—.
-———_——
v-_v

A STUDY OF THE unuzmow
OF NATIVE WOODS. FOR FARM
BUILDING ccmsmucncm m ma
CUT-OVER AREA 0? wet-mam
wn‘H PARTECULAR Rape-Rama

TO mien A. ‘

Thesis for the Degree of M S
WCHIGAN STATE COLLEGE

Cecil H. Jefferson
‘ “sums

THE-:15

-.-’%
,_ luv-v r—

“x." “-7
‘ U , ' ' v“: ".

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

A Study of the Utilization of Native Woods for
Farm Building Construction in the Cut-over Area of

flichigan with Particular Reference to Aspen.

presented by
Cecil H. Jefferson

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

I. S..____degree mm

‘ WA
. \
.

. Major professor

 

A STUDY OF THE UTILIZATION OF NATIVE WOODS
FOR FARM BUILDING CONSTRUCTION IN THE
CUT-OVER AREA OF MICHIGAN, WITH
PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO
ASPEN

By
Cecil H. Jefferson

A THESIS

Submitted to the Faculty of the Michigan
State College in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Forestry

1945

in

U.)

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I wish to express my appreciation to
Dr. A. J. Panshin, Professor of Forestry
at Michigan State College for his excellent
guidance in the preparation of this thesis.

Acknowledgment is also given to the ’
County Agricultural Agents in the cut-over
area of Michigan, and particularly to Casper
Blumer of Alcona County, for their cOOperation

in collecting much of the preliminary data.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction ...................................... 1
Review of Literature .............................. 4

History of Cut-Over Areas of Michigan ............. 7

Analysis of Problems.
Importance of adequate farm buildings ....... 18

Lumber requirements for repair and replace-
ment of present buildings ................ 20

Lumber requirements for new construction
on present farm units OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 32

Present source of Michigan Lumber ........... 54
Availability of native aspen ................ 38

PrOperties and utilization of aspen ......... 41

Original Investigations and EXperimental Work.

Field survey of farm buildings constructed
of aspen and other native woods .......... 46

Experimental construction and design ........ 66
Dimensional variation in manufacture of

native lmber O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O 82

smary OIIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC.0... ..... 000.000.00.085

ConClu81on '0. 0.. I O. O. O. 0 O 0.0... 0.. O. O. O. O. 0.. O O O. 94

Common and scientific names of trees native to
Michigan and suggested uses for the lumber .... 96

Bibliography 00.... ..... OOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.... 98

INTRODUCTION

At the time this study was undertaken the entire
nation was gradually recovering from its worst financial
depression. The farmers in the northern part of the lower
peninsula of Michigan or the area commonly referred to as
the "cut-over" area of Michigan (Figure l) were particularly
distressed.

For various reasons agriculture in this area has never_
attained the degree of stability found in southern Michigan.
Many of the farmers are forced to rely upon factory jobs in
adjacent industrial cities for supplemental income and
others eke out a bare subsistence from poorly equipped and
ill managed marginal or sub-marginal land.

The cut-over area of Michigan has approximately 40,000
families. The history of this area indicates that most of
them intend to stay even though it might be to their advan-
tage to relocate. Regardless of the purely social aspects,
of agricultural deve10pment in the cut-over area, there are
immediate and more practical aspects.

One of the most pressing problems confronting the
farmers in this area is that of adequate housing, including
dwellings as well as livestock and storage structures. Al-
though farm buildings throughout Michigan are in a critical
state of depreciation and obsolescence, the buildings in
the cut-over area are even more seriously depleted.

Numerous requests for assistance in obtaining more

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“I

r ’.

_ .. -.——.-—_..———

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DICKINSON

 

 

/ .

 

 

 

 

Figure No. 154)

Cut-over Area of
Lower Michigan

 

Cut-over area of
lower Michigan.

Counties surveyed
in making this
study.

MACK/[MC

 

 

 

3461M"

 

 

 

 

 

TUSCOLA MILAC

UP!!!

 

 

 

 

IONA

 

CLINTON

 

SWAIN.

“HE!!!

”CLAIR

 

 

 

 

 

WRY

E470”

 

MGM

 

uwmflv

 

 

“Imam.

CALHOUH

JACKSON

 

 

 

WASHTEM' '4 IN!

“LAID

 

 

 

 

 

 

31.105!”

mu” mammalian:

 

 

 

 

 

 

manor- :3

 

 

 

 

U' 87'

05'

 

 

 

-2-

adequate farm buildings are received from individual
farmers and from county agricultural agents. Some interest
is shown in using readily available native woods such as
jack-pine, aspen, balsam, poplar, etc., but the majority
of lumbermen, local builders, and even farmers, are pre-
Judiced against using such "inferior" woods. It may be of
interest to note that at a meeting called by the County
agricultural agent in one of the cut-over counties to dis-
cuss this problem the suggestion that these so-called infer-
ior woods be used in farm construction was received with _
evident disfavor. One farmer even stated that he would go
without buildings before he would be guilty of using such_
worthless lumber. The appearance of the buildings in this
county would seem to indicate that other farmers felt the
same way.

In 1935 the Farm Security Administration was set up to
help deserving farmers rehabilitate themselves.’ One of the
first requests from this agency was for plans of farm build-
ings that could be constructed entirely from farm woodlot'
timber without the necessity of buying any article, except
possibly nails and other hardware. Since most of these
farmers did not have available cash for the purchase of
standard lumber from their local dealer, the utilization
of local lumber seemed like a practical approach to the
problem of obtaining more adequate buildings for the far-
mers in the cut-over area of Michigan.

In this cut-over area there are approximately 7,000,000
acres of timber land with a potential supply of lumber that

provide adequate housing for the farm families and all
their livestock, crops, and equipment. Much of this
timber is on individual farms and could be converted into
usable lumber at a cost of only a few dollars per thousand
board feet for sawing, plus some farm labor for cutting
and hauling the logs to a local mill.

Additional timber is available on thousands of acres
of state and national forest land and can be purchased from
the preper authorities for a very low_stumpage fee (Figure 2).
At the time this project was started, this fee for some
species of timber was as low as one dollar per thousand
board feet.

There is evidence that the supply of aspen and jack-
pine is increasing so fast that the problemof clearing its
from state lands is becoming a serious problem. The Michigan
State Department of Conservation would welcome an Opportunity
to c00perate with farmers in making this timber available
for farm construction.(5gl

One wonders why more of this timber has not been used.
This project was undertaken in an attempt to answer this
question byrv

l. Ascertaining the need for farm building construc-

tion in the cut-over area of Michigan.

2. Determining the extent to which native lumber,

particularly aSpen, might be used to supplement
commercial lumber.

5. Determining the availability of aspen.

1‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

    
  
     

 

    

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

u' 54'
49%
1h
47‘
‘ (.06!
i + man scxaazcn'r
“. N DICK/N30” MACKINAC
N i
' fit
-I
L cunt. on: M
r-— ‘¥ 4mm . 5,
. 14
Figure N0. 5 (19) uwsx AWF'D ‘, M. “com
Ty es of F 1 m 12 13 1
p arm ng in ichig sums. mm» HIM nascaa. OGEMAIV Iascaf
_ . . 9
8. Beans, Sugar Beets 11 A - Ll"
Jr“ and Dairy. II um: ascrau can mama mc
. “O
c ttl Sh 1 ° 8 ' "W
3": My
9 ° a 6’ 66p, Forage ' acwv puma MECOSTA Isumu IMHO
10. Central-Potato , Dairyj. "mo“ “m“
' mus“. manrauu 4m: ’07 :As'mw
11. Northern-Fruit, __.__1
D 31 try . crust: up“.
’ “'4 om m lam cunraw smm. 3’ ‘1‘"
12 Northern-Potato
o ’
Dairy. mum
ALLEGAfi um EATON mama LIV/N637"
13. General, Self-suffic-
ing and Part“ time 0 unwrap mull. away/I Hausa” msumwv mm
H 14 Cattle, Potatoes, $3
Sel f - suf f' 1 cing . a? as: suasrm sum: musmsumwzt MONROE Law
1 1 i
u a' or a" ,5. I
__L—

 

 

 

4. Determining the adaptability of aspen to farm
construction.
5. Studying the characteristics of nativelumber
with the idea of improving its quality.
6. DeveIOping plans adapted to native lumber or
adapting it to present plans.
It was the original intention to make these studies
in a representative county in each of the "Type of Farming"
areas in this region as classified by the Farm Management
Department of Michigan State College (Figure 3). Owing to
tire and gasoline restrictions, most of the field studies
were made in Midland, Clare, Gladwin, and Alcona Counties.
Since these counties are typical of the larger part of
northern Michigan where farm improvements are needed and_
where the type of building material available is similar,
if not identical, the findings reported here may be applied
to the entire northern half of the Lower Peninsula and the

whole of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Numerous general statements have been made concerning
the desirability of using native lumber for farm building
construction but definite recommendations have usually been
omitted regarding specific uses of the species of lumber
most readily available to Michigan farmers at the present
time.

The practicability of using native lumber for farm
construction is indicated by the following statement from

a federal publication:

"The importance of the home forest as a reserve

for 'pinch' times cannot be overestimated. In

the midst of the lumber shortage and high prices

during the fall of 1919 and the spring of 1920,

for example, communities and individual farmers

having local supplies of standing timber are

reported to have suffered the least from the

widespread deterioration of farm buildings and

deferment of necessary new construction. The

effect has been not only smaller losses of cr0ps

and livestock but better farm conditions and more

contented farm labor.

"Lack of knowledge of the proper use of timber is

one form of farm mismanagement. It is a mistake

to saw up choice logs of white oak, ash, cherry,

and yellow poplar for rough uses at home or to‘

use clear black walnut for gate boards or split

up white oak butts for fence posts. Many valuable

logs go into crossties which would bring the owner

much more if sold as saw logs."(28)

This bulletin was prepared for national distribution
but most of the woods mentioned are native to Michigan.
When this statement was made, most of the "choice woods"
had been disposed of through various wood using industries
in the state and were no longer available. However, atten-
tion was called rather forcefully to the practicability of
using native woods for farm lumber and to the lack of know-
ledge if all woods were not used to best advantage. No
information was given on what woods could be used for farm
lumber, how they should be handled or where they should be
used to best advantage.

This author also comments on the importance of the farm
woodlot as a source of firewood when he says that in 1920
enough firewood was cut from the farm woodlots of this coun-
try to reach four times around the world. However, there

was no word of caution about using for firewood timber that

might better have been used for rough lumber. This would
also seem to be a factor contributing toward mismanagement
of the farm woodlot.

A publication released by Michigan State College
includes the following:

"The farm woodlot is capable of producing much

of the rough construction and repair lumber,
fence posts, part or all of the fuel wood needed
on the farm, and may also produce periodically an
excess of timber suitable for sale." (12)

No mention is made of what woods to use for firewood,
what ones would be most suitable for farm construction or
those which would be most in demand as commercial timber.

An experience of a Michigan farmer in using native
lumber follows:

"Glenn Ingram, a farmer living near Hastings,
Michigan, reports very satisfactory returns

from 10 acres of woodland. During a period

of eighteen years, from 1910 to 1928, Mr. Ingram
out 55,000 feet of timber, part of Which was sold
and part used on the farm for building purposes.
The complete record of returns, uses made of tim-
her, and years of cutting follows:

1910 - out 14,000 feet; built a farm home.
1913 - cut 13,000 feet; sold and cash put
into improvements.

1918 - cut 7,000 feet; used for shed,
henhouse, and flooring. "
1927 - cut 17,000 feet; built a barn.

1928 - cut 2,000 feet; used for repairs.

"In addition to these returns, the woods have
produced an average of 100 gallons of maple sirup
a year, besides furnishing fence posts, Whipple-
trees, and other products as needed on the farm.

"Mr. Ingram has followed a simple cutting plan,
taking out the larger ripe trees and leaving the
younger ones to grow another crOp of timber. ‘
Special care was taken in cutting operations to
protect all young promising poles and sapling
trees. This system kept the woods in good tim-
ber- producing condition. The woods were

pastured at first but after studying the problem,

the owner decided that his stock damaged the

timber, so he has fenced it off.

"'This lO-acre woodland is just as valuable as

any other field on the farm,’ Mr. Ingram says.

A recent offer of $2,500 for the 10 acres was

no inducement to Mr. Ingram to sell. ’He has'"”'

decided that his woodland holds a very necessary

place in his farm-management program."(45)

A more recent reference to the use of home grown timber
for farm construction in a state where conditions are almost
identical to those in Michigan still calls attention to the
use of hardwoods that are scarce and rapidly becoming more
so.

Little effort has been made to encourage the use of
Jack-pine and aspen although in most of the cut-over areas
of Michigan,where economical farm buildings are primarily
needed, these woods represent the most readily available
source of lumber. In much of the earlier cut-over region,
trees of the above species are from thirty to fifty years
old and are ready to be harvested. Yet farmers in this
area are going without adequate buildings because they
can't afford to buy the out-of-state lumber usually handled
by local dealers, but they still hesitate to use such so-

called inferior wood for building purposes.

AGRICULTURAL HISTORY OF CUT-OVER AREA OF MICHIGAN

The amount of lumber used on any farm or in any farming
community will vary with social and economic conditions pre-
vailing in that area, and upon the decree of development or
stability of its agriculture. The lumber required will be

used for the following purposes:

1. Repair and maintenance of present buildings.

2. Replacement of existing obsolete and wholly

inadequate buildings.

5. Construction of new buildings for:

a. Expansion on present farm units.
b. Anticipated increases in farm units.

Although there seems to be some tendency in the more
highly develOped agricultural communities to replace lumber
with more permanent building materials, it is estimated that
at the present time more than ninety per cent of all farm
buildings in the United States are constructed of lumber.(17)

The cut-over area of Michigan would certainly be no
exception unless the percentage of wood buildings be even
greater than in typical agricultural regions.

In most farming communities, agricultural deve10pment
has reached its peak. Therefore, future lumber consumption
in these communities can be quite accurately estimated because
lumber will be needed primarily for'maintaining the present
farm buildings by repair and replacement.

Social and economic conditions in the cut-over area of
Michigan are somewhat uncertain and perhaps a brief history,
of the agricultural developments of this area will be helpful
in analyzing the lumber consumption based upon farm building
requirements for this area.

The development in the northern part of the lower penin-
sula of Michigan has lagged far behind the deve10pment of
agriculture in the southern part. Variation in soil and
climate are not;the only reasons for this difference.

In southern Michigan the timber was cut primarily to

prepare the land for farming and most of the lumber was

used either on the farms or was sold to local wood using
industries and the money so obtained used to further develop
the farms.

In the northern part of lower Michigan, the pine forest
was cut primarily for the lumber and not to clear farm land
as it was needed. As long as the timber remained, local
communities prospered but from the very beginning it was
the gold rush type of prosperity. The environment of the
lumber camps provided little inducement to farmers who were
seeking the security of a more permanent agricultural commu-
nity. Most of the camp followers came north in the winter
to earn cash wages which they either spent at the end of the
season or took south to live on while developing farms in
southern Michigan, Ohio, or Indiana.

A few clearings close to lumber camps and villages were
converted into farms which helped to supply the demand for
large quantities of food and forage. A more permanent type
of agriculture was discouraged by the large lumber companies
“who feared that brush fires incidental to land clearing would
endanger their mills and timber holdings and also because they
wished to avoid the higher taxes required for schools, roads,
and other improvements in permanent agricultural communitiesJEG)

In such an atmosphere of insecurity it is not surprising
that few permanent farm buildings were constructed. In fact,
very few were needed. In most cases even the part-time far-
mers lived in the lumber camps. The crops were consumed
almost as soon as they were harvested. The few head of live-
stock roamed the range in the summer and in the winter were

stabled with the camp horses.

-10..

In the short span of about twenty years the land had
been cleared with a thoroughness that left little doubt as
to the future of lumbering or of agriculture in this cut-
over area. With the disappearance of the lumber industry,
the only enterprise that could have sustained agriculture
until it became self-sufficient, went the hepes of agri-
culture. As the lumber mills moved westward, land in
northern Michigan was left to become tax delinquent and
many of the inhabitants were left in a wilderness of brush
and stumps without funds, without employment, and without
markets for their products (Figure 4). Even though they
might have had capital to sustain themselves during the
five to ten year period required for the development of
selffsufficient farms, they could not survive without mar-
kets. One author gives the following summary of this
critical period:

"In the northern part of the state, agriculture
was more or less incidental until after lumbering
had passed its zenith. All of the timber that
could be disposed of was cut, and most of the '
rest was destroyed in logging or by fires. The
land did not remain timbered until it was wanted
for farming, as in the southern counties, but

was practically stripped of merchantable material
before it was made available to settlers. When
the settlers came, they feund little standing
timber to supply their needs for building material,
posts, or even fuel, except for scattered patches
in the swamps. Without enough capital to buy such
material, they were compelled to get along with
crude, makeshift buildings, and poor fences or
none. The pine stumps and roots supplied fire-
wood for many years, and in some localities are
still the principal saurce of fuel and fencing,
but where the stumps have been consumed many
farmers have no wood except small birch and aspen,
hardly large enough for bean poles. In many in-
stances, even the farmers who have timber cannot
sell it because the sawmills and wood using indus-
tries have gone, taking their railroads with them." (41)

 

Figure No. 4B

    

Figure No. 40

-11-

 

"A wilderness of
brush and stumps."

