United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station 

Material Usage Trends 

in the Wood Household 

Furniture Industry 

William G. Luppold 
Abstract 

The wood household furniture industry is a major user of a variety of traditional 

and modern wood products. In the last two decades, traditional products such as 

hardwood lumber, veneer, and plywood have been replaced, in part, by modern 

composite products such as particleboard, hardboard, and medium-density fiberboard. We analyzed the uses of traditional and modern wood products by the 

wood household furniture industry and found that the substitution of composite 

products for traditional hardwood products has subsided in recent years. 

The Author 

WILLIAM G. LUPPOLD attended the University of Florida where he received his 

B.S.A. and M.S.A. degrees in food and resource economics in 1974 and 1977, 

respectively. 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 

is currently Project Leader of a USDA Forest Service economics research unit. 

Manuscript'r'eceived for publication 22 April 1986 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station 

370 Reed Road, Broomall, PA 19008 

June 1987 
Introduction 

The wood household furniture industry (SIC 241 1) is the 

largest user of higher grade hardwood lumber and one of 

the largest users of hardwood veneer. Therefore, long- / term lumber and veneer usage trends by this industry will 

affect long-term demand and price movements for these 

products and ultimately affect hardwood timber manage-, 

1 ment decisions. 

( The usage of wood materials by the furniture industry has 

long been of interest to forest economists. USDA.Forest I Service scientists have periodically collected information on 

wood use in manufacturing (Gill 1965, Gill and Phelps 

1969, McKeever and Martens 1983). Trends in wood usage 

by the furniture industry also have been analyzed by Forest 

Service scientists (Spelter et al. 1978). More recently, 

Cardellichio and Binkley (1984) have examined furniture 

: usage of hardwood lumber in development of the Hardwood Assessment Market Model. Our study is more specific than past studies because we analyze material usage 

in the wood household furniture industry on an applicationby-application basis in the furniture production process. 

A serious problem associated with the analysis of material 

usage by the wood household furniture industry over time 

is the quality of data. Much of the data about this industry 

is incomplete and/or inconsistent over time. Recent U.S. 

Census data and Forest Service wood use in manufacturing c@ta vary significantly. Therefore, we attempted to 

interpret the data in an easy-to-understand manner, fill in 

the data gaps, and account for some of the inconsistencies 

between data sources. A detailed discussion of the techniques used to arrive at the data in the figures and tables 

in this paper is in the appendices. 

Solid Wood Products and Panel Products 

Wood products used in furniture production can be divided 

into two groups-solid wood products and panel products. 

Solid wood products include hardwood lumber, softwood 

lumber, hardwood dimensi,on, and wood furniture frames. 

Panel products include hardwood,plywood, softwood plywood, particleboard, hardboard, medium-density fiberboard, and other products that are constructed of wood 

veneers, fibers, or particles. In this report, hardwood 

veneer is also considered a panel product even though it is 

normally produced and purchased in sliced flitch form in 

the domestic market. 

Hardwood dimension is hardwood lumber that has been 

planed, worked, or shaped into a rough or finished furniture 

part or blank. Furniture frames are structural bases or 

members constructed primarily from wood. These intermediate materials are used because some furniture manufacturers want to purchase roygh or finished furniture parts 

rather than process these parts from rough hardwood 

lumber. This usage of dimension may occur because the 

furniture manufacturer's rough-mill capacity is less than the 

capacity of the rest of his' plant, or because the manufacturer does not have a rough mill. Because hardwood ,, 

dimension and wood furniture frames used in wood furniture production are developed from lumber, the hardwood 

lumber used to produce these parts is categorized with 

lumber in this paper. 

Veneer core and solid core hardwood plywood are two 

other products that a furniture manufacturer may produce 

in-house from veneer, particleboard, or lumber or purchase 

in finished form from an outside vendor. The use of panel 

products in furniture construction is not new. In fact, 

veneer and hardwood plywood usage in wood furniture 

construction existed in ancient Egypt. The change is the 

use of composite panel products constructed from wood 

fibers or particles such as particleboard, hardboard, or 

medium-density fiberboard. In recent years, composite 

wood products have increasingly substituted for hardwood 

lumber and plywood in several applications. 

