U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Servic e
FOREST PRODUCTS LABORATOR Y
In cooperation with the University of Wisconsi n
MADISON, WISCONSI N
SELECTIVE LOGGING IN THE LOBLOLLY AN D
LONGLEAF PINE FORESTS OF SOUTH CAROLINA
By R. D. GARVER
Senior Forester
an d
J. B . CUN O
Associate Wood Technologis t
SCHOOL OF FORESTR Y
OREGON STATE COLLEGE
CORVALLIS . OREGO N
March, 1935
1
Purpose of Inve
-
Area Si-
1.
How t tie Study w &s Made __L4;
Logging and Milling Conditions 4
Cost of Producing Lumber f r-o _1 Logs and TO.OPZ 9.f _ ', . . .E.
4_
Different Si p es
.+a .~
I ' •_t
J
r r,
Logging Costs for Loblolly anti
-Overrun for Loblolly and Longleaf Pine Logs and Trees
Total production Cost for Loblolly
Pine Logs and Trees of Different
-4k
and Lo,ngle a
Diameters
Lumber p rices
8
Grades and Value of Lumber
8
Production Costs and Lu'.;ber Values Corpared
10
Returns from Different Diameter Cutting Limits 10
Appl icati
Carolina
of Revolts to Cutting Practices in Seut h
'` Log Grades
tie and Value of Individual Trees b y
biamete .t Classes
Average ?
Sum :ary
11
12
14
14
I
r
1L
-
IVE LOGGING '
1
_
fn
"
fy
~
-LONt
'LOBLOLLY '
SOUTH CAROLIN A
"
NE FORESTS O F
▪
A . L. Garver s 8'e i i r 'et
34. J .
> >-c'
.
,04
and .
's-acisto Olfwxgi '
.
s,
4
A Large p i .Oif. South. p
1 na is monk valuabl e
for growing trees ti? Mir 'other af%•Sll o- p
•itio n
foreat produ*ts aent g e in . a large
i * industria l
and 4locial welfaxe ©l the state . Early cute:-was confine d
- to choice timber and aecos-sible ar g . At pre te n ¢, however ,
state;
the-re rein ins ies g than two hundred tw
sand acres• 4
assed a s
that 1as rfrot been logged over and ,t, .jr therefore be
virrg'in . timbe=r . O: %A@ 04-AAAr a and t44 . t are some ?C8 millio n
acreit gf log std ove .r land in
:rieus conditions of stocking .
Future .c ttlAg, for tale itost part, t refore :, will deal wit h
the la
w oness 01 rand and timber growing e 4 utilizatio n
invest- gatibms may well be guided by these c -c itions .
la
. M OF INVESTIGATIO N
cooperat' LN
The investigation was carried a
by the Pama;st Products Le votary and
Appalachain Fot*et
Ixperim'ax t Station .
a,
the pri
; purpo•e s of the wop'k
to
lbw
obtain i 'ormation by diameter oLasses fCix
,ea lA' ► .
and to n
.f pine o the relative •productibn 'awst4WAkItlaber grades and yields for a stand, that had l + ri
44 r ed
to a par-ti , cutting ab'aut 40 I r ma- I N , . d (2) to de4ermine the •a o t .aa d duration of i ;m eroaoe:d growth of th e
trees left standing aft•eT partial cutting and to provid e
plots on wni-ch to stilly the growth and devkelopmeat of the *e 9
sidual stand under W,eleEtive logging and t .4e establishmen t
and growth o,f repre±du g tion following lo.ggirg :
_Paw volielib *mac
_
cos; •cI
Acknowledgrr.ent is made to members of the Appalachain Experi'- •
Kent Station, particularly A . L . HacKinney, for assistanc e
in the field work and for photographs . A . C . Nollin of th e
Forest Products Laboratory also assisted in the work .
R10&6
_
6eledtl-0 .w4tng or l4 ,'lag as here used means a
partial cutting preetice in wn,ic'n. tr1be large trees and til e
small deftQtive a*** are remo. bal 1.ilZ,A the small and medium
sized thrifty &new a.re reserved far future growth and see d
production .
AREA 8. T 2e'
The area selected for stud i Ma .trepreseIRAW47SR 01:
the mixed loblol .ly and le.tIlgleaf pine 1 .00AVA- 0g.' el
elf
the Coastal Plain of South Carolim . Na area wale wl wee r
about 40 yeA:xg Q4p% WA4 of t,'atft pil.l* *1040r ab
inchea . .
in
'ef
t
volapsout,
taw *Ow tail
Ifitnt
f .11wattj
;~ 'FroAO- lagiak has been
frequent
d h *nd cattl e
lYs th*
'Om *0 Witte AO' Mau
halve
a* Apill . 'tie rea ilft#
ecilextr 85 foo t
3i% lost* opt
lol1~~R
-fit is to
represents the
and codo: nant trees at th e
'411 ‘lb$
a.tie p
ili,or,sa mar -reproduction #ere extremel y
asuseGig qegi-j-'%■h,i
'ISIB opOitv OlIPWging only 55 pine trees ,
10 i
goger
acalits. lbe -najorit of the loblolly
inches, 1. n. 010p i ft nt v were b
e e n 37 and 45
p lnel
Imaiw6tlua1 , twom moo.
occurrGiii
&4ihqOll
pjrli from 55. ''ftr WOO year s
moll
The 1
f pine
StIN
range'
here were
four smal l
s ttIOTh0eas
AINICriPtIPAt Too lull e and
in the
g ali t ;%t4rNO14plOmmulo 'fit op sequence pe
Oeei. oat*
'
cons _
~ In . Ulia ,lhWo- .J 4'4 4teelmw, but of no corn- L.
mercies I)Rpoetitnce f#ihyo
e average seven smali
ha rdmite!)&I
act ' *WI
. W several species o f
.oak wiWitelOcca=mKI .-afift.M . . . e lon4Fleaf pin e
nad not aiot1h
r V' Sking tob4pe 4esgftoegt
low' ,410-, *
d.
elms *144 & vgfrg“
ged 626
fls4tft 4BBj ga eir
‘frrg6
b-oa A
fly pit-lt One ,5 3L, .st r c ent opt Dili eh
loblolly pine and 29 www4rb I'M404607 14AlilmadT 1
:, . . .
igrq•oe
.Doll!tIOD .0, the stane &nd
saovio
wills* ISIVIelliS.Wo Uelltt Ile-re LA trees 5 incrhe s
walk listger pat-Aktrello
Or *AM& were Flie* and 7 were
or
haggeftesx ... -
ora"lo
b4
-
t
b. .
.J.
.J,
j* s
For the piltpose n vtudyiss Itio* trowth and development of the residual $1woAteeret
t-eier'll.shment ,
Oiuc
t
ion
following logging
a.fiAl 4i iRfeeeelati*A. 4114' e4t.1'q
DOC to six*. 1M
.creased
growth
wtcl
.tion of
KU56
SCHOOL OF FORESTR Y
OREGON STATE COLLEG E
-
CORVALLIS, OREGON
Table I .-Number of ,.trees Der acre bys-oecies --forest grown
second growth loblolly-longleaf pine, Middl e
Atlantic Coastal Plai n
Species
Average number of trees per acr e
-----------Diameter breast high (inches) : : 5 and 6 : 7 to 12 : 13 and up : Total
. .-- .
.
---------------- -
.
25 .7
: 51 . 0
12 .8
: 20 . 3
2 .4
0 .4
3. 6
1 .7
0 .6
0.:.3
2.6
Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
0 .5
0 .6
0_.I
1.2
Southern red oak (Quercus rubra) :
0 .5
0 .2
---
Black jack oak (Quercus mari landica)
0 .7
3 .9
21 .4
:
0 .7
6 .8
Shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) :
0 .8
Post oak (Quercus stellata)
Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)
Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris)
:
0 .1
0 .3
0 .1
White oak (Quercus alba)
0 .1
0 .1
0 .1
Water oak (Quercus nigra)
0 .2
0 .1
Hickory (Hicoria sp .)
0 .2
.81056
:
0 .5
0.3
0.3
0.2
____
9 .4
0.5
0 .2
Red gum (Liquidambar styra ciflua)
Total
0.7
.
0.7
0 .3
Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica)
:
32 .8
:
39 .7
-
: 81 .9
f
following
in oe• .nev%
€rtial cuu' a •g, foyr sample plots were - _
with th . 4udy . =
ishe d
t icate th e
.Pig es 1 to 4 ei*e sibs_ sells
witithk
timbe r
character
the amid and the nmex
was cut .
t:ne p
' ..
is
Fo 5 tows the loos-Viva
ocke‘ but pre viously i
o r y
ioemil ih start was
sentaive
pia stal, slain, and for thi s
'
a.s in t
Ye .son it was : pos•silhs to 1ealOe a gored thrifty stand o f
small trees sin th,e ,rag a to prl ill t.
ul,ext cut . Enoug h
;nd sweeten th e
trees were left, l never, to prxzm
; slsl
next cut . Table 2 e .evM tile nun b.ex of tfI04s cut and lef t
and Table 2 ea gives the ITJe-I
40its;TtOutt.w4 Sp diamete r
computin g
classes foT tips stand *s .ehltl r
weighted 4reVa:ge cow stsr.
•,
la•
i?1ii THE S'P"ff y WAS'
_
E
.dented In this cif't
tit OlkiiJ
1
t
from each plo t
Wt, 4 efts *1 men
#4s
th,ppgn lap dtfa
gITPid milling op I, 4.$
gs
and trees, th e
t
and Neeil
OF I
~.
Step
of
lumber production ,
Vey ,
,S*k
.
.
Droc1Wd . Each log wa s
*AG %MO
tmou1tia
41
ntified wit h
n1
- b6`
to % 1001s s~ iI' 14,6
duting
the differen t
±
~cc
i4 re' W040 !.-* aptr
me logs wer e
steps of lumoet
.use
it was possible to ob studied 4
+wood 4i ~$ '
es for the trees b y
tain protuctt
costs #4i01
•
logs that mad e
thch
resp
SeMad*
es prevailing a t
cow
.:OPOt
zed with
.lade v
taw nea=i0
teo4 461L, et*
e
g
the
cost s
!
