United States 

Department oi 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

New Estimates 

of Hardwood Lumber Exports - 

Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station to Europe and Asia 

Research Paper NE-652 

William G. Luppold 

R. Edward Thomas 
Abstract 

Explains how estimates of hardwood lumber exports earlier than May 1989 came to 

be in error, discusses the procedures used to develop a new set of hardwoodlumber export estimates, and presents a detailed set of new hardwood-lumber 

export estimates for European and Asian markets. 

The Authors 

WILLIAM G. LUPPOLD attended the University of Florida, receiving his B.S.A. and 

M.S.A. in food and resource economics in 1974 and 1977, respectiv,:~. After 

receiving a Ph.D. in agricultural economics from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and 

State University in 1981, he joined the Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, 

Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Princeton, West Virginia. He currently is Project 

Leader of the economics research unit. 

R. EDWARD THOMAS attended Concord College, Athens, West Virginia, receiving 

a B.S. degree in computer information systems. He currently is pursuing an M.S. 

degree in computer science through Clemson University. He joined the 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Princeton, 

West Virginia, in 1988 as a computer programmer for the Technical Resource 

Center. 

Manuscript received for publication November 23, 1990 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station 

5 Radnor Corporate Center 

100 Matsonford Road, Suite 200 

P.O. Box 6775 

Radnor, Pennsylvania 19087 

April 1991 
Introduction Causes of Error in USDC Estimates 

During the 19801s, hardwood lumber exports to European 

and Asian markets increased dramatically. Unfortunately, 

volume statistics reported by the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1989) greatly overstated 

this growth for several key species such as red oak, hard 

maple, ash. and walnut (Luppold and Hansen 1989). 

Problems that resulted in overestimation of export volumes 

were corrected by U.S. Department of Commerce (USDC), 

in cooperation with the authors, beginning with the May 

1989 data. However. lack of funding did not allow USDC to 

revise previous data. This paper presents new estimates of 

hard,:vood lumber exports to Europe and Asia from 1981 

throc~gh 1989 and explains the procedures used to develop 

these estimates. An evaluation of these estimates compared 

with USDC estrmates and Asiari import data also is in 

preparation by Luppold and Thomas. 

This paper consists of four parts. The first two parts 

examine how the hardwood-lumber export volumes were 

overestimated and how alternative estimates of export 

volurnes were developed from ship manifest data. The third 

section introduces the fourth, an appendix consisting of 

Tables 3 through 20: this section compares error-adjusted 

1989 Census data against data developed from ship 

manifests. The appendix also provides a detailed set of new 

estimates of hardwood lumber exports, by species, for all 

major European and Asian markets. 

To understand how the hardwood-lumber export volumes 

were overestimated, we examined the computer program 

that screens export declarations and compiles export 

statistics. If this program found that the ratio of declared 

value to declared volume (imputed price) was higher or 

lower than predetermined limit prices, a new volume was 

developed by dividing the declared value by a default price. 

Different limit and default prices were used for each product 

reported in the export statistics. However, before the 

identification of this problem, most of the limit and default 

prices were set at pre-1980 levels. 

Overestimation of export volumes resulted from a 

combination of incomplete or incorrect export declarations 

and outdated price ranges and default prices. Because of 

legal considerations, the price ranges and default prices 

contained in the USDC computer programs cannot be 

revealed. However, the impact of the problem can be 

illustrated by comparing prices developed from USDC 

export statistics for important markets and species against 

domestic prices. In Table 1, the price of exported material is 

compared with the price of domestic medium-value (1C) and 

high-value (FAS) kiln-dried hardwood lumber. Based on 

industry sources, the average price for European and 

Japanese exports should be close to the price of FAS 

lumber. Exports to Taiwan and Canada, on average, should 

be close to 1C lumber prices. Except in the case of white 

Table 1 .-Comparison of lumber prices developed from export statistics with 

market prices of domestic medium value (1C) and high value (FAS) kiln-dried 

hardwood lumber, 1988a 

Country Red oak White oak Ash Hard maple 

Foreign: 

