a lot of it available every year around my area. Density is listed at 46 lbs. per cu.ft. Which is the same as White Oak. From my perspective it is great firewood as are all the oaks in my area.
Last edited:
Dusty Rhodes
ArboristSite Operative
I cannot answer that question. I believe some mills do. I know when I had my property logged they took the chestnut oak same as the red and white. Heck they took the pin oak and black oak also. In terms of its marketability compared to white or red oak I am not in the know. From my perspective the Chestnut oak is tougher to split than the red oak but white is not as easy to split generally as red oak either and as chestnut oak is in the white oak family that makes sense to me. We seem to have a lot of chestnut oak around me so I am cutting some every year. Why don't you just ask the mill, they should give you an honest answer I would think
I'm bettin' it's more than just the short growin' season... wind, moisture, soil, and-who-knows-what-else.
I've not burned a lot of hickory, but I will say that Rock Elm in this area is some of the hardest, densest, heaviest wood you'll come across (and yes, I'm talkin' air-dry or seasoned). Most all the BTU charts I see put the elms way too low on the list (at least for the elms in this area)... with Red Elm being the most under-rated. Heck, I'll take a Red Elm before I'll take a Red Oak... every bit as good, half the water content, seasons three times faster, and is usually bark-free long before it hits the firebox. The truth is, I pass on a lot of Red Oaks just because of the water content and long seasoning time; I have zero Red Oak in my stacks but plenty of Bur (white) Oak, Red and white elm, and Sugar Maple. Just as White Ash has nothing on the American (white) Elm around here... heck, it don't even split all that much easier and don't burn as well.
I don't agree 100% with haveawoody's BTU chart (mostly with some of the maples)... but, from what I've experienced, it sure puts the oaks, elms and ashes closer to how I would place them.
haveawoody
Addicted to ArboristSite
Whitespider,
You got it, lots of factors can make for very different btu values in a tree.
A tree standing alone in a field, in a wet place, in a dry place, a windy place, the season length, damage to a tree, dead or living etc etc.
Elm's really get the worst swings IMO and i think it's like us elm people know bark or no bark and standing dead or cut green.
Elm bark burns like crud so it's easy to understand how it gets the wildest swings.
I agree with the red elm VS red oak, red elm is ready to burn 6 months or less later and red oak long long after that.
I have a few stacks of red oak at the 2 year drying point and now just getting ready to burn.
In the wood stove they are all but the same heating values IMO.
I also think they have silver maple a bit high up on the btu, burnt at just the right time i bet it's close but the silver maple window for perfect burning isn't long.
Box elder also is to high on the btu, It sure does burn for quite a while in block format but near 22 mbtu i doubt on it's best day.
As with any list it's just a rough subjective thing when looked at from all the little details.
Like life
You got it, lots of factors can make for very different btu values in a tree.
A tree standing alone in a field, in a wet place, in a dry place, a windy place, the season length, damage to a tree, dead or living etc etc.
Elm's really get the worst swings IMO and i think it's like us elm people know bark or no bark and standing dead or cut green.
Elm bark burns like crud so it's easy to understand how it gets the wildest swings.
I agree with the red elm VS red oak, red elm is ready to burn 6 months or less later and red oak long long after that.
I have a few stacks of red oak at the 2 year drying point and now just getting ready to burn.
In the wood stove they are all but the same heating values IMO.
I also think they have silver maple a bit high up on the btu, burnt at just the right time i bet it's close but the silver maple window for perfect burning isn't long.
Box elder also is to high on the btu, It sure does burn for quite a while in block format but near 22 mbtu i doubt on it's best day.
As with any list it's just a rough subjective thing when looked at from all the little details.
Like life
zogger
Tree Freak
BTU chart from company that makes Mingo Marker log marking device.
They didn't create the btu list though but forestry Canada did.
Firewood Cutting Accessory - The Mingo Marker®
I've burnt everything on the list but tamarack and at least in my neck of the woods they are all pretty good at real burn values.
Like any place in Na though some species will be quite different growing in different climates.
An Oak growing in Florida's BTU is quite a different than an Oak of the same species growing in Northern Ontario.
Bet that is one reason we get such swings on BTU charts.
I burn lots of Rock elm and if I see a shagbark and a rock elm and can only take one I start sharpening my chain for the Rock elm
Same for the sugar maple here, just not much between it and hickory in the woodstove.
Guess the short growing season here makes for big differences in some species and not much in others.
It certainly does. I used to burn some scrap I got from a woodshop I worked at. The logs came in on rail cars from nova scotia, rock maple and white birch. Freeking unreal density on some of them, one I was astounded at, I mean blown away flabbergasted. 100 or so rings, best I could count it and going from memory now, decades ago, at a little over a foot diameter. Slow growing and dense. Best firewood I have ever seen.
