becomes poorer and poorer, because nitrogen, the chief fertilizing
ingredient of the soil, is given off in the smoke, and only the
mineral elements go back to the soil in the ashes. And, what is
more injurious, the humus--i. e., the decomposed vegetable matter
in the top soil--is destroyed. In burning brush after logging all
the fertilizing and humus-forming leaves and twigs are destroyed
just when most needed, for another good crop or leaves cannot be
expected for many years.

"The added cost, both to the lumberman and to the Government, is
another argument against brush burning. The cost of piling brush
has varied all the way from 15 cents to $1 or more per thousand,
with an average or 40 or 50 cents, while the cost or burning may
be from 5 cents to 25 cents per thousand, averaging about 15 cents.
By abandoning the practice of brush piling this 60 cents a thousand
will not be entirely saved, as is claimed by some, for the brush
will still have to be lopped and disposed of in some other way,
which will cost, it is estimated, at least half as much as piling
and burning. But even a saving of 25 or 30 cents a thousand is
a strong argument against the practice.

"Thus, from a silvicultural viewpoint, the disadvantages of brush
burning far outweigh its advantages. Yet, as a general policy, it
seems unwise, until other methods have proved their efficiency,
to abandon brush piling and burning to any great extent at present.
The fire danger is a known quality, and, though it is being reduced
each year, it is still a menace. Therefore changes from the present
practice should be made with caution. Brush piling and burning is
certainly not advisable in all cases, and extensive experiments
should be made to determine what is the best method of brush disposal