INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE--CONTINUED. 
Similar information by T. Lotti and L. E. Chaiken, in 
South. Lumberman 177(2225):107-109. Dec.15,1948. 
99.81 S082 
The Santee tree grading system is based on Crossett 
log grades. 
2697. VAUGHAN, C. L. Ganging up on the hardwoods. 
South. Lumberman 183(2297):170-171. Dec.15,1951. 
99.81 So82 
Gives hardwood log classes and discusses the coopera- 
tive program to bring about more systematic marketing, 
headed by the U. S. Forest Service Forest Products 
Laboratory. 
2698. WALLACE, O. P. A simple method for grading 
hardwood logs and determining log values for New 
Hampshire, J. Forestry 46:377-379. May 1948. 
99.8 F768 
2699. WALTERS, C. S., and GUSTAFSON, G. E. M. 
Lumber recovery from hardwood logs scaled with three 
different rules. Ill. Agr. Expt. Sta. Forestry Note 6,4 p. 
June 9,1949. 99.9 IL62 
International, Scribner Decimal C, and Doyle. 
2700. ZASADA, Z. A. Aspen lumber grades and 
characteristics. U.S. Forest Serv. Lake States Forest 
Expt. Sta. Aspen Rpt. 6,9 p. Ref. Sept.1948. 
1.9622 L2L14 
Includes log grades. 
2701, ZILLGITT, W. M. Log grade following selec- 
tion cutting in northern hardwoods. U.S. Forest Serv. 
Lake States Forest Expt. Sta. Tech. Note 285,1 p. Oct. 
1947. 1.9 F7625T 
Sawmill Equipment; 
Wood and Lumber Hand!ing 
2702. BELL, G. E., and MARTIN, P. E. Lumber 
handling at the rear of the sawmill. Timber Canada 11 
(9):28-31,54-55. Ref. Apr.1951. 99.81 T487 
A study conducted in eastern Canada by the Canada 
Forest Products Laboratory. Costs and efficiency of 
various handling methods. 
2703. BELL, G. E. The lumber waste problem. 
Timber Canada 10(5):31-33,64. Jan.1950. 99.81 T487 
A Canada Forest Products Laboratory study of the 
effect of a bull-edger on lumber recovery and on sawing 
time.. 
2704. BRIGHAM, L. H. The log gang saw and its 
development in southeastern United States. Durham,1949. 
52 p. Ref. 
Thesis (M.F.) - Duke University. 
2705. BURNS, J. G. Comparison of lumber yield with 
saws cutting one-quarter and one-eighth inch kerfs. 
Durham,1949. 33 p. 
Thesis (M.F.) - Duke University. 
2706. CANADA. FORESTRY BR. FOREST PRODUCTS 
LABORATORIES. Bark removal methods and machines. 
Pulp & Paper Mag. Canada 52(13):96-100. Dec.1951. 
302.8 P96 
Tabulates machines by methods, principles of operation, 
manufacturers, costs, capacity, power consumption, and 
other evaluating factors. 
2707. CREIGHTON, J. W. Sawmill air dogs save time. 
U.S. Forest Serv. Lake States Forest Expt. Sta. Tech. 
Note 292,1 p. Apr.1948. 1.9 F7625T 
2708. CREIGHTON, J. W. Time study of small sawmill 
air dogs. Mich. Agr. Expt. Sta. Q. B. 31:41-56. Ref. 
Aug.1948. 100 M58s 
Savings in sawing time. 
2709. DARGAN, E. E. The use of gangsaws in the 
manufacture of southern pine lumber. South. Lumberman 
183(2287):76-78,80. July 15,1951. 99.81 S082 
Utilizes information gathered by M. Applefield, item 
2590 in this bibliography. 
2710. DE MOISY, R. G. A slab-collecting system pays 
its way. Wash. Inst. Forest Prod. New Wood-Use Serv. 
C. 10,3 p. July 1950. 99.9 W278N 
System collects siabs for chips used in alloy manufac- 
ture in Pennsylvania. 
2711. DOSKER, C. D. New saw cuts operating costs. 
Wood [ehicage 5(3):15,40. Mar.1950. 99.82 W859 
Eight-tooth German woodworking ripsaw. 
2712. FOBES, E. W. Bark-peeling machines and 
methods. South. Lumberman 178(2237):39-42; (2233):37- 
42,44, June 15-July 1,1949. 99.81 S082 
Presents productivity statistics and price-class infor- 
mation. : 
2713. FOBES, E. W. Debarking methods and equip- 
ment; mechanical debarking. Nowest. Wood Prod. Clinic 
Proc. 7:16-22. 1952. 99.9 Sp6 
81 
INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE--CONTINUED. 
2714, FOBES, E. W. Portable barking equipment. 
Forest Prod. Res. Soc. J. 2(5):100-105. Dec.1952. 
