United States

Department of

Agriculture Development and

Forest Service Status of Arkansas’ Southern Forest

Experiment Station

New Orleans, Primary Forest

Louisiana

Resource Bulletin Products Industry so-1 52

Dennis M. May
SUMMARY

The latest assessment of Arkansas’ primary forest products industry conducted by the USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest

Experiment Station, reveals that the State’s forest industry has

changed considerably over time as it coevolved with the changing

forest resource base and adapted to new technologies and market

shifts. Today, Arkansas’ forest industry is, on the whole, smaller

and more efficient, with higher roundwood harvests supplying

fewer mills. However, the industry is also less diverse, being

dominated by three sectors (lumber, pulp, and veneer), which

developed around the softwood resources of the State.

May 1999
Development and Status of Arkansas’ Primary

Forest Products Industry

Dennis M. May

INTRODUCTION

The USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, has periodically conducted assessments

of Arkansas’ primary forest products industry to determine the composition and size of the industry as

well as its use of roundwood. The assessments have

been conducted in conjunction with the surveys of the

State’s forest resources. These surveys started in the

1930’s and have been repeated on lo-year intervals to

the present. This most recent assessment coincides

with the 1988 survey of Arkansas’ forest resources

and follows the development of the State’s primary

forest products industry to its current status.

INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT THROUGH 1948

From initial settlement up until the 1880’s, Arkansas’ forests provided wood for local building needs as

well as for domestic uses such as fuelwood and posts.

Commercial use of Arkansas’ forests did not develop

until the late 1880’s, when exhaustion of northern

forests caused the forest industry to move southward.

With its vast expanses of virgin forests in close proximity to expanding urban and industrial centers of

the North and South, Arkansas was ideally suited to

the development of a commercial forest industry.

Initially, the State’s commercial forest industry

consisted of large-capacity, permanently established

sawmills equipped to convert large-size virgin timber

into standard lumber (USDA FS 1937a, 193713). These

mills were dependent on extensive tracts of virgin

timber and typically held vast acreages of such lands.

For over 40 years, these mills exploited the virgin

forests of the State. As the virgin stands were cut-over

and as second-growth stands developed, smaller

sawmills and nonlumber specialty mills came on-line

(Smith 1940). These new mills were better suited to

utilizing the generally smaller and lower quality timber in the residual and second-growth stands.

The smaller sawmills were generally portable and

were operated intermittently to fill local needs for

lumber and construction timbers. These mills could be

moved from tract to tract, taking best advantage of

the sometimes widely dispersed pockets of timber left

after the virgin forests were liquidated. The nonlumber specialty mills were especially prevalent in the

hardwood regions of the State and produced items

such as cooperage, veneer, handle stock, charcoal, excelsior, and shingles (USDA FS 1938a, 1937b, Winters 1939).

By the time of the first complete survey of the

State’s forest resources in 1948, all of the virgin

stands that initially drew the forest industry to the

State were exhausted. In their place were cut-over

stands and developing second-growth stands of generally smaller and lower quality trees. In fact, 2 out of

every 3 acres of timberland in 1948 were classed as

either sapling or pole-sized (Sternitzke 1956). The

changing character of the forests, a direct consequence of the actions of the initial forest industry,

caused major repercussions throughout the State’s

sawmill lumber industry.

Unable to efficiently exploit the smaller sized and

often dispersed timber of the new forest, the large

sawmills lost their competitive advantage to the generally smaller, portable mills that were better suited

to utilizing the changing forest. This continuing trend

peaked in 1948 when there were over 1,700 sawmills

operating in the State. Of this number, only 100 of the

mills were classified as large; i.e., annual output in

excess of 3 million board feet (fig. 1). The small

sawmills not only dominated in numbers, but also

processed 60 percent of the State’s lumber output in

1948 (Sternitzke 1956).

The changed forests also affected the character of

the State’s sawlog harvests. Although the exhaustion

of the virgin forests reduced the availability of largesized trees, hardwood sawlogs continued to be cut

from what large trees remained in the remnant and

second-growth forests (Sternitzke and James 1951).

Dennis M. May is research forester, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Starkville, MS 39759.

