596 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



trees for pulp. There is an excellent opportunity for real co-operation 

 between research workers in forest products and research workers in 

 silviculture. 



I have listed (p. 595) three groups of trees, all of which grow in the 

 United States. The first two groups are trees which grow rapidly^ 

 the third group contains trees which grow very slowly. 



It would appear that research work aimed at developing uses for 

 the rapid growing trees listed in groups one and two, would stand a 

 much better chance of aiding forest management than research work 

 directed at discovering products to be made of trees listed in the slow 

 growing group. 



Several years ago Kellogg and Ziegler prepared an interesting paper 

 on the cost of growing timber. Of course their data is now^ out of 

 date, but I nevertheless give it as illustrating a point which I wish to 

 establish, namely, that forest products research on rapid growing 

 species will prove more profitable than on slow growing species. Kel- 

 logg and Ziegler assumed that the land was cut over and was to be 

 restocked, taxes would be 10 cents per acre per year up to twenty-five 

 years, thereafter taxes would be 1 per cent of actual value, this to be 

 reassessed every five years. They assumed that forest protection 

 would cost 2 cents per acre annually, that tJie land was worth $3 per 

 acre and the cost of stocking it $7. Interest w^as compounded at 4 

 per cent. On this basis, they arrived at the following conclusions : 

 In thirty years loblolly pine would produce 15,000 feet per acre at a 

 cost of $2.47 per thousand. Longleaf pine in seventy years would 

 produce 17,000 feet per acre at a cost of $11.56 per thousand, and in 

 one hundred and twenty years 38,000 feet per acre at a cost of $39.12 

 per thousand. Douglas fir in forty years would produce 24,000 feet 

 per acre at a cost of $2.31 per thousand, and in fifty years 35,000 feet 

 per acre at a cost of $2.48 per thousand. 



Assuming that these figures are essentially correct, it is interesting 

 to note that the longleaf pine would have to be over three times as 

 valuable as loblolly pine and over five times as valuable as Douglas fir 

 in order to make its propogation as attractive financially. In other 

 words, research work in forest products aimed at investigating the 

 properties and products of such trees as longleaf pine, is going to have 

 a much more difficult problem to solve to get forestry on a permanent 

 basis, that is, practice forest management, than if it tackled such trees 

 as loblolly pine and Douglas fir. Has anyone every seriously studied 