.M
'
For logs 'S incnes in
t
r
IdOmwOOpt
¶g scale was used for deter 4* .
miningfeet . For logs under 8 inches i n
dl,
% .s adjusted to give a scale mor e
404e of the log . Instead o f
0
4imital
, as is done in the standar d
suta
4 in3oio for
3 inc4ws were subtracted fo r
, only
Doyle rails
- rand 2-2/3 inche s
G' ,- in
04
'inch a 1*?
knows %
or small logs the
fOr
0.
and there are a nun iculO4.sly
1000
0.
t this, the mos t
ber o!' -a.y-s in use 5y' lumbe hen_ 'to
1 See establishment Report for these plots by A . L . MacKinney ,
Appalacnain Forest Experiment Station .
R1056
-3 -
•
4
N
03
0
a0•
t\
o~
ez-,~zz 0
$o
o~
•
oa
•
a
oN O .
O
N
£
• o•
0
T
•••
••
2
0
av
P
go.
4
•
I
O
/
8
Sk i
i .s s •
2
•
qR
+~
A
•
hP
o
oa
,
I
r
•
• Q
o" o R
Oh
+
•
0%
•
O~
f
o.
•
vrr
OP
vo
On
Oy
tai
•
O.
0 O Os
d
N
•
Od
°w q
.t
o
so .
•
q, 0N
qQ
•
.
o,
••
•
04
0-
•
N.
Ow
4
4o .
•• .
•$ / ;S3/ o
,r»/„sz o
•
•
4,1
o
,,Pb/7/ 0
,PW.;,vni o
•
0
OR
s•zz;say 0
..
0. 4
a'
00
~9
•
N
N
e
;vz-?•rz 0
q■
oa$
'+
N
oa
at
oa
oq■
03
•
Oo
Q
n
•
■p
.
0
tO b
00
o*
e7
M
oy
•
rF
N
o oo h
4
~o• •
o;
•5
•
Oa
o%
o$
•
'o
o~
or,
•
0.
")
og
'
•
v)
•
,N
N
go •
■
o
o hz
OA
or,;
•
ohh
A•
.
ON
ON
_■
• •
n
•
p
.
•
i
or,
.
0
q
C
•
♦
N
.
N
•
o.
4
om
Oh •~
N
o+
0
•
00
N
•
•
•
Q:
q P,
n
.
i
qh
'
•
r
13N
oI
4 . ON oN
O •
••
• '
n
n +
N
o:
ON
•oo■ q 404 4
s
V3
w-
w1arO3 3
s.1 In
u
a .s tt si 0
G
rI E
u
F. it EC EC
L. 4 li li C4
R
W }
LiJ f'lfis' d
0 0Q-,~3
LL.l
5 . 5 3 ; 2 1
%LI
~iY-ir
I .§
•
T
.
4
ok
Z
' og
•
fo Oi
'o
O~
R~
OZ
I
oti
■
n
o~
G1~
D~
O
ok O!
O8
a
n
e
Oa
g
O~n~
,
O+
o
o~
0
goof
r
ral
N
a4,
o~
■
:
v$
a
*. °
.
O
4
o
•~
o
o
N
Or
.
')Z
.
U
of
n
M.
r
. •
ok
•
Y
a
.
a
o
•
h
ko
°f
•
•
0g
of
.
•
og
O¢
• Y~
'~~
•'•
`? "
qE
•
O$ •
ok
4O1
C"
0
♦
N
4
4
Q
a1
Ol
of
.
.ot
a
f
N
0
k
ak a
W
zv y zv~ q u
6-1
W
~" 4
u Z Z LL.t
N
-4
.7 v
h
Z
2
•
v)
▪
I. q
Z
'
•
:I
o
301
~ .~'0/-'rr o
i
t
W sri rni o
F
a ,soifz c
°
• o II a4104 4
Z
v
Oy
di
■
■
h
0
y ys~,
2 Z L.F ZWZ2~j
V a: a: 4 d , , H
qq
~ ., -J - ,,j ti
oo
ti
u~~
mmm
floono~Ze
•
01
01
.WiinF ei p
■
~
CI
,
0
01
■
3
3Q
■
.
•
h
N
'4
a
o~
Q.
O ^
OvJ *
q
..
03
N.
N
~~
N
0
of
O;
n
qi
N
iq
0i
Ol
N
CPI
N
"O
N
di
[J
•
O:
of
0i
N
Oi
N
'
q'J
•
•
J
J
n
a'
2O
0•
oi
~
N
•
O
Cr.
O3
.
ov
Oo
01
or
0
03
•
O?
~~•
Oki
°3
.-
n.
lJP
.
.•
4)
•
.
•
V
O
08
•
• 0~
■
t•-
.
. K••
•
•
.•
■
041
.
co 0i
4
•
•
•
,,,,c~y
y
•
•S
.
FIG . 5
!
-?
SELECTIVE LOGGING STUD Y
(RS M-111 )
Study Plots 1- 4
Conifer Trac t
Appalachian Forest Experiment Sta tion and Forest Products Labora tory on lands of North Stat e
Lumber Co :, Cooperators ,
Witiierbee, Berkeley Co ., S .C .
S
Legend : Scale . . . inch - 2 chain s
Log landing
Square number . . . . 1
_410
Railroad
-z
N 39
E
6 .67 Ch .
Loading loblolly and longleaf pine logs onto railroad car s
for hauling to the dock wher e
they will be transferred to barge s
Transferring' logs from railroad cars to barge s
for towing forty miles to the mill .
Z M 2608b F
•
Table 2 .--Composition of loblolly-longleaf pine stand showin g
number of treqs_per_acre before and after cutting
Loblolly and
Diameter :
shortleaf pine
Longleaf pine
breast :
: :
high : Cut
Left
Total : : Cut
Left : Tota l
Inches : Number : Number : Number : : Number : Number : Numbe r
5
6
7
8
9
10
3 .8
5 .0
4 .1
5 .0
4 .6
3 .8
. .
---
0 .4
0 .3
0 .6
1 .0
.
:
.
0.4
0.3
0. 6
1.0
0. 9
0. 9
: :
. :
: :
: .
. :
0 .7
1 .7
1 .3
3 .1
2 .4
2 .1
0 .6
0 .4
0 .2
0 .3
0 .1
0 .1
1. 3
2. 1
1. 5
3. 4
2. 5
2. 2
2 .2
1 .5
1 .5
1 .2
0 .8
0 .7
:
:
:
.
:
1 .4
0 .7
0 .6
0 .2
0 .2
0 .1
---
1.4
0.7
0. 6
0. 2
0.2
0. 1
0 .2
0 .1
0 .1
0 .1
0 .1
0. 2
0. 1
0. 1
0 .1
0 .1
: :
. .
0 .1
0. 1
14 .6
5.7
2 .2
R1056
3 .7
2 .3
1 .2
1 .2
0 .5
0 .5
:
0 .8
17
18
19
20
21
22
Total
2 .2
2 .5
3 .2
4 .3
3 .2
4.3
0 .1
0 .1
2 .7
2 .9
3 .8
4 .1
3 .3
1 .4
1 .4
1 .1
0 .7
0 .7
:
2 .2
2 .5
3 .2
4.3
3 .2
4 .3
: :
11
12
13
14
15
16
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
O
--- .
: 25 .1
.
0 .1
0 .1
0 .1
0 .1
:
29 .5
:
54 .6
:
:
:
:
:
:
SCHOOL OF FORESTR Y
S7TF. COLLEG E
COW AL .L1~, t;E
~L-u j N
20 .3
Table 2a .--Volume distribution for th e
stand as cut for mixed
loblolly and loleaf pin e
Diameter :
Volume distribution
breast :
high
:Gross log scale : Lumber tally
-------------------------- -
Inches
Percent
Percen t
10
11
12
13
14
0 .5
4 .0
6 .4
10 .0
0.7
4. 9
7. 4
11 . 1
15
16
17
18
19
12 .4
13 .1
11 .5
9 .5
8 .1
13 . 2
13 . 3
11 . 3
9.2
7. 6
20
21
22
23
24
6.5
5 .6
4.2
2 .3
1 .6
5. 9
5.0
3 .7
25
26
27
28
29
1 .3
0 .9
0 .8
0 .7
0 .6
1.1
0.7
0.6
0. 5
0. 4
c105 6
2.0
1.4
common of which is to give -die logs below 8 incnes in diamete r
a scale equal to their length in feet .
This practice cause s
a large underrun in logs of approximately 5 inches in diamete r
that is inconsistent with the rest of the rule . The adjustedlog scale figures used in this circular for small logs give a n
overrun that corresponds generally wit"i the trend in logs abov e
7 incnes diameter .
Tne log-run costs which follow ara based on the v}alum e
distributin 0f the cut among the different sized tees as,
found in this study . Random width lumber wao adjusted by 4
percent to cover shrinkage . Production oasts are based. an
1929-30 wage scales and improvement c
¢
LOGGING AND iILLIdG CONDITIONS
Logging and milling conditions and method at the
operation studied were characteristic of the region in every
way except that barges and tow boats were substituted fox th e
usual railroad haul for mills not on navigable water . Log
.
cutting was oa,rriod ®n by 'c ••ews of two men . The logs were
buncned in the tool
ith a horse or mule ; hauled to tae Vail; 1 d
road spur by four yr ,eled r .
on single lengt h
skeleton cars by a steam lo . ' and .a.uled aboi
to mile s
over a narrow gau4t railroad to a LQ
ng doe.
Mere the log s
were loaded on .t:a Large bWS
bar
Jye,der amid towed
about 40 miles don the Comer Aim
t milt .. ',ogs were '
unloaded from the barges with a sei,
, •, 4
e and ViP004-Of
t
the bull chain or delivery to thie lot 64qkk &a the aiLs
iThe
logs were cut with a band .eaw,
p
c~ '
1
Ai
resaw . Tne luaber was all kiln d.riied.. .$iost +, ' a
r t
in thickness ; 5/4 arid. ' 9/4 were
.'obsiorM''
only a small proportion of the cut .
