/--+ United States & Department of 

Agriculture 

Hardwood Trade Trends: 

Forest Service Urns. Exports 

Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station William G. Luppold 

Research Paper NE-611 Philip A. Araman 
Abstract 

Between 1970 and 1986, hardwood log exports increased by 102 percent, hardwood lumber exports by 329 percent, hardwood veneer exports by 442 percent, 

and hardwood plywood exports by 61 1 percent. Much of this increase has been 

for white and red oak products in the European and Asian markets. The factors 

influencing these increases include increased cost of tropical and European 

hardwood products, rapid growth in European and Asian economies, and an 

emerging furniture industry in Taiwan. Given the ample supplies of temperate 

hardwood timber in the United States relative to the rest of the world, continued 

demand for US. hardwood products seems likely. However, the increase in this 

demand will be contingent on the value of the dollar against European and Asian 

currencies, growth in foreign economies, furniture production technology, and 

foreign consumer acceptance of substitute materials. 

The Authors 

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. After 

receiving a Ph.D. degree in agricultural economics from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in 1981, he joined the Northeastern Forest Experiment 

Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory at Princeton, West Virginia, where he is currently Project Leader of an economics research unit. 

PHILIP A. ARAMAN received a B.S. degree in wood science and technology from 

North Carolina State University in 1968 and an MS. degree in forest products 

from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in 1975. He has spent 16 

years at the Princeton Laboratory and has conducted studies on the use of hardwood lumber to make furniture dimension stock. For the last 3 years, he has been 

working on hardwood products/international trade research. 

Manuscript received for publication 27 October 1987 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station 

370 Reed Rd. 

Broomall, PA 19008 

February 1988 
In recent years, few subjects have caught the interest and 

imagination of the hardwood industry as hardwood products exports have. This interest was caused by the rapid 

increase in exports of hardwood products since the early 

1970's (Fig. 1 ). Between 1970 and 1986, exports of hardwood logs, lumber, veneer, and plywood increased by 102, 

329, 442, and 61 1 percent, respectively (Fig. 2). Actual 

'66 '68 '70 '72 '74 '76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 

YEAR 

Figure 1 .-Exports of hardwood products, excluding pulpwood (million cu ft, roundwood equivalent). Source: Ulrich 

1950-86. 

volume and value levels are shown in Tables 1 and 2. This 

paper presents an historic examination of the hardwood log, 

lumber, veneer, and plywood export trends and discusses 

how changes in product specifications, production techniques, and marketing procedures may influence future 

levels of hardwood products exports. 

PLYWOOD 

- - - 

'7 0 '7 4 '7 8 '82 '86 

YEAR 

Figure 2.-Indices of hardwood products exports, 1970-86. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the 

Census 1970-86. 
Table 1-Volume of hanlwood logs, lumber, veneer, and 

plywood exports from 1960 to 1986 

Table 2-Value of hardwood logs, lumber, veneer, and plywood exports from 1960 to 1986 (thousands of dollars) 

Year Logs Lumber1 Veneer Plywood 

1986 138.9 549.0 995.8 60.4 

1 lncludes lumber products, railroad cross ties, and flooring. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the 

Census 1960-86. 

Past Export Trends 

Although exports of all hardwood products have increased 

significantly, there has been considerable variation in the 

products and species exported and the countries receiving 

exports. To highlight the similarities and differences of the 

export markets, we present separate discussions on 

changes in the log, lumber, veneer, and plywood markets. 

Log Exports 

In 1970,68,905 M bf (thousand board feet) of hardwood 

logs and bolts were exported at an average imputed value of 

$519 per M bf. Walnut logs accounted for 25 percent of the 

volume and 76 percent of the value, while logs included in 

the NEC (not elsewhere classified) group accounted for 74 

percent of the volume and 23 percent of the value. The 

remaining 1 percent of the volume and value was made up 

Year Logs Lumber1 Veneer Plywood 

1986 97,265 349,981 81,763 13,355 

1 Includes lumber products, railroad cross ties, and flooring. 

Source: US. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the 

Census 1960-86. 

of dogwood, persimmon, and lignum-vitae. In 1970, only 

walnut, dogwood, persimmon, and lignum-vitae log shipments were reported in labeled groups while oak, maple, 

cherry, birch, and all other species were lumped into the 

NEC group. 

