CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._...... 1

THE NIPFRESOURCE ............................................. 2

Timberland Area .................................................. 2

Stand-size Class.. ................................................. 2

ForestManagement Class ......................................... 2

Forest Type ....................................................... 4

StandVolume ..................................................... 4

Site Class ......................................................... 4

Growing-stock Characteristics ...................................... 4

Sawtimber Characteristics ......................................... 5

THE NIPF OWNER ..........................

Types of Ownership ........................

Occupation of Owners ......................

AgeofOwners .............................

Sex and Race of Owners ....................

Education .................................

Owner’s Residence in Relation to Timberland

Size of Holding .............................

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

.......

.......

.......

.......

.......

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. . . 6

. . . 6

. . . 6

. . . 6

. . . 7

. . . 7

. . . 7

. . . 7

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . 8

LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._.............._...... 8

APPENDIX.. ....................................................... 9

Figures ........................................................... 9

Tables ............................................................. 24

James F. Rosson, Jr. and Larry Doolittle

Information about the nonindustrial private forest

(NIPF) and owner is readily available from many

sources, but it often is presented in a manner that

obscures differences and similarities between NIPFs

and other ownership categories. This bulletin summarizes NIPF resources within the Midsouth States

(fig. 1) and compares NIPF traits with other ownership classes.

Much of the data in this bulletin has been presented

elsewhere, but in a different format. The resource

characteristics (tables l-10) are presented in the

most recent State reports published by the Forest Inventory and Analysis Unit (FIA) of the Southern

Forest Experiment Station (Rudis et al. 1984, Birdsey

1983, vanHees 1980, Murphy 1978, Murphy 1977,

Murphy 1976, Murphy 1975). The one exception is the

“forest management type” data in table 3. These data

were compiled by FIA analysts as part of a study of

the South’s timber supply.

The NIPF category in tables l-10 is made up of

three types of owners: “Farmer,” “Miscellaneous Private: Individual,” and “Miscellaneous Private: Corporate.” Each is defined in the FIA State reports. During

the period from 1974 to 1982, these ownership classes

held 68.3 million of the Midsouth’s 99.0 million acres

of timberland-69 percent. This proportionate share

of total ownership is one of many possible criteria that

could be used as a basis for comparing NIPFs to other

ownership categories. Because 69 percent of the Midsouth timberland area is in NIPF, it seems reasonable

to assume that various resource characteristics would

be distributed in similar proportions, assuming particular ownership classes do not have a built-in bias

for types of land owned, especially with regard to productivity. Deviations of forest attribute proportions

from the area proportions indicate the strengths and

weaknesses of the NIPF resource, mainly the result of

man-induced disturbance.

TENNESSEE

EASTERN

OK IAHOYA ARKANSAS

MISSISSIPPI

ALASAMA

EASTERN

TEXAS

Figure l.-Midsouth Stales surveyed by the Southern Forest Experiment Station

James F. Rosson, Jr. is Research Forester, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service-USDA, Starkville, MS. L,arry Doolittle is

Research Forester (retired), Southern Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service-USDA, Starkville, MS.
The landowner characteristics (tables 11-18) were

collected for the nationwide study of private forest

landowners in 1978 by the Forest Service and the

Economic Research Service. Although published earlier for the Nation and various regions (Birch et al.,

1982), data for each of the seven Midsouth States are

presented here for the first time. State survey data

collected between 1974 and 1982 were used in this

bulletin because of the relevancy in time to the

landowner characteristics data (19781, even though

data is available from more recent Midsouth State

surveys.

THE NIPF RESOURCE

Timberlalad Area

Figure 2 illustrates the relative distribution of the

three major ownership categories: public, forest industry, and NIPF. Each symbol represents an approximate plot location and each plot location represents,

on average, 5,700 acres. The map was formulated

from data collected by FIA survey crews in conjunction with measurement of on-the-ground plots.

The Midsouth has 99.0 million acres of timberland,

of which 68.3 million acres are NIPF. The proportion

of the total timberland owned by NIPF owners in Midsouth States ranges from 57 percent in Arkansas to 82

percent in Tennessee (table 1 and fig. 3). The proportions in the remaining five States are very close to the

average Midsouth proportion of 69 percent. Obviously, the Midsouth’s capability to contribute to the

Nation’s timber supply depends heavily upon the

availability, condition, and production of these 68.3

million acres.

Two States, Arkansas and Tennessee, diverge significantly from the Midsouth mean for proportion of

NIPF ownership. Tennessee is far above the Midsouth

NIPF acreage average because of the lack of forest

industry commitment to timberland acquisition. This

is because of the emphasis on the pine resource. Climatically and edaphically, Tennessee is at the northern margin of the southern pine region and is not an

area that can be considered highly suitable for converting low value hardwood stands to pine. Pine will

perform poorly on many of these sites; thus, there is

little incentive for forest industry activity. In addition

many Tennessee landowners have left their marginal

lands in trees or have allowed once-cleared lands to

revert to forest.

In contrast to Tennessee, Arkansas is far below the

Midsouth mean. This is due to two situations. A large

proportion of timberland is in the public domain, most

of which is National Forest land; and there are substantial forest industry timberland holdings in the

southern and western portions of the State (fig. 2).

Stand-size Class

Forty-three percent of Midsouth timberland, 42.3

million acres, is in sawtimber stands. Of that, 65 percent is NIPF. Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi

have the most acreage in NIPF sawtimber stands

with 5.6, 5.1, and 5.1 million acres, respectively.

Clearly, private landowner attitudes will have a direct impact on availability of the sawtimber resource.

The most striking feature of the distribution of

stand-size classes across ownerships is the disproportionate area in NIPF ownership that is nonstocked

(table 2 and fig. 4). Midsouth-wide, nearly 84 percent

of the 1.3 million nonstocked acres occur on NIPF.

Among individual States, only Tennessee has a

smaller proportion of nonstocked acres compared to

total acres of NIPF. Alabama has an almost equal

proportion of nonstocked to total acres.

Proportionately, sawtimber stands on NIPF are in

relatively short supply in all Midsouth States except

.Tennessee. On the other hand, the proportion of poletimber acres exceeds the proportion of total acres in

most Midsouth States, and seedling and sapling acres

are represented in expected proportion to total acres.

The amount of timberland by stand-size class gives

a crude indication of the balance of forest stands with

harvest rotations. Roughly one-third of the forest area

should be in sawtimber, one-third in poletimber, and

one-third in seedlings and saplings at any given time.

Currently, the stand-size proportions on NIPFs are 40

percent, 34 percent, and 25 percent for sawtimber,

poletimber, and seedling and sapling stands, respectively. Adequate proportions of sawtimber stands are

available for the near future but there is concern that

many harvested acres will not be regenerated in a

timely manner and, consequently, much of this

acreage will shift to a nonstocked or poorly stocked

condition. Already, of the more than 17.5 million

acres of poorly stocked timberland in the Midsouth, 77

percent is on NIPF.

Forest Management Classes

Only 2.9 million of the Midsouth’s 9.0 million acres

of pine plantations are held by NIPF owners-about

32 percent (table 3 and fig. 5). Even though timber

removals from NIPFs are below the proportionate

share, the acreage of pine plantations on NIPFs is far

below the area available (after removals) for stand

establishment. Many NIPF owners may wish to rely

on natural regeneration for reasons ranging from economical to ecological. However, indifference and/or

lack of incentive may explain why so few plantations

are on these lands. Unless owners have taken steps to

put their timberland into a management plan, it is

highly unlikely that a proportion of harvest money

will be diverted to regeneration expenses. Instead,

2
..: :: 0 _’ ::. _ . ,”

:: 0 -.,: ‘.. .::.:’ . :._:...

:._ .,...: ::

: ::..:: :,:

‘. .:&.::.y..,; .: :I..;;:. ” .,

” .,,:,:.,, ,...

,_:, ::.. .. .

.I

k:‘::.:‘:..:: ,i;t<.,::“” .’

,:

. .:.:,.::Y1’;&‘..;i]

,;.

î ì.-ií . D ,. l : ::j~.:?ltr~~.:

.,:,;I;;I::~~i,“:iji?i?:! ‘::]::.

0 : ‘,. :’ 0 4. ,.. .“’

o _ : :. ”

‘:

b

l _

0.

ë .
stands are replaced by natural responses, resulting in

decreases in pine and subsequent increases in hardvvood. Hardwoods have an accelerated advantage on

such sites because of vegetative reproducing capabilities coupled with generally inadequate seed sources

left for pine. Of the southern pines, only shortleaf pine

is a significant sprouter and only on stumps from

trees up to 6 to 8 inches in diameter. Loblolly pine

only sprouts from l- to-3-year-old-seedlings. Therefore,

adequate pine regeneration cannot rely on vegetative

reproduction from these two species. Only purposeful

input from artificial regeneration or seed trees will

provide adequate pine stocking after harvest.

Natural pine is also proportionately underrepresented on NIPF acres-59 percent for the Midsouth. Hardwoods are dominant on 38.9 million acres

of NIPF-three-fourths of the region’s hardwood

acres. Upland hardwoods are over-represented to a

greater extent than bottomland hardwoods-78 percent to 70 percent.

The distribution of management classes in the individual States follows the same general pattern as that

for the region. Upland hardwoods are most frequently

encountered on NIPFs in every State except Louisiana. Bottomland hardwoods and mixed pinehardwoods occur in about the same proportion as total

NIPF acres in most of the States.

Forest Type

A detailed breakdown of forest type is presented in

table 4. In all States, NIPF owners hold less than their

proportionate share of the three pine forest types (including oak-pine) and in most States they own a

larger proportion of the three hardwood forest types.

These conditions exist because of geomorphology, site

conditions, and st.and history, and also because of continued removal of pine without efforts to ensure adequate regeneration.

The longleaf-slash pine forest type covers 3.8 million acres in the Midsouth. Three States, Alabama,

Louisiana, and Mississippi, hold 93 percent of the

total resource. NIPF owners hold 49 percent of this

acreage.

Of the 24.9 million acres in the loblolly-shortleaf

pine forest type, 57 percent is on NIPF. Alabama,

Mississippi, Texas and Louisiana have the most

acreage in this type on NIPF. Most of the States have

60 percent of NIPF ownership in this type; Oklahoma

and Arkansas stand out with only 31 and 38 percent

respectively, on NIPF.

The proportion of NIPF ownership increases as the

hardwood component in forest types increases. In the

oak-pine forest type the Midsouth has 17.4 million

acres; 64 percent of this on NIPF. Alabama and Mississippi have 3.3 million and 2.5 million acres, respectively, on NIPF.

The oak-hickory forest type occupies 34.5 million

Midsouth acres of which 27.4 million acres are NIPF.

Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi, together, have 80 percent of this forest type on NIPF.

The oak-gum-cypress type, with a Midsouth total of

16.2 million acres, is most prominent in Louisiana. Of

Louisiana’s 5.0 million acres, 3.8 million acres are

NIPF. Louisiana and Mississippi, together, have 53

percent of the NIPF acreage in this forest type in the

Midsouth.

Stand Volume

The area of timberland in three major volume-peracre classes is shown in table 5 and figure 6. Stands

containing less than 1,500 board feet per acre (International l/4 rule) are slightly more prominent on

NIPFs in all States except Alabama. At the other

extreme, stands containing more than 5,000 board

feet per acre are proportionately more scarce on

NIPFs in all seven States. A more detailed examination of timber volume on NIPF land is presented later.

Site Class

The various site classes shown in table 6 and figure

7 occur on NIPF in proportions nearly equal to that of

the total area of timberland in the Midsouth. Exceptions are in Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas where

NIPF owners hold title to more than their proportionate share of poor sites. Overall, however, shortfalls in

forest productivity on NIPF cannot be attributed to

poor site conditions. Even though Arkansas has the

most Midsouth acreage in the lowest site class category, 71 percent of it is on NIPF, close to the expected

distribution among ownership classes.

Growing-stock Characteristics

Softwood growing-stock volume, annual growth,

annual removals, and mortality are shown in table 7.