This was the settlers'
heritage.

Ground cover suitable
for grazing, the first
step in converting this
land to agriculture.

Grazing was followed
by cultivation between
stumps, but time-
consuming and costly
land clearing opera-
tions were necessary
for even subsistent
farming.

-12-

Although conditions may have seemed almost h0peless
to some individuals, the Opportunities in the cut-over area
were grossly exaggerated by others who stood to profit by
rapid settlement.

The large lumber companies wished to dispose of their
holdings to avoid the burdensome tax and the railroads to
bolster their diminishing traffic. Either directly or through
colonization agencies, they organized intensive advertising
campaigns to dispose of their holdings.

A development bureau is quoted as follows:

"Thousands of settlers have come during the past

few years, other thousands have bought land for

investment or for future settlement. Everywhere

there are new farms, new clearings, new buildings,

good roads, schools, and churches. The country '

has passed from a lumbering to a farming community."(40)

The success of these land selling schemes is indicated

by the growth of farms shown in Table No. 1.

TABLE NO. I
NUMBER or FARMS FROM 1900 TO 1940 (7)

 

1900 1910 1920 1950 1940

 

State 203,261 206,011 195,714 168,811 186,828
Alcona County 701 808 840 783 771
Clare County 852 1,302 1,248 893 899
Gladwin County 769 1,395 1,452 1,102 1,271

Midland County 2,153 2,246 2,163 1,730 2,061

 

As early as 1900, barely twenty years after the peak
of lumbering, there were 203,261 farms in Michigan and by .
1910 the number of farms had reached the high mark of 206,011.
The demand for farm products at relatively high prices during
and after World War I gave added impetus to the colonization
movement although the number of.farms continued to decline
after 1910. Many of the partially developed and abandoned
farms of pre-war settlers were resold to these new farmers.

The type of agriculture prevalent.in the cut-over area

during this period is indicated in Tables No. II and No. III.

TABLE N0. II
PERCENTAGE OF CROP AREA DEVOTED TO EACH CROP (50)

 

CROP ACRES , PER CENT
Corn 14.6
Potatoes
Wheat

Rye

Oats
Barley
Buckwheat
Hay

Peas
Beans
Roots
Fruit
Truck

CONN-Uhq
N
N (OI-‘QOl-‘l-‘Orbblm

H
k‘ +4 co
0 0 C . O O .‘O .‘O .
MNHHOIN0301<1HOTCRO
0!
.‘O‘. O .‘O'.’. O O
thCfiNCONONPNCO

 

pp.
m

Total .1

|._:
O
O
O

 

-14-

TABLE N0. III
NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF ANIMAL UNITS OF EACH CLASS (31)

Animal Units

 

KIND OF ANIMAL NUMBER PER CENT
Dairy cows 5.8 41.1
YOung cattle 2.9 20.6
Bulls .5 2.1
Steers .6 4.2
Work horses 2.7 19.1
Colts .2 1.4
Sheep .5 2.1
Hogs .8 5.8
Poultry .5 5.6
Total 14.1 100.0

A summary of the agriculture of this period is also
given in part as follows:

"It is possible, but not easy, to start farming

here with very little capital. The total capital

of the average farm studied is $6,856 and the

average family income only $559. This is little

enough on which to live; even when none of it has

to be used to pay interest." (51)

In spite of low farm income, these farmers invested
heavily in land clearing Operations and in other improvements
such as buildings out of all proportion to the productive_
capacity of the land. The increase in building investment
is shown in Table No. IV.

Some idea as to the source of capital that was used
to make these investments in shown in Figure 5.

As prices began to decline at the end of the war, the

fate of many farmers, particularly those who had settled on

the poorer type of soil, is shown by the large number of

.NOI

N
\

HV'HOO jO
cn

C‘
v

'90.
m

‘9

 

ammq maacemog Exam zqumon
“H1 m .02 osswam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_qm_myrflzm_ mzsozqamago mzaon moqoamo§.§mqu
m; mmm_ 0mm. m«w_ on_ new” alml
-- -4- - - u - i vallli---------J..-iil|--.i-fil - - - -
_ ----, -. --.:1;-a-'-- r;,.,,‘. a -- - -1
.1 - n - - + i m.
+ + m_
M?
- + I Q
I
- , n , _ \
I 4-...m.-m_§w,.3m_-zsT -
Tl! . ,. l .J 8
l
1 .
“a .t i. 1T1? IIIILONN
r \ I
r il 1 - - v a v .VN
v11.-- .. : loom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SEW—HOG :JO SNOITW I W

mun»). -
- - -3- new. .m. .-..»,
-,; .- Ansv -w.
l.:.. . a .\ .n;m
E.
. . is... .-
.. . m

 

/
...+.o

-r\

 

qsmanoas

manwm comm
do
he gem maasaoon one mods
m Umoaom

m .oz opzwdm

-15-

foreclosures. (Figure 6). Other farmers, perhaps because
they had no place to go, were forced to remain and seek
part time employment in the nearby shOps to maintain a
standard of living that was a mere subsistence. (Figure 7.)

Fortunately for these farmers as well as for those on
better developed farms, part time employment and greatly
expanded markets were created by the tremendous growth of
the automobile and allied industries in Michigan and by the
increased volume of tourist trade. Had it not been for
these sources of additional income, the number of foreclosures
and abandoned farms would undoubtedly have been larger during
the prolonged period of depressed farm prices of the 1920's.

Regardless of accumulating evidence that much of the
cut-over area was not suited to permanent agriculture and
that the apparent prOSperity of the region was built upon
borrowed capital and nourished by markets of a highly
variable nature, those interested in the region continued
to exploit its resources.

"It would be easy to cite by title and page the

overt encouragement given by state and federal

agencies to the land deve10pment schemes of

private Operators. They too were blinded by

the emotional appeal of the movement to the

practical and long time problems incident to

a Judicious use of natural resources."(20)

In the May, 1959, report of the National Resources
Committee may be found the following statement:

"This booming of wild land for farms is not ancient

history. It was only two decades ago that govern-

ment agencies in each of'the three Lake States,

in common with other states, put out booster lit-

erature encouraging the selling of cut-over lands

for farms and promising the settler that he could
grow rich in these regions." (35)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

”_J'C" “;'

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 
 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_‘_f
”. f * . fi
03 &
I
47'
war/now
“q
“'“x
Figure N0. 7 (10) .mer OSCODA. ‘MCOM
Number of Farmers Report- ( '3
' Awm. wwono MISW fiasco». 065qu Iosco.
ing Non-Farm Work " i .
«‘~-— I LAKE DSCIOLA taps buoy/m ARENAC
:3 0 - 150 44°
"0"”.
MY
«mu r60 MtcosrA mum MIDLAND
150 - 300 ruscou wwuc
I ‘ maram suitor 1325mm
mvr ' .
300 _ 4 50 “use: MM“
fl ‘ ION/A “mm” III/Am. ”CLAIR
mum auc
E I 450 - 550 may (Atoll mum ummflv
mum. amour: .ucxsau murmur mm
[1 Over 550
~ .
37.4030” mm: mum mum mono: .4
BF
T J i
”. a. ‘7. “° 05' 04' as“ l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hm6.eflm.e men.nom.n meowosm.n nmnHmOb.H osm.oom aweaeflasm to osaa>
Hmo.m on>.H- noaim mam-m nmfl.w massm co popesz
-wazpoo.az<qua
sao.omm.a Hmm.eem.a ban.amm.m ooe.mmn oom.oom mmeaeaasm to asas>
Hem.a moH.H mme.a mam.a mop matsm no smnasz
- ,wazeoo ZHsmaqo
mmo.one.fl mom.mfls.a smm.oom.a ooe.mnn omn.smm quaeaasm no osaw>
mew mew. mem.a mon.a mom. magma co sonasz
wazpoo mm«Qo
mam.mmH.H man.sno.a omb.amn.fl mew.mmm omfl.ema mmsaeaasm to meas>
Heb. omb- oem. mom. Hos massa co ponasz
wazpoo «zooqe
mam” mam an» mom oweano name you

owe m OOH.» one.m emn.a oer Essa pom . .
_ . mwnaoaasm no 05Hw>
«mo.ome.nm¢ oam.s>o.amm men.¢mn.o>w Hoo.onm.mmm oob.s¢m.mna mwmaeaasm no osaa>
&>.m &>.naa Rm: Ron.a - owcano pneo hem
mmm.emfl Ham.moa efib.nma Hao.oom Hom.nom mamas to sopasz
zeeHmon so meaam

ome omefl omma onH coma

 

mMHBZDOo DMEomHMm Qz¢ madam mom mwzHQAHDm mo MDA<> Q24 m2m<& mo mmmzpz

AmV.>H .oz memes

-17..

Yet census reports showed a decided drop in the rate of
increase in farms in the cut~over area of the three Lake
States by 1920, and in Michigan, which had been cut over
earlier, the rate of increase in some counties reached its
peak about 1910.

Even during the first World War some people began to
realize that abnormal war production had clouded the real
issue of prOper land utilization and management. In the
early 1920's, this was said: "Most of the land not now in
farms is worth more for forests or grazing."(55) In 1923.
Dr. L. C. Gray, in discussing the problems of land economics
and land utilization, indicated that there was little need
for the development of new lands, particularly wild lands
of doubtful value, and that continued unlimited production
as urged upon farmers as a war measure would lead to trouble-
some agricultural reverses. (55)

In spite of these warnings farming conditions in the
cut-over area of Michigan remained about the same until the
agricultural depression which began in 1921 and continued
through the 1920's, with only minor indications of recovery,
finally culminated in the total depression of 1929.

Omitting reactions to the second World War, farming in
the cut-over region since 1929 needs little elaboration.

It was a period of curtailed income, high taxes, increased
debts, moratoriums on foreclosures, jobless thousands re-
turning to farms and finally direct government relief for
approximately 8,000 rural families in Michigan.

This review of the history of the cut-over area has

-18-

been given to acquaint the reader with the social, economic,
and agricultural background of conditions that prevailed

when this study was undertaken.

ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF ADEQUATE FARM BUILDINGS

It hardly seems necessary to justify the need for
adequate farm buildings. The fact that the farm building
investment in Michigan is approximately 500,000,000 dollars
would seem to indicate the importance of farm buildings to
any agricultural enterprise. The investment in buildings
is almost as large as the investment in land and nearly
four times as large as the investment in machinery. (9)

The investment in buildings by counties of the lower
peninsula of Michigan is shown in Figure 8. The relationship
between buildings and farm income is shown in Table No. V.
A study of this table reveals that on farms of eighty acres
or less with an average of sixty-six tillable acres there
were 5 2/5 tillable acres per animal unit for the third
highest labor income group and 4 1/2 tillable acres per
animal unit for the third lowest labor income group. This
shows a greater concentration of livestock on the farms
having higher labor incomes. The value of crOps per till-
able acre for the third highest labor income group was
$15.44 and for the lowest labor income group was $12.55.
This may reflect the value of fertilizer in the form of
farm manure returned to the land which would not be avail-
able without livestock. On these same farms the livestock

income per tillable acre was $28.12 for the third highest

MACK/NM

Figure No. 8 (8)

Building Valuation
by Counties.

Less than
1,000,000

1 to 2,000,000
2 to 3,000,000

3 to 4,000,000

4 to 5,000,000

- 5 to 10,000,000

More than
10,000,000

 

° -19-

labor income group and $16.15 for the third lowest labor
income group. The number of livestock seems to be a most
important factor and livestock require buildings. The
building investment per tillable acre was $44.89 for the
highest labor income group and $58.80 for the lowest labor
income group.

Although buildings seem to be necessary for a suc-
cessful farm program, it may be possible to have a larger
building investment than the most practical farm program _
can Justify. It is interesting to note that in two of the
farm classifications, according to size, the building in-
vestment per tillable acre was higher for the third highest
labor income group but the building investment per animal
unit was lower for the third highest labor group in every
case. Perhaps the buildings for the lower income group
were not utilized to capacity. Certainly an increase in
the number of animal units would have lowered the building
investment per unit, but there is also the possibility that
the building investment was abnormally high.

There is a growing realization on the part of farm
building specialists that the investment in farm buildings
may be dispr0portiona11y high. A proper concept of low
cost farm'buildings does not presume a lowering of stan-
dards or a reversion to outmoded methods. On the contrary
the problem of designing low cost farm buildings constitutes
a challenge in the adaptation of plans and utilization of
available materials that will reflect greater utility value

rather than the wealth put into their construction.

-20-

As an example, the Doane Agricultural Service of St.
Louis, Missouri, in establishing allowable building costs
for their clients have ad0pted a capital investment of
$22 per unit of livestock for a beef animal including all
buildings and accessory equipment such as yard fences, feed
bunks, and water tanks.(14) Actual experiences show that
costs of $60 to $70 per unit of livestock are not unusual
for buildings of this type exclusive of the above mentioned
equipment. As a means of lowering building costs, the
Doane Service suggests a careful study of building plans
with the idea of adapting them to the use of native materials.

In discussing the problem of how to obtain adequate
farm buildings with limited income, Deane G. Carter suggests
that there are almost inexhaustible supplies of native
materials such as stone, logs, poles and low grade lumber
that can be used in the construction of satisfactory farm
buildings. (11)

This would seem to be particularly applicable in
farming areas of low income such as the cut-over area of
Michigan. A project on the utilization of jack-pine and
aspen for farm buildings in areas where it is readily
available is therefore in line with current opinion on

the use of building materials for farm construction.

LUMBER REQUIREMENTS FOR REPAIR AND
REPLACEMENT OF PRESENT BUILDINGS

Lumber for farm construction will be required to repair
and maintain existing buildings, to replace obsolete or in-
adequate buildings and to build new ones.

Aviv

:C _. w -_
-,,/ _
/,
...- .
-\ \.. -
.. L
..\- .4 ,
I ---, x - ;\ -,,., \-
- , - -,- .ax
. _ .3“ J... .u Tu...- J..._ sum-C 3k Isl-.1.-.- ../.w-4\-/I-- - 3 ‘
c. -
- oema on oama
. 20mm mmonm fiHmmfidz GZHQAHDm .
Fads mmflzfiam MOE QHAE mum-CHE mo zomHmEmH-aoo
. Anv m .02 oasmam
. . w - .

.-_—-

Lnxo

-21

Some indication of the lumber requirements for repair
and maintenance in some of the typical cut-over counties of
Michigan was indicated by the accumulated depreciation of
buildings shown in Table No. IV.

Table No. IV also shows the number of farms and the
value of farm buildings for the state and for four typical
cut-over counties from 1900 to 1940. It is interesting to
compare the per cent change in number of farms with the per
cent change in the value of farm buildings. From 1900 to
1910 the number of farms increased only 1.55% while the
value of buildings increased 80%. From 1910 to 1920 the
number of farms decreased 5% although the value of buildings
increased 75%. This increase in building valuation resulted
in part from additions andimprovements on individual-farms
during this period of agricultural prosperity as previously
mentioned.

It was also influenced by the general upward trend of
basic price indices. The graph in Figure 9 shows the rela-
tionship between prices paid to farmers and the price of
building materials during the period from 1910 to 1915.
This price differential was favorable for the construction
of new farm buildings.

By following these curves through the years from 1929
to 1940, it is not difficult to understand why the building
valuation on many farms declined and why improvements and
repairs were neglected. .

From 1920 to 1950 the number of farms decreased 15.7%
but the value of buildings increased 28%. Agricultural

-22..

prosperity for this region had apparently reached its peak.
The period from 1950 to 1940 needs no explanation, and the
-increase in number of farms while the building value de-
creased tells the story of the back to the land movement

and depressed farm incomes. It is apparent that most of
these farm buildings were constructed prior to 1920. There-
fore the majority of them are from 20 to 50 years old and
many of them much older. If the average life of a farm
building may be assumed to be 40 years, it is obvious that
those buildings constructed from 1910 are 100% depreciated.
Many of those that have been maintained and are still usuable
are obsolete and wholly inadequate for present production
methods.

But if these buildings are to be maintained, an annual
eXpenditure of $15,041,952 will be required to provide for
an annual depreciation of 2%% on a building valuation of -
$521,677,519. No sum approaching this figure has been spent.