1
Number of mills

2000

1500

1000

500

0

c? Small mills @Z Large mills

1948 1958

1

(3mm fbmlyr or more)

/

I ,

1968 1977

Year

Figure 1.-L&e Arkansas’ sawmill industry by survey year.

Million ft3

30° /SAWLOG_ Species Group

[Iswl

VENEER POSTS

POLES

PILINGS

COOPERAGE

1987

FUEL

12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345

Year survey Year

1 - 1946 3 . 1966 6 . 1967

2 - 1956 4 - 1977

Figure 2.-Arkansas timber product output by produet, survey year, and species group.

2
As a result, the proportion of hardwood in the total

sawlog harvest fell from one-half prior to the exhaustion of the virgin forests to one-third in 1948 (fig. 2).

Softwood sawlog harvests, on the other hand, were

necessarily being cut from smaller trees, with 6- to

1Binch trees accounting for 40 percent of the softwood

sawlog harvest in 1948 (Sternitzke and James 1951).

In addition to these numerous sawmills, 240 nonlumber mills added diversity to Arkansas’ forest industry (fig. 3). The pulpwood industry, still in its infancy with only two mills operating in the State, was

starting to expand due to the defense-accelerated tax

amortization program of World War II, advances in

sulphate processing of southern pine pulp, and the

available supply of small softwoods. The State also

had an established veneer industry producing mostly

container veneer for the packaging and shipping industries. Small amounts of plywood and face veneer

were also being produced for use in furniture manufacture. This industry was completely dependent on

the hardwood resources of the State, preferring highquality soft hardwoods, mostly gums, of at least 20

inches in diameter (Sternitzke and James 1951).

Another established industry dependent upon the

hardwood resource of the State was the cooper-age industry. In 1948, Arkansas was a leading supplier of

tight cooperage produced from high-quality white oak

and used in the manufacture of whiskey barrels. Additionally, soft hardwoods were also in demand for the

production of slack cooperage used in the packing and

shipping industries. The State also had a post, pole,

and piling industry that was beginning to develop

around the ability of southern pine to take woodpreservative treatments. However, local use of hardwoods still accounted for a large proportion of the

industry’s output in 1948. Arkansas’ forest also supported numerous specialty mills that produced a variety of products (handle and furniture stock, charcoal,

excelsior, and shingles), mostly from the hardwood

resources of the State. The number one use of Arkansas’ hardwood resource, however, was firewood, which

was used for domestic heating and cooking.

INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT FROM

1948 TO 1958

Over the next 10 years, the character of the State’s

forests continued to change. The softwood resource

expanded due to the maturation and increased management of the young forest found in 1948, and the

hardwood resource deteriorated as a result of continued high-grading of selected species, landclearing,

and management practices discriminating against

hardwoods. These resource changes, as well as changing markets and technological advances, would have

significant ramifications for the forest products industry in the State.

Lumber Industry

By 1958, the trend of increasing numbers and output of small sawmills had been reversed (fig. 1). In

total, 762 sawmills closed over the lo-year period

(Sternitzke 1960). These mills were primarily small

operations. At the same time, production shifted over

Number of mills

100

8 0

m Pine veneer or m Hardwood veneer or

tight cooperage slack cooperage

6 0

POSTS

POLES

PILINGS

COOPERAGE

PULPWOOD

MISC.

12345 12345 12345 12345 12345

Year SURVEY YEAR

1 - 1948 3 - 1958 5 . 1987

2 . 1958 5 - 1977

Figure 3.-Size of Arkansas’ primary wood products indubty by mill type and survey year.

3
to the more efficient large mills, which processed 65

percent of the lumber output in 1958 (Sternitzke

1960). This shiR in competitive advantage back to

larger sawmills resulted from technological advances

spurred by the need for sawmills to efficiently convert

small logs into lumber and the need for an economical

source of pulping fiber to supply the expanding pulp

ing industry. The technological advances that answered these two needs were the debarker and chipper and the chipping headrig (Anderson 1987).

These technologies allowed sawmills to convert

more of each small log into usable products, while

providing the pulping industry with quality debarked

chips from the denser outer cores of the logs at prices

comparable to roundwood. Because of the preference

for softwood fiber in the pulping industry, as well as

the high cost of implementation, the new chipping

technologies were generally confined to the larger

permanently established softwood sawmills. By 1958,

over 50 large sawmills in the State were equipped

with the latest chipping technology (Sternitzke 1960).