0O5'T QF 'RCD IOCIN.4"x LUMBER FRO::i LQ
,i W
OF DIF ' Ni 5t l
r:nin e
Tie justification for investigatio : '
the post of producing lumber from trees : of 4dfl*4* :A size s
lies in the fact that snail trees are mash mw* e
3
C 14
.
to handle than large ones and their valm.c
g is legit. . OZO** '
.narily lumber companies keep costs on a logbasis *ad
except for their judgment in the matter do met have ]m-f'O
i4
on the loss or reduction in profits tnat occu ° becwt04 t •eie O
R1056
-4-
-iao waif IQ yield a satisfactory profit are Nandi:&4 along wi` i
the larger and more profitable trees .
In consider?n,g t-ire question from this angle it is necessary to recognize ier .i.n trelnd s
in cost items . For example as the cut per acre dear4argets: railroad costs increase, whereas if the shall t-ras are 7 .af :, suc h
items as felling, hauling and milling decrease *emus* tae gutput per unit of time is greater in large timbe .r titan in smal l
timber . Other items such as taxes on lumber vkn with the.
price it brings, whereas still other costs such ata railroa d
nauling and barge charges vary with the capacity ratlea wh4 n
The handling of ae*
;I coots
loaded with logs of different sizes .
item is explained in connection With the major met table s
which follow and give information on production costs for lags
and trees of different diameters .
Interest on invested capital, federal tweet and
stumpage have not been included in these costs .
LOGGING COSTS FOR LOBLOLLY AND LONGLEAF
TRIM
'
Tne initial expense in lumber manuf6c a;.re o-eOPeFs
the woods and the size of the tree effects take cats and re In general if co.-a%ain loggi a:g
turns of the lumber cut from it .
Best items such as log -Waking and hauling are hi . ;la for a given
For t:ai reason.
aloe size, mill':.ng costs will also be taiga .
a judicious selection of the trees tp be cut i-s the first atop
in taking advantage. of the fundamental prin.ejeplw of s.eiecti rre
logging as a means of reducing production costs arid Aaintaining a stand of timber .
Table 3 gives the average production costs and til e
logging cost for each size of tree on a gross log-scab basis .
Considering all logging costs 10-inch trees are nearly thre e
times more costly per i; to handle than 24-incn trees . A similar ratio nolds, no matter waetner wages 'a re up or down, fo r
in the ordinary process of logging it takes more time to candle a thousand feet of small trees or logs ta .n larg<e :anus .
These ratio-s are somewhat nigher than will obtai,a wawa, tis e
costs are reduced to a lumber tally basis . This is duo t o
the higher overrun found in the small logs as compared to the
large ones .
For logs the cost trends are siatitta ' 'tor that fir
in trees . Logging costs for logs on a gr_oes scale basis ar e
tnerefo.re.. not snown., but May be co out .ed readily from th e
R1056
-5-
and lumber tally G re,&tS t. f desirR .C. "aft
overrun
ay
practioally
cUffe,vmince in the I-aglritx cost fog
and le.g,logf p-te - so
are. saolwn together fai r
4IT4,411kats
legit WM** waled :.*irelY tit ti.4 I% woods cost s
81V-generally corn with woods wg-zs 'M.tls aim. t.le the fifkal
!rtated on a Lurraxe
bA . M.s it
ill*edetiO, ,
to a lumber tally basis as soon a s
+C
Omer no 'ammo
tamw
r.4utt'-toomE s
Wole6s a® t~ are generally
wted
ta Weft e
basis because it ie Cl,esible to detett-rlinue ou*Jtt jttlt - t.*' m e
the work is done
before the Lego * actuailIq if"Viqd- li t*
lumber . The log ae .ale -neaturemef-its ft. fTes frzaa I
amount of lumber that a given run of 16gs 1,411
run
tne excess or deficiency is called
vaaf,erun . It
the full log scale without deduction for 4ef,sim-t4 is used a * base the result . is called gross overrun oP vA-gl,Urlit .
ir4
net scale is used as a base it is called net
Tables 4 and 5 give figures for 6vecgum . and potcentage orf defect for loblolly and longleaf Flne logs ai d
Clow&
Tae res-ta-ts are milt
Ov, 40.Ri 0!ale_.MgA #
1114141
11*4griLatWEL4 to faits the *1atrodtictioas
of t Wbles W&
IA A
rhita Mad a
W
overlitgar. ifsal#
.: -:'' vitte IOW r ..Ialliwt .Z•.04
nad tn e Etip*§*ht
r. *war *iff
, in the fi ,tatita
=0
t ie *TM
it
and U
10 'ad grMf4f
toga.,
07
Z
$0
both IOIM
differ ,u as t
wtIa. cni'A?t
Aria
fire, Per4 b, $vte8tl
2 .9 percent .
state
'Met. 48r
gpt:Wm- it is necessary to Of
t
stand 114 Put, T g.t.-.1-Q 6 :I IPII=
cut, weighted by diameter c each species that was cut .
R1056
40*
•
Table 4 .--Gross and net overrun?- and percent defect fo r
loblolly and shortleaf logs and tree s
L o g
s
Tod
Overrun
diameter :
inside
bark : Gross : Net
Inches : Per
cent
T r e e s
Overrun
:Defect : :Diameter :
: breast .
: : high : Gross : Net
.
: Per
: cent
: Per
: cent
. : Inches : Per
:
: cent
: Per
. cent
: Pe r
: cen t
: 10 .4
: 6 .3
: 7 .8
: 4 .6
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
11
12
13
14
:
:
.
68
58
49
43
:
77
64
54
47
:
:
.
:
:
.
:
:
37
33
29
25
21
41
36
32
28
24
:
:
.
7
8
9
10
115
92
-66
45
:
:
:
:
140
105
80
52
11
12
13
14
15
29
22
13
14
11
:
:
:
:
35
28
24
19
15
:
:
:
:
:
4 .4
4 .7
4 .8
4 .2
3 .5
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
15
16
17
18
19
16
17
18
19
20
8
6
4
2
0
:
.
:
:
:
12
10
8
5
0
:
:
:
:
:
3 .6
3 .6
3 .7
2 .9
0
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
20
21
22
23
24
21
22
23
24
25
26
-3
-6
-8
: • -11
-14
-17
:
:
:
-3
-6
-8
-11
-14
-17
:
:
:
.
:
0
0
0
0
0
0
:
:
:
:
.
:
:
:
:
.
: 29 .9
:
2 .4
Weighted. :
average : 26 .8
:Defec t
:
:
25
26
27
28
29
:
:
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
-2
-5
-7
: :Weighted :
: : average : 26 .8
:
.
:
:
:
20
17
14
11
8
6
3
0
-3
-5
:
3.2
2 .7
2 .8
2 .2
2 .3
2 .3
2 .4
:
1 .7
1.7
1 .8
1 .8
1 .9
:
:
:
:
2 .8
2.9
2 .0
2.1
2.1
:
2 .4
------ : 29 .9
1 Based on modified Doyle rule and dry lumber tally (page 3 )
R1056
5. 1
Table 5.--Gross and net overranl and percent defect fo r
longleaf pine logs and tree s
L o g s
-------------------------------Top
:
Overrun
diameter :
:
:
inside :
:Defect :
:
bark : Gross : Net :
Inches : Per
cent
7
8
9
: ill
:
85
62
Tree s
------------------------------ :
Overru n
:Diameter :
•
:Defec t
: breast
: high : Gross : Ne t
: Per
cent
Per
: cent
: : Inches : Per
::
: cent
130
98
71
: 8 .3
6 .6
: 5 .3
::
::
::
:
:
10
11
12
:
:
92
78
67
57
48
40
: Per
: cent
: Pe r
cent
108
92
77
: 7. 7
: 7.3
: 5. 6
64
53
43
: 4. 3
: 3.3
2.1
37
31
27
24
2. 9
: 2. 3
: 2.4
2.4
20
18
15
: 0. 8
: 1.7
: 0 .9
:
:
:
33
28
24
21
Weighted :
average :
37 .1
41 .2
2 .9
:
:
:
:
20
21
22
:
:
:Weighted :
: average :
37 .1:
1 Based on modified Doyle rule and dry lumber tally .
41 .2;
2.9
.
r
-
Tablet 6 .--Gross overrun?- for mixedloblolll
1
and longrleaf Dine logs and tree s
,•
weighted inthe-proportion that
they occurred in the cu t
Logs
-------------------Top
diameter : Gross .
inside
overrun :
bark
•
•
Inches
Percent
113
89
65
45
9
-
iB
.
lip
15
16
11
8
18
6
4
i17
123
24
25
P6
.Tm
*lighted :
y average
I
31
22
18
14
-8
-11
-14
-17
29 .9
Tree s
-------- -------- : Diameter
. breast
:
high
:
: Inches
. .
. .
: :
. .
. .
.
•
Gros s
overrun
Percen t
10
11
12
13
92
77
61
52
14
15
16
17
45
38
33
29
18
19
25
21
20
21
18
15
26
27
28
29
0
-2
-5
-7
Weighted
average
.
_29 .9
.1 Based on modified Doyle scale and dr y
lumber tally .
.■
■■ , .
■■ --
, n
_■ _, ■ _
. ",
■n _
■
,r•
-
A barge load of logs enroute to the mill .
S
General view of stand following selective cutting .
Z M 26087 F
ti
`_re
'
Aye■ %% ■
Lh~
T' 1
r-I
. 11 I r
.;1I
.
I
71j=•.=
'
nu
1?
I +r
Tne average overrun for -I r
}
r}
percent . That is, for every 1Q0$
. :;
1299 feet of lumber were obtained .
11 ' 2
te
from an overrun of 92 percent for 10-i3lM
run of 7 percent from 29-inch trees .
