United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

General Technical 

Report

PNW-GTR-809

March 2010

Edge-Glued Panels From 

Alaska Hardwoods: Retail 

Manager Perspectives

David Nicholls, Matthew Bumgardner, and Valerie Barber
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of 

multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, 

water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the 

States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and National 

Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service 

to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, 

sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic 

information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income 

is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all 

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of 

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET 

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write 

USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 

20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer.

Authors

David Nicholls is a forest products technologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Alaska Wood Utilization 

Research and Development Center, 204 Siginaka Way, Sitka, AK 99835;

Matthew Bumgardner is a research forest products technologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Ecological and 

Economic Sustainability of the Appalachian Forest in an Era of Globalization, 

359 Main Road, Delaware, OH 43015; and Valerie Barber is an assistant 

professor, University of Alaska-Fairbanks, Forest Products Program, 533 

E. Fireweed Avenue, Palmer, AK 99645.

All photographs by David Nicholls.
Abstract

Nicholls, David; Bumgardner, Matthew; Barber, Valerie. 2010. Edge-glued 

panels from Alaska hardwoods: retail manager perspectives. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-809. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 14 p.

In Alaska, red alder (Alnus rubra Bong.) and paper birch (Betula papyrifera Marsh.) 

are both lesser-known hardwoods grown, harvested, and manufactured into appearance products, with potential for increased utilization. The production of edgeglued panels from red alder and paper birch offers one expansion opportunity for 

wood products producers. For this expansion to happen, retail managers’ attitudes 

and preferences need to be understood and cultivated, as they represent an important link in the supply chain. In this research project, 11 edge-glued panels were 

prepared from Alaska red alder and birch lumber and presented to managers of 

retail lumber stores. Panels included different types and levels of character marks. 

Eight managers in interior and south-central Alaska reviewed the panels, offering 

their perceptions regarding overall sales potential in their stores. Clear wood was 

generally preferred in panels produced from red alder. High levels of natural stain 

were preferred for birch panels. Several panel attributes were identified as being 

important, including level of character, lack of surface roughness, and availability. 

Most retail managers ranked price and supply as less important than product quality. Retailers recommended that up to 12 standard panel sizes be provided. Retailers 

suggested several different end-uses for the panels, with the most promising applications being kitchen cabinet or furniture production. 

Keywords: Red alder, paper birch, edge-glued panels, wood products, 

retail sales.

Edge-Glued Panels From Alaska Hardwoods: Retail Manager Perspectives

1

Introduction

Edge-glued panels are a value-added product that could be manufactured by many 

small and medium wood products firms. The technical aspects of production are 

relatively simple, and the required financial investments are minimal. Production of 

edge-glued panels could be a natural extension to product lines for red alder (Alnus 

rubra Bong.) and paper birch (Betula papyrifera Marsh.) lumber producers in 

Alaska. This could allow them to add value to their products and to serve a wider 

variety of markets. Edge-glued panels can be produced with limited equipment and 

capital investment—many wood products firms would already have much of the 

needed equipment except for glue application and clamping. Because finished products are often wider than standard lumber, edge-glued panels can be used in more 

applications. Longer panels can be created by fingerjointing individual laminates, 

creating even more versatility in product sizing. Edge-glued panels can be manufactured for a variety of specific end uses including furniture, kitchen cabinets, 

doors, or made as standard sized blanks (fig. 1) (Bowyer et al. 1986).

Figure 1—Panel 11: paper birch edge-glued panel (high level of 

natural stain).
2

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-809 

Edge-glued panels could represent an important niche-product opportunity 

for producers in Alaska and elsewhere. Several important elements for niche 

marketing involve analyzing existing markets, identifying underserved markets, 

and selecting a specialized “niche” that could offer competitive advantages (Smith 

et al. 2008). Key advantages of edge-glued panel production (versus other secondary wood products) include the relatively low cost of equipment, the potential use 

of smaller diameter stems, use of less valuable grades of lumber, flexibility in panel 

product sizes, and opportunities to sell within established local markets to current 

customers.

