Historic, Archive Document
Do not assume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.
Fie ee
heey aS
De
45 1974 USDA FOREST SERVICE JRESEARCH PAPER PNW: PNW-173 /
a
$$$
VENEER RECOVERY FROM
oie va
be 15,
DOUGLAS- FIR, ,
Be vA
net Et pseudotsuga mene) es ue
for sc her)
OC
iy)
U CURRENT SERIAL
P
r
THOMAS D. FAHEY,
meron ona ATT. } a { {
PACIFIC NORTHWEST FOREST AND B RANGE EXPERIMENT STATION.Y QREST SERVICE as DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ‘i ¢| PORTLAND, OREGON f
417233
ABSTRACT
Veneer was produced from 768 blocks cut from second- growth Douglas-fir from the Coast Ranges in northwestern Oregon. Timber was selected from a variety of stand ages and conditions. The recovery ratio was higher and the veneer grade lower for blocks peeled into 1/6-inch than for 1/10-inch veneer. Densely grown stands had a much higher veneer grade recovery than open grown stands, with no loss in recovery ratios. Block and log data are given in Scribner scale and gross cubic volume.
KEYWORDS: Veneers (recovery), stand age, Douglas-fir.
CONTENTS
NPR OD W CARO Niapercarenvomreiicl loiter eyiielne ler iets Wiens) elicits
SUDNeOPR OCH DWE Srmemelellei icicle) elie) eile eee Samplemseleetionwaen cn citer elite) ciel elie (e) loll feniete ILO ATS 5 656 0 0 OO BO OO OOO OO OOO Mocsscaling ang Grading) ve \e) e16) elel ee) ele
Production Facilities .......s.e.seceee
Block Preparations and Measurement .... WER LARC CWO MOD dG Grol GO Ohd.0 0 0 60 6 IDI? Gg dvorore GC OGG O66 GU 666 05 W@M@C CECI 5 6 50 Gob 6 OOo OO OOO
WERGER WAL 6:0 0 6 0°O OO O09 G60 6 6 6 OO
Data Compilation and Statistics .......
IRIS WINS 696 60686 6-6 6 so). 6) GUO Asolo son ouona
Block Recovery and Peeling Thickness ....
IRCCOVELYMOVMIIOR ac, siiel renee). en ieh erie. reliei ei) 6 RECOVERY DY, StaNnGurts feyieitc, ete cl ee ees
OTHER PRODUCTS e e e e ee e e e e e e e e e eo e SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS =. 3.00 «3 0 6 6 «
APPENDIX TABLES eeeeeeeeeee @ @ e@ @ @
Page
WWwWwWwWNnNNrN NN DY HS
co fe
iow)
14
14
15
He TKOS
yes eae
et ., Serrane er eae
ty a ee hie —*
; ‘péthies — Here : ata Ue
oe ess) yy of Sa Cone
«. phernrs bah i nein ae Roti
nor ral San nung?
‘ P i ae o. « Sore a) eg Mid ne 4 ‘retey “JF
Paster ie) Ved Sar j si att) bee
INTRODUCTION Table 1.--Characteristics of sample stands, 1971
0 Stand Second-growth stands of Douglas-fir age veneer et ae all a ae Management are producing a rapidly increasing propor- (years ) tion of the commercial timber available Number --Inches--- in the Pacific Northwest. In the Coast 60 0 Medaiam Pi None 40- 80 16 Dense 14-25 None Ranges, there are large areas of these 40 oF ue Dare eige ore to 100-year-old stands. These are the 50 1 Dense 15-24 None . . 70 15 Light 14-34 None result of a series of large fires and exten- 100 25 Light 17.38 Commercially sive early logging. Little information is thinned 1959 3 y tose 40 9 Medium 14-22 Precommercially available on the recovery of forest products thinned 1959
to be expected from this resource.
Ly Rate at which stands closed, based on growth rate eine slowing to more than 6 rings per inch, at stump for dominant In 1971, the Pacific Northwest Forest and codominant trees. Dense = less than 10 years, medium =
and Range Experiment Station, Region 6 of 10-20 years, and light = more than 20 years. National Forest System, and the Oregon Office of the Bureau of Land Management,
in cooperation with Riverside Lumber removed in a commercial thinning. In the Company, Champion International, and 70- to 100-year-old stands, we picked
the Miami Corporation, began a study of trees from the entire range available, veneer and lumber recoveries from this equivalent to a final harvest cut. In all resource. This report contains the veneer stands, individual trees were selected to recovery information derived from the sample the variation in size and tree con- study. This information will be useful to dition which was available.
mill operators and resource managers in
allocating limited resources to their most Once the timber sample for the study appropriate use. The log and block infor- was chosen, the subsample for the veneer mation will serve as a guide to allocating portion was selected. All trees smaller cut logs and to making informed bucking than 13.6-inch d.b.h. were excluded. The decisions when veneer production is a remaining trees were randomly sampled
possible use.
STUDY PROCEDURES
SAMPLE SELECTION
Initially, stands were chosen for variation in age, stocking, and manage- ment (table 1). Although originally con- sidered as a variable, site within contiguous stands varied greatly by slope position and was dropped as a Stand variable. Seven individual stands and 385 trees were Wing APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
TREE SELECTION AREAS
selected (fig. 1). a OREGON
NO= SAMPLE TREES AT THAT LOCATION
Tree selection varied with stand age. In the 40-, 50-, and 60-year-old stands,
Figure 1.--Approximate location of we selected trees that would normally be sample areas.
to include one tree in three. Ninety-three trees, or 37 percent, were selected for the veneer subsample. The d.b.h. range of the veneer sample trees was from 14 to 30 inches.
LOGGING
Veneer trees were first marked so the cutter would know which trees to cut into peeler lengths. All the areas were cut in April of 1972. At the time of cutting, the log ends were tagged with the tree number, woods-length log number, and veneer block position within the log. All logs were taken to the Riverside Lumber Company log yard and held for sorting, sealing, and shipping to the veneer plant.
LOG SCALING AND GRADING
The woods-length veneer logs were scaled on the ground at the sawmill, then shipped to Champion International. Scaling was done by the U.S. Forest Service Regional check scaler, according to the Uniform Bureau Rules for West Side. Logs were graded by the rules for Douglas-fir logs in the standing tree, L Only those defects visible on the log surface were considered in grading.
PRODUCTION FACILITIES
The Champion International Plant at Willamina, Oregon, produces a wide variety of plywood items, with a high proportion of sanded panels. Less than 10 percent of annual production is in sheathing grades. The species used is predominately Douglas-fir. The green- end equipment consists of cutoff saw, rosser-head debarker, geometric center- ing, automatic charger, 8-foot lathe with six trays, two clippers, and
1/ Log grade descriptions for Douglas-fir. Form R-6 2440-19D (March 1965). Unpublished material on file at U.S. Forest Service, Region 6, Portland, Oregon.
a fishtail2/ saw. The 4-foot lathe and clipper line at the plant was not used in this study. All three of the steam-fired veneer dryers were used during the study.
BLOCK PREPARATIONS AND MEASUREMENT
The woods-length logs were brought | to the study plant and dumped into the log pond the week before the study. The 225 woods-length logs were bucked into 823 nominal 8. 6-foot blocks and debarked. Six woods-length logs produced no blocks large enough to peel. All logs smaller than 9 inches in diameter produced some blocks too small to peel--a total of 60. After bucking, blocks were tagged with the appropriate tree-log-block number, scaled by a Bureau of Land Management check scaler, and measured for cubic volume.
VENEER PRODUCTION
At the lathe, spur knives were set at 101 inches and blocks were peeled to a nominal 6.25-inch core. Veneer was identified by a color coding system which identified veneer by block, log, and tree.3
Blocks were peeled in two thicknesses-- 299 blocks were peeled 1/10-inch thick (. 104 green) and 469 blocks were peeled 1/6-inch thick (. 174 green). The blocks were not sorted for peeling thickness. The 1/10-inch veneer was clipped for full sheets, half sheets, random widths, and fishtails. The 1/6-inch veneer was clipped for half sheets, random widths, and fish- tails. The green veneer was separated
2/ Fishtail veneer is less-than-full-block length, produced during block roundup. This veneer was later cut to 4-foot length for use as crossbands.
3/ Paul H. Lane. recovery Studies. 21(6): 32-33. 1971.
Identifying veneer in Forest Products Journal
into items and drying sorts. Study crew- members re-marked the fishtails if the color codes would be cut off at the fishtail saw.
DRYING
Study material was dried in the three steam dryers. Dryer times and tempera- tures followed usual mill practice. Time in the dryer ranged from 7 minutes for 1/10-inch heartwood to 17 minutes for 1/6-inch sapwood. Maximum temperature was 360° to 370° F. During the approxi- mately 48 dryer-hours necessary to dry all the study material, no veneer was lost from dryer jam or fire. Dryer loss on this study is below normal for veneer drying.
VENEER GRADING
Dry veneer was graded by company graders under the supervision of an Ameri- can Plywood Association quality supervisor. All veneer was sorted into six grades--A, A Patch, B, B Patch, C, and D. A, B, C, and D grades are as described in P.S. eGGee) An A Patch 4- by 8-foot sheet of veneer could contain up to 14 patchable defects and B Patch up to 20 patchable defects. Narrower widths were allowed proportionately fewer defects.
VENEER TALLY
Each piece of study veneer was individually tallied by tree, log, and block. Full and half sheets were graded and tallied as they were sorted on the dry chain. Both 4- and 8-foot random-width sheets were pulled by grade and tallied later. Veneer
4/ American Plywood Association. U.S. product standard P.S. 1-66 for softwood plywood-- construction and industrial--together with DFPA grade--trademarks, 28 p., 1961.
with excessive moisture after drying was tallied as it was pulled without redrying. Dry veneer that was below grade was either pencil clipped3/ or tallied separately as reject.