Figure 8 illustrates the proportion of cubic foot volume of each of these characteristics on NIPF. The

relative volume-to-area ratios-57 percent to 69 percent-in the Midsouth illustrate the lower stocking

levels and under-representation of sawtimber stands

discussed previously. This same condition exists,

varying only in degree, in each of the Midsouth

States.

The other softwood growing-stock attributesgrowth, removals, and mortality-are also analyzed

by comparing the respective NIPF proportion with the

NIPF area proportion. For the region as a whole, 62

percent of the net annual growth occurs on NIPF, 7

percent lower than expected. Three conditions can

contribute to a lower growth-rate: a large proportion
of timberland acreage in very old stands; low stocking

levels (fewer trees to contribute to stand growth); and

a large percentage of acreage in very young stands.

FIA does not measure tree growth until a tree becomes at least 5.0 inches in diameter and is of an

acceptable (no cull) tree class. Thus, these very young

stands contribute no growth in FIA data. Similarly,

the NIPF annual removals proportion of total removals is substantially lower than the NIPF area proportion (56 percent to 69 percent). The mortality proportion is also less than the area proportion (61

percent to 69 percent). Since the softwood volume is

less than expected in relation to area, it is logical that

removals and mortality will also be closely tied with

volume. Nonetheless, an NIPF weakness in one attribute will strengthen or weaken other attributes,

correspondingly. In this instance, softwood removals

and mortality are less than the expected proportion

because there is less than the expected softwood volume to begin with.

The softwood volume on NIPF for the Midsouth averages 413 cubic feet per acre versus 689 cubic feet per

acre for all other ownerships. This is a very large

difference of 276 cubic feet per acre. On NIPF, volumes per acre range from 114 cubic feet in Oklahoma

to 566 cubic feet in Louisiana. Alabama, Texas, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Tennessee follow Louisiana

with 500, 483, 471, 345, and 160 cubic feet per acre.

Average net annual growth for softwood on NIPF is

26 cubic feet per acre. This is 10 cubic feet per acre

lower than that reported for all other ownerships. Excluding the bottomland physiographic class raises the

net annual softwood growth to 32 cubic feet per acre

on NIPF versus 43 cubic feet per acre on all other

ownerships.

The softwood growth-to-removal ratio for the Midsouth on NIPF is 1.32. Individual States range from

1.02 for Alabama to 3.00 for Tennessee. Recent information suggests that the ratio for the Midsouth on

NIPF land will approach 1.00 as industrial expansion

will necessitate access to the NIPF resource where

possible. If regeneration is not implemented on these

harvested acres the growth-to-removal ratio will close

to 1.00 very rapidly.

The proportion of the Midsouth’s hardwood

growing-stock volume on NIPF (72 percent) slightly

exceeds the proportion of total timberland in NIPF

ownerships (table 8 and fig. 9). The annual growth,

annual removals, and mortality proportions also exceed but are very close to the NIPF area proportion

in the Midsouth. Many of the States, however, diverge

substantially from expected proportions of the above

attributes.

Hardwood volume on NIPF in the Midsouth averages 538 cubic feet per acre versus 468 cubic feet per

acre for all other lands. On NIPF, the volume per acre

ranges from 805 cubic feet per acre in Tennessee to

241 cubic feet per acre in Oklahoma. Arkansas,

Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas follow Tennessee

with 559,548,520, and 382 cubic feet per acre, respectively. Per acre estimates are based on all timberland

for hardwood computations.

Hardwood net annual growth averages 23 cubic feet

per acre on NIPF in the Midsouth. On all other ownerships, hardwood net annual growth averages 19 cu.bic

feet per acre. If softwood plantation acreage is excluded, net annual growth averages 24 cubic feet per

acre on NIPF and 23 cubic feet per acre on all remaining ownerships. Net annual growth per acre ranges

from a high of 33 cubic feet per acre in Tennessee to

a low of 14 cubic feet per acre in Oklahoma.

The growth-to-removal ratios for Midsouth NIPF

hardwoods is 2.03. Resource drain will not be a problem for hardwoods on NIPFs in the near future. The

growth-to-removal ratios range from 3.36 in Oklahoma to 1.65 in Alabama. As more products are developed to utilize existing hardwoods, (particle board,

etc.), the drain on the NIPF hardwood resource will

increase substantially.

Sawtimber Characteristics

The relatively low supply of pine sawtimber on

NIPF has been illustrated already. Table 9 and figure

10 depict the softwood sawtimber situation from the

perspectives of board-foot volume, annual growth, annual removals, and mortality. While holding 69 percent of timberland, NIPF owners have only 54 percent

of the softwood sawtimber volume. In individual

States, NIPF owners in Alabama come closest to

owning their proportionate share of sawtimber volume. All other Midsouth States are below their expected volume. Almost one-third of NIPF softwood

sawtimber volume in the Midsouth is in Alabama.

The proportion of softwood sawtimber net annual

growth on NIPF, for the Midsouth, is about 10 percent

less than expected. None of the individual States has

softwood sawtimber growth above that of area1 proportion. Again, Alabama is closer than any other

State to expected growth.

Similarly, removals and mortality of softwood sawtimber are less than the proportion of area on NIPF.

Oklahoma stands out with 64 percent of its timberland in NIPF but only 13 percent of softwood sawtimber removals are on these lands.

Hardwood sawtimber volume on NIPF is proportionately very close to NIPF forest acreage across the

Midsouth and in each State (table 10 and fig. 11). The

NIPF hardwood sawtimber resource is much more

prominent than the softwood resource across the Midsouth. Alabama is the exception, where a strong softwood inventory also prevails on NIPF.

The growth, removals, and mortality attributes are

also in equal proportion to area for the region. In
individual States exceptions are Oklahoma and

Texas. Oklahoma has substantially higher hardwood

sawtimber removals than expected. Mortality for

hardwood sawtimber in Texas is also slightly higher

than expected.

THE NIPF OWNER

Tables 11-18 illustrate the distribution of the Midsouth’s private landowners and the acres they own by

several owner characteristics frequently used to describe NIPFs. The acreage totals in these tables are

not directly comparable to those in tables l-10 because they were computed differently and they pertain to all private owners including forest industry.

However, if the 28.6 million acres owned by the

“other” category in table 11 are subtracted from the

88.6-million-acre total, the remaining 60 million

acres is close to the 68.3 million acres owned by farmers and miscellaneous categories included in tables

l-10.

Accurate estimates of the actual number of private

owners (or “ownership units”, as used here) are limited by the economics of sample size. The estimates in

tables 11-18 are no exception, a point reflected in the

large sampling errors shown in table 19. Consequently, these estimates must be used with caution.

The distribution of acres among landowner attributes

is more important than the distribution of ownership

units from the standpoint of describing those owners

who hold large proportions of the timberland. As

shown in table 19, acreage estimates are much more

accurate than owner estimates. Consequently, most of

the emphasis here is on the acreage distributions.

Types of Ownership

Excluding the “other” category, the largest proportions of the Midsouth’s private timberland are owned

by sole proprietors, families, and family partnerships-in that order (table 11 and fig. 12). This ownership pattern exists in each of the States except Louisiana, where family partners own more land than

families, and in Oklahoma and Tennessee, where

family ownerships are dominant. Nonfamily partnerships and family corporations own relatively small

proportions of the timberland in each State.

The “other” category includes all corporations (except family corporations), noncorporate sport and

recreation clubs, and undivided estates (Birch, et al,

1982). In the Midsouth, the bulk of these acres is

owned by forest industries. As figure 12 indicates, this

“other” category of ownership is dominant in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas.

Occupation of Owners

Farmers own the largest proportion of private timberland in the United States-over 16 percent (Birch,

et al., 1982). In the Midsouth, this distinction belongs

to retired people who own more than 17 percent of the

private acres (table 12 and fig. 13). Farmers are third

among the occupational categories with 13 percent,

behind white collar workers who own nearly 15 percent. Retired people also own the largest share of timberland acres in each State except Arkansas and

Oklahoma. White collar workers own larger shares in

these two States.

The landowner estimates in table 12 indicate that

retired people constitute by far the largest number of

landowners as well-nearly 34 percent. Blue collar

workers are a distant second (21 percent) while farmers comprise only about 9 percent of the owners. When

the estimated number of owners in each occupational

category is compared with the acres owned by the

category, we find that farmers own an average of

nearly 84 acres each, white collar workers own about

44 acres each, blue collar workers own about 26 acres

each, and retired people own nearly 29 acres each.

An interesting side issue of the occupational distribution is the accuracy of the “farmer” occupational

label. In the nationwide survey, timberland owners

who identified themselves as farmers owned 11.5 million acres of timberland in the Midsouth (table 12).

However, timberland owners placed in the “farmer”

category during the State-by-State FIA forest survey

own an estimated 19.3 million acres. This discrepancy, once again, makes the point that the

“farmer” category, however defined, should be interpreted with caution.

Age of Owners

Individuals 65 years and older own more than 22

percent of the Midsouth’s private timberland acresnearly 20 million acres (table 13 and fig. 14). An

estimated 528 thousand owners are in this age category-one out of three private owners; so each owner

has an average of nearly 38 acres of timberland. In

Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee combined, this

age group owns more than one-fourth of the private

timberland, a total of 12.7 million acres. This ownership pattern has important implications because it is

reasonable to assume that title to many of these forest

acres will transfer to new owners within the next 5-

10 years. Regardless of how much we know about the

characteristics, management activities, and objectives of current owners such information quickly becomes obsolete when large acreages change hands.

At the other age extreme, individuals under 35 own

less than 3 percent of the Midsouth’s private timberland, and their average-sized holding is only 18 acres.

Even though larger proportions of land are owned by

these individuals in Oklahoma (10 percent) and Arkansas (5 percent), the area they own in those two

States is only about 1.2 million acres. The significantly larger proportion of land owned by individuals

6
between the ages of 35 and 49 (13 percent in the Midsouth) may indicate the ages when most individuals

begin inheriting timberland or begin acquiring it for

various purposes.

Sex and Race of Owners

The private timberland owners in the Midsouth are

overwhelmingly white males. Males own more than

42 million of the nearly 52 million noncorporate

acres-and whites own nearly 50 million of these

acres-96 percent (table 14 and 15). In the Midsouth,

female ownership is largest in Alabama where women

own nearly 2.9 million acres-21 percent of the nearly

13 million noncorporate acres. Blacks own less than

1 million acres in any State except Mississippi; they

own only about 2.9 million acres across the Midsouth.

Oklahoma is the only State with significant acreage

owned by other than the white and black races; others

(primarily American Indians) own 390 thousand

acres there and 450 thousand acres across the Midsouth.

Not only is the total timberland acreage owned by

females and blacks relatively small, but the average

acreage per ownership is quite low. Females own an

average of about 30 acres each in the region, and the

average black ownership is only slightly more than 17

acres. These averages contrast with the 41.5 acres and

41 acres owned by each male and white owner, respectively.

Education

Nearly equal amounts of private timberland in the

Midsouth are owned by individuals who have eight

years or less of formal education, high school graduates, and college graduates (table 16 and fig. 15). This

tri-modal distribution is evident in most of the States.

The most obvious exception is in Tennessee where

nearly 23 percent of the private timberland is owned

by individuals with no more than a junior high school

education.

When the acres owned are divided by the estimated

number of owners in the three major education categories, the picture changes. Junior high “graduates”

own an average of 25 acres each, high school graduates own 37 acres each, and college graduates own 55

acres each.

Owner’s Residence in Relation to Timberland

More than 54 percent of the private timberland in

the Midsouth belongs to owners who live or, in the

case of corporations, have headquarters in the county

where at least a portion of their timberland is located

(table 17 and fig. 16):Another 20 percent of the land

belongs to owners living in the same State, and about

16 percent belongs to out-of-State owners. The proportion of land owned by “same county” residents ranges

from 38 percent in Louisiana to nearly 72 percent in

Tennessee. In all States except Arkansas, Louisiana,

and Texas the rate is about 50 percent. Louisiana and

Oklahoma contain relatively large acreages owned by

residents of other States or countries.

Even though “same county” residents own a majority of the timberland, their average ownership is significantly smaller than that of “absentee” owners.

