Technological Progress and Technical-and-Economic Indicators in the Logging Industry

A. V. Andreev

(Presented by the scientific seminar of the Department of Political Economy)

During the years of Soviet power, the logging industry was transformed from a primitive, semi-artisanal one into an industrial branch of the national economy. It is well equipped with machinery and holds first place in the world in the volume of timber hauling.

The main work of mechanizing logging operations in our country began after the Great Patriotic War. During this period their technical equipment grew rapidly. Thus, the number of electric saws increased from 22 thousand in 1945 to 224 thousand in 1965. In 1945, 2.1 thousand tractors and 4 thousand logging trucks were working in logging. As of January 1, 1969, their number had increased respectively to 67.4 and 34.7 thousand. At the same time, the quantitative growth of machines was accompanied by their qualitative improvement. As of January 1, 1969, logging enterprises had 1.1 thousand narrow-gauge diesel locomotives and other equipment¹.

The growth of the technical equipment of the logging industry brought about an increase in the level of mechanization of work in it. In 1946, tree felling was mechanized by 9.6%, the skidding of timber to upper landings by 2.4%, and the hauling of timber by 39.6%. In 1968, the level of mechanization of these operations had increased respectively to 99.2; 96.7; 99.5%².

However, the growth of the technical equipment of labor and the increase

the level of its mechanization were not always accompanied by a corresponding increase in aggregate output and by greater efficiency in the use of equipment. Even during the period of the greatest provision with equipment and growth in the power-to-labor ratio in the logging industry, in 1950–1962, output per 1 kilowatt of engine power steadily declined. Whereas in 1950, 146 cubic meters of timber were hauled per 1 kilowatt of power used in logging, in 1962 the figure was only 69 cubic meters³).

Aggregate output in logging grew comparatively slowly in the first postwar years, which is explained, on the one hand, by the imperfection of the logging equipment then available and, on the other, by the lack of personnel capable of using it with high productivity. The highest rates of growth in labor productivity in logging occurred in 1955–1960. During this period, along with the equipping of the logging industry with new, more powerful machines, substantial improvements took place in production technology and in the organization of labor in logging.

Technological progress and the growth of the capital-to-labor ratio in the logging industry in recent years likewise have not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in the volumes of timber hauled and in labor productivity.

In 1964–1968 the process of mechanizing logging continued, as did the equipping of logging operations with new equipment, as evidenced by the increase in the value of the stock of machinery and equipment from 786 million rubles in 1964 to 820 million rubles in 1968. However, capital productivity in the sector, calculated in physical indicators, continued to decline, because the volumes of total timber haulage were decreasing, while fixed production assets and their active part remained unchanged. True, in these same years the haulage of industrial roundwood increased by 13 million cubic meters, but not as a result of improved use of equipment; rather, it was due to an increase in the percentage yield of merchantable assortments from 72% in 1964 to 76.5% in 1968. Labor productivity grew extremely slowly; moreover, in 1968 it even declined in relation to the level reached in the preceding year⁴).

The higher rates of growth of fixed production assets and of the capital-to-labor ratio, compared with the rates of growth of output and labor productivity in logging, are objectively conditioned by factors characteristic of the initial stage of introducing equipment. The 1950s were a period of intensive replacement of manual labor by machine labor in the logging industry. The mechanization of work continued in the 1960s as well. The following facts indicate the pace and scale of the mechanization of the logging process carried out in these years. The level of mechanization of work in 1950–1965 in the logging industry increased: in tree felling—from 38.0 to 99.0%, in the skidding of timber to upper landings—from 29.0 to

³) Calculated from: The Forest Industry of the USSR. Statistical collection, Moscow, 1957, pp. 138; Industry of the USSR. Statistical collection, Moscow, 1964, pp. 292, 294, 296, 297.

⁴) Calculated from: The National Economy of the USSR in 1964. Moscow, 1963, pp. 68, 142, 143; The National Economy of the USSR in 1968. Moscow, 1969, pp. 50, 209, 215, 216, 269; Handbook on the Economics of the Forest Industry. Moscow, 1967, p. 98.

96.0%, hauling of timber—from 56.7 to 99.4%, loading of timber at upper yards—from 14.9 to 93.0%. The rapid displacement of manual labor led to an outstripping growth of fixed productive assets compared with the growth in the volume of timber hauled, an increase in the capital-output ratio and a decrease in the return on fixed assets in the logging industry.

