THE PRODUCTION OF LUMBER IN 1913. | 3 
existed in the industry. During the first three months of the year 
the lumber trade was much improved, but in the second quarter the 
demand for lumber fell off noticeably. Further weakening in the 
demand during the summer led to decreased production in the 
yellow-pine and Douglas-fir regions for short periods. The fall 
demand did not improve. In general the year was one of over- 
production and slack business in the principal lumber manufacturing 
regions. 
Notwithstanding temporary decreases in the production of yellow 
pine and Douglas fir, the reported cut of yellow pine was about 
seven-tenths of 1 per cent and of Douglas fir about 74 per cent greater 
in 1913 than in 1912. The cut of Douglas fir in 1913 was the largest 
ever reported, while the 1913 cut of yellow pine was second only to 
that of 1909. Had not enforced curtailment in the output of these 
two woods been necessary, the total lumber production of 1913 would 
undoubtedly have exceeded that of 1912. In fact, had not the cut of 
white pine, hemlock, spruce, oak, and maple declined in 1913, the 
increased cut of yellow pine, Douglas fir, cypress, and red gum in that 
year would have carried the total lumber production beyond that 
for 1912. 
The increased cut of certain woods is reflected in the increased 
production of Washington, Oregon, and the lower Mississippi Valley 
States, while the decreased cut of other woods is reflected in the de- 
creased production of the Northern, Central, and Atlantic States. 
The reported production of 4,592,055,000 feet in Washington in 1913 
was the largest ever recorded for that State or any other State. The 
largest production previously reported by one State was that of 
4,311,240,000 feet in 1890, by Michigan. 
Of the total reported production of lumber, softwoods contributed 
- 30,302,549,000 feet board measure in 1913, as against 30,526,416,000 
feet in 1912, and 28,902,388,000 feet in 1911. 
- Table 2 shows the total production of lumber in 1913 by production 
classes of sawmills. It will be noted that mills having an annual 
production of less than 50,000 feet are not considered in thisreport. If 
reports from such mills had been included the total production would 
probably not have been increased by more than one-half of 1 per 
cent, since in 1909 when the production of such mills was included it 
was found that although there were 4,543 such mills they cut but 
three-tenths of 1 per cent of the total lumber produced. Table 2 
shows the importance of the large sawmill in furnishing the country’s 
supply of lumber, and it also shows how practically correct figures on 
lumber production can be secured by getting reports from mills of 
the largest two or three classes only. 
