OF SOUTHWESTERN MISSISSIPPI. Ill 



adaptation of sawmill machinery to this special work, there- 

 by cheapening the cost of production. At present, however, 

 the two methods cost about the same, as follows: 



Per Tie. 



Stumpage... : 2 to 4 cents. 



Stumpage.. 2 to 4 cents 



Cutting and making ...12 to 13 cents 



Hauling to railroad 3 to 5 cents 



17 22 



The price per tie delivered along the right of way ranges 

 from 24 to 28 cents. At this price the tie-men are only 

 getting about $8.00 per M board feet for their lumber, and 

 the owners of the timber only from 50 cents to $1.00 per 

 M for stumpage. This is too low, and timberland owners 

 should realize that old field pine has a greater value, and 

 is not, as so many people seem to think, a tree of no value 

 or even a hindrance to the development of the country. 

 The waste incident to this industry is very great. In 

 Bulletin 64* of the Forest Service, United States Depart- 

 ment of Agriculture, the two methods of tie-making are 

 compared, and its conclusions apply to conditions in south- 

 ern Mississippi. In the regular tie mills, logs are cut single- 

 tie lengths, and this practice makes the "siding", which 

 is cut off in the manufacture of the ties, so short that there 

 is very little market for it at present. At some mills the 

 best of it is cut off and sold locally at $5.00 per M., but 

 more often it is all thrown away in the slab because there 

 is no market for it even at this low figure. Siding is cut 

 from the best part of the log and ought to make excellent 

 ceiling or sheathing. It should make good boxboard ma- 

 terial and could no doubt be used for this purpose if freight 

 rates to the larger markets would justify it. As long as 

 there is this waste, it will probably pay owners of old field 

 pine to hold their timber until better prices are assured and 

 more conservative methods are thereby justified. 



* Loblolly pine in Eastern Texas, with Special Reference to 

 the Production of Railroad Ties, pp. 40 and 42. 



