REPORT OF SOCIETY 65 



Mr. Crutiiley has given us the following facts in regard to fence posts : — 



(1) A large post lasts as long as a small one. 



(2) It does not much matter which end of the post is placed in the earth, 



but preferably it should be the larger end. 



(3) In clay soils the upper part of the posts will decay more quickly than 



the lower, while the opposite effects will be noticed in soils of an 

 open kind, i. e. sandy or gravel. 



(4) The posts will last all the longer in a soil that is always moist. 



(5) Posts from trees that have grown fast and in the open air are not so 



durable or lasting as those which have grown in the forest. 



(6) It is not a good plan to cut wood for fence posts after the sap has begun 



to rise. 



(7) The heart wood of a tree is not so good as that nearer the exterior. 



I give below a table which contains certain information compiled by the 

 Forest Service of Quebec : 



1916 1917 1918 1919 



Production of Fence Posts in 



the years 189,749 296,774 235,200 89,245 



This gives for the four years a total production of 610,968 posts, of which 

 the cost, when fixed in position, might be estimated at S122, 193.00, or about 

 $30,548.00 per year. As I have remarked earlier, if the posts are not treated 

 with creosote, this outlaj^ would have to be repeated yearly. We may now 

 consider the total and the annual expenditure involved in treating the above 

 riumbe'r of feribe posts by the methods mentioned. 



Length of 

 Method of Treatment Life of Total Cost. Annual Cost 



the Posts. 



"Brush" treatment 9 years $ 152,742..00 $16,971.33 



"Dipping" method... 11 years 158,851..68 14,44L.06 



Injection with Chloride of Zinc, 

 Chloride of Mercury, or Cop- 

 per Sulphate 12 years 152,742..00 12,728.50 



Creosote 21 years 219,948..48 10,473..73 



If I now make a comparison between the results of the two extreme cases 

 i. e. the posts which get no treatment and those treated with creosote, I find 

 that, proceeding on the first method, at the end of twenty years I should have 

 required 2,443,872 posts, at a cost of $488,774.00, whereas, if treated with creos- 

 ote, only 610,968 posts would have been needed, of which the cost would be 

 $219,948.48. These figures, you will agree, speak for themselves and express 

 forcibly the economy involved in the creosote method of treatment. 



5175—5 