The averages are 38 acres for “same county” owners,

149 acres for “same state” owners, and 190 acres for

“different state” owners. The inclusion of corporations, which tend to be headquartered in metropolitan

areas, accounts for some of the difference in averages.

Size of Holding

The vast majority of individual owners of timberland own very small tracts. The national survey found

that more than 5.5 million owners-71 percent of the

estimated total-have tracts containing less than 10

acres of timberland (Birch, et al., 1982). In the Midsouth 1 million such owners collectively own only

2 percent of private timberland (table 18 and fig. 17).

Timber production potential is quite low on these

2 million scattered acres.

The next two size categories (lo-49 acres and 50-

99 acres) are more problematic in terms of timber

management potential. An estimated 400 thousand

individuals own these 15.5 million acres, an average

of less than 40 acres per owner. Among the States,

Mississippi typifies the region very closely. There, an

estimated 65 thousand own 2.5 million acres in the

lo-49 and 50-99 acre categories. If these owners

were evenly distributed over the State’s 82 counties,

which certainly they are not, there would be nearly

800 per county. Just making contact with this many

owners would strain the service forestry sectorpublic and private-in that State.

For the lOO-499-acre size category, the picture

changes dramatically. This category includes about

one-half of the non-corporate acres (nearly 30 percent

of all privately owned land), but only about 9 percent

of the owners-some 136 thousand. The pattern is the

same in practically every State. The data in table 12

indicate that about 52 million acres are in the private,

individual category in the Midsouth. If we add the

acres in the size categories in table 18, we find that

nearly 44 million acres are included in the first four

categories (up to the 499-acre size category). We can

conclude, then, that only about 8 million individually

owned acres are in ownership units larger than 500

acres.
Nonindustrial private forests and owners are extremely diverse regardless of the dimensions used to

describe them; consequently, generalizations for large

areas and populations have limited use beyond planning general strategy and policy for these forests and

owners. With that note of caution, we offer the following conclusions from this analysis of the Midsouth

NIPF’s and owners.

The condition of the nonindustrial private forest

reflects the general neglect of its owners to practice

intensive forest management. Poor stocking and low

volumes-per-acre suggest that many NIPF owners are

doing little to improve the status of their stands. The

failure of owners to regenerate pine stands following

harvest is well documented (Fecso et al., 19821, and

the relatively small areas in pine plantations and natural pine along with a disproportionately large area of

upland hardwoods illustrate that failure here. On the

other hand, NIPF owners have near their proportionate share of seedling/sapling and poletimber areas,

but their small proportion of sawtimber areas and

volume may indicate that timber is being harvested

before it is mature.

Growth, removals, and,mortality do not appear to

be problems in NIPFs. Given the proportional distribution of site classes and the room to grow in poorly

stocked stands, radial growth is occurring at about

the expected rate.

The advanced age and retired status of the owners

of a large portion of NIPF land in the Midsouth may

have important implications for the future management and productivity of the forests. A recent study in

Mississippi indicated that a major ownership objective of individuals 65 years of age and older was to

pass the land to their heirs (Doolittle et al., 1986).

These owners often expressed a reluctance to invest in

improvements because they were unlikely to see immediate results; leaving the timberland as it is appeared to be a more important consideration. More

intensive study is needed of the nearly 20 million

acres held by these senior citizens.

From a practical point of view, approximately

2,000,OOO acres of small-tract timberland should not

be considered a contributor to timber production in

the Midsouth. This land does make an important contribution to the “green belt” in the form of aestheti.cs,

wildlife protection, and ownership enjoyment.

Tracts from lo-100 acre-sized stands won’t contribute heavily because of the difficulty of reaching

and advising the 400 thousand owners. That, coupled

with the economics of harvesting such small areas,

puts these areas in doubt as contributors to the timber

supply. In all likelihood, these areas will be cut when

the opportunity arises with little or no management

input regarding rotation, thinning, harvesting, and

regeneration.

If there is to be a concentration of effort to improve

the management and timber production on NIPF

land, the approximately 26 million acres in ownership

units of 100 to 500 acres would appear to be the logical

place to begin. The number of owners of these acres is

not unmanageable from a service forestry standpoint,

and improvement on their lands would make a dramatic change in the overall NIPF picture.

Finally, recent changes in the tax law may have a

significant impact on the NIPF resource in future

years. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 has eliminated two

important tax benefits to NIPF owners: the capital

gains tax and income averaging.

Beginning January 1, 1987, capital gains will be

taxed as ordinary income up to a maximum 28 percent. This will mean a substantial increase in taxes

for the small timber producer.

NIPF owners often sell their timber and receive all

income in one taxable year. Income averaging spreads

this income over ‘a three-year period to reduce the tax

burden. Beginning January 1, 1987, income averaging will not be allowed.

Still allowed under the new tax law are amortization and tax credits for reforestation expenses, and

capitalization of costs. However, even with the retention of these two tax features, incentive is likely to

decline for NIPF owners to actively pursue and invoke

programs to manage their timberland because of the

loss of capital gains and income averaging. It remains

to be seen what impact this will have on the NIPF

contribution to the timber inventory.

LITERATURE CITED

Birch, T.; Douglas G.; Kaiser, F. The private forestland owners of the United States. Resour. Bull.

WO-1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; 1982. 64 p.

Birdsey, R. Tennessee forest resources. Resour. Bull.

SO-90. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station; 1983. 35 p.

Doolittle, L.; Baird, A. W.; Burrough, G. The diversity

of nonindustrial private landowners. Tree

Talk. 7(3): 1986. p. 20-22.

Fecso, R. S.; Kaiser, H. F.; Royer, J. P.; Weidenhamer,

M. Staff Report No. AGES821230. Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical

Reporting Service, Statistical Research Division;

1982. 74 p.

Murphy, P. Mississippi forests: trends and outlook.

Resour. Bull. SO-67. New Orleans, LA: U.S. De8
partment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern

Forest Experiment Station; 1978. 32 p.

Murphy, P. East Oklahoma forests: trends and outlook. Resour. Bull. SO-63. New Orleans, LA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; Southern Forest Experiment Station; 1977. 20 p.

Murphy, P. East Texas forests: status and trends. Resour. Bull. SO-61. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; Southern

Forest Experiment Station; 1976. 25 p.

Murphy, P. Louisiana forests: status and outlook. Resour. Bull SO-53. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern

Forest Experiment Station; 1975. 31 p.

Rudis, V. A.; Rosson, Jr., J. F.; Kelly, J. F. Forest

resources of Alabama. Resour. Bull. SO-98. New

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

Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station; 1984. 55 p.

van Hees, W. W. S. Arkansas forests: trends and

prospects. Resourc. Bull. SO-77. New Orleans, LA:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southern Forest Experiment Station; 1980. 32 p.

Appendix

MIDSOUTH

ALABAMA

ARKANSAS

LOUISIANA

MlSSlSSlPPl

OKLAHOMA

TENNESSEE

TEXAS

PERCENT

Figure 3.-Proportion of total timberland owned by private nonindustrial owners, Midsouth States and region.

9
Timberland

2 Sawtimber

2 Poletimber

2 Seedlings & Saplings

s Non-stocked

Timberland

9

Sawtimber

$ Poletimber

9 Seedlings C Saplings

p" Non-stocked

Q., Timberland

2

Sawtimber

$ Poletimber

$ Seedlings & Saplings

p Non-stocked

3

Timberland

9 Sawtimber

2; Poletimber

2 Seedlings 61 Sapling

+ Non-stocked

% Timber1and 1 Sawtimber

2 Poletimber

scr, 'Seedlings & Saplings

3 Non-stocked

Timberland

s Sawtimber

g Poletimber

3 Seedlings 61 Saplings

8 Non-stocked

2 Timberland

2 Sawtimber

rU Poletimber

p Seedlings & Saplings

2 Non-stocked

Timberland

4 Sawtimber

P

% Poletimber

8 Seedlings & Saplings

Non-stocked

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 SO 100

PERCENT

Figure 4.-Proportion of total timberland and total stand-size class area in NIPF ownership,

Midsouth States and region.

10
Timberland

Pine Plantations

Natural Pine

Mixed Pine-Hardwood

Bottomland Hardwood

Upland Hardwood

Timberland

Pine Plantations

Natural Pine

Mixed Pine-Hardwood

Bottomland Hardwood

Upland Hardwood

Timberland

Pine Plantations

Natural Pine

Mixed Pine-Hardwood

Bottomland Hardwood

Upland Hardwood

Timberland

Pine Plantations

Natural Pine

Mixed Pine-Hardwood

Bottomland Hardwood

Upland Hardwood

Timberland

Pine Plantations

Natural Pine

Mixed Pine-Hardwood

Bottomland Hardwood

Upland Hardwood

Timberland

Pine Plantations

Natural Pine

Mixed Pine-Hardwood

Bottomland Hardwood

Upland Hardwood

Timberland

Pine Plantations

Natural Pine

Mixed Pine-Hardwood

Bottomland Hardwood

Upland Hardwocd

Timberland

Pine Plantations

Natural Pine

Mixed Pine-Hardwood

Bottomland Hardwood

Upland Hardwood

a I I I 1 1 I I I 1

0 10 2 0 30 40 50 60 70 60 9 0

PERCENT

Figure 5.-Proportion of total timberland and total forest management type area in NIPF

ownership, Midsouth States and region.

1 1
2 Timberland

3 Less than 1500 fbm

3 1500-5000 fbm

2 More than 5000 fbm

%

Timberland

2 Less than 1500 fbm

9 1500-5000 fbm

q More than 5000 fbm

4 Timberland

2 Less than 1500 fbm

2 1500-5000 fbm

: More than 5000 fbm

g Timberland

$ Less than 1500 fbm

3 1500-5000 fbm

2 More than 5000 fbm

$ Timberland

2 Less than 1500 fbm

$ 1500-5000 fbm

$ More than 5000 fbm

p Timberland

8 Less than 1500 fbm

gS 1500-5000 fbm

g More than 5000 fbm

ti Timberland

$ Less than 1500 fbm

p 1500-5000 fbm

2 More than 5000 fbm

Timberland

2 Less than 1500 fbm

$ 1.500-5000 fbm

More than 5000 fbm

0 IO 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 SO

PERCENT

Figure 6.-Proportion of total timberland and total stand volume per acre in NIPF

ownership, Midsouth States and region.
Timberland

165 ft.3 or more

120-165 ft. 3

85-120 ft. 3

SO-85 ft.3

Less than 50 ft.3

Timberland

165 ft.3 or more

120-165 ft.3

85-120 ft.3

50-85 ft.3

Less than !jo ft 3 . Fy: p;1’ ‘“-(>$;; .,..>;.,’ >;-’ i .~,.~.;~.~~~~.~.$7~~,, :,..;. $~&i.~*. r& -c : ?~,.: .a$- .$, ..:,*-2: “‘*.,“J.‘.r ,..1‘:1-: ..-_. *.:i-..:;;;zr? .:. ..C :.“r :.- ‘.i ?.i, c..,. :-:.?j

Timberland

165 ft.3 or more

120-165 ft.3

85-120 ft. 3

50-85 ft.3

Less than 50 ft.3

Timberland

165 ft.3 or more

120-165 ft.3

85-120 ft. 3

50-85 ft. 3

Less than 50 ft.3

Timberland

165 ft.3 or more

120-165 ft.3

85-120 ft.3

SO-85 ft.3

Less than 50 ft. ‘3

Timberland

165 ft.3 or more

120-165 ft.3

85-120 ft.3

50-85 ft. 3

Less than 50 ft. 3

Timberland

165 ft.j or more

120-165 ft.3

85-120 ft.3

50-85 ft. 3

Less than 50 ft _ 3

Figure ‘I.-Proportion of total timberland and total site-class area in NIPF ownership,

Midsouth States and region.

13
Timberland

2

Volume

3 Annual growth

0

3 Annual removals

s Mortality

Timberland

p Volume

8

p Annual growth

B

p Annual removals

9" Mortality

tr, Timberland

9.