IMMObvemmmentrNd used in converting log-scale costs to a . '!l
fall 6abam 3 gives average logging costs as $8 .94
per .va board feet log scale, which reduced to a lumber tall y
$6 .88 per 1 board feet lumbe r
basis (0 .94 x 100 ))
(129 .9
tally . Similar computations have been made for all items o f
l.Qrig cats
,d. the results hereafter are shown on a lumbe r
tally basis .
TotalProduction Cost for Loblolly and Longlea f
Pine Logs and Trees of Different Diameter s
Logging costs converted to a lumber tally basi s
oy means of overrun figures may be added directly to the mill ing costs which were determined in terms of lumber tally .
Tnis nas been done and the lumber production costs for lob lolly and longleaf pine trees and logs of different diameter s
are shown in Tables 7 and 8 . Although the ratios betwee n
mewha t
large and small diameters of trees for all costs ue
less than the ing scale costs tne same trends holes, ,
all items togetner it costs about 1-1/2 times mI i
eel*
ture lumber from 10-inch than from Pilimilairai,t +treebm
smal %
items which vary with the size of #
are greater
trees tnan large ones, except selling gui .Ch is doooL a pogo
centage basis and for this reason is , oopter for kmQ
g
trees because tne lumber has a gn!t r
Similar trends are also fQ, rd
costs for logs .
a the
jducti4i
The methods of handling each cwt 4 lure
on the cost tables .
Production costs by diameter classes are 4mpnas i
because of the bearing they have on the comparative ; retur3b
from trees of different sizes . Later on it will be &mNO 4a . t
due to high costs and low values, losses occur in handllng tn e
smallest trees and that the log-run profits from the std are_
always reduced by the smaller sizes .
R1056
-7-
.0.
..
$
•
..
2'
•
a
.
P.
6
„
A k 2' A' Z.' 2 3 2 2 A
. 2 S A A A' , A
6 6 6 6 6 6 .; 6 6 6
A
0 6
.3'
2 3 & s
6 8 6 0 0
_
A. A A
• 6 6
0
.
s.
6 6
0
s
A.- A.
6 6 6
6 .6
2.
0iO
3 2
A A A 1 t.0 6 6 6
6
.. . .
.
0
co o
r...
;
6 o
A, a 2 A
6 6 6
A A 3 A,
0
6 6
1:
!''..
0 0 a
6 8 8
0
A A A .2' .2 1 2
3' 2 A A 2
A
.;
Yr Tv 42 A, 3' 2 n$ $ A 8
6 6 6 6 6
.4 6
O
. . ..
•
V 42 A.
$ A
.6. 6 6 6
.. ..
.
r-T
.
A
3Iu~
3 A A
2 A, AEAN 'A 2
0
;'
0
0
A 3 A A-, s A
.a
a 6 6 6
0. O
6v
A' A V A' 3. 2ASP&A
e 46
4
.4
6 6
6
A.''. t
37. I A A -A A A 'A A A 9 A t 2 3 2 & A' t
6 6
6 6 6 6 6 6 4
8
I4 r'.
AAAA2
6 o
6 6
6-
a
0 .. ..0 .. .. 0
AA3S
6 6 6
6
6
l p..il Rts A 4' A SAA2SmAa2223 4,-. 3
•
I
1
0
0
0 0 6 .4 c;
4 0
ig!S 2' 2 A6
A,
0
6 2
8
5;
12H
A
6
6
ooo
.3 &
.6 6 6 d 6 6
q
T. 2
6
& A 2 2
0 6
0
.a
3 6 6 A 2 A A A K' A' 3 A'& a
6
6 6 O 6
it
0
t.
A'
2
2
12
&
r
gi
n
16
'
atrl' l
in
2.11
a! V
gap :
3APtAA 212 2.
A' A A a
2,'a : A A' 3'
• 6' 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 61 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
2
2
S
.
2
g
s
1
is
..
a
V ,i ,i
e
-1! I
.
h;
.
.15g
a,
.''!
..
Lw
o
,
1.; 1
i
;
-2
1
!
i
Ia
1
i A g a;
2
i
.. .
AA
8
A
8
A Au
to' A
6 6 6-6 8 6-6
le
As
6
A, 'A'
8,
g 6 8 6 8 6 8 o
.. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. .. .. . . .. .. . . .. . . .. .. . . .. . . . . .. . . .. .. . . .. .. .. . . .. . . .. . . .. .. . . .. . . .. .. . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . .
g
A
6 8 8 8 8 8
A A' g
8 6 6
A 8
6
8, 'A A A A
N
000000
;1--
2
,A 8,
A
'A. A
6 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 6 8 6 8 8
6 6 6 6 6 8
6
-
6
O
o'
'A A
fr' s'
6 6
2
8 A to' A
A,
6 . 8 6-'8' 6
3
6 0 6 8
.4 6 0 6
A
88
AAA
68
8
0
9
TA 1'
000
88
A
00b
00
A
6 00
A.
to'
.4 8
86
86
6
A A
000
8
A.
AA
6
6
A3
4
A
E',
A,
8
,,;
°s
8 6 6
A
8 6 6 6 8 8 ,;
8
A A' A o
8 6 6 8 8i
.9,
AA'S to'nA 3 A A tz:
A
8 -;
8 6
68
ILA
0
'A
A
A
66
6
IS
1
O
Tne production costs sriown here do not includ e
stumpage, federal and state inco, .1e taxes and interest . Thes e
items nave been excluded purposely and the difference betwee n
production cost and lumber value given later is available t o
cover these items and provide a margin for profit .
LIE BER PRICE S
Table 9 gives the rough, dry lumber prices used i n
tais study for loblolly and longleaf pine . These figure s
were obtained from the company and checked by Norfolk ,
Virginia, base figures, corrected for freight, and represen t
an average for 1929-30 .
GRADES AND VALUE OF LUMBE R
The percentages of the different grades of lumte r
and the values for loblolly and longleaf pine trees and log s
of different diameters are snown in Tables 10, 11, and 12 .
Tne values are based on the prices shown in Table 9 and th e
orange in grade and loss due to drying as determined durin g
tne study have been taken into account . The average los s
was about 1 percent in value . This is much less than norma l
but is accounted for by the fact that tne company did no t
dry their lumber to a low moisture content in tne kilns an d
manufactured it to a high standard in tne mill because thei r
facilities for remanufacture were very meagre .
In considering the quality of the stand it shoul d
be kept in mind that tne cutting about 40 years ago took al l
trees around 12 incnes and over and as a result left onl y
about 28 trees per acre, one-third of wnich were lobloll y
pine and two-thirds longleaf . By a set of fortunate circumstances the loblolly evidently seeded the land quite wel l
soon after cutting . Tne present cut of loblolly pine wa s
made up of this growth and the trees that were left . Although
the stand was open it was lacking in young growth due probably to the ravaging fire and hogs . Presumably tne lobloll y
pine is succeeding better than the longleaf in restocking th e
area . A number of the loblolly trees that escaped cutting 4 0
years ago showed plainly an increase in growth rate afte r
being released .
410
R1056
-8-
Table 9 .--Averageprices of rough, dry yellow Dine lumber
r-"
Der thousand board feet f .o .b . shi oDing ooint ,
eastern South Carolina . 1929-1930
Bark strip s
:
: B and .
Better : Bo x
Widths
; B and : No . 1
; Better : and C
Inches
:Dollars :Dollars :Dollars :Dollars Dollars :Dollars
Random
: No . 1
: Box
: No . 2
: Box
: 36 .1?
: 26 .79
: 19 .53
: 14.18
: 24.12
: 12 .33
4
: 34 .13
:
27 .43
19 .98
: 16 .38
24.12
: 12 .33
5
: 35 .94
: 28 .83
: 19 .98
: 15 .48
24 .12
: 12 .3 3
6
: 35 .94
: 27 .43
19 .98
: 18 .63
: 24.12
: 12 .33
: 37.75
:
29 .61
20 .89
: 19 .31
: 24 .12
: 12 .33
9 and 10 : 41 .36
: 32 .47
: 21 .79
: 19 .98
: 24 .12
: 12 .33
11 and 12 : 53.16
: 35 .19
: 22 .69
: 20 .21
: 24 .12
: 12 .33
7
and 8
0
Tne average percentage of grades found in this stan d
compares favorably with other forest-grown second-growth stand s
of comparable stocking . Size for size, particularly in th e
smaller diameters the longleaf pine contained a nigher percentage of B and Btr . lumber than the loblolly pine .
Table 10 indicates that taking all grades togethe r
tne lumber from 10-inch loblolly pine was worth only two-third s
as much per M board foot as that from 24-inch trees . This i s
due to a smaller percentage of No . 1 common and better lumbe r
and to wider widths of boards than can be sawed from the large r
trees .
For longleaf pine Table 12 shows that the lumbe r
from 10-inch trees is worth around four-fifths as much as tha t
from the 22-inch trees . There is a less spread in value between comparable diameters for longleaf than for loblolly pine ,
accounted for by the higher percentage of the upper grades i n
small trees as compared to the large ones .
In general, however, the larger and older the tre e
the greater the proportion of high grade lumber . There ie always,
some variation in the quality of lumber from trees of the sam e
diameter class . The dispersion from the average was some7ha t
greater in this case than usual, but even so the size-ag e
quality ratio held out fairly well . This increase in value a s
the trees become larger and the decrease in production costs ,
when combined, form tne main economic argument for selectiv e
cutting . By properly regulating the cutting the productio n
costs can be controlled and the quality of the product in creased .
Tne same economic principles that apply to trees ,
apply generally to logs, but there is one important difference :
Srril thrifty trees often cause a loss if cut, and are a n
asset if left . Small logs from the to p s of large trees mus t
be placed in a different class from small logs from small trees .
Tne former are of no value unless utilized, and in fact ma y
be a liability by increasing the fire hazard . It is therefore
customary to relieve these top logs of the actual cost o f
cutting down the trees and railroad costs and utilize them t o
a lower limit than would be possible if they had to bear al l
costs . This plan is justified on the ground that the fellin g
and railroads were necessary to log the larger logs and tree s
and will be taken care of by this material alone .
