OLEOEESIN PRODUCTION" 33 



fig. 6) is so narrow that it is done in the lightwood. The current 

 prejudice against chipping in the lightwood probably arises from the 

 fact that at times the lightwood (PI. Ill, fig. 1), especially when it 

 is most conspicuous, may indicate the beginning of dry-facing. 

 Under such conditions the decreased production occurring may be 

 revived to a certain extent by chipping ahead of this lightwood up 

 the tree for several inches, until a region which is less dried out and 

 injured is reached. It is therefore only when it indicates the satu- 

 rated condition of dead and dried cells, especially the devitalized 

 condition of the resiniferous parenchyma, that the presence of light- 

 wood should be considered detrimental. Such a condition, more- 

 over, is much more likely to occur in high chipping which is designed 

 to keep ahead of the lightwood than in narrow chipping (one-half 

 inch or less) which is done in the region of the lightwood. 



SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE PRACTICE. 



Many of the statements made in the following discussion are not 

 based upon the results from definite experiments, but are derived 

 from the writer's observations made on successful commercial opera- 

 tions or from the statements of experienced operators, or are deduc- 

 tions from the data presented in the preceding pages. They are, 

 therefore, to be considered as suggestions only and are advanced 

 tentatively, subject to further investigation, because in the light of 

 our present knowledge they appear to be beneficial in character. 



SIZE OF THE TIMBER. 



From the preceding discussion, especially that with reference to 

 light cupping (pp. 29 to 31), it is apparent that it is unprofitable to 

 turpentine very small timber. An excellent example of conservative 

 operation, from the standpoint of present practice in the United 

 States, is the method specified in the Florida National Forest tur- 

 pentine leases (page 25). 



LOCATION AND SIZE OF THE FACES. 



One of the most obvious sources of waste in turpentine operations, 

 and apparently a matter which has received relatively little compe- 

 tent attention, is the matter of placing the faces on the trees. Bad 

 practice of this sort, due to carelessness, is only too commonly found. 

 Figures 2 and 3 of Plate VII, illustrating such bad methods, are in 

 sharp contrast with figure 1 of Plate VII, which illustrates the proper 

 placing of faces. This practice of leaving insufficient bark between 

 faces is a fundamental error of the worst sort, since it means waste 

 throughout the operation. Six-ineh, or at, least. 1-ineh bark bars 

 should be left between faces, and the width of face should be in pro- 