What actually happened is shown in Tables No. VI and
No. VII. Beginning in 1951 and continuing through 1955,
the money spent for buildings on scme of the better farms
of Michigan failed to cover the cost of depreciation. This
accumulated depreciation over the past ten to twenty-year
period must be faced eventually either by making needed
repairs or by replacement. Enormous expenditures will be
required during the next few years to make up for past
neglect and to care for current depreciation, repair and

replacement.

In addition to these data showing the need for lumber,
it has been estimated that approximately 850 board feet of
lumber will be required annually on each farm in Michigan
to meet the requirements for repair and replacement of
existing buildings and an additional 150 board feet per
farm per year to provide for new construction based on the
1920 to 1950 distribution of new farms.(18)

These estimates are average for all farms in the state
and probably are too low to meet the requirements in the
cut-over area where many of the original pioneer buildings
are still being used and where repairs and improvements to
more modern buildings have consistently been neglected.

Additional data showing the need for repairs are ref
ported in the Sixteenth Census of United States for 1940.
Table No. VIII was taken from this census.

Various other surveys in recent years have provided
conclusive evidence of the need for farm building improve-
ment by giving statistics on specific structural require-
ments for lumber, by showing financial loss owing to
unchecked depreciation and by showing a photographic
record of existing buildings.

Because of the difficulty of further adequate descrip-
tion on this subject, a photographic record of typical farm
buildings in the cut-over area is given on the following

pages.

 

 

 

 

 

med mfl.mm em I we H.m mm.HH d.m mm.HH mma emmm flea- eaeenH toned amoeba m\H
Hes oo.mm ooa mm m.ma emeH m.m mmima HmH mame cam . me - eanem Ham
mmam Hm.mmm sea Haam mdma mo.omm H.e ma.mam Hom mommm mmeam eaoeeH gonna pneumam m\a
Hma - mmmom mammamHa mmmmm>mu mmmum mammquHa mm>o qzm flea ,
mma me.em mm Hm m.m Hm.ma m.m mH.mH moa mmma mad maeeeH aepmq neeeoq m\H
meH mm.mm mHH om m.m emeH m.e em.ma moa mmmm mam me - easem Ham
meam moummm mad Hoam odm sodomm mde HmeHm wad Hmemm ommam eaoenH gonna enenmam m\a
moa3v mmmom mummmaHe.mmmmm>m . mwmom mmmmqua oea on em
mea om.mm me me ¢.e mH.mH m.e mm.mH em «and .mmH- eeeenH genes amoeba m\H
omH amine ooa Hm m.m meiam m.m om.ma mm mama Hem - me - manna Ham
Hmam mm.eem mod beam e.m ma.mmm edm eeimam mm Hommm mme m eaeeeH moped neenmam m\H
mm --mmmom mammque mwmmm>«.u mmmmm mammqua om zmme mmmq ‘
Wmlma dmmu HN SO 0N VOW. rm LOA VTu .dnu In...
3...... mmu mm mm mm emu mu nme mu 3 we
88p vsp «be Dan-Ad 8m 99% We swan—v 9T... 8 00
new nus m.u
I4? 03? J d J d1 IV V q B a
mu Jmu ed 90 0 Odd I JI
Deon 983 0 JJ 0 J0 nuJ JGIu 9 mu
an H J 0 J H. ue 9d 0
Ti. 3. Op m T8 0
4 on TI 1 m
d no Iu J 9
9 1. o. 8
J 8 J

 

mammm mmHm ezmmmmmHm 20
“my > .oz

mWSOOZH sm¢m OZHBOMmfl< mmoeodm mzom

flag

 

 

mme mmm mmm emm mem mmm one eaeeaa nez
meaa mama mmoa enm mmm mmm mee eeeeenxm seen
mmma eaam eema eema eama aoaa mmaa ennaeeem ammo
mm on mm m- ma- ea- ma- enouneena

msabaasm ea mmamnm
mma eea ama mm mm moa mm moa pummeeennaa mnaeaasm
mmmmm memmm omomm ememm mmmmm eemmm mmemm ommmm neeaneeeea mnaeaasm
mmma emma mmma mama emma mmma mmma amma

0 .oz dmmd GZHEmdm mo mmwa 2H mzmdm ow mo MmOBZH>ZH mw4mm>d

A©¢VH> .oz mqm4a

 

 

 

amma aema mmea amma moma mmm ome mmm mama mmma esoena emz ammo

meam mmmm oemm mmom mmma mmoa mmaa mmea eeom oemm nemaemmm seem

emmm mmmm emoe mamm meem omma mmma mmmm mmmm mmme enmaeeem seem
whouqo>aH

mm mm mm e ae- mm. mm- mm- em mm mnaeaasm ea emeeao
pnosummbaH

moeem eoeem emeem emeem mmmem mmmem momem memem mmomm memmm mnaeaasm eeaeaem

mmma emma mmma mmma emma mmma mmma amma omma mmma

m .oz «mmm mzazmmm mo meme za mammm oe mo amoezmpza mmemm>m

amev aa> .oz mamme

-27-

TABLE N0. VIII(6)

ESTIMATED VALUE, STATE OF REPAIR AND SANITARY FACILITIES
FOR FARM DWELLINGS IN SELECTED COUNTIES OF MICHIGAN

 

 

 

Alcona Clare Gladwin *MidIEEd

Value under $500 160 97 507 255
$500 to $1,000 256 258 554 589
$1,000 to $1,500 159 171 215 550
$1,500 to $2,000 79 94 89 251
$2,000 to $5,000 54 100 120 525
$5,000 to $4,000 29 15 51 105
Over $4,000 22 6 16 76
Owner-occupied dwellings 1,155 1,660 1,704 4,804

Needing major repairs 464 200 565 1,245

With private bath and 17 7 19 90

private flush toilet

With private flush toilet - 1 1 50

no private bath ,

With running water 25 2O 50 295

no private flush toilet

No running water in 422 172 515 1,256

dwelling unit .

Not reporting repair 79 102 50 289

or plumbing
Tenant-occupied dwelling 277 791 695 2,126

Needing major repairs 140 146 175 569

With private bath and 6 5 9 42

private flush toilet

With private flush toilet 2 - 1 19

no private bath

-28.-

TABLE NO. VIII (continued)

 

Alcona Clare GladWin MidIand

With running water 10 25 8 59
no private flush toilet
No running water in 122 116 157 469
dwelling unit
Not reporting repair 14 49 19 175
or plumbing

Number of owner-occupied 760 885 1,215 1,954

dwellings

-29-

 

Figure No. 10A

A farmstead on a typical cut-over farm in Gladwin
County, Michigan. '

 

Figure No. 10B

This was "home" to some farm family in Cheboygan
County, Michigan.

\
c

. , .
twwwwwfiWMMBMRKBWti

    

Figure No. 100
A farmstead on a typical cut-over farm in Midland
County, Michigan

-50-

 

Figure No. 11A

Milk for human consumption was being produced in this
wholly inadequate barn in Presque Isle County, Michigan.

 

Figure No. 113

This combined corn crib, granary and implement shed
has depreciated almost beyond repair.

 

Figure No. 110

This old barn is still being used while the new barn in the
background is being finished on a farm in Iosco County, Mich.

-51-

H

(I; '(g I? W _._..

 

Figure No. 12A

This house in Alpena County, Michigan is constructed of native
logs and is an improvement over many farm dwellings in the cut-
over area.

 

 

 

Figure No. 123

This farm in Gladwin County, Michigan lies idle because of
inadequate buildings.

1

 

Fig.5. No. 120“

A small saw mill in Harrison County, MiChigan sawing aspen
logs for local use in farm construction.

-32-

LUMBER REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION 0N PRESENT FARM UNITS
Lumber requirements for new construction to replace
present obsolete or totally depreciated structures will depend

largely upon these factors:
1. A better appreciation among farmers in general
as to the actual value of adequate but inexpen-

sive farm buildings.

2. The development of a government subsidized
post-war rural housing project.

5. The degree of improvement in rural living standards.

In addition to the need for repairing and remodeling old
buildings, there is a need for additional new buildings to
accomodate the increased livestock and feed, if the present
small farms in the cut-over areas are supplemented from out-
side labor in nearby factories.

In the event that factory employment wanes and the}
farmers are obliged to depend more and more upon farming, .
they will have to increase very materially the average area
under cultivation, if they are to continue in the business.
This can be done by clearing more land where feasible or by
consolidating existing units and reducing the number of farms.
If the present number of units remains, it will be necessary
to add 500,000 acres of improved land in the upper peninsula
and 950,000 acres in northern lower Michigan just to bring
them up to the 70 to 90 acre farms of the better developed
southern counties.

.This is more land than has been cleared in the whole
state during the last quarter century, and for the upper

peninsula it would mean more than doubling the present

improved area. But as it is, settlers have already cleared
the better lands in the cut-over districts and many of them
have cleared about all the contiguous land that the topo-
graphy and soils will permit. In many places the surface is
so broken or the good soils are so spotted in distribution
that it is physically impossible for a settler to increase
his area of cultivable land except by acquiring that of some
other settler.

An increase in improved acreage is by no means all that
is needed to insure the future of farming in the north. Much
labor and money must also be eXpended to provide more adequate
farm buildings and other equipment, and to build more attrac-
tive farm homes, or the more desirable elements of the next
generation will gradually pull up stakes and leave the region.

Many of the farms in northern Michigan are still in the
frontier stage with lands only partially cleared, fences
lacking or temporary makeshifts, barns usually crude and
inadequate and rarely painted, and dwellings largely taZpa-

_ per shacks of one or two rooms or even log cabins, chin ed
with clay. Such conditions are perhaps to be expected in a
frontier settlement, but hardly in the homes of a permanent,
prosperous agricultural community.

National attention was focused on better rural housing
as an aid in the solution of unemployment previous to the
present war emergency and it is evident that new measures
will be used to stimulate farm construction when the time
comes. This problem ranks high on the list of post-war pro-

jects and some rural housing program is almost a certainty.

-34-

The effect of this program upon lumber requirements
will depend upon the number of houses constructedjwhich in
turn will depend upon what the farmers accept as a minimum
desirable standard. It is difficult to set a minimum stan-
dard for any group or class of people. No definite informa-
tion exists as to what farmers in the low income group will
adopt as a minimum dwelling for themselves or how many are

now living in dwellings below their proclaimed standards.

PRESENT SOURCE OF MICHIGAN LUMBER

It is estimated that less than half of the nearly
400 billion board feet of Michigan's original stand of tim-
ber was actually converted into lumber and very little of
this was used for the construction of farm buildings in
Michigan.

As early as 1920 nearly 60% of the wood used in Michigan
was shipped in from outside sources primarily from the southern
hard pine region and from the west coast douglas fir region.
The transportation charges alone on this lumber amounted to
$16,000,000 in 1920 or 50% of the total cost. The dependence
upon outside sources for lumber steadily increased and the
price of imported lumber also continued to advance. The fol-
lowing tables show the source of lumber consumed in Michigan

in 1958 and the price by years.

-35-

TABLE NO. IX (58)

TOTAL APPARENT CONSUMPTION OF ALL WOODS IN MICHIGAN
IN 1958 IN M FEET B. M.

 

Derived within Derived from Imported Apparent Consumption*

 

the state other states total _per capita
180,274 566,519 28,674 775,267 159

 

TABLE NO. x (58)

TOTAL APPARENT CONSUMPTION OF SOFTWOODS IN MICHIGAN
IN 1958 IN M FEET B. M.

 

Derived within Derived from Imported Apparent Consumption
the state other states total per capita

59,847 ' 500,781 22,577 585,205 120

i The term "apparent consumption" is used because these
figures are compiled from estimates showing the quantities
of domestic lumber retained within each state for consump-
tion, plus the domestic lumber received by distribution
from other states, plus the foreign lumber which apparently
enters the state.

 

 

 

me.om mm.em me.mm em.om mo.om am.em mm.mm mm.mm mo.ea em.oa engage
om.em om.mm mm.am oe.ma em.am mm.mm mm.mm ae.mm mm.ma me.m beam seaaew
>a.mm mm.om em.em om.mm me.nm em.mm mm.mm nm.mm ma.ma mm.ma beam means
em.em mm.mm mo.ma em.ea ma.ma mm.om mm.am mm.mm ma.ma meme e: ham beans
mm.ae me.mm mm.om oa.om em.em mo.me em.oe mm.mm ea.ma om.ma eeam semen
me.mm ae.am mm.mm mm.mm me.am em.mm ma-om me.om am.ma em.aa museum
ee.om om.me mm.oe mm.em mo.om oo.am om.mm eo.om om.ea ma.oa eeeeeem
mm.mm mm.mm mm.em me.mm am.om ee.mm me.em me.em mm.ma oe.m beam eeeaeeeom
ae.mm ae.ma ao.ma me.ea em.ma em.ea eo.am mm.mm mm.ma meme on beam maememeoa
mm.mm ee.ma mo-ma om.ma eo.ma mm.ma mm.om mm.mm mm.ma me.m aseeneaee- neeea
mm.am mm.em ma.mm mm.ma oe-ea om.ma mm.mm ma.mm mm.ma mm.m xeeasem
am.om me.mm me.ma am.ea ea.ma mo.om mo.mm mm.em ee.ma em.m mam neameoa
mm.me em.oe eo.mm om.mm me.om mm.mm mo.me mm-mm me.om mm.ma meenmmo
em.me mm.ee mm.mm mm.oe em.em mm.em ee-mm om.mm mm.ma am.oam neeeo
mm.mmm mm.emm mm-omm me.mam em.omm me.mmm mm.emm mm.mmm om.mam meme 0: nae seeaem
commemom
mema aema oema mmma emma mmma emma mama moma mmma moo; me mean

 

mmmmm_omHmaommm za .mmmmmms

ammom .ammm ooo.a mMm .ans

”8 ax .oz mamas

mma HQ MDQ4> ma¢mm>¢

-57-

 

 

 

om.am mo.mm mm.mm em.am ee.am em.mm em.mm am.om mm.ma ma.aa menam aaa

em.em em.mm ee.mm mm.em ao.mm eo.mm em.em mm.em mm.ma mm.ma amazes
am.mm oe.om eo.mm mm.mm ao.om mm.ae mm.ee mm.ae mm.mm mo.ea aeamem aeaaew
ma.am om-ee me-ae ma-mm om-mm ma-maa mm.moa ma.me me-me me.mm panama
me.om mm.mm ao-em mo.mm oe.mm mm.mm mm-mm me.mm em.aa euee on eaemsa
am.mm mm-mm mm.mm mm-mm mm-am eo.om an-mm mm.om em.ea eo.aa. encasemm
mm.mm ee.mm om.mm mm.mm em.em me.mm ma.mn em.em om.om me.ma -. xeo
mm-me mm-mm em.em am.mm em.om mm.mm mm.oe mm.mm ee.ma mm.aa names
meme on me.mm om-mm mm.em om.em aa.mm meme on ao.mm eo.ea eeee on eaaeemez
am.mm oe.mm mm.mm me.mm mm.em mm.oe em.mm em.ee om.om me.ma maeaeam
mm.om ma.am em.mm mm.nm oe.em me.em em.om mm.mm om.ma mm.m mmm one een .888
ea.mm em.mm aa.mm em.em mo.em mm.mn mm.mm mm.mm mm.ea ee.aa 8am
ee.mm em.mm oe.mm ae.am mm.om oe.mm me.mm em.mm mo.ma em.oa eeeaaenneo
me.om mm.em mm.om em.am mm.mm am.mm eo.mm om.mm ma.ma em.ma enunemnm
mm.ee me.ae mm.em aa.mm mm.om mm.mm mm.me me.mm mm.ma om.ma neaam
aa.om me.mm em.em mo.mm mm.mm mm.mm mm.mm mm.mm mm.ma meme 0: neeem
mm.me mm.em mm.mm em.am me.om mm.mm em.ae mo.oe om.ma em.ma eoeeeeem
mmmee oa.me ma.mm mmJem mm.mm ea.me em.mem mm.mm ee.em em.mam hem
em mmm oa.mmm aa.emm mm.emm ma.mam ma.emm meme on emwemm em.mam meme on ameae
moosmmem

 

mmma

meH

owma

mmma

mmma

mmma

mmma

mama

moma

mmma

woo; Mo UGaM

 

aemaeaenoev ax .oz mamas

-58-

TABLE N0. XII (58)
PERCENTAGE OF SOFTWOOD SPECIES CONSUMED IN MICHIGAN

 

West Coast South Pine Other Softwood_

1922 9.0% 54.5% 56.7%
1928 15.9 49.5 56.6
1954 14.8 51.5 55.9
1956 19.2 41.9 58.9
1958 14.8 52.8 52.4

 

It is obvious from Table No. x11 that approximately 90%
of the lumber consumed in Michigan is imported.

