REPORT OF
ROYAL COMiVIISSION
IN RESPECT TO
LUMBER
INDUSTRY
.
1927
FREDE~RICT9N
1927.
>
-
N.
&
REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSIONIN RESPECT TO
LUMBER INDUSTRY, 1927’.
To His Honor the Lieutenant-Goserwf, the Hon,orable the Premief
and Members of the E~ecutiue Council of the Province of Neao
Bruns,wiek.
Sirs :
In compliance with the following Commission, viz.,
“NEW BRUNSWIlCK.
“GEORGE ‘THE FIFTH, by the GR<ACE OF GOD, of the
4UNI”T%D KINGDlOM of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND
“and of the BRITISH .DOMINI~ONS BEYOND THE SEAS,
“KING, Defend-er of the Faith, &c., &c.,
“TO all to whom these <resents shall come,
‘SGREETING :
.
“WHEREAS, representations have been made to the Govern“ment by various Lumber Operators that. the Lumber Industry
“in the Province is in an unsatisfactory condition and that a
“serious re,:luction in this industry will take place unless relief
“be granted in respect of Stumpage Rates or other charges, and
“WHEREAS, it i)s thought desirable that an Enquiry be held
“into the various conditions affecting the lumber industry, in“eluding cost of operation and all factors contributing there“to, market conditions, and generally any matters affecting the
“Lumber Industry in the Province.
“NOW KNOW YE, that WE, reposing especial trust and confidence
“in the loyalty, ability and integrity of our true and upright Member
“of our Supreme Court, Honourable W. C. Hazen Grimmer and Fred
“C. Beattelay, Esquire, have appointed, commissioned and WE do by
“THESE PRESENTS appoint, commission and declare them, the
“said Honourable W. C. Hazen Grimmer and Fred C. Beatteay, to be
“Commissioners, to hold an investigation or enquiry into the said mat“ter, under the provisions of said Chapter 12 of the Consolidated
“Statutes of New Brunswick, 1903, with all the powers conferred
“upon them by virtue of said Chapter, and that they do make a re-
“turn at the close of said investigation of their finding in the said
“matter, to. the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.
“IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF we have caused these Our LE’TTERS
“to be made Patent and the GREAT SEAL of Our said
“Province of New Brunswick to be hereunto affixed. WITKNESS our ‘Trustv and Well Belovel His Honour the Hon(L.S.j “ourable WILLIAM F. TODD, LL.D., LieutenantaGovernor
“Of our said Province, at FREDERICTON, the FOURTH
“day of OCTOBER, in the Year of Our Lord One Thous“and Nine Hundred and Twenty-six, and in the SEVEN“TEENTH Year of His Majesty’s Reign.
‘\
.
“BY COMMAND OF THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR.
“ANTOINE J. LEGER,
Provincial Secretary-Treasurer.”
We held sessions at Fredericton, Campbellton, Bathurst, Chatham, Moncton and St. Johh. We took aevic!ence at all these points,
examining forty-eight witnesses, among them all of the large lumber
operators as well as many of the smaller ones (including operators
of portable mills) and the operators of the pulp and paper mills in
the Province. Appended is our Report, wherein we deal with the
conditions as they were presented to,us in accordance with the’
terms of your reference.
We have the hon,or to be, Sirs,
.
Your obedient servants,
. :. .i_
_ 1
(Sgd.) W. C. HAZEN GRIMMER.
(Sgd.) FRED C. BEATTEAY.
Commissiorbers.
-.
I~troductio/n‘
I
\
To assist the investigation, shorten the enquiry and lessen expense, we submitted *to the witnesses called before us, questionnaires,
giving at least one week’s notice to each witness interested, as the
case might be, to enable him to make a proper examination of his
books .and business, and equip himself with full information, in order
that the best possible and most correct statement of the actual facts
in connection with the several branches of the lumber industry during the year 1926 might be *supplied. In doing this we notified the witnesses that the enquiry w,ould be #of a strictly private and confidential
nature, and that the evidence given would only be used by us in making up our report.
(Questiommire No. I.)-Lumber,
I. What i,s the cost of logs on bank (cutting, yarding and hauling) ?
2.. What is the cost of driving logs to mill?
3. What is the cost of sorting, rafting &nd boomage?
*
4. What is the cost of delivery to mill slip?
~45. What is the cost of sawing, sorting and piling lumber, (including
mill supplies) ?