410
To arrive at a lumber value by diameter classe s
for the stand as cut, the loblolly and longleaf pine value s
for logs and trees have been weighed for each diameter clas s
in the proportion that they were cut and the results ar e
s nown in Table 13 .
R1056
M
. I H GAS
O I d) d)
z i P. 0
MMMMM MMMMM MMMMM MMMM
MMMMM MMMMM MMMMM MMMM
a! NNW NNNN
NNNNN NNNNN N
rlriririri riririri
M
M
N
ri
N N N N N N N N N NNNNN N N N N
r1 ri ri ri rl r1 ri ri ri ri ri rr ri ri ri r♦ ri rI ri
4.4
.d- .4-A-A.# .*QA- # NNNN
NNNNN
NNNNN
NNNNN
Nl
r
O\N O W \O .f W .f W
N
N..#\O
. r-0\
. . r1 . N. .\O
. . .
\0\0\0\0\0 h-tititit
i
ri ri rl rl ri ri ri ri ri r i
\O .# N O M
MH
. . MUl\O
. .
IO010010
ri ri ri ri ri
ri O\I-O
W. M. H. M.
150 W TO\
ri r1 ri ri
M
UI
tri
O N' ri F MO- '0.4- N \O r-Ao MO\
.4-4-MM %p\O I-W M O\MO\0\110
Ml-ri
W t. -1-\U
ri
I-
O\W N N O O W N ri O O\N N U\b0
W 0\O rri
i N NMMUI\ - N-ONO ri N
p
ONNN N1
NNNNN
r-lr~INNCU
O+~
'O
,
dtO
A te .
r m
I 00
0
I
I
N
CSI
a
p
NNNN
O\1-\O N M O ri O MI - .# ri P.MW NMI,-01
4--fMNO IAN .*MIS .f MN1
\OIOWO\
'.0'.0W
\ MMMMM MMMM .
O\
UU\l
\O O\CIl W O UIW .*\O N M* I-UIM
O\O
. . MnO
. . . MOW-1-O\
.
. . . . . N. U\f-O\ri
. . . .
ri{lrirIN
\Otitititi WWO\O O
NNNNN NNNM M M MMM
rl4' W
1~
U\\0
11O\0
NNNN
MMMM
O\
CU
\O O U\O\O \O 0 0 0 t- O\d'.*W O
O\O O rI ri N U\O I-W
1010 I-Uc*
rlririrl ririCN N NNNNN
U\MMI~
WHOM
MMMM
d'
W
.-I
i rl 11ONLLC O\NLO11 N
tiWrriMti O-*WNt
.f .# UIUIUI 10\0\0 f-1- 104010 OIO\ g.'‘222
MMMMM MMMMM MMMMM
f~
M
N I-MN . ' MMN ri M O Ot* f-\O 1 \O\*\O
ri N N
\O\O I-W O\ r1 M\O O\N UV.O W O\O ri
ririririC
U NNNMM MMMM
O\
M.
rl
rev?
. .
.
.
91 0m
d
.0FI
riNi *Ul \0 NWO\ONNNNN
riNM*IA '0I-WO\
NNN N h~O 0
rlrlririri rirIririCU
Old
r4NICUNN
CU
M %o00 00\\rr44 N
IA
NNNNN MMMMM MMMMM C
u
MMMMM
MMMMM
. . . . .
NNNNN
rl rl ri r-1 H
MMMMM MMMMM MMMMM
MMMMM
. . . . . MMMMM
. . . . . MMMMM
. . . . .
NNNNN NNNNN NNNNN
rf rl H rl rl r♦ r•I H r-1 r4 rl rl r-I H ri
r.mMleo
ri VO\6
1 0 N'b0INI1 IAOO\tO a'
It OO
NqI
Sao
I
1
`
`
;i
q• IrIH e r
4 I W O
W. A
4
•
d
i i
A
I
1
I
I
1
1
r{
M
H
▪
q ~ 0
O
q
is
O
o I
N
H
q I CO
pr. 1 N
O Ol1O 14.
w In In* A-
00000
N
40 .4
•4 04
.4
NNNNN NNNNN NNNNN NNNNN
H rl H HH H r1 rl H rf rl rl H H rl rl r1 rl rl rf
- .#
.x' . .* .# .#A- .f .
4'4'
.4-4' 4%4%4
NNNNN
NNNNN NNNNN NNNNN
.4
00000
M
M.
N
r-I
O
N
4
r-LSO Lst) O\rn ~ no t~t~l4 %0utilllll44-
N
rl
u
C
i
t
00000
0
O\10 N rw O M
rl O\\O 104' .4-4•\04 . 10 \0\04'
rINI112ON ~OOMII110 1'-50010140 r1r1NM'L
.0
f1`1501010
10
110
601010
ON 01Ol0' Ol01
'.O~0/0'
H rl rl ri r♦ rl r4 rl rf rI r-1 rl r-1 H rl rl r-I rf ri H
M
I
00000
00000
1
In
O
PR
P.
q
w
on,-loo.
O
\0\00 1 6010
I
n
I.
ri
InN O O\I \ O\InC
4 4 0)\N- \0 LALA - M r4
i
O\0~10\0\O I[ 11 11;. - - . .- t
.i)
0.
O\
4•mO\O\\O
MO InO4' \OO O\\O 1.11 1-N 60\04'
. . lI1LL1\O f~ LA
O1
I N ri ONO N \O I~111111N MOS
LA
0 I
101or•N-P- \Olllq'MM NNNNN NNNNN
I O .`ll
�
O 1
0
'd
•• W ••
OR
' P4
N
OO
nIe
I)
Q'
#MM[VN Nriririri x+0000
x'14- In\O\O
al i®N1
I1 . o II
H1 0
p
o 1 H
H I
0
0 1
O
I
0104
10NOMH 4-LI'
-*
10\
I H 0 1 0\0IIOO U10J .H'\Dr1%0600r-IM
tllh-LSO O\4
O
f HH O.4
rI ML
N O% t.
4
.
.
.444
.40\. Mri4444
O\
I
r-1-r-N- 10 O OH rfrlNNN NNNNN . . . . CU
H • . NNNNN • . N N MMM • . MMMMM •• MMMMM
4
Im
1 4
4
H N M4' Ln\0 r.1o mO r1 N M 4' U - W
1-1 .-4 rarlrfrar♦ rarariNN NNNNN
r•10 O\O
R! O
O ~1~p
..C H
w-lh0 0H
W
Mtim.
40 N LIl144000W Yw4O
NC MMM 4-4- .*MM UlU1(1
NNNNN NNNNN NNN
MF 1 rl
d 0! M
1°
o
pa
M
A
Y
NO
O
0.
0
F
Y
m
.O
0
,
I
m
d
06
4) I Mk 1 M
Y I a4) 1 M
Y I.a I 6
.14
14
UI
10
b i
t F q
1 Oa)
N1.
0 0
I
1
1°1
0
NNNNN
M
N
I
M I
. I F
0 Z I 011
Mp7
MM M
MM M
NNW
MM M
M
M
N
M
MMMMM
MMMMM
NNNNN
MMMM M
MMMMM
MMMMM
NNNNN
MMMMM
M
M
N
M
I*1_7 .4p M
LII.*MNN
'7:991n-
+.03 N
.•1 1
NI
N- 0.N 3 M
111MMNN
O1P-UIMM
MM .--IMM
M
MM1H
NNNN N
P,4,4,4,4
43 .-33
NNNNN
NNNN N
MMMMM
4 4 34 3
NNNNN
NN N
MMM
433
NNN
N
M
.*
N
NNNN N
MMMMM
33333
NNNNN
NNNNN
MMMMM
4344'4
NNNNN
CU
M
3
4'.*U110 L-
4001,4-*M
00MMM
ONP#
000
0'
0
MNNN M 4-lC1.O F-ON1
I
A
10
M
Mrl .-IrIM
i
q
ID
a
I
a
I
a
O Iri
F
P.
Oip
1 m
.I ~
1 M
n
o
1 nOI . .
1010101010
1010101010
MMMMM
HMS
1-1`1-MMM
MN4-L00
.73 .x'33
01N10. 0110
MMM* IR
MF-M
.0'.0 N
-
M
4•
40WW0101
,4 1 *.
0
!AWN
CU
=N R
NNNN N
NN N
MMMMM
G
0
F
N
MMMMM
MMMMM
NNNNN
MMMM M
00000
F
0.
M
NNNNN
MMMM M
MMMM M
NNNNN
MMMM M
M10OM 3NO1103
00,4,4 P1,4000
O
0 1 ri
e
0
g i p
0
1
0
N1M00014400
E
MNON W
01
.ON4-1
111 01.01.010
MMMMM
m
O
,,
N
. . .. N
01
0
111.
0134( C
N-N-4 4040
MMMMM
10
M
NMOO11~ ,4101-010
(0I(%111_f4 .- MMM*
M
3
0101*W N
40 Wm01M
OM*Q3
r1*W C%I%D
N
N
`°lrr1
NNNNN
N
O
°
N
N
F
Y
q
3 1-1-03
4)
01WN,.O
U1lflll' flLA
ONO
00101
1[173
c''.
111
U.
r-omwN
0
0~ U1MN N
l[111VtN O
U I0IC,LIlU1
ma'am. **
0
103M10 W
I~1--I`10 111
.7
.- .7 NN W
I O
I r0
.`d
[ !+
I d
p
O
i
W10WMW
M 1,1(140 0
0)-N-r-N-40
NNNNN
U\NW310
M10 0\M10
4040400/0/.
NNNNN
01403
0 MI000
MMM
N
10
40
N
r1- .004-0)
.' 01-0100)
r.1-1-40 40
NNNNN
403 01-0
3101.1010
010.,4
4040
NNNNt•1
1N0
40
N
.*010)1040
CU
N
! .0
m
NNNNN
NN
N
N,440('-LA
I~OIN
y-I •~•I ,~• 1
1-17 M M
q
a)
O
ON31-d
OM01
F
0)0)1"1*4
N
O
.~
YO I- P
N
oa
101 .101-*
(140,4,410
4-.f U11nL 1
MMMMM
MW~1 0
01M
0M4
01
(11010101 0
MMMMM
40104ON
1-1-1
MMM
M
M
10
M
WM01 M
NO M.*N
3 U1U\LC U %
MMMMM
ONM*M
0l110OU1
101010 NN
MMMMM
M
M
10
M
33(\111-'t
MNM,*L1 1
MMMMM
L04WOM 311110
10 I-I-W W 404040
MM+4MM MMM
IA
10 I
M1
1000100
(110 0)-0`*
M
0)0110(10
M3101-W
NNNWW
U1
10
M
OM CUI"1.