Figures are not available to show what part of the lum-
ber consumed in Michigan is consumed on the farm nor the per

cent of consumption by species but experience would indicate

that at least 90% of all lumbe: used on the farms of Michigan,
at the time the study was made, was also imported. However.
as previously mentioned, the small amount of this lumber used
on the farms of the cut-over area was insufficient to provide
adequate buildings. If these assumptions are correct and this
study indicates that they are, the supply of native timber

certainly should be given more consideration as a source of

lumber for farm construction.

AVAILABILITY OF ASPEN
Aspen occupies more area of forest land in Michigan than
any other tree species. Together with other poplar species
it occupies nearly one-third of the forest cover in the cut-

over area (see Figure 15.).

5-

\\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

e!’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

mama/4 ”CRIN“

 

 

 

 

 

 

/,
«‘EK- /

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F'— .54
Figure No. 15 — Acreage of
Forest Cover Types in Cut-Over e _ “
Area of Michigan (47) M” "m 7%
_ Species Acres mm. mm
‘ Other Pine 75,000 ' /
We. - ammw , u ,.1
- M//// / "0'0" 44.
Jack Pine 530,000 , 1.5”?- 2’ . r
_Imurco meant, . -, Iva
7.7/4?" 1 V ruscou mac
O g:::;00d 569,000 :4 «hr r usmw
/V “yr—1 Gama! .unwr
“5‘ / . Oak 872.000 ’0,“ CLINTON 3’1““. Ila-4M
. ’7 any»
' ‘ Hemlock 987,000 auteur um (Aron menu uwmr’
% Other 1 174 000 VMDURIN num- away: JACA'JOfi murmur mm A
Q 9
Hardwood d
a" , 4‘ , .
/ 6’ as: swarm mum mmm mun: wanna: .y
’/ POplars‘ 2,644,000
‘ Poplars include aspen,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cottonwood and balm-of-Gilead
a-._ j I J
I” 09' 07° or

_ ‘

 

 

 

-39-

Information regarding the amount of aspen cut and its
uses are difficult to obtain owing to the practice of sta-
tistical agencies of combining it with cottonwood and related
species. However, an estimated volume of saw timber is given
in Figure 14. The relatively small volume of saw timber from
such a large area is explained by the fact that the majority
of aspen trees are small diameter stockymeasuring less than

six inches in diameter. See Table No. XIII and Figure 14.

TABLE N0. XIII (15)

ACREAGE OF ASPEN BY SIZE OF TREE FOR
TYPICAL COUNTIES IN MICHIGAN

 

 

 

County Size of Tree * Total Acres of
UW-5"Dia. 5"-3"DIa. 5"-9"DIa. Forest Land
Acres Acres Acres Acres
Alpena 95,776 55,282 585 159,917
Roscommon 70,551 9,141 55 102,508
Kalkaska 5,452 5,474 655 57,265
Menominee 112,296 57,488 7,456 ' 184,259

 

It has been estimated that in the entire Lake States
cut-over area, there are 29,000,000 cords of aspen in trees
four inches and more in diameterpof which there are not more
than 12,000,000 cords over six inches in diametervwhich is
the minimum diameter recognized for merchantable timber. On
this basis it is predicted that within 25 years 15 to 40 per
cent of this stand will become merchantable_and in 25 to 50

years 60 to 85 per cent will become merchantable. (21)

\\

-§

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“AI—a

1’!

 

 

02'~.

 

 

 

 

4'1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure No. 14-_ Volume of saw'
Timber by Species in Cut-Over

Area of lower Michigan. (48)
Species Board Feet

Other Pine 210,000,000

Jack Pine 90,000,000
Other 60,000,000
Softwood

Oak 159,000,000
Hemlock 165,000,000
Other

Hardwood 1,077,000,000

Poplars‘ 227,000,000

I

GOSSOSQ

Poplars include aspen,
cottonwood and
balm-of-Gilead

 
 

 

 

  

 

 

M1115“ CR ’

 

. I"
I I
./

c

 
 

 

 

“I

‘-

 

 

.1/

     
    

\ 1.,
V. '_

 

/

3/;

 

‘,‘ . “‘ _~‘I ‘ \
x 1 - .‘
-‘\ AV. Q ‘\
.-' 00 \.

 

 

 

MOW/N MENAC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I L

 

“U
owflfi
r
anunm-anmnu “MM!
and»: 11c
«raw mmr new»
one“! “mu"
10”“ CLINM ”M”. “w
hwuuw
away sun! «wan umnnw
.oumww .mauwv mummuwaunu
umww muuuulnumu mmma: “

 

 

 

 

u"

 

 

-40-

It is also estimated that on medium soils the growth
rate of aspen at 50 years of age is about 4/10 or a cord per
acre annually for well-stacked stands and at 50 years of age
almost 9/10 of a cord, (22) .

If the figures in Table No. XII are assumed to be average
for the entire area of aspen forest in the cut-over area and
it is further assumed that this forest cover is soil of medium
fertility, then the volume of sapen on the 2% million acres of
cut-over land is increasing at the approximate rate of 250,000
cords per year only on the stands 25 years of age and over.

This volume of wood can be converted into equivalent
board feet of lumber per cord by using the conversion factors
from Table No. XIV. By using the conversion factor of 265
for aspen bolts of six inch t0p diameter, this 250,000 cords
of aspen would be equivalent to 66,250,000 board feet of lum-
ber. The fact that this increase in the volume of aspen wood
cannot all be converted into lumber should be emphasized.
These estimates, however, do indicate the rapid increase in
the total volume of aspen wood, and it seems reasonable to
assume that the increase in the supply of potential aspen
lumber is proportional.

In concluding their study of aspen, Johnson, Kittridge,
and Schmitz say, "The large area of land occupied by aspen
forests in the Lake States makes it essential that the species
be utilized more extensively. The wood is growing faster than
it is being used and the short life of the tree requires that
consumption be more nearly balancedwith growth, otherwise a

large portion of the crop will be wasted." (24)

PROPERTIES AND UTILIZATION OF ASPEN

Available information on the pr0perties and utilization
of aspen generally has been limited to the large commercial
users of this wood. There has been little incentive to make
this information available to small local builders, since
aspen has been so little used for building construction.
However, those industries, particularly the paper and excel-
sior manufacturers, which are the largest users of aspen,
have known of its desirable properties for these specific
uses.

Wood distributors and users in the aspen area have always
been prejudiced against the use of aspen. This attitude is
due chiefly to the relatively small size of the mature tree
and the generally poor appearance of the tree and the finished
lumber. '

Other species such as cottonwood, eastern hemlock, jack
pine and red gum have passed through a similar stage. A com-
parison of the properties of aspen with those of other, better
known, woods should remove some of the prejudice against aspen
and aid in the more extensive utilization of the species.

A comparison of the properties of aspen with those of
other woods for which it might be substituted is made in
Table No. XV.

In discussing the use of aspen for structural lumber,
Johnson, Kittridge, and Schmitz, have this to say:

"That a8pen can be used for lumber and that such

lumber will give good service under certain con-

ditions has been amply demonstrated. Time alone

can tell how successfully it can compete in the
market with other woods.

-42..

"Considerable quantities of aspen have been and are
being cut into lumber by portable sawmills in Minne-

sota.
all ordinary purposes.

This lumber is used by settlers for practically
Unless it has received a pre-

servative treatment however, it should not be used in
contact with the soil or in damp places which are

favorable to decay."(25)

A LIST OF REPORTED USES OF ASPEN

Lumber

Boxes and Crates
Excelsior
Crossties

Fuel Wood

Posts

Mine timbers
Slack cooperage
Tight cooperage
Matches

Core Stock
Novelties
Boxes, piano
Boxes, pill
Boxes, shoe peg
Boxes, tackle
Boxes, veneer
Brooms

Brushes

Buckets
Cabinets
Carrier, potato
Carriers, root
Cases, shipping
Casing“

Casing, house
Caskets and outside boxes
Ceiling
Clapboards
Cooperage
Crates

Crating

Doors

Dowels and skewers
Dressers
Driers, clothes
Fillers, shoe
Finish, interior, house
Fixtures
Flooring

Forms, hosiery

Baskets, fruit and vegetable
packages

Beams and frames for railroad
cars

Blocks, brush

Boards, hosiery

Boats, stone

Bodies, vehicle

Bottoms, basket

Boxes, bluing

Boxes, butter

Boxes, candy

Boxes, cheese

Box, lock-corned

Forms, shoe

Frames, door

Lining, interior, refrigerator

Matches

Novelties

Newels, stair

Organs

Pails, candy

Pails, cooky

Parts, body, vehicle,
machinery

Parts, organ

Parts, potato machinery

Poles

Products, planing mill

Pulp, paper

Racks, clothes

Refrigerators

Sash, doors and blinds

Scows, sand

Sheathing

Sheeting

Shingles

Shooks

Shuttles, spools and bobbins

Siding

Sleds, bob

-45-

List of Reported Uses of Aspen (continued)

Spools

Stringers, clothes rack
Supplies, dispensary
Sweepers, carpet
Tenders, baby

Timbers, mine
Toothpicks

Frames, window
Furniture

Furniture, work, hidden
Games

Handles, brush

Handles, cutlery
Handles, dipper
Handles, knives
Handles, paint and sweeping
Heads, spool

Hoops, basket
Implements, agricultural
Kegs, putty.

Kegs, spice

Kits, fish

Ladders

Lasts, show

Toys, bottom, cart
Toys, bottom, sled
Toys, bottom, wagon
Toys, game

Toys, wheelbarrow

Toys, yard, play, baby
Trees, shoe

Tubs, food, poultry
Tubs, jelly

Tubs, lard

Tubs, powder

Tubs, sugar

Vehicle parts
Woodenware

Wool, wood

Work, interior furniture
Venetian blind slats

-44..

.ooadom 080m hp 0opmomw3m m0qdom com-e no unmaos .0003 QwSOm .0003
ha0 .0oamod pom m0nfiom coo-n mo pgwaos smmazm coapooomQH 0cm weanwaos amoumoa no 0ommm .m

.uaoo pom m .psaom hao>aao0 um .5000 nod 000m .oaaom wna0moa-um muoa amo 0moaaama

Mom
0003 on pao>qOo 06

.uaoo mom a Ammoaov

“pcoo pom b Aowmao>mV-muooo pom OH 005050 Ammooav wdaaam
.poom canoe mma no 0200 0am0nmpm 0 0mm mpoa 0moauxozap a0 00mmm .a

 

 

 

 

 

 

ommum ommne oa om mmm 0am m om
ommam own-v OH om can mom 0 ma
own-m own-e 0H om own 000 a ma
own-m com-e OH me can owe OH ea
000 m 00m 0 0H we can one

- a ma ma
Gee-N omaae m be one cow ma 0H
Omvmm OHHaw m we 0H0 can mm m
0am m one 0 m or now 0am we 0
m0ndom m0a50m oasmmoz 0amom nonasz mononH
mam cooam 22mm 0003 oamom o amaaooa 0aoo mom paom

nopssq hoapaaom nuaom ommao>< mo

 

meaoo aom pamaoe

I

 

oaoo pom poem oanso

 

0&00 pom poem 0Amom

ampmamam doe

 

A0oamoqu mzpwdoa sooav
.amuaom Mom comm<

ZMmm< mom mezmq<>HD3m mEDQo>

amav>aa .oz mamas

 

 

-45-

 

oma ooe oomnm m.m em. moans seeseaoz .osam
oem oem ooe.ea m.ma mm. eeoamsoa .osam
mmm mmm oom.e eHOa me. some .osam
oma 00m oom.m e‘m me. ssoeemm .sooasom
oma mmm oom.e muoa ae. seeaem .aam
00m m o e mm. means :aoasaoz .amooo
omm ome oom.m m.ma . .
com com o . . we. Soaaow amadom
ome- 0mm.a omw.ma m.oa mm. seeasm .seaaom
mae 0mm.a oom.ea m.ma as. means .seo
. H 00 0mm .xmo
mmm mmm aa m. .
Obw one . .ea on amoaaoed .Eam
onm oom.m a ea 00. campmmm .0oosnouuoo
0mm ooe m m.ma .
omm ome ooa.m m.aa MW. e m oomenmmm
- . uooum 9mg do m
mam 0mm ooe.m m aa oe. . some“
mmma mmm mmm meme mmm mmm mmsoe I as
SU u OT-G JXG SPIJ can-m D. J BAN. e d
.898 "HT-.8 8.58 Pa 110 mu” WSW I. K8
JUJI 4n uma 079W Sum PIT O W.“ 2 :0
8.0 0.48 92 t.-nve 2- e a-n-u e U. -L
eeTu JIM de I S J-S S u9 M3 1 SJ
J u He U. B mufis e S d 8 SMOKE 3....
Sid Moo... .SJ 900... UNI. 900 u on .d 80
.ded ne-l TeI e «1 qu Te uG .m PO moo?”
.enm mam QB: Jen. a; gem Amen s on 1 .
IfiTu 09 www .WNW .mw Wfiu 0990 u an
ulmp n du aELP mm 435 IuTm Q T:
Guam-L. Hoe 989. I. H .d 8 In men. I. A4
H 0 Do a o Plea oOI UJ eflflm 9 0A
R S 90 . JTL 09 T...
I O S D - mne q fluue H m
B .d-u .D J HIT. nee-L 7:8 w 0 no
I am . s q/ on o w on
e m. mu Memo - M. M. u

 

mme¢sm QwBHZD WEB zH 230mm onoS mo mmHBmMmomm QHB<Amm Q24 maozmmem

aemv>x .oz mamee

ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND EXPERIMENTAL CONSTRUCTION

The value of an extended study of experimental construc-
tion in the utilization of aspen is well recognized. Although
such construction was undertaken during this study, it is
questionable whether the time alloted will be sufficient to
draw any definite conclusions upon which design recommendations
can be made. However some preliminary data have been obtained
which are discussed later.

To obtain data which could be applied immediately to
recommendations on the utilization of native lumber, particu~
larly aspen, in farm building construction, a survey was made
in previously identified areas where such construction is most
urgently needed.

No definite survey procedure was followed in making this
study. The primary objective was to contact individuals who
had used native lumber and by inspecting the buildings and
studying the building requirements of these individuals
determine:

1. The need for native lumber.

2. How native lumber was being used.

5. The durability of native lumber under actual
service conditions.

4. The user's reaction to the desirability of
using native lumber.

5. What improvements in the manufacture, distribution
and utilization of native lumber would increase
its use.

The users of native lumber visited in this survey were

located through contacts with county agents, local saw mill

-47-

operators, and by inquiries from those interviewed in the
course of this survey. The data collected are recorded on
the following pages.

The first eight reports are on farm buildings and the

remainder are reports on miscellaneous types of construction.

 

Figure No. 15

Farm - No. 1

Location - Gladwin County

Size of Farm - 80 Acres

Woodlot - None

Type of Farming - Dairy

Type of Soil - Class 1 Sandy Loam

Buildings Required for Adequate Farm Operations -
Poultry House
Granary
Machine Shed

Remodeled House

Lumber Requirements - 20 M Board Feet

The new barn constructed in 1940 will replace the
adjacent one which is to be torn down. The owner of this

farm had intended to use local aSpen for the new barn and

-484

says that he would have used it in preference to local yard
lumber at the current price. Instead, he used Norway pine
purchased for $56/M board feet which was being salvaged

from down timber as a result of a severe storm in the Ros-
common area. The completed barniwhich is 56' x 66'.cost’
$2500 as compared to an estimated 55500 if local yard lumber
had been used.

Other buildings needed on this farm and which will be
constructed are: a new poultry house for 200 hens, a granary
for 2500 bushel of grain, a machine shed, and the house,
which was not photographed at the request of the owner, will
be remodeled.

It is estimated that at least 20 M boardfeet of lumber
will be required for these proposed buildings. If the supply
of Norway pine lasts until these proposed buildings can be
constructed, it will be used. Otherwise, the owner says he

will use jack pine or aSpen.

-49-

 

Figure No. 16

Farm - No. 2
Location - Gladwin County
Size of Farm - 120 Acres
Woodlot - 60 Acres of Timber
Type of Farming - General,Livestock and Dairy
Type of Soil - Class 1 Sandy Loam
Buildings Needed - Barn
Poultry House
Granary
House Remodeled

Lumber Requirements - Estimated 40 M Board Feet

Type of Lumber Likely to be Used - Mostly Aspen, Other
Hardwoods

The young couple who had moved from the city onto this
farm left to them by aging parents were considerably depressed
over the probable cost for new buildings which they considered
essential. They were interested in using native lumber, per-
haps from trees cut from their own wood lot and talked enthu-
siastically about the old barn which had been constructed
about 40 years ago from aspen lumber. The aspen siding on
this old barn, although it had never been painted, appeared

to be in reasonably good condition.

