REFERENCES 235 



from, that slash breeds under ordinary circumstances the 

 insect or insects destructive to standing timber. The annual 

 loss from this cause alone far exceeds any cost incurred from 

 the burning of the slash at the proper time. Therefore the 

 consideration of the burning or non-burning of brush must 

 be taken up from a broad protection standpoint and not from 

 the standpoint of fire risk or cost alone." 



Similarly, the danger of fungi spreading from slash to living 

 timber may justify relatively large expenditures for special 

 treatment of the slash. The dangerous fungi develop in the 

 cull logs and other large sized pieces of slash, which are not 

 disposed of in the methods of slash disposal other than broad- 

 cast burning. This latter method cannot always be used, 

 because of the presence of reproduction and immature timber. 

 The special treatment ^ necessary may take the form either of: 



(a) Attempts to dry out the slash and thus create unfav- 

 orable conditions for the development and fruiting of fungi. 

 To accomplish this the cull logs and large material of all kinds 

 must be elevated above the ground and in some cases be 

 stripped of bark. 



(b) Destruction by fire of the large pieces of slash. The 

 small brush can be utilized for this purpose, so far as it will go, 

 by piling it on top of and around large material which then 

 Vv'ill be partially consumed in the burning. 



Both classes of treatment are expensive and will increase 

 the cost of slash disposal. A combination of the two is Hkely 

 to produce the most effective results. 



REFERENCES 



1. Hopping, Ralph. The Entomological Aspect of Slash Disposal. Pro- 

 ceedings of the Society of American Foresters, Vol. X, 1915, pp. 183-185. 



2. Long, W. H. A New Aspect of Brush Disposal in Arizona and New 

 Mexico. Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters, Vol. X, 1915, pp. 

 383-398. 