6. What is the cost of loading on cars or delivery to the steamer?
4 What ;is the cost of Workmen’s Compensation on logging, driving,
.,rr 4
manufacturing and shipping?
u, 8. What is the cost of interest charges on lo& until sawn?
9. What is the cost of interest charges on lumber until shipped and
paid for (average) b
10. What is the cost of interest charges on Crown Land Licenses?
11. What is the cost of interest charges on plant?
12. What is the cost of insurance and taxes? ’
13. What is the cost of repairs to plant?
14. What is the colst of salaries and office expenses?
15. How does your scale hold out (Govt. Scale) ; how much lumber
do you get from 1,000 ft. logs (Govt. scale) ?
16. What percentage of lumber asawn is 9 inch and up?
17. What is the market price f. o. b. for such specifications?
1.8. HOW many laths do you get with 100 M. lumber sawn?
j9. HOW much do your laths cost to manufacture and load <on cars or
f’. o. b. vessel?
20. What is the present value of laths f. o. b. shipping point?
21. What is the cost per &I of cedar logs delivered at mill slip (not
including stumpage) ?
0
22. What does it cost to manufacture and 1sbip shingles?
23. What is the average price of said shingles f. o. b. shipping point?
Page Fifve
(Questionnaim No. 2.)--Uardwood Lumber,
I. Cost of logs at mill per M. (Hardwood) ?
,
2. Cost of sawing, sorting and piling?
3. Cost *of handling, piling, drying and loading per M?
4. Cost of Workmen% Compensation?
*
5. Cost of interest on logs until sawn per M?
6. Gost of interest on lumber until shippe3 and paid for per M?
7. Cost of interest on plant?
8. Cost of insurance and taxes per M?
9. Cost #of repairs to plant per M?
10. Cost of salaries and office expenses per M?
11. How does your scale hold out- i.e. how many feet of lumber do
you get from 1,000 ft. logs Government scale?
’
1.2. What is the average market price f.o.b. shipping point all grades
including culls and also including ties all grades with
culls, per M s. f. ?
13. What do you figure pe,r M for depletion of lands?
14. What do you figure per M for depletion of plant?
15. Have you any suggestions to make regarding the administration
of Crown Lands especially with reference to hardwood?
16.’ Interest charges on Crown Lands?
L u m b e r .Industry.
Looking at the questions submitted as above it will lbe observed
that they deal minutelv and in detail with ever-v phase of the lumber’
industry as conducted in this Province, the object aimed at being
to ascertain the actual cost pet thousand feet of lumber and the average net selling price for same for the year 1926. The result of the
evidence so obtained, based upon the stumpn.ge rates for that year, is
summarized in the anhexed statement, from which it clearlg appears
and your Commission finds, that in twenty-four opera,tions upon
Crown Lands there uas an average net loss <of $5.54 per thousand feet
including refuse lumber a,nd laths. Also that in fourteen operations
upon freehold lands there was a net loss of sixty cents per thousand
feet including refuse and laths. Further, the result from eight operations upon Crown Lands in the production of shingles, which included practically all of the operations for shingles upon Crown Lands,
shows an average net 10~~s of $6.08 per thoulsand feet of logs, and’
from four operations in this respect upon freehold lands, there appears an average net profit ,of $1.88 per thousand feet.
In respect to hardwood operations so far as examined, the result
of the evidence taken ,shows an average net loss of ‘$3.62 per thousand
feet ,of logs.
Page Six
Pulp jand Papiw.
A considerabie development has taken place in this industry with4
in the pa,st few years, nad there xare now in ‘operation in this Province
four chemical pulp mills, one kraft paper mill and one ground wood
pulp mill. The prospect, however, seems to .point to a further and increased interest in this project possibly in the near future, all of
which means the greater necessity for measures of protection being
cast around the Crown Land holdings, to which more reference is
made in the succeeding pages of this report, accompanied with recomtiendations,
‘The lumber industry, and more particularly the saw-mill industry, during-recent years has steadily declined, due no doubt to general
economic world conditions and want of a foreign market. Pulp and ’
paper, on the contrary, has flourished and developed greatly, but the
industry iIs capable of much greater expansion in this Province, our
lumber being largely of the particular kinds used in the manufacture
of the highest grades &of paper, and our annual growth undoubtedly
equal to that of any other part of Canada. There is material in
abundance, and a prospect of development of our waterways to supply the necessary power and offer inducement to capital seeking investment. If this assistance was, or could be, made such as to lead
to the establishment of more paper mills in order that the pulp produced in the Province would be manufactured there instead of seeking a foreign market as at present, a solution of the probjlem would
be found, and great prosperity would result, The evidence obtained
convinces us that a profit haIs been made in ‘both the production of
pulp and paper even as things are, but under the conditions herein
outlined, an entirely new aspect would a.ttend the industry, much
more labor would be employed within our bounds, and new towns
would spring up, materially addin g to the general pr,osperity, as
the industry would be fixed upon a solid foundation and placed in
a po’sition where it could compet*e successfully with any other pulp
and paper proposition.
