Fenceposts were cut at the landing from the tops and sub- 

 merchantable trees of units I and II. The diameters ranged 

 from 3 to 6 inches (7.6 to 15.2 cm). The following list shows 



post recovery on a per-acre basis: 



Unit I Unit U 



Number of posts 138 174 



Volume, cubic feet 100.7 118.0 



Volume, cubic meters 2.8 3.3 



Tops, branches, and logging residue created at the unit I and 

 II landings were chipped. An evaluation of the chips is shown 

 in table 12. Lineal feet, the total length of stemwood chipped, 

 not including branches and needles, was about 8,500 and 

 7,700 ft (2 591 and 2 347 m) for units I and II, respectively. 

 Ahhough unit I had about 10 percent more length than unit II, 

 the gross weight of chips was less, probably due to the smaller 

 trees taken from unit I or the higher percentage of green trees 

 removed from unit II. 



The density of the chips was affected by the amount of dead 

 and branch wood. The chipped material of unit I was about 17 

 percent denser than the chipped material of unit II. Overall 

 chip quality v/as below commercial standards with 35 and 49 

 percent of the chips unacceptable for pulping. The unbarked 

 stems and the unscreened chips were the major causes for these 

 high percentages, as shown in the following tabulation compar- 



ing woods and mill chipping: 



Woods MiU 



Percent 



Bark content 19 0.7-2.5 



Needle content 1 



Fines content 17 " 4-10 



Oversize content 5 



A screening operation would have improved chip quality. 

 Net chip recovery was estimated to be 12.3 and 9.6 bone dry 



units. This estimate was calculated by multiplying the accept- 

 able chip percentage by the total chip weight, correcting for 29 

 percent moisture content, and dividing by 2,400 pounds (a 

 bone dry unit). 



Total product recovery is shown as a materials balance in 

 table 13. The products were distributed according to unit except 

 that saw logs from units I and III and units II and IV were 

 combined as groups 1 and 2, respectively. 



Logged volumes ranged from 60 to 77 percent and the resid- 

 ual stand ranged from 12 to 35 percent of the original stand 

 volumes. Logging residues were lowest in units I and III which 

 had 4.9 and 4.5 percent, respectively. Unit II had 11.3 percent 

 residue and unit IV, 9.5 percent. The large amount of residue 

 on unit II was due to choker skidding full trees, which damaged 

 the residual trees and the operator not wanting to bunch and 

 set chokers on the smaller stems. 



Saw log recovery was the largest component on unit I, 81 

 percent; on unit II it was 76 percent. For the two units, the saw 

 logs removed made up about 60 percent of original stand vol- 

 ume. Wood chips were the next largest component — 15 percent 

 for unit I and 19 percent for unit II of the volume removed. 

 Approximately 4 percent of the volume was in fenceposts. 



Secondary product yield was based on the two groups of saw 

 logs. Approximately 70 percent of the saw log material was 

 made into lumber or ties. 



Economic analysis. — Our economic analysis compares pro- 

 duction rates and costs for the different logging systems. Fixed 

 and variable costs for the equipment used are included in 

 table 7. The production rates for the four study units are 

 shown in table 14. 



Unit I had the lowest cost per piece, followed by units IV, 

 II, and III. High landing costs adversely affected total costs for 

 unit III. The data also show that the feller-buncher is less costly 

 than the powersaw when compared on a trees-cut basis. 



Table 12.— Data on chips produced on units I and II 



Unit 



Item 



Lineal feet chipped 



8,481 



7,698 



Gross weight (pounds)' 



63,740 



64,180 



Chipped material (ft^) 



938.04 



1,209.19 



Density (pounds per ft^)^ 



67.95 



58.00 



Percent acceptable chips 



65.0 



50.8 



Percent needles 



1.0 



1.7 



Percent bark 



18.9 



18.8 



Percent oversized chips 



5.0 



5.0 



Number of chip units 



12.3 



9.7 



'Weight of chipped material in truck. 

 ^Determined by dividing gross weight by volume. 



9 