DATA COMPILATION AND STATISTICS
Recovery data were compiled by two computer programs specifically de- veloped for processing veneer recovery data. 8/
The cubic volume of veneer blocks is based on measurements of the debarked bucked blocks. The average diameter is to tenth of inch on both ends and the nominal length to tenth of foot. Volume was com- puted by the following formula:
2 mL , 1 a2 ey)
Gross cubic volume =
4°3°144 where 7 = constant 3.1416 D. = average diameter small end Dy = average diameter large end
L
nominal block length (8.6 feet),
Individual peeler block volumes were summed to provide log cubic volumes. Blocks which were not peeled are not in- cluded in the log cubic volume.
Veneer and reject cubic volume is the volume of dry untrimmed grade and reject veneer. Core volume is based on
5/ Veneer pieces pulled out of the dryer which were below grade but predominately of a recognized veneer grade were tallied as random- width strips of the appropriate grade.
&/ Richard O. Woodfin, Jr., and Mary Anne Mei. Computer program for calculating veneer recovery volume and value. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon, 39 p., 1967.
the green core diameter as dropped from the lathe. Residual volume includes spur, roundup, clipper, and dryer losses, and veneer shrinkage and is determined by subtraction.
RESULTS
The results of the study are con- tained primarily in recovery tables. The interpretation of these tables is highly dependent on pricing and production assump- tions. The data are presented to allow the user to apply price and production input to the recovery data.
The No. 3 Peeler and Special Peeler block data have been combined for statisti- cal analysis because of the limited number and small diameter range of these grades in the sample. Other than diameter, the grading specifications are identical. Block recovery will be discussed, followed by the woods-length logs.
BLOCK RECOVERY AND PEELING THICKNESS
Veneer grade.-- Veneer was peeled in two thicknesses, 1/10-inch and 1/6-inch, during the study. A different clipping pattern was used for each. The two groups had similar block grade and diameter dis- tributions (appendix 1). The 1/10-inch veneer was clipped to obtain the maximum full sheets of grades A through C. Nor- mally the sapwood and outer portion of the heartwood were clipped into full sheets, and the inner heartwood was clipped into half sheets. The 1/6-inch veneer was clipped to produce maximum half sheets of grades D and better. There is a marked difference in recovery by veneer item and grade (tables 2 and 3) due to clipping practice.
The total percent of veneer in grades A through C was higher for the 1/10-inch peel (59 percent) than for the
1/6-inch peel (52 percent). Linear re- | gression analyses were run by block grade to test whether the sources of the differ- ence were block grade and diameter or mill processes. Appendix 2 contains the percent by veneer grade, item, and block grade. | Veneer grade recovery by block | grade and diameter.-- The recovery of veneer grades A through C varied by tf block diameter (table 3) and block grade. For the combined No. 3 Peeler and Special Peeler block grades there was no difference in veneer grade recovery between the two peeling thicknesses and no change related to block diameter. Veneer recovery was consistently 82- percent grades A through C regardless of size or clipping pattern. For blocks graded No. 2 or No. 3 Sawmill, there was a Significant7/ correlation of veneer grade recovery with block diameter (fig. 2). For blocks peeled 1/10-inch,
U/ Significant correlation as used is at the 5-percent probability level. Highly significant is the 1-percent probability level.
PERCENT 100
NO. 3 PEELER AND SPECIAL PEELER, 1/10—INCH AND 1/6—INCH
80
_—NO 2 SAWMILL, 1/10—INCH
NO. 2 SAWMILL, 1/6—INCH 50
= 40;}—) oo ONES OO ee
20
DIAMETER (INCHES)
Figure 2.--Veneer grades A through C as a percent of total graded veneer, by block grade and peeling thickness over diameter.
Table 2.--Volume and percent of veneer recovery, by veneer grade, item, and thickness
Veneer item
Full sheets Half sheets Random width, 8 feet |Random width, 4 feet
Veneer grade Volume, Volume , Volume , Volume, Volume, 3/8-inch | Percent 3/8-inch | Percent 3/8-inch | Percent 3/8-inch | Percent 3/8-inch | Percent basis basis basis basis basis Square feet Square feet Square feet Square feet Square feet 1/10-INCH VENEER A 88 0.13 0 -- 43 0.06 0 -- 13] 0.19 A Patch 117 Sil 0 -- 1] -02 0 -- 128 19 B 20 .03 0 -- 856 1.25 0 -- 876 1.28 B Patch 1,478 2.15 456 0.66 1] .02 0 -- 1,945 2.83 C 18,404 26.82 5,919 8.62 10,425 15.19 2,497 3.64 37,245 54.27 D 13,797 20.10 7,213 10.51 6,081 8.86 1,213 Wev/z 28,304 41.24 Total 33,904 49.40 13,588 19.80 17,427 25.39 3,710 5.4] 68,629 1100.00 Reject-/ —-1,256 1.83 2,570 3.74 1,761 Oui, 0 0 5 ,587 8.14 1/6-INCH VENEER A 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- A Patch 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 == 0 -- B 0 -- 68 0.06 578 0.52 0 -- 646 0.58 B Patch 0 -- 5,238 4.71 0 -- 0 -- 5,238 4.7] C 0 -- 37 ,645 33.88 11,545 10.39 2,509 2.26 51,699 46.53 D 0 -- 38,726 34.85 12,463 Wee 2,345 2.11 53,534 48.18 Total 0 -- 81,677 73.50 24,586 22.13 4,854 4.37 Wa Bway Vy00.00 Reject/ 0 -- 2,122 1.91 7,446 6.70 66 .06 9,634 8.65
a Cross totals may not add due to rounding. | Reject expressed as a percent of grade veneer.
Table 3.--Percent of veneer recovery by veneer grade and thickness, and diameter of all sound blocks
Veneer grade
Block Number diameter of (inches) | blocks
1/10-INCH VENEER
9 ] 22 0 0 0 0 Hilo® (eoTf 10 14 768 0 0 (bole 0 67.9 29.9 1] 20 1,516 0 0 lol 6 i/ 82.0 16.2 12 35 859939 0 0 4 Nod 69.7 28.7 ls 26 3,230 Bl 0 4 AS} Vos 21.9 14 32 4,820 0 0 4 0 71.9 Cia 15 32 5,613 0 0 4 ae) 68.3 31.0 16 22 4,781 0 0 ao) 6 WhoZ 27.9 17 16 3,688 0 0 62 58: 60.8 38.7 18 16 4,385 0 5C ae) .6 41.0 57.9 19 17 525 52 0 4 9 5S 45.0 20 16 5,482 AZ 0 1.0 2.0 44,4 52.4 21 10 4,198 al ne. 250) 4.5 60.3 32.9 22 14 5,992 Sl SC 1.8 3.4 44.3 50.2 23 8 4,005 4 A) S49) 7.9 33.6 54.1 24 7 2,868 2.4 1.4 2.6 Los 39.2 46.9 25 6 3,236 58) VieZ 4.4 Holl 327i 54.3 26 2 1,243 a2 0 2.6 5 7.6 84.5 27 0) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 28 ] 836 0 0 4.1 4.] 17.9 73.9 29 3 2,393 0 0 ao 4 50.9 48.5 30 ] 963 0 0 4.8 38.4 50.4 6.4 Oe =< average 299 68,629 ae BC led 2.8 54.3 41.2 1/6-INCH VENEER 9 ] 42 0 0 0 0 76.2 23.8 10 15 1,047 0 0 0) 0 56.3 43.7 1] 50 3,908 0 0 0 .6 60.2 39.2 12 56 5,254 0 0 0 .6 61.9 37.5 13 5] 6,022 0 0 ll 1.4 63.2 Sho)ne. 14 43 6,418 0 0 <3 2.4 55.9 41.4 15 4] 7,363 0 0 NZ 50 46.5 53m 16 38 8,814 0 0 sil 1.0 46.2 527, 17 32 8,904 0 0 0 Uses 49.2 49.3 18 28 8,954 0 0 .6 4.5 49.8 45.1 19 23 7,505 0 0 <3 2.0 41.1 56.6 20 24 9,437 0 0 .6 8.7 49.7 41.0 21 10 4,435 0 0 8 Zr 43.5 53.6 22 1] 4,619 0 0 Ne tos S35 65.2 23 8 4 ,483 0 0 al 3.4 36.1 60.4 24 10 5,651 0 0 5i/ 9.6 S/o) 52.2 25 8 5,198 0 0 5u/ Ws Z/ 525 35.1 26 7 3,976 0 0 Hols) 16.0 29.8 52.7 27 5 2,426 0 0 les 4.9 20.4 73.4 28 6 4,690 0 0 1.6 10.6 S2ral )2)5// 29 2 1,971 0 0 8.5 31.8 43.6 16.1 Total or —__-YY average 469 TG 0 0 6 4.7 46.5 48.2
— — ——eeee—e eee eee
the percent of A through C grade veneer was consistently higher than for blocks peeled 1/6-inch, regardless of diameter. The difference was 9.9 percent for block grade No. 2 Sawmill and 14. 2 percent for block grade No. 3 Sawmill. Statisti- cally, these differences were highly sig-
nificant. Appendix 3 contains the summary
by diameter on which this analysis was based.
Bloek recovery ratios.-- Recov- ery ratio is square feet of veneer on a 3/8-inch basis per board foot of net Scrib- ner scale. The recovery ratio of all non- cull blocks (table 4) is lower for 1/10-inch veneer (2.60) than for 1/6-inch veneer (2.72). Regression analysis showed there was a Significant correlation between diameter and recovery ratio (fig. 3) and that the 1/10-inch recovery ratio was 0. 16 lower for all diameters. This difference is highly significant. Appendix 4 contains
the basic data by grade and diameter class.
Cubic volumes of veneer, reject veneer, core, and residual were analyzed
as a percent of block cubic volume for both
RECOVERY RATIO 3
BLOCKS PEELED 1/6—INCH
5 10 15 20 25 30 DIAMETER (INCHES)
Figure 3.--Recovery ratio, square feet of veneer (3/8-inch basis) per board foot of net Scribner block scale by diameter.
peeling thicknesses (figs. 4 and 5). The percent of the block cubic volume (table 4) varied with diameter for veneer, reject veneer, andcore. The residual component stayed constant for all diameters.