,
Retiised Beale
. Incidental to the lumber industry are some phases of the matter
we have .also considered, ,one of ~which is the question of a revised
scale. Of forty witnesses examined, th’irty of them strongly favored
the scale being revised. Two Crown Land operators were non-committal; four operators of freehold la.nds were also non-committal; three operating on their own lands were likewisle non-com’ mittal, and one operating ltirgely on freehold expressed himself as
satisfied with present conditions. The chief source of complaint came
from the scale in relation to small logs, it being evident and we find
Pa,ge &ven
‘that beyond all reasonable doubt logs under 8” in diameter at the
top end unless practically perfect, .will not hold out so as to give the
operator ,a thousand feet of manufactured lumber such as he iIs entitled to under his contract. In the pavment of stumpage, the examination of the statistics we have furnished positively proves that
twenty-one out of twenty-four licens,e holders and operators upon
Crown Lands were unable to make the scale thev were subjected to
hold out, or produce by many thousands of feet-the volume of lumber they were paying stumpage for. Out of fourteen operators upon
freehold lands eight were likewise unable to obtain their quantum
of measurement.
We therefore recommend that the scale be revised to meet the
conditions as they now exist in respect to all operations upon Crown
Lands.
Tenqre of Leases.
In view of the vital necessity of maintaining the forest as a continual source of revenue to the Province, th.e same being its most
valuable asset, and which unless protected in a practical and reasonable manner mu,st inevitably, very materially depreciate under the
natural and physical assaults annually made upon it, we discussed
and considered the question of the tenure of leases from many different aspects. We are convinced from the evidence given that for
the purpose of restoring and stabilizing the. lumber industry in this
Province and inducing new capital t,o come in, some arrangement
should be made, or some m&hod devised and entered into whereby
a reasona,ble guarantee may be ‘assured the investors that the best
and fullest opportunity will be afforded them to make good, while
at the same time in no way detracting from the value the Crown now
possesses in its forest lands. To accomplish this we beg to recommend that whereas existing licenses expire in I-933, subject, however,
by existing legislation so far as pulp and paper licenses are concern‘ed to an extension of twenty years, and sa.w-mill licenses to ten years
from that date, the said licenses be respectivelv extenden for a period of from forty to fifty years from the date of their said expiration
in 1933; and also that the operations upon the Crown Lands shall
not be permitteed to excee#d the estimated or ascertained annual
growth thereof.
12” Xtump .&iameter j!Linzit.
In view of a po’ssible extension of the leases under the recommendation made, w’e consider it advisable and desirable in so far as
I “pulp and paper licenses” are concerned that the stump limit diameter be eliminated entirely under such regulations as the Crown
Land D,epartment may approve. In respect to “saw-mill licenses” in
areas where timber has reached maturity that permits be issued auPage Eight
thorizing the cutting ,of undersized trees under approved regulations,
and in sections wher,e “blow-downs’? have occurred, that the removal
of the same be encouraged by a reduction .of the stumpage if necesh
sary, especially in saw-mill operations, thereby salvaging the lumber, obviating the fire hazard, and furnishing young trees a much
better opportunity for reproduction and growth.
stumpage on, #oft Woods.
For the purpose of further assisting in the stabilization of the
lumber industry, and inducing new capital to seek an outlet in the
Province, from the information gained in our investigation, we further recommend that the rate of stumpage on all soft wood ,timbers
be fixed for a period of not less than five yearts at $3.00 per M feet
for spruceb fir, pine and hacmatac, $2.50 per M feet for hemlock, and
$1.75 per M feet for poplar logs. In respect to cedar, inasmuch as we
are satisfied that all the operators in this class of lumber sustained
very heavy losses in 1926, it is imperative if the operations are to be
continued that a reduction in stumpage in this respect should be
made, we therefore recommend that the rate on cedar be fixed at $2.50
per M feet.
8tumpage on/ Hardwood.
We are firmly ,of the opinion’ the development of the hardwood
business is one of the coming important sources of revenue of this
Province, but to permanently establish the industry, attract new
operators and strengthen the hands of those already embarked in the
business, it will have to be carefully fostered and inducements offered -to make the proposition more attractive than it is at present, .