Recent Census statistics do not reveal the extent of substitution of nontraditional wood products for hardwood lumber, plywood, and veneer. In 1982, hardwood lumber was 

the most important material used by the wood furniture 

industry and accounted for 18 percent of the total maierial 

cost (Fig. 1). The second most important material on a 

dollar basis was hardwood dimension. Together, these two 

hardwood products, along with hardwood veneer and plywood and wood furniture frames, accounted for nearly 36 

percent of the material cost in wood furniture production. 

Even though hardwood material cost represents a maj~r ' . 

portion of the total material cost in wood furniture production, a large amount of softwood and composite materials 

has been substituted for traditional hardwood material over 

the last 30 years (Fig. 2). The three trend lines in Figure 2 

indicate that: (1) the proportion of material cost for 

nonwood products such as glass, plastic, door hardware, 

paint, and varnishes remained nearly constant; (2) the 

proportion of material cost for other wood products such as 

softwood lumber, particleboard, fiberboard, and mediumdensity fiberboard increased by 300 percent between 1963 

and 1972; and (3) the proportion of material cost for traditional hardwood materials such as hardwood lumber, 

veneer, and plywood decreased by nearly 30 percent. To 

better understand these trends, we examine the usage of 

solid and panel material in :greater detail. 
HARDWOOD HARDWOOD CABINET SORWOOD PAINT PARTICLE HARDWOOD 

LUMBER DIMENSION HARDWARE LUMBER PRODUCTS BOARD VENEER 

Figure 1.-Percentage of material cost for the seven 

predominant inputs in the wood household furniture product process. 

:--\ _--_______I---- ________------- 

____--__ OTHER --_ -- - _ _ 

b 

MATERIALS 

HARDWOOD 

PRODUCTS 

__--- 

/--- OTHER 

/ 

/ 

/ 

WOOD 

/-------- PRODUCTS 

I 

I 

Figure 2.-Percentage of material cost for hardwood 

products, other wood products, and other materials, from 

1954 to 1982. 
Solid Material Consumption Trends 

Solid wood material is used in furniture construction in four 

separate applications: (1) exterior solid parts, (2) interior 

parts, (3) core stock, and (4) banding material. Solid exterior parts are the solid boards, turning, or other parts that 

are visible when looking at a piece of wood furniture. Interior parts are the structural members, bracing, and drawer 

railing that are not usually seen when looking at a piece of 

furniture. One visible interior part is drawer slides, and 

these are visible when the drawer is pulled out. Core stock 

is lumber thal is laminated with plywood veneer to form a 

veneered panel. Banding material is exterior lumber that is 

placed around the perimeter of a veneered panel. 

Hardwood lumber still accounts for a large part of the total 

wood furniture material bill; however, Table 1 reveals some 

interesting trends. Total hardwood lumber usage increased 

by 19 percent from 1954 to 1982. However, hardwood 

lumber usage decreased by 7 percent between 1972 and 

1982, while softwood lumber usage increased by 14 percent. It is more accurate to view quantity statistics after 

1972 because before 1972 the kitchen cabinet industry was 

included as wood furniture. The inclusion of wood kitchen 

cabinets in 1967 and 1963 biased the lumber use statistics 

upwards; however, since fewer wood kitchen cabinets were 

manufactured in the early 19501s, the 1954 lumber use 

statistics are comparable to post-1 972 statistics. 

Table 1 also indicates continual increased usage of hardwood dimension by the wood furniture industry through the 

19501s, 1960's and early 1970's. The large drop in hardwood dimension consumption indicated in 1977 resulted 

from the addition of rough-mill capacity by the furniture 

industry in anticipation of the baby-boom generation's 

demand for furniture. This increase in demand never materialized to expected levels, leaving the furniture industry 

with overcapacity. Since the dimension manufacturers have 

traditionally provided furniture manufacturers with the extra 

rough-mill capacity needed during peak production periods, 

the overcapacity in the furniture industry's rough end 

reduces the dimension industry's market. 

The increase in dimension usage indicated in 1982 is 

seriously biased by the imports of unassembled furniture. 