It has been noted in the literature that, in logging, as early as 1959 the tendency toward a steady decline in the capital-output ratio of output was beginning to manifest itself,^5) but the data presented show that no such tendency is observed in the logging industry at the present time.

Moreover, since the mechanization of labor at a high level of mechanization of work in the sector is small, while the capital-labor ratio will still continue to grow rapidly,^6) it is logical to assume that further technical progress, the introduction of new equipment, and the replacement of manual labor by machine labor will lead to an increase in the capital-output ratio of production and to a decline in the return on fixed assets in the logging industry. According to N. A. Burdin’s calculations, the decrease in the return on fixed assets in logging in 1970 will amount to 15–18% compared with 1963.^7)

Along with objective circumstances caused by the initial stage of the introduction of equipment, the decline in indicators of the return on fixed assets in logging in recent years has also been caused by other reasons, including those generated by technical progress. The outstripping growth of fixed productive assets and of the capital-labor ratio is partly explained by the fact that the prices of new machines and mechanisms were unjustifiably high and did not reflect their productive capabilities.

In his time K. Marx noted that a regularity of technical progress is the relative cheapening of new technology in relation to that which it replaces. “If the circulating part of constant capital—raw materials, etc.—constantly grows in its mass in proportion to the development of the productive power of labor, then the case is otherwise with fixed capital—with buildings, machines, devices for lighting, heating, etc. Although machines become absolutely dearer as their size increases, relatively they become cheaper.”^8)

Using the example of skidding tractors that operated in the Tomles combine in 1967, it is evident that this regularity is not observed in the improvement of logging machines. The price per unit of power in each subsequent model of machine, with the exception of the TDT-75, is greater than the price per unit of power of the preceding model; and the price per unit of power of the TDT-40—the first, lowest-powered model in the series of special skidding tractors—is lower than the price per unit of power of all subsequent models, which do not represent fundamentally new technical solutions and develop the TDT-40 only in the direction of increased power. This is an exception in the development of technology,

^5) See: A. Vikhlyaev, “The Influence of Technical Progress on the Capital-Output Ratio of Industrial Output,” Ekonomicheskie nauki, 1963, No. 6.

^6) According to N. P. Moshonkin and N. A. Burdin, the capital-labor ratio of workers in logging in 1970 will increase approximately twofold compared with 1960. See: N. P. Moshonkin, N. A. Burdin, Fixed Assets and Their Use in the Logging Industry. Moscow, 1966, p. 4.

^7) See: Trudy TsNIIME, 1965, vol. 43, p. 68.

^8) K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 25, part I, p. 285.

Since the production of more powerful machines is, up to certain limits, relatively cheaper than the production of low-powered ones, as can be seen from the example of the S-80 and S-100—general-purpose machines used in the hauling and removal of timber.

The data presented also show that the price of new machines does not reflect their production capabilities and rises more than productivity. The output per machine-shift of the TDT-60 and TDT-75 tractors in hauling increased, relative to the TDT-40 and TDT-40M, by 133.5%, whereas the price of the TDT-60 increased relative to the TDT-40 by 207.5%, and relative to the TDT-40M by 174%; the price of the TDT-75, respectively, by 173 and 145%. Therefore, each new tractor model, with the exception of the TDT-75, is less efficient than the old one. The indicators of hauling per 100 rubles of the value of the tractor fleet, of the capital intensity of hauling and removal of 1 cubic meter of timber, deteriorate with the transition to a new model. The sharp decrease in capital productivity and increase in the capital intensity of production in the transition from S-80 and S-100 machines to TDT-40 and TDT-40M machines is to some extent explained by the better utilization of the S-80 and S-100 tractors. The deterioration of the capital-intensity and capital-productivity indicators for subsequent models cannot be explained by this circumstance, since the technical condition and utilization of calendar time for all TDT machines were practically the same. Some incomparability of the work in timber removal is compensated by the fact that the TDT-40 and TDT-40M machines were engaged in hauling and in large-package loading of timber, whereas some of the TDT-60 and TDT-75 machines, after the introduction of KMZ—P—2 jaw loaders, were engaged only in hauling. If it is taken into account that about 500,000 cubic meters of timber were loaded by jaw loaders, and that the TDT-40 and TDT-40M tractors worked in large-timber stands, where the effectiveness of their use was significantly reduced, then the results of their operation may be considered fully comparable and characteristic of the technical-and-economic indicators of the designs.