We are informed from what we believe are reliable sources that the
quality of hardwoods in New Brunswick is not in all respects up to
the standard of the Ontario and Quebec production, but it is suffica
iently valuable to make and maintain a very substantial industry,
particularly ‘as the inferior grades can be used for many marketable
purposes, such as clothes pins, toys, axe-handles, peavy handles, barrels, refrigerators, an endless variety of common chairs, and other
things. At the present time there are four furniture factories in Nova
Scotia, nineteen in Quebec, ninety-eight in Ontario and none in our
Province, while there are in the neighboring State of Maine 249 factories manufacturing hardw,ood, which in 1926 used 74,188,OOO feet of
hardwood lumber. With the admittedly tremendous quantity of hardwoods in our forests amounting by the approximate estimate of the
Department of Lands & Mines in 1924 to 4,480,OOO~OUO merchantable
feet, as compared with 5,OOO,OOO,QOO of merchantable feet of soft
woods of all kinds, it is clearly apparent there is ample opportunity
to have a great and prosperous industry developed. We are satisfied
Page Nine
that if the Department w,ould give th;is subject careful study and fake
measures to fully and properly advertise the hardwood prospects of
the Province, and offer sufficient inducements, new industries in this
line could be persuaded to locate herein, Wle: find in the logging
~season of 1923-e the’ stumpage rate on hardwood was $1.25. In 1924-5
it Wats the same, and in 1925-6 it was $2. But during the present lomg
ging season ,of 1926-7 it has bNc$en increased to $4. per thousand feet,
We have not beea;informe,d why this was done, the industry being in
its infancy, but we are convinced from the evidence taken that it has
worked I a
. hardship upon operators who were seeking to dqelop this
class of business, in sqo. much that in the year 1926 there was an aver
age net loss of $3.62 per thousand feet in the two largest manufactor
ies of hardwood in operation in the Province. From the .conditions,
therefore, as we have investigated them, from what we are fully con
vinced are the possibilities in this respect, for the purpose of attract-, .
-ing more capital, for the purpose of stabilizing the business in establishing and inducing new industries, we unhesitatingly rscommend
that the stumpage rate of hardwood Ishould not be more than $2. per
thousand feet, and that the rate be fixed for a period of not less than
five years.
While we arc 8satisfied that a greats deal of attention has been
paid to this branch of the service in recent years and a very large
amount of valuable aid has been given by the Depa.rtment of Lands
and Mines to the pro&&ion of the forests from fire, much sublstantial,
good resulting therefrom, yet we are convinced the existing conditions demand more assistance in the way of lookout towers, telephsone
lines, and the supplies of fire fighting tools to be stored at convenient
places. It is of the greatest importance to the prosperity of the Prov
ince that the timber lands sh&ld be protected as fully as possible
against fire hazard, as it is well established that barren areas have
little or no value for from thirty to fifty ,or more years after being
burned over, during all of which time the licensees are paying the
annual renewal fees and fire protection rates thereon. It is also of
the greatest importance that at all times the best men possible should
be secured in this service, particularly fire wardens and men in charge
of lookout stationsj and we &commend this subject to the most cared
ful consideration of the Department, and also that the present rate
of fire protection tax should be maintained and fixed for a period of
not less than five years. In this connection we also beg to recommend
that all rules and regulations respecting forest travel ,or permit.s for
persons entering the Crown Lands for any purpose be most strictly
enforced, and the full penalty enacted for any and all discovered
violations thereof.
License Renemnl J’eeB,
We recommend that the license renewals QP so-tailed iicense mileage fees should for the reasons above herein set out in respect to
stumpage rates ‘be fixed as at present for a period of not less than five
,
years.
. Amwal Rtmewals, of Leases.
We are informed it is the custom to issue from year to year to
each licensee of Crown Lands a new lease of the permits held by him.
This lease is very long, necessitating a heavy expense in the printing
thereof a,s well as requiring the employment of several persons for a
considerable period of each year to get the same out at the time required by law. We recommend that this system be changed, and entirely done away with, and that instead of a formal expensive lease
as mentioned, there be issued a short form renewal, such for example
8s is u.sed in ordinary by fire insurance companies. It will be found
this is perfectly practicable and will result in a considerable saving
both in respect to printing charges as well a.s service employed and
will be much more ,satisfactory to the licensees, as to which we are
fully inf armed.