Red Alder and Paper Birch in Alaska

Red alder and paper birch are both smaller diameter hardwoods that are managed 

under relatively short rotations (often 75 years or less). Because the prevalent limbs 

of the younger trees are less frequently shed and overgrown with clear wood (versus 

older trees), production of character-marked material is common. Past research 

on paper birch found considerable interest among consumers for knots and bark 

pockets in kitchen cabinet doors having an edge-glued construction (Donovan and 

Nicholls 2003). However, retailers were not evaluated as part of that study. Nicholls 

(2001) found that retail managers in south-central and interior Alaska were at least 

moderately interested in carrying random-width birch lumber from local sources. 

Almost all the retail managers contacted seemed interested in participating in 

marketing trials of local birch lumber (Nicholls 2001); however, edge-glued panels 

were not evaluated. An important concern among managers was that a steady supply could be assured. Very little red alder lumber is currently produced in Alaska, 

despite a growing resource base (Brackley et al. 2009). Birch lumber is produced at 

several sawmills in south-central and interior Alaska.

Research Objectives

This study had four primary objectives: (1) determine what types of edge-glued 

panels managers would be willing to sell in their stores (if any), (2) determine 

what types and levels of character marks might be preferred in edge-glued panels, 

(3) determine how preferences differed between red alder and birch edge-glued 

panels, and (4) determine what end products represented the greatest sales potential 

for these edge-glued panels. All of these objectives relate to perceptions of retail 

managers about sales potential of edge-glued red alder and birch panels in Alaska.
Edge-Glued Panels From Alaska Hardwoods: Retail Manager Perspectives

3

Figure 2—Panel 4: red alder edge-glued panel (high level of charactermarked wood).

Methods

Panel Construction

All panels were constructed to a standard size of 12 by 18 in, with individual boards 

being about 1 to 2 in wide (figs. 1 and 2). All lumber was kiln-dried, planed, and 

sealed with a coat of clear finish. A total of four red alder panels and seven birch 

panels were constructed (table 1). The red alder group included one panel of clear 

wood and three panels with varying levels of knots. The birch group included one 

panel of clear wood, three panels with varying levels of knots, and three panels with 

varying levels of natural stain. Selected boards from a recent lumber recovery study 

in Alaska (Brackley et al. 2009) were used to construct the edge-glued red alder 

panels for the current study. For the birch panels, kiln-dried Alaska lumber was 

used.
4

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-809 

Data Collection

Eight managers of retail wood products outlets in interior and south-central Alaska 

were interviewed in the study. Responses were based on visual observation of all 

11 edge-glued panels in one setting. Typically, this was in an office or a break room 

at the retail outlet. Panels were grouped together by species, and by defect group 

(e.g., the three birch panels containing knots were all presented together). Before 

each interview, managers were given a few minutes to review all of the panels. The 

first question asked was always an open-ended question of the form “What do you 

think of these panels, in terms of retail sales potential?” Questions were asked of 

retail managers on topics including overall panel preferences, preferred character 

marks, and species preferences. All questions were asked from the hypothetical 

standpoint that panels would be sold in the respondents’ store. Interviews typically 

lasted about 20 minutes.

Most retail managers were directly involved in lumber or edge-glued panel 

sales in their current positions. Retail stores sampled in Alaska were either “big 

box” stores (having national coverage) (three), or Alaska regional home improvement centers (five). Cesa and Sinclair (1988) found that larger “Top 100 home 

centers” and smaller home centers chose to merchandise different product mixes, 

occupying two distinct market segments. It was also noted that “Top 100 home 

centers” tended to stock products that were high quality and convenient to use, 

whereas the smaller home centers specialized in less standardized products requiring woodworking equipment for final processing (Cesa and Sinclair 1988). Thus, 

the interviewees represented a broad range of perspectives for evaluating the 

market potential for edge-glued red alder and paper birch panels in Alaska.