Canada 49 1 946 34 1 225 

Japan 506 999 44 1 222 

Taiwan 60 1 843 420 251 

United Kingdom 51 8 976 392 232 

Belgium 553 1,032 459 250 

Domestic: 

1 C (KD)b 907 837 94 1 580 

FAS (KD)b 1,594 1,364 1,439 875 

aSetzer, W. F. 1988. Weekly Hardwood Review. 

b~une 1988 mid-price multiplied by 1 .O7 to adjust gross tally 

price to net tally price. 
oak, all prices developed from export statistics appeared too 

low. Of most interest is that the price of red oak going to 

Taiwan was higher than the price of red oak shipped to 

Japan, the United Kingdom, and Belgium. 

Table 2.-Comparison of 1989 lumber exports 

developed from PIERS data with data Census-adjusted 

for errors from January through April 1989 (estimates 

included dimension products) 

Even though the errors caused by the dated price , 

parameters have created problems, the impact of improper 

documentation cannot be understated. Several checks by 

Bureau of Census personnel on red oak lumber and log 

exports in 1988 and 1989 consistently revealed a 50-percent 

error rate resulting in incorrect specification of products or 

species, or both (Table 2). For instance, a detailed follow-up 

of red oak log exports in May 1989 revealed only 51 percent 

of the dollar volume as red oak lumber. Included as red oak 

logs were (in order of importance) red oak, white oak, edgeglued, cypress, and hard maple lumber, and white oak logs 

A check on red oak log export documentation for June and 

July 1989 and red oak lumber shipments to Germany in 

April I988 was equally appalling. After careful examination 

of available evidence, we concluded that even-value 

estimates appeared to be accurate only in broad aggregates 

such as all hardwood products. 

Since May 1989, new price ranges and default prices have 

been installed for hardwood lumber export computations. 

The changes apparently have remedied the problem of 

incorrect information on hardwood lumber exports. 

Because of the problems discussed above, errors in 

hardwood lumber exports have occurred to a minor extent 

since 1978. However, the degree of error significantly 

increased in the 1980's as new firms began to export and 

hardwood product prices began to increase sharply. 

Fortunately, as official statistics became less reliable. 

alternative data became available from the Journal ot 

Commerce's "Port Import Export Reporting Service" 

(PIERS).' This database is developed from ocean freight 

manifests of ships leaving U.S. ports. Although ship 

manifest data are available for shipments originating from 

the east coast since 1979, 1981 was the first full year that 

data for both east and west coast shipments were available. 

Data Development 

All revised estimate data in this paper were based on 

analyses of data purchased from PIERS. This service 

provides detailed information on product shipments from 

individual ship manifests. In order to avoid possible 

undercounting due to misclassification, export information 

on all forest products and furniture was acquired. 

The first step in developing new estimates of hardwood 

product exports was toclassify all observations into the 

specific 10-digit codes used by USDC. Although most of the 

'The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this 

publication is for the information and convenience of the 

reader. Such use does not constitute an official 

endorsement or approval by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture or the Forest Service of any product or service 

to the exclusion of others that may be suitable. 

Error-adjusted 

Country New estimates Census estimates 

Japan 

Taiwan 

United Kingdom 

Belgium 

Italy 

West Germany 

Spain 

Netherlands 

France 

Korea 

Major European 

Major Asian 

-- .- -. -~ . 

observations fell into one of these classification codes, a 

number of observations failed to be classified. The failed 

observations for 1986 and 1988 were analyzed to determine 

if any systematic patterns could be used for classification. I! 

was fell that a review of these years would provide 

lnformation to classify automatically any observa:~ons that 

failed the initial screening. Many of the class~ficat~on 

problems were remedied by ~ncluding common rn~sspel!;ncjs 

and abbreviations into the initial classification program. 

