358 Forestry Quarterly 



If overhead charges are made in the last item, the figures 

 would show that it hardly pays to manufacture this product. 



From the above, since owner and contractor divided the 

 profits equally, the owner's net profit, which may be called 

 stumpage value, would be $2,985 for lumber per M feet; 10 cents 

 per tie; 62^/^ cents per telegraph pole; 57i/^ cents per cord; 50^ 

 cents per cord slabwood ; 1 cent for posts. As a matter of actual 

 record, the net profit on the entire operation involving 1,323,631 

 feet of manufactured product (not counting in cordwood, slabs 

 and small fence posts) was $2830.50, or $2.31 per M ; the cord- 

 wood, slabs and posts just about paid expenses. 



This apparently small return may be accounted for by the fact 

 that the operation was a "park forestry job" in many ways and 

 that great care was taken in logging; also the chestnut market 

 was flooded and a time limit was forcing the sale throughout. 



According to the specifications included in the contract, all 

 the material down to a 3-inch diameter was to be utilized. The 

 timber down to about a 7-inch diameter was either cut by the 

 mill or manufactured into hewn railroad ties or round posts. 

 The crooked stock and the material below a 7-inch top went 

 into cordwood. Cordwood choppers were paid by the cord, so 

 that it was to their interest to cut as small material as would be 

 accepted in order to increase the total amount of cordwood that 

 they had to cut on the tract. On account of the above conditions 

 the material too small for cordwood consisted for the most part 

 of very small brush. The contract called for the scattering of 

 this brush over most of the area in such a manner that it would 

 not exceed two feet in height above the ground. This was to 

 facilitate its decay, and in a year or two the greater part of it 

 will have disappeared. Along certain roads the brush was burned 

 by men who were not in the employ of the contractor. 



In so far as the brush might interfere quite seriously with the 

 reforesting of the cut-over areas for a year or so after the 

 logging, the following suggestions are offered as to its disposal. 



On areas where the removal of the chestnut amounts to a 

 clear cutting, fire the brush as it lies and burn over the entire 

 area broadcast (of course, with suitable burned boundary lines 

 and fire-fighting force present to keep the fire under control). 