Nearly 62 percent of the volume and 14 percent of the value 

of the hardwood logs exported in 1970 were shipped to 

Canada-97 percent of these were in the NEC group. The 

imputed price of log shipments to Canada reported in the 

NEC category was $90 per M bf. This price indicates that 

the majority of logs shipped to Canada in 1970 were 

sawlogs. 
The other major importer of U.S. logs in 1970 was West 

Germany with 15 percent of the volume and 36 percent of 

the value. Walnut logs accounted for 66 percent of these 

shipments with an imputed price of $1,769 per M bf. The 

other 34 percent of logs shipped to West Germany was 

classified in the NEC category at an imputed price of $566 

per M bf. In 1970, the value of a prime Ohio walnut veneer 

log ranged from $1,255 to $1,921 per M bf, while the price of 

prime Ohio white oak veneer logs ranged from $148 to $238 

per M bf (Ohio Agricultural Statistics Service 1987). These 

prices indicate that logs shipped to West Germany were 

veneer logs. 

In 1973, exports of hardwood logs passed 100 MM bf (million board feet). Although Canada was still the largest 

market for domestic hardwood logs, its share of the export 

market dropped to 57 percent while West Germany's share 

of the export market increased to 20 percent. Since 1973, 

exports to all European nations have made up 28 percent of 

the log shipments. Figure 3 contrasts exports to Canada, 

EUROPE 

'74 '76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 

YEAR 

Europe, Asia, and all other countries for the years 1973 

through 1986. Exports to Europe surpassed exports to 

Canada in 1978 and have remained relatively high since. 

Although Figure 3 shows some interesting trends, a look at 

dollar values of exports shows a different picture. The dollar 

value of exports shown in Figure 4 demonstrates the importance to the European market. Exports to Europe consistently represent 50 to 75 percent of total exports on a dollar 

value basis. The major European importer has been West 

Germany, and the major species imported has been white 

oak. In 1979, white oak exports to West Germany made up 

17 percent of the physical volume and 26 percent of the 

dollar value of hardwood log exports. 

'74 '76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 

YEAR 

Figure 4.-Value of hardwood logs shipped to Europe, Asia, I 

Canada, and all other countries. Source: US. Department of 

Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1960-86. 

Figure 3.-Quantity of hardwood logs shipped to Europe, 

Asia, Canada, and all other countries, 1973-86. Source: U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1973-86. 
Even though exports to Europe dominate the U.S. log 

export market, exports to Asia have recently increased. The 

increase iri Asian demand initially resulted from increased 

exports to Japan in the late 1970's. These shipments seem 

to help satisfy internal demands for temperate hardwood 

material within Japan. In 1986, the average imputed price of 

logs shipped to Japan was $1,341 per M bf; 56 percent of 

these shipments were in the NEC category. Even though in 

1986 this category included all species other than oak, 

maple, birch, and walnut, the majority of the NEC shipments probably were paulownia. 

Although Japan is a major purchaser of US. logs, the bulk 

of the increased exports to Asia in the 1980's went to 

Taiwan. Between 1980 and 1986, exports to Taiwan 

increased by nearly 956 percent. The imputed price of these 

1 shipments has hovered around $810 per M bf. With the price 

of a high-grade oak sawlog at $519 per M bf in 1986 (Ohio 

Agricultural Statistics Service 1987), the imputed price of 

Taiwan exports is between the price of high-grade sawlogs 

and lower grade veneer logs. Since most of the exports to 

Taiwan seem to include lower priced southern rather than I 

northern or Appalachian oak, the $810 price probably 

includes more veneer logs than sawlogs. The shipments to 

Taiwan satisfied the demands of secondary processors who 

exported the products back to the United States and to 

Canada, Europe, and Japan. 

Lumber Exports 

In 1970,128 MM bf of hardwood lumber were exported at 

an average imputed value of $249 per M bf. Oak lumber 

accounted for 30 percent of the volume and 25 percent of 

the value, while walnut accounted for 5 percent of the 

volume and 10 percent of the value. Species included in the 

NEC group made up the remaining 65 percent of the value 

and volume. Species included in this classification were 

poplar, gum, and cherry. 

Over half of the total lumber exported and 78 percent of the 

oak lumber exported in 1970 went to Canada. The average 

value of the oak exported to Canada was $165 per M bf, 

which corresponds closely with the price of 1C (No. 1 

Common) oak during that year. As with log exports, little 

can be said about the shipment of lumber under the NEC 

classification other than it had an average price of $250 per 

M bf. 

