A NATIONAL PLAN FOR AMERICAN FORESTRY 



183 



TABLE 5. Stand of principal kinds of wood now used in pulp and paper manu- 

 facture, by regions Continued 



2 Includes western hemlock. 



Over a third of the estimated pulpwood stands, or 638 million 

 cords, consists of spruce, fir, and hemlock species suited for all four 

 types of pulp, but especially desired for mechanical and sulphite 

 pulps which make up about two thirds of our total pulp requirements. 

 The Pacific Coast region has about 60 percent of this spruce-fir-hem- 

 lock supply. Less than a third, or 500 million cords, consists of 

 yellow poplar, birch, beech, maple, gum, cottonwood, and aspen 

 eastern species used mostly for soda pulp. The remaining 692 million 

 cords consist mostly of southern yellow, white, Norway, and jack 

 pines species used largely for sulphate pulp. 



TOTAL VOLUME OF TIMBER 



Volumes in terms of cubic feet afford the only practical basis for 

 measuring the total volume of timber and for comparing directly 

 the total volume of timber with the total volume of timber growth 

 or the total volume of timber depletion. 1 Table 6 and figure 6 fur- 

 nish detailed information on the total cubic foot volumes for the 

 several regions. Of the total volume of 487 billion cubic feet, nearly 

 half or 229 billion cubic feet is saw-log material. The volume in 

 small trees on saw-log areas aggregates 70 billion cubic feet, cordwpod 

 areas 100 billion, and scattered trees on restocking areas 18 billion. 

 The volume of wood in the tops, limbs, stumps, long butts, etc., of 

 saw-timber trees makes up the remaining 70 billion cubic feet, of which 

 the bulk falls in the category of so-called woods waste. 



1 It may prove misleading to compare different estimates in cubic feet of the same stand of timber, unless 

 it is known that the same conversion factors, similarly applied, were used in each case. The present esti- 

 mate in cubic feet of the total volume of timber in the United States, for example, is lower than that of the 

 Forest Service in 1920 in the report on S.Res. 311, the difference being due in part to the use of different 

 conversion factors but mostly to timber depletion. 



168342 33 vol. 1- 



-13 