Once installed, the chipping technologies provided a

competitive advantage over smaller mills, which

could only produce one product from each log rather

than several (Anderson 1987). As a result, most of the

smaller sawmills operating in 1958 were hardwood

mills.

Pulp Industry

The expanding softwood resource of the State, plus

the new source of pulping fiber provided by the chipping technologies, fueled an expansion of the State’s

pulping industry. Two new mills, plus capacity inTons/day

creases in existing mills, tripled the pulping capacity

in the State (figs. 3, 4). Accompanying this jump in

capacity was a rise in Arkansas’ output of pulpwood,

with chipped residues from sawmills supplying 20

percent of the total (fig. 5).

Veneer Industry

Conditions weren’t as favorable for those segments

of the State’s forest industry typically dependent on

high-quality hardwoods. Persistent high-grading of

selected species was beginning to lead to shortages in

suitable furnish. This, coupled with changing market

conditions, had negative effects on the veneer and

cooperage industries. In 1958, Arkansas’ veneer industry had seven less mills, and veneer-log output

was half of what it had been a decade earlier (figs. 2,

3). Competition from substitutes, mainly paperboard

and plastics, reduced container veneer’s market share

of the packaging and shipping industries. Of the

seven veneer mills that closed over the period, four

were container veneer mills (Sternitzke 1960), evidence of the role substitutes played in the market. In

addition to market modifications, changes in the

hardwood resource were starting to affect the industry built around it. Continued high-grading was diminishing the supply of acceptable veneer logs, causing substitution with less-desirable species. In 1948,

gums constituted 78 percent of the veneer logs cut,

but by 1958 the proportion had dropped to 57 percent,

with other soft hardwood species substituting for the

gums (Sternitzke 1960). -

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

1948 1954 1958 1964 1968 1972 1977 1982 1987

Year

Figure 4.-AAunsd pulping capa&.

4
Cooperage Industry

Similar trends occurred in the cooperage industry.

F’rom 1948 to 1958, the number of mills operating and

cooperage bolt harvest fell by more than half (figs. 2,

3). Although reduced, Arkansas cooperage industry

still remained a leading supplier of tight cooperage in

1958. The slack cooperage industry, however, fell

under the same pressure as the veneer industrymainly competition from substitutes in the packing

and shipping industries and shrinking inventories of

preferred soft hardwood species.

Miscellaneous Industries

‘In the remaining nonlumber industries, the post,

pole, and piling industry increased in numbers and

started shifting emphasis towards treated pine and

away from local-use hardwoods (figs. 2,3). The miscellaneous specialty mills remained stable in number,

but timber harvests fell by half and remained predom-

, inantly hardwood. With increasing urbanization, Arkansas’ population opted for more convenient gas and

electric energy for heating, causing a decline in fuelwood consumption.

INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT FROM

1958 TO 1968

Into the 1960’s, segments of the State’s forest industry dependent upon the ever increasing pine resource

continued to expand. Unfortunately, the continued

trends of the past reduced the quality and quantity of

Million ft3

the hardwood resource, causing a shiR in species composition towards less desirable trees and darkening

the future of the industries dependent on the hardwood resource.

Lumber Industry

As a direct consequence of the new technologies

implemented a decade earlier, the sawmill industry

continued its trend towards fewer, larger, and more

efficient mills (fig. 1). Between 1958 and 1968, the

number of sawmills decreased by more than half,

while sawlog harvests actually increased (fig. 2).

Much of the increase in efficiency was concentrated in

the larger mills, 10 of which produced 40 percent of

the State’s lumber output in 1968 (Van Sickle 1970).