MMMMM
N
NNN
0.010,
4
0)117(110
MMMMM
d o
O
A F
'4,0 0
pI ! P•
° I m
bQp
0
a
1
P1
0
0
M
•
O.
R
I
F 1
1
N
O
04
oY
Om 'g
40
6+•1
Q Fp m
Y
g
O
O
O•O
M M NN N
I
!
1
O
I
I
I
14!]
O
(110 I-W O 1
MMMMM
m
AF
WO
d
a O+x•1 ''0
60
4.140
.0
b
MM
P d
..
rr
i
Table 13 .--Average value of mixed loblolly an d
longleaf pine logs_and trees b y
diameter classe s
_
L o g s
Top
.
diameter : Average value
inside :per M board feet
bark :
:
Inches :
Dollars
7
Tree s
:Diameter : Average value
: breast :per M board fee t
high .
.
. ----------------- : Inches :
Dollar s
9 '
10
20 .20
20 .41
20 .83
21 .44
10
11
12
13
22 .38
22 .58
21 .87
22 .24
11
12
13
14
22 .26
23 .52
24 .68
26 .39
14
15
16
17
22 .74
23 .11
23 .4 6
23 .9 5
15
16
17
18
28 .07
28 .95
30 .07
30 .08
18
19
20
21
24 .79
25 .92
26 .81
27 .44
19
20
21
22
31 .47
31 .9?
32 .38
32 .69
22
23
24
25
28 .10
28 .68
28.98
29 .1 6
23
24
25
26
32 .95
33 .16
33 .35
33 .46
26
27
28
29
29 .36
29 .56
29 .7 5
29 .92
24 .46
:Weighted :
: average :
24 .46
Weighted :
average :
R1058
PRODUCTION COSTS AND LUMBER VALUES COMPARE D
Every lumber company has log-run figures with whic h
to compare production cost and lumber value but a study lik e
this one is necessary to determine, the profits or losses b y
diameter classes .
Stich a cbmp .rison has been made and tne results ar e
shown in 'Male 14 for the stand as cut, assuming that th e
permanent improvement costs are the same for logs and trees o f
different sizes . These figures show that a tree must be 1 1
inches in diameter to pay its way not including stumpage ,
federal and state income tax, interest on profit and a lo g
must be 9 inches in diameterr if charged with all productio n
costs . But top logs may not be required to bear felling, Tailroads, camp costs, etc as previously explained and may b e
used to a lower diameter or around 7 or 8 inches depen'Aing upo n
quality of the log .
Considering loblolly pine trees alone, the rs n,imum
limit that would pay its way would be 12 inches, be cgr a:e the
small trees of this species did not cut as good a quality ci f
lumber as the longleaf trees of comparable diameter .
For the stand as cut the log-run spread between production cost an- lumber value was found to be 46 .42 whic h
the amount per Ii available for stumpage, taxes, i .ntere• t and
profit .
Table 14 also gives an idea as to the stumpage pl'ic e
that an operator can afford to pay for trees of differen t
sizes . For example, if a company must have a 20 percent m .rgi i
for profit and risk tnen the average stumpage value would b e
the production cost ($18 .04) times 1 .20 subtracted from th e
value of tine lumber $24 .46 which leaves 42 .81 per M as th e
average stumpage value of tne stand as cut . Computed ,s• llarly, 10-inch trees nave a minus stumpage value of $5 .90 per k
as compared to a positive value of $9 .70 for 24-inch t±ees .
If the above stumpage must be paid computation gnome
that a tree must be abqut 13-1/2 inches in diameter to pay out ,
not including a margin for profit .
RETURNS FROM DIFFERENT DIAMETER CUTTING LI%IIT S
41'
It has been previously pointed out that the return s
vary by tree diameter classes and this naturally brings up th e
question of the log-run return if certain sizes are eliminate d
R1056
-10-
Table
14 .--Difference between production cost and value , of lumbe r
2 r thousand bo rd feet lumber tally, for mixed
lobloll~r_nd to ngJ of pinetrees and logs o f
differentdiameter s
L o g s
T r e e s
Top
. Total
Total .
diameter :lumber Value :Differ- : :Diameter :lumber : Value :Differinside :produc- : of
ence . : breast :produc- : of
ence
bark . tion :lumber .
:
high : tion :lumber .
cost .
: cos t
Inches :Dollars :Dollars :Dollars ; : Inches :Dollars :Dollars : Dollar s
7
9
10
11
12
. 25 .59 : 20 .20 . -5 .39 .
22 .53
20441
-2 .12 :
; 20 .73
20 .83
40110 :
19 .69 : 21444
1+75 :
18 .96
22 :26
3 .30
18 .27 . 23 .52 . 5 .25 .
.
:
.
:
13
14
15
16
17
: 17 .63 : 24 .68 . 7 .05
17 .18
26 .39 : 9 .21
. 16 .83 . 28 .07 . 11 .19
: 16 .49
28 .95 : 12 .46
: 16 .21
30 .07
13 .86
18
19
20
21
22
15 .86
: 15 .60 :
: 15 .26 :
. 15 .00 .
14 .77
23
24
25
26
8
.
10
11
12
13
14
15
. 23 .57
22 .06
21 .09
19 .99
: 19 .13
: 18 .51
: 22 .38
: 22 .58
21687
: 22 .24
22 .74
. 23 .11
.
-1 .19
40 .52
0 .78
2 .25
3 .61
4 .60
.
:
.
:
:
.
.
.
:
:
16
17
18
19
20
. 18 .04
17 .68
. 17 .40
17 .23
17 .00
: 23 .46 :
23 .95 :
: 24 .79 .
: 25 .92
: 26 .81
5 .42
6 .27
7 .3 9
8 .69
9 .81
:
:
.
:
:
.
.
.
21
22
23
24
25
: 16 .69
16 .45
16 .21
: 16 .03
15 .76
:
:
:
:
27 .44 :
28 .10 :
28 .68
28 .98 .
29 .16
10 .75
11 .6 5
12.4 7
12 .9 5
13 .40
14 .51
32 .95 : 18 .44
14 .32
33 .16 : 18 .84 : :
14 .10 : 33 .35 : 19 .25
: 13 .89 : 33 .46
19 .57 : .
26
27
28
29
: 15 .41
15 .18
14 .96
14 .61 :
29 .36
29 .56 :
29 .75 :
29 .92 :
13 .95
14.38
14 .7 9
15 .3 1
. :Weighted :
6 .42 : : average : 18 .04 . 24.46 .
6 .42
30 .08
Weighted :
average : 18 .04 : 24 .46 :
•
R105 6
14 .22
15 .87
31 .97 : 16 .71
32 .38 . 17 .38
32 .69
17 .92
31 .47
:
:
:
410
from tne cut . Table 15 nas been prepared to answer this question .
I this case railroad costs were low and the effect of leavin g
some of the stand, which of course raises this item, is not s o
apparent in its effect on costs as it would be if it were a
larger proportion of tne total costs . A straight diamete r
limit of cutting is. Nat advocated and in most cases would no t
be good practice but it does illustrate the economic side o f
selective logging . Tne table snows that the returns per acr e
are practically the same for the 10, 11, and 12-inch cuttin g
This is true because there was so little material i n
limits .
the stand in these sizes and classes as has been pointed ou t
before . Tae highest return per acre is obtained when all tree s
10 inches and larger are cut, but if the 10 and 11-inch classe s
The total cu t
are left the total return is only 7 cents less .
of only 6264 board feet per acre, indicates, of course, tha t
the stand was o p en and poorly stocked, yet there are man y
acres of just such land in the Southeast that are being legge d
and it is important to know something about the economics u .
handling such stands . The highest return per M occurs a t
20' inches which is higher titan normal because of the low to ca l
of costs tinat vary with the, amount of timber that is cut f :Ua,
each acre .
The table shows that the production costs decrease d
until a 16-inch cutting limit was reached then began to ris e
because the costs that decrease as the size of the trees in creases, are more titan offset by the higher railroad construction costs .
Tine value of the lumber rises as tine minimum cuttin g
limits increase and follows this trend to the maximum size i n
the stand .
APPLICATION OF RESULTS TO CUTTING PRACTICES I N
SOUTH CAROLINA
A judicious selection of the trees that are cu t
exercises an influence on the gross returns that can be obtained from a tract of timber and oftentimes largely determine s
whether forest land is to remain bare or grow another crop o f
trees . Natural reseeding of cut-over areas in the pine regio n
of the Coastal Plain is a satisfactory method if some see d
producing trees are left on the ground at the time of logging .
Logging stirs up the soil and the chances for getting a goo d
crop of seedlings are much better after logging than on undisturbed areas . Leaving small trees uncut reduces productio n
costs and increases the average value of the lumber that i s
cut from the larger tree .
R1056
-11-
ix)
0
m
a
a•~
QG
+3 >1
o
r1
0
0 0.
r-f
m
,D 4-i
0
o
ao t
+3
4-4
0
m
•
Derthousand board - feet, lumber tally ,
and per acre incutting to different minim-am diam eter limits in a typical stand of mixed second growth loblolly and longleaf pine in eastern
South Carolina
Table 15 .---Gross retarns
Tota l
: lumber : Value
Cutting to a : -oroduc- : of
: Differ- : Cut per
diameter
tion
: lumber : ence
acre
limit breast : cost)
high of -- :
:
:Per thousand bd .ft .lbr .tally :
: Dollars : Dollars : Dollars : Bd . ft .
Inches
: Gros s
: returns
pe r
acre.