Although there had been a surge in hardwood exports 

during the mid- and late-1950's, this surge was not sustained in the early 1960's and was mainly confined to species classified in the NEC category. In the early 1970's, 

hardwood exports expanded rapidly (Luppold 1984). 

Although this growth was across all species groups, the 

greatest growth was in oak shipments. By 1984, red oak 

comprised 40 percent and white oak comprised 15 percent 

of the shipments. 

The growth in hardwood exports, although sustained in 

size, has not necessarily remained constant with respect to 

importing country. Perhaps the most noticeable jump 

occurred in 1972, which resulted from a large increase in 

oak shipments to Canada and maple shipments to Japan. 

Although the maple shipments were the result of Japan's 

boom period in bowling alley construction, the increase in 

Canadian shipments was somewhat of a mystery since the 

average imputed price of $190 per M bf was somewhere 

between the prices of 1C and FAS (Firsts-and-Seconds) oak 

at that time (Lemsky 1972-78). 

By 1973, the Japanese dropped out of the bowling alley 

market, causing maple exports to drop sharply. Oak exports 

to Canada continued to increase and increased volumes of 

oak were being shipped also to Great Britain, Spain, West 

Germany, and Belgium. The recession of 1974 and 1975 

caused exports to dip slightly, but by 1976, the export 

market began to recover with large increases in Belgium 

and Dutch demand. In 1977, the European market started to 

show strong growth (Fig. 5). By 1978, dollar value of ship- 

- --<' , * , . , , ,,.I 

'74 '76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 

YEAR 

Figure 5.-Quantity of hardwood lumber shipped to Europe, 

Asia, Canada, and all other countries, 1973-86. Source: U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1973-86. 
ments to Europe surpassed dollar value of shipments to 

Canada. By 1980, volume of shipments to Europe was on a 

par with volume of shipments to Canada. 

The major European buyers for U.S. oak during this period 

were West Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, and France. 

The major species being exported to these countries were 

the red and white oaks. The average imputed value of shipments to Europe in the late 1970's ranged between $750 and 

$850 per M bf. This was the range of kiln-dried FAS as 

reported by Anderson Tully Lumber Company in the Hardwood Market Report (Lemsky 1972-78). Exports to Canada 

during this period ran a little higher than 1C prices, indicating some FAS shipments to Canada or much of the 1C was 

kiln dried. Import statistics from Europe showing significant 

volumes of oak being shipped from Canada, coupled with 

the fact that very little oak is grown in Canada, indicates 

that some of the exports to Canada were later shipped to 

Europe. Potential reasons for these transshipments include 

lower transportation costs out of Canadian ports and business ties between Canada and Europe. 

The strong growth in European demand for US. oak seems 

to have originated from a rapid price increase in the two 

dominant European hardwoods, oak and beech (Fig. 6). 

The relatively low price of U.S. oak and the apparent ample 

supplies became attractive. However, European buyers had 

reservations about using red oak because of its color variation. With the aid of American finishing brocedures, the 

Europeans learned to use red oak and American suppliers 

started meeting the needs of European buyers. 

After 1980, exports to Europe began to moderate with a 

decline in European economic growth, while exports to Asia 

began to grow. In 1978, only 1 percent of lumber exports 

were destined for Japan and only a trace for Taiwan. By 

1986, 12 percent of lumber exports were destined for Japan 

and 18 percent for Taiwan. 

In 1986, exports to Japan totaled 61 MM bf. Although white 

and red oaks were originally the major species exported to 

Japan in the 1978 to 1982 growth years, ttie oaks do not 

dominate currently. In 1986, 63 percent of the exports to 

Japan were listed in the "other" category. Most of this 

"other" lumber seemed to be red alder produced in the 

Pacific Northwest. As with the log market, most of the 

lumber being shipped to Japan is for internal use by the 

furniture industry. United States species seem to be used as 

substitutes for the more expensive Japanese hardwood 

(Araman 1986). 

In 1986, over 89 MM bf of hardwood lumber were shipped to 

Taiwan. On a volume basis, 93 percent of the lumber was 

oak exports; the majority was red oak. Much of the lumber 

exported to Taiwan is used in the production of furniture 

and other hardwood products that are, in turn, exported to 

the United States. Lesser quantities of these products are 

also being shipped to Canada, Europe, and Japan. The 

Taiwanese are very price conscious and buy quantities of 

less expensive 1C southern red oak in contrast to European 

and Japanese buyers who prefer Appalachian and northern 

oak (Araman 1986). 