This unassembled furniture is primarily chairs from Yugoslavia and occasional tables and dining room furniture from 

Taiwan. Because of unassembled furniture imports, the 

1982 figures for dimension usage and lumber and dimension usage reported in Table 1 are not strictly comparable 

with previous years. 

Table 1.-Estimated lumber consumed by the wood household furniture industry in the form of 

hardwood and softwood lumber and dimension stock and total amount of lumber, by Census year 

(in million board feet) 

Rough Total 

Census hardwood Softwood Dimension Total lumber and 

year lumber lumber stocka lumber dimensionb 

aDimension stock includes wood household furniture frames. 

blncludes rough material used to produce dimension. 

NOTE: The information in this table has been estimated. For a detailed discussion of the estimation procedures used to 

generate these numbers, see Appendix 4. 
Much of the decrease in hardwood lumber and total lumber 

usage between 1972 and 1982 can be attributed to the 

level of wood furniture production in these two periods. To 

better illustrate lumber usage over time by the furniture 

industry, hardwood lumber usage, total lumber usage, and 

furniture production are shown relative to one another 

since 1954 (Fig. 3). Since the base year is 1954, inconsistencies result from the inclusion of kitchen cabinet production. However, it is evident that the use of solid wood 

material by the furniture industry is decreasing over time. 

This figure indicates that alternative products had substituted for hardwood lumber prior to 1972, and since 1972 

the use of hardwood lumber per piece of furniture seems to 

have increased slightly. 

Figure 3 shows that softwood lumber usage has increased 

in recent years at the expense of hardwood lumber usage. 

Because the 'kitchen cabinet industry's statistics are 

included in the 1963 and 1967 observations, it is difficult to 

determine from the figure when this increase in usage 

occurred. However, it is still interesting to note that before 

1972, softwood volume accounted for about 15 percent of 

the total wood use;'while in 1972 and later, softwood volume accounted for about 20 percent of the total wood use. 

This increase probably resulted from the acceptance of 

character-marked material by furniture producers and 

consumers and the relatively low price of softwood lumber 

versus open-grained hardwood lumber, coupled with an 

increase in the popularity of Early American and rusticstyled furniture. 

Panel Product Consumption Trends 

Although hardwood lumber and dimension have been and 

are currently the major hardwood products used in wood 

furniture production, a tremendous amount of material 

substitutionhas taken place in the panel product market. 

Specifically, softwood panel products have substituted for 

hardwood plywood, lumber, and dimension. 

In the early 1950's, thin veneer core hardwood plywood 

was used to construct drawer bottoms, dust bottoms, and 

furniture backs and sometimes was used to construct 

furniture sides. Lumber core hardwood plywood was used 

in the construction of visible furniture tops and sides and 

thus was an alternative to solid lumber. Softwood plywood 

at times was covered with a hardwood veneer to produce 

furniture tops. Since the 1950's, panel products application 

and variety have changed substantially. 

Figure 4 shows the usage of the various panel products 

over time as a percentage of total dollars spent on materials. In 1954, more than 18 percent of the material cost of 

wood furniture was for hardwood.plywood and veneer. By 

1977, the proportion of the material dollar spent on hardFURNITURE 

Figure 3.-Index of wood household furniture production, 

total lumber consumption, and hardwood lumber consumption, 1954 to 1982 (1 954 = 100). 

150 

100 

PRODUCTION 

- 

- 

LUMBER 
OTHER, 

PANEL _ - - '- PRODUCTS 

Figure 4.-Consumption of hardwood veneer, plywood, 

and other panel products over time (in 

dollars). 

wood plywood and veneer was less than 8 percent. 

Although some of the decline in hardwood veneer and 

plywood used resulted from the use of thermo resins and 

other plastic products, the availability of less expensive 

composite panel products was the major reason for the 

decline. 

Estimated usage of panel products by the wood furniture 

industry as reported by the USDA Forest Service and as 

derived from the Census of Manufacturers is shown in 

Table 2. The differences in these two data sources are 

apparent for the year 1977. This difference seems to emanate from the differences in product name versus physical 

specifications. Forest Service questionnaires list products 

by physical properties, while Census surveys ask for product by name. However, thin (118 inch) medium-density 

fiberboard is sometimes confused for thin hardboard 

because both these products are used for drawer bottom, 

dust bottom, and case-back applications. Some manufacturers also may term 314-inch medium-density fiberboard as 

314-inch particleboard. However, when all composite board 

products are summed together on a 314-inch basis, the 

results of both surveys are similar. 