Pulp Industry

Arkansas’ pulping industry took off in the 1960’s

due to an increasing softwood resource and increasing

demand for pulp and paper products. Pulping capacity

doubled with the startup of three new mills and expansions of existing mills (figs. 3, 4). With this increased capacity came an accompanying rise in pulpwood production (fig. 5). The effects of the chipping

technology implemented a decade earlier were especially evident in the dramatic rise in chipped residue

production, which supplied one-third of the State’s

output in 1968. Also evident in this period was an

increasing acceptance of hardwoods as a source of

pulping fiber. This was the result of pulping technology advances that expanded the number of hardwood

500

@% Softwood roundwood D Hardwood roundwood

4oo _ D Wood residues

1948 1954 1958 1964 1968 1972 1977 1982 1987

Year

5.-Arkansas’ pulpwood production.
species suitable for pulping. Initially, soft hardwoods

comprised most of the hardwood pulping fiber, but by

1968 hard hardwood was out-supplying soR hardwood

by four to one (Belts 1969).

Veneer Industry

As with the sawmill industry in the 1950’s, new

technological advances revitalized the States’ veneer

industry in the 1960’s. Spurred by an increasing softwood resource and proximity to eastern housing markets, the southern pine plywood industry was pioneered in Arkansas in 1963. By 1968, there were four

southern pine plywood mills operating in Arkansas

(Belts 1970). This startup industry shifted the veneerlog harvest in the State from entirely hardwood a

decade earlier to almost exclusively softwood in 1968

and made veneer logs the number three product removed from Arkansas’ forest (fig. 2).

The small amount of hardwood produced was used

to supply the shrinking hardwood veneer industry.

Much of the reduction in the hardwood veneer industry was associated with the container veneer sector,

which was still feeling the pressures of competition

from substitutes and diminishing raw material supplies. This, and increasing demand for oak and pecan

furniture, caused the species composition of the

State’s hardwood veneer-log harvest to shift towards

hard hardwoods.

Cooperage Industry

No new technology or market changes came to the

rescue of the cooperage industry during the 1960’s. A

victim of both changing markets and resource

availability, this industry has been on a downward

slide since 1948. Although the harvest of cooperage

bolts in Arkansas remained at 1958 levels, tight and

slack cooperage industries each lost two mills, with

the slack cooper-age industry reduced to one mill by

1968 (figs. 2, 31.

Miscellaneous ‘Industries

In the other nonlumber industries, the post, pole,

and piling industry doubled in size and continued to

increase its use of softwoods (figs. 2,3). The number of

miscellaneous specialty mills dropped considerably,

while roundwood harvests increased slightly. Fuelwood consumption fell by more than half as Arkansas’

population continued to become more urbanized.

INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT FROM

1969 TO 1977

Between 1968 and 1977, the softwood resource continued to increase, albeit at a slower rate because of

greater demand created by past industrial expansions, and the hardwood resource continued its downward trend. These conditions once again favored the

softwood sectors of the forest industry.

Lumber Industry

As in 1968, the sawmill sector became more efficient as more sawlogs were processed through fewer

mills. Over the period, 60 sawmills closed (most of

these were small), while Arkansas’ sawlog harvests

increased (figs. 1,2). All of the increased harvest was

supported by the increasing softwood resource. The

trend of increasing efficiency of larger mills also continued as 81 large mills processed 90 percent of the

States’ lumber output in 1977 (Bertelson 1980). These

large mills also continued to process mainly softwoods, while the small mills processed mainly hardwoods.

Pulp Industry

The pulping industry added one new mill in this

decade (fig. 3). This expansion, combined with capacity increases in the existing mills, caused pulpwood

demand to increase as well (figs. 4,51. As past trends

would indicate, hardwood roundwood and wood

residues accounted for larger proportions of the increased production over the period. The doubling in

hardwood was again the result of pulping technology

advances, and the jump in chipped mill residues was

consistent with the increased sawlog harvest in 1977.

Veneer Industry

The veneer industry continued its transition from a

hardwood to a softwood industry, with the addition of

two new softwood plywood mills and the closing of

seven hardwood mills during this time frame (fig. 3).

Results of a veneer study in 1972 (Bertelson 19741

showed eight softwood plywood mills operating in Arkansas. This peaking of mills, followed by a subsequent drop, reflects a maturing industry in which production is concentrated in the most efficient mills and

is in balance with demand. Veneer-log harvests to

supply this maturing industry were almost all soft6
wood with a minor amount of hardwood, mostly oak,

supplying the dwindling hardwood veneer industry

(fig. 2). This shift from soft hardwoods to oak is a

reflection of changing markets and wood availability.

