^ y8oa:>s;l>^c^^c»x>x>5>:>^^>?at^;>^>^>^^!)t^ 



Wood Manufactures in the U. S. 



Tlie goveruim-iit li;is just piiblislieil wliiit aie piaci ically (•(iiiipl.ir 



Jigures on tlie amount of wood maiiiitai'tiiri'd into conimcrcial r 



moditios yearly in tho I'nited Stales. 'I'liis Is not the hinibo:' output, 

 hilt tlip articles inanufai'tured of unod, such as furniture, boxes, 

 ajtrieultural Inijilenients, luintlles, vehieles. steam auil electric cars, 

 musical instruinents, doors, ships and boats, and many more. It does 

 not include rouj;li lumber which is used in the form i; is in ulicii it 

 comes from the saw; nor does it include crossties or wood |Mil|i. It 

 is, in fai't, the output of shops and factories. 



Pile output of rough lumber has been published annually for many 

 yeais; but there has been a want of information concerning what 

 beeoincs of the lumber which is not used in the rough. Nobody 

 knew how much there was of it, or liow much was worked into vari 

 ous commodities. There were various guesses as to how much of the 

 country's lumber was used in the rough .-mil liou iniiili was further 

 manufactured beforo it reached its final use. Some such guesses 

 were not far out of the way, while others were wilil. 



The Forest Service began a systematic investigation recent ly. Its 

 ])lau covered the whole country., but the work was undertaken state 

 at a time, usually in cooperation with the state or with some associa- 

 tion or corfioration in the state. Most of these reports were published 

 fro. II tinu' to time as completed. The first was Massachusetts, 'and 

 otliois fcilliiwed rapidlj' until twenty-nine in all have now been pub- 

 lished. This leaves nineteen unpublished, but it is understood that 

 some of these will shortly appear. However, since the government 

 only collects and tabulates the material and ilepcnds on eai-li state 

 to jjublish its own report, there is simie mnertaiiity .ms to wlien the 

 others will appear. 



In view of this, tlie Forest Service has published a synojisis cover- 

 ing the whole country. It is not a complete report, nor docs it go 

 into details, but it gives the amount of wood manufactured into fin- 

 ished commodities yearly in each of forty states. Those omitted 

 are practically non-manufacturers of wooden products — North Dakota, 

 Nebraska, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and Xe 

 A'ada — so that the report as to totals is now practically com])lete. It 

 is ap]iended to the Ohio report, which is the latest to come from the 

 j.ress. 



The following table, rearranged from the form in which it ap- 

 ]]eared in the Ohio report, gives in concise figures the amount of 

 wood passing yearly through shojis and factories in the forty states. 

 For convenience, the output of lumber in the states, in 191(1, is also 

 given. 



.\NNLAI, M.\NI'F.VCTi;ilKS OF WOOD HY ST.VTKS 



Quantity laimlicr .Nunilicr 



manufactured, output llllo. nf in 



State — I'eet b. m. f^et li. in. dnstrics. 



I'ennsylvaniii 1,800,000,000 l.LMO.Ooo. IJ 



Illinois 1.782,000,000 1 14.00(l,iiiiii .".J 



New York 1.740,000,00(1 506,000.00(1 4'.p 



Arkansas I.:f61,000,00(> 1,844,000,000 17 



Louisiana 1,355,000,000 :j, 744,000.000 IJ 



Michigan 1,283,000,000 l.OSl.OOn.OOO :17 



Minnesota !l.'5S,000,0(JO l,4rj,s,ooo,000 i;:'. 



Wisconsin 030,000,000 l.SOl. 1)00,000 -J.'i 



Ohio '115.000.(100 4ii((. i.ono :'..-. 



Virginia 895,000.000 l.c,.-.-J.(i()O.0OO 20 



Texas 762.000.000 1.,s,s4.("i(i.(jO(i 17 



.\lHbama 727,000,000 i.4(;c..(i(M).oiio 22 



North Carolina 676,000.000 1 .s2.-..(ino.(i(i(i 2.". 



Calitornia (i02,ooo.(((Mi 1 .2r..-i.(io(i.(i(io :;.", 



Indiana 652,000.000 42:!.0OO.00O :!.■. 



