PRODUCTION OF LUMBER, LATH, AND SHINGLES IN 1918. 15 



The relative importance of the several general producing regions of 



the country at 10-year periods since the middle of the last century is 



shown in Table 6. The history of the lumber industry is traceable in 



the tabulation, since it shows the inception of lumbering in each region 



and its growth or decline during subsequent intervals. 



* 

 Table 6. — Lumber cut by groups of States, in per cent of the total. 



Groups. 



1850 



1899 



1909 



1918 



Total 



Northeastern group 



Central group 



Southern group 



North Carolina pine group 



Lake States group 



Pacific group 



Rocky Mountain group . . . 

 All other 



Per cent 

 100.0 



Per cent 

 100.0 



Per cent 

 100.0 



Per cent 

 100.0 



Per cent 

 100.0 



Per cent 

 100.0 



Per cent 

 100.0 



Per cent 

 100.0 



54.8 

 18.6 

 8.5 

 5.1 

 6.3 

 5.9 

 .0 



37.0 

 21.1 

 13.0 



4.8 

 13.6 



6.4 

 .1 



4.0 



37.8 

 20.0 



6.9 



2.5 

 24.4 



4.0 

 .9 



3.5 



25.8 

 18.4 



9.7 



4.1 

 34.7 



3.6 

 .9 



2.8 



19.8 



13.1 



15.6 



4.7 



34.6 



8.5 



1.1 



2.6 



16.3 

 16.1 

 24.0 

 7.7 

 24.9 

 8.3 

 1.6 

 1.1 



11.7 

 12.3 

 33.3 

 11.6 

 12.3 

 15.5 

 2.9 

 .4 



7.4 



7.8 

 34.9 



8.3 

 10.1 

 26.9 



4.4 

 .2 



Northeastern group. — Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New 

 Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont. 



Central group. — Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia. 



Southern group.— Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas. 



North Carolina pine group.— North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia. 



Lake States ^rowp.— Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin. 



Pacific group.— California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington. 



Rocky Mountain group.— Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming. 



A 11 other. —Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota. 



LUMBER PRODUCTION BY KINDS OF WOOD. 



Table 7 shows for each of the last 10 years, 1909 to 1918, the com- 

 puted cut of the different woods. In a preceding table the lessened 

 cut was shown by States, while in this table the decline in output is 

 revealed according to species. Only three woods on the entire list 

 show a greater computed cut in 1918 than in 1917. These are Doug- 

 las fir with an increase of 4 per cent, hickory with 5 per cent, and wal- 

 nut with 61 per cent. The enlarged cut of walnut was due entirely to 

 the demand for this wood for war purposes. 



The decrease in yellow pine production from 1917 amounted to 

 more than 2,500,000,000 feet, or 20 per cent. As between 1917 and 

 1916 the cut of yellow pine fell off 10 per cent. The 1918 cut was 

 more than 4,000,000,000 feet less than in 1916. Others of the more 

 important softwoods, the cut of which declined from the year before, 

 are white pine 2 per cent, hemlock 15 per cent, and western yellow 

 pine 13 per cent. Cypress production decreased 34 per cent. Among 

 the hardwoods the computed output of oak was less by 10 per cent 

 and that of yellow poplar by 17 per cent. 



Softwood production forms approximately four-fifths of the aggre- 

 gate annual cut. The 1918 cut of softwoods was 12 per cent smaller 

 than in 1917; the hardwood cut was 7 per cent smaller than in 1917. 



