Pit or kiln. - Revision history

Aberg at 15:24, 26 March 2020

2020-03-26T15:24:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:24, 26 March 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The use of the charcoal kiln had several advantages over the pit. [[Kilns]] were more expensive to manufacture, yet saved money in the long run, 1.5 cents per bushel to be exact <ref>Straka 2014, 110</ref>. Kilns were also able to produce more yield than pits, and the charcoal that was made was cleaner and fresher as it ~~wasn't~~ in contact with the forest floor. Kilns were also conveniently able to be placed where they could be watched with more ease, as opposed to a pit, where colliers had to spend months in isolation. Kilns also reduced overall labor, as the covering was permanent, whereas the pit had to be covered manually each round. Transportation costs and damage to the charcoal also decreased with kiln use, which made it all the more popular<ref>Straka 2014, 110</ref>.		The use of the charcoal kiln had several advantages over the pit. [[Kilns]] were more expensive to manufacture, yet saved money in the long run, 1.5 cents per bushel to be exact <ref>Straka 2014, 110</ref>. Kilns were also able to produce more yield than pits, and the charcoal that was made was cleaner and fresher, as it was not in contact with the forest floor. Kilns were also conveniently able to be placed where they could be watched with more ease, as opposed to a pit, where colliers had to spend months in isolation. Kilns also reduced overall labor, as the covering was permanent, whereas the pit had to be covered manually each round. Transportation costs and damage to the charcoal also decreased with kiln use, which made it all the more popular<ref>Straka 2014, 110</ref>.

	==Notes==		==Notes==

Aberg at 15:13, 26 March 2020

2020-03-26T15:13:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:13, 26 March 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The use of the charcoal kiln had several advantages over the pit. [[Kilns]] were more expensive to manufacture, yet saved money in the long run, 1.5 cents per bushel to be exact <ref>Straka~~, T.J.~~ 2014, p. 110.</ref>. Kilns were also able to produce more yield than pits, and the charcoal that was made was cleaner and fresher as it wasn't in contact with the forest floor. Kilns were also conveniently able to be placed where they could be watched with more ease, as opposed to a pit, where colliers had to spend months in isolation. Kilns also reduced overall labor, as the covering was permanent, whereas the pit had to be covered manually each round. Transportation costs and damage to the charcoal also decreased with kiln use, which made it all the more popular. <ref>Straka~~, T.J.~~ 2014, p. 110.</ref>		The use of the charcoal kiln had several advantages over the pit. [[Kilns]] were more expensive to manufacture, yet saved money in the long run, 1.5 cents per bushel to be exact <ref>Straka 2014, 110</ref>. Kilns were also able to produce more yield than pits, and the charcoal that was made was cleaner and fresher as it wasn't in contact with the forest floor. Kilns were also conveniently able to be placed where they could be watched with more ease, as opposed to a pit, where colliers had to spend months in isolation. Kilns also reduced overall labor, as the covering was permanent, whereas the pit had to be covered manually each round. Transportation costs and damage to the charcoal also decreased with kiln use, which made it all the more popular<ref>Straka 2014, 110</ref>.

	==Notes==		==Notes==
Line 5:		Line 5:

	==References==		==References==
	* Straka, T. J. (2014). Historic Charcoal Production in the US and Forest Depletion: Development of		* Straka, T. J. 2014. ''Historic Charcoal Production in the US and Forest Depletion: Development of Production Parameters. Advances in Historical Studies,'' 3, 104-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ahs.2014.32010
	Production Parameters. Advances in Historical Studies, 3, 104-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ahs.2014.32010