'Round here, I find Rock Elm growing on limestone ridges, bluffs, outcroppings and hill tops where the topsoil is all but non-existent... actually growing right in the solid limestone bedrock. Occasionally I see it growing in the creek bottoms where the topsoil has been washed away, exposing the bare limestone. That rocky "environment" causes it to grow slow, real slow... and causes it to be exposed to a lot of wind because not much else grows there. It's obvious just how slow-growing it is by looking at the scars and branching verses the diameter of the trunk(s). The roots will heave large chunks of limestone up, allowing the "cracks" to fill with debris... which (I believe), as it rots, helps supply nutrients needed for the tree to survive.
The wood is so hard and dense you'll think you've "rocked" your chain when you cut it for the first time... forget about throwing large chips off your bar, it's more like course sawdust than chips. Cutting it in low light will provide you with a light-show of sparks flying from your bar (I've been told it's tiny partials of wood igniting from friction). As far as firewood... once seasoned it will outclass any oak or hickory (at least any oak or hickory I've ever had). In hardness and density only what we call Ironwood (aka American Hophornbeam) compares (and is usually found growing in the same conditions).
The wood is so hard and dense you'll think you've "rocked" your chain when you cut it for the first time... forget about throwing large chips off your bar, it's more like course sawdust than chips. Cutting it in low light will provide you with a light-show of sparks flying from your bar (I've been told it's tiny partials of wood igniting from friction). As far as firewood... once seasoned it will outclass any oak or hickory (at least any oak or hickory I've ever had). In hardness and density only what we call Ironwood (aka American Hophornbeam) compares (and is usually found growing in the same conditions).
Last edited:
haveawoody
Addicted to ArboristSite
Zogger,
Nova scotia has a pretty short summer season so I sure can understand how small trees had so many rings.
Just goes to show none of us should take any btu list to heart, IMO as your location changes so does the wood quality at least for most species.
Sugar maple here in southern Ontario is tough stuff much like a hickory for hardness.
Nova scotia has a pretty short summer season so I sure can understand how small trees had so many rings.
Just goes to show none of us should take any btu list to heart, IMO as your location changes so does the wood quality at least for most species.
Sugar maple here in southern Ontario is tough stuff much like a hickory for hardness.
haveawoody
Addicted to ArboristSite
Whitespider,
Same for the rock elm in my area, it always seems to be on the nastiest clay soil or rock filled fields and growing like it's not to worried about time.
I love the blue sparks and dull chains on a rock elm day, then the heavy loading of rounds you would normally easily lift but seem mighty heavy on piece one
I always wondered what the sparks were and ignition of the dust is a good explanation of what is happening cutting rock elm.
I've seen blue sparks on hornbeam also, not as many or as often but same sparks now and then.
Same for the rock elm in my area, it always seems to be on the nastiest clay soil or rock filled fields and growing like it's not to worried about time.
I love the blue sparks and dull chains on a rock elm day, then the heavy loading of rounds you would normally easily lift but seem mighty heavy on piece one
I always wondered what the sparks were and ignition of the dust is a good explanation of what is happening cutting rock elm.
I've seen blue sparks on hornbeam also, not as many or as often but same sparks now and then.
Dusty Rhodes
ArboristSite Operative
You boys can mean mouth red oak all you want. If your far enough ahead whats the problem with the long seasoning? If I could only have one wood that is readily available to me I would probably opt for red oak. Mind you, I have never seen a "rock elm" around my neighborhood so it is not an option for me. Red oak splits great when green and when seasoned holds a fire for a long time and puts out serious BTU's. Yes it is heavy laden with water but once it is gone it is great firewood in my book. Much easier to split than hickory, & does not have the bugs that I seem to get with the hickory. If I could have the dense sugar maple that I had when I lived in Maine I would probably prefer it but again, thats not an option for me where I now live. Another one of my favorites is black birch, it splits well, seasons well and puts out great heat and holds a good fire. You play the cards your dealt and if you have the option for better wood more power too ya. Guess we are fortunate we have the various hard woods that we do. Oh, dont think I want a wood so hard that sparks are flying from the chain. Sounds like that would be pretty brutal on the equipment.
haveawoody
Addicted to ArboristSite
Dusty Rhodes,
Nothing wrong with red oak.
In my neck of the woods it's northern red oak and it's great firewood just takes forever to become that.
You are correct in it not being an issue if you have lots and a bit of pre planning the wait is really a mute point.
Northern Red is no picnic on chains either, red oak bark and moisture inside sure love to dull chains also.
Rock elm ,locust, hickory, hornbeam, hard maple, osage orange and a few others you can almost expect a long hard on the equipment cutting day and a long heavy moving day.
If you cut big sugar maple in Maine then you know just how fast the hard maple bark and chain chatter eats up a sharp chain.
Rock elm is like going through that bark but entire tree is like sugar maple bark LOL
Rock elm is great fun, yep it's tough on chains, the back and anything else moving it, but when winter rolls around it returns all that work in chill killing heat
Nothing wrong with red oak.
In my neck of the woods it's northern red oak and it's great firewood just takes forever to become that.