Cooperage Industry

While the softwood sector of the veneer industry

continued to boost the veneer industry in the State,

continued market changes and resource availability

problems spelled the end of the slack cooperage industry and reduced the tight cooperage industry to a

small percentage of its former output (figs. 2,3).

Miscellaneous Industries

In the other nonlumber industries, the post, pole,

and piling industry, like the veneer industry, seems to

have gone through a maturing process. From a peak

number of mills in 1968, the industry lost more than

one-third of these mills by 1977 (fig. 3). Production of

roundwood to supply the remaining mills shifted almost completely to softwood (fig. 2). Miscellaneous

mills declined as did the harvest of roundwood to supply them. Fuelwood use continued to decline to a reported low in 1977. However, with the oil crisis of the

1970’s raising the price of the alternative fuels and

causing a resurgence in demand, fuelwood use may

have actually hit a low earlier than 1977.

Number of mills ----

CURRENT FOREST INDUSTRY

Arkansas’ current forest industry is a direct consequence of the interactions of the forest industries and

forest resources of the past, as influenced by changing

market conditions and technological advances. Today,

Arkansas’ forest industry is, on the whole, smaller

and more efficient, with higher roundwood harvests

supplying fewer mills (fig. 6). The industry is, however, less diverse, being dominated by three sectors

(sawlog, pulpwood, and veneer), which in total accounted for 91 percent of the State’s roundwood harvest in 1987. These three sectors developed around

the expanding softwood resource of the State, and

today, 2 out of every 3 cubic feet of roundwood harvested are softwood (fig. 7). These current conditions

contrast with the situation in 1948 when the three

leading forest products were sawlogs, fuelwood,

and pulpwood, and harvests of hardwood equaled

SOftWOUd.

Lumber Industry

ln the sawmill sector, economic conditions between

surveys helped to continue the past trend of concentrating more production in fewer and larger mills. In

the early 1986’s, increasing inflation, interest rates,

and dollar values held down domestic spending, reMillion ft 3

2000 , i 700

o/---]-o

1948 1958 1968 1977 1987

Year

Figure 6.--Number of primary ford product industries and timber product output in Arkansas.

1948-1987.

7
700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Million ft3

m Hardwood m Softwood

I I

1948 1958

/

t

1968

Year

1

-

1977 1987

Figure 7.-Arkumzs’ titnber product output by specks group and suruey year.

duced housing starts, and slowed exports. The depression of the lumber industry resulting from these economic conditions was further exacerbated by the infiltration of southern lumber markets by foreign

competition and erosion of consumer confidence in

southern lumber products due to quality problems associated with juvenile wood (Senft and others 1985).

Conditions for the lumber industry started to improve in the mid-1980’s as low inflation, low interest

rates, and a weak dollar strengthened both domestic

consumer markets and foreign export markets and

revitalized the housing industry. At the same time,

the ability of southern pine lumber to take woodpreserving treatments opened new markets in outdoor uses of southern pine lumber, bolstering its share

of the total domestic lumber market. As a result of

these economic swings, 110 mainly small sawmills

closed between 1977 and 1987, allowing more of the

increased sawlog harvest to be processed by the more

efficient and larger remaining mills (figs. 1, 2). In

1987, large mills processed 96 percent of the State’s

sawlog harvest.

Since the inception of chipping technology in the

1950’s, large sawmills have processed mainly softwoods, but the proportion of hardwood processed by

large mills has increased from 20 percent in 1977

(Bertelson 1980) to 25 percent in recent years. Much

of this is due to pulping technology advances that

have allowed increased use of all species of hardwood,

eliminating much of the species sorting problems of

the past and allowing the larger chipper-equipped

sawmills to process more hardwood with the same

economic advantages associated with softwoods. Such

8

technological advances continue to shift production

and competitive advantage to the larger and more

efficient mills and at the same time eliminate the

less-efficient mills.

New technologies currently in the development

stages, such as Edge, Glue, and Rip, Best Opening

Face, and Saw-Dry-Rip, promise to increase both the

quantity and quality of lumber produced from each

log (Haygreen and others 1986; Kellison 1986). Because of the capital investments needed to implement

new technologies, the product recovery benefits associated with the future technologies will likely favor

the larger mills and further enhance their competitive advantage over small mills. As such, Arkansas’

sawmill sector will likely continue to get smaller and

more efficient as more and more of the production is

concentrated in the larger and more efficient mills.