The introduction of such expensive equipment into logging production causes a rapid growth of fixed productive assets and of the capital-labor ratio, a decline in capital productivity, and a deterioration of other technical-and-economic indicators.

Technical progress in the logging industry leads to a change in the structure of production costs. New equipment brings about a reduction in the share of expenditures on living labor; on the other hand, its introduction into production is accompanied by an increase in the relative weight of material expenditures. Therefore, in production costs the share of depreciation, of basic and auxiliary materials, etc., increases, while the relative weight of wages decreases, reflecting changes in the ratio of expenditures of living and embodied labor.

In 1961–1968 the share of wages in the costs of producing timber products, at current prices, declined from 50.0 to 45.6%; correspondingly, other costs increased from 50.0 to 54.4% owing to the growth of depreciation charges and the increase in expenditures on raw materials and basic and auxiliary materials³.

It has been noted in the literature that the structure of costs for the production of logging output is at present distorted by the fact that these costs include, in addition to the costs of logging itself,

costs of wood-processing operations and timber-transshipment work carried out in lespromkhozes. Thus, 15% of the costs of raw materials and basic materials should be attributed to the wood-processing operations of lespromkhozes, which, strictly speaking, have no relation to logging⁴. However, these and other distortions in the structure of production costs in the logging industry do not invalidate the conclusion that, as the achievements of technological progress are used in logging, costs change in the direction of increasing the share of past labor and reducing the relative weight of wages, while increasing wages per worker. This is also confirmed by changes in the structure of the cost of output in logging production. Thus, from 1950 to 1965 the relative weight of wages in the cost of output of the USSR logging industry decreased from 36 to 31%, while costs under the item “Services of auxiliary-servicing operations and maintenance of timber-haul roads” increased from 22 to 31%⁵.

At the same time, along with changes in the ratio of wages to material costs in the production of logging output, total costs per 1 ruble of marketable output in the logging industry rose. In 1961–1968 they increased by 9.6%⁶.

The growth of production costs is characteristic of regions promising from the standpoint of the development of the logging industry in the European part of the country, the Urals, Western and Eastern Siberia, and the Far East. In 1960–1964 the cost of 1 cubic meter of timber increased in the Karelian, Buryat, and Komi ASSRs; in Arkhangelsk, Vologda, Sverdlovsk, Perm, Tyumen, Irkutsk, Chita, and Amur oblasts; and in Krasnoyarsk and Khabarovsk krais.

The main reason for the increase in the cost of logging output was a significant rise in costs connected with the use of machinery in logging, under the items “Services of auxiliary-servicing operations...” and “Other production expenses.” Costs also increased under the item “Basic and supplementary wages of production workers” in all regions except the Buryat ASSR and Perm, Irkutsk, and Chita oblasts, where wage costs in the cost of 1 cubic meter of timber in 1964 declined in comparison with 1960. However, this reduction was insignificant, and the saving achieved in wages could not offset the increase in costs under the items “Services of auxiliary-servicing operations and maintenance of timber-haul roads” and “Other production expenses”⁷.

Thus, it appears possible to conclude that technological progress in the logging industry of heavily forested regions is not accompanied by a reduction in production cost. The cost of output here rises both because of increased expenditures of materialized labor and of living labor. The indicated

this trend can be traced in the logging industry of heavily forested regions right up to the present time, as can be seen from the example of the logging enterprises of the “Kemerovolesprom” association and the “Tomles” combine.

At the logging enterprises of the “Tomles” combine, the labor intensity of timber harvesting and wage costs in the cost of 1 cubic meter of timber declined only slightly up to 1964; in 1965–1968 they rose substantially. The costs associated with the use of equipment in logging, under the items “Services of auxiliary servicing operations and maintenance of logging roads” and “Other production expenses,” throughout all recent years, with the exception of 1964, considerably outweighed the reduction in wage costs, as a result of which the cost of logging products increased. The situation was analogous in the production association “Kemerovolesprom.”

Analysis of costing expenses shows that the main reason for the increase in the cost of timber was the rise in expenditures of past labor. An important role here was played by the fact that logging equipment, while having a high cost, did not yield a corresponding increase in labor productivity when used. The latter was aggravated further by the fact that technological progress in logging proceeded without due regard for the specificity of the natural conditions of heavily forested regions. As a result, the quantity of fixed assets in value terms grew at a faster rate than the volume of production and labor productivity, which caused a significant increase in the share of depreciation deductions in the cost of production, especially beginning in 1963, when they were raised. Unfortunately, the new wholesale prices for logging equipment are also unjustifiably high and do not reflect its production capabilities.