2

Volume

;:

Annual growth

Q: Annual removals

p Mortality

2

Timberland

q Volume

2 Annual growth

2 Annual removals

-J Mortality

p‘ Timberland

9 Volume

2 Annual growth

z Annual removals

s Mortality

Timberland

Volume

2

P

Annual growth

2'

Annual removals

0 Mortality

2 Timberland

2 Volume

!$ Annual growth

* Annual removals

4rL Mortality

Timberland

2 Volume

2 Annual growth

k Annual removals

Mortality

I I I I I I I I 1 1

0 IO 2 0 30 40 5 0 60 70 00 90

PERCENT

Figure B.-Proportion of total timberland and total softwood growing-stock volume, net annual

growth, annual removals, and mortality on NIPF land, Midsouth States and region.
$ Timberland

;;; Volume

2 Annual growth

2 Annual rerhotials

<

$ Mortality

g Timberland

8 Volume

s

Annual growth

4 Annual removals k

0 Mortality

2 Timberland

2 Volume

k~ Annual growth

$ Annual removals

2 Mortality

Timberland

Timberland

E Volume

2 Annual growth

2 Annual removals

s Mortality

Timberland

3

Volume

3 Annual growth

9 Annual removals

P Mortality

c., Timberland

2 Volume

* Annual growth

;:pr Annual removals

P Mortality

3

Timberland

p Volume

% Annual growth

5o Annual removals

4 Mortality

$ Annual growth

Annual removals

Mortality

CQ Volume

0 IO 20 30 40 50 60 70 00 90

PERCENT

Figure 9.-Proportion of total timberland and total hardwood growing-stock volume, net annual

growth, annual removals, and mortality on NIPF land, Midsouth States and region.
2

Timberland

. Volume

G Annual growth

2 Annual removals

3 Mortality

Timberland

% Volume

2 Annual growth

", Annual removals

p Mortality

9 Timberland

Fj Volume

s Annual growth

k4: Annual removals

p Mortality

s

Timberland

Volume

2 Annual growth

5 Annual removals

2 Mortality

$ Timberland

G Volume

2 Annual growth

2 Annual removals

$ Mortality

Timberland

8 Volume

$ Annual growth

-I Annual removals

k

D Mortality

$j Timberland

2 Volume

2 Annual growth

h Annual removals

k! Mortality

Timberland

2 Volume

2 Annual growth

I. Annual removals

Mortality

I

I I 1 I I I I ,

I

0 1 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90

PERCENT

Figure l&-Proportion of total timberland and total softwood sawtimber volume, net annunl

growth, annual removals, and mortality on NIPF land, Midsouth States and region.
Timberland

Timberland

P Mortality

Timberland

Annual removals

Timberland

W Volume

Mortality

i I I I I I I I I I I

0 IO 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 100

PERCENT

Figure Il.-Proportion of total timberland and total hardwood sawtimber volume, net annual

growth, annual removals, and mortality on NIPF land, Midsouth States and region.
Sole proprietor

2 Family

b Family partnership

E: Non-family partnership

9

8

Family corporation

Other

Sole proprietor

T Family

s Family partnership

$ Non-family partnership

4 Family corporation

T

Other

Sole proprietor

@ Family

$ Family partnership

p Non-family partnership

2

Family corporation

p Other

Sole proprietor

T Family

2

p Family partnership

G Non-family partnership

5Q Family corporation

d Other

Sole proprietor

$ Family

$ Family partnership

s Non-family partnership

2 Family corporation

s Other

Sole proprietor

T Family

$ Family partnership

p Non-family partnership

2 Family corporation

Q

Other

Sole proprietor

$ Family

ti Family partnership

b

P Non-family partnership

$ Family corporation

I-. Other

Sole proprietgr

Family

2

Family partnership

?I

Non-family partnership

l. Family corporation

Other

h I I I I I I I I I _I/*

0 IO 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PERCENT

1 8
Farmer

i? White collar

8 Blue collar

2

Retired

s Other

Farmer

i$ White collar

;;: Blue collar

: Retired

T Other

cr, Farmer

3 White collar

* Blue collar

2 Retired

k

P Other

Farmer

P

* White collar

2

Blue collar

3 Retired

0

4 Other

Q Farmer

QI White collar

2 Blue collar

GN Retired

i$ Other

Farmer

s White collar

2 Blue collar

: Retired

g Other

ti Farmer 9 'N-Ate collar

2 Blue collar

$ Retired

ti Other

Farmer

cr, White collar

2 Blue collar

k! Retired

Other

I I I I 1 I I I I 1

0 IO 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PERCENT

Figure 13.-Distribution of privately owned forest acres by owner’s occupation, Midsouth States

and region, 1978.

19
z

Under 35 years

5 35-49

20 50-64

3 65 and over

p Under 35 years

%B 35-49

T 50-64

$ 65 and over

2 Under 35 years

2 35-49

2 SO-64

$ 65 and over

7 Under 35 years

3 35-49

2 50-64

2 65 and over

$ Under 35 yearsm

2 35-49

$ SO-64

s 65 and OVer

8 Under 35-49 35 years

$ 50-64

g 64 and over

$ Under 35 years

2 35-49

$ 50-64

* 65 and over

Under 35 year

4 35-49

$ 50-64

65 and over -

I

I I I I I I I I 1

0 IO 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 S O

PERCENT

Figure 14.-Distribution of privately owned forest acres by owner’s age, Midsouth

States and region, 1978.
s

Jr. high or less

h Some high school

2 High school

2 Some college

Z College plus

Jr. high or less

9

Some high school

$ High school

", Some college

P College plus

tl, Jr. high or less

3 Some high school

B

5

High school

p: Some college

P College plus

Jr. high or less

gs ome high school

5 High school

$ Some college

4 College plus

$ Jr. high or less

a. Some high school

s High school

2 Some college

L College plus

Jr. high or less

ssome high school

$ High school

4 Some college

$ College plus

k~ Jr. high or less

$ Some high school

G High school

s Some college

2 College plus

Jr. high or less

tr, Some high school

2 High school

tuk Some college

College plus

B I I 1 I I I I I I

0 IO 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90

PERCENT

Figure Iti.-Distribution of privately owned forest acres by owner’s education, Midsouth Stntes

and region.

2 1
F-J Soix county

E Other county, same state

%! Different state or country

Same county

Other county, same state

Different state or country

Same county

Other county, same state

Different state or country

Same county

Other county, same state

Different state or country

Same county

Other county, same state

Different state or country

Same county

2 Other county, same state

$ Different state or country

r

cn Same county

a

c Other county, same state

b Different state or country

Same county

Other county, same state

Different state or country

I I

I I I 1 I I I I I I

0 IO 20 30 40 50 60 70 00 so 100

PERCENT

Figure 16.-Distribution of privately owned forest acres by owner’s residence, Midsouth States and

region, 1978.

2 2
Less than 10 ac.

10-49

r 50-99

2

100-499

500-999

2 1000-4999

z 5000-9999

10, ooo+

Less than 10 ac,

10-49

p so-99

%zi 100-499

p 500-999

p" 1000-4999

5000-9999

10, ooo+

Less than 10 ac.B

LO-49

(n 50-99

10 ac.

3 100-499

*

z

:

500-999 1000-4999

5000-9999

10,000+

Less than

10-49

ps 50-gg 100-499

.

2 500-999

2

1000-4999

--J 5000-9999

10,Wf-J-c

Less than 10 ac.

c 10-49

a 50-99

E;* 100-499

2;-. 500-999

2 1000-4999

$

5000-9999

10,000+

Less than

10-49

$$ 50-99

9 100-499

: 500-999

g 1000-4999

5000-9999

10,000+

10 ac

Less than 10 ac.,

b 10-49

2 50-99

G 100-499

h

5

500-999

1000-4999

5000-9999

10,000+

Less than

10-49

50-99

2 100-499

; 500-999

1000-4999

5000-9999

10,000+

10 ac.

1 1 I I I I I

I I I I I

0 IO 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 0 10 20 30 40 !.5(

PERCENT PERCE~VT

Figure 17.-Distribution of privately owned forest acres by size of holding in Midsouth States and region, 1978.

23
Table l.-Area of timberland, all ownerships and rumindustrial private ownership,

by State, Midsouth region

All ownerships NIPF Percent NJPFl

Alabama (1982j2 21,658.8 16,040.4 74.1

Arkansas Cl9781 16,615.6 9,466.0 57.0

Louisiana (1974) 14,526.6 9,743.2 67.1

Mississippi (1977) 16504.3 l&831.8 71.7

Oklahoma (1976) 4,323.4 2,769.5 64.1

Tennessee (1980) 12,879.0 10,496.4 81.5

Texas (1975) 12,512.5 7,964.l 63.6

Midsouth 99,020.2 68,311.4 69.0

‘NIPF acres divided by total acres x 100.

2Year in which the most recent forest survey was completed.

Table X.-Area of timberland, all ownerships and NIPF ownership, by stand-size class and by State, Midsouth region

Sawtimber Poletimber Seedlings and saplings Non-stocked

All Percent All Percent All Percent All Percent

State ownerships NIPF NIPF ownerships NIPF NIPF ownerships NIPF NlPF ownerships NIPF NIPF

________________________________r_______--------------------------- Thusa& acres -,-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Alabama

Arkansas

Louisiana

Mississippi

Oklahoma

Tennessee

Texas

Midsouth

7,617.7 5571.9 73.1 6,948.8 5,373.2 77.3 6,723.3 4,808.4 71.5 369.0 287.1 77.8

6,983.5 3,387.7 48.5 5,472.3 3,539.2 64.7 4,046.7 2,456.6 60.7 113.1 82.5 72.9

7,880.5 5J12.9 64.9 3,409.8 2,545.4 74.6 2,911.l 1,803.2 61.9 325.2 281.7 86.6

7,421.7 5,104.g 68.8 4,806.7 3,809.l 79.2 4,121.0 2,793.g 67.8 154.9 123.9 80.0

1,028.6 460.1 44.7 1,483.l 988.0 66.6 1,642.7 1,158.7 70.5 169.0 162.7 96.3

4,923.6 3,968.8 80.6 5,229.6 4,348.0 83.1 2,672.2 2,138.6 80.0 53.8 41.0 76.5

6,456.g 3,701.4 57.3 3,202.3 2,326.8 72.7 2,687.6 1,782.7 66.3 165.7 153.2 92.5

42,312.5 27,307.7 64.5 30,552.6 22,929.7 75.0 24,804.6 16,942.l 68.3 1,350.5 1,132.l 83.8
Table 3.-Estimated area of timberland, all ownerships and NIPF ownership, by forest management type and by State, Midsouth region, 1985

Forest management type

Pine plantations Natural pine Mixed pine-hardwood Bottomland hardwood Upland hardwood

All Percent All Percent All Percent All Percent All Percent

State ownerships NIPF NIPF ownerships NIPF NIPF ownerships NIPF NIPF ownerships NIPF NIPF ownerships NIPF NIPF

________________________________________------------------------------ Thousandacres ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Alabama 2,365 954 40.3 4,917 3,467 70.5 4,383 3,077 70.2 2,430

Arkansas 990 276 27.9 3,377 1,225 36.3 2,926 1,478 50.5 2,687

Louisiana 1,528 503 32.9 3,556 2,075 58.4 1,938 1,045 53.9 4,784

Mississippi 1,724 609 35.3 2,951 1,781 60.4 3,560 2,496 70.1 3,490

Oklahoma 510 21 4.1 560 284 50.7 595 365 61.3 395

Tennessee 318 159 50.0 1,021 826 80.9 1,298 968 74.6 819

Texas 1,595 356 22.3 3,063 1,719 56.1 2,447 1,569 64.1 2,012

Midsouth 9,030 2,878 31.9 19,445 11,377’. 58.5 17,147 10,998 64.1 16,617

1,784 73.4 7,482 6,137

1,569 58.4 5,970 4,106

3,611 75.5 2,258 1,376

2,381 68.2 4,347 3,588

263 66.6 2,210 1,724

652 79.6 9,481 7,852

1,385 68.8 3,001 2,450

11,645 70.1 34,749 27,233

82.0

68.8

60.9

82.5

78.0

82.8

81.6

- -

78.4
Table 4.-Area of and by State, Midsouth region

Forest type

State

Longleaf-slash pine Loblolly-shortleaf pine Oak-pine Oak-hickory

All Percent All Percent All Percent All Percent

ownerships NIPF NIPF ownerships NIPF NIPF ownerships NIPF NIPF ownerships NIPF NIPF