RECOVERY PERCENT 60
50 GRADE D AND BETTER VENEER
40
30
BLOCKS PEELED BOTH THICKNESSES 20
BLOCKS PEELED 1/10—INCH \ REJECT
== BLOCKS PEELED 1/6—INCH
-~ _ ---.
5 10 15 20 25 30 DIAMETER (INCHES)
Figure 4.--Veneer cubic recovery as a percent of cubic volume.
PERCENT
1/10—INCH
30
1/6—INCH
20
~—---
1/10—INCH—
5 10 1S 20 25 30 DIAMETER (INCHES)
Figure 5.--Cubic volume of nonveneer components as a percent of block cubic volume residual; includes chippable volume, shrinkage, and waste.
Figure 6 gives the cumulative volumes for 1/10- and 1/6-inch veneer.
Between veneer thicknesses, there was no Significant difference in the recov- ery ratios for veneer but a significant
PERCENT 100
30
80 RESIDUAL 70
CORE
50 REJECT 50 VENEER 40
30
A
S 10 15 20 25 30 DIAMETER (INCHES)
PERCENT 100 Ie) 80 RESIDUAL 70 La a ae 60 REJECT =o VENEER 40 30
B
5 10 1S 20 25 30 DIAMETER (INCHES)
Figure 6.--Cumulative cubic volume of block components as a percent of block cubic volume by block grade; A, 1/10-inch veneer, B, 1/6-inch veneer.
difference in the ratios for reject veneer (fig. 4). This difference varied with diameter class. Peeling 1/10-inch veneer resulted in 1.3 percent less of block vol- ume in core and 3.4 percent more of block volume in the residual portion (fig. 5). These differences were significant and consistent for all diameters. The basic data for this analysis are summarized in table 4. Appendix 4 contains summary by block grade and diameter.
RECOVERY BY LOG
Veneer recovery by log is reported with both veneer thicknesses combined. Log recovery totals are slightly higher than block recovery totals. The six cull blocks came from otherwise sound logs,
and the veneer from these blocks is included in log totals.
Cubic volumes for logs are the sum of the block volumes and do not include the volume of blocks which were not peeled. The Scribner scale is the long log scale before bucking and does include blocks not peeled.
Veneer grade and item.--The veneer recovery by veneer grade and item is contained in table 5. Appendix 5 con- tains the volumes by grade and item for individual log grades. The high percent- age of half sheets (53 percent) is largely a result of the clipping pattern followed with 1/6-inch veneer.
Veneer grade recovery by log grade and dianeter.-- The veneer recovery percent in grades A through C veneer varied widely by log grade (table 6). Regression analyses were run on each grade and on all log grades combined. For log grade No. 3 Sawmill, there was a signifi- cant correlation between percent of A through C grade veneer and log diameter
Table 4.--Volume and percent of veneer recovery by diameter of all sound blocks
Scribner scale Veneer Core Residual Block Number Percent Hala Recovery | Block GUMS of sound 3 (Salle ratio | volume Vol P t (inches) | blocks basis Volume |Percent| Volume |Percent} Volume |Percent) Volume ercen --Board feet-- Square é Cubie Cubie Cubie % feet re Cc ae feet feet feet 1/10-INCH VENEER 9 1 20 20 100 22 1.10 5.86 0.67 +11.4 0.11 1.9 Wess) VAG Sos) Ve5.4 10 14 420 420 100 768 1.83 77.79 237351 130:.0) 1.26 1.6 26.13 33.6 27.05 34.8 1 20 600 600 100 1,516 2.53 123.88 45.79 37.0 2.68 2.2 37.02 29.9 38.39 31.0 12 35 1,400 1,400 100 3,339 2.38 259.02 101.11 39.0 9.04 735) 62.51 24.1 86. 36 S383 13 26 1,300 1,280 98 3,230 2.52 223.92 97,73 43.6 3.80 1.7 7525) sell. 74.87 33.4 14 32 1,920 1,900 99 4,820 2.54 309.68 145.84 47.1 6.73 2.2 54.84 17.7 102.27 33.0 15 32 2,240 2,240 100 5,613 2.51 358.55 170.05 47.4 11.04 3.1 57.65 16.1 119.81 33.4 16 22 1,760 1,750 99 4,781 2.73 280.56 144.80 51.6 6.32 2.2 38.14 13.6 91.30 32.5 7 16 1,440 1,360 94 3,688 2.71 235.95 111.82 47.4 7.42 3.1 35.34 15.0 81.37 34.5 18 16 1,760 1,720 98 4,385 2.55 258.59 133.07. 51.5 9.56 3.7 27.88 10.8 88.08 34.1 19 V7 2,040 1,890 93 5,251 2.78 306.20 159.11 52.0 8.79 at) 44.87 14.6 93.43 30.5 20 16 2,240 2,080 93 5,482 2.64 323.90 166.08 51.3 12.82 4.0 44.94 13.9 100.06 30.9 21 10 1,500 1,410 94 4,198 2.98 212.87 127.29 59.8 6.18 2.9 17.79 8.4 61.61 28.9 22 14 2,380 2,280 96 5,992 2.63 331.93 181.65 54.7 23.10 7.0 25.31 7.6 101.87 30.7 23 8 1,520 1,480 97 4,005 2.71 210.53 Waeebs eiael 11.04 5.2 14.03 6.7 63.99 30.4 24 7 1,470 1,290 88 2,868 2.22 192.76 86.93 45.1 24.58 12.8 13.18 6.8 68.07 3553 25 6 1,380 1,340 97 3,236 2.4) 198.32 98.05 49.4 14.13 eR 12.75 6.4 73.39 37.0 26 2 500 480 96 1,243 2.59 74.04 37.65 50.8 2.19 3.0 10.53 14.2 23.67 32.0 27 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 28 ] 290 220 76 836 3.80 47.91 25S O29 2.57 5.4 3.07 6.4 16.94 35.4 29 3 930 890 96 2,393 2.69 120.58 72.49 60.1 4.70 3m9 5.23 4.3 38.16 31.6 30 ] 330 330 100 963 2.92 49.33 29.18 59.2 74 1.5 2.27 4.6 17.14 34.8 Total everare 299 27,440 26,380 96 68,629 2.60 4,202.17 2,079.46 49.5 168.80 4.0 582.85 13.9 1,371.06 32.6 1/6-INCH VENEER 9 ] 20 20 100 42 2.10 5.07 1.26 24.8 04 8 2.02 39.8 yA 34.5 10 15 440 440 100 1,047 2.38 88.51 31.31 35.4 3.10 3.5 28.86 32.6 25.24 28.5 11 50 1,510 1,480 98 3,908 2.64 320.23 16.88 36.5 14.24 4.4 98:77) | 30.8 90.34 28.2 12 56 2,240 2,180 97 5,254 2.41 412.87 156.77 38.0 17.57 4.3 WIS 2itar2-720 127.01 30.8 13 51 2,550 2,490 98 6,022 2.42 435.51 179.66 41.2 16.76 3.8 105.82 24.3 133.27 30.6 14 43 2,580 2,490 97 6,418 2.58 427.27 191.57 44.8 13.29 3.1 88.59 20.7 133.82 Sis. 15 4] 2,870 2,840 99 7,363 2.59 459.83 219.76 47.8 14.45 35] 80.85 17.6 144.77 SIRS 16 38 3,040 3,010 99 8,814 2.93 493.72 262.78 53.2 12.78 2.6 76.96 15.6 141.20 28.6 7 32 2,880 2,830 98 8,904 Se) 472.57 265.83 56.2 12.86 Zieh 68.01 14.4 125.87 26.6 18 28 3,080 3,020 98 8,954 2.96 455.27 267.24 58.7 11.09 2.4 55.46 12.2 121.48 26.7 19 23 2,760 2,630 95 7,505 2.85 415.79 223.90 53.8 17.58 4.2 66.00 15.9 108.31 26.0 20 24 3,360 3,340 99 9,437 2.83 489.53 281.44 57.5 23.37 4.8 47.25 9.6 137.47 28.1 21 10 1,500 1,440 96 4,435 3.08 229.59 132.06 57.5 4.80 2.1 20.77 9.0 71.96 Si; 22 1 1,870 1,870 100 4,619 2.47 262.63 137.86 52.5 19.44 7.4 22.59 8.6 82.74 31.5 23 8 1,520 1,520 100 4,483 2.95 207.74 133.51 64.3 5.93 2.8 17.28 8.3 51.02 24.6 24 10 2,100 2,100 100 5,651 2.69 291.40 168.52 57.8 12.92 4.4 21.09 Hee: 88.87 30.5 25 8 1,840 1,780 97 5,198 2.92 261.91 154.95 59.2 7.76 3.0 20.50 7.8 78.70 30.0 26 7 1,750 1,750 100 3,976 2.27 247.84 118.53 47.8 29.59 11.9 16.28 6.6 83.44 Sa7/ 27 5 1,350 1,350 100 2,426 1.80 183.74 72.38 39.4 3325 Cuma ous 13.35 78) 64.45 35m 28 6 1,740 1,660 95 4,690 2.83 242.46 139.90 57.7 14.74 6.1 14.36 5.9 73.46 30.3 29 2 620 620 100 1,971 3.18 88.47 58.76 66.4 1.25 1.4 4.48 5.1 23.98 27.1 Total or average 469 41,620 40,860 98 111,117 2.72 6,491.95 3,314.87 51.1 287.12 4.4 980.81 15.1 1,909.15 29.4 ay Cross totals may not add to 100.0 percent due to rounding. Table 5.--Volume and percent of veneer recovery by grade and item Veneer item Veneer Full sheets Half sheets Random width, 8 feet |Random width, 4 feet Total grade Volume, Volume, Volume, Volume, Volume, 3/8-inch Percent 3/8-inch | Percent 3/8-inch | Percent 3/8-inch | Percent 3/8-inch | Percent basis basis basis basis basis Square feet Square feet Square feet Square feet Square feet A 88 0.05 0 -- 43 0.02 0 -- 131 0.07 A Patch 117 06 0 -- 1 01 0 -- 128 -07 20 01 68 0.04 1,466 81 0 -- 1,554 . 86 B Patch 1,478 -82 5,694 3.16 1 -01 0 == 7,183 3.98 Cc 18,404 10.21 43,701 24.24 22,034 12.22 5,077 2.82 89,216 49.48 1) 13,797 7.65 46 ,065 25.55 18,656 10.35 3,583 v.92 82,101 45.53 Total 33,904 18.80 95,528 52.98 42,221 23.42 8,600 4.80 180,313 100.00 reject2/ 1,256 .70 4,731 2.62 9,263 5.14 66 04 15,316 8.49
/ Cross totals may not add due to rounding.