However, the largest number of observations failed to be 

classified because they were termed "lumber" YJI~~IOUI 

refefence to species 

The unciassified observations labeled as "lumber' were 

handled in a number of ways. If a shipper was associated 

with only hardwood lumber in the unfailed data, or if the 

shipper was listed as a hardwood producer In a state thai 

primarily produced hardwood, the term "lumber" would be 

interpreted as hardwood lumber. However, if the shipper 

was a known softwood producer, or if the shipper exported 

from the west coast and could not be identified as a 

hardwood lumber producer or shipper, the term "lumber" 

would be interpreted as softwood lumber. This process 

classified most of the observations; the remainder were 

classified on an individual basis. 

The next step in developing the export volumes was to 

transform all data into thousand board feet (Mbf). 

lnformation included on the manifest usually had two pieces 

of information: weight of the shipment and units. The unit 

measurement was in Mbf for a varying number of shipments 

depending on year, species, product, or country of 

destination. Other units of measurement reported in the 

data were expressed in bundles, pieces, packages, 

containers, square feet, and cubic meters. In order to 

transform the data, coefficients relating weight to board feet 

were developed for logs and lumber for each species. 
Initially, it was felt that a coefficient to transform weight into 

Mbf (net tally) kiln dried (7 percent) lumber by species, 

would be available in the literature; however, no appropriate 

coefficient was found. 

Because of the difficulty in obtaining pre-published weight 

and quantity transformations, coefficients developed from 

the subset of observations with both weight and thousand 

board feet listed were used. At least 15 records for a given 

species, country, and year were required to make an 

inference for all other observations for a given species, 

country, and year. The cut-off value, 15, was set in order to 

make inferences on smaller markets or during years of 

smaller shipments, but to preclude an inference on too 

small a number of observations. Observations used to 

develop inferred values were examined individually to 

ensure that spurious observations were not used to 

calculate weight and quantity coefficients. The resulting 

weight and quantity coefficients also were examined and 

compared against one another. 

If an inferred value could not be developed, the average 

inferred values from all years for a particular species and 

destination were used. If no inferred values existed for a 

particular species, year, and country, default prices based 

on an average of observed weight and quantity values for a 

particular species for all European and Asian observations 

were used depending on region of destination. 

Hardwood Lumber Exports 

New estimates of hardwood lumber exports for 1981 

through 1989 are shown for European (Tables 3-1 1) and 

Asian (Tables 12-20) markets. Since not all exports leaving 

the United States go through U.S. ocean ports, an inland 

exit multiplier was developed from export value data 

reported by the USDC. Specifically, this multiplier was 

developed by dividing total value of shipments for a specific 

country in a specific year by the value of shipments leaving 

ocean ports. These multipliers are reported in the "inland 

multiplier" line of each appendix table. The estimate of total 

exports including the non-ocean exit points for each country 

and year is provided in the last line of each appendix table. 

Estimates of export volumes by species are for ocean exit 

points only. 

A comparison of the 1989 export estimates developed from 

ship manifest data versus 1989 error-adjusted USDC 

estimates for important European and Asian markets is 

shown in Table 2. Overall, estimates developed from 

shipping manifests indicate greater amounts going to Asian 

markets and lesser amounts going to Europe. Although 

there are differences between these two estimates, the 

differences still are surprisingly close. For a more detailed 

discussion on how the new estimates compare with 

hardwood lumber import information developed by Japan 

and Taiwan, consult Luppold arid Thomas (In preparation). 

References 

Barrett, George, ed.1988. Weekly hardwood review. 3(40): 

1-22. 

Journal of Commerce. 1989-90. Port import export 

reporting service database. New York, NY: The Journal 

of Commerce. 

Luppold, William; Hansen, Bruce G. 1989. U.S. export 

discrepancies explained. National Hardwood Magazine. 

63(12): 99-1 03. 

Luppold, William G.; Thomas, R. Edward. (In preparation). A 

revised examination of hardwood product exports to the 

Pacific Rim. 

Setzer, W. F. 1988. Hardwood market report: lumber 

news letter. Hardwood Market Report. 3(40). 

US. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 

1989. Schedule B: statistical classification of 

domestic and foreign commodities exported and 

imported from the United States database. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau 

of the Census. 
Appendix 
Table 3.-Hardwood lumber export estimates for 1981, Europe 

Other Other 

Countries, Countries, 

United West Belgium and Northern Southern Central Total 

Species Kingdom Germany Luxembourg Netherlands Europe Italy France Spain Europe Denmark Finland Sweden Norway Iceland Europe Europe 

Red oak 

White oak 

Beech 

Hard maple 

Soft maple 

Alder 

Cherry 

Yellow-poplar 

Birch 

Ash 

Hickory 

Walnut 

Basswood 

Elm 

Cottonwood 

Sassafras 

Aspen 

Sap gum 

Sycamore 

Paulownia 

Persimmon 

Hackberry 

Tupelo 

Tropical 56 2 25 2 13 39 84 0 6 41 5 0 69 0 0 340 

Not defined by 

species 978 6,392 7,203 7,139 230 4,483 4,129 507 0 52 69 411 271 219 206 32,289 

Total ocean 

portsa 3,134 19,902 20,335 19,038 502 11,106 11,336 2,420 160 198 373 1,648 822 227 473 91,673 

Inland multiplier 1.63 1.05 1.11 1.20 1.14 1.14 1.16 1.09 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.14 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.14 

Total all 

portsa 5,108 20,897 22,572 22,845 571 12,661 13,150 2,638 160 208 373 1,879 830 227 473 104,591 

aTotals reflect rounding to nearest thousand board foot. 

ul 

Table 5.-Hardwood lumber export estimates for 1983, Europe 

Other Other 

Countries, Countries, 

United West Belgium and Northern Southern Central Total 

Species Kingdom Germany Luxembourg Netherlands Europe Italy France Spain Europe Denmark Finland Sweden Norway Iceland Europe Europe 

Red oak 

White oak 

Beech 

Hard maple 

Soft maple 

Alder 

Cherry 

Yellow-poplar 

Birch 

Ash 

Hickory 

Walnut 

Basswood 

Elm 

Cottonwood 

Sassafras 

Aspen 

Sap gum 

Sycamore 

Paulownia 

Persimmon 

Hackberry 

Tupelo 

Tropical 90 

Not defined by 

species 1,702 

Total ocean 

portsa 7,547 

Inland multiplier 1.54 

Total all 

portsa 11,623 

aTotals reflect rounding to nearest thousand board foot. 

4 
Table 6.-Hardwood lumber export estimates for 1984, Europe 

Other Other 

Countries, Countries, 

United West Belgium and Northern Southern Central Total 

Species Kingdom Germany Luxembourg Netherlands Europe Italy France Spain Europe Denmark Finland Sweden Norway Iceland Europe Europe 

Red oak 

White oak 

Beech 

Hard maple 

Soft maple 

Alder 

Cherry 

Yellow-poplar 

Birch 

Ash 

Hickory 

Walnut 

Basswood 

Elm 

Cottonwood 

Sassafras 

Aspen 

Sap gum 

Sycamore 

Paulownia 

Persimmon 

Hackberry 

Tupelo 

Tropical 121 11 

Not defined by 

species 2,535 1,530 

Total ocean 

portsa 8,292 19,312 

Inland multiplier 1 .SO 1 .O8 

Total all 

portsa 12,439 20,857 

aTotals reflect rounding due to nearest thousand board foot 
Table 7.-Hardwood lumber export estimates for 1985, Europe 

Other Other 

Countries, Countries, 

United West Belgium and Northern Southern Central Total 

Species Kingdom Germany Luxembourg Netherlands Europe Italy France Spain Europe Denmark Finland Sweden Norway Iceland Europe Europe 

Red oak 

White oak 

Beech 

Hard maple 

Soft maple 

Alder 

Cherry 

Yellow-poplar 

Birch 

Ash 

Hickory 

Walnut 

Basswood 

Elm 

Cottonwood 

Sassafras 

Aspen 

Sap gum 

Sycamore 

Paulownia 

Persimmon 

Hackberry 

Tupelo 

Tropical 110 

Not defined by 

species 2,665 

Total ocean 

portsa 8,211 

Inland multiplier 1.25 

Total all 

portsa 10,264 

aTotals reflect rounding to nearest thousand board foot. 

w 
Table 8.-Hardwood lumber export estimates for 1986, Europe 

Other Other 

Countries. Countries. 