: Dollar s
10
11
12
13
and
and
and
and
up
up
up
up
18 .0 4
18 .0 4
: 18 .01
: 17 .8 7
.
:
:
:
24 .50
24 .50
24 .51
24 .66
:
:
:
6 .46
6 .46
6 .50
6 .79
:
:
:
:
6264
626 1
321 6
588 2
.
:
:
.
40 .47
40 .4 5
40 .40
39 .94
14
15
16
17
and
and
and
and
up
up
up
up
17 .7 6
17 .34
: 17 .5 8
17 .6 1
:
:
:
:
24 .83
25 .16
25 .32
26 .22
:
:
:
:
7 .07
7 .52
8 .04
8 .61
:
:
:
:
5500
473 6
388 1
303 5
:
38 .8 8
35 .6 1
31 .20
26 .1 3
18
19
20
21
22
and
and
and
and
and
ap
u.
up
up
up
:
:
:
:
17 .74
17 .9 7
18 .4 7
19 .30
20 .7 5
:
:
:
:
:
26 .86
27 .35
27 .98
28 .32
28 .72
:
.
:
:
:
9 .12
9 .38
9 .41
9 .02
:
:
:
:
236 7
190 8
139 3
98 9
680
7 .97
:
:
21 .5 9
17 .90
13 .1 1
8 .9 2
5 .4 2
1 Excluding stumpage, federal and state income taxes, an d
interest .
2 .Available to cover profit, stumpage, interest, an d
federal taxes .
3105 6
•
If a stand is too poorly stocked to cut selectivel y
the alternative may be o leave all trees that do not yiel d
a satisfactory profit and in addition :9ever-al seed trees pe r
acre . A knowledge of casts and returns i ak.e.s it pos a.ible t o
determine the minimum cutting diameter limit and also th e
value in the seed trees that .are left Standing . With protection from fire and hags Coastal Plain land reseeds *ell an d
cutting practices in stands that age so handled can be adopte d
to meet the Objectives of selective logging .
A very small proportion'of the loblollyalonglea f
forests of South Carolina are fully stocked, in fact much o f
tne area is poorly stocked . Timberland owners, who plan t o
cut down production costs and increase returns by selectiv e
logging and at the same time provide for reseeding the lan d
and another ,cut must therefore be prepared to accept, unt__ L
better stocking is secured, a smaller crop and a lower reLer n
than the land is capable of yielding under optimum conditians .
However, neither selective logging, nor timber graw •ing should be condemned on this ground It is a problem t o
,be met in tne• handling forest stands that have suffered as a
result of past cutting practice .
'
Loblolly grows well in the Coastal Plains of Sout h
Carolina and st :adies snow that up to 60 years of age it re -quires on the average about three years to grow One inch i n
diameter and from then on for several decades the growth slow s
down to where four years are required .. . Under selective auttiJn g
in fairly Well stocked stands increased growth Will boclzr fo r
.a large proportion of the trees that are left sta.1ding . i n
intensive study of increased growth was made on t-hi.s st40y
area and will be made the subject of a separate report . '
Longleaf ping _grows mare slowly, etpcially at th e
start and .at the age of 60 years in tn .is locality require s
about seven years to grow an inch in diameter and continue s
at this rate or a little faster for -the next several decades .
Longleaf also has tne ability to increase its growtfl a ;t•er re lease- as .in partial cutt,ing .
LOG GRAVE
All the logs cut during the study -ware
according to the following log grades .
R1056
-12-
•
i'iany mills in the Coastal Plain buy logs from faraiers and wood-lot owners, but there are no generally recognized and accepted rules for separating the logs into qualit y
classes or grades . To assist in development of such grade s
all tne logs in this study were classified according to a
tentative set of -rules whic}z follow :
No . 1logs .--Surface clear logs from 14 to 15 inche s
and logs 16 incites and over in diameter inside bark, smal l
end, which contain not to exceed three 2 to 4 inch knots .
Reasonably straight grained . Length 10 feet and over .
No . 2logs .--Surface clear logs 6 to 10 inches i n
diameter and larger containing numerous small knots .or me-e a
knots than allowed in grade No . 1 . Length 8 feet and ove ., ,
No . 3logs,--Coarse, knotty, crooked logs that d '
not fall in either of grades No . 1 or 2 . No limitations e n
size or quality of lumber produced .
sound .
No .4logs .--All logs that are less than one-thir d
Table 16 gives the grades and value for logs o f
different diameters and grades . The figures are useful i n
p rcriasing logs and in determining the unit value of logs o f
The same diameter but of different quality . The log ru n
value of the No . 1 logs was $31 .32 per M board feet as compared to $24 .16 for the No . 2 logs and $20 .65 for the No . 3 .
Log grades 2 and 3 overlap some in the lower diameters but o n
tne whole tine separation into quality groups is quite distinct ,
For tae stand as cut about 18 percent Of the logs on a volum e
•oasis graded No . 1, 56 percent No . 2 and 26 percent No . 3 ,
with about one-tenth of one percent falling in Class 4 or culls .
Tile average gross overrun for No . 1 logs was 10 percent, No . 2 ,
24 percent and No . 3, 52 percent .
Using average production costs for all grades o f
logs together all the No . 1 logs paid their way with a goo d
margin to spare . Nine-inch No . 2 logs were the smallest tha t
paid out in this group and for log grade 3, 10-inch logs wa s
the minimum size not including charges for stumpage, interest ,
taxes, etc .
s
R1056
-13-
Table 16 .--Percentage of the total mill output and sales value per thousand board feet, lumber tally, of the various grade s
sawedtrotmixed loblolly and longleaf pine lags of different diemetere and log g'radee in woods-run out i n
eastern Mouth Gargling
t
Grades and value of lumber when dr y
.
Average value of
- Bark stripe
^
No . 20ammon -No . 3 OOmmnn .
: 8 and Better --- No . - 1 and 0
Top
-_
----------------__..
1,000 feet o f
~.
.
.
diame ter
Sox
dry lumbe r
: Value :Per
: Value : 8 and Better :
Per
: Value
Per
Value : Per
inside
bark
•
• cent •• per It • Gent
. Value
per N . pent
per I . Per
Value
Per
cent • per M
. Dent . par 3[ , cent . per M .
:Oollare'
:lollare : -^--- Dollars --- :Dollare :
Uollare :
:Dallare :
I nohee .
:Dollare :
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
. 29 .8 ••. 37 .20 : 40 .6 . 30 .70
33 . 4
37 .75 : 40 .2 : 30 .90
337 .4 . 38 .30
31 .10
39 .5 . 31
.30
40 .
. 38 .85
38 .3
: 42 .6 . 39 .40
36 .5 . 31 .50
. 44 .3 . 39 .90 . 34 .7 •. 31 .70
5
40 .40 : 32 .9 . 31 .90
46 . 3 • 40 .90 . 31 .2
32 .05
. 46 ▪.9
41 .35 • 29 .4 . 3 2 .20
47 .4 • 41 .75 • 27 .9 • 32 .35
47 .9
: 48 .1
48 .2
Weighte d
average .
7
8
9
10
37 .2
7 .0
7 .6
8 .3
32 .0
. 42 .10 . 26 .6
42 .40
25 .7 • 3 2 5
.6
42 .65 . 25 .1 . 32 .75
38 .69 : 38 .2 : 31 .14
.
:
.
:•
. 34 .20
12 . 3
34.60 . 13 . 0
: 35 .00 . 14 . 0
. 67 .8
. 67 .E
67 .0
. 66 .1
. 64.o
• 59 .4
. 50 .7
. 4 .2
: 41
39 .8
• 38 .8
: 38 .2
: 38 .1
. 36 .1
36 .4
• 39 .0
.
27 .5
27 .60
27 .70
27 .85
28 .10
26 .45
29 .00
29 .90
31 .10
: 11 .1
35 .65 : 15. 8 .
▪ 14.4
12
36 .00
17 . 4 •.
13
: 17 .8 . 36 .30 22 . 8
: 16 .7
6.
: 28 . 7
14
60 : 30 . 4
12
19 .1 . 336 .90
16
19 .6 : 37 .20 . 30 . 9
• 20 .0
45
c
31 .40
•: 37
1
r
37 .75 •: 30
30.4
31 .60
198
t
20 .6
38 .10
29 . 6
31 .75
20
: 21 .1 : 38 .30 : 28 . 8
31 .85
21
21 .2
38 .55 • 27 . 9
31 .90
22
21 .3
38 .80 : 26 . 9
31 .95
Weighted .
average . 14.5 : 36 .22 : 20 .2 . 29,08
7
8
9
:
12
.
10
11
1
1
15
l
17
16
19
Weighte d
1 .0
2 .1
3 •3
3 .8
34 .20
34 .60 :
1
135 .00 :
35 .20 :
35 .65 .
.
56 .1
3 . 1 • 27 .55 ••: 84 .3
4 . 4 . 27 .60 : 82 .8
5.6
6 .5
.2
.
7 .1
4 .4 . 36 .00
7.7
4 .4
36 .3o
9 .5
4.
36 .60 10 . 8
4.
36 .90
11 .4
4.
37 .20 : 11 . 6
4 .3
.45 • 11 . 7
4 .2 : 37
37 .75 . 11 . 6
4 .1
38 .10 : 11 . 5
3 .5 : 35 .42 •:
M2. 0 -1'a0
average
LootGrade No 1
1 .6 . 17 .85
2 .3 . 18 .05
2 .9 . 18 .20
.5
18 .35
11 .0 . 18 .50
4 .0 . 18.60
.6
18 .65
3 .2 : 16.70
:
.75
2.3
18
18 .80
20 .7
21 .85 . 1 .2
23 .2
21 .95
0 .1 . 18 .80
24 .6 : 22 .05
-•--25 .9 • 22 .15 : --- : --19 .4 : 21 .23 . 2 .6 . 18.25
. 25 .8 . 21 .00
21 .6 . 21 .10 .