Dmgrieder at 11:27, 26 September 2018

2018-09-26T11:27:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:27, 26 September 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The use of the charcoal kiln had several advantages over the pit. [Kilns] were more expensive to manufacture, yet saved money in the long run, 1.5 cents per bushel to be exact <ref>Straka, T.J. 2014, p. 110.</ref>. Kilns were also able to produce more yield than pits, and the charcoal that was made was cleaner and fresher as it wasn't in contact with the forest floor. Kilns were also conveniently able to be placed where they could be watched with more ease, as opposed to a pit, where colliers had to spend months in isolation. Kilns also reduced overall labor, as the covering was permanent, whereas the pit had to be covered manually each round. Transportation costs and damage to the charcoal also decreased with kiln use, which made it all the more popular. <ref>Straka, T.J. 2014, p. 110.</ref>		The use of the charcoal kiln had several advantages over the pit. [[Kilns]] were more expensive to manufacture, yet saved money in the long run, 1.5 cents per bushel to be exact <ref>Straka, T.J. 2014, p. 110.</ref>. Kilns were also able to produce more yield than pits, and the charcoal that was made was cleaner and fresher as it wasn't in contact with the forest floor. Kilns were also conveniently able to be placed where they could be watched with more ease, as opposed to a pit, where colliers had to spend months in isolation. Kilns also reduced overall labor, as the covering was permanent, whereas the pit had to be covered manually each round. Transportation costs and damage to the charcoal also decreased with kiln use, which made it all the more popular. <ref>Straka, T.J. 2014, p. 110.</ref>

	==Notes==		==Notes==

Dmgrieder at 11:27, 26 September 2018

2018-09-26T11:27:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:27, 26 September 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The use of the charcoal kiln had several advantages over the pit. Kilns were more expensive to manufacture, yet saved money in the long run, 1.5 cents per bushel to be exact <ref>Straka, T.J. 2014, p. 110.</ref>. Kilns were also able to produce more yield than pits, and the charcoal that was made was cleaner and fresher as it wasn't in contact with the forest floor. Kilns were also conveniently able to be placed where they could be watched with more ease, as opposed to a pit, where colliers had to spend months in isolation. Kilns also reduced overall labor, as the covering was permanent, whereas the pit had to be covered manually each round. Transportation costs and damage to the charcoal also decreased with kiln use, which made it all the more popular. <ref>Straka, T.J. 2014, p. 110.</ref>		The use of the charcoal kiln had several advantages over the pit. [Kilns] were more expensive to manufacture, yet saved money in the long run, 1.5 cents per bushel to be exact <ref>Straka, T.J. 2014, p. 110.</ref>. Kilns were also able to produce more yield than pits, and the charcoal that was made was cleaner and fresher as it wasn't in contact with the forest floor. Kilns were also conveniently able to be placed where they could be watched with more ease, as opposed to a pit, where colliers had to spend months in isolation. Kilns also reduced overall labor, as the covering was permanent, whereas the pit had to be covered manually each round. Transportation costs and damage to the charcoal also decreased with kiln use, which made it all the more popular. <ref>Straka, T.J. 2014, p. 110.</ref>

	==Notes==		==Notes==

Dmgrieder at 11:33, 12 September 2018

2018-09-12T11:33:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:33, 12 September 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The use of the charcoal kiln had several advantages over the pit. Kilns were more expensive to manufacture, yet saved money in the long run, 1.5 cents per bushel to be exact <ref>Straka, T.J. 2014, p. 110.</ref>. Kilns were also able to produce more yield than pits, and the charcoal that was made was cleaner and fresher as it wasn't in contact with the forest floor. Kilns were also conveniently able to be placed where they could be watched with more ease, as opposed to a pit, where colliers had to spend months in isolation. Kilns also reduced overall labor, as the covering was permanent, whereas the pit had to be covered manually each round. Transportation costs and damage to the charcoal also decreased with kiln use, which made it all the more popular. <ref>Straka, T.J. 2014, p. 110.</ref>		The use of the charcoal kiln had several advantages over the pit. Kilns were more expensive to manufacture, yet saved money in the long run, 1.5 cents per bushel to be exact <ref>Straka, T.J. 2014, p. 110.</ref>. Kilns were also able to produce more yield than pits, and the charcoal that was made was cleaner and fresher as it wasn't in contact with the forest floor. Kilns were also conveniently able to be placed where they could be watched with more ease, as opposed to a pit, where colliers had to spend months in isolation. Kilns also reduced overall labor, as the covering was permanent, whereas the pit had to be covered manually each round. Transportation costs and damage to the charcoal also decreased with kiln use, which made it all the more popular. <ref>Straka, T.J. 2014, p. 110.</ref>