2 e el Reject expressed as a percent of grade veneer.
Table 6.--Veneer grade recovery by log grade and diameter
reas Number of Volume , . penec mediate Square feet --------------------------- Percent-------=-<<-=-<—<5—===———=——— SPECIAL PEELER 18 1 1,659 0 0 2.8 1.0 81.7 14.5 19 0 OO o> m= 2 oe? cS a 20 0 =-- == = = a oe 2 21 2 4,396 2.0 9 4.4 8.8 62.2 Alc? ota eee average 3 6,055 1.4 .6 3.9 6.7 67.7 19.7 NO. 2 SAWMILL 12 18 9,312 0 0 4 ee 55.5 42.9 13 7 9,985 0 0 6 1.0 67.5 30.9 14 21 18,244 ol 0 al 8 56.5 42.4 15 10 8,077 0 0 0 8 68.7 30.5 16 15 15,655 0 0 53) 9 37.9 60.9 7 7 8,936 al mil 8 4.3 55.6 39.1 18 9 13,692 0 0 7 7.9 51.5 39.9 | 19 10 14,001 0 0 aul 1.1 42.8 55.4 20 4 8,601 0 0 2 208} 51.0 46.5 21 3 6,366 of 1.1 4.1 21.1 39.9 33.6 22 3 6,583 0 0 1.2 15.2 44.9 38.7 23 1 2,940 mil 0 oi 3.5 10.0 83.7 24 3 5,306 0 0 1.1 3.7 23.4 71.8 | 25 1 2,230 0 0 2.5 20.1 27.8 49.6 26 0 0 => os ae = a5 a> 27 ] 3,806 0 0 5.0 17.3 34.9 42.8 28 ] 2,601 0 0 1.9 14.6 56.8 26.7 Total or average 124 136,335 0 ol 9 4.8 48.8 45.4 NO. 3 SAWMILL 6 ] 49 0 0 0 0 42.9 57.1 7 4 78) 0 0 “9 0 55.1 44.0 8 13 2,131 0 0 1.0 1.2 56.6 41.2 9 7 4,228 0 0 2 0 55.3 44.5 10 24 6,947 0 0 ol 5 69.7 29.7 ; 1] 26 12,347 0 0 1 1.0 59.9 39.0 | 12 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 13 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 14 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 15 2 1,925 0 0 0 0 16.3 83.7 16 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7 ] 1,471 0 0 0 0 12.6 87.4 18 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- { 19 ] 1,304 0 0 0 0 15.8 84.2 20 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- { 2] 0 = be = == as oe -- 22 1 1,13) 0 .6 (257 0 7.3 89.4 23 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 24 2 4,640 0 0 2 2.2 31.8 65.8 25 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 26 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 27 1 969 0 0 0 0 4.2 95.8 Total or average 93 37,923 0 0 3 7 48.9 50.1 ALL GRADES 6 1 49 0 0 0 0 42.9 57.1 7 4 78) 0 0 9 0 55.1 44.0 8 13 2,131 0 0 1.0 1.2 56.6 41.2 } 9 7 4,228 0 0 ve 0 55.3 44.5 10 24 6,947 0 0 1 5 69.7 29.7 1 26 12,347 0 0 nil 1.0 59.9 39.0 12 18 9,312 0 0 «4 ee: 55.5 42.9 13 7 9,985 0 0 6 1.0 67.5 30.9 14 21 18,244 Jd 0 a 8 56.6 42.4 } 15 12 10,002 0 0 0 -6 58.6 40.8 16 15 15,655 0 0 3) 9 37.9 60.9 7 8 10,407 ail él Au 3.7 49.5 45.9 18 10 15,351 0 0 1.0 7.2 54.6 37.2 19 a8] 15,305 0 0 ot/ 1.0 40.5 57.8 20 4 8,601 0 0 At? 2.3 51.0 46.5 21 5 10,762 9 1.0 4.2 16.1 49.1 28.7 22 4 7,714 0 al 1.4 13.0 39.4 46.1 23 ] 2,940 al 0 2.7 3.5 10.0 83.7 24 5 9,946 0 0 6 3.0 27.3 69.1 25 1 2,230 0 0 25 20.1 27.8 49.6 26 0 == -- == -- -- -- -- 27 2 4,775 0 0 4.0 13.8 28.7 53.5 28 ] 2,601 0 0 1.9 14.6 56.8 26.7 Total or average 220 180,313 ] | 9 4.0 49.4 45.5
(fig. 7). For the Special Peeler and No. 2 Sawmill grades there was no correlation
with diameter. The correlation with diame-
ter for all log grades was largely a result of No. 3 Sawmill logs.
Log recovery ratio.-- The recovery ratio of square feet of dry untrimmed ven- eer (3/8-inch basis) per board foot of net log scale showed a significant correlation
PERCENT OF VENEER
100
30
80 ——-—-— SPECIAL PEELER
70
NO. 2 SAWMILL
60 sO 40
ALL LOG GRADES 30
x NO. 3 SAWMILL *\<
5 10 15 20 25 30 DIAMETER (INCHES)
Figure 7.--Veneer grades A through C as a percent of total veneer for all log grades and for individual log grades.
with diameter (fig. 8) when all log grades were combined. The drop in recovery ratio for large-diameter logs is due to the low recovery in large No. 3 Sawmill logs (table 7) and the large percentage of this grade in the upper diameters. No. 2 Sawmill logs, which would comprise a larger proportion of a random sample, had an average recovery ratio of 3.27 which did not change with diameter.
RECOVERY RATIO
4
NO. 2 SAWMILL ONLY SS
ALL GRADES”
5 10 15 20 25 30 DIAMETER (INCHES)
Figure 8.--Recovery ratio, square feet of dry, untrimmed veneer (3/8-inch basis) per board foot of net Scrib- ner log scale by diameter.
11
Block Number diameter of (inches) | blocks
Table 7.--Volume and percent of veneer recovery by block diameter and log grade
Veneer, 3/8-inch basis
Scribner scale
Percent sound
Recovery ratio
Percent
---Board feet--- Square ---Cubie feet--- Cubie Cubie Cubic feet feet feet feet SPECIAL PEELER 18 1 450 450 100 1,659 -3.69 78.50 49.46 63.0 44 0.6 8.02 10.2 20.58 26.2 19 0 -- -- - -- -- -- == == -- == -- -- -- -- 20 0 -- -- -- -- -- == == =~ =P aD -- -- -- -- 21 2 1,300 1,280 98 4,396 3.43 214.13 = 133.29 62.2 9.33 4.4 14.06 6.6 57.45 26.8 Total or average 3 1,750 1,730 99 6,055 3.50 292.63 182.75 62.4 9.77 3.3 22.08 7.5 78.03 26.7 NO. 2 SAWMILL 12 18 2,790 2,700 97 9,312 3.45 609.80 279.40 45.8 13.86 2.3 127.18 20.9 189.36 31.0 13 7 3,480 3,420 98 9,985 2.92 649.72 299.63 46.1 15.29 2.4 127.95 19.7 206.85 31.8 14 21 5,300 5,180 98 18,244 3.52 1,051.43 546.32 52.0 25.03 2.4 175.26 = =16.7 304.82 29.0 15 10 2,850 2,690 94 8,077 3.00 503.81 244.09 48.4 15.37 3.0 77.08 15.3 167.27 33.2 16 15 4,780 4,710 99 15,655 3.32 858.64 469.49 54.7 25.79 3.0 116.26 =13.5 247.10 28.8 7 7 2,640 2,560 97 8,936 3.49 487.53 268.35 55.0 17.44 3.6 63.19 13.0 138.55 28.4 18 9 4,300 4,080 95 13,692 3.36 737.31 410.39 55.7 21.71 2.9 92.72 12.6 212.49 28.8 19 10 5,070 4,590 91 14,001 3.05 839.95 421.19 50.1 59.57 7.1 86.20 10.3 272.99 32.5 20 4 2,660 2,660 100 8,601 3.23 405.01 258.28 63.8 6.97 Uez/ 31.61 7.8 108.15 26.7 21 3 1,950 1,910 98 6,366 S533 335.44 190.75 56.9 17.02 5.1 25.05 7.5 102.62 30.6 22 3 1,960 1,850 94 6,583 3.56 328.54 196.25 59.7 9.18 2.8 24.17 7.4 98.94 30.1 23 i} 800 710 89 2,940 4.14 144.27 89.11 61.8 4.92 3.4 8.48 529 41.76 28.9 24 3 1,950 1,640 84 5,306 3.24 314.46 158.24 50.3 25.59 8.1 23.34 7.4 107.29 34.1 25 1 980 920 94 2,230 2.42 152.42 66.53 43.6 24.14 15.8 9.87 6.5 51.88 34.0 26 0 -- -- cm Sed =o = =e == =o =O 2S DS md =2 27 ] 1,160 1,160 100 3,806 3.28 162.96 113.50 69.6 2.12 1.3 8.62 5.3 38.72 23.8 28 1 950 950 100 2,601 2.74 127.99 78.78 61.6 4.61 3.6 5.67 4.4 38.93 30.4 Total or average 124 43,620 41,730 96 136,335 3.27 7,709.28 4,090.30 53.0 288.61 3.7 1,002.65 13.0 2,327.72 30.2 NO. 3 SAWMILL 6 1 60 60 100 49 82 5.96 1.45 24.3 24 4.0 Wee e257/ 2.32 38.9 7 4 320 310 97 781 2.52 71.82 23.52 32.7 2.64 3.7 18.15 25.3 27.51 38.3 8 13 830 820 99 2,131 2.60 185.06 64.25 34.7 5.35 2.9 527 2ee6e 62.74 33.9 9 7 1,600 1,510 94 4,228 2.80 352.81 126.99 36.0 7.21 2.0 95.17 27.0 123.44 35.0 10 24 2,480 2,470 100 6,947 2.81 524.87 208.33 39.7 22.60 4.3 141.71 27.0 152.23 29.0 am 26 3,980 3,930 99 12,347 3.14 870.84 370.18 42.5 37.53 4.3 192.17. 