: 17 .4 . 21 .20
. 14 .7 : 21 .30
13 .6 . 21 .40
. 13 .8 . 21 .60 :
. 14 .6 . 21 .0 :
16 .1 : 21 .70
: 18 .2 . 21 .75 •
6,4
LogGrade No .2
. 19 .80 • 8 .4
15 .60
19 .95
7 .7 • 16 .25
20 .05 : 7 .0 . 16 .60
. 20 .15 : 66 .5 . 16 .90
. 20 .30
.1 . 17 .20
20 .40 . 6 .o : 17 .45
: 20 .50 : 6 .2
17 .65
: 20 .75
7 . 3 : 18 .05
20 .85 . 8 .0 . 18 .20
18 .35
. 21 .00 • 8 .8
. 21 .10
9 .6 : 18 .0
: 21 .20 . 10 .4
18 .60
21 .30
11 .1
: 16 .65
21 .45 : 12 .0
18 .70
. 21 .55 . 12 .6 . 18 .75
. 20 .40 . 6 .5 . 17 .49
•
.
:
.
•.
:
:
:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1 .1
1 .1
1 .0
1 .0
1
0 .9
0 .8
0 .6
0 .4
0 .2
1 .0
0 .4
0 .6
0 .8
0 .9
1 .0
1 .1
:
24 .12 .
24 .12 .
24 .12
24 .12 .
24 .12
. 24 .12
. 24 .12
: 24 .12
. 24 .12
: 23 .12
:
.
.
:
.
. 24 .12 .
24 .12
: 24 .12 :
24 .12 :
. 24 .12
▪
• 24 .12
1 .1 : 24 .12
1 .0 : 24 .12 :
0 .9 : 24 .12
0 .8
24 .12 .
.
0 .7 • 24 .12 .•
0 .6
24 .12
24 .12
0 .4
0 .3 : 24 .12 :
24 .12
0 .1
0
.
.
1 .0
.
.
.
.
LogGradeNo .3
19 .80 • 5 .4 •. 15 .60 •
19 .90
.8
.10
16 .35 :
19 .95
6 .2
20 .00 : 7 .3 : 16 .70 :
20 .10 : 8 .5 : 17 .05 .
20 .25 . 11 .1 . 17 .40 .
27 .70
61 .3
27 .85 : 79 .6
. 28 .10 . 77 .5
28 .45 • 74 .4
65 .5
20 .45 : 18 .4
29 .00
. 29,90 1 61 .0
20 .80 : 21 .7
30 .65
60 .0
21 .20
22 .4
31 .10
59 .3
21 .45 . 23 .2
31 .40
58 .7
21 .60 . 23 .9
31 .60
56 .7
21 .65
214 .2
• 31 .75 58 .7 21 .70 . 24 .5
26 .23. 78 .3 .20 .06• 8 .5
1 .0 . 24 .12 .
1 .0
24 .12 .
1 .1 . 24 .12 .
1 .1
24 .12
. 17 .70 :
17 .80
: 18 .00
. 18 .10 .
• 18 .15 .
16 .20 :
: 16 .25 .
.16 .9 14 ,
24 .12
24 .12 •:
•
.12 ▪.
0 • 24 .12
:
0 .1
24
0 .4
0 .5
0
.6
0 .5
0 .4
0 .3
0.1
0
. 24 .12
24 .12
. 24.12
. 24 .12
24 .12
. 24 .12
24.12
. 24.12
▪ 24 .12
24 .12
:
•.
1 .2 •. 12 .33 •
1 .5
12 .33 .
1 .7
1 .9
2 .0
2. 1
2 .2
.2
2 .2
2 .3
29 .64
30 .43
31 .3 0
. 12 .33 .
. 12 .33
. 12 .33 .
12 . 3 3
. 1122 .33
. 33
. 12 .33 •
12 .33 .
2 .0 . 12 .33
1 .6 . 12 .33
1 .2
12 .33
0 .6
12 .33
1 .6 . 12 .33
32 .00
32 .49
32 .91
33 . 2
5
33 . 5
33 .7
5
34 .00
3 4 . 26
34 . Z
.
•
.
.
•:
34 . 4
31 .32
4 .1
12 .33
3 .5 : 12 .33 t
2 .9 : 12 .33
2 .4
12 .33 1
2 .0
12 .33 3
1 .7 . 12 .33 1
1 .4 : 12 .33 t
1 .2 . 12 .33 2
1 .1
12 .33 2
0 .9
12 .33 .
0 .6 . 12 .33
0 .8
12 .33
0 .7 : 12 .33 .
: 12 .33
0 .6
0 .4
12 .33
0 .2 . 1 2 .33
21 .14
•
: 12 .33 •
12 .33
. 12 .33 :
: 12 .33 :
12 .33 :
1 .9 •. 12 .33
1 .6 : 12 .33 t
1 .7
12 .33 t
1 .6
12 .33 3
1 .5 . 12 .33 t;
1 .4 •. 12 .]i
1 .3
12 .33 t
19 .5 1
21 .5 3
2 1 .9 3
22 .33
22 .93
23 .7 7
25 .0 0
26 .0 3
26 .5 8
26 .9 6
27 .22
2 7 .3 9
27 .5 2
.
27
27 .n '
27 .6 5
24.1 6
1 .7 . 12 .33 .
6 .2
4.8
3 .2
2 .3
2 .1
:
.
: 24 .12 : 1 .2 : 12 .33
0 .4 . 24 .12. 2,9 : 12,33.
I
19.07
20 . 4
20 .639
20 .92
21 .13
21 .3 2
21 .71
22 .13
22 . 3 5
22 .47
22 .52
22 .57
20,65
AVERAGE VOLUME AND VALUE OF INDIVIDUAL T
BY
DIAMETER CLASSE S
Table 17 gives the volume and value for trees o f
different diameters . For example, on the average a 13-in0 .h
loblolly pine tree contains 90 board feet, worth $1 .93, bu t
the cost of producing this lumber was $1 .80, so the return
amounted to only $0 .13 as compared to $3 .29 for 20-inc h
trees . Similarly 13-inch longleaf pine trees show a retu R
of $0 .34 and 20-inch trees 41 .91 . Information of this kin d
is useful in determining the value of trees left standing i n
any partial cutting system . It is also usefu if timber i s
purchased on an individual tree basis as is s o ne•-t :mes dome .
SUMMARY
Tne following are some of the main points develope d
during the study :
1. Longleaf pine trees, size for size, contained highe r
quality lumber than loblolly pine .
2. LoLcleaf pine trees under 11 inches . and lc lolly pin e
trees under 12 to 13 inches on tne average did n_ot pay thei r
way, not including tne cost of stumpage, ii-a,tere: g t, ar federa l
taxes . If a stumpage cost of $2 .61, the eo t ted awerag e
value for this operation, is charged the miai= .m diabeteT
limit would be raised to 13 or 14 inches . On tae average a n
8-inch log paid its way not considering Rtax apage, etc .
3. It costs nearly 50 percent mare to manufac'tw % thou sand feet of lumber from 10-inch trees than frost 24 - jmth trees
Furtnermore, the lumber from the smaller trees is wot'ti onl y
77 percent as much as that from the larger ones .
4. Despite frequent fires the loss from . A@Ie , such a s
percent fo r
rot and timber actually burned, was only around
the timber that was cut .
a
A
5. Net overrun averaged 29 .9 percent for loblolly pin e
and 41 .2 percent for longleaf pine . Small longleaf pine tree s
showed a greater overrun than comparable sizes for loblolly .
8105 6
-14-
;wg 11AiLaallpofindividu.al .„lDbiolly an&
trees of different d-i qt
Table 17 .--4lgi
longaa.t f.
Loblolly pine
yam
:Produc- : Value
Diameter :Volume : tion
of : Difbreast : per : cost :lumber
forhigh : tree : per
: per : ence
tree : tree
-__»
:
:
:
:
Longleaf pine
:
:Produc- : Value
Dif:Volume : tion : of
fer: per : cost :lumber
: onc e
:tree
per : per
: tree : tre e
:
:13d .ft . :
:lumber :
14
15
16
17
18
19
:
:
:
:
:
128
155
230
276
191
: 2 .37 : 2 .84
2 .80 : 3 .53
: 3 .38
4 .49
: 4.00
5 .68
4.76 ! 7 .21
20
21
22
23
24
:
:
:
:
:
326
374
420
460
493
: 5.54
6 .24
: 6 .91
: 7 .46
: 7 .90
:- 3 .29 : 226
: 4.15 : 238
:11 .89 : 4 .98 : 248
513 .19 f 5 .73
:14 .29 : 6 .3 9
:
:
:
:
6 .9 9
7 ;59 t
: 8 .0 8
!17 .08 ! 8 .49
;17 .35
8 .88
25 4 522
26
v 544
27
; 562
28
574
29
: 580
81056
:
:Dollars :Pollars : Do:liar s
: 50 !
60 : 1 .32
: 74 : 1 .56
: 90 : 1 .80
: 108 : 2 .07
12
13
.
1)2-Cbcr :
Inches :trlly
10
11
:
8 .23
8 .38
C .53
0 .59
8 .47
1 .26
1 .57
: 1 .93
: 2 .36
:
: 32
:. -0 .06 : 54
: +0 .01 : 76
'-+0 .13 : 98
: +0 .29 : 119
: 0 .47 : 139
: 0 .73 : 149
1 .11 : 177
: 1 .68 : 195
2 .45
211
3 .83
!10 .39
:15 .22
15 .97
f16 .61
: 0 .75
: 1 .19
: 0 .72
: 1 .23
1 .60 ! 1 .76
: 1 .96 : 2 .30
2 .28 : 2 .84
-0 .0 3
: +0 .04
: +0 .16
0 .34
:
0 .56
:
2 .57 ! 3 .37
3 .66
: 3 .13 : 4 .39
: 3 .39 : 4 .88
: 3 .64 : 5 .33
:
: 3 .84
: 3 .97
: 4 .08
:
:
:
: 2 .69
: 5 .75
: 6 .10
6 .40
:
:
:
0 .80
0 .97
1 .26
1 .4 9
1 .6 9
1 .91
2 .13
2 .32