.Administration, of Crown, Lands,
We are informed that there is in, existence an Advisory Board
jn connection with the administration of the Crown Lands, whose
duties are. to consult with and advise the Department of Lands and
Mines in matters affecting the ,lum’ber industry. *This Boasd is composed of men experienced in the lumber business, and very competent to give practical a,ssistance. It does not appear, however, that
the services of the Board have been called upon as often as it would
seem to have be& advisable from the standpoint of the Department,
(and we recommend that hereafter more use be made of it as we are
assured it is a1way.s ready to come to the aid of the Department
when called upon.
Chtiwting li’aetor Board Feet i&o Cords,
Much evidence was taken by us upon this subject as we invara
iably found there was a vast difference in the opinions of the licensees
from the decision of the superintendent of scUers, upon the true and
proper result obtaineld from the ,scale of logs for the purpose of determining the exact number of cords that could be obtained from
1,000 s. f. of logs. At the present time the Department of Lands and
Mines collects stumpage upon 600 feet board measure in a cord containing 128 cubic feet of peeled Mood, while the licensee firmly con
tends, in some eases from the result of actual t&s made, that the
more correct measurement and the one that stumpage should be paid
P a g e Eleven,
on, produced not more than 506 s. f. From tests made by the Department of Lands and Mines, copies of which were furnished to us, it appears that from 2Ol/, cords of wood, the so-called top scale of the log
being used and the measured wood taken from three different localities, the average obtained shows 541 feet to the cord. The most valuable information, however, furnished to us upon thi.s subject is supplied by a report of tests made in this Province in the summer of
1926, from which it appears very extensive as well as minute examinations and tests were ,made and from which it is clear beyond doubt
that under no existing condition*s can logs even up to 15” at the top
end be made to produce more than 550 feet. It also ,shows among other
things that the average board feet contained per cord for a total of
131.8 measured cords was 494 feet. We append hereto a copy of this
last report ahd commend its careful examination to the Department
of Lands and &Tines. The result lof all the information supplied to u,s
is of sci convincing a hatUrt3 that we recommend that a converting
factor of 500 board feet for peeled wood be adopted, and that the rate
of ‘stumpage thereon be fixed at 81.75 per cord.
. We desire to place on record ,our appreciation of the general
courtesy extended to us during our inquiry by the lumbermen of the
Province, who not only voluntarily appeared before us at their own
expense, sometimes travelling lo& distances, but readily and freely
answered the questions submitted to them, without we are convinced,
seeking to COWP Up anything material in connection with their respective operations, but on the contrary giving a full, true and explicit statement thereof for the year 1926. We are indebted to the Department of the Interior of Canada for fllrhi&ihg the report referred
to, and we also express our appreciation of the courtesy generally extended to us -by the of?%ials of the Depar’tment of Lands and Mines,
to whom we extend our thanks.
We have the honor to be,
.
Your obedient servants,
; - c
I
’
(8gd.j TV, Cd HAZEN G R I M M E R ,
._.
(Sgd.) FRED @. BEATTEAY.
St. John, N, B., March 31, 1927.
Page Twelve
,
I
. Cbmmitwioners,
CROWN LANDS
Questionnaire
B
C
D
E
F
10.39 3.58 -
9.50 1.25
8.00 1.50
2.00 9.50
‘: m:z
8.75 1 .oo
.75
A
i :: :: :: :: :: . . . .10.32 4.36
4.31 9.77
8.83 3.25
10.30 3.25
P
0
2.71 9.74
10.51
R
Q
12.44
l ***
12.26
T
S
4.75
6%
4.56
.25 .50 .81 e87E2 ‘:E
.60
(***
2.63 1.25 1.15 :x00
1.67 .60
.68
.96
1.44 1.00
.31
2.01 1.12
1.00 .70
145
.72 .54
.95 .83
.69
1.17 .85
1.00
1;;
1.05 1.00
. 1.33 . . .
. 1.25 . . .
. 1.10 . . .
:::: . . . .
:::: . . . .
1.50 .79
.85
.78 .17
1.00 .80
.82
I 1.71 .62
above 2.51
:::: . . .
.42
1.09 .20
1 .31 .oo
(...
(1.32
( . . .
1 .35 .oo
27
.I7 .07
1.00 .36 .45 .50 .63 :50
‘:i;: A4
.56
1.26 1.70
.23
.66 .59
.39
.78 .54
1.10 .60
A8
(1 -z
:52
1 .oo .59
.82
1.21 .76
.39
1.39 .69
.70
--) 2.98 .73
.52
:: ::
....