United West Belgium and Northern Southern Central Total 

Species Kingdom Germany Luxembourg Netherlands Europe Italy France Spain Europe Denmark Finland Sweden Norway Iceland Europe Europe 

Red oak 

White oak 

Beech 

Hard maple 

Soft maple 

Alder 

Cherry 

Yellow-poplar 

Birch 

Ash 

Hickory 

I Walnut 

Basswood 

Elm 

Cottonwood 

Sassafras 

Aspen 

Sap gum 

Sycamore 

Paulownia 

Persimmon 

Hackberry 

Tupelo 

Tropical 419 

Not defined by 

species 2,830 

Total ocean 

portsa 13,994 

Inland multiplier 1.21 

Total all 

portsa 16,933 -- - -- - 

aTotals reflect rounding to nearest thousand board foot. 
Table 9.-Hardwood lumber export estimates for 1987, Europe 

Other Other 

Countries, Countries, 

United West Belgium and Northern Southern Central Total 

Species Kingdom Germany Luxembourg Netherlands Europe Italy France Spain Europe Denmark Finland Sweden Noway Iceland Europe Europe 

Red oak 

White oak 

Beech 

Hard maple 

Soft maple 

Alder 

Cherry 

Yellow-poplar 

Birch 

Ash 

Hickory 

Walnut 

Basswood 

Elm 

Cottonwood 

Sassafras 

Aspen 

Sap gum 

Sycamore 

Paulownia 

Persimmon 

Hackberry 

Tupelo 

Tropical 21 5 

Not defined by 

species 3,955 

Total ocean 

portsa 20,434 

Inland multiplier 1.32 

Total all 

portsa 26,973 

aTotals reflect rounding to nearest thousand board foot. 2 
Table 10.-Hardwood lumber export estimates for 1988, Europe 

Un~ted West Belgium and 

Specles K~ngdom Germany Luxembourg Netherlands 

i 

j Red oak 

g White oak 

Beech 

Hard maple 

Soft maple 

Alder 

Cherry 

Yellow-poplar 

Birch 

Ash 

Hickory 

Walnut 

Basswood 

Elm 

Cottonwood 

Sassafras 

Aspen 

Sap gum 

Sycamore 

Paulownia 

Persimmon 

Hackberry 

Tupelo 

Tropical 322 6 27 0 

Not defined by 

species 4,596 2,242 1,163 663 

Total ocean 

portsa 30,398 23,366 30,872 12,912 

Inland multiplier 1.21 1 .15 1 .OO 1.57 

Total all 

portsa 36,782 26,870 30,872 20,272 

Other Other 

Countries, Countries, 

Northern Southern 

Europe Italy France Spain Europe Denmark Finland Sweden Norway Iceland 

Central Total 

Europe Europe 

aTotals reflect rounding to nearest thousand board foot 
Table ! 1 .-Hardwood lumber export estimates for 1989, Europe 

Other Other 

Countries, Countries, 

United West Belgium and Northern Southern Central Total 

Species Kingdom Germany Luxembourg Netherlands Europe Italy France Spain Europe Denmark Finland Sweden Norway Iceland Europe Europe 