~50-

 

Figure No. 17

Farm - No. 5
Location - Gladwin County
Size of Farm - 80 Acres
Woodlot - 6 Acres of Hardwood
Type of Farming - General Livestock and Dairy
Type of Soil - Class 1 Sandy Loam
Buildings Needed - New House
Granary
Poultry House
Machine Shed
Estimated Lumber Requirements - 50 M Board Feet

Type of Lumber likely to be Used - Elm and Other Hardwood
from Woodlot

The twenty-five year old farmer who recently purchased
this rundown farm h0pes to make it pay. A new barn 56' x 60'
has just been completed at a cost of $1200. All of the dim-
ension lumber and roof boardsyWhich are mostly elm/were
obtained from the farm woodlot. The siding was purchased
for $60/M board feet, from the local lumber yard, and this
farmer admits that he could never have built the barn if he

had been required to buy all his lumber at comparable prices.

-51-

 

 

Figure No. 18

Farm - No. 4

Location - Alcona County

Size of Farm - 120 Acres

Woodlot - None

Type of Farming - Dairy

Type of Soil - Class 1 Sandy Loam

A new barn with laminated rafters constructed almost
entirely from short length aSpen, balsam fir and balm-of- _
Gilead was erected on this farm in 1956 at a cost of $1500.
The lumber used for the rafters was 1" x 5" strips cut
from 8-foot pulp wood bolts. The pulp wood was cut from

adjacent national forest land at a cost of Sl/M board feet.

-52-

 

Figure No. 19

Farm - NO. 5

Location - Gladwin County

Size of Farm - 40 Acres

Woodlot - None

Type of Farming - Hay and Grain (Land now cash rental)

Type of Soil - Class 1 Sandy Loam

Buildings required for adequate Farm Operation:
Barn for 8 to 10 Cows, 50 Sheep
Poultry House for 100 Hens
Granary for 500 Bushels Grain
Machine Shed

Estimated Lumber Requirements - 50 M Board Feet

The owner of this farm is now working in a factory in
an adjacent city but would prefer to return to the farm
with his family. The only reason he is not now on the
farm is because the buildings are inadequate and the photo-
graph would seem to substantiate this opinion.

The owner's father has a woodlot containing mostly
aspen and some logs will be cut as time permits that will

provide lumber for the needed buildings.

-55-

 

Figure No. 20

Farm - No. 6
Location - Clare County
Size of Farm - 500 Acres
Woodlot - 200 Acres of Woodland Pasture
Type of Farming - Dairy
Type of Soil - 100 Acres of Class 1 Sandy Loam
Buildings Required for Adequate Farm Operation -
House Remodeled
Granary for 2000 Bushel
Machine Shed

Estimated Lumber Requirements - 50 M Board Feet

A new barn was constructed for $1200 on this farm in
1940 using elm and aspen for framing; aspen and basswood
for siding and sheathing; and cedar shingles. It was esti-
mated that a similar barn constructed from local yard lum-
ber would have cost at least $5000.

The owner has had some experience in lumbering and
feels that aspen is entirely satisfactory for farm construc-
tion. Aspen logs are being sawed into lumber at a local
mill for the new buildings that are soon to be constructed

on this farm.

-54-

     

4 .I

Figure No; 21
Farm - No. 7

Location - Alcona County

Size of Farm - 120 Acres

Woodlot - Some Wooded Pasture - Has Access to 400
Acres of Timber

Type of Farming - Dairy
Type of Soil - Class 2 Sandy Loam
Buildings Required for Adequate Farm Operation -
House
Barn
Poultry House
Granary
Machine Shed
Estimated Lumber Requirements - 100 M Board Feet
This 120 acre farm was purchased in 1958 by a client
of the Farm Security Administration for $1600. The farm
land can be made productive; market facilities are favorable;
electric service is available; and the owner would like to
make a home of this farm that would provide security for his
family. As he says, this cannot be accomplished until the
necessary buildings are constructed.
Material consisting of aspen, jack pine, and second

growth white pine is now being cut for these buildings

which will be constructed as soon as possible.

-55-

    

Figure No. 22
Farm - No. 8
Location - Clare County

Size of Farm - 120 Acres - Additional 240 Acres of
Pasture Rented

Woodlot - 60 Acres of Small Hardwood - Mostly Aspen of
Little Value - Will Eventually be Cleared

Type of Farming - General Livestock

Type of Soil - Class 2 Sandy Loam

Buildings Needed for Adequate Farm Operation -
House Remodeled
Barn for 20 Cows and 50 Sheep

Estimated Lumber Requirements - 40 M Board Feet

This farm is also being purchased by a client of the
Farm Security Administration who is now working in an ad-
jacent factory. He also has a small repair shop on the farm
and the income is to be used for constructing the buildings
needed on this farm.

The usable timber on the 60 acres of pasture land will
be cut and additional lumber needed will probably be aspen

purchased from neighbors and cut at a local saw mill.

-55-

 

Figure No. 25A
This log house was constructed of aspen logs in 1950
and is Sound today. One of the advantages of using aspen
logs for this type of construction is its relative freedom
from cracking in the process of seasoning. This character-
istic is shown in the enlarged section of a corner of’the

building.

 

Figure No. 258

Note freedom from cracking in all 10gs except one.

This one is a spruce log.

-57-

 

 

Figure No. 24A Figure No. 24B

This new poultry house was constructed in 1941 of aspen
poles approximately four inches in diameter. It will replace
the old poultry house also shown. The actual cash outlay
for this building was less than $25, which includes the con-
crete foundation, roofing and windows. The poles were cut
from the woods in the background.

The use of small aspen poles or logs is one practical
method of using small dimension trees for much needed build-
ings on marginal or part time farms. The poles are slabbed
on two sides to form a tight wall without making it necessary
to chink the cracks. If aspen poles are used in this manner,
placed upon a concrete foundation and preferably treated
with some preservative, they should last for many years.

A small stack of well-piled aspen lumber has also been
accumulated for needed repairs and other construction on

this small farm.

~58-

 

 

Figure No. 25

This 56' x 72' dairy barn was recently constructed
using native material consisting mainly of aspen and jack
pine. The cash investment in this barn was approximately
$1500, and the barn probably would never have been con-
structed had the owner not been able to use readily
available native lumber. Part of this lumber was cut
from the owner's wood lot and part of it purchased from

the Tanner mill at East Tawas.

-59-

 

 

4] ‘. ' *o'
,_ is, n..-.
Figure No. 268
This barn constructed for a client of the Farm Security
Administration illustrates the use of a combination of native
materials; field stone picked from adjacent fields was used

for the basement walls and foundation. The frame is con-

structed of native elm, jack pine and aspen.

-60-

 

Figure No. 27A Figure No. 27B

This silo was constructed over 50 years ago from 2" x 4”
hemlock lumber. About that time hemlock lumber was in much
the same position as aspen lumber is today. It was considered
a very inferior wood and it is inferior in many respects to
white pine which had been so abundant in the years just pre-
vious to the time this silo was constructed.

This silo has been filled every year for the past 50
years. The silage has kept in good condition and the lumber
is still sound. With continued painting, using asphalt or
creosote on the outside, it should last for another 50 years.

Note the crib construction and theuniform width of the

boards and also the freedom from cracks.

-51-

f H5 w
,—. Ni '--'

9'15“ 392‘ :3... "f; {'5’
r. ' ‘ .. «L: ”Q‘s“? -

u '2’. J!
01,-." D

c A,

- .4!

 

Figure No. 28A

 

Figure No. 28B

One of several cottages or tourist cabins c0nstructed
of aspen logs. There seems to be an increasing interest in
this type of construction and it may provide a valuable mar-

ket for aspen logs and lumber where they are readily available.

-52-

I

 

152'.“'.. .7133. .
Figure No. 29A

”I"

This log cabin was constructed almost entirely of Jack
pine logs. A few spruce and norway pine were also used. It
was constructed in 1940 and as yet shows no signs of weather-
ing. The outside of the logs have been varnished and the
inside walls are all panelled with knotty pine. Knotty pine
is widely used for interior finishing and if knots are p0pu~
lar, Jack pine is second to none. For this purpose it is

just as serviceable as southern pine.

 

Figure No. 29B

A corner of above cabin showing method of fitting logs.

-63..

 

A corner of above building
showing siding too close to
the ground causing rapid

deterioration.

 

Figure No. SOB

With the exception of the foundation and roofing, this
tourist cabin is constructed entirely of aspen. Aspen is
used for such purposes as flooring both inside the cabin and
on the porch floor. Aspen is used for all framing members
and for siding. This cabin was constructed in 1955 and shows
no indications of deterioration. It has been painted once

since it was constructed.

~64-

 

Figure No. 51

This 36' x 50' barn was constructed by another Farm
Security Administration client for a cash outlay of about
$900. The lumber for this barn was obtained partly from the
owner's woodlot and partly from the Huron National Forest.

The Farm Security Administration supervisor for this
region says that before this barn was constructed, the owner
was housing four cows and a like number of young stock in an
entirely inadequate 16' x 24' barn, without feed storage,
and the sales per cow for the year probably did not exceed
$50. During the first half of the year after building the
new barn, the owner was milking twelve cows, had about 18
head of young stock and the barn had adequate space for
storing all required feed and bedding. Under these condi-
tions, the income per cow was almost double what it had

been previously.

-65...

.‘\

.—

 

 

 

 

 

I ' 

:3 .2"-

 

Figure No. 52

Another use for native lumber. These calf stanchions
are constructed of cedar poles, but there is no reason
why other species of native lumber could not be used for
similar purpose if they were first preperly treated with

some preservative and kept reasonably free from moisture.

-66—

EXPERIMENTAL CONSTRUCTION

Since most of the prejudice against aspen is due to
small dimension and relatively low grade lumber, it seems
desirable to give some serious consideration to types of
construction in which the sizes and grades of available
aspen lumber could be used most profitably.

A high per cent of the aspen trees ready to be har-
vested in the cut-over area of Michigan are under six inches
in diameter and the saw logs from these trees will vary from
eight to twelve feet in length. The accepted practice is
to saw these small diameter logs into narrow one-inch boards
or into two-inch by four-inch dimension lumber.

Most standard designs for farm building construction are
adapted to the use of this small dimension lumber. However,
it is almost always used in conjunction with commercial
materials such as flooring, siding or roofing. The sugges-
tion that this native material be used exclusively for some
low cost type of construction that would be practical for
farmers in the cut-over area is a wide departure from
recognized construction practices. However, when such a
prOposal was made, a type of construction known as "crib"
construction was suggested as having possibilities. This
particular type of construction was used quite extensively
before the steel and reinforced concrete era for the walls
of grain elevators and for storage binsfiwhere a high degree
of resistance to lateral pressure was desirable. .A crib
constructed silo is shown in Figure 27. This type of con-

struction has also been used for rough floors of various

-57-

types of structuresobut to use it for finished floors, walls
Iand roof with neither an interior or exterior covering
seemed extremely questionable. Per haps no further study
would have been made had it not been for the critical farm
housing situation in the cut-over area and the need for
buildings requiring an absolute minimum of cash investment.
In view of these facts, additional studies were made on the .
practicability of using crib construction for such buildings.
The advantages of "crib" construction are:

1. It is adapted to small dimension lumber
manufactured from small diameter logs.

2. Only one size (cross-section) dimensioned
lumber is required for any building.

3. Random length lumber reduces waste.

4. No skilled labor is required for construction.

5. No commercial building materials are required
except nails and even these could be replaced

by wood dowels in extreme cases.

6. Has greater insulating value than standard
frame construction.

7. Has greater strength and rigidity than standard
frame construction.

The disadvantages of "crib" construction are:

1. More lumber is required per unit of area enclosed.
The per cent increase will depend upon the type
of construction used for comparison.

2. It is difficult to obtain smooth surfaces free
from cracks unless carefully sawed or planed
lumber is used.

Specifications for a crib constructed grain elevator

are given in a text book, "Walls, Bins, and Grain Elevators"

written in 1919 by Milo s. Ketchum as follows: (26)

-68-

"The bins shall be constructed by planking in
courses laid as follows: All walls shall be
laid up plumb and true, forming square corners
in the bins. Each course of planking shall be
securely nailed with 50d wire nails 4%" long,
said nails not exceeding 22 to a pound. At

all interior crossings two nails shall be
driven in each end of each piece of plank in
the 4" and 6" walls. At all outside crossings
five nails shall be driven in each end of each
plank crossing the wall and four nails in the’
plank at right angles to it. The intermediate
nails shall be spaced and staggered. At the
base of the walls and for 11' -o" in height the
nails shall be spaced not to exceed 14" centers,
and for each additional 11' -0" in height the
distance apart may be increased 2". The heads
of the nails shall be well bedded in the wood."

Another reference to the use of crib construction for
grain storages is quoted from Farmers' Bulletin No. 1656,
"Farm Bulk Storage for Small Grains."

"In the crib type, the walls are built up of 2"

lumber laid flat and spiked tOgether, the width‘

being determined by the height of the structure.

For building 24 feet or less in height, 2" x 4"

lumber is used. In walls 24 to 40 feet high the

lower 16 to 18 feet are usually build of 2 x 6"

material. The crib type of framing is preferable

when the storage capacity exceeds 10,000 bushels.

A metal clad farm elevator of this type of con-

struction costs no more than a baloon type ‘

building of the same capacity would have cost." (25)

Following the basic specifications for "crib" construc-
tion as outlined by Ketchum, a small experimental building
was constructed of 2" x 2" basswood taken from the Sanford
woodlot at Michigan State College. Basswood was used in
place of aspen for most of this building to avoid delay7
since the aspen originally requested was not as yet avail-
able. In many reSpects, basswood is similar to aspen and
it was decided that most preliminary observations could be

made by using basswood.

.The factors upon which preliminary observations were
to be made are:
1. General construction procedure.

2. Methods of closing the cracks between mis-sawed
boards.

3. Dimensional variation in the building owing to
expansion and contraction of the lumber with
changes in atmospheric humidity.

A photograph of this first experimental building com-
pleted except for the door and window is shown in Figure 55.
_ This building was constructed for a portable tool shed to be
used by the Forestry Department of Michigan State College.
The skids are cedar poles; the floor is composed of three
different woods: aspen, balm of Gilead and basswood. The
small amount of aspen and balm-of-Gilead available was
used in the floor since it would be more rapidly subjected
to deteriorating influences and evidence of decay could be
more readily detected. One-half of the floor of each species
was painted with creosote and the other half used without
treatment. The treated lumber was painted on all four sur-
faces as it was nailed in place.

As construction with the side walls progressed, it
became increasingly evident that one of the most serious
objections to using unplaned, rough-sawed lumber was the
irregularity in dimensions, and particularly the difference
in thickness of the individual boards. This is not a criti-
cism of the species used but of the method of manufacturing

the lumber.

One of the first attempts to compensate.for minor
variation in the thickness of the 2" x 4" was to paint
the tOp surface of the thinner one with a coat of heavy
white lead paint or aSphalt paint. This might have been
practical if sufficient time had been given for the paint
to dry, but as succeeding layers of 2" x 4" were nailed in
place, the paint was forced from the cracks.

This method of attempting to fill the cracks between
the 2" x 4" was discontinued in favor of laying 4" strips
of heavy asphalt paper over the thinner 2" x 4". This
method seemed to be satisfactory and was used for the re-
mainder of the building. See Figure 34.

This building was constructed in the Agricultural
Engineering laboratory during the summer of 1942 and was
taken to the Forestry woodlot in the fall of that year.
Observations were made at various times during the winter
and the following summer to determine any variations in
the dimensions of the wall owing to shrinkage or swelling
with changes in atmospheric moisture. No significant
variations were observed. It is entirely possible that the
space between the 2" x 2" members oi'the wall compensated
for any changes in thickness of the lumber. Although at
no time were the open cracks completely closed by the
swelling of the wood.

Insufficient time has elapsed since this building was
constructed to make any predictions as to its ultimate dura-
bility. There is no evidence after three years of exposure
to indicate a rate of deterioration more rapid than would be

expected of other wooden structures.

-71-

 

Figure No. 55

An experimental building made of crib constructionj
using 2" x 2" material (mostly bass-wood). This building
is to be used in the college woodlot for tool storage.

The door is to be hung.

-72.-

 

Figure No. 34

An enlarged section of the wall of the building
shown in Figure 33. Note the wide unfilled crack and

the cracks above and below it filled with tar paper strips.

A SMALL HOUSE MADE FROM SCRAP WHITE
PINE LUMBER BY USING CRIB CONSTRUCTION

As a result of conferences with various individuals
regarding the use of native lumber and the possibilities
of using crib construction for various types of farm build-
ings, the small house shown in Figures 55A, B, C, and D was
constructed.

This small house is particularly interesting. The
outside walls, floors and interior partitions are constructed
entirely of scrap lumber from a sash and door manufacturing
plant. The cost of this scrap lumber was $60 and the owner
of this building estimates that the total cost of material
for the entire house was less than $550. Although the con-
struction of this house was not undertaken as a definite
part of this project on experimental construction, it was
inspired by the project and built while this study was being
made. Naturally this house was carefully observed during
and after the construction.

