Lumber Output for 1912 



A preliminary statement of the output of lumber, lath, and shingles 

 in the United States during the calendar years 1912, 1911 and 1910, 

 has teen issued by the director of the Census, William J. Harris. It 

 was prepared under the direction of William M. Steuart, chief statis- 

 tician for manufactures, by Jasper E. Whelchel. The data was 

 collected, as for several years past, in co-operation with the Forest 

 Service. The publication of the statistics for 1912 over four months 

 earlier than for the preceding year gives them additional interest and 

 value. 



The active mills contributing to the totals numbered 29,648 in 1912, 

 28,107 in 1911, and 31,934 in 1910, while the reported production in 

 tliese years was 39,158,414,000, 37,003,207,000 and 40,018,282,000 

 respectively. The statistics were collected almost entirely through cor- 

 respondence by the Bureau of Census, and cover the output of prac- 

 tically every commercial mill in operation during the whole or any 

 part of this period, except small neighborhood mills and others show- 

 ing a total cut of less than 50,000 feet board measure. 



On the whole, the showing for the past year indicates improved 

 conditions in the lumber industry. Although the total reported cut 

 was slightly less than in 1910, the average yield per mill was 5.3 

 per cent greater than in that year, while the total production over 

 1911 was 2,155,207,000 feet, or nearly 6 per cent. In view of the 

 fact that it was a presidential election year, the degree of activity 

 in the lumber industry during 1912 as reflected by the figures is espe- 

 cially noteworthy, the output exceeding that of four years earlier — 

 1908 — by nearly 6,000,000,000 feet, or 17.9 per cent. 



Increases among the individual states were quite general, slight 

 exceptions appearing in certain of the eastern states and a few of the 

 western mountain states, with of course the usual decrease in the 

 output of the lake states which has characterized the showing for 

 several years, due directly to the rapidly decreasing supply of lumber 

 material in this region. While both the principal lumber producing 

 centers, namely, the southern states and the Pacific coast states, re- 

 ported larger cuts in 1912 than in the preceding year, the increased 

 production in the first-named group was substantially greater than 

 for the United States as a whole. The development of the lumber 

 industry in the southern states during recent years has been rapid. 

 At the census of 1900, 38.7 per cent of the total production in the 

 United States was reported from this region, while in 1907 it con- 

 tributed 45.7 per cent of the output and in 1912, 51.4 per cent, or 

 more than one-half of the total. 



The production reported from Washington in 1912 was the largest 

 recorded since 1906. Although for nearly a decade this state has led 

 all others in the production of lumber and shingles, in 1912 it con- 

 tributed more than one-tenth of all the lumber and nearly two-thirds 

 of the shingles manufactured in the United States. 



Of the reported total lumber production, softwoods contrib- 

 uted 30,526,416 M feet board measure in 1912, as against 28,902,- 

 388,000 feet in 1911, and 31,160,856,000 feet in 1910. More than 

 uine-tenths of the present stand of yellow pine — the softwood which 

 is drawn upon most heavily for lumber material— is in the yellow 

 pine belt, which comprises the Atlantic and Gulf coast states from 

 Virginia to Texas, inclusive, together with Missouri, Arkansas, and 

 Oklahoma. Under the term yellow pine are included the several spe- 

 cies, longleaf, sliortleaf, loblolly, Cuban, etc. The reported cut from 

 yellow pine timber in this territory during the year amounted to 14,- 

 470,617,000 feet board measure, or about 98 per cent of the total 

 output from this species in the United States. Douglas fr, the spe- 

 cies which ranked next to yellow pine among the conifers or softwoods, 

 supplied material for 5,175,123,000 feet board measure. The produc- 

 tion from both of these species was greater in 1912 than in the pre- 

 ceding year. White pine ranked third among the softwoods in 1912, 

 though the cut from this wood was smaller than in the preceding 

 year, and has been declining steadily for several years past. 



The reported cut of hardwood lumber in 1912 was 8,631,998,000 

 feet board measure, as against 8,100,819,000 feet in 1911, and 8,857,- 

 426,000 feet in 1910. To this total oak, the leading hardwood spe- 



cies, contributed 3,318,952,000 feet, or 38.4 per cent, and showed an 



increase over the output for the preceding year of 220,508,000 feet, 

 or 7.1 per cent. Maple, red gum, tulip poplar, chestnut, beech and 

 birch followed oak in the order named. 