However, there are some developing technologies that

could drastically affect the traditional sawmill industry in the State. These developing technologies include the possibility of making structural lumber and

timbers from reconstituted wood chips and veneers

(Kellison 1986, Pease 1987). If these developing products can be cost-competitive, and possess structural

performance properties equal to or surpassing traditional lumber products, they could gain acceptance in

traditional lumber markets in the future.

Pulp Industry

The story of the pulping sector of the State’s forest

industry has been one of continued growth from the

beginning. Although the number of mills has re-
mained the same as in 1977, pulping capacity increases have taken place at the existing mills as the

economic conditions of the early 1980’s forced some

mills to modernize in order to stay competitive Gig. 4).

Over the years, capacity increases have been answered by pulpwood production increases with hardwood roundwood and wood residues providing increasing proportions of the total pulpwood production.

These trends continued into 1987, with a major rise in

wood residue production, a smaller rise in hardwood

roundwood production, and a fall in softwood roundwood production since 1977 (fig. 5).

The rise in hardwood roundwood is a continued response to pulping technology advances that have increased the use of hardwoods, regardless of species, in

making pulp and paper products and the availability

of the resource, which has generally been underutilized and available at lower costs (May 1988). This

trend of increasing use of hardwoods should continue

into the future, especially if developing technologies

in press drying are successful in integrating more

hardwood use in linerboard manufacture (Ince 1986).

At some point, this trend will level off as demand

causes prices and availability of hardwood to approach those of softwood furnish.

Since the inception of chipping technologies in the

1950’s, wood residues have been claiming an increasing share of the State’s total pulpwood furnish. This

trend has continued into the 1980’s, with a major

jump in wood residue production. However, some of

this increase in wood residue production may be due

to the difficulties in distinguishing between wood

residues and chipped roundwood in recent years as

merchandising and satellite chipping operations have

come on-line.

Because of their high quality and favorable prices,

wood residues should continue to be a major source of

pulping fiber. Their share of the total production may

even increase in the future as more sawlog processing

is concentrated in larger and more efficient mills

equipped with chipping equipment. There is also the

possibility that if the developing technologies in the

other primary wood processing industries are successful in increasing product recovery from every log,

wood residue production may decline in the future.

Overall, the production of wood residues will generally be tied to the level of activity in the other primary

wood processing industries in the State.

Veneer Industry

Over the years, technological advances, market

changes, and resource availability have changed the

veneer industry of the State from a hardwood industry in 1948 to a softwood plywood dominated industry

in 1987. The number of softwood veneer mills operating in the State has remained unchanged since 1977

(fig. 31, a sign that the maturing process of the early

1970’s has ceased. At the same time, softwood veneerlog harvests in the State have almost doubled in

response to the turnaround in the economy in the

mid-1980’s (fig. 2). Although the current veneer industry would appear to be in good shape, the increasing competition from reconstituted panel products.

and the availability of suitable furnish provide concern for the future.

Reconstituted panel products, such as the oriented

strandboard and waferboard that have been introduced in recent years, are increasing their share of

traditional plywood veneer markets. Similar functional performance and lower cost are the main reasons for their market acceptance (Dickerhoof 1986,

Seward and Sinclair 1988). The lower cost is due in

part to lower raw material costs because these products utilize traditionally underutilized, smaller, and

poorer quality trees. There are also concerns whether

there will be adequate supplies of larger, high-quality

softwoods to meet the traditional veneer industries’

needs in the future as the acres in natural pine stands

are diminished in favor of pine plantation forced on

short rotations by economic realities (Klueuder and

others 1988).

In order to maintain their market share in the future, the traditional veneer industry will have to become more efficient by maximizing product recovery

from smaller logs. New technologies currently being

developed and implemented, such as the spindleless

lathe, will address these needs by allowing more

product to be turned from smaller logs, while decreasing the turn around time between logs (Baldwin 1987,

Kellison 1986, Spelter and Sleet 1989). At the same

time, new product markets fof- reconstituted construction timbers made from laminated veneers may help

bolster the traditional veneer industry.