“:g
.90
1.35 ‘170
’ :E
‘%
-55
2.00 1.50
2.50 1.85
3 . 7 0 1 . 5 0 2 . 1 0 .73
2.50 .86 noIt>~red2:Z 2.50 2.50
2.50 1.05
2.50 .65
1.01 1.00
2.50 1.83
2.50 .95
2.50 1 moo
2.50 1.60
2.50 .56
2:(M)
2.50 .50
1.50 .53
2.50 . . . .
1%
2.50 . . . .
1.50 .54
2.50 . . . .
.53 .75
2.50 .90
1.00 .86
2.50 .80
above 1.83
. 2.00 . . .
2.08 1.50
2.50 .30
2.00
2.50 .72
1.25 .75
2.50 .75
....
....
1.60
....
.78 . . . . 1.65
. . . . No int. on .40
Cost of Licences
1.10
....
.68
....
.29
....
I .41
....
1.38
....
.73
....
3.44
....
.56
....
1.68
....
1.57
....
2.57
....
1.78
.67
1.47
....
.*..
....
37.41
none
31.95
2.28 -2z.g;
27.;;
;; : : : : : : . . . . 1.20 .78
13 . . . . . . :: 1: .53
.57
.‘:Y
.30 .48
A0
.60 -45
::i!Z
1.00 .60
.50 above N.o. 5 .50
1.05 1.25
.60
2 1: 1: 1: 1: . . . . 2.00 1.35
Stumpage 26 ‘.*.
.‘. 1: 2.50 .88
2.65 2.54v2
h&i
3.76 .63
2.50 .25
1.50 .40
2.50 .50
2.50 .I5
2.50 1.20
2.00 3.00
2.50 .90
S h o r t a g e S c a l e .I4
R e n e w . & Fire T& . . . .
l
l
.*.*.*.
1.30
‘81
1.89
....
5:z
5.00
‘: n i’:
Inc.
above
.49
. .
.36
l 22!42 E
(
‘5:iii
'5:ii
. 31.26
1.95
31.48
2.38
29.10
1.88
28.44
2.48
31.84
.90
30.05
2.76
35.58
1.40
31.65
3 . 9 3 3 22.46
. 0 8 3 22.06
.14
34.09
2.23
37.32
1.42
28.97
2.34
31.90
2.42
30.71
2.10
29.01
2.95
31.67
2.03
31.07
2.72
35.39
.84 -. 40.11
1.64
Av.
price
Cost per
M
. . M.
. . -24.58
.29.31
23.33
29.10
22.80
27.22
23.64
25.96
23.90
30.94
22.37
27.29
25.75
34.18
24.57
26.63
24.00
29.48
22.96
28.61
27.53
26.06
24.01
29.64
24.74
28.35
24.41
34.55
4.42
2.32
7.04
4.92
8.43
2
28.10
35
2.6
20
8 24
9.7
65
2 2
34
0.3
06
8
31.86
CL_.-- I_.
6.68
4.87
5.72
3.76
25.74
35.90
5.77
10.16
2.06
5.48
5.65
1.47
(Profit)
5.63
3.61
10.14
.
.
.
4.73
2:
2.62 .07
4.65
5.56
y:; 158
.50
2.06 .80
per
.25
above
4.64
1.30 1.63
2.09 . . . .
6.41
1.50 .80
.30
. . .40 . .
per .
M.
. 1.00 . . .
11.00
80
1.25
.25
3.45
10.96)
2.67)
6.02
ix l . . .
.60 .75
Loss
8.70 .50
14.80 .96
. .
1.70 :::
.
11.75 . . . .
12.28 2.30
2.67
2.50 .47
.36
.75 .30
.
X
3.55
.75 .50
-50
.50 .93
.
W
. . .20 . .
.54 .52
Laths
V
1.00 .50
.75
Less
U
3.10
4.00
.*.‘.*.
.95 . 1.32 . . . I .49 .oo
N
3
.:.. . . . .
l
13.01
M
6.84
. 1.75 . . .
5.00
3
10.30 1.32 11.05 3.64 10.95 2.00
L
l
1.00 .50
4.50
l
K
3.10
.oo
4.60
1.25
J
%i :OS
l
5.45
; :: :: :: :: . . . . 1.04 .23
8 . . . . . . . . . . .31
1: :: :: :: :: :: ,427 ,642
1
I
2.95
z : : : : : : : : : : . . . .
