31 



The current pulilir lieliet'bay been that the timber of these " 1>oxe(l" trees, sometimes calleil "turpentine tJn;- 

 ber," is deterioratiMl l>y tlie process. Not only is its durability, in which this species excels, believed to be 

 lessened, but also its streujjth, and hence its value in tho market has been considerably reduced. 



Since annually from ,500,000 to 750,000 .acres of this pine are boxed, involving in this assumed deterioration, at the 

 lowest estimate, 1.000,000,000 feet, I?. M., of lumber, a considerable loss in values, counting l>y millions of didlars. is 

 thereby incurred.* Tho tests conducted in the test laboratory at St. Louis, in charge of Prof. J. B. Johnson, give 

 countenance to the import.int conclusion that '' turpentine " timber seems to possess greater strength than timber 

 from unboxed trees. 



Tlie followiiij;' ciiiHlciuscd table of results was given: 



Comparative xtreiif/lh of "hoxfd" and "unboxed" loiig-Ieaf pine. 



'Boxed " timber: 



25 .sticks " fjreen 'i 



25 sticks " dry " 



Percentape otcli.aiise 



Pprcentage of chaiiaeto reduce to 

 20 per cent moisture 



>te.in of 115 tests 



Corrected for 20 percent moisture 

 'Unboxed" timlter: 



Mean of i:i:t tests 



Excess of "boxed" over "un- 

 boxed" timber 



Excess "boxed" over "nnboxed,"' 

 per cent , ... 



Specific 

 gravity. 



0.759 

 .687 

 9.5 



-8.5 

 .760 

 .696 



.710 



- .014 



-2.0 



Per cent 



of 

 moisture. 



Per rent. 

 30.91 

 18.91 

 —3n. 



—3.5 

 30. 9 

 20.0 



20.11 



0.0 



0.0 



Tensile 

 strength. 



Lbe.per 



stf. inch, 



15.448 



14, 757 

 —4.2 



—3.8 



15, 985 

 15, 485 



16, 429 

 — 944 



—5.7 



Compress- 



ivestre7i(;th 



endwise. 



Cross- 

 breaking 

 strength. 



Lbs. per 

 aq.inch. 

 4, 755 

 6,637 

 +39.4 



+35,5 

 5,118 

 6,935 



5,661 



+ 1,274 



+22.5 



Zihs. per 

 sq.inch. 

 8,709 

 11.330 

 + 30.1 



f 27. 

 8,988 

 11,118 



9,333 



+ 1,785 

 + 19.2 



Modulus 

 of 



elasticitv- 



Elastic 

 resilience. 



ivestrength 

 across grain 



Lbs. per 

 sq. inch. 

 1, 566. 400 

 1,644.360 

 -I 4. 9 



+4.4 

 1.623.000 

 1.694,000 



1, 800, 000 



—106, 000 



^5.9 



In lbs. 



per cit. in. 



1.73 



2.71 



-i 56.6 



h51.0 

 1.83 

 2.76 



1.92 



+.84 

 +43.8 



Compress. L,. 



Lbs. per 

 sq.inch. 

 680 

 1.064 

 +56.5 



+51.0 



743 



1,122 



855 



+ 267 



+31.2 



atrenjilli. 



Lbs. jwr 

 8q. inch . 

 540 

 648 

 + 20.0 



+ 18 

 539 

 B3B 



652 



—16 

 —2.4 



We give in Talilc i II the average results on all '-butt'' cuts or b()ttoin logs of all trees tester! „ 

 Tlie first ten trees were nubled, while the remaining sixteen were bled. Eight of these latter 

 {Nos. 52-59) were taken from an orchard which had been abandoned five years; the rest (Nos. 

 (i()-()7) were from an orchard still in service. 



The percentages given in light-faced tyiie in this table are obtained by dividing each test 

 result by the average resnltsfor the .same kind of tests given in the tirst four lines of the averages 

 at bottom. The last live vertical cohimns of the table are deriverl from these percentages. The 

 "average quality" jii'icentage for each tree represents the average of eight qualities, or it shows 

 the "relative average <iuality" of this tree as referred to the average of all in its group. These 

 average percentages are given in column 17. In column 18 are given the percentages of each 

 tree (average (luality) as related to that of all of its kind, bletl or unbled. In column 19 ate given 

 the percentages of each group of trees (average quality) as related to that of all of its kind, bled 

 or unbled. These i)ercentages show the two groups of unbled timber to be of exactly equal gen- 

 eral strength, while it indicates that freshly bled timber was 1 per cent stronger than that from 

 the trees which had been abandoned five years. 



The relative strength of bled and unbled timber is given in column 2(», where the percentage 

 of each kind is given in terms of the average of all, giving both kinds eipial weight. The.se per- 

 centages show that the butt cuts, <n- bottom logs, of Itled timber are about 7 jter cent stronger than 

 those from natural or unbleil trees. 



J'>y consulting percentage figures in the third and fourth lines from the liottom, it apjK'ars that 

 in all of the eiglit (jualities except two, stiffness and tensile strength, the bled timber is superior. 

 In cross breaking it is 3.4 percent stronger; theelastic limit in cross-bending is 7 percent stionger; 

 in elastic resilience it is 15.G per centstronger; in crushing endwise ii is 7.2 stronger; in crushing 

 across the grain it is 2o per cent stronger; and in shearing it is 13.8 per cent stronger. The bled 

 timber is, however, 0.2 per cent more flexible and 10.4 per cent weaker in tension. 



These results ])rove conclusi\-ely that, to say the least, the e.xtrat-ting of the turpentine tioni 

 long-leaf yellow qtine trees does not in any material sense injure them, so far as strength tjnalities 

 are concerned. The bled timlter is also slightly heavier in the bottom cuts, by about two pounds 

 ])er cubic foot, as shown by the average specific gra\ities. 



Later informatiou would increase the average annually added to the turpentine orchards to nearly 1,000,000 