The white pine blocks, of which the main part of the
house was constructed, are approximately 1" x 5" in cross-
section and of random length from 4" to 16". The material
was waste from kiln dried stock, but no effort was made
to control the moisture content of this lumber as it was
being used. However, the outside walls were painted with
a penetrating oil as the work progressed.

The outline for the outside walls and partitions was
marked on the concrete floor slab and 1" x 5" boards were

bolted to the concrete as a nailing base for the successive

-74-

layers of block. See Figure 558. It was necessary to
build all partition walls at the same time since all inter-
secting walls are tied together by courses of overlapping
blocks. See Figure 550.

Some additional precaution was taken in selecting
blocks for the outside wall for the purpose of breaking
joints properly and to find pieces with clear faces for the
outside surface.

It was not particularly difficult to keep the walls
straight and plumb owing to the fact that the blocks were
uniform in width and if all edges of the blocks were flush,
the wall was reasonably true to line. As an extra precau-
tion, the walls were checked every few courses for any
error that might tend to become cumulative.

Door and window openings were provided by building
the wall to proper height and then letting the ends of
the blocks overhang to be sawed off later when the door
or window frames were inserted.

No record is available of the actual time required for
constructing this house since it was built during spare time
while the owner was working. The owner estimates that a
similar house could be constructed in less time than would
be required for standard frame construction owing to the
fact that no extra labor is required for sheathing or siding
and that the time could be still further reduced by using
longer material. It certainly seems reasonable to believe

that if a house could be so easily constructed of thin,

short blocks of uniform cross-section that it would be even
more simple to construct a similar building using 2" x 4"
pieces, providing these 2" x 4" could be sawed to uniform
cross-section.

There was some question as to the amount of swelling
which might be eXpected in the outside walls owing to ab-
sorption of moisture and the damage which might result in
cracked plaster and cracks around windows and doors. There-
fore before any interior finish was applied to the outside
walls, measurements were taken over a period of several
weeks including extremely humid and extremely dry weather
to determine any variations in the height of the outside
walls. These measurements were taken by driving a nail
into the wall near the ceiling at a given distance from
the floor and measuring at intervals the distance between
the floor and the nail.

When no significant change was observed in the height
of the wall, the original plan of applying the insulating
lath over furring strips was discarded and the lath nailed
directly to the interior surface of the wall.

As an extra precaution against moisture, the inside
surface of the outside wall was painted with asphalt paint
and 50-pound asphalt paper applied before the lath was
nailed directly to the wall.

At the present time, after the house has been lived in
for three years, there is no apparent indication of defects
which could be contributed to shrinkage or swelling of the

walls. See Figure 55D.

-76-

 

Figure No. 55A

 

Figure No. 55B

This attractive and livable house was built in 1941
at a cost for material of approximately $550 by using scrap

soft pine lumber and crib construction.

-77-

 

Figure No. 350

Detail of wall construction for house shown in Figure 55A.

 

Figure No. 55D

Detail showing method of framing partition into outside walls.

-78-

CRIB TYPE CONSTRUCTION FOR FARM GRANARIES

Perhaps one of the most practical uses of crib type
construction would be found in the construction of farm
granaries. This would be particularly true for deep bins
which appear to be more practical than shallow bins from
the standpoint of handling grain from a centrally located
vertical elevator.

The following photographs show the construction of a
crib type farm granary in which 2" x 4" yellow pine was used
for all outside walls and bin partitions. The original gra-
nary (without the lean-to additions shown in Figure 56) was
50 feet square and 20 feet high, divided into bins 10 feet
square.

This granary holds approximately 12,000 bushels of grain,
most of which can be handled by the vertical elevator through
spouts connecting each bin with the bottom of the elevator
pit.

By substituting standard frame construction for the
crib construction, it would have been necessary to use
2" x 14" studs,l2" on center or material of equivalent
strength sheathed either outside and inside or double
boarded on the outside. This type of construction would
require 52 board feet of lumber for each square foot of
wall against only 48 board feet for crib construction.

While it is true that smaller dimension studs could be used
if the walls were adequately braced, a higher quality lum-

ber used was accurately dressed to prOper dimension. However,

-79-

the simplicity of crib construction and the fact that it
is adapted to the use of short length and relatively low
grade lumber diould make it more pOpular as a method of

constructing certain types of farm buildings.

Note: Computations for determining the required
strength for the walls of a grain bin 10 feet square and

20 feet high were based upon Janssems formula:

wR (1 - 1 ) in which
T ( 1th )
( 2.7181“ )

 

Lateral pressure at depth h.

Weight per cubic foot of grain.

Hydraulic radius of the bin.

Coefficient of friction of grain on bin walls.
Ratio of lateral to vertical.

Depth of grain.

fixttwét“

 

Figure No. 56

The central portion of the building is a 10,000
bushel granary made of crib construction. See Figures

57 and 58 for details of construction.

-80-

 

 

Figure No. 57
All bin partitions are tied into outside walls by overlapping

alternated layers of 2" x 4", making an extremely rigid build-
ing.

 

 

 

 

 

Figure No. 5B

The maximum value of crib construction is in deep bins which
would require heavier construction members and extra bracing,
if ordinary construction was used. The owner estimated that
the cost of this granary is no greater than the cost of one

of similar capacity using standard stud construction.

 

C‘
J
.r'.
I”
slid-

E.

" A g"
F 2. x.

4

 

 

 

WIDTH OR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INDIVIDUAL PIEC

 

 

a... —----_.--_ ___- - . --_ -.-- _.— ~--.—.—.-....-.,_-.w. . —.- -... .- 1 ‘9 ,
I ‘ I, r
, I 5y '7'
i ‘ . t
I .
_ k
-‘1’ w 1‘ - a... .o. _~,’9
: .. I - xvi ,4 J I L“ j l ‘ _ 2
_ 1 I . W
' I
I J
' c
I I
I
9 ,7- , < . _- ._- 9.9.- v
I v
I . . 4 - .. ‘ . 9..
I . . w 9
‘ -'
9 I
I 1
1 -— -- _ _<-.-_‘
I E2 ~ ..
l I .‘4 _
I ‘_. "'
9 ‘ z... — - v.. 0~--
V
I .
I 9 I
2 9
l i - - _‘ . _. -_ ~——“‘_ _ x--- - ‘ A- «*1 AJ#.V-_m.-l‘ L 1 n l , ‘4"; _-, .1’
”—1.45 ‘v' ‘Lr. w A ‘. ..-.L < r“... x .. .2 .- - . - ‘-
I mm “win ’ 4, we 12- ‘3” n. v» “'5‘ "- -,...- ~- "4
‘ I
I I
I _ i i .
I .‘-_’ _'
I
I a. :
3' .-—~ ”1‘ a: I, 19
.
I I '
A
f I
‘- ‘2 “ seam-mmma: Java. .23 - -. .; .w I ~. “a... ". r-.‘
s '- ‘ - - ._ w _
_ :- ,..- n1 '4. .‘M‘QET:: . :0l-h._~-‘"- E- y . [7:7 tat}: ‘E‘A': ~7-“7’I J 0"” "$1. 9 .n‘ _- (x {I . v . _: , v .v .m‘
.
:- infin<._ 0.. ‘Li _‘ .6”- S
I. ' .
5‘52 ‘-"4.“'—<" av _.-_- he ~‘. "-91.

.fl. ' -"~"‘-’-F.‘~L’LWZI~-""'¢.‘~‘-‘ " ---:":
.‘

i

I

51... - "2""? "J"

l. _- .
Trev—"i! '-A'\'.~a'u~:.- .4 42.?- .._. V'Eu'.

 

 

 

wwanq
JACK PINE 2 x 4 S

 

 

OF 8-IO'I2
222"FACE

O

THICKNESS OR

 

5'1.
‘7

u...
«‘3’ w; ii

I“ C
.:‘_.___j._ .-

1
1 v

1 1.
J's . -.—f~l‘

Fifi-max; :vkri‘; .‘. 2.1.75.7

.7
figure“, "3' r: 3412232.!"

 

 

 

 

     

    

I

w... -..,v

— A- . {'7 u;

I

. _ _. ,, u_.___,.____-..‘. .-;.....__.-.-....-J

‘— =' ‘ “4- W=m.m¢x-n?i72mr In.“ ‘4 -..- '- .~ .. - .1 “1
~"""9"'-‘-"v“"‘. ' 37-53519"! Hafiz-“i=4 Taxi-13.1w ‘.’E2"" Law a? «a -T.

 

 

. -.._.....__
E
.N
.

_-

“A. ~h)Mm~ Aids. Asa: 9 ~35: ~L _.-_¢~ .

 

 

  
 

 

 

 

-—-..__.—.__.. fl—fifl‘ ”a. mfi-m—

 

 

 

 

\I S I ONAL VARIATION

 

1r ., .;;_v-..‘.. ;- fuel-fl" :" .__,.- 1.1.,‘ ‘r' 24
E 4 .._ » 1
. W.;.b~¢i“r;;."3..--‘ (5" 3 ‘a ‘79
In - _- ~ . ,.._ - . ~ -~ '. 2- -- - -~ 124-9:
.9. j. -. .. £#;_6_‘1.;§41 _:~_-."',.~_-.' .' , '. -‘
-. I i
~.. - -.___.._ _.- i... . .-—. .~ TV" "rr'"‘"';.-' +3—_"_ -.-"—“"“‘ ““" ‘ ‘H‘
"‘ ‘ "‘"‘ ‘ mnfi’mm.2wr3w« '«~ . ..7~- ‘.'~ 2 2. .. ,
E - “c ’ . . ' . l
_“‘ _ _'_ V ‘ .rms-"finzwvvnw r-vr v-. mm H .-. the" Q)
I I
' I
p 2 ..-' ... 1‘ A.~.‘ .-:-o__‘- ‘ i.
I _ 4
I LT;'-¥VYVQ"7~M-'W1"7vr r- q
I . I
n qua-A. -.—-‘-r. _._. ‘ _ ‘ ‘fl' .-,.-. ' " ‘- ‘-“ wymm‘wm-sanr.d.-g<r“--.‘.s.._-.e 03‘»: thin. ~r .. ‘- = '
‘ c :6 ; ' ' ' :3 '-"-' ‘ .- “1..-. 3!! 7? "’SK2TM’WWFTFJ-fiws .‘n-«c-v an"... .. ._ fiszéawvrmwm“ v:-:.;.,‘im~'-r«‘.'~ar-‘.-. '5' r .54
'9- .__.._ . - --,_. 4-- . , 1
I ~ . . .
I. . , . _ I . I .
a l I I I I I in ’I‘ “x"- "" “"‘" "2"
‘. c I ~ - '- ‘2 .t
' I I I a .
I ' 1‘. V " ' - ‘- J . 3.
“ if“ i 9 9 W ' ‘ - to.
h i I I I I l
. J: n I
4" l I . Wx-‘.a.&‘1‘f.'. ‘_
I “‘11-" Ly» 7r'<- “,- "'-." J ". - ' > .‘ -. .— ‘
k _~.. V -. ('7) I 3
.1 ' \ : L , _, . f'\ r
' ‘ -.-,.o eon-n.- u g
"-41 . .-
' . \ :. ....-..
‘ I
w
4 «a. _.—" . . *— t I . ‘u»‘ ‘-- _,

_ 9 ' 9 9 _ A . v _o‘ >,- _qp-u ‘
Wag-m. a... ... 1,. .. . r2. 2
'. :t‘“-" -¥..a"'r'o.~:-If'r. » . * ~~i-n:.:-.-; _ Evil!” '2'. '

I
I
I
.-1
- .J. . _ ’.:-'i'
'9‘; A A\‘ -
7" .
hr _ ~\ » a;
I
3
I
J: a. -: ‘ ' I? '5...
9- .53 "
as“- - --:
Pk“? . ' 53

.u...-

1.9
J
"0 pp

2 ‘ '
, .
‘ l
.. .

.-

a‘~

I 3
l’. | I

‘. I

 

 

 

 

.fl . {II HIIII . It! ELLI‘IJ‘J‘II I *I‘ I i - . I It. ‘1‘- II'I‘I’II‘I‘I ‘ I .i’I QI ‘ IQ! II‘IIII'I‘I- 'IIIIIOI I
. < _
o . . I r I; . 9 0| 0 o 9 v a A I . k . .
. 4 4 +. 4 9 o v ' ? 9 o . J v § It 9 Id OIL- . V o I o v .
. e _ r . . . . .
— a o o . . 1‘ IO- ‘ 4o 0 9 o - V: » '»v o +. a ‘ ‘ o -' 9 IO .1 § I- 0 Ii-.. 0 9 v _ p o b .
. _ _ . . . fl
‘ . o CFC-o _9- v 4 o . o 9 . «I V .. * . . IOII. . .9- . I} to m p . . . . . . . . o
L . .
. . . o _
A n u . II or QII‘ ‘.¢I. o O 6 o 9 v6. . o o «:4 . O.- 4 o o ».¢. l O . o 4 v o o
_ .
. o .
’ . I¢ IO 0 Iv 0 I III IIT‘IIII‘ H . A I. I. I’ .9- III. TfIIOIIf -... II» I QI+ O I. ‘. o O 4 .l ’l PIL "ll ‘I’I'I‘I‘ll 9| . IOIII.‘ I» t"?! u III b 0:1. 0 00 v 000000 I . o On VI. V III-A
. - o~ . .
_ 6 . O n V I 0 I» w o 0 v 0 -¢ ‘ n 0 . o o 9 o . . . a . o . . J. o n a 4 .h .. . V I b Ii F Q-’ - 4 I V O o o C , . ‘ i h
_ . .. . . a
. . . 1\' .. 0 ¢ M . . .o O r . .t . o t 9 v 5 6 . . o A , ‘ u . . o . . >-.o I V o . I I .1, w . v
4 . .
o 0 o o I V v .0: . It -. o . q . . o v i . . . I. . . '1” v a v .
‘ O ' ‘ Q .

 

 

 

-
l
.

"‘r
I
Q
Q
I
I

. I
I
.

. . . I . . .. ~ . . .
m‘ Fwso—C...—+.—a ¢~ HQ—o—«oo-o +4
I
. . . . . .

v
I
V
I
I

 

&
I

 

 

 

 

 

         

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
                 

 

 

'Is

 

._
n

 

O

 

L W . - w)”,

y. . H ...... .
w- M -..-......L, III-TI:- . . »
o.m cm. :0: ......:..:...i ... _ ,,.£-..Vt.,x .xfifix .335“)
N V . H- gm on _ Eu? MJ’QUWL .- “-5. ..- H H. -. H H ..--.-.IH-.m-I-..-H.-.-r-_-. -I-Mg-u-Mnum

. . H m 1.: N- Adi-.. .
...... H ...O OEZMEE 342 2202 teamflquEQUH
.11. III-II IIIII. ..I .I- I-IIIIL
... 1mm ma -_ 39 52. 2E: . zoiéaé/ 44 05.625

W W P .... . : M ......- “ .- ...fi

u. “

-~
‘
'

L355 33:"-

va’l’ .

I
.- 1
Cc
:«f
1 .
I.
' ‘1‘
.51
'Q'

I

1 ‘ l
..:

4 U

354

'v

40::-
‘3
u

‘1': 49:3"

9"‘68-319918
PM!
tap-51"“ “-2”
' ' - 1r.
0::
sgl"
~finar~
.mrxma .

V”

'4

 

.
J

1
8r
.

F‘n
4.9

       

"\

~

”I"
\ c L

<-

Blishfi‘hi

f‘rfi': I“ 4.1.1“ 3912‘ ' "

1
...

.-l.‘h'~A-n
i

    

     

RIG

1‘ I
'11:”.
F
‘

‘3‘

b

 

u¢n322u

27:522.-
nwa: 229-33 In

 

I

 

 

A! “)1!

9
.uc'i
1.1?!

W
b

      

l. ’5 .‘ i" .

t
f
'
I
o
. .
Q
o
.

           
    

IQSEQEE
'5;

. ¢¢.
-¢.q——+—#
' V
we ‘
..
v
Q

(9..

  

E‘KIIEENSR

1.-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-«
O
. L-

o .