Red oak 

White oak 

Beech 

Hard maple 

Soft maple 

Alder 

Cherry 

Yellow-poplar 

Birch 

Ash 

Hickory 

Walnut 

Basswood 

Elm 

Cottonwood 

Sassafras 

Aspen 

Sap gum 

Sycamore 

Paulownia 

Persimmon 

Hackberry 

Tupelo 

Tropical 216 

Not defined by 

species 3,702 

Total ocean 

portsa 32,024 

Inland multiplier 1.07 

Total all 

portsa 34,265 

aTotals reflect rounding to nearest thousand board foot. -I 

0 
Table 12.-Hardwood lumber export estimates for 1981, Asia 

Other Total 

Species Japan Taiwan Korea Hong Kong Australia Singapore Pacific Rim Pacific Rim 

Red oak 

White oak 

Beech 

Hard maple 

Soft maple 

Alder 

Cherry 

Yellow-poplar 

Birch 

Ash 

Hickory 

Walnut 

Basswood 

Elm 

Cottonwood 

Sassafras 

Aspen 

Sap gum 

Sycamore 

Paulownia 

Persimmon 

Hackberry 

Tupelo 

Tropical 

Not defined by species 

Total ocean portsa 

Inland multiplier 

Total all portsa 

aTotals reflect rounding to nearest thousand board foot. 
Red oak 

White oak 

Beech 

Hard maple 

Soft maple 

Alder 

Cherry 

Yelllow-poplar 

Birch 

Ash 

Hickory 

Walnut 

Basswood 

Elm 

Cottonwood 

Sassafras 

Aspen 

Sap gum 

Sycamore 

Paulownia 

Persimmon 

Hackberry 

Tupelo 

Tropical 

Not defined by species 

Total ocean portsa 

Inland multiplier 

Total all portsa 

aTotals reflect rounding to nearest thousand board foot. 
Table 14.-Hardwood lumber export estimates for 1983, Asia 

Species 

Other Total 

Japan Taiwan Korea Hong Kong Australia Singapore Pacific Rim Pacific Rim 

Red oak 

White oak 

Beech 

Hard maple 

Soft maple 

Alder 

Cherry 

Yellow-poplar 

Birch 

Ash 

Hickory 

Walnut 

Basswood 

Elm 

Cottonwood 

Sassafras 

Aspen 

Sap gum 

Sycamore 

Paulownia 

Persimmon 

Hackberry 

Tupelo 

Tropical 

Not defined by species 

Total ocean portsa 

Inland multiplier 

Total all portsa - - 

aTotals reflect roundmg to nearest thousand board foot. 
Table 15.-Hardwood lumber export estimates for 1984, Asia 

Species 

Other Total 

Japan Taiwan Korea Hong Kong Australia Singapore Pacific Rim Pacific Rim 

Red oak 

White oak 

Beech 

Hard maple 

Soft maple 

Alder 

Cherry 

Yellow-poplar 

Birch 

Ash 

Hickory 

Walnut 

Basswood 

Elm 

Cottonwood 

Sassafras 

Aspen 

Sap gum 

Sycamore 

Paulownia 

Persimmon 

Hackberry 

Tupelo 

Tropical 13 0 12 13 4 1 0 6 85 

Not defined by species 9,428 1,687 72 238 209 488 16 12,138 

Total ocean portsa 37,322 38,014 2,505 498 1,141 1,328 293 81,101 

Inland multiplier 1.01 1.01 1.00 1 .OO 1.01 1 .OO 1 .OO 1.01 

Total all portsa 37,695 38,394 2,505 498 1,153 1,328 293 81,866 

aTotals reflect rounding to nearest thousand board foot. 
Table 16.-Hardwood lumber export estimates for 1985, Asia -- 

Species 

- - 

Other Total 

Japan Taiwan Korea Hong Kong Australia Singapore Pacific Rim Pacific Rim 

Red oak 

White oak 

Beech 

Hard maple 

Soft maple 

Alder 

Cherry 

Yellow-poplar 

Birch 

Ash 

Hickory 

Walnut 

Basswood 

Elm 

Cottonwood 

Sassafras 

Aspen 

Sap gum 

Sycamore 

Paulownia 

Persimmon 

Hackberry 

Tupelo 

Tropical 

Not defined by species 

Total ocean portsa 

Inland multiplier 

Total all portsa 

aTotals reflect rounding to nearest thousand board foot. 
Table 17.-Hardwood lumber export estimates for 1986, Asia 