________________________________________--------------------------- Thousand acres ------------------------------------_____________________________________

Alabama

Arkansas

Louisiana

Mississippi

Oklahoma

Tennessee

Texas

1,482.7 801.9 54.1 5,853.7

. . . . . . . 4,277.0

1,022.6 563.7 55.1 4,073.4

lO51.5 449.4 42.7 4,250.2

. . . . . . . . 847.3

. . . . . . . . “” 1,058.3

258.8 67.0 25.9 4,502.9

4,072.O 69.6 4,562.g 3,306.g 72.5 7,275.8 5,957.5 81.9

1,613.g 37.7 2,966.6 1,527.2 51.5 6,537.5 4,623.4 70.7

2,337.4 57.4 2,207.6 1,393.6 63.1 1,725.5 1,185.7 68.7

2,826.0 66.5 3,451.5 2,465.4 71.4 4,239.6 3,502.7 82.6

265.4 31.3 693.1 337.1 48.6 2,357.2 1,870.5 79.4

758.3 71.7 1,007.6 699.6 69.4 9,312.6 7,809.3 83.9

2,352.2 52,2 2,550.5 1,525.l 59.8 39018.7 2,444.8 81.0

Midsouth 3,815.6 1,882.0 49.3 24,863.l 14,225.2 57.2 17,439.8 11,254.g 64.5 34,466.g 27,393.g 795

Alabama

Arkansas

Louisiana

Mississippi

Oklahoma

Tennessee

Texas

Midsouth

Forest type

Oak-gum-cypress Elm-ash-cottonwood Other

All Percent All Percent All Percent

ownerships NIPF NIPF ownerships NIPF NIPF ownerships NIPF NIPF

________________________________________--------- Thowandares ___.____________________________________~~-------

2,373.5 1,814.B 76.5 74.0 63.1 85.3 36.2 24.3 67.1

2,628.0 1,569.4 59.7 206.5 132.1 64.0 . . . . . . . . . . . .

4,956.6 3,840.5 77.5 540.9 422.3 78.1 . . . . . . . . . . . .

3,274.1 2,451.l 74.9 237.4 137.2 57.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

296.3 679.7 217.1 551.4 73.3 81.1 129.5 99.2 72.1 79.4 72.1 61.3 ‘72G .&..; . . . .

85.7

1,952.7 1,374.0 70.4 228.9 201.0 87.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16J60.9 11,818.3 73.1 1516.4 lJO7.2 73.0 757.8 643.0 84.9

‘Includes 651.3 thousand acres of cedar of which 580.9 thousand acres, 89.2 percent, is NIPF.
Table 5.-Area of timberland, all ownerships and NIPF ownership, by stand volume and by State, Midsouth region

State

Alabama

Arkansas

Louisiana

Mississippi

Oklahoma

Tennessee

Texas

Stand volume per acre

Less than 1500 mm 1500-5000 fbm More than 5000 fbm

All Percent All Percent All Percent

ownerships NIPF NIPF ownerships NIPF NIPF ownerships NIPF NIPF

____________________--------------------*-------- Tfwuandmres --_-_----______-----____________________-~~-~~--

9,186.8 6,662.0 72.5 7,163.5 5,752.8 80.3 5,308.4 3,625.6 68.3

6,419.6 4,366.7 68.0 5,813.g 3,384.9 58.2 4,382.l 1,714.4 39.1

4,394.5 3,165.5 72.0 5,349.g 3,769.0 70.4 4,782.2 2,808.7 58.7

6,032.O 4,425.2 73.4 6,013.7 4,663.g 77.6 4,458.6 2,742.7 61.5

3,026.6 2,230.3 73.7 1,047.6 497.8 47.5 249.2 41.4 16.7

5,088.8 4,239.6 83.3 5J98.3 4,289.g 82.5 2,591.g 1,966.g 75.9

4,193.7 3,214.7 76.7 4,759.5 3,164.3 66.5 3,559.3 1,585.l 44.5

Midsouth 38,342.0 28,304.O 73.8 35,346.4 25,522.6 72.2 25,331.7 14,484.a 57.2

Table 6.-Area of timberland, all ownerships and NIPF ownership, by site class and by State, Midsouth region

Site cla&

State

165 ft. .i or more 120-165 ft. j 85-120 ft. 3 50-85 ft.3 Less than 50 ft.3

All Percent All Percent All Percent All Percent All Percent

ownerships NIPF NIPF ownerships NIPF NIPF ownerships NIPF NIPF ownerships NIPF NIPF ownerships NIPF NIPF

____________________--------------------------------------.*------- Thousand acres --------------------------------------------------------------------.---

Alabama

Arkansas

Louisiana

Mississippi

Oklahoma

Tennessee

Texas

Midsouth

974.3 770.9 79.1 3,785.4 2,648.7 70.0 8,468.7 6,367.5 75.2 7,263.S 5,393.0 74.2

235.6 116.8 49.6 1,303.l 708.2 54.3 4,636.g 2,350.O 50.7 6,509.5 3,495.0 53.7

419.8 275.6 65.7 1,889.3 1,204.7 63.8 5,406.4 3,594.2 66.5 6,088.4 4,183.l 68.7

507.8 336.9 66.3 2,542.6 1,802.3 70.9 8,230.2 5,873.4 71.4 4,877X 3,583.5 73.5

5.5 . . . . . . . 33.1 16.1 48.6 230.4 63.3 27.5 1,879.l 1,027.6 54.7

216.8 174.0 80.3 717.1 614.8 85.7 3J19.7 2,546.0 81.6 6,285.g 5,140.g 81.8

133.3 93.4 70.1 1,071.4 475.5 44.4 4,679.g 2,557.2 54.6 5,639.g 3,915.5 69.4

2,493.l 1,767.6 70.9 11,342.0 7,470.3 65.9 34,772.2 23,351.6 67.2 38,544.4 26,738.6 69.4

lJ66.5 860.3 73.8

3,930.5 2,796.0 71.1

722.7 485.6 67.2

345.9 235.7 68.1

2J75.3 1,662.5 76.4

2,539.5 2,020.8 79.6

988.0 922.5 93.4

l&868.4 8,983.4 75.7
Table ‘I.-Softwood growing-stock volume, net annual growth, annual removals, and mortality, all ownerships and NIPF ownership, by State, Midsouth region

State

Component

Volume Net annual growth Annual removals Mortality

All Percent All Percent All Percent All Percent

ownerships NIPF NIPF ownerships NIPF NIPF ownerships NIPF NIPF ownerships NIPF NIPF

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,..............................,..... Millioncubicfeet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alabama

Arkansas

Louisiana

Mississippi

Oklahoma

Tennessee

Texas

Midsouth

11,655.7 8,017.4 68.8 641.8 457.0 71.2 636.2 448.3 70.5 121.3 86.5 71.3

8,168.O 3,265.6 40.0 423.5 200.8 47.4 404.4 150.4 37.2 27.4 11.0 40.1

9,040.o 5,517.l 61.0 604.1 382.3 63.3 441.2 219.5 49.8 39.6 22.7 57.3

8,929.l 5,575.l 62.4 589.5 392.0 66.5 492.4 321.3 65.3 56.0 34.8 62.1

1,010.4 316.0 31.3 55.9 18.9 33.8 46.7 7.4 15.8 1.9 0.5 26.3

2,405.5 1,681.6 63.9 36.8 63.5 71.8 37.6 23.2 61.7 14.3 8.6 60.1

8,161.6 3,844.7 47.1 485.2 270.2 55.7 381.5 192.1 50.4 28.1 10.5 37.4

49,370.3 28,217.5 57.2 2,896.g 1,790.7 61.8 2,440.O 1,362.2 55.8 288.6 174.6 60.5

Table 8.-Hardwood growing-stock volume, net annual growth, annual removals, and mortality, all ownerships and NIPF ownership, by State, Midsouth region

Component

Volume Net annual growth Annual removals Mortality

All Percent All Percent All Percent All Percent

State ownerships NIPF NIPF ownerships NIPF NIPF ownerships NIPF NIPF ownerships NIPF NIPF

________________________________________----------------------------- Millioncubicfeet

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Alabama

Arkansas

Louisiana

Mississippi

Oklahoma

Tennessee

Texas

Midsouth

10,050.5 1,710.2 77.3 344.5 272.0 79.0 218.6 164.7 75.3 83.6 62.3 75.2

9,079.g 5,295.6 58.3 369.1 224.1 60.7 210.3 127.5 60.6 56.1 32.3 58.6

7,657.5 5,342.2 63.8 324.7 234.6 72.3 160.2 104.3 65.1 69.1 51.3 ‘14.2

8,304.6 6,158.3 74.2 423.7 323.8 76.4 241.1 178.1 73.3 65.7 47.4 72.1

1,051.l 668.4 63.6 60.9 33.6 65.0 16.6 11.8 71.1 7.4 4.2

10,399.7 8,446.3 81.2

56.8

414.6 342.8 82.7 176.0 137.6 78.2 37.4 30.9

4,568.7 3,044.l 66.6

82.5

236.6 163.4 69.1 33.3 63.6 64.0 22.6 16.5 73.0

51,112.0 36,725.l 71.9 2,174.l 1,600.3 73.6 1,122.l 787.6 70.2 341.9 246.1 72.0
Table g.-Softwood sawtimber volume, net annual growth, annual removals, and mortality, all ownerships and NIPF ownerships, by State, Midsouth region

Component

State

All

ownerships

Volume

NIPF

Percent

NIPF

Net annual growth Annual removals Mortality

All Percent All Percent All Percent

ownerships NIPF NIPF ownerships NIPF NIPF ownerships NIPF NIPF

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Million board feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alabama 44,498.6 30,271.2 68.0 2,901,s 2,080.5 71.7 2,672.g 1,852.l 69.3 334.3 221.9 66.4

Arkansas 34J98.6 12,783.8 36.5 2,083.O 913.6 43.9 1,191.6 667.4 56.0 74.0 25.3 34.2

Louisiana 36,992.7 21,421.7 57.9 2,653.g 1,588.7 59.9 2,135.5 977.8 45.8 133.1 73.0 54.8

Mississippi 35,370.o 20,875.O 59.0 2,705.6 L767.7 65.3 2,342.6 1,442.2 61.6 172.4 99.8 57.9

Oklahoma 3,575.a 996.7 27.9 242.2 75.1 31.0 222.5 28.8 12.9 5.6 1.3 23.2

Tennessee 7684.3 4,961.5 64.6 369.3 249.2 67.5 119.0 75.4 63.4 24.8 12.9 52.0

Texas 34,892.0 14,875.l 42.6 2.323.4 1,220.4 52.5 1.831.6 857.1 46.8 103.6 29.2 28.2

Midsouth 197,212.0 106,185.O 53.8 13,279.2 7,895.2 59.5 10,515.7 5,900.B 56.1 847.8 463.4 54.7

Table IO.-Hardwood sawtimber volume, net annual growth, annual removals, and mortality, all ownerships and NIPF ownership, by State, Midsouth region

Component

Volume Net annual growth AnnuaI removals -Mortality

All Percent All Percent All Percent All Percent

State ownerships NIPF NIPF ownerships NIPF NIPF ownerships NIPF NIPF ownerships NIPF NIPF

________________________________________---------------------------- Million boa&feet -*------------------------------------------------------------------

