May 25, 1917 



West Virginia Logging Costs 



Hardwood Kecokd recently received from a West Virginia operator 

 an interesting letter and some interesting data relative to costs of 

 stunipage and operation in West Virginia. The letter is as follows: 



Editor Hardwood Record : Replying to your letter of the 6th, beg 

 to state that I have marJe many figures on the cost of manufacturing 

 such hardwoods as are produced in the state of West Virginia, and we are 

 all aware of the tact that it has been a great puzzle to the manufacturers 

 to know how on one Mob they would lose money and on another make 

 money when the labor was practically the same as to efficiency and cost, 

 and the average sales price was the same. 



It is my contention that there is not one manufacturer out of a hundred 

 that realizes the relation in costs between manufacturing logs of different 

 diameters (or sizes), and for the ninety -nine that are in the dark I 

 would like to open up a correspondence through the columns of Hardwood 

 Record with certain concerns that may feel inclined to help their friends 

 to fully understand this very important question. 



After the information had all been gathered and certain facts as 

 regarding manufacturing had been obtained from these different concerns, 

 then we could compile a write-up drawing definite conclusions as to how 

 to handle logs of different sizes. 



The writer has all these figures and this intoruiation worked out in 

 his own mind, but the thing of proving it to the public and to the manu- 

 facturers is a different question, and that is why I would desire to draw 

 others into the argument in order that proofs may be established to con- 

 firm my own figures. 



A few days ago I told one of our neighbors here that it would cost 

 him $25 to .$30 per M feet to produce lumber from logs 50' and under 

 scale to the log, which class of logs average about 35 feet. He stated that 

 I had better learn something of the lumber business and avoid making 

 such breaks as that. He further stated that it was impossible as he only 

 realized about $17 to -$20 per M on the market out of his ties whicli come 

 from that class of oak. 



Every luml^erman of course is willing to concede tlial it costs more 

 to manufacture small than large lumber, but the trouble of it Is he does 

 not know where to draw the line — the fact of the case being the line is 

 not where the manufacturers suppose it to be in ninety-nine out of one 

 hundred cases. 



When you find a few manufacturers 'Tvho have made a phenomenal suc- 

 cess in the lumber Industry, it is usually due to the fact that they happened 

 to fall into the methods that brought the desired results, and though the 

 managers of most of these concerns arc boosted for their management, yet 

 they do not know the real answer. 



Another interesting thing along this line is the fact that twelve to 

 fifteen years ago when lumber was less value on the market, and yet 

 when timber sold at the same price as today (approximately .$4 to .$5 on 

 the stump), the average 'lumberman made as much per 1,000 feet profit 

 on his product as today. As lumber has increased in value from year to 

 year since that time, then should not our margin of profit be greater 

 today than then? The answer is not "labor conditions." There is a 

 definite reason. As the price of lumber went up the manufacturer was 

 inclined to cut smaller and smaller logs for his mill, rather than to make 

 them into hewn ties until they cut as low as 12 inches at the stump, 

 which is an outrage when one knows the real facts. While he figured 

 that the manufacturing cost on the smaller legs would be something ( ?) 

 he makes the wild guess and puts it at anywhere from fifty cents to 

 $1.50 owing to the liameter at stump that he cuts down to, of course 

 figuring it from the old basis of IS inches at stump being the smallest 

 size to cut. This manufacturer never dreamed that the manufacturing 

 of these smaller logs would cost him eight or ten times the amount he 

 figured— BUT IT IS SO. 



Had we never changed from the old IS-inch-at-stump basis and used 

 the smaller timber for other purposes, and for which purposes it is not 

 hard to figure a good profit, the lumberman of today would be making a 

 large average profit, or else the cost of lumber to the consumer would be 

 much cheaper than it is now necessary for the manufacturer to sell in 

 order to come out whole. 



If some enthusiasm could be brought into this subject through the 

 columns of Hardwood RecorDj it will open up some facts that will be of 

 universal value. 



Following the letter are some interesting figures to represent actual 

 reports made on certain log jobs by the writer of the letter. They 

 refer to actual operations and are presented herewith with the 

 letter for comment by the manufacturing trade: 



One job referred to showed logs averaging 100 feet from trees 

 12 inches and up at the stump. For this costs given were as follows: 



Fellint; T 



Slipping - To loader, covering depreciation on equipment $ 6.00 



Skidding J 



Loading "1 



Hauling V Covering equipment depreciation 3.00 



Storing J 



Sawing and sticking (covering dock and mill cost and depreciation) 3.50 



—21a— 



Handling and loading (covering inspector and siding depreciation, 



etc.) 1.50 



Stumpage 4.00 



Total $1S.OO 



Overhead safety 1.00 



Cost on cars $19.00 



These figures are made on what stumpage was said to be worth at 



sale, $4 for 12 inches and up, and $5 for 15 inches and up. 