Table 1—Description of edge-glued panels

Panel Species Character feature Level

1 Red alder None (clear) —

2 Red alder Knots Low

3 Red alder Knots Moderate

4 Red alder Knots High

5 Paper birch None (clear) —

6 Paper birch Knots Low

7 Paper birch Knots Moderate

8 Paper birch Knots High

9 Paper birch Natural stain Low

10 Paper birch Natural stain Moderate

11 Paper birch Natural stain High
Edge-Glued Panels From Alaska Hardwoods: Retail Manager Perspectives

5

Results and Discussion 

Preferred Panel Sizes and End Uses

Retail managers in Alaska generally preferred longer panels ranging from 4 to 16 

ft in length (table 2). The preferred widths of edge-glued panels for Alaska retailers 

were generally between 4 and 12 in (roughly the same as for random-width hardwood lumber). These dimensions are longer and narrower than recommendations 

for standard-sized panels developed by Araman (1983). It was possible that respondents were equating the edge-glued panels as a substitute for hardwood lumber. For 

example, Wiedenbeck et al. (2003) found that furniture and cabinet manufacturers 

generally preferred lumber widths between 5 and 9 in. 

Several retailers suggested a variety of product sizes including up to four standard widths and up to three standard lengths (for a total of 12 sizes). One retailer 

suggested test marketing just 4 standard sizes, and then expanding this selection to 

10 to 12 sizes. These findings are generally consistent with past research on birch 

edge-glued panels in which almost one-third of respondents suggested marketing 

between five and eight retail size combinations when selling directly to consumers 

(Bowyer et al. 1986).

Furniture, kitchen cabinets, shelving, interior doors, and butcher blocks were 

all listed as possible retail products for edge-glued panels (table 2). Kitchen cabinets 

were most frequently cited as a potential end use, being mentioned by six of the 

Table 2—Preferred character-mark type, preferred end use, and preferred sizes of edge-glued panels, as 

indicated by retail managers in Alaska

Preferred characterRetailer mark type Preferred end uses Preferred width(s) Preferred length(s)

Inches Feet

1 Knots and bark pockets Shelving 6 8

2 NR Trim applications, furniture 4, 6, 8, 12 8, 10, 12

3 NR Cabinetry, light furniture 4, 6, 8 12, 16

4 Small knots, infrequent knots Cabinets, bookcases, butcher 48 8

blocks

5 Birch—natural stain, red Table tops, cabinets, shelving, 12 to 24 (range) 3 to 8 (range)

alder—knots and bark bookcases, flooring

pockets

6 NR Cabinets, interior doors, book- 4, 6, 8, 12 6, 8, 12

shelves, furniture, flooring, 

cutting blocks

7 Birch natural stain Cabinets, interior doors, trim NR NR

8 Birch natural stain Bookcases, cabinets, butcher 24 4

blocks, small end tables

NR = no response.
6

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-809 

eight retailers. Kitchen cabinet manufacturers are common in south-central and 

interior Alaska. Therefore, this could represent an opportunity to substitute locally 

produced birch for other species, such as hickory (Carya Nutt.) or maple (Acer L.), 

in retail centers. Typically, kitchen cabinets from Alaska birch are custom produced 

by craftsmen, and sold directly to consumers. 

Furniture was listed as a potential end product by four of the eight retailers. 

There are several small furniture manufacturers in Alaska, including some that 

specialize in rustic appearances. One respondent suggested different levels of character for different end uses, including cabinets and interior doors (character marks 

recommended) and trim (clear wood recommended). Three of the eight retailers 

mentioned butcher blocks or cutting blocks as a product type. There are numerous 

wood craft producers in Alaska, some of whom could utilize smaller cuttings not 

large enough for furniture or cabinet production. However, this would likely be a 

small market, as the median lumber use of these firms is typically less than 1,000 

board feet per year (Braden and Nicholls 2004). 

Preferred Panel Types

Retailers preferred birch panels featuring natural stain. The panel having high 

levels of stain (panel 11) was chosen as the favorite by four of the eight retailers 

(table 3). The panels featuring birch natural stain (panels 9, 10, and 11) were 

preferred by a wide margin to the panels featuring birch knots (panels 6, 7, and 8). 