Alabama 27,069.B 20,546.2 75.9 1,101.3 876.3 79.6

Arkansas 25,095.7 13,889.7 55.3 1,230.2 729.6 59.3

Louisiana 23,822.7 16,049.g 67.4 1,150.5 795.8 69.2

Mississippi 25,271.6 18,049.g 71.4 1,589.4 lJ73.7 73.8

Oklahoma 2,490.g 1,466.2 58.9 155.0 99.5 64.2

Tennessee 31,213.0 25,353.l 81.2 1,339.2 1,123.g 83.9

Texas 12,995.5 8,662.6 66.7 805.0 575.6 71.5

705.7 543.2 77.0 251.5 182.1

795.6 485.8 61.1 169.2

738.0

90.3

470.3 63.7 231.4 168.0

1,036.l 757.7 73.1 206.0 143.6

51.1 38.2 74.8 20.7 12.9

696.9 560.3 80.4 77.0 59.9

476.0 297.2 62.4 67.8 48.7

72.4

53.4

72.6

69.7

62.3

77.8

71.8

Midsouth 147,959.2 104,017.l 70.3 7,370.6 5,374.3 72.9 4,499.4 3,152.7 70.1 LO23.6 705.5 68.9
TabIe Il.-Estimated number ofpriuate ownership units and acres of timberland owned by type of ownership and by State, Midsouth region,

1978’

’ Type of ownership Alabama Arkansas Louisiana Mississippi

Sole proprietor

Family (husband & wife)

Family partnership

Nonfamily partnership

Family corporation

Other2

Total

Sole proprietor

Family (husband & wife)

Famify partnership

Nonfamily partnership

Family corporation

Other2

Total

Sole proprietor

Family (husband & wife)

Family partnership

Nonfamily partnership

Family corporation

Other2

Total

Sole Proprietor

Family (husband & wife)

Family partnership

Nonfamily partnership

Family corporation

Other2

Total

Thousands Percent Thousands Percent Thousands Percent Thousands Percent

________________________________________------ Owners ________________________________________------

323.4 75.4 105.0 34.1 116.4 54.1 106.0 57.4

87.8 20.5 190.4 61.8 83.6 38.8 28.1 15.2

11.2 2.6 8.9 2.9 7.9 3.7 10.8 5.8

0.8 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.2 1.5 0.8

1.1 0.3 1.4 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.1

4.5 1.0 2.2 0.7 6.1 2.8 38.2 20.7

428.8 100.0 308.1 100.0 215.2 100.0 184.7 100.0

--------------------------------------------Acres owned ___________-____________________________----

7,413.g 37.5 4,496.5 30.7 2,304.g 19.4 5760.3 41.1

3,868.g 19.6 3,284.6 22.4 948.1 8.0 2,288.O 16.3

2,407.7 12.2 1,016.6 6.9 1,251.4 10.5 1,330.o 9.5

273.1 1.4 115.8 0.8 555.8 4.7 333.3 2.4

540.2 2.7 574.4 3.9 849.4 7.2 697.9 5.0

5>251.7 26.6 5160.3 .35.2 5,959.0 50.2 3,605.2 25.7

19,755.4 100.0 14,648.2 100.0 11,868.6 100.0 14,014.7 100.0

Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Midsouth

___________________--~------------------------ Owners --_-_-_______-__________________________------

21.0 48.6 78.5 35.0 95.9 51.8 846.2 53.2

20.2 46.8 130.1 58.0 60.1 32.4 600.3 37.8

1.6 3.7 9.2 4.1 17.9 9.7 67.5 4.2

a b 3.9 1.7 0.3 0.2 7.1 0.4

a b 0.7 0.3 a b 4.1 0.3

0.4 0.9 2.1 0.9 11.1 6.0 64.6 4.1

43.2 100.0 224.5 100.0 185.3 100.0 1,589.8 100.0

---------------------------------------------Acresowned----__---______-________________________~~-~

1,524.0 28.4 3,907.l 28.3 2646.4 28.8 28,053.l 31.7

1,953.l 36.4 5,240.O 38.0 967.7 10.5 18,550.3 20.9

152.6 2.8 1,658.l 12.0 415.4 4.5 8,231.a 9.3

52.0 1.0 370.7 2.7 83.6 0.9 1,784.3 2.0

57.4 1.1 654.5 4.7 14.0 0.2 3,387.8 3.8

1,633.l 30.4 1,955.2 14.2 5,058.2 55.1 28,622.7 32.3

5,372.2 100.0 13,785.6 100.0 9J85.3 100.0 88,630.O 100.0

‘Percents may not add to 100.0 because of rounding.

ZIncIudes forest industry.

a - Fewer than 100 owners.

b - Less than 0.05 percent.

30
Table 12.-Estimated number ofprivate ownership units and acres of timberland owned by occupation ofowners and by State, Midsouth region,

1978’

Type of ownership Alabama Arkansas Louisiana Mississippi

Farmer

White collar

Blue collar

Retired

Other

Total, individual

Corporate, estates, etc.

No anwer

Total

Farmer

White collar

Blue collar

Retired

Other

Total, individual

Corporate, estates, etc.

No answer

Total

Farmer

White collar

Blue collar

Retired

Other

Total, individual

Corporate, estates, etc.

No answer

Total

Farmer

White collar

Blue collar

Retired

Other

Total, individual

Corporate, estates, etc.

No answer

Total

Thousands Percent Thousands Percent Thousands Percent Thousands Percent

-__--_________-__--------------------------~-- Owners __-____-____________-----------~~~~-~~~~~..~~-

39.9 9.3 10.5 3.4 30.0 13.9 12.6 6.8

88.3 20.6 21.6 7.0 19.9 9.2 19.7 10.7

89.1 20.8 59.4 19.3 65.1 30.3 40.8 22.1

117.9 27.5 172.0 55.8 82.9 38.5 64.5 34.9

35.5 8.3 12.3 4.0 4.9 2.3 3.2 1.7

370.7 86.5 275.8 89.5 202.8 94.2 140.8 76.2

6.7 1.6 1.0 0.3 6.5 3.0 39.9 21.6

51.4 12.0 31.3 10.2 5.9 2.7 4.0 2.2

428.8 100.0 308.1 100.0 215.2 100.0 184.7 100.0

--------------------------------------------Acresowned ________________________________________-.--

2,725.l 13.8 1,895.3 12.8 827.7 7.0 2,283.2 16.3

3,316.4 16.8 2,321.8 15.9 963.4 8.1 2,023.O 14.4

2,265.0 11.5 1,116.l 7.6 588.9 5.0 I,3963 10.0

4,013.5 20.3 2,279.7 15.6 1,644.O 13.9 2,960.5 21.1

644.9 3.3 701.4 4.8 420.8 3.5 304.4 2.2

12,964.g 65.6 8,314.3 56.8 4,444,s 37.5 8,967.g 64.0

5,708.l 28.9 5,248.0 35.8 6,641.3 56.0 4,385.g 31.3

1,082,4 5.5 1,085.9 7.4 782.5 6.6 660.9 4.7

19,755.4 100.0 14,648.2 100.0 11,868.6 100.0 14,014.7 100.0

Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Midsouth

______________-_-_---------------------------- Owners ----__---__---__________________________~-..--

2.3 5.3 13.5 6.0 28.3 15.3 137.1 8.6

18.6 43.1 77.5 34.5 54.5 29.4 300.1 18.9

6.6 15.3 47.0 20.9 24.8 13.4 332.8 20.9

6.7 15.5 43.2 19.2 49.3 26.6 536.5 33.7

7.3 16.9 15.5 6.9 2.3 1.2 81.0 5.1

41.5 96.1 196.7 87.6 159.2 85.9 1,387.5 87.3

1.0 2.3 3.6 1.6 11.7 6.3 70.4 4.4

0.7 1.6 24.2 10.8 14.4 7.8 131.9 8.3

43.2 100.0 224.5 100.0 185.3 100.0 1589.8 100.0

--------------------------------------------Acresowned------------------------------------------

979.9 18.2 2,152.8 15.6 635.9 6.9 11,499.g 13.0

lJ48.8 21.4 2,449.3 17.8 889.4 9.7 13,112.1 14.8

591.2 11.0 1,915.6 13.9 673.5 7.3 8,547.l 9.6

471.9 8.8 2,909.6 21.1 1,164,s 12.7 15,444.o 17.4

123.3 2.3 817.0 5.9 267.6 2.9 3,279.4 3.7

3,315.l 61.7 10,244.3 74.3 3,631.2 39.5 51,882.5 58.5

1,717.7 32.0 2,204.8 16.0 5,091.3 55.4 30,997.l 35.0

339.4 6.3 1,336.5 9.7 462.8 5.0 5,750.4 6.5

5,372.2 100.0 13,785.6 100.0 9,185.3 100.0 88,630.O 100.0

‘Percents may not add to 100.0 because of rounding.

31
Table 13.-Estimated number ofpriuate ownership units and acres of timberland owned by owner’s age and by State, Midsouth region, 19781

Owner’s age Alabama Arkansas Louisiana Mississippi

Under 35 years

35-49

50-64

65 plus

Corporate, estates, etc.

No answer

Total

Under 35 years

35-49

50-64

65 plus

Corporate, estates, etc.

No answer

Total

Under 3.5 years

35-49

50-64

65 plus

Corporate, estates, etc.

No answer

Total

Under 35 years

35-49

50-64

65 plus

Corporate, estates, etc.

No answer

Total

Thousands Percent Thousands Percent Thousands Percent Thousands Percent

________________________________________------ Owners -_---______-____________________________~~--~~

52.7 12.3 25.2 8.2 32.0 14.9 2.2 1.2

90.0 21.0 34.7 11.3 52.0 24.2 35.8 19.4

126.5 29.5 41.6 13.5 35.6 16.5 28.8 15.6

96.3 22.5 157.3 51.1 81.8 38.0 68.5 37.1

6.7 1.6 1.0 0.3 6.6 3.0 39.9 21.6

56.6 13.2 48.3 15.7 7.3 3.4 9.5 5.1

428.8 100.0 308.1 100.0 215.2 100.0 184.7 100.0

---------------------------------------------Acresowned-__-____________________________________---~

346.2 1.8 653.4 4.5 134.5 1.1 399.2 2.8

2,602.5 13.2 1,763.8 12.0 1J42.2 9.6 1,586.6 11.3

4,604.2 23.3 2,942.g 20.1 1,388.5 11.7 2,916.8 20.8

5,116.l 25.9 2,893.7 19.8 1,725.4 14.5 3,865.4 27.6

5,708.l 28.9 5248.0 35.8 6,641.3 56.0 4,385.9 31.3

1,378.3 7.0 lJ46.4 7.8 836.7 7.0 860.8 6.1

19,755.4 100.0 14,648.2 100.0 11,868.6 100.0 14,014.7 100.0

Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Midsouth

____________________-------------------------- Owners -----__--__-_______-____________________~~---~

5.4 12.5 17.5 7.8 0.4 0.2 135.4 8.5

8.1 18.8 70.7 31.5 35.3 19.1 326.6 20.5

23.2 53.7 40.7 18.1 70.9 38.3 367.3 23.1

5.0 11.6 66.9 29.8 52.6 28.4 528.4 33.2

1.0 2.3 3.6 1.6 11.7 6.3 70.4 4.4

0.5 1.2 25.1 11.2 14.4 7.8 161.7 10.2

43.2 100.0 224.5 100.0 185.3 100.0 lJ89.8 100.0

--------------------------------------------Acresowned--------------------------------------------

512.6 9.5 350.0 2.5 93.6 1.0 2,489.5 2.8

912.9 17.0 2,819.7 20.5 709.4 7.7 11537.1 13.0

1,408.Q 26.2 3,170.g 23.0 1,089.7 11.9 17,521.Q 19.8

672.4 12.5 3,763.l 27.3 1,656.8 18.0 19,692.Q 22.2

1,717.7 32.0 2,204.a 16.0 5091.3 55.4 30,997.l 35.0

147.7 2.7 1,477.l 10.7 544.5 5.9 6,391.5 7.2

5,372.2 100.0 13,785.6 100.0 9,185.3 100.0 88,630.O 100.0-

‘Percents may not add to 100.0 because of rounding.

32
Table Id.--Estimated number of private ownership units and acres owned by owner’s sex and by St&e, Midsouth region, 1978’

Sex Alabama Arkansas Louisiana Mississippi

Male

Female

Corporate, estates, etc.

No answer

Total

Male

Female

Corporate, estates, etc.