If in 1956–1959 new equipment entered the forest sector that was relatively (the TDT-40 tractor in relation to the KT-12 tractor), and at times even absolutely (the chainsaw in relation to the electric saw), cheaper than the old equipment, then the new equipment introduced into logging after 1959 has a high cost and gives only a small increase in productivity. This makes the new equipment not only absolutely, but also relatively, more expensive than the old equipment, and its introduction into production, along with other circumstances, is a cause of the deterioration of the technical and economic indicators of logging production.

It has been noted in the literature that the introduction into production of advanced logging equipment will not ensure a significant increase in labor productivity; moreover, by some technical and economic indicators it will be inferior to existing machines⁸.

Even K. Marx, speaking of the reproduction of the means of labor, pointed out: “If the productive power of labor develops in those branches where these means of labor are produced—and it develops continuously with the progress of science and technology—then, in place of old machines, tools, apparatus, etc., there come new ones, more effective and, in relation to the scale of their work, more

...the actual, old capital is reproduced in a more productive form, no longer speaking of the constant partial changes in the available means of labor”⁹.

Today, when the task is to sharply improve the technical and economic indicators and increase the efficiency of logging production, it is very important to observe this fundamental law of the development of technology formulated by K. Marx.

The sharp deterioration of the indicators of logging production in recent years is explained by many causes. Natural and climatic conditions played no small role in this. At the same time, the materials presented make it possible to conclude that they were the result of a slowdown in the pace of technical progress, of the low effectiveness of the main production assets introduced in recent years, and of known shortcomings in the technical policy pursued in the logging industry.

In his time Marx pointed out that in those branches of industry where the machine system is being introduced for the first time, the questions of the organization of production must be scientifically worked out, taking practical experience into account, so that technology is not adapted to the subjective capacities of the worker. “In machine production this subjective principle of the division of labor disappears. The whole process is here analyzed objectively, in accordance with its own nature, into its constituent phases, and the problem of carrying out each partial process and of combining the various partial processes is solved by the technical application of mechanics, chemistry, etc.; moreover, of course, the theoretical solution must be perfected, as before, with the help of practical experience accumulated on a broad scale”¹⁰.

From the beginning of the mechanization of logging in the USSR, its theoretical foundations were not sufficiently worked out with due consideration of the experience that already existed abroad. Mechanization followed the path of adaptation to that technology which had arisen spontaneously before the widespread use of machines and therefore took into account mainly the limited capacities of the human organism. And this did not make it possible to introduce into logging a progressive, essentially new system of machines. For the performance of individual operations that had previously been carried out by hand, machines were introduced—first of general purpose, and then special ones: skidding tractors and timber-hauling machines. As a result, in the logging industry up to the present time no system of machines has taken shape, and the mechanization of logging production is not of a comprehensive character. Alongside mechanized operations, there are operations in the logging process that are performed by hand.

Given a high level of mechanization of work, the mechanization of labor in the branch is extremely low. About 1.5 million workers are employed in the logging industry. Of these, 32.4% perform work with the aid of machines and mechanisms, 14.2% are engaged in manual labor with machines and mechanisms, 5.6% work manually on the repair of machines and mechanisms, and the rest work manually without machines and mechanisms.

47.8%¹¹. To the present day, a number of operations in the logging process have remained (choking, limbing) that are performed manually. Moreover, in limbing alone, 118,000 people are engaged in heavy manual labor¹².

Felling timber is considered a fully mechanized operation. In fact, in timber felling only sawing is mechanized, and it accounts for 25% of the feller’s working time. Auxiliary operations connected with preparing the workplace (clearing snow, clearing brush) and with felling proper (bringing the saw to the cut, pushing over the tree) remain unmechanized. Up to 50% of a tractor’s working time is spent carrying out unmechanized operations in skidding.

Manual labor predominates at lower landings. Thus, at seventy lower landings of the Tomles combine adjacent to main rivers and to rivers used for log driving, the level of labor mechanization is: in limbing—0.09%, sorting—1.6%, stacking—16.0%, rolling into the water—43.0%¹³.