As indicated in Table 2, the first major composite panel 

product used by the wood household furniture industry was 

particleboard. This product was used in place of hardwood 

1967 constant . , -, 

. . .-. 

lumber as core stock material,in the production of furniture 

tops and sides. However, the use of particleboard as core 

material made usage of lumber banding material a necessary rather than optional part of solid core hardwood plywood construction. This necessity resulted from the fact 

that, unlike solid lumber core material that allowed for a 

smooth edge finish, particleboard only allowed for a roughedge finish. 

It is difficult to show the rate at which particleboard was 

substituted for lumber core stock over time because particleboard core and lumber core plywood are lumped 

together in Census data. However, the total impact of this 

substitution over time can be discussed. In 1954, 44 million 

square feet of lumber core hardwood plywood was used by 

the wood household furniture industry. If we assume a 

70-percent yield of grade 28 poplar lumber into core stock 

material, approximately 63 million board feet of hardwood 

lumber was used to produce 44 million square feet of 

hardwood plywood. In 1982, 64 million board feet of solid 

core hardwood plywood was purchased by the wood 

househald furniture industry, but the vast majority of this 

material was particleboard core. If we assume that 90 

percent of the solid core hardwood plywood purchased in 

1982 was particleboard core, the yse of particleboard 

displaced 82 million feet of hardwood core stock in this 
Table 2.-Panel usage by the wood household furniture industry for select years 

(in million square feet) 

Medium-density Total Adjusted total 

Year Particleboard Hardboard fiberboard composite board composite board 

(314" basis) (118" basis) (314" basis) (314" basis) (1 954 basis) 

aDerived from Census of Manufactures. 

bReported by Gill (1 968). 

CReported by Gill and Phelps (1969). 

*Reported by McKeever and Martens (1983). 

NOTE: All Census figures were estimated. See Appendix 4 for derbation. 

Census year. In addition to particleboard purchased in solid 

core plywood form, at least another 420 million square feet 

of particleboard and medium-density fiberboard was purchased by the furniture industry. If we assume a 90-percent 

yield from board products and a 70-percent yield on lumber, each square foot of particleboard displaces 1.29 feet 

of rough lumber. Under this assumption, the total displacement of hardwood lumber by particleboard in 1982 was 

more than 620 million board feet. 

The second composite product that displaced traditional 

hardwood products in furniture producfion was high-density 

fiberboard or hardboard. Unlike particleboard, which is an 

aggregate of wood particle held together by a resin, 

hardboard is composed of interlocking wood fiber formed 

with resins under pressure. The introduction of hardboard 

in the early 1960's and gradual acceptance of this product 

displaced thin veneer core hardwood plywood used in the 

production of drawer bottoms, dust bottoms, and chest 

backs in lower and middle-priced furniture. Drawer bottoms 

made of hardboard are many times covered with a thin 

vinyl cover that simulates the color and grain of oak. 

Today, thin plywood drawer bottoms and case backs are 

usually found only in the more expensive lines of furniture. 

As shown in Table 2, hardboard usage by the furniture 

industry has decreased greatly since 1972. This decrease 

resulted from the adoption of a thin medium-density fiberboard, which has replaced hardboard in drawer bottoms 

and chest back application in lower priced furniture. 

Medium-density fiberboard is constructed from wood fibers 

and is less dense than hardboard. The extent to which 

medium-density fiberboard has displaced hardboard is 

indicated in Table 2; however, medium-density fiberboard 

also has been used in place of solid wood, hardwood plywood, and particleboard. Because of its construction, 

medium-density fiberboard panel's do not require 

edgebanding, and in painted furniture, no veneer. Since 

medium-density fiberboard was still being adopted after 

1982, the impact of this product may be underestimated by 

the figures presented in this paper. 

One other area where composite products have displaced 

hardwood lumber is in drawer-side production. Traditionally, hardwood drawer sides have been made of oak, 

sycamore, or other hardwood species. Although oak, 

sycamore, or mahogany drawer sides are still used in the 

production of more expenside furniture, less expenswe 

furniture may have plywood or vinyl-wrapped particleboard 

or medium-density fiberboard drawer sides. 

