Who's \(/asting What Waste?

By Robert E. Mahoffay, Public Relations West Coast Lumbermen's Association

The bloodthirsty fairy tales assembled by the Brothers Grimm probably have scared the daylights out of more people than have reports of lumbeiing "waste," but the margin is slim.

The "wastel' topic is coming up fast. It's a subject that professional deplorers beat like a drum. The lumber industry, according to the wails and lamentations of its critics,'"wastes" more of the tree than it converts into commercial products.

Whether these reports are true-or whether they should be lumped with the blood-curdling fantasies which made the Grimms famous-is a matter of prime importance to every man, woman and child in the Pacific Northwest. If the region's major natural resource is being tossed blithely into the garbage can, something should be done about it.

Perhapsjust perhapsthere is more mischief than merit in this talk about "waste".

To begin with, trees are a crop, like corn or potatoes or wheat. The chief difference ib ttrat a forest, given half a chance, will seed itself again after contributing the harvest, while the others will not.

In the case of these edible crops it is familiar practice to use only that part of the growth which can be profitably disposed of. No one is upset when corn stalks are permitted to rot in the fields after yielding their food. No one goes about screaming "Waste !" at the top of his lungs because the vines of potatoes cannot be sold at a profit, and consequently are not harvested. Mountains of wheat straw are burned every year, with a notable absence of public indignation.

In this respect trees are in no wise different. No economic use has been found for the limbs, so they are left in the woods. Likewise the tops. Douglas fir needles exist in abundance, but their harvest would be as financially foolish as the collecting of empty pea pods from housewives' kitchens.

Only a few months ago vast quantities of potatoes were destroyed in Idaho and elsewhere because they could not be profitably marketed. Just recently an Oregon grange leader pointed out that Oregon peach growers mav find it economically unfgasible even to harvest their immediate crop. It would appear that no one has yet devised a means of eliminating such instances of waste without at the same time knocking our economic system out of kilter.

Sawmills are popular targets for those with an eye for

(Continued on Page 26)

Who's \(/asting What \(/aste?

(Continued f.rom Page 24) "u.aste." Swivel chair experts will go after a sarvmill at the drop of a hat. They do it with the offhandedness of a small boy dragging a stick along a picket fence. If r,ve can get through the smoke, let's find out horv much fire there is behind this abuse.

The only recent comprehensive study of the situation was compiled by Sinclair A. Wilson, prominent Pacific Northwest forest economist. Wilson's report covers Oregon and Washington for the year 1944. Basic points of the report are applicable today.

Wilson's study provided estimates of the volumes of solid wood by-products, commonly called "waste", developed in the manufacture of lumber at primary sawmilling operations in Oregon and Washington.

Wilson classified types of by-produ'cts in the principal forms in which they are used and sold by the sarvmills. These are sarvdust, shavings, hogged wood, slabwood, edgings and shortwood. Sawdust and shavings are described as fine materials, and the other types as coarse materials.

Wilson discovered that an estimated 679,744,300 cubic feet of solid wood by-products, called "waste", rvere developed in the manufacture of about 10,570,000,000 board feet of lumber in primary sawmilling operations in the two states during 1944. The volume of sawdust and shavings (fine materials) was 360,207,600 cubic feet. The volums of all other by-products (coarse materials) rvas 319,536,700 cubic feet.

This is the material spoken of so glibly as "waste". It's the material left over after the lumber, for which the tree has been harvested, has been manufactured. Let's see what happens to it.

Of the solid wood by-products-the "waste"-developed in Oregon and Washington in 1944, 537,093,900 cubic feet or 79 per cent were used or sold by the sawmills for fuel. 16,683,000 cubic feet or 2.5 per cent were sold for pulp or other uses. Only 125,966,800 cubic feet or 18.5 per cent could not be used at all and had to be destroyed.

Sawmill critics, grasping at stralvs, find cause for complaint in the employment of these by-products as fuel. They describe it as inefficient and wasteful. The critics' contribution, however, is limited to throwing up their hands in horror. They offer no suggestion as to how this fuel wood is to be replaced, or by what, or into what other markets the by-products can be profitably diverted.

Wilson. found that the great majority of mills develop their own power from sau'mill "waste". An estimated 276,500,200 cubi,c feet or 40.7 per cent of the total by-products developed were used as fuel by the sau'mills for the production of steam and electric power.

The mills used 236,917,900 cubic feet or 34.9 per cent of total by-products for developing their own power, and 39,582,300 cubic feet or 5.8 per cent of total by-products for developing power for others-power sold directly to consumers or to public utilities.

A further breakdown of this sale-of-por,ver item demonstates clearly the economic factor involved. Western Washington mills, for example, used 10.3 per cent of their by-products for this purpose, whereas Western Oregon mills u'ere able to use only 2.8 per cent.

(Continued on Page 28)