The production of lath and shingles in 1912 did not differ mate- 

 rially from the output of these products during the preceding calendar 

 year, although each was reported in slightly smaller quantities than 

 in 1910. 



The comparative summary follows: 



LUMBER PRODUCTION (M FEET BOARD MEASURE) 



?TATE V 1912 mil 1010 



United States 39,158,414 37.003.207 40,018,282 



Washington 4,099,775 4,064.734 4 097 492 



Louisiana. 3,876,211 3.566.4.^6 3 733 900 



M'SS'SS'PP' : 2.381,898 2,041,615 2,122,205 



North Carolina 2,193,308 1,798,724 1 8'4 7-'2 



OrPgon 1,916.160 1,803,098 2;o84,633 



{•^f^s 1,902,201 1,681.080 1.884,134 



Arkansas 1,821,811 1,777.303 1.844,446 



J„'rg'°ia 1.509,997 1,359.790 1,652,192 



\\isconsm 1,498,876 1,761.986 1.891.291 



J}."c'"Sa? 1,488,827 1,466.754 1,681,081 



Minnesota 1,436,726 1,485,015 1,457,734 



Alabama 1,378,151 1,226.212 1465 623 



\\est Virginia 1,318,7.32 1.3.S7.786 1,376:737 



California 1,20.3,059 1,207,561 1,254,826 



Florida 1,067,525 983,824 992,091 



Pennsylvania 992,180 1,048,606 1,241.199 



ge'orgia 941,291 801,611 1,041,617 



Qennessee 932,572 914..579 1,016.475 



Mi"?e •••••. 882,128 828,417 860,273 



South Carolina 816.930 584,872 706.831 



Idaho 71.3,575 765.670 745,984 



Kentucky 641,296 632,415 753..-56 



New York 502.351 526.283 506.074 



Ohio 499.834 427.161 490.089 



New Hampshire 479,499 388.619 443.907 



Missouri 422,470 41.«!,5S6 501 ,691 



Indiana 401.017 360.613 42 " 963 



Montana 272,174 22.S,416 319,089 



Massachusetts 259,329 273,317 ■'39 -^06 



Vermont 235,983 2.39,254 284'.815 



Maryland 174,320 144.078 154.554 



Oklahoma 168,806 143.869 164,663 



Illinois 122,528 96,651 113.506 



Connecticut 109.251 124,661 126.463 



Colorado 88.451 95.908 121.398 



New Mexico 82.650 83.728 83.544 



Arizona 76.287 73.1.39 72.655 



Iowa 46.593 59.974 75.446 



New Jersey 34.810 28,6.39 36.542 



Delaware 28.285 23.8.53 46.642 



South Dakota 20,986 13,046 16,340 



Rhode Island 14,421 9,1116 14 392 



Wyoming 13,560 33.309 30,931 



Utah 9,0.55 10,573 1 1.786 



All other •22,525 •11,786 •12,594 



Lath (thousands) 2,719,163 2,971,110 3,494,718 



Shingles (thou.sands) 12,037,685 12,113,867 12,976,362 



* Includes Kansas, Nebraska, and Nevada. 



Cypress in the Silo Fight 



The manufacturers of cypress lumber have demonstrated one thing 

 pretty thoroughly, and that is, they know how to go after business. 

 They are like one of Victor Hugo 's characters who could ' ' make 

 things happen." The latest campaign is directed toward the silo 

 business of the country. A booklet of something over one hundred 

 pages has just been issued by the Southern Cypress Manufacturers' 

 Association of New Orleans. It advises farmers to build wooden silos, 

 and of course it recommends cypress. 



This is one of a series of similar books issued by the association, 

 each recommending wood, and particularly cypress, for a specific 

 purpose. One was a barn book, another a carpenter's book, a third 

 was a trellis and arbor book, and so on. Each specifies the value of 

 wood for a particular use. 



The silo has become an important part of the farm. The first one 

 was built in this country in 1875, and now fifty manufacturers make 

 silos. The cement, brick, tile, and stone people are fighting for the 

 business, and the lumber interests cannot afford to b» inactive. The 

 wooden silo is best. It is as cheap as any other and does the work 

 better; but the farmers need to be impressed with this fact, otherwise 

 they may be persuaded to try some substitute. For that reason the 

 booklet just issued by the cypress association is bound to do good 

 for all kinds of wood suitable for silo building. 



—23— 