Other Total 

Species Japan Taiwan Korea Hong Kong Australia Singapore Pacific Rim Pacific Rim 

Red oak 

White oak 

Beech 

Hard maple 

Soft maple 

Alder 

Cherry 

Yellow-poplar 

Birch 

Ash 

Hickory 

Walnut 

Basswood 

Elm 

Cottonwood 

Sassafras 

Aspen 

Sap gum 

Sycamore 

Paulownia 

Persimmon 

Hackberry 

Tupelo 

Tropical 

Not defined by species 

Total ocean portsa 

Inland multiplier 

Total all portsa 

aTotals reflect rounding to nearest thousand board foot. 
Table 18.-Hardwood lumber export estimates for 1987, Asia 

Species 

Other Total 

Japan Taiwan Korea Hong Kong Australia Singapore Pacific Rim Pacific Rim 

Red oak 

White oak 

Beech 

Hard maple 

Soft maple 

Alder 

Cherry 

Yellow-poplar 

Birch 

Ash 

Hickory 

Walnut 

Basswood 

Elm 

Cottonwood 

Sassafras 

Aspen 

Sap gum 

Sycamore 

Paulownia 

Persimmon 

Hackberry 

Tupelo 

Tropical 0 0 0 3 21 0 162 186 

Not defined by species 36,252 3,924 341 657 668 35 294 42,172 

Total ocean portsa 80,171 80,635 6,823 5,558 1,796 1,046 1,278 177,307 

Inland multiplier 1 .OO 1.00 1.00 1 .OO 1.03 1 .OO 1 .OO 1 .OO 

Total all portsa 80,171 80,635 6,823 5,558 1,850 1,046 1,278 177,361 

aTotals reflect rounding to nearest thousand board foot. 
Red oak 

White oak 

Beech 

Hard maple 

Soft maple 

Alder 

Cherry 

Yellow-poplar 

Birch 

Ash 

Hickory 

Walnut 

Basswood 

Elm 

Cottonwood 

Sassafras 

Aspen 

Sap gum 

Sycamore 

Paulownia 

Persimmon 

Hackberry 

Tupelo 

Tropical 

Not defined by species 

Total ocean portsa 

Inland multiplier 

Total all portsa 

aTotals reflect rounding to nearest thousand board foot. 
Red oak 

White oak 

Beech 

Hard maple 

Soft maple 

Alder 

Cherry 

Yellow-poplar 

Birch 

Ash 

Hickory 

Walnut 

Basswood 

Elm 

Cottonwood 

Sassafras 

Aspen 

Sap gum 

Sycamore 

Paulownia 

Persimmon 

Hackberry 

Tupelo 

Tropical 

Not defined by species 

Total ocean portsa 

Inland multiplier 

Total all portsa 

aTotals reflect rounding to nearest thousand board foot. 
Luppold, William G.; Thomas, R. Edward. 1991. New estimates of 

hardwood lumber exports to Europe and Asia. Res. Pap. NE-652. 

Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 22 p. 

Explains how earlier estimates of hardwood-lumber exports were in error, 

discusses the procedures used to develop a new set of hardwood-lumber 

export estimates, and presents a detailed set of new hardwood-lumber 

export estimates for European and Asian markets. 

ODC 722.1 

Keywords: International Trade 
Headquarters of the Northeastern Forest Experiment Statlon is in Radnor, Pennsylvanla. Field laboratories are maintained at: 

- 

Amherst, Massachusetts, in cooperation with the Universtty of Massachusetts 

Burllngton, Vermont, In cooperatlon wlth the Unlversky 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 Unlversity 

Orono, Maine, in cooperation with the University of Maine 

Parsons, West Virginia 

Princeton, West Vlrginla 

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

College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry at Syracuse University 

Unlverstty Park, Pennsylvania, in cooperation with The Pennsylvania State Univerrtty 

Warren, Pennsylvania 

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

ping 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. 

'Caring for the Land and Serving People Through Research'