No answer

Total

Male

Female

Corporate, estates, etc.

No answer

Total

Male

Female

Corporate, estates, etc.

No answer

Total

Thousands Percent Thousands Percent Thousands Percent Thousands Percent

--------------.----.-------------------~------ owners ____-_________-_________________________--~---

264.2 61.6 227.4 73.8 158.7 73.7 67.5 36.5

109.3 25.5 44.4 14.4 44.4 20.6 74.8 40.5

6.7 1.6 1.0 0.3 6.5 3.0 39.9 21.6

48.6 11.3 35.3 11.5 5.6 2.6 2.5 1.4

428.8 100.0 308.1 100.0 215.2 100.0 184.7 100.0

--------------------------------------------A~res owned -_______________________________________-.--

10,459.5 52.9 6,626.5 45.2 3,424.6 28.9 7,273.4 51.9

2,861.6 14.5 1,806.4 12.3 1,354.2 11.4 1,869.l 13.3

5,708.l 28.9 5248.0 35.8 6,641.3 56.0 4,385.g 31.3

726.2 3.7 967.3 6.6 448.5 3.8 486.3 3.5

19,755.4 100.0 14,648.2 100.0 11,868.6 100.0 14,014.7 100.0

Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Midsouth

_____________-___-______________________------ Owners ________________________________________---.--

25.3 58.6 152.2 67.8 125.9 67.9 1,021.2 64.2

16.3 37.7 54.3 24.2 34.4 18.6 377.9 23.8

1.0 2.3 3.6 1.6 11.7 6.3 70.4 4.4

0.6 1.4 14.4 6.4 13.3 7.2 120.3 7.6

43.2 100.0 224.5 100.0 185.3 100.0 1,589.8 100.0

--------------------------------------------Acresowned-----------------------------------------~

2,999.l 55.8 8,629.4 62.6 2,944.7 32.1 42,357.2 47.8

479.5 8.9 2,X0.2 15.6 698.4 7.6 l&219.4 12.7

1,717.7 32.0 2,204.a 16.0 5,091.3 55.4 30,997.l 35.0

175.9 3.3 801.2 5.8 450.9 4.9 4,056.3 4.6

5,372.2 100.0 13,785.6 100.0 9J85.3 100.0 88,630.O 100.0

‘Percents may not add to 100.0 because of rounding.

3 3
Table 15.-Estimated number ofprivate ownership units and acres owned by owner’s race and by State, Midsouth region, 19781

Alabama Arkansas Louisiana Mississippi

White

Black

Other

Corporate, estates, etc.

No answer

Total

White

Black

Other

Corporate, estates, etc.

No answer

Total

White

Black

Other

Corporate, estates, etc.

No answer

Total

White

Black

Other

Corproate, estates, etc.

No answer

Total

Thousands Percent Thousands Percent Thousands Percent Thousands Percent

________________________________________------ Owners ____________-_______------------~~----~--~~--.

319.3 74.5 267.9 87.0 161.0 74.8 104.3 56.5

50.8 11.8 21.1 6.8 33.8 15.7 32.4 17.5

0.2 b 0.3 0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.7 1.6 1.0 0.3 6.5 3.0 39.9 21.6

51.8 12.1 17.8 5.8 13.9 6.5 8.1 4.4

428.8 100.0 308.1 100.0 215.2 100.0 184.7 100.0

--------------------------------------------A~res owned _-_-__--__--____________________________~--~

12,287.8 62.2 8,376.3 57.2 4,398.l 37.1 8,062.8 57.6

783.7 4.0 135.0 0.9 347.5 2.9 1,000.4 7.1

48.3 0.2 12.3 0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5,708.l 28.9 5,248.0 35.8 6,641.3 56.0 4,385.9 31.3

927.5 4.7 876.6 6.0 481.7 4.1 565.6 4.0

19,7X.4 100.0 14,648.2 100.0 llJ368.6 100.0 14,014.7 100.0

Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Midsouth

_________________-__-------------------------- Owners ___-_--_____--______----------------~~----~---

33.0 76.4 187.5 83.5 143.7 77.5 1,216.7 76.5

. . . . . . . . 10.6 4.7 16.6 9.0 165.3 10.4

8.7 20.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 0.6

1.0 2.3 3.6 1.6 11.7 6.3 70.4 4.4

0.5 1.2 22.8 10.2 13.3 7.2 128.2 8.1

43.2 100.0 224.5 100.0 185.3 100.0 1,589.8 100.0

_________________-__------------------------ Acres owned ---_--_------___________________________----

3,092.2 57.6 10,263.O 74.4 3,434.2 37.4 49,914.4 56.3

. . . . . . . . . . . 268.7 1.9 332.6 3.6 2,867.g 3.2

390.0 7.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450.6 0.5

1,717.7 32.0 2,204.8 16.0 5,091.3 55.4 30,997.l 35.0

172.3 3.2 1,049.l 7.6 327.2 3.6 4,400.o 5.0

5,372.2 100.0 13,785.6 100.0 9,185.3 100.0 88,630.O 100.0

‘Percents may not add to 100.0 because of rounding.

a - Fewer than 100 owners.

b - Less than 0.05 percent.

34
Table l&-Estimated number ofprivate ownership units and acres owned by owner’s education and by State, Midsouth region, 1978’

Education

Jr. high or less 96.0 22.4 163.1 52.9 36.9 17.1 39.4 21.3

Some high school 44.4 10.4 24.3 7.9 47.1 21.9 9.1 4.9

High school 112.4 26.2 62.3 20.2 63.6 29.6 54.3 29.4

Some college 95.7 22.3 10.2 3.3 18.5 8.6 8.7 4.1

College plus 15.9 3.7 12.0 3.9 34.1 15.8 12.7 6.9

Corporate, estates, etc. 6.7 1.6 1.0 0.3 6.5 3.0 39.9 21.6

No answer 57.7 13.5 35.2 11.4 8.5 3.9 20.6 11.2

Total 428.8 100.0 308.1 100.0 215.2 100.0 184.7 100.0

Jr. high or less 2,693.g 13.6 1,611.g 11.0 813.9 6.9 1,935.3 13.8

Some high school 1,599.7 8.1 994.9 6.8 481.4 4.1 865.3 6.2

High school 3,699.0 18.7 2,343.3 16.0 1,247.7 10.5 2,166.3 15.5

Some college 1,668.6 8.4 1,362.l 9.3 670.9 5.7 1,188.g 8.5

College plus 2,882.3 14.6 1,396.7 9.5 1,105.g 9.3 2,304.4 16.4

Corporate, estates, etc. 5,708.l 28.9 5,248.0 35.8 6,641.3 56.0 4,385.g 31.3

No answer 1,503.8 7.6 1,69X3 11.5 907.5 7.6 1,168.6 8.3

Alabama

Thousands Percent

Arkansas

Thousands Percent

Louisiana

Thousands Percent

Mississippi

Thousands Percent

--------------------------------------------Acres owned -___-___________________________________.~~~

Total 19,755.4 100.0 14,648.2 100.0 11,868.6 100.0 14,014.7 100.0

Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Midsouth

Jr. high or less 14.9 34.5 94.4 42.0 6.7 3.6 451.4 28.4

Some high school 8.4 19.4 16.8 7.5 9.7 5.2 159.8 10.1

High school 7.8 18.1 34.3 15.3 23.8 12.8 358.5 22.6

Some college 5.0 11.6 32.6 14.5 10.5 5.7 181.2 11.4

College plus 4.7 10.9 16.2 7.2 106.0 57.2 201.6 12.7

Corporate, estates, etc. 1.0 2.3 3.6 1.6 11.7 6.3 70.4 4.4

No answer 1.4 3.2 26.6 11.8 16.9 9.1 166.9 10.5

Total 43.2 100.0 224.5 100.0 185.3 100.0 1,589.8 100.0

Jr. high or less

Some high school

High sChoo1

Some college

College plus

Corporate, estates, etc.

No answer

Total

512.9 9.5 3,153.5 22.9 545.5 5.9 11,266.g 12.7

466.2 8.7 1,244.8 9.0 649.9 7.1 6,302.2 7.1

778.9 14.5 2,002.5 14.5 935.9 10.2 13,173.6 14.9

747.3 13.9 1,324.g 9.6 499.4 5.4 7,462.l 8.4

791.4 14.7 1,855.6 13.5 810.9 8.8 11,147.2 12.6

1,717.7 32.0 2,204.8 16.0 5,091.3 55.4 30,997.l 35.0

357.8 6.7 1,999.5 14.5 652.4 7.1 8,280.g 9.3

5,372.2 100.0 13,785.6 100.0 9J85.3 100.0 88,630.O 100.0

‘Percents may not add to 100.0 because of rounding.

35
Table 17.-Estimated number ofprivate ownership units and acres owned’by owner’s residence in Midsouth States and region, 19781

Residence Alabama Arkansas Louisiana Mississippi

Same county

Other county, same state

Different state or country

No answer

Total

Same county

Other county, same state

Different state or country

No answer

Total

Same county

Other county, same state

Different state or country

No answer

Total

Same county

Other county, same state

Different state or country

No answer

Total

Thousands Percent Thousands Percent Thousands Percent Thousands Percent

__________________-_____________________------ Owners ---_---___--____-_______________________~~~-~~

359.5 83.8 220.5 71.6 187.6 87.2 130.4 70.6

17.0 4.0 21.9 7.1 19.8 9.2 5.5 3.0

3.9 0.9 35.8 11.6 7.2 3.3 11.7 6.3

48.4 11.3 29.9 9.7 0.6 0.3 37.1 20.1

428.8 100.0 308.1 100.0 215.2 100.0 184.7 100.0

.------------.------------------------------Acresowned -____--_________________________________~---

12,065.7 61.1 7,109.o 48.5

4533.2 22.9 2,467.a 16.8

1,328.8 6.7 3J98.8 21.8

1,827.7 9.3 1,872.6 12.8

19,755.4 100.0 14,648.2 100.0

4,468.a 37.7 7,947.7 56.7

2,802.B 23.6 1,831.7 13.1

4271.0 36.0 1,461.3 10.4

326.0 2.7 2,774.0 19.9

11,868.6 100.0 14,014.7 100.0

Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Midsouth

____________________-------------------------- Owners __--____-____-_-________________________-~~~~-

32.7 75.7 186.2 82.9 150.1 81.0 1,267.0 79.7

6.4 14.8 29.2 13.0 17.0 9.2 116.8 7.3

2.8 6.5 6.9 3.1 5.0 2.7 73.3 4.6

1.3 3.0 2.2 1.0 13.2 7.1 132.7 a.3

43.2 100.0 224.5 100.0 185.3 100.0 1589.8 100.0

______________-___-------------------------- Acres owned -__---____-_____________________________----

3,034.o 56.5 9,864.8 71.6 3,803.2 41.4 48,293.2 54.5

624.8 11.6 2,061.B 15.0 3,176.B 34.6 17,498.g 19.7

1,437.g 26.8 q281.3 9.3 968.6 10.5 13,947.7 15.7

275.5 5.1 577.7 4.2 1,236.7 13.5 8,890.2 10.0

5,372.2 100.0 13,785.6 100.0 9,185.3 100.0 88,630.o 100.0

‘Percents may not add to 100.0 because of rounding.
Table 18.~Estimated number of private ownership units and acres owned by size of holding in Midsouth States and region, 19781.

Size of holding Alabama Arkansas Louisiana Mississippi

Thousands Percent Thousands ‘Percent Thousands Percent Thousands Percent

Less than 10 ac.

lo-49 ac.

50-99 ac.

loo-499 ac.

500-999 ac.

l,OOO-4,999 ac.

5,000-9,999 ac.

10,000 + ac.