Material Substitution Over Time 

The subsiitution of softwood lumber and composite panel 

product for hardwood lumber, veneer, and products constructed from hardwood lumber and veneer ha$ occurred 

over several years. The actual extent of this sutjstitution is 

difficult to determine because of changes in ttie level of 

furniture production. Therefore, the material usage indexes 

shown in Table 3 are adjusted for the level of furniture 
Table 3.-Hardwood lumber, veneer core plywood, solid core plywood, veneer, softwood lumber, and 

composite board product usage indexes, adjusted for the level of furniture production, 1954 to 1982 

(1 963 = 100) 

Year 

1954 

1958 

1963 

1967 

1972 

1977 

1'982 

Hardwood 

lumber 

103 

100 

100 

85 

72 

77 

80 

Veneer core 

plywood 

N A 

133 

100 

N A 

112 

85 

60 

Solid core 

plywood 

82 

75 

100 

N A 

335 

129 

104 

Veneer 

Softwood Composite 

lumber panel products 

NA = mot available. 

production. All indexes are based on 1958 usage levels 

because that was the first year that Census data reported 

the use of composite panel products. 

Three distinct growth periods in panel products usage are 

shown in Table 3. The growth in this index is tremendous 

because composite panels use grew from 1 percent of total 

materiat cost in 1958 to 12 percent of the total material 

cost in 1972. The first period was the late 1950's and was 

associated with the introduction of particle core stock material. The second period occurred in the 1960's with the 

introduction of hardboard and the continual growth in particleboard hardwood plywood. The third period occurred in 

the 1970's concurrently with print technology and 

consumers' acceptance of low-priced furniture containing 

very little traditional hardwood products. The second and 

third periods are where th'e greatest amount of mater~al 

substitution occurred and need to be d~scussed in more 

detail. 

The sharp jump in composite panel use between 1958 and 

1963 corresponded to a drop in hardwood lumber, softwood lumber, veneer core plywood, and veneer usage. 

Three separate types of substitutions occurred at this point. 

The first substitution was particleboard for lumber as core 

stock material. The second substitution was particleboard 

core hardwood plywood for lumber in exterior part production. The third substitution was hardboard for veneer core 

plywood. Hardwood lumber usage dropped because less 

lumber core stock was used in-house, the use of hardwood 

lumber plywood increased, and less lumber was used for 

exterior applications. Veneer usage dropped because of 

less in-house production of veneer core plywood. However, 

face veneer usage probably increased because of 

increased usage of in-house production of particleboard 

core hardwood plywood. 

The use of composite panel products reached its peak in 

the early 1970's as indicated by the 1972 indexes for hardwood plywood and composite panel products. This increase 

in panel product use is reflected by the decrease in hardwood lumber and veneer use. However, the decrease in 

hardwood lumber usage due to the substitution of softwood 

lumber accounted for nearly three-quarters of the 8 percent 

decrease in hardwood lumber usage between 1972 and 

1977. 

Between 1972 and 1982, hardwood lumber and veneer 

usage reversed historic trends and showed moderate 

increases against decreases in hardwood plywood and 

composite panel product usage. The decrease in veneer 

core plywood usage during this period indicates that there 

was substitution of composite products for veneer core 

hardwood plywood and, therefore, the substitution of lumber and veneer for panel products is understated by the 

composite products index. The increase in lumber and 

veneer usage has been attributed to the popularity of the 

rustic, historic look made popular by the U.S. bicentennial 

celebration and the rejection of the Mediterranean and 

printed furniture of the early 1970's. 

Even though the current trend indicated in Table 3 shows 

an increase in the usage of traditional hardwood lumber 

and veneer, several other factors must be considered. 