22.1 270.96 31.1 12 0 -- -- - -- -- -- -- <= == -- -- -- - 13 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 14 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 15 2 620 620 100 1,925 3.10 130.09 57.56 44.2 6.50 5.0 16.69 12.8 49.34 37.9 16 0 -- -- -- =: -- -- -- -- -- 7 1 390 390 100 1,471 3.77 82.45 44.55 54.0 6.54 7.9 6.89 8.4 24.47 29.7 18 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 19 ] 390 390 100 1,304 3.34 71.82 38.93 54.2 3.46 4.8 5.93 8.3 23.50 32.7 20 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 21 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 22 ] 710 710 100 1,131 1.59 117.08 34.24 29.2 24.34 20.8 8.02 6.8 50.48 43.1 23 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 24 2 1,720 1,660 97 4,640 2.80 270.55 139.45 51.5 12.15 4.5 24.64 9.1 94.31 34.9 25 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 26 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- == == -- -- -- -- 27 ] 890 810 91 969 1.20 103.89 28.87 27.8 31.87 30.7 8.26 8.0 34.89 33.6 Total or average 93 13,990 13,680 98 37,923 Anti 2,787.24 1,138.32 40.8 160.43 5.8 572.30 20.5 916.19 32.9 ALL GRADES 6 1 60 60 100 49 82 5.96 1.45 24.3 24 4.0 Te95ie wala: 2.32 38.9 7 4 320 310 97 78) 2.52 71.82 23.52 32.7 2.64 3.7 18.15 25.3 27.51 38.3 8 13 830 820 99 2,131 2.60 185.06 64.25 34.7 5.35 2.9 52.72 28.5 62.74 33.9 9 7 1,600 1,510 94 4,228 2.80 352.81 126.99 36.0 7.21 2.0 OS iin rez 0) 123.44 35.0 10 24 2,480 2,470 100 6,947 2.81 524.87 208.33 39.7 22.60 4.3 141.71 = 27.0 152.23 29.0 1 26 3,980 3,930 99 12,347 3.14 870.84 370.18 42.5 37.53 4.3 S251 Zee eed 270.96 31.1 12 18 2,790 2,700 97 9,312 3.45 609.80 279.40 45.8 13.86 2.3 127.18 20.9 189.36 31.0 13 V7 3,480 3,420 98 9,985 2.92 649.72 299.63 46.1 15.29 2.4 127.95 19.7 206.85 31.8 14 21 5,300 5,180 98 18,244 3.52 1,051.43 546.32 52.0 25.03 2.4 175.26 16.7 304.82 29.0 15 12 3,470 3,310 95 10,002 3.02 633.90 301.65 47.6 21.87 3.4 93.77 14.8 216.61 34.2 16 15 4,780 4,710 99 15,655 3.32 858.64 469.49 54.7 25.79 3.0 116.26 813.5 247.10 28.8 17 8 3,030 2,950 97 10,407 3.53 569.98 312.90 54.9 23.98 4.2 70.08 12.3 163.02 28.6 18 10 4,750 4,530 95 15,351 3.39 815.81 459.85 56.4 22.15 ail 100.74 12.4 233.07 28.6 19 am 5,460 4,980 91 15,305 3.07 911.77 460.12 50.5 63.03 6.9 92.13. 10.1 296.49 32.5 20 4 2,660 2,660 100 8,601 3.23 405.01 258.28 63.8 6.97 1.7 31.61 7.8 108.15 26.7 21 5 3,250 3,190 98 10,762 3.37 549.57 324.04 59.0 26.35 4.8 39.11 7.1 160.07 29.1 22 4 2,670 2,560 96 7,714 3.01 445.62 230.49 51.7 33.52 7.5 32.19 7.2 149.42 33.5 23 ] 800 710 89 2,940 4.14 144.27 89.11 61.8 4.92 3.4 8.48 5.9 41.76 28.9 24 5 3,670 3,300 90 9,946 3.01 585.01 297.69 50.9 37.74 6.4 47.98 8.2 201.60 34.5 3 i 980 920 94 2,230 2.42 152.42 66.53 43.6 24.14 15.8 9.87 6.5 51.88 34.0 27 2 2,050 1,970 96 4,775 2.42 266.85 142.37 53.4 33.99 12.7 16.88 6.3 73.61 27.6 : 28 ] 950 950 100 2,601 2.74 127.99 78.78 61.6 4.61 3.6 5.67 4.4 38.93 30.4 otal or average 220 59,360 57,140 96 180,313 3.16 10,789.15 5,411.37 50.2 458.81 4.2 1,597.03 14.8 3,321.94 30.8
The percent of log cubic volume recovered as veneer, reject, core, and residual (figs. 9 and 10) shows essentially the same pattern as for blocks. Much of the drop in veneer recovery for large- diameter logs is associated with single 27-inch-diameter No. 3 Sawmill log (table 7).
PERCENT 60
SO VENEER
40 RESIDUAL 30
20
10
un
10 SES) 20 2s 30 DIAMETER (INCHES)
Figure 9.--Cubic volume of log compo- nents as a percent of log cubic volume over scaling diameter.
PERCENT 100 30 80 RESIDUAL 70 CORE 60 REJECT 50 VENEER
40
5 10 15 20 25 30 DIAMETER (INCHES)
Figure 10.--Cumulative cubic volume of log components as a percent of log cubic volume.
RECOVERY BY STAND
Stand condtttons and veneer recovery.-- Originally, the sample was set up to test whether there was any difference in yield between thinned and unthinned stands, or between the fast- growing, lightly-stocked stands and those with moderate to slow growth rates.
The fact that the two peeling thick- nesses were different in both recovery ratio and grade complicates this compari- son. Almost all of the timber from the thinned stands was peeled into 1/10-inch veneer. A large majority of the timber from stands with either slow or moderate early-growth rates was peeled into 1/6- inch veneer.
Veneer from thinned and unthinned stands.-- Linear regression analyses were run on the grade No. 2 Sawmill blocks peeled 1/10-inch from thinned and unthinned stands.
Dependent variables were:
1. Recovery ratio: square feet veneer (3/8-inch basis) per board feet (Scribner scale).
2. Cubic volume of veneer as a percent of block cubic volume.
3. Cubic volume of reject as a percent of block cubic volume.
4. Cubic volume of veneer and reject as a percent of block cubic volume with diameter as the independent variable.
Analysis of covariance determined that there was no statistically significant difference between the blocks from thinned and unthinned stands in any of these tests.
Fast-growing and slow-growing timber.--The same analyses were run on the lightly stocked and moderately or densely stocked stands, with all of the blocks peeled into 1/6-inch veneer. Again,
13
there were no significant differences in the amounts of veneer recovered.
Veneer grade and growth rate. -- Linear regression and analysis of covar- iance were run to test if there was any difference in veneer grade recovery between the lightly stocked and the mod- erately or densely stocked stands. The dependent variable was percent of grades A through C veneer with diameter as the independent variable. Both the slopes of the lines and the means of the lines (fig. 11) were different at the 1-percent probability level.
OTHER PRODUCTS
From the long logs brought to the mill for peeling there were 763 8-foot blocks peeled. In addition, there were sixty 8-foot blocks from 7 to 11 inches in diameter with a net scale of 1, 290 feet which were not peelable but were suitable
PERCENT 100
MODERATELY OR DENSELY STOCKED STANDS
30
80
70
60
S50
40
SLIGHTLY STOCKED STANDS 30
5 10 15 20 25 30 DIAMETER (INCHES)
Figure 11.--Percent of veneer in grades
A through C over diameter for blocks peeled 1/6-inch, by stocking.
14
for studs, and thirteen 4-foot blocks from 11 to 18 inches with a gross scale of 360 board feet suitable for peeling on a core lathe. There were also 739 peeler cores suitable for making studs and 34 suitable only for chipping.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Second-growth Douglas-fir does represent a resource suitable for the pro- duction of veneer, particularly in the structural sheathing grades.
The combination of peeling thickness and clipping patterns produced different veneer grade mixes, with a higher per- centage of grades A through C being pro- duced by clipping for these grades.
Clipping for grade caused a signifi- cant decline in the recovery ratio but no significant drop in the percent of block cubic volume recovered as veneer.
The differences in grade and recov- ery are partially a function of intended use. Veneer peeled 1/6-inch is used primarily for core and centers, and there is a tendency to "stretch" grade at the clipper. Full sheets of 1/10-inch veneer are much more susceptible to handling loss than are half sheets of 1/6-inch veneer, particularly in the lower grades. These two factors partially explain the differences in grade and volume recovery.
The lack of effect of thinning on recovery was expected. These thinnings were done only 12 years before cutting and, being the first in the area, were conservative.
The loss in grade associated with growth rate indicates the need for more and better information on this problem.