These results are in general agreement with consumer responses to the same 11 

panels, evaluated at a recent home show in Fairbanks, Alaska.1

Table 3—Favorite panels, as selected by retail managers 

in Alaska (based on retail sales potential)

Retailer 1

st favorite 2nd favorite 3rd favorite

1 4 7 10

2 6 11 2

3 11 4 10

4 11 4 5

5 5 1 9

6 1 2 11

7 11 3 8

8 11 1 4

1 Nicholls, D.L.; Bumgardner, M.S.; Barber, V.A. 2009. Preferences for edge-glued panels 

from Alaskan hardwoods. Presentation at 2009 Forest Products Society International 

Conference. Boise, Idaho. June 22.
Edge-Glued Panels From Alaska Hardwoods: Retail Manager Perspectives

7

There were no strong trends for favored species when making overall comparisons between red alder and birch. Here retailers were evenly divided, with 

four respondents preferring the overall look of red alder and four preferring birch 

(table 4). There were no clear preferences when retailers were asked whether they 

generally preferred clear (defect-free) panels or character-marked panels, without 

regard to species. Here, three respondents preferred clear panels and five preferred 

panels having character-marks. It should be pointed out that, by design, there was 

a high level of variability in appearance within the red alder panel group and the 

birch panel group, and this could have made it difficult to make broad comparisons 

between species.

Table 4—Panel groups preferred by retail managers in Alaska

Preferred species Preferred marking

Retailer Red alder Birch Birch knots Birch natural stain

1 X X

2 X X

3 X X

4 X X

5 X X

6 X X

7 X X

8 X X

Preferred Panel Attributes

Appearance-related attributes were frequently listed as being important. For 

example, desirable appearance attributes included panels having a “natural appearance,” “no deep knots,” or “some color variation” (table 5). In general, the Alaska 

retail managers seemed receptive to including a certain amount of color variation 

in edge-glued panels. This finding somewhat contradicts previous market research 

on birch edge-glued panels, which sampled wood products distributors in Midwest 

United States. In this earlier research, almost 70 percent of respondents indicated 

that nonuniform color variations would represent a barrier for consumer acceptance 

(Bowyer et al. 1986). Other researchers have developed methods for sorting edgeglued panel parts so that uniformly colored parts are grouped together (Kline et al. 

2000), where a basic assumption is that uniformly colored panels would have higher 

value.
8

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-809 

Although price was listed fairly often as a product attribute (by four of the 

eight retailers), it was not as important as product quality (table 6). Several retailers commented that price should be competitive with similar products such as 

hardwood lumber and edge-glued panels made from other species. One retailer 

commented that higher prices for edge-glued panels might be realized if panels 

were labeled as “solid wood construction.” Quality was ranked most important by 

five of seven retailers (table 6), and had an average ranking of 1.29 (where 1 corresponded to highest ranking). Product supply and price were more evenly rated, 

but were less important than quality to retailers.

Table 5—Market barriers, selling points, and product attributes for edge-glued panels, as indicated 

by retail managers in Alaska

Retailer Market barriers Selling points Product attributes

1 NR NR NR

2 Need good selection of NR Price, level of character

sizes (and widths)

3 Unclear incentive for home NR Price, size

hobbyists to purchase

4 NR NR NR

5 Potential panel warpage; price “Made in Alaska” designation No deep knots; some color

needs to be competitive with could help sales; steady variation; shrink wrap

other edge-glued products supply and availability higher grade material

6 NR NR Price; availability; natural 

appearance; strength

7 High cost; too many knots For birch—character, grain, and NR

(for red alder); slow lead natural appearance; for red alder—

time/product delivery some knots should be present

8 NR NR Color, price, size

NR = no response.

Table 6—Importance of price, quality, and supply 

as ranked by retail managers in Alaska

Rank

Retailer Price Quality Supply

1 3 1 2

2 3 1 2

3 1 2 3

4 3 1 2

5 3 2 1

6 NR NR NR

7 2 1 3

8 2 1 3

 Average 2.43 1.29 2.29

NR = no response.
Edge-Glued Panels From Alaska Hardwoods: Retail Manager Perspectives

9

General impressions and comments by retailers regarding edge-glued panels:

• Panel 11 (birch, high levels of stain) was of greatest interest. It has a 

“calico hickory look,” and should be good for cabinet makers.

• Panel 4 (red alder, high level of character) was preferred because of its 

knotty look and rustic qualities.

• Should offer a wide selection of panel sizes, ranging from 8 to 12 ft long, 

and 4 to 12 in wide.

• Panel 1 (red alder, clear) and panel 2 (red alder, low level of character) 

would be preferred for interior paneling in a library or study.

• Panel 10 (moderate level of stain) and panel 11 (high level of stain) would 

have strong appeal for log home interiors because of their rustic look.

• Very enthusiastic about panel 11 (high level of stain) for cabinet 

construction in rustic applications such as log homes.

• A panel thickness of 3⁄4 in is “perfect.”

• For panel 7 (birch, moderate level of knots) and panel 8 (birch, high 

level of knots), loose knots would not be acceptable.

• Panel 6 (birch, low level of knots) would need repair to surface 

irregularities.

• Customers would be willing to pay a price premium for panels: should 

label as “solid wood construction.”

• Should consider selling birch and red alder random-width lumber instead 

of edge-glued panels.

• A bright appearance would be good for Alaska interiors (i.e., panel 5, 

clear birch).

• Panel warpage is the most important quality consideration.

• Could consider selling edge-glued rounds for table tops; could shrink 

wrap higher grade material.

• Recommend test marketing about 4 sizes of panels, then expand selection 

to 10 or 12 sizes.

• Recommend producing just two classes of panels: larger panels for interior 

doors, and smaller panels for kitchen cabinets.

• Should focus marketing efforts on panel 11 (birch, high level of natural 

stain). 
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-809 

These results are in general agreement with past research on retailer perceptions (Cohen et al. 1992) in which appearance attributes (such as product straightness) were more important for treated lumber than either price, or technical 

parameters such as grade. This is in contrast to retailer perceptions of certain commodity products (i.e., oriented strand board) (Seward and Sinclair 1988) in which 

more than two-thirds of respondents made purchasing decisions based primarily 

on price. These contrasting studies suggest if birch and red alder edge-glued panels 

could be successfully marketed as specialty products, price would become less 

important. However, it is important to note that the previous research (Cohen et al. 

1992, Seward and Sinclair 1988) evaluated construction wood products, which have 

end uses that are considerably different from the hardwood panels evaluated in the 

current study.

Bowe et al. (2005) also found that price was not the most important product 

attribute when retailers evaluated “surfaced 4 sides” (S4S) lumber; product quality and board consistency were both higher rated than price. Seale et al. (2004) 

also found that price was not the most important consideration for retailers when 

selecting lumber from small sawmills. This nationwide study of retailers found that 

overall quality, consistent grading, straightness, overall appearance, and neatness 

were all rated more important than price. 

Past Retail Sales History

Four out of seven responding retailers indicated past experience selling edge-glued 

panels in their retail outlet (hardwood or softwood panels). Four out of eight retailers indicated past sales of red alder random-width lumber, and this same number 

indicated past sales of birch random-width lumber. Past sales experience with edgeglued panels or related products could be beneficial to retailers regarding aspects 

such as lead time for orders, retail displays, number of sizes to carry, and product 

pricing.

Potential Market Barriers

This study identified several potential market barriers for sales of edge-glued panels 

including high cost, potential warpage, too many knots (for red alder panels only), 

and slow product delivery (table 5). Bowe et al. (2005) also identified delivery time 

as an important concern of retail lumber managers when stocking S4S hardwood 

lumber. Here, more than 90 percent of respondents indicated that a 2-week delivery 

time would be needed. In Alaska, ensuring a steady delivery throughout the year is 

often a concern for smaller seasonal producers of lumber.
Edge-Glued Panels From Alaska Hardwoods: Retail Manager Perspectives

11

One Alaska retailer commented that incentives for home hobbyists to purchase 

edge-glued panels in retail outlets might be poorly defined. This could suggest the 

need for product education, developing an attractive display, or shrink-wrapping 

panels to promote sales of a new product to existing customers. Wang et al. (2004) 

found that developing and expanding markets for character-marked products 

requires a collaborative process between participants such as loggers, lumber manufacturers, wood products producers, and retailers. With smaller firms in Alaska, 

one or more of these functions may be conducted by a single person, most often the 

business owner. In these cases, the relationship between a business owner and the 

retail manager (or store manager) could be very important.