First, 1982 was an unusual year in furniture demand 

because the recession affected lower priced furniture more 

than higher priced furniture. Since higher priced furniture 

tends to be constructed from more traditional materials, 

there is an upward bias for hardwood lumber and veneer 

usage in Table 3. Second, the more wood-intensive rustic 

look of the mid-1970's is in part being replaced by the less 

wood-intensive modern look of the mid-1980's. 
Conclusion 

The availability and adoption of composite panel products 

have resulted in much of the lower priced furniture containing none of the traditional hardwood products. The opposite extreme is high-priced furniture, which is still produced 

from hardwood and veneer. In the future, the less expensive furniture will most likely continue to be produced from 

composite panel products and plastics, while very expensive furniture will be produced using traditional material. 

The medium-priced furniture market, however, is where the 

interchange of new and traditional waod-based and 

nonwood-based material will occur in the future. The word 

interchange is used instead of substitute ,b.ecause.future 

demand and supply conditions may merit more or less use 

of traditional hardwood materials rather than continual 

substitution away from these materials. 

Future levels of wood material uses by the wood household 

furniture industry will depend on the level of furniture 

demand, the quality of furniture purchased, the quantity of 

furniture that is imported from other countries, the production technique used to produce furniture, furniture styling, 

and the physical dimension and size of furniture. If current 

trends persist, though, hardwood lumber usage may 

decrease if only because of increases in imports of rough 

or finished dimension. Hardwood veneer use could 

increase if veneer-wrapped medium-density fiberboard 

replaced hardwood lumber in applications where hardwood 

molding was previously used. No matter what happens in 

furniture production techniques, however, domestic furniture producers will have to become more cost conscious to 

stem the tide of furniture imports that have persisted since 

the early 1980's. 

Literature Cited 

Cardeilichib, Peter A.; Binkley, Clark S. 1984. Hardwood 

lumber demand in the United States: 1950 to 1980. 

Forest Products Journal. 34(2): 15-22. 

Gill, Thomas G. 1965. Wood used in manufacturing 

industries, 1960. Stat. Bull. 353. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

121 p. 

Gill, Thomas G.; Phelps, Robert B. 1969. Wood used in 

manufacturing industries, 1965. Stat. Bull. 440. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. 101 p. 

McKeever, David 6.; Martens, David G. 1983. Wood used 

in U.S. manufacturing industries, 1977. Resour. Bull. 

FPL-12. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 56 p. 

Spelter, Henry; Stone, Robert N.; McKeever, David B. 

1978. Wood usage trends in the furniture and fixtures 

industry. Res. Note FPL-0239. Madison, WI: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 12 p. 
Appendix 1 ,. . . 

Accounting for Material Not Specified by Kind (nsk) 

There are two aggregate kategories in the Census of Manufacturers: 

(1) All other material and component parts, containers, 

and supplies 

(2) Material, parts, containers, and supplies (nsk) 

The first category includes materials that were not specifically listed on the questionnaire. The second category 

includes materials used by establishments that did not 

report detailed material use data. This second category is 

of interest since it includes materials that are also listed by 

kind. Thus, the figures for material listed by kind are underestimates. To account for these underestimates, all value 

and quantity figures used in this paper have been adjusted 

using the following formula: 

0 

1 ,.- pnsk ., . 

where: 

0 = original value of figure being adjusted 

pnsk = percentage of total material usage 

classified in the nsk category 

Appendix 2 

Development of Figures 

Figure 1. Proportions shown were derived by dividing 

material cost for specific item by total material cost less 

material cost in nsk category. 

Figure 2. Proportions shown were derived by dividing 

material cost for specific groups of items by total material 

cost less material cost in nsk category. Hardwood products 

group is composed of hardwood lumber, veneer, plywood, 

dimension, and furniture frames. Other wood products 

group is composed of softwood plywood, particleboard, 

hardboard, medium-density fiberboard, and softwood lumber. Other materials group is composed of all other materials not included in the first two groups. 

Figure 3. Wood household furniture production index was 

developed by dividing value of shipments by price index for 

furniture, then indexed with 1954= 100. Hardwood lumber 

usage index was developed by indexing hardwood lumber 

usage information presented in Table 1. Total lumber 

usage index was developed by indexing total lumber usage 

information presented in Table 1. 

Figure 4. Dollars spent on hardwood veneer, hardwood 

plywood, and other panel products were adjusted upward 

for Census-reported figure to account for percentage of 

material in nsk category. Other panel products include 

softwood plywood, hardboard, particleboard, and mediumdensity fiberboard. . .. . 