Mississippi 618.000,000 2.122,000.000 12 



Georgia 5,V,.(.00.00(i 1.042.(mO.OOO 18 



Massachusetts ,-,."i(i.(i(i(i.(io(i 2:;'.i.(i(i(i. 24 



Klorida .-,21 .(hiii.(i(I(i :iii2.(i(i(i.(i(io 11 



Missouri 14;i.(iO(i.oo(i .,o2.(i(io.0("(i 26 



New Hampsliire 42:i,(i(io."(i(i 444.(i(io.O(i(i 27 



Tennessee 4l4.00o,o(io i.itln.iinii.ooo 21 



Kentucky 410.00O.o(io 7.-.4.(i(i(i.00o 22 



Washington 338,000.00(( 4.097,000.000 10 



Oregon 297.000,000 2,085,000.000 22 



Maryland 284.000.000 155,000.000 14 



.Iowa 263,000.000 75.000,000 23 



—18— 



Wr-i \ii:.:iiiiii 2011. .o(Mi l.:;77.0((0. 20 



.\.« .l.is.j 2..(;. i.ooii .■;7, 0(10.0(10 J.-, 



.Maine 24."i,ii(i(i.iJO(i ■ sOO.OOo.lHio 21 



WTiuont 207.0(10.0(10 285.0oo,o(.)0 17 



Connecticut I Io.ooo.imki 155,000,000 26 



Kansas (Jl.ood.ooii 1,000,000 10 



Delaware 51.ooii.(ioi] 47,000,000 14 



lihodc Ishmd l2.((oo. 14,000.000 i:; 



(lkl.:lHiTiiii 2.s.(l(((l.(llio 165,000,000 15 



I'hili.. jO. .0011 746,0(J0,00O s 



•Munlana 6,000.(JOO 319,000,000 11 



.South Uakota 0,000,000 16,000,000 8 



Totals 22,907,000,000 38,163,000,000 



It will be readily observed that the above table is only a skeleton. 

 Theic aie many things which it does not show. It gives no infor- 

 mation as to the kinds of wood used in the several states or in the 

 whole country. Nor does it jireseut any figures on cost. It is pro 

 siuned that these details will be embodied in future reports; but the 

 (igiiii's thus far given are valuable and of great interest. It is abso- 

 lutely the first time in the history of the United States that reliable 

 iiiiormation has been available, showing what jiercentage of the 

 Kiugh lumber tjiat comes from sawmills goes to shops and factories to 

 be further manufactured. 



Could such reports as this have been made available, say every ten 

 years, since the govermiient was founded, they would have provided 

 one of the most valuable features of our industrial liistory. Doubt- 

 less thev would exhibit many interesting and remarkable sidelights 

 on the country 's development. 



L'nfortunately, snch statistics were never collected in the past. 

 The present report is the first. Tt marks the beginning of the ex- 

 li.iustive reports on timber and its utilization. Doubtless reports of 

 a similar kind will be published at frequent periods in the future, 

 all dating back to the present one as a basis for comparison. 



The figures show that sixty per cent of the annual output of rough 

 lumber finds its way to shops and factories to be further manufac- 

 tured. Few people have guessed that the ratio is so high. Some well 

 informed men have placed it as low as twenty-five or thirty per cent. 

 This is proof of the need of reliable information on the subject. It 

 is probable that the ratio will increase in the future, as utilization 

 becomes more close; ho.ve\er, to make such a prediction would 

 simply be another guess, and it might miss the mark widely. 



There are some items in the table which are liable to mislead if 

 not explained. Arkansas and Louisiana are credited with the re- 

 manufacture of more than a billion feet each. It is well known 

 that manufactures of wood are not much diversified or highly devel- 

 oped in those states. They are producers of lumber. However, 

 matched and planed flooring and dressed siding are counted as 

 manufactures, .and Uiese make up the bulk of what the table shows 

 in several of the southern yellow pine states. These commodities 

 are dressed to save freight in long shi[iments north and east to their 

 markets; and to that extent the southern states are manufacturers 

 to the full amounts shown in the table. 



Twelve states send to their shops and factories more lumber than 

 their sawmills produce. That should not be a matter of surprise. 

 Naturally, thickly populated regions, with little timber of their own, 

 will give more attention to manufacturing than is given by the in- 

 habitants of a sparsely settled region. They import wood to supply 

 their factories. The average haul of all lumber sawed in the United 

 States is about 300 miles. This movement is solely for the purpose 

 of taking it from places where it is not much in demand to places 

 where it is needed; and the best markets are usually found at the 

 f.actorips, though they may be far from the mills which saw the 

 lumber. 



The number of wood-using industries in a state is an index to the 

 closeness and diversity of utilization. Remarkable differences occur, 

 as are shown in the accompanying table. Illinois has fifty-two such 

 industries, Mississippi only twelve; yet the latter state produces six- 

 teen times as much lumber as the former. It is not, therefore, so 

 much the abundance of native timber in a region as a demand for 