APPENDIX TABLES
Appendix 1.--Block distribution by veneer thickness, diameter, and grade (Number)
1/10-inch veneer
1/6-inch veneer
Block
diameter | No. 3 Peeler No. 3 Peeler
: : No. 2 No. 3 All ; No. 2 No. 3 All 9 0 0 ] 0 ] 0 (0) ] 0 ] 10 0 0 14 0 14 0 0 15 0 15 1] 0 0 20 0 20 0 0 50 0 50 12 0 35 0 0 35 0 56 0 0 56 13 0 25 ] ] 27 0 51 0 ] 52 14 0 30 2 0 32 0) 43 0 0 43 15 0 31 ] 0 32 0 4] 0 ] 42 16 0 22 0 0 22 0 37 ] 0 38 17 0 15 ] ] W7 0 3] ] 0 32 18 0 14 2 0 16 0 27 ] 0) 28 19 0 7 0 0 17 ] 21 ] 0 23 20 2 13 ] 0 16 ] 21 2 0 24 21 0 10 0 ] 1] ] 9 0 0) 10 22 3 9 2 ] 15 0 10 ] 0 1 23 2 4 2 0 8 ] 6 ] 0 8 24 3 3 ] 0 7 ] 8 ] 0 10 25 2 3 ] 0 6 ] 6 ] 0 8 26 0 ] ] 0 2 0 4 3 0 7 27 0 0 0 0 0 ] 2 2 0 5 28 0 ] 0 0 ] 0 3 3 0 6 29 0 2 ] 0 3 2 0 0 0 2 30 0 ] 0 0 ] 0 0 0 0 0
Total 12 236 5] 4 303 9 376 84 2 47]
15
Appendix 2a.--Veneer recovery by grade, item, and block grade, blocks peeled 1/10-inch (Square feet)
Veneer grade Veneer item NO. 3 PEELER Full sheets 68 68 0 311 1,040 506 1,993 29 Half sheets 0 0 0 146 228 88 462 82 Random width, 8 feet 1] 4 165 0 265 63 508 57 Random width, 4 feet 0 0 0 0 66 22 88 0 Total 79 72 165 457 1,599 679 3,051 168 SPECIAL PEELER Full sheets 10 19 10 311 Wes 283 «2,346 49 Half sheets 0 0 0 49 258 87 394 39 Random width, 8 feet 8 0 164 7 327 64 570 52 | Random width, 4 feet 0 0 0 0 109 35 144 0 | ne eg em enema Total 18 19 174 367 2,407 469 3,454 140 NO. 2 SAWMILL Full sheets 10 30 10 827 145905: 11/,333: 275115 867 Half sheets 0 0 0 261 4,94] 5,928 11,130 1,873 Random width, 8 feet 24 7 467 4 8,373 4,780 13,655 1,406 Random width, 4 feet 0 0 0 0 2,018 962 2,980 0 Total 34 37 477 1,092 30,237 23,003 54,880 4,146 | NO. 3 SAWMILL Full sheets 0 0 0 29 746 1,675 2,450 311 Half sheets 0 0 0 0 492 NE LTOF ae 602 576 Random width, 8 feet 0 0 60 0 1,460 1,174 2,694 246 Random width, 4 feet 0 0 0 0 304 194 498 0 Total 0 0 60 29 3,002 4,153 7,244 Ususs | CULL | Full sheets 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Half sheets 0 0 0 0 10 25 35 39 | Random width, 8 feet 0 0 32 0 49 42 123 45 |) Random width, 4 feet 0 0 0 0 46 22 68 0 | Total 0 0 32 0 105 89 226 84 i
Appendix 2b.--Veneer recovery by grade, item, and block grade,
blocks peeled 1/6-inch (Square feet)
Veneer grade
Veneer item Reject
NO. 3 PEELER Half sheets 0 0 68 1,302 1,033 313 2,716 76 Random width, 8 feet (0) 0 160 0 505 79 744 274 Random width, 4 feet 0 0 0 0 85 10 95 0 Total 0) 0 228 1,302 1,623 402 35565 350 SPECIAL PEELER Half sheets 0 0 0 93 956 389 1,438 5] Random width, 8 feet 0 0 38 0 151 135 324 23 Random width, 4 feet 0 0 0 0 52 28 80 0 Total 0 0 38 93 1,159 552 1,842 74 NO. 2 SAWMILL Half sheets 0 0) 0 3,304 32,971 32,946 69,221 1,691 Random width, 8 feet 0 0) 327 0 9,236 99420 195505 52105 Random width, 4 feet 0 0 0 0 2,044 1,940 3,984 20 Total 0 0 327 3,304 44,251 44,828 92,710 6,816 NO. 3 SAWMILL Half sheets 0 0 0 539 2,685 5,078 8,302 304 Random width, 8 feet 0 0 53 0 1,653 2,307 4,013 2,044 Random width, 4 feet 0) 0 0 0 328 367 695 46 Total 0 (0) 53 539 4,666 Toefl X2- NS AON. = 2 5c CULL Half sheets 0 0 0 0 127 101 228 0 Random width, 8 feet 0) 0 0 0 15 70 85 1] Random width, 4 feet 0) 0 0 0 25 3 28 0 Total 0 9 0 0) 167 174 341 1]
IZ
Appendix 3a.--Percent of veneer recovery by veneer grade and block grade, 1/10-inch veneer
arenetae Number of Total veneer, Veneer grade
Square feet }\{4£49 ---------- 99-22 ---------=-- PENCEN ban naan ae a
24 3 1,747 3.9 2.2 3F2 12.2 46.4 S21 25 2 1,304 8 2.5 8.4 18.6 60.6 9.1 Total or average 5 3,051 2.6 2.4 5.4 15.0 52.3 22.3 SPECIAL PEELER 20 2 867 0 0 6 Hine) Wilcox? 14.9 21 0 -- -- -- -- =- -- =~ 22 3 1,441 0 0 2.6 3 75.8 21.3 23 2 1,146 1.6 Ved 11.5 26.1 56.2 2.9 Total or average 7 3,454 a) -6 5.0 10.6 69.7 13.6 NO. 2 SAWMILL 12 35 3,339 0 0 «4 ar4 69.7 28.7 13 25 3,086 .d 0 25 3 lies 21.8 14 30 4,606 0 0 2 0 71.1 28.7 15 3] 5,425 0 0 4 4 69.0 30.2 16 22 4,781 0 0 oe) -6 71.2 27.9 7 15 3,484 0 0 3 a 60.5 38.9 18 14 3,805 0 5e 4 6a 46.7 51.9 19 7 5,251 ors 0 4 9 5325 45.0 20 13 4,306 ag 0 1161) 1.0 40.2 57.4 21 10 4,198 5] ae. 2.0 4.5 60.3 32.9 22 9 3,885 ] 3 1.8 5.1 36.6 56.1 23 4 2,036 0 0 4 ) Slav 67.9 24 3 981 0 0 1.0 Q 31.4 67.6 25 3 1,428 0 30 2.2 4 4.8 92.1 26 1 832 4 0 3.2 ids 7.3 81.4 27 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 28 1 836 0 0 4.1 4.1 17.9 73.9 29 2 1,638 0 0 2 6 60.6 38.6 30 ll 963 0 0 4.8 38.4 50.4 6.4 Total or average 236 54,880 ail ail 9 2.0 55.0 41.9 NO. 3 SAWMILL 9 1 22 0 0 0 0 77.3 22.7 10 14 768 0 0 22 0 67.9 29.9 im 20 1,516 0 0 1.1 7 82.0 16.2 12 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 13 ] 144 0 0 0 0 76.4 23.6 14 2 214 0 0 5358) 0 90.6 6.1 15 ] 188 0 0 0 0 46.8 53.2 16 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7 1 204 0 0 0 0 65.2 34.8 18 2 580 0 0 0 0 3.3 96.7 19 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 20 1 309 0 0 0 0 11.0 89.0 21 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 22 2 666 0 0 3 0 20.7 79.0 23 2 823 0 0 1 223 6.7 90.9 24 ] 140 0 0 6.4 0 3.6 90.0 25 ] 504 0 0 4 0 36.3 63.3 26 1 411 0 0 Tez: 0 8.3 90.5 27 0 == ae ne = 22 me — 28 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 29 ] 755 0 0 0 0 30.1 69.9 Total, _ average 51 7,244 0 0 8 4 41.4 57.4 CULL 13 ] 70 0 0 14.3 0 58.6 27.1 14 0 = = = -_ 4s a= <5 15 0 -- == =o = = tc a 16 0 -- mee = == == =: oe 17 1 8 0 0 0 0 25.0 75.0 18 0 -- —— =5 = = = =o 19 0 -- = — a= =4 =e a4 20 0 St = = = 5 = aa 21 ] 79 0 0 27.8 0 48.1 24.1 22 ] 69 0 0 0 0 34.8 65.2 Total or
average 4 226 0 0 14.2 0 46.4 39.4
Block diameter (inches)
Total or average
Total or average
Total or average
13
14
15 Total or
average
Appendix 3b.--Percent of veneer recovery by veneer grade and block grade, 1/6-inch veneer
Veneer grade
Total veneer, 3/8-inch basis
Number of blocks
Square feet = --------------------------- OFAC baeo tee ee Cooma NO. 3 PEELER il 621 0 0 0.8 54.4 39.3 55 1 611 0 0 4.7 54.1 38.6 2.6 0 i aS a => Ss rr mi 1 352 0 0 7.4 (258) 80.6 9.7 0 a= os =< os os cry oo 2 1,971 0 0 8.5 31.8 43.6 16.1 5 35555 0 0 6.4 36.6 45.7 Ass SPECIAL PEELER ] 425 0 ) 9 1.9 85.7 11.5 1 390 0 0 0 0 86.2 13.8 ] 492 0 0 6.9 0 69.9 23.2 0 es ca so XD — = -- 1 535 0 0 0 15.9 21.5 62.6 4 1,842 0 0 Zul 5.0 62.9 30.0 NO. 2 SAWMILL 56 5,254 0 0 0 6 61.9 37.5 51 6,022 0 0 al 1.4 63.2 O53 43 6,418 0 0 = 2.4 55.9 41.4 4] 7,363 0 0 AZ 2 46.5 53m 37 8,723 0 0 all 1.0 46.6 5255 31 8,572 0 0 0 1.6 50.6 47.8 27 8,732 0 0 6 4.6 51.1 43.7 21 6,983 0 0 os 2.0 38.9 58.8 21 8,347 0 0 a) 9.8 ae) 38.1] 9 3,943 0 0 0 2.3 40.2 57.5 10 4,24] 0 0 72 1.6 34.3 63.9 6 3,431 0 0 2 2.0 41.8 56.0 8 4,457 0 0 8 4.4 39.4 55.4 6 3,995 0 0 3a 6.8 58.0 35.0 4 2,577 0 0 2.3 23.0 32.9 41.8 2 1,247 0 0 4 8.8 15.2 75.6 3 2,405 0 0 1.0 Ved 29.6 (Woz 376 92,710 0 0 4 3h6) 47.7 48.3 NO. 3 SAWMILL 1 42 0 0 0 0 76.2 23.8 15 1,047 0 0 0 0 56.3 43.7 50 3,908 0 0 0 6 60.2 39.2 0 os at a2 23 we = 22 0 us me ie ans oe oe ae 0 ws ee Be Le os == oe 0 se ie es = a ee se 1 91 0 0 ) 0 0 100.0 1 332 0 0 0 0 iol) 88.9 1 222 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 ] 97 0 0 0 0 4.1 95.9 & 700 0 0 0 0 8.7 91.3 ] 378 0 0 0 0 19.3 80.7 1 517 0 0) 0 0 13.9 86.1 1 573 0 0 0 1.4 20.9 Ua 1 592 0 0 0 1.4 29.2 69.4 3 1,399 0 0 0 3.0 24.2 72.8 2 827 0 0) 0 0 2.4 97.6 3 2,285 0 0 Posh 20.0 34.7 43.0 84 13,010 0 0 4 4.1 35.9 59.6 CULL H 110 0 0 0 0 41.8 58.2 1 231 0 0 0 0 52.4 47.6 2 341 0 0 0 0 49.0 51.0
19
Appendix 4a.--Veneer recovery and cubic volumes, by block grade and diameter, 3/8-inch basis, 1/10-inch veneer.
