The results, shown in table 5.8, indicate that in the 
South 22 million acres of cropland and pasture could earn 
greater returns in pine plantations. If planted to pine, these 
acres would yield about 2.1 billion cubic feet of additional 
timber growth per year, about 94 cubic feet per acre per 
year. This volume exceeds the current net annual growth on 
pine plantations in the South (1.3 billion cubic feet) by 62 
percent. 
This cropland and pasture is open land and can be 
planted with machines. There are no site-preparation or 
other related costs. As a result, the average cost of estab- 
lishing pine plantations is much below that on harvested 
timberland—$62 per acre compared to $129 per acre. It is 
also much below the average $94 per-acre cost of convert- 
Table 5.8—Area of marginal cropland and pasture,' including 
highly erodible cropland, in the South, the cost of establishing 
pine plantations on this land, and the resulting net annual timber 
growth if this land were planted to pine or allowed to revert 
naturally to forest, by State and region 
Net annual 
Marginal Treatment Net annual growth from 
Region croplandand cost to growth from natural 
and State pasture plant pine planted pine regeneration 
Thousand Million — Million Million 
acres dollars cubic feet cubic feet 
Southeast 
Florida 1,354 71.8 LT, 49.1 
Georgia 1,864 103.4 175.8 75.6 
North Carolina PAIS) 129.0 199.5 89.9 
South Carolina 745 42.1 70.3 230 
Virginia 2,745 161.2 258.9 76.9 
Total 8,823 507.5 832.2 314.6 
South Central 
Alabama 2,456 145.6 231.7 88.0 
Arkansas 1,956 145.4 184.5 44.5 
Louisiana 521 38.3 49.1 18.4 
Mississippi 2,526 173.8 238.3 97.3 
Oklahoma 800 54.2 75.5 22.5 
Tennessee 3,258 233.0 307.3 130.9 
Texas 1,615 98.6 152.3 64.9 
Total 13,132 888.9 1,238.7 466.5 
Southwide total 21,955 1,396.4 2,070.9 781.1 
' Cropland and pasture classified by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in Land Capability Classes 
3e, 4e, 6, and 7 that could yield higher rates of return in pine 
plantations than in crop or pasture use. 
ing to pine plantations timberland stocked with low-quality 
trees. 
Planting of marginal cropland and pasture sites to pine 
is the most profitable investment option identified through- 
out the South, even without cost-share payments, because 
only minimal site preparation is needed. These opportuni- 
ties also offer the most extensive and cost-effective oppor- 
tunity for expansion of softwood timber supplies. 
Approximately three-fifths of the cropland and pasture that 
would yield higher rates of return if planted to pine are in 
the South Central region, and two-fifths are in the South- 
east region. Nine of the 12 States in the South have more 
than a million acres of such land. 
The South Central region also accounts for a larger share 
of the potential increase in net annual growth from the estab- 
lishment of pine plantations on these lands, 60 percent or 
1.2 billion cubic feet (fig. 5.15). The Southeast region’s 
share would be 0.8 billion cubic feet of additional timber 
growth. The leading States are Tennessee, Virginia, 
Mississippi, Alabama, and North Carolina, each with net an- 
nual growth increments estimated near or in excess of 200 
million cubic feet. 
Average costs to establish pine plantations tend to be 
higher in the South Central region than in the Southeast. To 
plant pine on all marginal cropland and pasture would re- 
quire an investment of approximately $889 million in the 
South Central region and $508 million in the Southeast. In 
terms of average cost per unit increase in net annual growth, 
Florida and Georgia have some of the best opportunities for 
timber production on marginal acres in the Southeast. Texas 
and Alabama, in the South Central region, also have rela- 
tively low costs per unit of growth increase. 
Average timber returns for plantations established on mar- 
ginal cropland and pasture in the South are about 11 to 15 
percent above inflation on high sites, from 8 to 12 percent 
on medium sites, and about 5 to 9 percent above inflation 
on low sites. Actual rates of return, however, depend 
on location, cost of plantation establishment, and other 
production factors. 
If all of this marginal cropland and pasture were allowed 
to revert naturally to forest cover, about 781 million cu- 
bic feet of timber would eventually be produced per year 
(table 5.8, fig. 5.15). This growth amounts to an average 
production of about 36 cubic feet of timber per acre 
annually, but the direct investment costs would be nil. These 
estimates include assumptions that some sites would revert 
251 