Miscellaneous Industries

The remaining forest industries of the State make

up a rather small portion relative to the top three

sectors; however, they add diversity to Arkansas’

forest industry and enhance the utilization of Arkansas’ forest resource. The cooperage industry, down to

one tight cooperage mill and negligible timber

product output in 1987, has become virtually nonexistent today, the victim of changing markets and resource availability problems. In contrast, the post,

pole, and piling industry grew rapidly, taking advantage of the expanding southern pine resource and its

ability to take wood-preserving treatments. The industry peaked in the late 1960’s and started its fall to

present levels as part of a maturing process (fig. 3).

During the period, timber production to meet the demands of this industry shifted to softwoods as markets

accepted preservative-treated pines and local use of

hardwood posts declined as Arkansas’ population became more urbanized.

9
The miscellaneous specialty mills have been on a

downward trend in both numbers and timber product

harvests since 1948 (figs. 2,3), mostly due to competition from substitutes. With only half as many mills

operating as in 1977, this sector of the industry is

composed mostly of handle and charcoal mills today.

Both of these are still facing pressures from competition: plastics are replacing wood handles and mesquite charcoal is gaining popularity.

Fuelwood use in the State had been declining since

1948, but was revitalized with the onset of the oil

crisis of the 1970’s. The 1987 fuelwood production figures are from Greene’s 1985-86 survey and are the

most current figures available. Earlier estimates of

fuelwood consumption, 47.3 million cubic feet in the

1984-85 season (Greene 1987) and 63.8 million cubic

feet in the 1980-81 season (Skog and Watterson 1985)

suggest that fuelwood consumption has been declining since the mid-1980’s, when glutted oil markets

again reduced prices of more conventional heating

fuels. This seesaw effect will likely continue into the

future as fuelwood consumption varies with the cost of

more conventional heating fuels.

FUTURE FOREST INDUSTRY

It is clear that today’s forest industry is the culmination of an evolutionary process involving the forest

resources, forest industries, product markets, and

technological advances of the past. No doubt these

same factors will interact to shape the character of

tomorrow’s forest industry. Based on the character of

the current forest industry and developing trends in

the forest resources, product markets, and technological advances, it would appear that Arkansas’ forest

industry is at a crossroads. Will the traditional forest

product industries dominant today maintain their position in the future, or will their places be usurped by

new forest industries based around reconstituted

wood products?

The current trend of the softwood resource of the

State moving from a natural stand to a phintationbased resource has raised concerns over the availability of large-size timber in the future and possible exacerbation of quality problems associated with

juvenile wood as plantation rotation ages are shortened by economic necessity (Kluender and others

1988). If these concerns are legitimate, then today’s

traditional lumber and veneer industries, developed

around the softwood resource of the State, will have to

become more efficient at converting smaller and lower

quality logs into finished products. This may be made

possible through implementation of new technologies

being developed now or in the future. If not, then

market share will undoubtedly be lost to the develop

ing reconstituted lumber and panel product indus10

_

tries. These industries seem better suited to utilizing

the changed softwood resources and the historically

degraded hardwood resources of the State because

they are less sensitive to the species, size, and quality

of the raw material supply. If these new reconstituted

wood product industries become dominant, they will

increase competition for portions of the forest resource

once predominantly the domain of the pulping

industry.

Whether composition of the State’s forest industry

remains the same, moves toward reconstituted wood

products, or reaches some middle-ground, only time

will tell; but undoubtedly the forest industry of the

State will continue to evolve in order to best utilize

the changing forest resources and new technological

advances to meet future market demands.

LITERATURE CITED

Anderson, Walter C. 1987. Technical changes that

solved the southern pine lumber industry’s smalllog problem. Forest Products Journal. 37(6):41-45.

Baldwin, Richard F. 1987. New developments in plywood green ends. Forest Industries. 114(6):18-23.

Beltz, Boy C. 1969. Southern pulpwood production,

1968. Besour. Bull. SO-18. New Orleans, LA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 21 p.

Beltz, Boy C. 1970. Arkansas forest industries. Besour. Bull. SO-21. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern

Forest Experiment Station. 28 p.