5 . . . . . . . . . . ix5
:&i
H
G
FREEHOLD
B
A
; . l . .:
.. . . .:
. ..*
.......
9.60
:
.I** .23 P:
::
:: 1: :: : :I iG6
x :: :: :: ::
:
.
.
:
ix
2.25
7 . . . . . . . . . . .23
: :: :: :: :: :: .60 .85
11
10 .. . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . .. ..45
.
-ll :: 1: 1: 1:
:z
:: ::
Stukpa’ge
.
l
*
:: :: :: .:.
26 ‘it&
. : :above
. 1.86
9.19
l
D
1.50
8.00
E
F
1.00
1.00
H
I
J
K
7.25 10.50 .75 14.00 10.00 .25 above 15.00 7.00 1.25 12.50 . . . .
.. ....
.12ya
6.00 1.25 5.25 1.00 4.15 .75 2.10 4.50 6.00 925 2.25 6.00 4.10 .60 6.00 .60
:ii
.90
.
.‘.?
G
.
.
.
.
.
.30
.
.
.
:.I-:
.
.
.
.
2.25
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
::::
N
10.00 2.50 8.00 1.50
11.43
1 .oo
1.15
.95
l
:i5
1.10
3.60 .50
.30
7o . .
(’ . l 6o . .
. ..30
..
.30
.26
1.00
.50
.25 .90
.25 .30
1.25 .75 .25 .lO .60 .75 above . . . . 1.44 .62 .91 .35 . . .50 . . .95
30
Below 1.00 x&i
2.94
’ .75 .25 3.00 2.50 No . chge. . . . 5.00 .90 2.43 5.00 1.00 . . .60 . .
1 . 5 0 “:is
. . . . .
6 . 3 5 mi ::::
29.57 22.15
. . . . 1.21
29.57 23.36
2.48
1.28
27.09 2 2 . 0 8
27.00
20.00
.09
2.08
(( .l
’
.80
.65
l
(
.60
(2.06
l
.
.21
.03
.76
27
:E
.28
.50 .50 * .30 .30 .75 .50 .35 ( . .42 . . .75 1:ei
(
. . . . . :”.
.
. .50 .
.
.
1.00
:iil
l,og
-0
‘l&.
‘l.&
6.30
24.91
...
24.91
4.72
5.78 ‘.%
26.32
....
26.32
1.93
. . &‘a . . akzie . . . . . 1.05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :::: . . . . . .50 . . . . .50 . .
21.40
26.66
21.88
28.1
I
28.23
21.97
23.37
*E 1.33 . . . . notest I .75
1.50
1.66
26168
22.73
26.66
21.88
29.86
29.73
1.50
3.38
3.00
none 3.90 . . . . 2im:: 2Ymz
32.15
Av.
price per M.
27.00
Loss
. .. . .. . . . .5.15
per. M..
Profit M
per
. .
20.19
26.52
.6.33
...
24.39
23 90
. ..49
..
25.18
19.35
23.66
21.88
25.96
2 1 . 5 0 2 3 . 0 0 2 2 . 5 0 2 1 . 7 5 2 3 . 0 0 2&g
1.16
.I3
.3.68
. . . . 3.65 . . . . . . .No chge.
($5.00 2.96
’
mngement. stmpge.’
‘.:I
l
I.87
2,04:p3%5
l
l
20.00
.2173. :. 3x5
3.78
.
.
N,o
Less Overrun Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ail through cutting
l
4.00 .50 5.10 .85
.50
.65
.70 .70 .45
.60
.21
above
34.09
Shortage Scale . . . . . . .
34.09
Less Laths . . . . . 1.94
l
M
L
3.40 .70
. .42
1%
C
land
- -
lands)
l
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
interest
.29
own
land
(5.00
Chgd:. no
s tnm lpagned
. s
2 5charge
0 0 0 a con
r e s.87 ( LO S S ) int(erest
on ow
Freehold
l
.:io
N,o interest
on lands)
.
.
Average
.
.
.90
4.31
1.10
.64
.34
1:
.38
1.12
.62
1.25
.
. -6 . . .
24.71
1.49
26.20
1.41
24.79
25.00
....
.21
loss 14 operators on Private
Lands
c
( . . .
;;:I$ .
g:g
24.25
26.89
22.82
38.47
37.41
29.5
d---m * -- . ..a-.. .._. -s-.-m. ”
14.22
10.52
6.85
.82
2:43
(Profit)
Average Loss per M. 24 operators on Crown Lands, $5.54 per M.
Questionnaire
.85 .65
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
........