Therefore, even if, through modernization of equipment or the introduction of new equipment, it is possible to achieve high labor productivity in some single operation, this immediately causes a sharp increase in the expenditure of manual labor in other operations. The effect achieved in individual mechanized operations is sharply reduced or nullified by manual labor between mechanized operations or within them. Manual labor thus acts as a limiting factor in the further growth of labor productivity in logging.

On the other hand, the modern technology of logging production contains a whole series of operations that, from a theoretical point of view, are not obligatory for obtaining the finished product. These are, above all, skidding—the possibility of excluding which from the logging process has been pointed out by many authors¹⁴—and various transfer-transport and loading-unloading operations. Only as a result of vertical movements is the timber raised from ground level, in all, to a height of about 10 meters and then falls back down. In the process, a considerable amount of work is absorbed, amounting to approximately 8,000 kgm for each cubic meter of timber without any useful return whatever¹⁵.

In his time, K. Marx, characterizing the conditions under which machinery can be used most effectively, wrote that in a divided system of machines “each partial machine supplies the raw material to the next machine immediately following it, and since they all operate simultaneously, the product is continuously at different stages of the process of its formation, constantly passing from one phase of production to another... In order that some partial machines may continuously provide work for other partial machines, it is necessary,

a definite relation between their number, dimensions, and speed of action”²).

Thus, in order for the capabilities of machinery to manifest themselves most fully, an appropriate environment is necessary. Above all, machines must be used continuously and at full capacity. Without a corresponding environment, any machinery cannot ensure a significant increase in labor productivity, since in that case its capabilities remain unrealized.

In this connection it should be noted that logging production is specific and differs substantially from factory flow production. The most important difference is that in the logging process there is not the stability that is established in factory flow production. The production situation here is constantly changing, and in practice it is almost never possible to achieve coordinated, rhythmic operation of machines with full utilization of their production capacities. Therefore, the machinery that is currently used in the logging industry, however high the productivity of some of its individual models may be, does not and cannot ensure high labor productivity for the logging process as a whole, because there is no comprehensive mechanization of it; because in the technological chain the existing logging machinery is not coordinated with respect to productivity; and, finally, because in the logging process operations are performed that do not change the object of labor and, from the standpoint of obtaining the finished product, are superfluous.

In recent years, the improvement of machinery in the logging industry has proceeded mainly along the path of increasing the power, speed, and other parameters of existing machines. Comparatively little attention has been paid to the creation of new machines for the mechanization of manual labor. The technology of logging production has been improved gradually, but not by shortening the technological chain; rather, it has proceeded by transferring the performance of labor-intensive manual operations from the cutting area to the lower landing.

At the present time, when logging is not yet a comprehensively mechanized production process, improving machinery by increasing power, speed, and other parameters cannot produce a significant rise in labor productivity in logging, because increasing the volume of production in mechanized operations expands the sphere of application of manual labor in those operations that still remain unmechanized. Moreover, if one takes into account that we are already producing a tractor with a power of 110 h.p. (TT-4), it must be acknowledged that the possibilities for further improvement of existing logging machines are extremely limited. The development of machinery in the past and at present reflects the objective regularity of the exhaustion of the possibilities for improving each machine and the necessity, at a certain stage, of moving to qualitatively new technical solutions.

The resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR “On the Development of the Logging Industry in 1966–1970” indicates the need to expand and more rapidly complete work on the comprehensive mechanization and automation of logging. To solve this task, in our opinion, the main

Attention must be focused on improving the technology of logging production. The radical solution to the problem of increasing labor productivity in logging and improving the efficiency of logging production consists in the transition to a structural, simple cycle of logging-and-transport operations, to a treeless and loadless stem-transport variant of mechanizing logging, and in the creation of an essentially new system of stem-transport machines of large carrying capacity, eliminating the use of manual labor and the performance of operations that are superfluous from the standpoint of obtaining the finished product. Although the possibility of creating such machines was denied quite recently¹⁶, the successes of recent years in designing new logging equipment show that denials of this kind were not scientifically grounded. And the experience of the U.S. logging industry indicates that one of the conditions ensuring high labor productivity is precisely the creation of fundamentally new equipment for the comprehensive mechanization of logging. Exceptionally great attention is being given in the United States to work on creating such equipment¹⁷.