 

» . . 0 Av, OIIIW . v o
w v . ¢ . o v cl“ 4 . a o 9 0. ¢ 9 o. h t. I. . o v .
r P ’L IV p I b a
fi I1I JwI4 I% 4 . 11IJ~I I
. I . Ho . . . o . v .- 75.; . . . k.» . . v .
I‘ o It. 4 . 0 Q $ 0 r .4 01¢ t 0" I. 0 ~ '..+ . . . .H .
o o- I o L o 1 . ~ 6 o o v .4 . §-. 9 I9 é)... a. . t W . v . o. . . . . '14 «I» r...- o . . a o + 0 T- -+:A.-¢. M O on. “I. OI? t o
. . L . _
I 0 Q 6 o I} fv a V o v 1‘ .OI_'I1 m ..I I4 L 3 o . . o 9.4 a O . wcav .... +-4 ‘ N o .T. v04 I vIIOI .-r. .v I .0+FI‘IVI. I,
. . . . _ . _ . .
I4 II. I...‘ I .OI! I 4 LIr 0 III 4 I ..- -I I I II. I.I I . . P .
Io § . JOIOIII’ I! I _ L . WI» JI IL A, or 4 III. 1 TIITHII? Old-«Q LY I 1%1 <I4.. » Id » 4 ¥
4 . 0-4 . o 6 o 9.0. 4I+$ 19 f Lw .vIP-oIIII I7k-o +1 . er> - o . 9 v I Q . 9 49. ¢.I+-.4~ w . 9 + 4 1 c o 9. 9I*. f‘ . 9. TL- +-O.I,o o
. . . . . . L _ . . . _-
----..-.-:t".. 1.3-? L.-. ..-....i I? If .- i-JL- 41:75:, ...-LII.
.-o . DWI+I - . Lvtv » .. 4 . ..I# a d o I. 1 . . . . Ar b . v o . . . < . - IA“- . .u
E . . . . . . . .

-
I...fi,
>.~._
..
. .
~
-

«r * h I-u . o . u .

.I‘ID ‘I-I-‘ I!l-I‘lll.I‘ I

A L

I’C ' lI-IDL D - OI

 

L
I
I-
I
I .
I
I
I

I
I
I
I.
I

 

 

alt ‘I‘I’JI. IIII I14. “ 1
. I o 0. II o l 1 . . _ I o I . fin . I & p .
I . . -L .L 1 . L . I _ _ 1. 1 . . - a .
_ _
. . . 1 . _ . L. . . - . . L , .
.
_L . _
. .4 . ¢ p < I v 7 b a I I I. I p O. I J . u . n
. L
. . . . _ . .
v .9 v ‘ . n L... O\ u I v. I . +1. II I v I o n O 1‘ ‘1 ‘ VIII L 9
L J _ _
L o . u v . c . H . T r . a a I *
.
. ~ c m A a n n I . 4 I. .v I a I o v . o. c . a p
. —
+ . v n . % . o t t '. O
_ .
M r + v I O 9 . 0 V. c
_
VI’II II I All. 1 1 I III +1101»! 6'6 .I,..'l.-ll*l’ iii! 1'6]!!! I In J

      

v‘ o——.“ --v- ......

  

   

ll .5 1

 

.

7. :1. 0.0 4 ~ ' I .IQ1I .1. ¢ 0 Y 1 ’
.

I 4 . a .

v . ,. v 0

..:. 7W; onion; of mo: L
111- .1. zoESmwm. www.1110w121 E1»-.. u

 

....“ Lo 205211225 J<2__>_02 1:2, BLEEB
1..-.“ 1.11m mumfi #59202. 20F<E<> 132052925

.951.

o
I
o
.
l
0
V

 

ur§*No,

'v“?
Q
I

4

 

”NZ.
muozfi

m.

— HimN_
-u>n

-Fi

 

+
.- IA. 1&0“ ‘
1‘

_.—..J
,,.‘ 4*0'

€19!
d'l

 

9 vi N'ai

\C

5'

1“ .
,. t1- '
u..-

I..£J A "
-"'-x~:
‘
51‘“.
\2. '0
“ ‘F —‘
b.

ZSME'XL

T

u.

    

0",
"0&3 '

L)

.
«o- - o—‘o—r

  
 

 

 

   

 

 

 

I“
u a .
. _
. w .
. O
TI‘+L1'¢IIAIIQ'VI.J Q a 1< I n . LIICIII. I I. .1 39-4 IO. .14. ..I. :4 . m c - . . I _ u .1 I. . . . I.“ I ‘1
1IYI|H ”.4 *I‘Io ulv f.-- . 7\?c. . M y r u I ’ o I 1o . v a 4 I a . 1 . * .
i’r‘loq‘fi .1. o I a V . a . ~ . +1 I . . . . . w I
LYH TI on» . a he 7 o .1 . L o . . o I I . . . . 1 I v I . .1. u .
. I..x.'\..1yo. c . . 1 .I A . . . . . 4 t I I c 2 . ¢ 1 A .n I o. I I0
WWWLJ T. 11 .11 w..%r.1. - 2;-.L1aL1LIJ1u1V1L- 111.1 I ,1 -1111- - - 1- -.. -1 . - .1: 1-3.1111 u- - 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

-... .. . -. ...“.-u -
.

-.--

 

T

T _w -- -.M m“.
Figure No. 42 '

 

<E<>
no mam

..:—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

mja<§ OZ< IU<wm Zwam<

‘. 1 my ~
a-.. '. ,.-:

 

J<DO.>_OZ_

[If I.

 

C .. mmmzxoik .2230: mom/Em
....O mmmZXU_I._. Z. ZO_._.<_m<> J<ZO_mZM—Z_O

NV 002.. Okdmwh

firs! 1L. (1).} III )II > .r\¢". il \’ \‘U .4..-

-81-

The following plans, although not specifically
recommended, are included to show the adaptability of
native lumber and the crib type of construction to many

types and sizes of farm buildings.

7-.

:7) 1

Id
3/

\J’ Ev PA." T

If!!!

P—"-" ..

‘.

~.c

 

«
fl
i
.
.

 

...-_4__ .—

 

g.~.-_.M

 

T
a
a
x
s
x
.
N
. .[l l I \I
.
wk w
i
’ ‘l
I... 1
,
1
i
_
¢
_
a.
l - i1 - l W Hu.l|l..v|.
.. .. 1 1| ..--
II \V I L. I l II

p i . O
.. x .
r. I .¢ .A n— L .

4
-.— ..
i .
I i II II
H

.lur

..t.

4

o. V

K

r.:

V .:
,. h
i u

R ... .
v x, v
n ‘
J
. L l
.L \
. . -..
w v
(L -
.
p,
. .l. . . I -,
4 b
. ._
m x
i . .V
‘
i
. ,
m _ \
. .
u
.2 c L: L» x - - .1.
i [I r
.lalanll I u .
5 u
A.» . l [I ll 1.! I
. 4.
pt (I; f -
‘ r .1.
l I- .. VI
'1
a.
.1
—
_
a .
- .i rllw II- .. I:
I to .
w
I ‘II I-nrl .Inl ‘l‘lljllil
\. ‘ I "l !"l|lll

A w-

l.
4i
K
-- ...
. X
. .h
1.14. t.
. _
If;
.4
it: \.

\ir "‘

7‘.

x."

I .

\VV

 

. .. .. . . . ... 1..
- . In.-- .- - - . a 149...! -
-I. . - . L
\V
d
.
n
u
..
.
I . - V
a. . i,
.
A
, L
. v I I |
I II 1
is r..l-.- .-i. .11..- L-.-- 014 ...-.-l- X
r , ..-i.-- 1‘. .- M ...W- n .-4
. .
. .
.k . I
..
...i
I
-
:
n
O
a ..
l 1
(It, llJ ‘ll'. 'fllltl‘l‘lll ‘l‘ll‘ 1‘ ' I]- I
V.
- . u
. T
L
..
. K.
.\ _I
. ... a. v. -
s .
...
.. \a CV
.- a \- --r...‘ I.‘.. . -.- --
. H
t .

 

p, ..

1 J
.
x I . 4
A . .
K
_ r a
, w
.i
Q . 1
,
i .
a f - . _ _
a A
. . < a w .
. . _ _ . .
.
p v .
. . . .
.. i i . .
. F .
9.. .. . . . ..
.
c
.
\
..:
.
I
.
.t
_, d
_
v
1
.
.I-
I...
O
. \
In!
.
p-
I uur ‘Icfix.
.
.
.

DIMENSIONAL VARIATION IN THE MANUFACTURE OF NATIVE LUMBER

As a result of the difficulties encountered in handling
poorly manufactured native lumber, it seemed desirable to
obtain additional data on the factors contributing to poor

quality lumber as a basis for making corrective suggestions.

7

One of the primary factors contributing to poor quality
is improper sawing resulting in a large amount of off-dimen-
sion lumber. The extent of this defect in representative
samples of native lumber is shown in the following tables.
'The data for these tables were obtained by visiting local
saw mills and measuring samples of lumber produced in these
mills.

Figure 59 indicates the dimensional variation within
individual pieces of 2" x 4" jack pine and shows the per
cent distribution of pieces with the same variation of mis-
manufacture regardless of actual dimension. For example,
the chart shows that 24 per cent of the pieces measured
varied 2/32" between their maximum and minimum thickness,
but the actual dimensions of the pieces are not given.

Figure 40 shows in addition to the dimensional varia-
tion the relationship between actual dimensions and nominal
dimensions as indicated by the base line Which represents a
thickness of two inches. For example, the first board re-
presented by the bar at the extreme left of the chart varied
in thickness from I 29/32" to 2 2/52". The second board
shows no variation. The third and fourth boards vary from

1 30/52" to 2".

-85-

Figures 41 and 42 show similar data for one inch
boards of aspen, and beech and maple lumber.

It is not difficult to visualize the discrepancies
which would occur in any building where such lumber is
used.

The second factor contributing to poor quality lumber
is careless piling. Most small saw mills, many of which are
portable, do not have yard facilities nor adequate labor for
prOperly piling the lumber as it is sawed. Therefore, most
- of it is improperly piled at the mill or is taken by the
owners and carelessly piled as indicated in Figures 45 and
44.

Lumber properly piled is shown in Figure 45. This pile
was made at the College saw mill and for convenience was
piled among trees which is objectionable from the stand-
point of air circulation through the pile of lumber.

 

Improperly piled lumber.

 

Figure No. 44

Unless this lumber is used soon, it will gradually deter-

iorate owing to stain and decay.

‘7
9,

— ... I'mululnmllmlll.»

LII.

l

”Ml...“

 

 

Figure No. 45

Properly piled lumber. Note the high, sloping foundation

which permits adequate air circulation.

-85-

SUMMARY"

This study has shown clearly the need for more adequate
farm buildings in the cut-over area of Michigan. Most of the
service buildings and many of the dwellings are so near total
depreciation that they have no actual physical value, but are
still standing, if somewhat precariously, and are still used
for storage and shelter.

The younger farmers particularly are aware of the need
for better buildings, more carefully designed to meet the
needs of their type of farming and are willing to c00perate
in most any way to get them. They do feel that the present
prices of local building materials are too high and freely
express their unwillingness to build if they have to pay
these prices. In most instances, they cannot afford to buy
standard materials. One farmer admittedthat he might have
to pitch a tent because his present house was almost unlive-
able and he could not afford a new one of standard construc-
tion. 0n the other hand, they cannot afford not to have
adequate buildings. Every year losses are sustained which
could be prevented and the entire community is handicapped
owing to blighted moraliI

For example, one farmer stored some beans in one of
the typical storages found in this area and lost the entire
cr0p valued at more than $200. A new building to house his
entire grain crop could have been constructed for less than
$200 by making use of native lumber on his own farm. A

young, recently married couple were about ready to leave a

~86-

farm in Gladwin County. The husband was interested in
farming and wanted to stay but the wife was fearful of
losing their friends because she was ashamed to invite
them to her "shabby" house. Perhaps a house similar to
the one illustrated in this report would have solved the
housing problem of these young peOple. Such houses when
constructed of native lumber are entirely practical and
would do much to keep our desirable young people on the
farm and to stimulate a higher standard of living in their
communities.

In addition to the need for new buildings, an extensive
program for remodeling and repairing existing structures is
imperative. It has been estimated that 850 board feet of
lumber will be required annually on each farm in Michigan
to meet this need. The demand for lumber in the cut-over
area may be even greater than this estimate, owing to the
fact that the farm buildings in this area have been neglected
for so long.

If it was difficult for these farmers to obtain standard
lumber for farm construction before the present war, their
plight will be even more serious when building restrictions
are lifted to prepare the way for an enormous program of
post-war construction. One answer to this problem, and it
seems a most logical one, is to make better use of our
supply of native timber, particularly aSpen and jack pine
in the cut-over areas of Michigan. This study shows the
volume of aspen alone is increasing at the rate of
66,250,000 board feet annually in the stands which are

25 years of age or older.

-87-

Even though a large part of the available supply of
native lumber has been used to meet war requirements, as
would seem reasonable, it is even more desirable to con-
serve and properly utilize the remainder where it can be
used.most economically. This would appear to be on the
farms and in the rural areas where this lumber is available.

The prejudice against aspen as a building material that
has consistently retarded its use may be partially overcome
by the expanded utilization of this wood for war purposes.
In addition to this stimulating influence, sufficient evi-
dence has been presented here to show the desirable proper-
ties of both aspen and jack pine which alone should warrant
their extended use.

However, if the use of such native lumber is to be
increased fast enough to furnish any appreciable degree of
relief in the anticipated post war building program, its
advantages will have to be demonstrated in a more authentic
manner by all interested agencies. Some consideration should
be given to demonstration buildings constructed c00peratively
by the Michigan State College Extension Service, the State
Conservation Department, the Farm Security Administration
and others, to show that the use of‘native lumber even of
low grade is practical and to call attention to the struc-
tural details that will insure it greater durability. In
this connection, it is interesting to note that the State
Conservation Department offered to furnish the lumber for

a number of such demonstration buildings.

-88..

In addition to encouraging farmers and local builders
to properly use all species of native lumber, some effort
should be made to obtain a higher quality of manufacture
from small local mills. The disadvantages of using rough
sawed, poorly dimensioned, warped,stained and knotty lumber
should be more or less obvious to anyone whether or not he
is familiar with all the details of building construction.
It is difficult to persuade builders to use poor quality
lumber even at a reduced price or to encourage farmers to
haul their logs to a local mill that will only "butcher"
them. It is equally difficult to arouse much enthusiasm
on the part of local mills when the market for their pro-
ducts is so uncertain.

The most common defects found in locally manufactured
lumber can be corrected by proper sawing promoted through
an effective educational program on the same basis as
suggested for promoting the proper use of native lumber.
However, such programs are inadequate to insure a constant
reliable source of native lumber. Additional equipment7such
as edging and trimming saws, planing mills and in some cases
even dry kilns will be required. Few local mill Operators
have sufficient capital to finance such an outlay of equip-
ment. Although it is not in the realm of this study to
make specific recommendations, it seems desirable that finan-
cial aid in some form should be available to local operators
who show evidence of ability and interest in undertaking such
a project. Additional studies should be made as to the most

effective methods of providing this financial assistance.

The c00perative association formed in Alcona County by the
Farm Security Administration for the sale of pulp wood is
an effective possibility that warrants closer observation.
In the report on the successful deve10pment of several
forest products COOperatives in the United States, the
author gives a brief summary of one.

"Management plans are made for each woodland;

farm building plans are prepared, and require-

ments in terms of trees are computed; trees are

marked and cut on order to fill the bill for

lumber; and then the lumber is seasoned and

processed in the final stage for use. At the

present time, 26 farm buildings are scheduled;

ll structures have been sawed out by portable

mills since March 18, 1941, involving 70,000

board feet of native lumber (mostly oak and

cottonwood); and five buildings are now under

construction. Farmer members are delighted with

the low-cost, high quality lumber which is making

possible new construction and farm building repairs

needed for many years." (15)

In addition to privately financed mills and cOOperative
associations, there is a possibility of combining small
local mills with established retail lumber yards.‘ This
arrangement would seem to have certain advantages. The
retail dealer through his financial interest in the mill
could maintain quality lumber standards and a more constant
and reliable source of supply. Some farmers would patronize
the retail dealer through their contacts with the mill who
might not otherwise do so. CaSper Bloomer, the County Agent
in Alcona County, cites several instances where farmers now
have adequate buildings owing to the fact that they used
native lumber for all dimension stock and by so doing saved
enough to buy all the other materials, such as cement, siding,

shingles, paint, hardware, electrical wiring, etc., which

they would not have been able to buy had they been forced
to buy all their lumber from the retail yard.

To avoid some competition between local mill and
retail yard, an arrangement could be worked out whereby
the mill produced only dimension stock. Another reason
for this arrangement is the difficulty of producing high
quality one-inch lumber from the small legs which most
local mills would be required to handle. Rather than to
pile this lumber improperly and let it deteriorate, the
retail yard should haul it to their yard where it could
be properly piled, seasoned to use and, if necessary, re-
sawed to dimension.

Lumber dealers, particularly those in the cut-over
area, should realize the need for more adequate farm build-
ings in their communities. The dealers themselves would
profit by living in a more tidy and prosperous community.
They are the logical ones to promote better buildings,
owing to their position as lumber dealers and servicing
institutions for farm buildings. Also, they should realize
that they would be increasing their own sales of supplemen-
tary lumber and other building materials such as cement,
hardware, shingles and other materials of similar nature by

promoting the sale of a better grade of‘native lumber.

