...this sentence from the link posted below:
"Utilization of Slabwood
and Other Sawmill Wastes"
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED137056.pdfSame paragraph. Of course, it wasn't quoted; it would have entirely undermined the argument being made.
That's no longer some innocent mischief. Other references I haven't posted yet:
"There has been a marked improvement in the utilization of mill-waste by sawmills in the Southern Coast region of British Colulnbia. This
waste material, which results from the conversion of the sawlog into lumber, comprises
slabwood, trimmings and sawdust."
https://pubs.cif-ifc.org/doi/pdf/10.5558/tfc12072-1We can argue about trimmings; but sawdust is not it. Cf.:
"Slabwood bundles consist of the sides of timber that we cut off when it is first put through the Sawmill, but also contain rejected and broken planks that have been processed..."
https://www.gov.im/categories/business-and-industries/isle-o...Obviously, neither ENS source can hold a candle to a link as illustrious as that Reverso one, which revolves around...pretzels.
Why is it so hard to stick to the topic? Just once, pls?