6 0 0
per M.
CTC V-KMG
?January 25, 1927.
Memorandum :
MR. CAMERON.
.
:. .: ;-_,
’ Y.
-* . .
Re Converting Factors for Cords to Board Feet, N. B. Rule.
In connection with the collecting of data to be used in forming
converting factors for peeled and unpeeled wood, cords .to cubic feet,
for purposes of estimating standingw timber, we were able to compile
the following, dealing with converting factors for cords to board feet,
New Brunswick rule.
The material upon which the following figures are based was
measured in co-operation with the Pejepscot Company in New
Brunswick and with Price Brothers, Hammermili Paper Company,
and the Donnacona Company, in Quebec.
Measurements were made in all districts in the same way.
All figures are on the basis of the standard cord #of 128 cubic
feet both for peeled and unpeeled materia.1.
Part of the investigation dealt with separate diameter classes,
that is, all material from trees in one diameter class being piled and
scaled separate from other diameter classes. For example, trees of
7 inch D. B. H. were included in one pile or several small piles, while
those of 8 inch D. B. H. were piled <separately and so on through the
range of diameters.
Piles made up of the general run of material as it is usually
piled in an operation, were measured, both for peeled and unpeeled
material. Here a comparison is made of contents of the average cord
in large piles and the contents of the average cord pile.
As far as the board foot converting factor was concerned, all
material wa,s scaled as 12 and 16 foot logs, the usual scaling practice for New Brunswick being carried out.
Piles were scaled in feet and tenths of feet. So overrun was allowed.
Page Thirteen
TABLE I.
Converting factors, cords to board feet, for peeled spruce for separate diameterclasses.
Av. Xo. Board Feet per
Cord, K.B. Rule
No. Samples
I)ia. Class Inches
448
I
7
5
.I,
479
8
467
8
9
.
468
12
I
O
478
II
16
:
481
12
16
497
14
13
7
488
14
550
’
7
15
:
Weighted average over whole. 491 board feet per cord.
‘This average is derived from a tota. of 85 samples.
.
General PiZing.
For a total of 15 samples of approximately one cord each, general piling peeled material, the average board foot content per
cord was 487.
ISor a t.otal of 31.8 cords of material taking the general run,
the average board foot content per cord was 506. Here, in comparison with the general piling where ‘small piles were measured, we
g& a difference of 19 board feet per cord in favor of the larger
piles. This is to be expected as it is possible to obtain better averages fr.om large piles than small ones. In this case the difference is
not *large.
The average board foot content per cord for a total of 131.8
measured cords was 494.
Here it might be well to mention the fact that in New Brunswick, in scaling tops of logs, all measurements go back to the even
inch, for example, a log top measuring 9.8 inches across is scaled
as a 9 inch top. Under Quebec scaling practice, all measurements
over 75 inches go into the next higher diameter class and in this
case the log would be scaled as having a IO inch top.
The material in a total of 31.8 cords was scaled, scaling all
measurements over the half inch in the next higher class. A difference was found in the average ,of about 1.2 per cent, the prlesent
practice being 12 per cent lower than if the half inch were made
the dividing line.
Page Fourteen
.
t
.s
e
,
._
.
-3.
i
The percentag~?HQereneewould ‘not be so great if 0.75 inches
were made the dividing ‘IXnt, but even in this case the scale would
be greater than under the present practice.
The following Ggures are based on combined measurements
for spruce and ‘balsam. The material was worked up for, separate
species, ‘but because of lack of ‘material from which a reliable average might be obtained, it was found necessary to combine the data
for the two species.
All figures based= on the standard cord of 128 cubic feet. +N>e*_ axa
,Dia. Class Inches
6
7
8
9
IO
II
-12
13
14
15
'
No. Samples
5
17
20
24
19.
IO
IO
5
5
2.
Av. No. Board Feet per
Cord, N.B. Rule
401
395
401
399
409
407
390
433
. 416
42-1.
117
.L
A total of 117 samples of approximately one cord each were piled
scaled.
The weighted average content per cord for this material was
402 board feet.
I
There is a difference in the average number of board feet per
cord of peeled material, and per cord of unpeeled of 92 board feet,
or about 17.6 per cent.
. In summing up, it would seem that a converting factor of 500
board
feet for peeled material would be reasonable.
,
For a statiked cord of 128 cubic feet of unpeeled material, 400
is the average or 430 for a stacked cord of 138 cubic feet.
,
I
(Sgd.) J, C. VENESS.
+ Page Fifteen