SAWDUST AND PLANER SHAVINGS FOR FARM BUILDING INSULATION
The insulating value of dry sawdust or dry planer
shavings has long been recognized and it compares favorably

with commercial insulating materials. .From unpublished

data compiled by the Forest Products Laboratory, the use
of these materials might well be increased.

The primary consideration is to obtain dry material
and use it in such a way that it will remain dry. It is
not the intention here to propose that sawdust or shavings
be substituted for commercial insulation in all cases even
in this cut-over area where low cost housing is being pro-
moted. However, there are numerous buildings including the
house, vegetable storages and livestock buildings that need
additional insulation and it seems logical to suggest that
local materials be used wherever practical.

Interest in sawdust concrete is maintained by periodical
reference to its merits as a lightweight concrete for the
floors of livestock buildings, particularly for poultry
houses. If the right kind of sawdust is used, it is possible
to make a lightweight concrete having considerable strength.
Samples of this material have been observed in small blocks
which appeared to have possibilities as a wallboard. Its
use is mentioned here because previous investigations have
shown that jack pine and aspen sawdust are among the few
types that can be satisfactorily used in sawdust concrete.

In most sections of the cut-over area it is difficult
to obtain adequate supplies of straw for bedding farm ani-
mals. In these areas it is possible to use sawdust and
shavings as a satisfactory substitute.

The above suggestions for using sawdust and shavings
apply particularly to the small mills where the supply of

these materials would not be commercially important. For

-92-

larger mills the expanding wood plastics and related

industries might be a more profitable market.

THE USE OF SMALL DIMENSION TIMBER, EDGINGS AND TRIMMINGS

It is usually unprofitable to saw small dimension logs
into dimension lumber, but it might be profitable to saw
such logs into stock that could be resawed into slats for
crates and boxes. Additional material for this purpose
might be salvaged from the edgings and trimmings.

To supplement the manufacture of crates and boxes for
which there is only a seasonal demand, the small logs and
salvaged stock could be converted into wooden:ware, rustic
furniture and novelties.

There are at the present time many such small industries
in the cut-over area that furnish part-time employment for

the local farmers and others.

FENCE POSTS AND FIREWOOD

In addition to the actual by-products of the sawmill
for which suitable markets could be develOped, there are
timberland by-products which should be harvested to make
way for more desirable young growth in some stands and for
good woodlot management in others.

Where there are suitable stands of cedar or some
desirable hardwoods, the sale of fence posts should be
encouraged. One of the reasons for retarded livestock
deve10pment in some cut-over lands is the absence of suit-

able fences. It might even be practical to install inexpen-

-95-

sive equipment for treating of nondurable woods to increase
the life of fence posts cut from them.

In every timber stand there are crooked, multiple-
branched trees that might better be converted into firewood
or cut into bolts for pulp wood or excelsior. In addition
to such trees, there are large limbs and the slabs from saw
logs that can be and usually are converted into firewood.

The most discouraging angle is that little attempt
is made to market these forest products in an orderly and
profitable manner. But, the development of such markets
for all timberland and sawmill by-products is as much a
part of the problem of promoting the use of native lumber
as the establishment of markets for the sale of the lumber
itself.

-94-

CONCLUSION

1. There is a definite need for more adequate farm
buildings in the cut-over area of Michigan. The investment
in buildings on farms in this area is shown in Figure 8.

The depreciation on this investment for a typical county
such as Midland amounts to approximately $150,000. Yet,
during the years preceding World War II, the money spent

on farm buildings was insufficient to pay for this deprecia-
tion as indicated in Tables No. VI and No. VII.

2. Personal interviews with farmers, county agricultural
agents and farm security administrators leave one with the
impression that this delay in farm building improvement may
be contributed partially to the high cost of lumber imported
from other states. For the report on these personal inter-
views, see pages 47 to 66.

3. That native lumber, and particularly aspen lumber,.
can be and is being used by the farmers of the cut-over
area for their buildings is amply demonstrated by photo-
graphic and other data collected during this study. Invar-
iably the cost of these buildings is below the estimated
cost of similar buildings erected with lumber obtained from
the usual source.

4. The physical properties of aspen as discussed in
this report (Pages 38 to 46) indicate that it is satisfactory
for most farm building purposes. Present indications are
that aspen will last for thirty years if used for such purposes

as framing lumber, siding, sheathing, rafters, roof boards or

-95-

for other purposes where it is not subject to moisture.

5. Aspen timber is available to farmers in Michigan
and discrimination against this readily available native
wood as a source of potential lumber will decrease with
expanded use for building purposes.

6. State and Federal Governments are anxious to find
a market for the continually increasing volume of aspen
which is reaching maturity and marketable age each year in
state and national forests. The Michigan Department of Con-
servation expressed a particular desire to cooperate with
farmers in the cut-over area to promote the use of aSpen
lumber for farm building construction.

7. The quality of locally sawed native lumber must
be improved if it is to compete successfully with commer-
oially produced lumber. The typically poor quality of
native sawed lumber is indicated by the dimensional varian
tions in 2" x 4" stock and one-inch boards shown in Figures
59 to 42. Several lumber dealers in the cut-over area
rather grudgingly admitted that they would handle native
lumber in their yards if the quality of this lumber was
materially improved.

8. Additional studies are needed to: (1) encourage the
production of better quality native lumber by improved
methods of sawing and handling of this lumber, (2) develop .
methods of construction adapted to the use of native lumber.

9. The building industry of the entire nation is now
engaged in trying to promote a program for farm building
improvement. The use of native material and particularly

aspen seems to fit definitely into this program.

~96-

COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF TREES
NATIVE TO MICHIGAN WITH SUGGESTED USES

SPECIES

SUGGESTED USE IN FARM
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION

 

Ash, black (Fraxinus nigra)

Ash, white (Fraxinus
americana)

ASpen, pOpple (POpulus
tremuloides)

Balm of Gilead (Populus
balsamifera)

Balsam (Abies balsamea)

Basswood (Tilia glabra)

Beech (Fagus grandifolia)
Birch, yellow (Betula lutea)
Butternut (Juglans cinerea)

Cedar, white (Thuja
occidentalis)

Cherry, black (Prunus
serotina)

Cottonwood (Populus
deltoides)

Elm, rock (Ulmus racemosa)
Elm, slippery (Ulmus fulva)

Elm, American (Ulmus
americana)

Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis)
Hickory (Hicoria spp.)

Locust, black (Robinia
pseudoacacia)

Studs, interior finish

Framing
Sheathing
Sheathing

Sheathing

Siding, sheathing, trim,
cupboards

Flooring, framing

Studs, sheathing, flooring
Finish, sheathing
Shingles, siding, silos

Finish, sheathing
Sheathing

Stall flooring, framing
Sheathing, framing

Sheathing, framing

Sheathing, framing
Sheathing, framing
Sills, stalls

-97-

COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF TREES
NATIVE TO MICHIGAN WITH SUGGESTED USES (CONTINUED)

SPECIES
Maple, hard (Acer saccharum)
Maple, soft (Acer rubra)
Oak, red (Quercus borealis)
Oak, white (Quercus alba)
Pine, jack (Pinus
banksiana)

Pine, red, Norway (Pinus
resinosa)

Pine, white (Pinus strobus)

Spruce, white (Picea glauca)

Sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis)

Tamrack, (Larix laricina)

Walnut, black (Juglans
nigra)

Willow, (Salix nigra).

Yellow pOplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera)

SUGGESTED USE IN FARM
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
Floors, finish
Sheathing, framing
Floors, sheathing, framing

Sills, trough, joists, floors.
stall floors, finish

Framing, sheathing, siding
Sheathing, framing, sash,
doors, silos

Siding, sheathing, sash,
doors, silos, framing

Sheathing, studs, framing
Framing, sheathing

Sheathing, silos, cabin logs

.Finish

Siding, sheathing, finish
Siding, sheathing, finish

10.

ll.

12.

14.

~98-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agricultural Statistics. United States Department of
AgricuIture, 1945. TabIe 551, p. 458.

 

Agricultural Statistics. United States Department of
Agribulture,‘I944, p. 542.

 

Agricultural Statistics. United States Department of
Agriculture, l944, pp. 594 and 595.

 

Berg, H. A., May, C. 0., and Doneth, J. C. Farm Success

 

Factors. Farm Management Department, Michigan State
CoIIege, F. M. No. 255, 1958, p. 8.

Bureau of Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States:

 

Michigan Agriculture. United States’Department of
Commerce, 1950, County Table No. 5, p. 11.

 

Bureau of Census. Sixteenth Census of the United States:

 

Housin . United States Department Of Commerce,'1942,
County Tables 26 and 27, pp. 100-109.

Bureau of Census. Sixteenth Census of United States:
Michigan Agriculture. ‘United States’Department of
Commerce, CEUnty‘Table No. l, p. 7.

 

 

 

Bureau of Census. Sixteenth Census Of United States:
Michigan Agriculture. 'United States Department of
Commerce, ounty Table NO. l, p. 10.

 

 

Bureau of Census. Sixteenth Census of United States:
Michigan Agriculture. *United States Department of
Commerce, County Tatle No. 11, p. 8.

 

 

Bureau of Census. Sixteenth Census of United States:
Michigan Agriculture. *UnfteJWStates’Department of
Cbmmerce, COUnty TaBle IX, p. 844.

 

 

Carter, Deane G. "How to Obtain Adequate Farm Housing

with Limited Income." Agricultural Engineering, Vol. 22,

 

No. 9, September, 1941, pp. 509-510.
Chittenden, A. K. and Robbins, P. W. The Farm Woodlot

 

in Michigan. Michigan State College Agriculture

 

Eiperiment Station Special Bulletin No. 196, 1950, p. 5.

COOperative Management and Marketing for the Woodland
Owner. ‘United States Department Of AgricultUre
Farmers' Bulletin No. 1927, 1945, p. 16.

 

Doane, Howard D. "Farm Buildings - Tombstones or Tools.’

   
 

Vol. 22, No. 9, September,

0

 

A ricultural Engineerin'

: ppo

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

25.

24.

25.

Farms and Forest Map of Alcona, Roscommon, Kalkaska,
and Nenomfnee Counties. Michigan Department of
COnservation: Land Economics Survey, 1927.

 

 

Forest Products News Letter No. 26. Lake States
Forest Experiment Station, University Farm, St. Paul,
Minnesota. Mimeograph, 1944, p. 4.

 

Hallouer, Frank J. Lumber Requirements on the Farm.
Forest Service, Unitéd States Department of
Agriculture. PhotOprinted 1942, p. 4.

 

Hallouer, Frank J. Lumber Requirements on the Farm.
Forest Service, United States Department of
Agriculture. PhotOprinted 1942, pp. 25—54.

 

Hill, E. B. Types of Farming in Michigan. Michigan
State College Specfal Bulletin No. 206, 1959, p. 65.

 

Hill, G. W. and Smith, R. A. Man in the Cut-over.
University of Wisconsin AgricuItural EXperIment‘—
Station Research Bulletin No. 159, 1941, p. 7.

 

Johnson, R. P. A., Kittridge, Joseph Jr., and Schmitz,
Henry. Aspen Availability Properties and Utilization.
University 5? Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station
in cooperation with Fprest Service, United States
Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin NO. 70,
1950, p. 5.

 

Johnson, R. P. A., Kittridge, Joseph Jr., and Schmitz,
Henry. Agpen Availability Properties and Utilization.
University of Minnesota Agricultural EXperiment Station
in cooperation with Forest Service, United States
Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin No. 70,
1950, p. 15.

 

Johnson, R. P. A., Kittridge, Joseph Jr., and Schmitz,
Henry. Agpen Availability Properties and Utilization.
University of Minnesota AgriculturaI Eiperiment Statftn
in cooperation with Forest Service, United States
Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin No. 70,
1950, p. 55.

 

Johnson, R. P. A., Kittridge, Joseph Jr., and Schmitz,
Henry. ASpen Availability PrOperties and Utilization.
University of Minnesota AgricuIturaI Experiment Station
in COOperation with Fbrest Service, United States
Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin NO. 70,
1950, p. 71.

 

Kelly, M. A. R. Farm Bulk Storage for Small Grains.
United States Department of Agriculture'FaI-mersr
Bulletin No. 1656, 1950, p. 14.

 

26.

27.

28.

29.

50.

51.

52.

55.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

~100-

Ketchum, Milo S. The Design of Walls, Bins, and
Grain Elevators. New York: McGraw-Hill Bodk
COmpany, Inc., 1959, p. 556.

 

 

Markwardt, L. J. and Wilson, T. R. 0. Strength and
Related PrOperties of Woods Grown in the‘United States.
United States Department of Agriculture Technical
Bulletin NO. 279, 1955, p. 4.

 

Mattoon, Lilbur R. Forestry and Farm Income. United
States Department of AgriCulture Farmers' BuIletin
NO. 1117, 1928, pp. 25-24.

 

Michigan State Highway Department. Michigan Highway
Map. Lansing, Michigan, 1959-1940.

 

McDowell, J. C. Walker, W. B. Farming_on the Cut-over
Lands of Michigan, Wisconsin, and"Minnesota. United
States Department of Agriculture BUlletIn No. 425, 1916.

 

 

McDowell, J. C. talker, W. B. Farming_on the Cut-over
Lands of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. United
States Department of Agriculture—Eulletin No. 425,
1916, p. 4.

 

McIntire, G. 8., Assistant State Forester. Letter to
the author, July 25, 1941.

National Resources Committee Report. Re ional
Planning Part VIII: Northern Lake States. UnIted
States Government PfIntlng Office, 1959, p. 15.

 

National Resources Committee Report. Re ional
Planning Part VIII: Northern Lake Sta es. nited
States GovernmenttPrinting Office, 1959, p. XI.

 

National Resources Committee Report. Regional-
Planning Part VIII: Northern Lake Sta es. nited
States Government Printing’Office,“1959, p. 14.

 

National Resources Committee Report. Re ional
Plannin Part VIII: Northern Lake Sta es. nited
States GovernmentPrinting Office, 1959, p. 16.

 

Regan, M. M. The Farm Real Estate Situation. Bureau
of Agriculture. CircuIar No. 5487—195541959.

 

Reynolds, R. V. and Pierson, A. H. Lumber Distribution
and Consumption for 1958. Forest Service,—United States
Department of AgriculEUre, 1941. Miscellaneous Publica-
tion No. 415, Tables No. 25 and 24, p. 51.

 

 

Sparhawk, W. N. and Brush, W. D. The Economic Aspects
of Forest Destruction in Northern MIChIgan. 'United
States Department of Agriculture TechnicaI Bulletin
No. 29, 1929, pp. 1-20.

 

 

40.

41.

45.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

-101-

Sparhawk, W. N. and Brush, W. D. The Economic Aspects
of Forest Destruction in Northern Michigan. United
States Department of Agriculture Tedhnical Bulletin
No. 29, 1929, p. 15.

 

 

Sparhawk, W. N. and Brush, W. D. The Economic ASpects
of Forest Destruction in Northern Mithlgan. United
States Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin
No. 29, 1929, p. 52.

 

 

B. R. Strauber. The Farm Real Estate Situation. Bureau
of Agriculture, Circu ar no. ' ‘.A. 1926-195 .

     
 

\

   

, .0.

B. R. Strauber. The Farm Real Estate Situation. Bureau
of Agriculture, CIFCUIar NO. 4T7, 1955-1956.

 

White, Charles H. Using Home Grown Timber for Farm
Buildings. University of Minnesota AgricUItural
Extension Service Bulletin 258, 1942, p. 5.

 

 

Williams, W. K. Farmers in Northern States Grow
Timber as Money Crop. United States Department
of AngCuIture’Farmers' Bulletin No. 1680, 1951,
p. 16.

 

 

Wright, Karl T. Unpublished Data. Michigan State
College, Farm Management Department, East Lansing,
Michigan, 1959.

 

Zon, Raphael "and stafffi Forest Areas and Timber
Volumes in Michigan. Lake States Forest‘Experiment

 

 

Station,‘Unlversity‘Farm, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Economic Notes, No. 5, 1956, p. 7.

Zon, Raphael "and staff." Forest Areas and Timber
Volumes in Michigan. Lake States Forest Experiment
Station,flUniversity Farm, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Economic Notes, Table 16, p. 28.

 

 

 

";i 'I. lllllll"

 

 

 

.. no"
.;£¢w

’

litthflfifwfl

Q . I

x , I.

n y 4
\

.. (..:. an"-.. . 31....- . m . . . .. .. 1 . . . . . . , . t . . . , . . H... .. . _ -32.. ,
. flux-with»... urn . ..b I.“ .. .. ..,. V r . V .. . l . . .. “#342413 5. . t
. . . , . . . .. , m . , .. . , . . r .r . ... A

 

 

"Tfilfilflfiufljfllfifit[iifljtflfflifll'lfljgflflllfiflli‘lmS