Appendix 3 

Development of Missing Quantity Information 

Quantity figures were suppressed for several wood products, especially in recent Census years. These omitted 

figures were estimated using the formula: 

Q = (V1Pl)s 

where: 

Q = the quantity of the commodity 

V = the value of the commodity as 

reported in the Census of Manufactures 

PI = the price index for the commodity 

s = a scaler calculated from quantity, 

value, and price index data for the 

Census year closest to the missing 

observation. The formula for s is: 

s = PI, (Q,IV,) 

where: 

PI, = the price index for the commodity in a 

Census year closest to the missing 

observation 

Q, = the quantity of the commodity in a 

Census year closest to the missing 

observation 

V, = the value of the commodity in a Census year closest to the missing observation 
Appendix 4 

Development of Information Reported in Tables 

Table I. Rough hardwood lumber usage adjusted upward 

to account for nsk category (Appendix 1). The 1982 figure 

was estimated using formula outlined in Appendix 3. 

Softwood lumber usage was adjusted upward to account 

for nsk category (Appendix 1). Dimension stock usage was 

figured on dimension and frames. The price used to estimate board-foot quantity of frames was the imputed price 

for dimension. Quantities were adjusted upward to account 

for nsk category (Appendix 1). The 1977 and 1982 figures 

were estimated using formula outlined in Appendix 3. Total 

lumber usage figure was calculated by adding total hardwood lumber usage figures to softwood lumber usage 

figures. Total lumber and dimension usage figure was 

calculated by adding lumber usage with 2 times dimension 

stock usage. This assumes a 50-percent yield from lumber 

to dimension. 

Table 2. Particleboard usage figures were derived from 

Census information and adjusted upward to account for 

nsk category (Appendix 1). The 1958 figures were converted from 318-inch basis to 314-inch basis. The 1977 and 

1982 figures were estimated using the formula outlined in 

Appendix 3. Hardboard usage figures were derived from 

Census information and adjusted upward to account for 

nsk category (Appendix 1). The 1967, 1977, and 1982 

figures were estimated using the formula outlined in 

Appendix 3. Medium-density usage figures derived from 

Census information were adjusted upward to account for 

nsk category (Appendix 1). The 1977 figure was estimated 

using formula outlined in Appendix 3. Total composite 

board usage was derived by adjusting all data to a 314-inch 

basis and summing. 

Table 3. Hardwood lumber usage index was based on 

information presented in Table 1. Veneer core plywood 

usage index was based on raw data adjusted upward to 

account for nsk category (Appendix 1). The 1982 raw. 

veneer usage data was estimated using formula outlined in 

Appendix 3. Solid core plywood usage index was based on 

raw data adjusted upward to account for nsk category. The 

1977 and 1972 raw veneer usage data was estimated using 

formula outlined in Appendix 3. Softwood lumber usage 

index was based on information presented in Table 1. 

Composite panel product index was based on information 

presented in Table 2. 
Luppold, William G. 1987. Material usage trends in the wood household 

furniture industry. NE-RP-600. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 

10 p. 

Examines wood material usage by the wood furniture industry in descriptive 

and numerical terms. 

Keywords: Hardwood, lumber, composite products 

*U. S.COVERNMENT PRINTING OFF ICE:1987-708-076140024 
Headquarters of the Northeastern Forest Experiment Station are in Broomall, pa. 

Field laboratories are maintained at: 

Amherst, Massachusetts, in cooperation with the University of Massachusetts. 

8 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, 

Mrgantown. 

Orono, Maine, in c'ooperation with the University of Maine, Orono. 

@ Parsons, West Virginia. 

Princeton, West Virginia. 

8 Syracuse, New York, in cooperation with the State University o'f New York 

Col'lege of EnvironmentAl Sciences and Forestry at Syracuse Univbrsify, 

Syracuse. 

8 University Park, Pennsylvania, in cooperation with the Pennsylvania State 

University. 

Warren, Pennsylvania. 

Persons of any race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, or With any handieapping condition are welcome to use and enjoy all facilities, programs, and sewices 

of the USDA. Discrimination in any form is strictly against agency polic$, arid 

should be reported to the Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, DG 202~.