You are correct in it not being an issue if you have lots and a bit of pre planning the wait is really a mute point.
Northern Red is no picnic on chains either, red oak bark and moisture inside sure love to dull chains also.
Rock elm ,locust, hickory, hornbeam, hard maple, osage orange and a few others you can almost expect a long hard on the equipment cutting day and a long heavy moving day.
If you cut big sugar maple in Maine then you know just how fast the hard maple bark and chain chatter eats up a sharp chain.
Rock elm is like going through that bark but entire tree is like sugar maple bark LOL
Rock elm is great fun, yep it's tough on chains, the back and anything else moving it, but when winter rolls around it returns all that work in chill killing heat
Last edited:
Dusty Rhodes
ArboristSite Operative
I am reading you Woody. I am thankful for the great wood choices we do have, they all have their place me thinks. You are right, it is well worth the effort on a cold winters night when the wind is whipping and the mercury is stuck below the 0. Guess that is why I have such fond memories of the beloved Sugar Maple I had when I lived in Northern Maine. It kept me and the family toasty warm during some brutal winters when the temps were -30 and the wind chill had it double that cold. Think you guys are giving me a new disease, Lets call it WAD. Wood Acquisition Disease. I want to try Rock Elm and Osage Orange, maybe once I have some of that Red "Rock" Elm, I'll pass up the Red Oak
Red (Slippery) Elm and Rock Elm are two separate and very different species of elm... doubtful you'll ever see "Rock" Elm in Pennsylvania.
Oh heck, ain't nobody mean-mouthin' Red Oak DR, it's good stuff, premium firewood... it's just that I have abundant better choices of the same BTU class growing in my woodlot. It's been some number of years since I've cut any Rock Elm simply because it doesn't grow in my woodlot, but Bur Oak and Red (Slippery) Elm does.
Green-cut Red Oak has a moisture content of approximately 80-85% based on dry weight... meaning a green-cut round weighing 180-pounds contains 80-pounds (or more) water. Nearly 50% of the weight you're handling (loading, unloading, and whatnot) is water, not wood. And then it takes a long time for it to give up all that water... don't discount shrinkage.
Green-cut Bur Oak has a moisture content of approximately 50-55% based on dry weight... meaning a green-cut round of the same approximate size weighs about 150-pounds and contains about 50-pounds water. Only about 33% of the weight I'm handling (loading, unloading, and whatnot) is water, not wood. And it seasons faster... shrinks less.
Green-cut Red Elm has a moisture content of approximately 45-50% based on dry weight... meaning a green-cut round of the same approximate size weighs about 145-pounds and contains about 45-pounds water. Yet consider that most of the Red Elm I cut is standing-dead, so all but the lower trunk is much less... basically air dry at 15-20%, pre-seasoned and bark-free. Most Red Elm splits about like Bur Oak, it ain't as stringy as the white elms.
Rock Elm has a moisture content of approximately 40-45%, the wood is noticeably denser so a round of the same approximate size would weigh something more than 140-pounds. But a round that will produce 100-pounds of dry wood will weigh about 140-pounds green and contain about 40-pounds water, and be somewhat smaller than the above examples. Less than 30% of the weight being handled is water... it seasons to 15-20% very fast... and shrinkage is near non-existent.
Oh heck, ain't nobody mean-mouthin' Red Oak DR, it's good stuff, premium firewood... it's just that I have abundant better choices of the same BTU class growing in my woodlot. It's been some number of years since I've cut any Rock Elm simply because it doesn't grow in my woodlot, but Bur Oak and Red (Slippery) Elm does.
Green-cut Red Oak has a moisture content of approximately 80-85% based on dry weight... meaning a green-cut round weighing 180-pounds contains 80-pounds (or more) water. Nearly 50% of the weight you're handling (loading, unloading, and whatnot) is water, not wood. And then it takes a long time for it to give up all that water... don't discount shrinkage.
Green-cut Bur Oak has a moisture content of approximately 50-55% based on dry weight... meaning a green-cut round of the same approximate size weighs about 150-pounds and contains about 50-pounds water. Only about 33% of the weight I'm handling (loading, unloading, and whatnot) is water, not wood. And it seasons faster... shrinks less.
Green-cut Red Elm has a moisture content of approximately 45-50% based on dry weight... meaning a green-cut round of the same approximate size weighs about 145-pounds and contains about 45-pounds water. Yet consider that most of the Red Elm I cut is standing-dead, so all but the lower trunk is much less... basically air dry at 15-20%, pre-seasoned and bark-free. Most Red Elm splits about like Bur Oak, it ain't as stringy as the white elms.
Rock Elm has a moisture content of approximately 40-45%, the wood is noticeably denser so a round of the same approximate size would weigh something more than 140-pounds. But a round that will produce 100-pounds of dry wood will weigh about 140-pounds green and contain about 40-pounds water, and be somewhat smaller than the above examples. Less than 30% of the weight being handled is water... it seasons to 15-20% very fast... and shrinkage is near non-existent.
Last edited:
