United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station 

Research Paper NE-645 

Tree Value Conversion 

Standards Revisited 

Paul S. DeBald 

Martin E. Dale 
Abstract 

Updated tree value conversion standards (TVCS) are presented for 12 major 

hardwood species of the central hardwood forest. TVCS measure a tree's worth in 

dollars based on the quantity and quality of its expected yield of 414 (I-inch) 

lumber. The updated standards-developed for each species by butt-log grade, 

merchantable height, and diameter at breast height-reflect the changes in lumber 

prices and in conversion costs which have occurred since 1976 when the original 

TVCS were published. 

The Authors 

PAUL S. DEBALD, retired, was a research forester with the Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station's project on management and utilization alternatives for 

nonindustrial private forests located at Delaware, Ohio. 

MARTIN E. DALE is a research forester with the Northeastern Station's project on 

the growth, yield, and value development of forest types in the Northeastern United 

States at Delaware, Ohio. - -- . . - .- 

Manuscript received for publication October 9, 1990 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station 

5 Radnor Corporate Center 

100 Matsonford Road, Suite 200 

P.O. Box 6775 

Radnor, Pennsylvania 19087 

January 1991 
Introduction 

In 1976, USDA Forest Service published a set of tree value 

conversion standards (TVCS) for 12 important hardwood 

species. These standards measure a tree's worth in dollars 

based on the quantity and quality of its expected yield of 414 

(1-inch) lumber (Mendel et al. 1976). They have been used 

to calculate rates of value increase and financial maturity 

diameters for various species, to incorporate value 

summaries into timber inventory and management planning 

systems, to assess the impacts of insect attacks, and to 

evaluate timber management alternatives. 

TVCS pertain only to lumber and not to veneer. It also is 

important to note that TVCS are not stumpage values as 

they make no allowances for profit or risk. Nor do TVCS 

apply to a particular logging chance. 

Much of the lumber-price data used in developing the TVCS 

had been collected during the late 1960's when price levels 

generally were rising at moderate rates. Since then, spurts 

of inflation and oil-price shocks have jolted our Nation's 

economy. Hardwood lumber prices-along with the prices 

of most other things-have risen drastically. So have 

logging and milling costs. In short, the original TVCS are 

out of date. 

The purpose of this paper is to update the original TVCS 

using current lumber prices and conversion costs, and to 

examine the relative changes in tree values, both within and 

among species. 

The Update 

The original TVCS stem from the quality-index (Q.I.) 

approach developed by Herrick (1956). They were 

calculated by the process described by Mendel et al. (1976) 

that is outlined in Figure 1. The updated NCS were 

calculated by the same process, using the same lumbergrade recovery and sample-tree data. Only the lumber-price 

and conversion-cost inputs were changed (Appendix A). 

Thus, the updated TVCS reflect the net results of changes 

in prices and costs during the past decade. Briefly, the 

adjusted TVCS were calculated as follows: 

1. Log Q.I. is a weighted average price index. Adjusted log 

Q.L.'s were developed for individual logs by species, log 

grade, and log diameter using the formula 

The percentages are the proportion of a log's lumber that 

would meet the specifications for each lumber grade. The 

percentages used in the update are the same as those used 

in the original TVCS. 

The P.R. is price relative or price index derived for each 

species by dividing the price of each lumber grade by the 

price of No. 1 Common. The P.R.'s used in the update are 

based on the average prices of 414 rough sawn lumber over 

the period 1980-84, f.0.b. mills in the Johnson City, 

Tennessee area, as reported in the Hardwood Market 

Report (1980-84). The original P.R.'s, from the same 

source, had been based on averages for 1964-68. 

2. Tree Q. I. also is a weighted average price index. 

Updated tree Q.l.'s were developed for the same set of 

sample trees that was used for the original tree Q.l.'s. The 

following formula was used: 

Tree Q.I. = (010 of tree volume in 1st log x Log (2.1. 1st log) 

+ (010 of tree volume in 2nd tog x Log Q.I. 2nd log) 

+ (010 of tree volume of nth log x Log (2.1. nth log). 

The percentages are based on the same volume table used 

to derive the original tree Q.l.'s; the log Q.l.'s are the 

updated log Q.l.'s from the previous step. Through 

regression analysis, the updated tree Q.l.'s were then used 

to devetop tree-quality indexes for each species, by butt-log 

grade, d.b.h., and merchantable height. The regression 

equations are shown in Appendix B, Table 8. 

3. The updated tree Q.l.'s were converted to gross values 

per thousand board feet (mbf) by multiplying each tree Q.I. 

by the 1984 price of No. 1 Common 414 lumber for each 

species. The original gross values had been based on 1972 

prices. 

4. The updated gross values were then converted to net 

values per thousand by subtracting conversion costs-the 

costs of converting standing timber into 414 lumber. 

Conversion costs per Mbf vary with tree size; they include 

logging, transporting, and milling costs. The conversion 

costs used in the update averaged $175 per thousand. The 

costs used in the original calculations had averaged $70 per 

thousand. 

5. Finally, updated TVCS were calculated by multiplying net 

tree values per thousand by appropriate tree volumes. The 

same volume table was used for both the original and the 

adjusted TVCS. The adjusted TVCS are shown in Appendix 

C, Tables 9 through 44. 

Changes 

Lumber prices 

Lumber prices have increased considerably since the 

original TVCS were developed (Table I), but the price 

increases have not been consistent among species. At one 

extreme, red oak showed the largest increase: the 1984 

price of No. 1 Common 414-inch red oak was more than 3% 

times the 1972 price-an average annual change of 11.5 

percent. At the other extreme, yellow-poplar showed the 

smallest increase: the 1984 price was 1% times the 1972 

price-an average annual increase of 3.6 percent. 

During the same 12-year period, the producer price index 

(PPI) rose at an average annual rate of 8.3 percent. If we 
LUMBER-GRADE-RECOVERY TABLE; 

PRICE REPORTS KIR A 5-YEAR PERIOD 

RECOVERY RELATIVES 

SAMPLE-TREE DATA: 

D.B.H., MERCHANTABLE 

LENGTH, LOG GRADES; 

TREE-TAPER TABLE 

TREE 

QUALITY 

INDEX 

BASE PRICE 4/4 

NO. IC LUMBER/M ) MULTIPLY 

GROSS 

LUMBER 1 

VALUE/M I I 

CONVERSION COSTS 

CURVED BY D.B.H. SUBTRACT -1 

NET 1 

LUMBER 

VALUE/M 

TREE VOLUME/ 1,000 j MULTIPLY 

,TREE 

VALUE 

CONVERSION 

STANDARDS 

Figure 1 .-Calculation of tree value conversion standards. 
Table 1 .-Price of No. 1 Common 414-inch lumber, 1972 

and 1984,= and average annual change in price by 

species, 1972-84 

Species 

White ash 

Beech 

Black cherry 

Elm 

Hickory 

Red maple 

Sugar maple 

Red oakC 

White oakd 

Yellow-poplar 

Price per Mbf Ave. annual 

1972 1984 changeb 

------- Dollars ------- Percent 

195 580 9.5 

142 235 4.3 

1 75 580 10.5 

145 520 9.8 

140 290 6.3 

190 320 4.4 

185 342 5.2 

155 570 11.5 

140 495 11.1 

1 70 260 3.6 

aPrices from Hardwood Market Report, f.0.b. mills in the 

Johnson City, Tennessee area. 

br in the compound interest formula: 1984 price = 1972 

price (1 + r)'? 

Clncludes black oak. 

dlncludes chestnut oak. 

use that rate to gauge inflation, we find that the price of No. 

1 Common lumber increased faster than inflation in one-half 

of the species-white ash, black cherry, elm, and the oaks. 

And that the price of No. 1 Common increased slower than 

inflation in the other half of the species-beech, hickory, the 

maples, and yellow-poplar. In view of how their No. 1 

Common lumber prices fared against inflation, let's call the 

first half leaders-they helped to fuel inflation. Let's call the 

other half laggers-they helped to dampen inflation. These 

labels will serve as reference points throughout the 

following discussion and help us better understand the 

effect of price changes on TVCS. 

If we look at price changes between 1972 and 1984 in real 

terms (1984 dollars as measured by the PPI), we find that 

with few exceptions, real prices in the various lumber 

grades have increased among the leaders. And that without 

exception, real prices in the various lumber grades have 

declined among the laggers (Table 2). The largest increases 

in real prices by the leaders were in No. 1 Common lumber. 

Increases in the real price of No. 2 Common generally were 

smaller, and those in FAS were smaller yet. Among the 

laggers, decreases generally were greatest in FAS lumber, 

slightly less in No. 1 Common, and least in No. 2 Common 

lumber. 

Table 2.-Real price (1984 dollars) of 414-inch lumber and percent change in real 

price, by species and lumber grade, 1972-84 

1972 1984 Percent change 

Species FAS 1C 2C FAS 1C 2C FAS 1C 2C 

LEADERS 

White ash 781 508 253 735 580 245 -5.9 14.2 -3.2 

Black cherry 690 456 234 760 580 285 10.1 27.2 21.8 

Elm 495 443 208 585 520 175 18.2 17.4 -15.9 

Red oak 651 404 227 660 579 255 1.4 41.1 123 

White oak 612 365 227 585 495 255 -4.4 35.8 12.3 

LAGGERS 

Beech 448 370 221 275 235 175 -38.6 -36.5 -20.8 

Hickory 417 365 161 310 290 155 -25.7 -20.5 -3.7 

Red maple 638 495 234 385 320 185 -39.7 -35.4 -20.9 

Sugar maple 716 482 232 432 342 215 -39.7 29.0 -7.3 

Yellow-poplar 612 443 198 420 260 150 -31.4 -41.3 -24.2 
The variation in real-price change results largely from 

change in demand. Some of the changes in demand reflect 

transitions in consumer preferences. Among species, for 

example, the demand for oak lumber has grown in both 

domestic and export markets (Luppold 1985). At the same 

time, the demand for hard maple lumber has declined. In 

the domestic market, colonial furniture has lost some of its 

appeal. In the export market, the Japanese bowling craze, 

which had helped to drive up prices for maple through the 

1960's. has subsided. 

Some of the changes in demand reflect efforts to lower 

costs and to combat the high prices of traditional species, 

such as black walnut. Switching to lower grades of lumber 

when possible can result in big savings, as can switching 

from one species to another when possible. 

Price relatives 

Because of the varied changes in price by lumber grade, 

the 1980-84 price relatives for most of the species differ 

from the 1964-68 P.R.'s. Except for yellow-poplar, the 

P.R.'s of better-grade lumber declined. (Table 3). 

Those species with originally high P.R.'s for FAS lumber 

(1.50 or more, 1964-68) displayed declines approaching 

20 percent. Species with originally low P.R.'s for FAS 

lumber showed declines of 10 percent or less. 

At the same time, half of the species showed declines in the 

PR's of lower grade lumber, while half showed increases. 

Generally, species with originally high P.R.'s for No. 2 

Common lumber (0.50 or more, 1964-68) showed declines, 

some quite large. Species with originally low P.R.'s showed 

the increases, nearly all of them substantial. 

Developing tree quality index values from Log Q.l.'s 

amplified the changes in PH's. Consider 24-inch, two-log 

trees, for example (Table 4).' We will refer to 24-inch, twolog trees through the remainder of this discussion. Note that 

with few exceptions, the Tree Q.l.'s of the leaders declined 

while the Tree Q.l.'s of virtually all of the laggers increased. 

'Black oak and chestnut oak are included in Tables 4 through 

7 but not in the previous tables. Price data are not available 

for those two species, but lumber yield and sample tree 

data are. Black oak entries in Table 4 and subsequent 

tables are based on lumber yield and sample.tree data for 

black oak and on price data for red oak. Entries for chestnut 

oak are based on lumber yield and sample tree data for 

chestnut oak and on price data for white oak. 

Table 3.-Lumber price relatives for FAS and 2C lumber, by species, 1972 and 1984 

FAS Percent change 

Species 1972 1984 1972 1984 FAS 2C 

White ash 

Black cherry 

Elm 

Red oak 

White oak 

Beech 

Hickory 

Red maple 

Sugar maple 

Yellow-poplar 

LEADERS 

LAGGERS 
Tree Values per Mbf values per Mbf grew. Recall that the price of No. 1 Common 

of each of the leaders outgrew inflation during the past 

In converting tree-quality indexes to gross tree values, the decade. The laggers, with their smaller price increases in 

changes in P.R.3 were offset by changes in the price of No. No. 1 Common, showed only slight gains in gross tree 

1 common lumber. Because the leader species experienced values. In real terms, the lagger species declined in gross 

big increases in the price of No. 1 Common, their gross tree value per Mbf during the past decade (Table 5). 

Table 4.-Tree-quality index values for 24-inch, two-log trees, by butt-log grade 

and species, 1972 and 1984 

1972 1984 Percent change 

Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade 

Species 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 

White ash 

Black cherry 

Elm 

Black oak 

Chestnut oak 

Red oak 

White oak 

Beech 

Hickory 

Red maple 

Sugar maple 

Yellow-poplar 

LEADERS 

LAGGERS 

Table 5.-Gross tree value per thousand board feet (1984 dollars) for 24-inch, 

two-log trees, by butt-log grade and species, 1972 and 1984 -- - -- 

1972 1984 Percent change 

Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade 

Species 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 

LEADERS 

White ash 564 528 381 579 551 409 

Black cherry 492 406 337 594 543 473 

Elm 321 272 234 408 355 305 

Black oak 384 291 238 441 329 301 

Chestnutoak 328 259 226 393 303 249 

Red oak 408 323 246 487 388 266 

White oak 376 285 237 468 375 305 

LAGGERS 

Beech 307 252 215 205 176 157 

Hickory 288 219 168 246 204 180 

Red maple 426 312 228 306 236 210 

Sugarmaple 443 342 255 302 266 214 

Yellow-poplar 381 328 270 235 198 163 
The declines in the real prices of the lagger species were 

amplifiedafurther when conversion costs were subtracted to 

calculate net tree values per Mbf. In 1972, the ratios of 

conversion costs to gross tree values were about the same 

for both the leaders and the laggers (Table 6). The same 

ratios held for the leaders in 1984-conversion costs had 

escalated at about the same rate as inflation. But because 

lumber prices in the lagger species failed to keep pace with 

inflation, the ratios of conversion costs to gross tree values 

among the lagger species rose substantially. 

Results 

The TVCS calculated by multiplying net tree values per Mbf 

by appropriate tree volumes reflect the interaction of all of 

the changes.discussed. Among the leaders, nearly all TVCS 

have increased at rates greater than inflation during the 

past decade. Among the laggers, few even approached the 

8.3 percent increase in the PPI (Table 7). 

The changes in TVCS have resulted in a wider spread in the 

12 species, a change in the ranking of individual species. 

and some fairly distinct groupings among the species 

(Fig. 2). 

The wider spread was caused partly by increases in the 

TVCS of higher valued species, but mostly by decreases in 

the TVCS of lower valued species. However, these were 

notable changes among individual species. Black cherry. for 

example, has closed a big gap and edged white ash as the 

new value leader. Together they form a class by themselves. 

The oaks, especially white oak, had substantial increases in 

TVCS, while the maples and yellow-poplar showed 

substantial decreases. As a result, the oaks now makp up a 

distinct segment which, except for elm, is entirely oak. 

Among the oaks, red and white are the leaders. The maples 

now occupy a separate segment. Beech and hickory, having 

been joined by yellow-poplar, make up a fourth (low value) 

segment. 

Table 6.-Conversion cost/gross tree-value ratios for 24-inch, two-log trees, by 

butt-log grade and species, 1972 and 1984 

1972 1984 

Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade 

Species 1 2 3 1 2 3 

White ash 

Black cherry 

Elm 

Black oak 

Chestnut oak 

Red oak 

White oak 

Average 

Beech 

Hickory 

Red maple 

Sugar maple 

Yellow-poplar 

Average 

LEADERS 

LAGGERS 
Table 7.-Tree value conversion standards for 24-inch, two-log trees, by butt-log 

grade and species, 1972-84 

1972 1984 Ave. annual change 

Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade 

Species 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 

............................... Dollars ---------------me-------------- ---------- Percent ---------- 

LEADERS 

White ash 70.32 64.05 40.30 178.51 166.75 106.20 8.1 8.3 8.4 

Black cherry 58.47 44.00 33.05 184.96 163.24 133.32 10.1 11.5 12.3 

Elm 29.87 22.17 15.96 106.00 83.27 62.36 11.1 11.7 12.0 

Black oak 40.48 24.95 16.17 119.74 72.21 60.59 9.5 9.3 11.6 

Chestnut oak 31.26 19.44 14.49 99.73 61.27 38.25 10.2 10.0 8.4 

Red oak 44.32 30.11 17.61 139.40 97.29 45.70 10.0 10.3 8.3 

White oak 38.89 24.00 16.07 131.52 91.74 62.25 10.7 11.8 11.9 

LAGGERS 

Beech 27.87 18.40 12.23 20.19 7.53 2.96 -2.7 -7.2 -11.2 

Hickory 24.61 13.24 4.69 37.21 19.29 9.07 3.5 3.2 5.6 

Red maple 47.47 28.57 14.73 62.75 33.05 21.81 2.4 1.2 3.3 

Sugar maple 49.97 33.57 19.41 60.99 45.76 23.41 1.7 2.6 1.6 

Yellow-poplar 39.64 30.79 21.36 32.49 16.88 2.33 -1.6 -4.9 -16.9 

The general pattern in Figure 2 holds in the poorer butt-log 

grades and across diameter classes. Thus, the TVCS have 

changed as Mendel et al. (1976) had warned they might. 

however, the magnitude of the changes and the variation 

among species were greater than expected. 

The changes in TVCS among species point out the 

importance of maintaining species diversity as a hedge 

against changes in market conditions. As we have noted, 

the adjusted TVCS resulted largely from changes in 

demand during the past decade. Who knows what the next 

decade may bring? 

The changes in TVCS within a given species point out 

the importance of managing for quality timber. Even though 

the PR's of better grade lumber have declined in the 

current market, the differences in TVCS from one butt-log 

grade to another are still substantial, and the prospect of 

increased value through grade improvement is still 

appealing. 
Beech 

Black Cherry 

Black Oak 

Chestnut Oak 

Elm 

Hickory 

Red Maple 

Red Oak 

Sugar Maple 

White Ash 

White Oak 

Yellow- Poplar P,,,, I I I I 

0 50 100 150 2 

Dollars 

Figure 2.-Real TVCS for 24-inch, two-log trees; butt-log grade 1 (1984 dollars). 

Literature Cited 

Mendel, Joseph J.; DeBald, Paul S.; Dale, Martin E. 1976. 

Tree value conversion standards for hardwood 

lumber. Res. Pap. NE-337. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern 

Forest Experiment Station. 74 p. 

Herrick, Allyn. 1956. The quality index in hardwood 

sawtimber management. Bull. 632. West Lafayette, IN: 

Indiana Agricultural Experiment Station. 26 p. 

Hardwood Market Reports. 1980-84. Memphis, TN: 

Hardwood Market Report. 

Luppold, William G.; Jacobsen, Jennifer M. 1985. The 

determinants of hardwood lumber price. Res. Pap. 

NE-558. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 

S p. 

Vaughan, C.L., Wollin, A. C., McDonald, K. A. and Bulgrin, E. H. 

1966. Hardwood log grades for standard lumber. Res. 

Pap. FPL-63. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 

52 p. 
Appendix A 

Summary of Inputs to TVCS Calculations, 1976 and 1986 

Lumber Grade Recovery Hardwood Lumber Grades 

for Standard Lumber 

(Vaughn et al. 1966) 

Price Relatives Hardwood Market 

Report (1 964-68) 

Tree Volume Table International (V4 inch) 

Sample Trees Various, Regionwide 

. No. 1 Common 414 Hardwood Market 

Lumber Price Report (1 972) 

Conversion Cost Level 70 per thousand 

(dollars) 

I986 

Same 

Hardwood Market 

Report (1 980-84) 

Same 

Same 

Hardwood Market 

Report (1984) 

175 per thousand 
Appendix B 

Table 8.-Regression coefficients used to derive tree-quality index (TQI) values, by 

butt-log grade and species 

Butt-log Regression coefficient 

Species grade bo b I b2 r2 

White ash 

Beech 

Black cherry 

Elm 

Hickory 

Red Maple 

Sugar maple 

Black oak 

Chestnut oak 

Red oak 

White oak 

TQI = bo + bl(dbh) + b2(merch. height). 
Appendix C 

Table 9.-White ash TVCS, butt-log grade 1 

D.b.h. Merchantable height (feet)a 

(inches) 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 

a8-inch top d.i.b. 

Table 10.-White ash TVCS, butt-log grade 2 

D.b.h. Merchantable height (feet)a 

(inches) 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 

a8-inch top d.i.b. 
Table 11 .-White ash TVCS, butt-log grade 3 

l3.b.h. Merchantable height (feeQa 

(inches) 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 

a8-inch top d.i.b. 

Tabie 12.-Beech TVCS, butt-log grade 1 

D.b.h. Merchantable height (feet)a 

(inches) 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 

a8-inch top d.i.b. 
Table 13.-Beech TVCS, butt-log grade 2 

D.b.h. Merchantable height (feet)a 

(inches) 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 

14 -.04 

15 0.18 

16 .48 

17 .86 

18 1.32 

19 1.88 

20 2.53 

2 1 3.29 

22 4.16 

23 5.17 

24 6.09 

25 7.00 

26 7.87 

27 8.76 

28 9.68 

29 10.66 

30 11.69 

31 12.78 

32 13.95 

33 15.18 

34 16.48 

35 17.86 

a8-inch top d.i.b. 

Table 14.-Beech TVCS, butt-log grade 3 

D.b.h. Merchantable height (feet)a 

(inches) 16 24 32 40 48 $6 64 

a8-inch top d.i.b. 
Table 15.-Black cherry TVCS, butt-log grade 1 

D.b.h. Merchantable height (feet)a 

(inches) 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 

a8-inch top d.i.b. 

Table 16.-Black cherry TVCS, butt-log grade 2 

D.b.h. Merchantable height (feet)a 

(inches) 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 

a8-inch top d.i.b. 
a8-inch top d.i.b. 

Table 18.-Elm TVCS, butt-log grade 1 

D.b.h. Merchantable height (feet)a 

(inches) 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 

3 1 127.72 170.72 206.35 234.83 256.52 271.73 280.64 

32 138.65 185.45 224.35 255.53 279.40 296.30 306.41 

33 150.18 201.03 243.37 277.43 303.64 322.35 333.75 

34 162.35 217.45 263.45 300.57 329.28 349.92 362.72 

35 175.16 234.76 284.63 324.99 356.35 379.07 393.38 

a8-inch top d.i.b. 
Table 

- 

19.-Elm TVCS, butt-log grade 2 -- 

D.b.h. Merchantable height (feet)a 

(inches) 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 

a8-inch top d.i.b. 

Table 20.-Elm TVCS, butt-log grade 3 

D.b.h. Merchantable height (feet)= 

(inches) 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 

-- - 

a8-inch top d.i.b. 
Table 21 .-Hickory TVCS, butt-log grade 1 

D.b.h. Merchantable height (feet)a 

(inches) 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 

a8-inch top d.i.b. 

Table 22.-Hickory TVCS, butt-log grade 2 

D.b.h. Merchantable height (feet)a 

(inches) 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 - 

,-----------.---- Dollars 

1.49 1.49 

2.18 2.18 

3.05 3.05 

4.22 4.22 

5.61 5.61 

7.24 7.34 

9.13 9.45 

11.29 1 1.89 

13.75 14.67 

16.54 17.85 

19.29 20.96 

22.13 24.17 

25.01 27.42 

28.03 30.83 

31.23 34.46 

34.68 38.37 

38.35 42.53 

42.29 47.00 

46.49 51.79 

50.98 56.90 

55.75 62.35 

60.83 68.15 - - 

a8-inch top d.i.b. 
Table 23.-Hickory TVCS, butt-log grade 3 

D.b.h. 

(inches) 

Merchantable height (feet)a 

- 

16 24 32 40 48 56 64 -- 

-------------------.------------------------------ &llars ................................................... 

a8-inch top d.i.b. 

Table 24.-Red maple TVCS, butt-log grade 1 

D.b.h. Merchantable height (feeQa 

(inches) 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 

Dollars 

17.75 

22.00 

26.89 

32.46 

38.76 

45.85 

53.76 

62.57 

71.86 

81.80 

92.38 

103.73 

1 15.95 

129.13 

143.27 

158.45 

174.71 

192.10 

210.65 

230.41 

a8-inch top d.i.b. 
a8-inch top d.i.b. 

Table 26.-Red maple TVCS, butt-log grade 3 

D.b.h. Merchantable height (feet)a 

(inches) 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 

a8-inch top d.i.b. 
Table 27.-Sugar maple TVCS, butt-log grade 1 

D.b.h. Merchantable height (feet)a 

(inches). 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 

-----------------------------.--------------------- Dollars ................................................... 

a8-inch top d.i.b. 

Table 28.-Sugar maple TVCS, butt-log grade 2 

~.b.h. Merchantable height (feet)a 

(inches) 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 

asinch top d.i.b. 
a8-inch top d.i.b. 

Table 30.-Black oak TVCS, butt-log grade 1 

D.b.h. Merchantable height (feet)a 

(inches) 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 

Dollars 

39.23 

47.13 

56.06 

66.09 

77.28 

89.71 

103.44 

1 18.57 

1 34.70 

152.03 

170.56 

190.46 

21 1.84 

234.82 

259.43 

285.77 

313.91 

343.90 

375.84 

409.77 

a8-inch top d.i.b. 
Table 31 .-Black oak TVCS, butt-log grade 2 -- -- - 

D.b.h. Merchantable height (feet)a 

(inches) 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 

a8-inch top d.i.b. 

Table 32.-Black oak TVCS, butt-log grade 3 

D.b.h. Merchantable height (feet)a 

(inches) 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 

a8-inch top d.i.b. 
a8-inch top d.i.b. 

Table 34.-Chestnut oak TVCS, butt-log grade 2 

D.b.h. Merchantable height (feet)a 

(inches) 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 

a8-inch top d.i.b. 
Table 35.-Chestnut oak TVCS, butt-log grade 3 

D.b.h. Merchantable height (feet)a 

(inches) 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 

a8-inch top d.i.b. 

Table 36.-Red oak TVCS, butt-log grade 1 

D.b.h. Merchantable height (feetfa 

(inches) 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 

-- -- 

a8-inch top d.i.b. 
Table 37.-Red oak TVCS, butt-log grade 2 

D.b.h. Merchantable height (feet)a 

(inches) 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 

a8-inch top d.i.b. 

Table 38.-Red oak TVCS, butt-log grade 3 

D.b.h. Merchantable height (feet)a 

(inches) 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 

a8-inch top d.i.b. 
Table 39.-White oak TVCS, butt-log grade 1 - -- 

l3.b.h. Merchantable height (feet)a 

(inches) 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 

a8-inch top d.i.b. 

Table 40.-White oak TVCS, butt-log grade 2 

D.b.h. Merchantable height (feet)a 

(inches) 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 

a8-hch top d.i.b. 
Table 41 .-White oak TVCS, butt-log grade 3 

D.b.h. Merchantable height (feet)a 

(inches) 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 

a8-inch top d.i.b. 

Table 42.-Yellow-poplar TVCS, butt-log grade 1 

D.b.h. Merchantable height (feet)a 

(inches) 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 

Dollars 

4.90 

7.21 

9.97 

13.23 

17.04 

21.42 

26.44 

32.14 

38.1 1 

44.50 

51.29 

58.62 

66.56 

75.21 

84.55 

94.67 

105.58 

11 7.32 

129.94 

143.46 

a8-inch top d.i.b. 
- 

Table 43.-Yellow-poplar TVCS, butt-log grade 2 - 

D.b.h. Merchantable height (feet)a 

(inches) 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 

-- 

a8-inch top d.i.b. 

Table 44.-Yellow-poplar TVCS, butt-log grade 3 

D.b.h. Merchantable height (feetIa 

(inches) 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 

11 -2.18 

12 -2.37 

13 -2.50 

14 -2.58 

15 -2.59 

16 -2.52 

17 -2.35 

18 -2.08 

19 -1.70 

20 -1.18 

2 1 -0.53 

22 0.28 

23 1.26 

24 2.21 

25 3.21 

26 4.22 

27 5.31 

28 6.49 

29 7.82 

30 9.27 

3 1 10.88 

32 12.63 

33 14.55 

34 16.65 

35 18.92 

a8-inch top d.i.b. 
DeBald, Paul S.; Dale, Martin E. 1991. Tree value conversion standards 

revisited. Res. Pap. NE-645. Radnor, PA: US. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 

28 p. 

Updated tree value conversion standards (TVCS) are presented for 12 

important hardwood species of the oak-hickory forest. These updated 

standards-developed for each species by butt-log grade, merchantable 

height, and diameter at breast height-reflect the changes in lumber prices 

and in conversion costs which have occurred since 1976 when the original 

TVCS were published. I ODC 651:652:176.1 

Keywords: Profitability estimation; valuation; dicotyledonae 

uU. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1991 1548-088120008 
Persons of any race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, or with any handicapping condition are welcome to use and enjoy all facilities, programs, and services of @ 

the USDA. Discrimination in any form is strictly against agency policy, and should be 

reported to the Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250. 

Headquarters of the Northeastern Forest Experiment Station is in Radnor, Pennsylvania. Field laboratories are maintained at: 

Amherst, Massachusetts, in cooperation with the University of Massachusetts 

Berea, Kentucky, in cooperation with Berea College 

Burlington, Vermont, in cooperation with the University of Vermont 

Delaware, Ohio 

Durham, New Hampshire, In cooperation with the University of New Hampshire 

Hamden, Connecticut, in cooperation with Yale University 

Morgantown, West Virginia, in cooperation with West Virginia University 

Orono, Maine, in cooperation with the University of Maine 

Parsons, West Virginia 

Princeton, West Virginia 

Syracuse, New York, in cooperation with the State University of New York, 

College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry at Syracuse University 

University Park, Pennsylvania, in cooperation with The Pennsylvania State University 

Warren, Pennsylvania