			==Notes==
			<references />

			==References==
			* Straka, T. J. (2014). Historic Charcoal Production in the US and Forest Depletion: Development of
			Production Parameters. Advances in Historical Studies, 3, 104-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ahs.2014.32010

Dmgrieder at 19:07, 9 September 2018

2018-09-09T19:07:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:07, 9 September 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The use of the charcoal kiln had several advantages over the pit. Kilns were more expensive to manufacture, yet saved money in the long run, 1.5 cents per bushel to be exact <ref>Straka, T.J. 2014, p. 110.</ref>. Kilns were also able to produce more yield than pits, and the charcoal that was made was cleaner and fresher as it wasn't in contact with the forest floor. Kilns were also conveniently able to be placed where they could be watched with more ease, as opposed to a pit, where colliers had to spend months in isolation. Kilns also reduced overall labor, as the covering was permanent, whereas the pit had to be covered manually each round. Transportation costs and damage to the charcoal also decreased with kiln use, which made ~~them~~ all the more popular. <ref>Straka, T.J. 2014, p. 110.</ref>		The use of the charcoal kiln had several advantages over the pit. Kilns were more expensive to manufacture, yet saved money in the long run, 1.5 cents per bushel to be exact <ref>Straka, T.J. 2014, p. 110.</ref>. Kilns were also able to produce more yield than pits, and the charcoal that was made was cleaner and fresher as it wasn't in contact with the forest floor. Kilns were also conveniently able to be placed where they could be watched with more ease, as opposed to a pit, where colliers had to spend months in isolation. Kilns also reduced overall labor, as the covering was permanent, whereas the pit had to be covered manually each round. Transportation costs and damage to the charcoal also decreased with kiln use, which made it all the more popular. <ref>Straka, T.J. 2014, p. 110.</ref>

Dmgrieder at 19:06, 9 September 2018

2018-09-09T19:06:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:06, 9 September 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The use of the charcoal kiln had several advantages over the pit. Kilns were more expensive to manufacture, yet saved money in the long run, 1.5 cents per bushel to be exact <ref>Straka, T.J. 2014, p. 110.</ref>. Kilns were also able to produce more yield than pits, and the charcoal that was made was cleaner and fresher as it wasn't in contact with the forest floor. Kilns were also conveniently able to be placed where they could be watched with more ease, as opposed to a pit, where colliers had to spend months in isolation. Kilns also reduced overall labor, as the covering was permanent, whereas the pit had to be covered manually each round. Transportation costs and damage to the charcoal also decreased with kiln use, which made it all the more popular. <ref>Straka, T.J. 2014, p. 110.</ref>		The use of the charcoal kiln had several advantages over the pit. Kilns were more expensive to manufacture, yet saved money in the long run, 1.5 cents per bushel to be exact <ref>Straka, T.J. 2014, p. 110.</ref>. Kilns were also able to produce more yield than pits, and the charcoal that was made was cleaner and fresher as it wasn't in contact with the forest floor. Kilns were also conveniently able to be placed where they could be watched with more ease, as opposed to a pit, where colliers had to spend months in isolation. Kilns also reduced overall labor, as the covering was permanent, whereas the pit had to be covered manually each round. Transportation costs and damage to the charcoal also decreased with kiln use, which made them all the more popular. <ref>Straka, T.J. 2014, p. 110.</ref>

Dmgrieder: Pit vs. Kiln

2018-09-09T19:05:48Z

Pit vs. Kiln

New page

The use of the charcoal kiln had several advantages over the pit. Kilns were more expensive to manufacture, yet saved money in the long run, 1.5 cents per bushel to be exact <ref>Straka, T.J. 2014, p. 110.</ref>. Kilns were also able to produce more yield than pits, and the charcoal that was made was cleaner and fresher as it wasn't in contact with the forest floor. Kilns were also conveniently able to be placed where they could be watched with more ease, as opposed to a pit, where colliers had to spend months in isolation. Kilns also reduced overall labor, as the covering was permanent, whereas the pit had to be covered manually each round. Transportation costs and damage to the charcoal also decreased with kiln use, which made it all the more popular. <ref>Straka, T.J. 2014, p. 110.</ref>