56 



TIMBER RESOURCES FOR AMERICA'S FUTURE 



and softwood and hardwood species are not gen- 

 erally interchangeable in their merchantability and 

 utility. In overall comparisons adverse softwood 

 relationships may be overbalanced by favorable 

 hardwood relationships, thus concealing softwood 

 deficits. 



(3) Equally important or perhaps more im- 

 portant than whether growth exceeds, or is less 

 than, cut is the level at which such relationship 

 occurs. In other words, a balance between growth 

 and cut at 1952 levels is of little significance if 

 future requirements will bring a demand for cut 

 (and growth to meet it) at much higher levels. 

 To carry the illustration to an extreme, there 

 would be a balance between growth and cut if 

 there were no growth and no cut. A balance is 

 not significant unless it is at a sufficiently high 

 level to meet the country's needs. As is shown 

 later, growth needs to increase greatly over 

 present levels in order to meet projected demand. 



(4) Growth-cut relationships are frequently 

 different depending on whether they are expressed 

 in terms of sawtimber or growing stock. Usually 

 growing-stock growth-cut ratios are more favor- 

 able than those for sawtimber. In other words, 

 growth-cut ratios are better when merchantable 

 trees of all sizes are considered than when con- 

 sideration is given only to the larger and generally 

 higher quality trees. So long as most of the cut 

 comes from sawtimber (84 percent), whereas 

 growth is more equally distributed among the 

 large and the small trees, the tendency is for 

 timber to decline in average size. In this situa- 

 tion, an excess of growing-stock growth over cut 

 will appear when sawtimber growth and cut are no 

 more than in balance. If sawtimber ratios are 

 favorable, growing-stock ratios are likely to be 

 even more so; but a favorable growing-stock ratio 



may be misleading if the sawtimber relations are 

 not also considered. That is why growth-cut 

 information for sawtimber is more significant than 

 that for growing stock. 



In view of the above qualifications, the more 

 significant growth-cut comparisons — although aU 

 are deficient with respect to the question of 

 whether they are at adequate levels — are those 

 pertaining to eastern softwood and eastern hard- 

 wood sawtimber, and by these groups for the 

 North and the South. Growth-cut ratios for 

 western species have little meaning. 



Softwood Growth Exceeds Cut in the East 



The most significant of all growth-cut relation- 

 ships is that growth of eastern softwood sawtimber 

 exceeded cut in 1952 by 20 percent (table 30 and 

 fig. 26). In the North, the plus margin for soft- 

 wood sawtimber was 4 percent, in the South 24 

 percent (table 36). These favorable balances are 

 tempered by the realization that they were 

 achieved as much by the 17-percent reduction in 

 cut of eastern softwoods since 1944 as by the 11- 

 percent increase in growth (tables 28 and 33). 

 Much of the eastern softwood sawtimber growth 

 and cut is on small trees. The favorable balance 

 is encouraging, but it needs to be maintained or 

 increased until better stocking is achieved, until 

 the East can assume a greater share of total 

 demand, and until growth is much nearer the 

 productive capacity of the land. Growth is far 

 below capacity at the present time. 



Eastern hardwood growth exceeded cut of saw- 

 timber by 57 percent. As would be expected, 

 the more preferred hardwoods in general have less 

 favorable ratios than the less desired species. 



Table 36. — Growth and cut 



by softwood and hardwood, and 



by section 



1952 







Growing stock 



Live sawtimber 



Species group and section 



Growth 



Cut 



Ratio of 

 growth 

 to cut ' 



Growth 



Cut 



Ratio of 

 growth 

 to cut ' 



Softwood : 



North 



Billion 

 cu. ft. 

 0.82 

 3.56 

 2.63 



Billion 

 cu. ft. 

 0.70 

 3. 05 

 3.74 



1. 17 



1. 17 



.70 



Billion 

 bd.-ft. 

 2. 47 

 14. 50 

 11. 04 



Billion 

 hd.-ft. 

 2. 37 

 11.72 

 22. 46 



1. 04 



South _ _. ... .. 



1. 24 



West and Coastal Alaska . . . _ 



. 49 







- Total ... . 



7.01 



7. 49 



.93 



28.01 



36.55 



. 77 







Hardwood: 



North. .. . -. . ... 



3.84 



3.24 



. 15 



1. 24 



2.01 



.02 



3. 10 

 1. 62 

 6. 48 



9.60 



9.52 



.27 



4.33 



7.88 



.08 



2. 21 



South . ... 



1. 21 



West and Coastal Alaska. .. 



3.31 







Total 



7.23 



3.27 



2. 21 



19.39 



12.29 



1.58 



> Ratios computed before rounding. 