Block Scribner scale Veneer, diameter Maeno Pereene 3/8-inch Recovery Block Veneer Reject Core Residual (inches) Gross Net basis
---Board feet---- Square feet; ©. wenn nnn nnn nnn n= == -=------ Cubie feet-------------------- NO. 3 PEELER 24 3 630 590 94 1,747 2.96 83.16 53.00 3.49 5.26 21.41 25 2 460 420 91 1,304 3.10 74.52 39.57 1.60 3.42 29.93 Total aa a a er a a a ee eae ae, a EE a OE eee average 5 1,090 1,010 93 3,051 3.02 157.68 92.57 5.09 8.68 51.34 SPECIAL PEELER 20 2 280 280 100 867 3.10 42.10 26.29 0 3.48 12.33 21 0 -- -- -- -- -- == == 22 2S => 22 3 510 470 92 1,441 3.07 70.68 43.71 3.83 5.25 17.89 23 2 380 340 89 1,146 3.37 52.71 34.73 4] 3.55 14.02 Total or average 7 1,170 1,090 93 3,454 3.17 165.49 104.73 4.24 12.28 44.24 NO. 2 SAWMILL 12 35 1,400 1,400 100 3,339 2.38 259.02 101.11 9.04 62.5] 86.36 13 25 1,250 1,230 98 3,086 2.51 215.23 93.39 3.65 45.76 72.43 14 30 1,800 1,800 100 4,606 2.56 292.19 139.37 6.17 51.38 95.27 15 31 2,170 2,170 100 5,425 2.50 346.88 164.34 10.50 55.95 116.09 16 22 1,760 1,750 99 4,78] 2.73 280.56 144.80 6.32 38.14 91.30 7 15 1,350 1,310 97 3,484 2.66 221.11 105.65 6.90 33.64 74.92 18 14 1,540 1,500 97 3,805 2.54 219.66 115.49 8.44 24.16 71.57 19 7 2,040 1,890 93 5,251 2.78 306.20 159.11 8.79 44.87 93.43 20 13 1,820 1,660 91 4,306 2.59 264.21 130.45 10.22 39.77 83.77 21 10 1,500 1,410 94 4,198 2.98 212.87 127.29 6.18 17.79 61.61 22 9 1,530 1,470 96 3,885 2.64 212.88 117.75 13.18 15.96 65.99 23 4 760 760 100 2,036 2.68 105.56 61.75 3.09 7.02 33.70 24 3 630 490 78 981 2.00 81.34 29.69 12.65 5.98 33.02 25 3 690 690 100 1,428 2.07 94.07 43.22 11.98 5.46 33.41 26 ] 250 250 100 832 3.33 37.60 25.24 96 1.83 9.57 27 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- == -- =m 28 ] 290 220 76 836 3.80 47.91 25.33 2.57 3.07 16.94 29 2 620 620 100 1,638 2.64 78.66 49.60 3.87 3.40 21.79 | 30 1 330 330 100 963 2.92 49.33 29.18 74 2.27 17.14 Total or average 236 21,730 20,950 96 54,880 2.62 3,325.28 1,662.76 125.25 458.96 1,078.31 | g , NO. 3 SAWMILL | 9 1 20 20 100 22 1.10 5.86 -67 Sill 1.85 3.23 10 14 420 420 100 768 1.83 77.79 23.35 1.26 26.13 27.05 ! 11 20 600 600 100 1,516 2.53 123.88 45.79 2.68 37.02 38.39 [ 12 0 = a= a aS os = = ao == == 13 1 50 50 100 144 2.88 8.69 4.34 sui 1.76 2.44 ! 14 2 120 100 83 214 2.14 17.49 6.47 56 3.46 7.00 15 1 70 70 100 188 2.69 11.67 5.71 54 1.70 3.72 16 0 = = == =e == = oo _ = a 7 1 90 50 56 204 4.08 14.84 6.17 -52 1.70 6.45 , Is 2 220 220 100 580 2.64 38.93 17.58 1.12 3.72 16.51 0 = == = = =" = ao = = =e 20 1 140 140 100 309 2.21 17.59 9.34 2.60 1.69 3.96 0 2 == =e as == oe a a5 oe aS 22 2 340 340 100 666 1.96 48.37 20.19 6.09 4.10 17.99 23 2 380 380 100 823 2.17 52.26 24.99 7.54 3.46 16.27 24 1 210 210 100 140 .67 28.26 4.24 8.44 1.94 13.64 25 1 230 230 100 504 2.19 29.73 15.26 -55 3.87 10.05 26 ] 250 230 92 411 1.79 36.44 12.41 1.23 8.70 14.10 27 0 == me ae ae == = aS =o =e a t 28 0 ot ne = 2 = a oz ae ag 3 \ 29 1 310 270 87 755 2.80 41.92 22.89 -83 1.83 16.37 | Total or ! average 51 3,450 3,330 97 7,244 2.18 553.72 219.40 34.22 102.93 197.17 I CULL i 13 ] 50 0 0 70 -- 9.65 2.14 0 6.14 137 14 0 =o Ss =o = ze oe _ a =: =o | 15 0 ae a = aS = = = = = = { 16 0 -- -- oc ac — = == a5 25 = 7 ] 90 0 0 8 -- 18.97 25 0 0 18.72 i 18 0 -- -- == = =< == = == == = | 19 0 -- -- -- = a =e si <= = = 20 0 -- = -- sc = =o os = a = 21 ] 150 0 0 79 -- 21.12 2.37 2.43 6.76 9.56 22 ] 170 0 0 69 -- 25.40 2.08 12 16.71 6.49 Total or average 4 460 0 0 226 -- 75.14 6.84 2.55 29.61 36.14
20
Appendix 4b.--Veneer recovery and cubic volumes, by block grade and diameter, 3/8-inch basis, 1/6-inch veneer
Block Scribner scale Veneer, Aiaeeeee Number of Percent 3/8-inch Recovery Reject Core Residual 7 blocks sound a ratio (inches) basis ----Board feet---- SQ UCC TS CCL a ae Cubie feet---------------------- NO. 3 PEELER 24 1 210 210 100 621 2.96 27.67 18.52 76 2.02 6.37 25 1 230 230 100 611 2.66 35.56 18.17 1.67 3.45 12.27 26 0 -- = -- -- -- == -- == on -- 27 1 270 270 100 352 1.30 40.96 10.49 6.75 3.05 20.67 28 0 oF oo os sia oo a = a a So 29 2 620 620 100 1,971 3.18 88.47 58.76 1.25 4.48 23.98 Total or average 5 1,330 1,330 100 3,555 2.67 192.66 105.94 10.43 13.00 63.29 SPECIAL PEELER 19 1 120 120 100 425 3.54 17.52 12.68 0 2.00 2.84 20 1 140 140 100 390 2.79 19.50 11.61 0 2.02 5.87 21 1 150 120 80 492 4.10 24.36 14.66 44 2.00 7.26 22 0 -- =- == -- ae Saeed cael oS ao oD 23 1 190 190 100 535 2.82 25.56 15.92 1.77 2.10 5.77 Total or ——————————— average 4 600 570 95 1,842 3.23 86.94 54.87 2.21 8.12 21.74 NO. 2 SAWMILL 12 56 2,240 2,180 97 5 254 2.4] 412.87 156.77 17.57 111.52 127.01 13 51 2,550 2,490 98 6,022 2.42 435.51 179.66 16.76 105.82 133.27 14 43 2,580 2,490 97 6,418 2.58 427.27 191.57 13.29 88.59 133.82 15 4] 2,870 2,840 99 7,363 2.59 459.83 219.76 14.45 80.85 144.77 16 37 2,960 2,930 99 8,723 2.98 479.34 260.04 11.06 74.06 134.18 7 31 2,790 2,740 98 8,572 3.13 457.31 255.91 12.67 65.99 122.74 18 27 2,970 2,910 98 8,732 3.00 438.25 260.63 10.11 53.48 114.03 19 21 2,520 2,450 97 6,983 2.85 379.88 208.34 15.03 55.51 101.00 20 21 2,940 2,920 99 8,347 2.86 429.01 248.94 21.52 41.49 117.06 21 9 1,350 1,320 98 3,943 2.99 205.23 117.40 4.36 18.77 64.70 22 10 1,700 1,700 100 4,241 2.49 238.16 126.56 16.91 20.38 74.31 23 6 1,140 1,140 100 3,431 3.01 155.73 102.18 3.23 13.18 37.14 24 8 1,680 1,680 100 4,457 2.65 235.38 132.89 11.36 16.99 74.14 25 6 1,380 1,320 96 3,995 3.03 194.70 119.10 4.65 14.86 56.09 26 4 1,000 1,000 100 2,577 2.58 146.12 76.82 13.79 9.44 46.07 27 2 540 540 100 1,247 2.31 71.46 37.22 8.12 4.67 21.45 28 3 870 870 100 2,405 2.76 111.07 71.74 8.34 6.16 24.83 Total on —-_Aq—e iii aon mn average 376 34,080 33,520 98 92,710 2.77 SEZ lenmes 709.503). 