Another item refers to a batch of 830 logs containing 50 feet and 

 under, and 1,371 logs over 50 feet. It says: 



' ' Counting that it takes same labor to handle two logs 50 feet and 



under as it does one log 50 feet and over, it costs then on job 



at $6.75 per thousand, 84 cents each for logs over 50 feet and 84 cents 

 for two logs under 50 feet. ' ' 



On this basis the 50 feet and over logs cost $6 per thousand, and 

 the 50 feet and under logs cost $11.60 per thousand, these charges 

 covering amount paid to logging contractor for cutting and skidding 

 on the basis of the number of logs shown above. 



Tlie writer maintains that the logger cannot cut 200 logs 50 feet and 

 under at the same labor as 100 logs 50 feet and over. He says that 

 slipping is almost as expensive on small as on large timber. Figuring 

 on prices shown on this item, he figures $12.50 for labor and $5 for 

 stunipage, making a total of $17.50 as cost on cars for logs averaging 

 150 feet and running 50 feet and over, whereas with stumpage charge 

 at $4 and labor $26, the total cost of logs 50 feet and under, averaging 

 thirty-six feet, would be $30 on cars. Thus he strikes an average of 

 a total of 18,000,000 feet on the boundary containing 3,000,000 feet of 

 small stuff of $19 as cost of logs on cars. Based on these figures the 

 writer arrives at the conclusion regarding this tract that if all of the 

 trees, large and small, were cut — that is, the total of 18,000,000 feet — 

 the average cost being $19 on ears, and the average selling price $20, 

 the profit would be $1 a thousand, or a total of $18,000, whereas 

 cutting only large logs — that is, representing 15,000,000 feet — at a 

 cost of $17.50 and a selling price of $20.50, there would be a gain of 

 $3 per thousand, or $45,000. Thus there would be an extra profit, 

 according to the figures, through cutting logs only 15 inches and up 

 of $27,000. 



Figuring, then, that the remainder of the stuff can be made into 

 ties, the proportion would show a profit of $53,000 through this manner 

 of cutting, whereas the profit on cutting 12 inches and up, putting it 

 all into lumber, would be but $18,000. He figured, also, that the output 

 in handling the bigger logs would be greater through eliminating the 

 time on handling small logs so that the job could be completed much 

 sooner. 



He concludes, regarding this operation, that his company could not 

 bring out logs 50 feet and under and saw them on a large mill without 

 a loss of such logs th;it would detract from the gain on tlie 

 large logs. 



The writer then goes on to give some summaries on specific jobs and 

 gives the following conclusions: 



Logs under 60 feet cannot he cut. skidded and sawed o,\eept at a heavy 

 loss, and must be left in tlie tree, and if profitable, made into hewn ties. 

 Logs 60 feet to 105 feet for car stock and switch ties and 6.\.S ties cannot 

 be cut, logged and sawed profitably on a large mill, and should be selected 

 from the larger logs and sawed on small mill with a crew of four to six 

 men, witli no inspector and as little overhead as possibl,^. 



Logs 106 and over average 180 to 200 feet can be sawed most profitably 

 on a large mill if the quantity is sufBcient. 



Detailed figures are thus given as to actual costs of logging on cer- 

 tain jobs according to the size and class of the logs. One job where 

 the logs averaged 105 feet of all sizes, cost $6.50; another, logs 60 

 feet and up, average 140 feet, cost $5.50 ; 106 feet and up, average 

 200 feet, cost $4.50; logs under 106 feet, averaging 60 feet, cost $8.00; 

 logs under 60 feet, average 35 feet, cost $11.50. 



Figures are given for getting out hewn ties from trees 16 inches or 

 17 inches and under at the stump, per tie, 35 cents, with an additional 

 5 cents for loading. 



He gives the following table, showing actual averages on logs cut on 

 a number of operations in West Virginia: 



Logs 60 feet and under class, average 35 feet. 



Logs 60 feet to 105 feet class, average 80 feet. 



Logs 100 feet and up class, average 200 feet. 