Bertelson, Daniel F. 1974. Midsouth veneer industries, 1972. Besour. Bull. SO-47. New Orleans, LA:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southern Forest Experiment Station. 11 p.

Bertelson, Daniel F. 1980. Arkansas forest industries,

1977. Besour. Bull. SO-75. New Orleans, LA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 18 p.

Dickerhoof, H. Edward. 1986. Changing U.S. so%

wood timber markets and international trade

trends with implications for domestic forest

products production. Forest Products Journal.

36(10):35-40.

Greene, John L. 1987. Characteristics of residential

fuelwood markets in Arkansas. Poster: Arkansas

Forestry Association Annual Meeting; 1987 October 28-29; Hot Springs, AR

Haygreen, John; Gregerson, Hans; Holland, Irv;

Stone, Bobert. 1986. The economic impact of timber

utilization research. Forest Products Journal.

36(10):12-20.

Ince, Peter J. 1986. New potential for increased use of

hardwoods in kraft linerboard production. Forest

Products Journal. 36(2):32-36.
Kellison, Robert C. 1986. Future technology and timber supply may change construction lumber products. Forest Farmer. 45(9):24-26.

Kluender, R.A.; McCoy, E.W.; and, Easterling, J.K.

1988. The Arkansas forest products industry. Bull.

908. Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Arkansas, Division

of Agriculture. 41 p.

May, Dennis M. 1988. Midsouth pulpwood prices,

1986. Res. Note SO-344. New Orleans, LA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 3 p.

Pease, Davis A. 1987. Symposium takes a look at lumber composites. Forest Industries. 114(5):16-17.

Sent%, John F.; Bendtsen, B. Allen; Galligan, William

L. 1985. Weak wood: fast-grown trees make problem lumber. Journal of Forestry. 83(8):476-484.

Seward, Kevin E; Sinclair, Steven A. 1988. Retailer’s

perceptions of structural panel attributes and market segments. Forest Products Journal. 38(4):25-

31.

Skog, Kenneth E.; Watterson, Irene A. 1985. Residential fuelwood use in the United States: 1980-81.

Resour. Bull. WO-3. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 45 p.

Smith, H.F. 1940. Primary wood-products industries

in the lower South. Forest Survey Release No. 51.

New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

. Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 19 p.

Spelter, Henry; Sleet, George. 1989. Potential reductions in plywood manufacturing costs resulting

from improved technology. Forest Products Journal. 39(1):8-15.

Sternitzke, Herbert S. 1956. Timber supplies for industry in Arkansas. Forest Resource Report No. 11.

New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 32 p.

Sternitzke, Herbert S. 1960. Arkansas forests. Forest

Survey Release 84. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Depart

ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern

Forest Experiment Station. 58 p.

Sternitxke, Herbert S.; James, Lee M. 1951. Arkansas

timber stands before and after cutting. Forest Survey Release 67. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 15 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

1937a. Sawmills of the lower South. Forest Survey

Release 25. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 7 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

193713. Forest resources of southwest Arkansas.

Forest Survey Release 27. New Orleans, LA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southem Forest Experiment Station. 21 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

1938a. Forest resources of the north Arkansas

delta. Forest Survey Release 32. New Orleans, LA:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southern Forest Experiment Station. 21 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

193813. Forest resources of the Ouachita mountain

region of Arkansas. Forest Survey Release 36. New

Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, .

Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 27 p.

Van Sickle, Charles C. 1970. Arkansas forest resource

patterns. Resour. Bull. SO-24. New Orleans, LA:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southern Forest Experiment Station. 34 p.

Winter, R.K. 1939. Forest Resources of the south Arkansas delta. Forest Survey Release 46. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 24 p.

11
Persons of any race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, or with any

handicapping condition are welcome to use and enjoy all facilities, programs,

and services of the USDA. Discrimination in any form is strictly against

agency policy, and should be reported to the Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250.
May, Dennis M. 1990. Development and status of Arkansas’ primary

forest products industry. Besour. Bull. 50-152. N&w Orleans, LA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 11 p.

The development of Arkansas’ primary forest products industry is

presented by following the changes in numbers and types of mills

operating through time as well as the State’s production of roundwood

to supply the changing industry.

Keywords: Cooperage, fuelwood, pulpwood, sawlog, veneer.