99.9 F 76625 
Similar title in Canad. Pulp & Paper Indus. 5(8):8-10, 36. 
Aug.1952. 302.8 W52 
Includes a cost and output table for several kinds of 
portable barkers. 
2715. FRITZ, E. Chain saws for ripping logs; im- 
provement in grades secured in redwood operations. 
Pacific Logging Cong. Loggers Handb. 10:83-85. 1950. 
99.76 P112La 
Includes cost advantages of ripping logs into cants. 
2716. GEBARSKI, S. F. Debarking methods and 
equipment; hydraulic debarking. Nowest Wood Prod. 
Clinic Proc. 7:14-15. 1952. 99.9 Sp6 
2717. GRAUE, C. Additional recovery for present 
markets. Nowest. Wood Prod. Clinic Proc. 7:52-54. 
1952. 99.9 Sp6 
Trimming and edging to increase the market price. 
2718. GUTHRIE, J. A. Economics of debarking. 
Nowest. Wood Prod. Clinic Proc. 7:31-32. 1952. 
99.9 Sp6 
2719. HANSEL, S. Operation of hydraulic barkers. 
Brit. Columbia Lumberman 36(9):64,66,105-106,108; (10): 
30,92. Sept.-Oct.1952. 99.81 B77 
Also in Forest Prod. Res. Soc. J. 2(5):106-109. Dec. 
1952. 99.9 F7662J 
Reasons for hydraulic barking; localities of use,and 
sizes; wood species involved; research; water and pump 
problems; log handling; sawmill and pulpmill operating; 
costs of barkers; and, costs of sawmill and pulpmill 
operations. 
2720. HEWLETT, W. D. The small log gang sawmill 
as a factor in our present-day utilization problem. Brit. 
Columbia Lumberman 32(4):61-62,66. Apr.1948. 
99.81 B77 
Also in Canada Lumberman 68(9):55-57,131. May 1948. 
99.81 C16; South. Lumberman 176(2209):90,92,94-95. 
Apr.15,1948. 99.81 So82; Forest Prod. Res. Soc. Proc. 2: 
31-38. 1948. 99.9 F7662P; Timber Canada 8(9):36-37, 88, 
91-92. May 1948. 99.81 T487 
2721, JACOBSON, G. Andersson debarker. Forest 
Prod. Res. Soc. J. 2(5):118-121. Dec.1952, 99.9 F7662J 
Includes productivity statistics for a pneumatic barker 
in use since 1951. = 
2722. LOEHR, R.C. Saving the kerf: The introduction 
of the band saw mill. Agr. Hist. 23:168-172. Ref. July 
1949. 30.98 Ag8 
Also in South. Lumberman 178(2237):43-46. June 15, 
1949. 99.81 S082 
2723. MCINTOSH, W. G., and CHURCH, J. W. Pre- 
liminary report on small sawmilling equipment; a 
compendium of small sawmills. Toronto, Toronto U. 
Dept. Mech. Engin.,1949. 54 p. 99.76 T63 
Research Council of Ontario, cooperating. 
Includes prices of equipment,and productive capacity of 
sawmills. 
2724, MALCOLM, F. B. Custom planing facilities 
for farm lumber. South. Lumberman 181(2271):52,54-56. 
Nov.15,1950. 99.81 So82 
Lake States development of portable equipment. 
2725. NORTHEAST PULPWOOD RESEARCH CENTER. 
The Sandy Hill peppy peeler. Gorham, N. H.,1951. 12 p. 
99.76 N817 
Test results show wood loss and relative productivity 
of the pulpwood debarking machine. 
2726, PEABODY, H. B. Mechanical handling of lum- 
ber; a practical method of cutting costs. South. Lumber- 
man 183(2297):178-184. Dec.15,1951. 99.81 S082 
_ Compares yard handling and shipping costs for a former 
mechanized-manpower operation, and a newer highly 
mechanized operation. 
2727, RAMBO, W, H., and DERICE, H. A. Economics 
of log debarking in sawmills. Lumberman 79(5):94,96, 
132. May 1952. 99.81 W52 
Also in Nowest. Wood Prod. Clinic Proc. 7:28-30. 1952. 
99.9 Spé 
In addition to costs of debarking, includes returns from 
bark conversion into pulping ciips. 
2728. RHETT, R. B. A comparison of unit-package 
and manual handling of lumber in a concentration yard. 
Durham,1952. 465 p. Ref. 
Thesis (M.F.) - Duke University. 
2729. SMITH, I. W. Mechanical methods of bark 
removal, South. Lumberman 176(2209):74-76,78. Ref. 
Apr.15,1948. 99.81 So82 
Also in Forest Prod. Res. Soc. Proc, 2:119-129. 1948. 
99.9 F7662P 
Includes cost and efficiency information. 