The first models of stem-transport machines were tested in our country in 1957. However, despite the large number of scientific developments¹⁸, the creation of such machines is being delayed, since it has not been possible to find a satisfactory solution to a number of technical-and-economic questions and, above all, to combine sufficiently high reliability of such machines with high maneuverability in logging operations and high speed in timber haulage. Matters are even worse with the improvement of technology and the organization of labor, since “in scientific research these questions do not receive the necessary attention, for logging administrations groundlessly believe that the forms of labor organization and technology used by advanced integrated brigades are entirely perfected and that, consequently, in order to radically improve the work of the logging industry it is sufficient to disseminate everywhere the achievements of the advanced brigades”¹⁹. There is no need to prove that such a view of the existing technology and organization of logging production contradicts the regular process of development of the productive forces and Marx’s statements on these questions; he, as is well known, wrote: “Modern industry never regards and treats the existing form of the production process as final. Its technical basis is therefore revolutionary, whereas that of all earlier modes of production was essentially conservative. By means of machinery, chemical processes, and other methods, it continually revolutionizes the technical basis of production, and with it the functions of the workers and the social combinations of the labor process”²⁰.

In this connection, it is quite obvious that a scientifically grounded logging technology, designed for the complete utilization of all harvested timber and at the same time maximally reducing the operations involved in processing it and moving it vertically along its route to the lower landing or to the consumer’s yard, must become the basis for designing new logging equipment.

At present, what should be created and improved is not individual designs, but the entire complex of machines of the “forest conveyor,” in which they would be coordinated in terms of power, lifting capacity, productivity, and other parameters. For this, a clear and at the same time rigorous technical policy in the industry is needed. Only under these conditions will technical progress in logging be accompanied by improved technical and economic indicators and by increased efficiency of logging production.

1. Z. I. Fainburg, Mechanization and Labor Productivity in Logging, 1959, p. 7; The National Economy of the USSR in 1965, Moscow, 1966, p. 210; The National Economy of the USSR in 1968, Moscow, 1969, p. 272. ↩

2. K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 23, pp. 391–392. ↩↩

3. Calculated from materials in The National Economy of the USSR in 1961. Moscow, 1962, p. 195; The National Economy of the USSR in 1968. Moscow, 1969, p. 223. ↩

4. See: N. A. Balagurov, Cost and Profitability of Logging Production. Moscow, 1963, p. 113. ↩

5. See: N. A. Balagurov, Basic Problems of the Cost and Profitability of Logging Production. Moscow, 1967, p. 21. ↩

6. Calculated from materials of the statistical yearbook The National Economy of the USSR for the corresponding years. ↩

7. See: Handbook on the Economics of the Timber Industry. Moscow, 1967, pp. 166–168. ↩

8. See: N. A. Burdin, “Technological Progress in Logging and Its Influence on Capital Productivity,” Lesnaya promyshlennost’, 1967, No. 10; Proceedings of TsNIIME, 1965, vol. 66, p. 59. ↩

9. K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 23, pp. 618–619. ↩

10. K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 23, p. 391. ↩

11. B. M. Perepechin. Basic Directions in the Development of the Forest Industry and Forestry, Moscow, 1966, p. 11. ↩

12. Planovoe khoziaistvo, 1967, No. 2, p. 65. ↩

13. Data of the technical department of the Tomles combine. ↩

14. See: V. I. Garuzov. Non-reloading and Reloading-free Removal of Timber by Portable Narrow-Gauge Railways. Goslestekhizdat, 1939 (and his other works); I. G. Kurakov. Technical Progress and the Growth of Labor Productivity. Moscow, 1956; Z. I. Fainburg. Mechanization and Labor Productivity in Logging. Yoshkar-Ola, 1959; Yu. N. Ventsenoscev. Foundations of the Theory of Logging Production. Moscow, 1966. ↩

15. Yu. N. Ventsenoscev. Cited work, p. 67. ↩

16. See: G. K. Vinogorov, On Machines for the Comprehensive Mechanization of Logging Operations, Transactions of TsNIIME, 1961, vol. 20; Lesnaya promyshlennost’, 1961, No. 1, p. 17. ↩

17. See: L. Ya. Berri, K. I. Klimenko, Ya. A. Oblomskii, E. S. Savinskii, S. A. Kheinman. U.S. Industry in 1929–1963. Moscow, 1965, pp. 395–396. ↩

18. See: S. F. Orlov. Theory and Application of Aggregate Machines in Logging. Moscow, 1963, pp. 217–220, 265–267. ↩

19. Izvestiya vysshikh uchebnykh zavedenii, “Lesnoi zhurnal,” 1966, No. 5, pp. 3–4. ↩

20. K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, vol. 23, pp. 497–498. ↩