The tendency for retailers to treat all solid hardwood products as lumber could 

be an additional barrier. As discussed previously, this seemed evident when interviewees were asked to identify optimal dimensions for the edge-glued products. 

The results corresponded closely with typical hardwood lumber dimensions. Thus, 

a lack of familiarity with edge-glued hardwood panels to be used in appearancebased applications seemingly will be an additional barrier to more widespread use 

of edge-glued red alder and birch panels in Alaska. Otherwise, edge-glued panels 

will be competing directly with hardwood lumber from the perspective of many 

retailers. This could create a competitive disadvantage for edge-glued panels owing 

to the additional gluing and manufacturing that would be required.

Conclusions and Implications

Retailers serve as an important link in the wood products supply chain, and therefore their perceptions are important in determining success of wood products in 

the marketplace. It is not uncommon for retailer and consumer viewpoints to differ, 

indicating the importance of accurately assessing both groups (Brinberg et al. 2007; 

Bumgardner et al., in press). Final determinations of whether to market products 

such as edge-glued panels should be based on combined input from retailers, 

consumers, and manufacturers.

Smaller producers wishing to market edge-glued panels can take advantage 

of their flexibility and small size. Seale et al. (2004) surveyed lumber retailers to 

determine characteristics that they sought in vendors, including number of products 

to carry, volume, and cost. Smaller producers, compared to larger producers, can 

overcome disadvantages in pricing by emphasizing customer service and embracing 

broad viewpoints of product quality. 

In Alaska, the firms most likely to start producing edge-glued panels would 

be from two groups: (1) small sawmill owners who would continue producing 

both lumber and edge-glued panels and (2) custom cabinet or furniture producers. 
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-809 

On larger scales, stand-alone production facilities could be considered to produce 

standard-size panels. An important decision for smaller producers is providing the 

correct level of customer service (e.g., selling panels directly to consumers, through 

small retail outlets, or through big-box stores). Past research in Alaska has identified 

that finding suitable selling arrangements between relatively small lumber producers and retailers could be a potential barrier to successful sales programs (Nicholls 

2001). Thus, producers may want to “test the waters” with small retail outlets or 

possibly hardware stores that carry wood products. 

This research has found that retailers prefer birch panels having high levels of 

natural stain (versus knots). Key practical issues identified by retailers centered on 

product size, dimensional stability, and delivery time. Although product cost was 

not rated as important as overall quality or product supply, it was still a consistent 

theme often cited when retailers were asked to list important product attributes. 

Because many edge-glued panels already on the market are softwoods produced 

in large quantities, it would be difficult for Alaska producers to compete directly 

against these products. Therefore, hardwood panel producers would need to identify 

niche qualities that would induce consumers to purchase these more expensive 

panels. 

Significant niche markets for character-marked wood products are possible 

when products are targeted at a given segment within a diversified group of consumers (Wang et al. 2004). In niche market strategies, a product is perceived as 

being unique on an industry-wide basis (Bush et al. 1991). In the context of birch 

panels produced in Alaska, this could involve promoting the benefits and desirable 

attributes of birch versus other more popular hardwoods. Natural color variations 

and unique grain patterns could help distinguish Alaska birch from these species. 

However, successful product differentiation strategies might be difficult for smaller 

producers having limited resources for promotion, advertising, and customer support (Bush et al. 1991).

A limitation of this study was that only eight interviews were conducted, and 

these occurred within three cities in Alaska (Fairbanks, Anchorage, and Wasilla). 

Therefore, these findings might have only limited relevance to broader markets. 