203.22 781.76 1,526.61 NO. 3 SAWMILL 9 1 20 20 100 42 2.10 5.07 1.26 .04 2.02 (975 10 15 440 440 100 1,047 2.38 88.51 31.31 3.10 28.86 25.24 ui 50 1,510 1,480 98 3,908 2.64 320.23 116.88 14.24 98.77 90.34 2 0 = = ao as ae = = Be ae Ss 13 0 = a8 = oo ce = es = = ze 14 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 15 0 oo = =e = = = =o = = = 16 1 80 80 100 91 1.14 14.38 2.74 1.72 2.90 7.02 17 1 90 90 100 332 3.69 15.26 9.92 19 2.02 3.13 18 1 110 110 100 222 2.02 17.02 6.61 .98 1.98 7.45 19 1 120 60 50 97 1.62 18.39 2.88 2.55 8.49 4.47 oY é 280 280 100 700 2.50 41.02 20.89 1.85 3.74 14.54 22 1 170 170 100 378 2.22 24.47 11.30 (ack) 2.21 8.43 23 1 190 190 100 517 2.72 26.45 15.41 93 2.00 8.11 24 1 210 210 100 573 2.73 28.35 17.11 .80 2.08 8.36 25 1 230 230 100 592 2.57 31.65 17.68 1.44 2.19 10.34 26 3 750 750 100 1,399 1.87 101.72 41.71 15.80 6.84 37.37 27 2 540 540 100 827 Uses) 71.32 24.67 8.69 5.63 22.33 28 3 870 790 91 2,285 2.89 131.39 68.16 6.40 8.20 48.63 Total or average 84 5,610 5,440 97 13,010 2.39 935.23 388.53 71.26 177.93 297.51 CULL ls i 50 0 0 110 -- 8.74 3.30 34 1.94 3.16 15 1 70 0 0 23) -- 11.15 6.90 0 1.82 2.43 (0.2 0 ee eS Ss ss es =a average 2 120 0 0 341 -- 19.89 10.20 34 3.76 5.59
21
Appendix 5.--Veneer recovery by grade, item, and log grade (Square feet)
Veneer grade
SPECIAL PEELER
Veneer item Reject
Full sheets 78 39 0 282 1,877 721 2,997 78 Half sheets 0 0 0 114 7,555 228 1,897 121 Random width, 8 feet 8 0 238 7 519 188 960 124 Random width, 4 feet 0 0 0 0 145 56 201 0 Total 86 39 238 403 4,096 1,193 6,055 323
NO. 2 SAWMILL Full sheets 10 78 20 1,128 13,720 10,465 25,421 641 Half sheets 0 0 68 5,364 34,222 36,368 76,022 2,979 Random width, 8 feet 33 4 181383 4 15,162 12,633 28,969 6 ,000 Random width, 4 feet 0 0 0 0 3,476 2,447 5,923 14 Total 43 82 e22i 6,496 66,580 61,913 136,335 9,634
NO. 3 SAWMILL Full sheets 0 0 0 68 2,807 2,611 5,486 537 Half sheets 0 0 0 216 7,924 9,469 17,609 1,631 Random width, 8 feet 2 7 95 0 6,353 5,835 12,292 3,139 Random width, 4 feet 0 0 0 0 1,456 1,080 2,536 52 Total 2 7 95 284 18,540 18,995 37 ,923 5,359
sx U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1974—798-706 /103 REGION 10
*Ilj-se[snoq ‘ese pueys ‘(A19A0001) S1990UeA :sprOMADY
: *possnosip st . AJOAODII OPVIS LOOUDA UO SOl[QeIIeA pues [BIOAVS Jo JD9TTq ; *ss0] puw SYOOTq YJOq OJ ‘sAO0UEA YOUI-9/T puUe YOUI-0T /T IO} UDAIS 018 ATOAODOI Opeis pues ouINjOA “jue{[d TO9UNA & 4e ITJ-Se[snog YIZMOIS-puoodes wiorj ATOAODOI S}IOdeI STyL
: *u0s01Q0 ‘pue[j1og ‘uoT}ei9
: JUOWLLOdxy osueYy pUe jSOIOW JSOMYIION OTjLOVd
- *snqjt ‘°d 2% “§LI-MNd ‘ded ‘sey ‘Atog “104 yasn
: *I1J-Se[snoqg YWoOIs-puodes WioTjJ ATOAODIA TIOUZA = FLET
i ‘gq sewoyy ‘Aoye7
°° e ° e ° ° ° ° ° e e e e ° e e ° e e ° e e ° e e e e ° ° e
*IljJ-se[snoqg ‘ese pueys ‘(ATOAOOEL) S190UNA ‘:spLoMmA0y
*poessnosip st ; ALOAODOL OPVAS TBOUSA UO SOTQeVIIVA pUeYS [¥IOADS JO 4OOIJW : *ssO[ pue SYOOTG YO IOJ ‘saTooUeA YOUT-9/T pue YoUlI-OT/T : IO} UDATS 91 ATOAOOOL Opeis pue oUINTOA *yUe[d TOOUSA & 430 IIJ-Se[snog YIZMoI8-puodes WOT} ATOAOOOA S}LOded SIYL,
*u0s01IQ SpuetZlog ‘uoT}e419 JUOWIIOdxY osuey pue jSOIOY JSOMUJION OTJloVed . “Snir ‘°d ZZ “S1T-MNd “ded “sey “Atog “104 yasn : *IIJ-Se[Snoq YWoIS-puodes WOT} ATOAODOL AVOUOA = LET ° ‘q sewouy SAoye 7
*IIj-se[snog ‘ese pueys *(A19A0002) S190U0A :sproMADY
*peSSNnosIp SI ALIOAOIOL VPVIS LOBUSA UO SOI[QeIIVA pUe\S [B1EAOS JO 4OOTIT ‘SSO puwe SYOOTG YOG OJ ‘s1oo9UeA YOUI-9/T pue YOUI-OT/T IOJ UOATS 918 ATOAODIA Opeirs pue oWUINTOA *yUe{d LIO9USA & 4e IlJ-Se[snog YyWo1s-puodes WOATJ ATOAODEA S}1Ode1 SIY,L
*uoseIQ ‘puelJIOg ‘UOT}e1¢ JUSWIIIEdxXY osuey pues JSOIOY JSOMYIION OTJIOVd *snqt ‘°d 2g ‘E1T-MNd “ded “soy ‘Ateg “104 yasn *IIJ-SB[SNOG YIMOIS-puooss WOT} ATOAODSI JO9UEA °FLET ‘q sewoyy ‘Aoyey
“IIjJ-seisnog ‘e8e pueys ‘(A1eAO000A) SIE0UDA :SpLOMASyI
*possnosip st AJOAODII 9PVIS TOOUBA UO Sol[qeIAVA pUeIS [BIOAVS JO JOOFIA ‘sso] pue Syoo[q yOq OJ ‘saZeouUeA YOUT-9/T pue YOUT-OT/T IOJ USAIS 01e ATOAODII opers pue ouINjOoA “JueT[d To9UeA B ye IlJ-se[snog yWMor1s-puodes wor ATEeAODEL SjLOdet STYL
*uoseIQ ‘pueysog ‘uoryeig JUOWIIIOdxY osuey pue 4SOI0O,J JSOMUIION OIjlOVd *snqtt ‘°d ZZ ‘ELT-MNd “ded “sey “Ateg “104 VaSN *IIJ-SB][snog YMo1s-puodes Worf ATOAODII TOOU9A =* PLT *‘q seumoyy SAoye
ee
ee ee
naieiietaeie
The mission of the PACIFIC NORTHWEST FOREST AND RANGE EXPERIMENT STATION is to provide the knowledge, technology, and alternatives for present and future protection, management, and use of forest, range, and related environments.
Within this overall mission, the Station conducts and stimulates research to facilitate and to accelerate progress toward the following goals:
1. Providing safe and efficient technology for inventory,
protection, and use of resources.
2. Development and evaluation of alternative methods and levels of resource management.
3. Achievement of optimum sustained resource produc- tivity consistent with maintaining a high quality forest environment.
The area of research encompasses Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and, in some cases, California, Hawaii, the Western States, and the Nation. Results of the research will be made available promptly. Project headquarters are at:
Fairbanks, Alaska Portland, Oregon Juneau, Alaska Olympia, Washington Bend, Oregon Seattle, Washington Corvallis, Oregon Wenatchee, Washington
La Grande, Oregon
Mailing address: Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station P.O. Box 3141 Portland, Oregon 97208
The FOREST SERVICE of the U. S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of multiple use management of the Nation's forest resources for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, co- operation with the States and private forest owners, and man- agement of the National Forests.and National Grasslands, it strives — as directed by Congress — to mo increasingly greater service to a growing Nation.