Total

Less than 10 ac 634.1 3.2 305.1 2.1 249.1 2.1 260.3 1.9

lo-49 ac. 1,049.g 5.3 1,308.O 8.9 932.6 7.9 1,080.O 7.7

50-99 ac. 2,069.l 10.5 1,128.l 7.7 798.2 6.7 1,425.2 10.2

loo-499 ac. 5,980.B 30.3 4,272.3 29.2 2,103.8 17.7 5,340.o 38.1

500-999 ac. 2,018.7 10.2 1,020.o 7.0 1,247.6 10.5 lJ29.7 8.1

l,OOO-4,999 ac. 3,413.B 17.3 1,700.3 11.6 1,67X2 14.1 1,565.6 11.2

5,000-9,999 ac. 587.5 3.0 252.3 1.7 672.7 5.7 215.4 1.5

10,000 + ac. 4,001.5 20.3 4,662.l 31.8 4,193.4 35.3 2,998.5 21.4

Total 19,755.4 100.0 14,648.2 100.0 11,868.6 100.0 14.014.7 100.0

Less than 10 ac 9.2 21.3 95.7 42.6 138.6 74.8 1,033.5 65.0

lo-49 ac. 19.4 44.9 71.0 31.6 23.4 12.6 281.1 17.7

50-99 ac. 6.0 13.9 25.9 11.5 11.6 6.3 120.1 7.6

loo-499 ac. 7.2 16.7 29.2 13.0 10.7 5.8 136.5 8.6

500-999 ac. 1.1 2.5 1.5 0.7 0.7 0.4 11.3 0.7

l,OOO-4,999 ac. 0.3 0.7 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 6.3 0.4

5,000-9,999 ac. a b 0.1 b a b 0.3 b

10,000 + ac. a b 0.1 b 0.1 b 0.7 b

326.4 76.1 218.9 71.0 155.2 72.1 89.5 48.5

36.1 8.4 49.9 16.2 36.9 17.1 44.4 24.0

29.3 6.8 15.6 5.1 11.3 5.3 20.4 11.0

31.9 7.4 21.0 6.8 8.8 4.1 27.7 15.0

3.0 0.7 1.6 0.5 1.8 0.8 1.6 0.9

1.8 0.4 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5

0.1 b a b 0.1 b a b

0.2 b 0.1 b 0.1 b 0.1 b

-

428.8 100.0 308.1 100.0 215.2 100.0 184.7 100.0

_______-________-------------------------- Acresowned---------------------------------------..-

Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Midsouth

________________-___-------~------------------ Owners --__---_____-_______--------------------------

Total 43.2 100.0 224.5 100.0 185.3 100.0 1,589.B 100.0

__-_-__--__--__-_----------------------~---- Acresowned-------------------------------------------

Less than 10 ac. 49.2 0.9

10-49 ac. 400.6 7.5

50-99 ac. 462.5 8.6

loo-499 ac. 1,253.3 23.3

500-999 ac. 736.8 13.7

l,OOO-4,999 ac. 484.8 9.0

5,000-9,999 ac. 236.9 4.4

10,000 + ac. 1,748.l 32.5

Total 5,372.2 100.0

‘Percents may not add to 100.0 because of rounding.

a - Fewer than 100 owners.

b - Less than 0.05 percent.

245.6 1.8 309.8 3.4 2,053.2 2.3

1,761.5 12.8 660.1 7.2 7,192.7 8.1

1,762.3 12.8 773.2 8.4 8,418.6 9.5

5,298.0 38.4 1,954.B 21.3 26,203.O 29.6

1,011.g 7.3 516.7 5.6 7,681.4 a.7

1,800.l 13.1 464.5 5.1 11,100.3 12.5

399.4 2.9 296.7 3.2 2,660.g 3.0

1,506.B 10.9 4,209.5 45.8 23,319.g 26.3

13,785.6 100.0 9,185.3 100.0 88,630.O 100.0
Table 19.-Sampling errors for type of ownership, owner’s occupation, age, sex, race, education, residence, and size of holding by State, Midsouth region, 1978

Table Alabama Arkansas Louisiana Mississippi Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Midsouth

________________________________________--------------------------- Percent -_-----_------------____________________---------------------------

Owners Acres Owners Acres Owners Acres Owners Acres Owners Acres Owners Acres Owners Acres Owners Acres

Table 11.

Sole proprietor 24.7 4.7 28.4 1.4 34.4 6.7 31.5 5.2 38.2 9.4 25.6 6.2 33.1 5.2 17.5 3.3

Family (husband & wife) 37.3 4.5 41.8 8.6 49.7 5.3 20.5 5.3 33.0 10.2 31.9 5.8 77.6 9.8 25.7 5.4

Family partnership

Nonfamily partnership

Family corporation

Other

20.7 9.5 22.8 13.2 29.4 19.4 51.8 7.2 43.8 7.9 23.0 11.9 90.8 7.8 34.5 7.2

14.8 3.0 39.2 16.9 33.9 21.8 52.6 30.1 1.5 0 82.2 20.6 19.6 9.0 47.6 13.4

35.6 11.7 60.4 16.8 44.0 26.7 38.2 22.8 37.3 14.2 46.9 25.6 100.0 100.0 33.3 14.4

37.0 4.5 44.9 3.7 37.1 8.0 94.6 4.1 57.8 8.6 51.4 7.8 63.9 5.4 69.0 3.1

Total 20.4 2.5 27.9 3.3 27.7 4.2 26.3 3.0 24.6 5.2 20.8 3.5 32.0 2.9 14.2 1.8

Table 12.

Farmer

White collar

Blue collar

Retired

Other

Total, individual

Corporate, estates, etc.

No answer

54.9 2.8 18.5 10.1 88.9 19.2 15.9 9.0 33.5 10.6 17.7 a.2 86.4 10.1 42.6 4.8

55.0 7.1 36.2 11.5 40.1 10.2 29.2 4.8 35.3 11.5 54.6 7.3 85.4 6.4 32.5 4.8

41.8 11.7 38.6 7.2 56.0 6.5 42.2 10.6 36.3 22.3 21.4 a.1 46.5 11.0 26.1 6.0

34.4 5.7 45.7 12.0 42.8 14.5 44.8 6.4 45.3 10.6 22.9 8.3 42.1 9.4 22.4 5.0

67.9 7.2 49.3 13.1 36.3 7.8 44.1 11.7 100.0 100.0 48.9 16.8 35.2 14.9 43.2 9.4

20.6 3.2 27.8 5.0 28.0 6.7 23.8 3.7 24.7 6.7 21.0 4.1 33.5 4.2 27.4 4.8

29.2 3.2 34.7 2.4 26.7 5.5 86.2 5.1 46.8 7.1 46.7 5.0 46.6 4.0 57.2 2.4

65.2 11.5 57.0 12.8 62.1 17.2 21.0 16.5 56.9 17.0 40.8 17.8 85.2 10.8 43.2 8.6

Table 13.

Under 35 years

35-49

50-64

65 plus

No answer

61.4 2.3 62.0 23.5 81.0 5.5 37.6 33.7 47.0 15.3 44.5 11.7 46.4 5.1 62.9 17.2

53.1 8.1 32.2 8.7 50.3 15.0 48.2 11.1 40.5 13.9 56.3 7.7 69.0 12.7 52.0 9.9

35.1 5.2 42.8 9.0 33.0 6.3 20.7 5.4 40.5 11.3 23.6 6.6 66.7 7.2 39.8 17.6

34.4 5.0 49.3 10.0 53.5 13.7 42.4 5.2 36.4 15.1 26.4 7.0 40.5 6.4 42.4 7.4

59.3 13.2 48.8 12.1 50.2 18.5 35.8 12.9 59.4 11.5 40.4 16.8 85.8 10.4 53.7 14.2

Table 14.

Male

Female

No answer

23.9 3.7 35.4 5.9 32.8 6.7 13.9

45.4 8.2 43.3 12.0 59.7 17.6 43.7

68.6 7.9 59.6 14.2 63.0 23.5 29.3

19.8 7.3 27.3 4.1 42.5 5.2 29.9 4.8

53.3 21.4 33.6 9.9 58.4 8.3 46.3 10.7

71.0 27.3 66.0 27.7 92.9 11.3 67.2 18.0

Table 15.

White

Black

Other

No answer

23.7

51.1

49.4

64.6

3.4

19.1

30.1 5.3

78.4 9.1

100.0 100.0

73.5 15.6

32.2 7.3 28.4

17.0 21.6 52.3

4.2

7.5

22.2

4.0

9.0

. . . .

19.4

23.6 7.1

37.8 23.0

81.1 26.7

71.1 29.8

24.1 3.9

37.8 23.0

4.4

21.0

. .

6.4

. .

59.9

. . . . .

22.2

. . ..I

59.2

, . . .

43.6 22.8

39.5

38.0

93.4 13.6

28.7 4.6

58.0 16.0

98.3 30.4

64.0 16.9
Table 16.

Jr. high or less

Some high school

High school

Some college

College plus

No answer

Table 17.

Same county

Other county, same state

Different state or county

No answer

Table 18.

Less than 10 ac.

lo-49 ac.

50-99 ac.

100-499 ac.

500-999 ac.

:

l,OOO-4,999 ac.

L, 5,000-9,999 ac.

i-l 010,000 + ac.

37.1 8.2 48.1 10.7 71.4 28.2 43.5 7.6 60.1 26.3 43.0 7.8 33.8 17.3 46.4 11.1

55.4 11.1 42.7 19.9 15.2 6.4 17.0 8.2 40.8 22.9 44.6 11.7 44.7 12.2 54.5 12.8

37.7 6.0 35.6 9.4 42.2 10.8 52.9 7.4 34.3 12.7 27.4 6.4 47.4 8.4 40.0 7.9

54.4 9.6 20.9 10.9 44.0 8.7 29.4 16.1 33.0 14.5 46.7 10.9 57.9 8.2 48.5 11.4

28.8 6.4 62.8 13.2 78.3 4.7 15.1 5.7 35.3 11.1 27.1 10.7 50.8 7.4 49.9 8.1

58.4 8.5 50.9 12.7 43.2 21.1 35.2 11.9 32.3 16.1 37.6 12.5 73.8 8.9 53.6 12.5

22.3 2.8 36.8 5.5 30.9 7.6 26.1 4.0 30.9 7.2 24.3 4.4 37.9 5.7 28.8 4.7

25.2 6.5 43.2 8.4 43.7 8.9 19.6 10.8 43.2 18.4 36.5 8.0 41.3 3.5 37.6 7.6

51.7 14.0 50.4 5.1 35.5 4.0 48.0 8.3 38.2 8.1 32.2 11.4 66.9 8.9 47.5 7.1

70.0 4.0 60.6 6.0 99.7 67.1 92.3 4.3 29.2 21.5 62.9 6.4 93.9 5.6 76.1 7.8

15.7 8.7 27.5 18.2 23.5 9.2 33.1 42.8 33.3

0 37.5 17.6 28.9 11.3 24.8 15.7

8.6 5.2 22.7 19.6 11.3 12.4 16.1 8.9 34.4 24.6 12.9 9.4 20.5 21.1 16.5 12.9

12.4 11.1 12.6 11.6 7.6 6.4 8.0 7.5 21.1 22.9 10.4 9.8 13.2 10.3 11.3 10.4

6.5 5.3 8.0 7.2 11.0 15.6 6.0 5.3 12.3 10.7 8.1 5.7 10.4 6.5 7.9 6.9

8.0 8.2 12.9 10.3 14.8 15.4 9.3 11.0 18.3 15.7 9.4 9.2 10.2 10.8 11.1 11.1

6.6 6.0 9.0 9.1 19.1 15.1 8.8 8.0 21.6 14.0 19.0 14.0 20.0 13.2 12.1 10.1

5.9 2.5 29.8 34.7 15.5 12.9 13.1 7.2 26.3 23.0 16.0 13.7 12.5 12.2 20.3 13.1

5.4 1.6 8.9 2.4 8.6 3.2 6.6 6.0 22.4 6.5 12.1 6.6 8.0 3.2 8.0 3.6

Rosson, J. F., Jr. and Doolittle, L. Profiles of Midsouth nonindustrial private forests and owners. Resour. Bull. SO-125.

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

Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station; 1987. 39 p.

This report presents state-level findings of NIPF resources

for the Midsouth. Also presented are profiles of various categories of NIPF owners.

Additional keywords: ownership, NIPF, timberland, Midsouth, forest survey.