However, to the extent that birch lumber is produced at sawmills within these 

markets, it is hoped that producers who may be considering production of edgeglued panels will find these study results helpful. Furthermore, it is possible that 

the extended interview format elicited more thoughtful responses than would a 

standardized survey.
Edge-Glued Panels From Alaska Hardwoods: Retail Manager Perspectives

13

Metric Equivalents

When you know: Multiply by: To find:

Inches (in) 2.54 Centimeters

Feet (ft) .305 Meters

Board feet, lumber scale .0024 Cubic meters, lumber

Literature Cited

Araman, P. 1983. Standard-size blanks for furniture and cabinets. NE-INF-45-83. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment 

Station. 6 p. 

Bowe, S.A.; Smith, R.L.; LaBissoniere, M.D. 2005. Understanding the United 

States S4S hardwood board market. Forest Products Journal. 55(2): 21–27.

Bowyer, J.L.; Kallio, E.; Monson, C.R.; Nicholls, D.L. 1986. Standard blanks: a 

new alternative to hardwood lumber. Forest Products Journal. 36(2): 67–73. 

Brackley, A.M.; Nicholls, D.; Hannan, M. 2009. An evaluation of the grades and 

value of red alder lumber in southeast Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-774. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 27 p.

Braden, R.; Nicholls, D.L. 2004. Alaska birch crafts and gifts: marketing practices 

and demographics. Forest Products Journal. 54(9): 25–27.

Brinberg, D.; Bumgardner, M.; Daniloski, K. 2007. Understanding perception 

of wood household furniture: application of a policy capturing approach. Forest 

Products Journal. 57(7/8): 21–26. 

Bumgardner, M.; Nicholls, D.; Barber, V. [In press]. Character-marked furniture 

made from red alder harvested in southeast Alaska: product perspectives from 

consumers and retailers. Canadian Journal of Forest Research.

Bush, R.J.; Sinclair, S.A.; Araman, P.A. 1991. Determinant product and supplier 

attributes in domestic markets for hardwood lumber. Forest Products Journal. 

41(2): 33–40.

Cesa, E.T.; Sinclair, S.A. 1988. Hardwood specialty products: a billion dollar 

product line for home center retailers. Forest Products Journal. 38(6): 6–12. 

Cohen, D.H.; Changshi, X.; Ruddick, J.N.R. 1992. Retailer perceptions of 

treated wood products in Vancouver, British Columbia. Forest Products Journal. 

42(3): 41–44. 
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-809

Donovan G.; Nicholls. D.L. 2003. Consumer preferences and willingness to 

pay for character-marked cabinets from Alaska birch. Forest Products Journal. 

53(11/12): 27–32. 

Kline, D.E.; Conners, R.W.; Araman, P.A. 2000. Technology to sort lumber by 

color and grain for furniture parts. In: Proceedings, Quality lumber drying in 

the Pacific Northwest. Madison, WI: Forest Products Society: 67–73.

Nicholls, D.L. 2001. An evaluation of the retail market potential for locally 

produced paper birch lumber in Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-493. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 27 p.

Seale, R.D.; Garrard, A.W.; Leng, J. 2004. Characterizing mills and distribution 

systems: strategies for small lumber mills. Res. Bull. FP299. Mississippi State, 

MS: Mississippi State University, Forest and Wildlife Research Center. 33 p. 

http://www.fwrc.msstate.edu/pubs/sawmills.pdf. (August 24, 2009).

Seward, K.E.; Sinclair, S.A. 1988. Retailers' perceptions of structural panel 

attributes and market segments. Forest Products Journal. 38(4): 25–31.

Smith, R.L.; Cesa, E.T.; Rappold, P.M. 2008. A marketing guide for small and 

medium sized primary forest products processors. NA-TP-02-07CD. Newtown 

Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area, 

State and Private Forestry. 92 p.

Wang, Q.; Guanming, S.; Chan-Halbrendt, C. 2004. Market potential for fine 

furniture manufactured from low-grade hardwood: evidence from a conjoint 

analysis in the Northeastern United States. Forest Products Journal. 54(5): 19–25.

Wiedenbeck, J.; Brown, J.; Bennett, N.; Rast, E. 2003. Hardwood lumber widths 

and grades used by the furniture and cabinet industries: results of a 14-mill 

survey. Forest Products Journal. 53(4): 72–80.
Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 SW First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300