OAK 

US. 

RED 

FAS 

OAK 

Figure 6.-Price indices (in U.S. dollars) for French oak, 

Yugoslavian oak, Yugoslavian beech, and U.S. red oak, 

1968-81. Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the 

United Nations 1982. 

Veneer Exports 

In 1970, 183 million square feet of hardwood veneer were 

exported at an average price of 5.3 cents per square foot. 

Walnut veneer accounted for 61 percent of the volume and 

65 percent of the value. The two other veneer classifications 

in 1970 were fancy face and NEC. Fancy-face veneer, or 

highly figured material such as burl, accounted for 10 percent of the volume and 8 percent of the value, while NEC 

veneer accounted for 29 percent of the volume and 27 percent of the value. 

The two countries receiving substantial quantities of U.S.- 

produced veneer in 1970 were West Germany with 53 per- 
cent of the volume and 57 percent of the value, and Canada 

with 39 percent of the volume and 36 percent of the value. 

West Germany was the largest importer of walnut and NEC 

veneer, while Canada was the largest importer of fancy-face 

veneer. Nearly all the veneer exported to these countries, 

regardless of classification, had an imputed price of 5 to 6 

cents a square foot indicting that exports consisted mainly 

of face veneer versus core stock veneers. 

Between 1970 and 1973, veneer exports increased nearly 90 

percent. Growth occurred in both the European and Canadian market; but Europe had 63 percent of the export 

market caused by large increases in Swiss, Austrian, Dutch, 

British. and Swedish demand for U.S. veneer. 

Although Canada was still a major player in the veneer 

export market in 1973, European demand exerted more 

dominance as the decade progressed (Fig. 7). From 1973 to 

1980, exports to Europe increased by 318 percent, and the 

European share of the export market increased from 63 to 

85 percent. The major European user was West Germany 

'74 '76 '78 '80 '82 '84 '86 e YEAR 

Figure 7.-Quantity of hardwood veneer shipped to Europe, 

Asia, Canada, and all other countries, 1973-86. Source: US. 

Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1973-86. 

with 38 to 58 percent of the total export market. However, 

Switzerland, Great Britain, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, and 

Belgium were also major importers. 

With the growing demand for veneer, the species mix also 

changed. While the absolute volume of exported walnut 

veneer remained stable, the volume of oak veneer increased 

dramatically. By 1980, nearly 60 percent of the veneer was 

oak and 11 percent was walnut. As for log exports, white 

oak, rather than red oak, was the predominant species in 

the veneer export market. With the average imputed price of 

all exported veneer at 9 to 10 cents a square foot in 1980 

and little variance with respect to species, we can assume 

that the majority of exported veneer was face veneer. 

In 1981, total veneer exports dropped by 15 percent while 

veneer exports to Europe dropped by 27 percent. However, 

West German imports dropped by only 13 percent, indicating that most of the reduction in demand was from other 

European countries. The primary causes for this reduction 

appear to be increased value of the dollar relative to European currencies and an economic slowdown in Europe. 

Total exports of veneer declined further during the 1982 

worldwide recession but rebounded to near 1980 levels in 

1983 and 1984. However, this rebound came from large 

increases in Canadian and Taiwanese demand for red oak 

veneer. The large increase in red oak veneer exports to 

Canada occurred concurrently with a smaller increase in 

red oak lumber shipments to Canada. Whether some of the 

increase in veneer shipments to Canada was for re-export 

to Taiwan is impossible to determine. Much of the red oak 

veneer shipped to Taiwan is shipped back to the United 

States and other markets in the form of furniture. 

The decline in the European market coupled with the 

increase in the Canadian and Taiwanese markets changed 

the complexion of the veneer export market. Although face 

veneer was still the major export in 1986, imputed value of 

shipments dropped to 8 cents a square foot with a range of 

6 cents per square foot for Canadian shipments to 8.5 cents 

per square foot for European shipments. The quality of the 

products shipped between 1980 and 1986 changed because 

the volume of exports dropped by 7 percent while value of 

exports dropped by 23 percent. 

Plywood Exports 

Although hardwood plywood exports are relatively small, 

the hardwood plywood market has shown considerable 

growth over the last 15 years. In 1970, 8.5 million square 

feet of hardwood plywood were exported. The major 

markets were Canada with 33 percent of the market, Great 

Britain 22 percent, and Mexico 14 percent. No other country 

had more than 5 percent of the market. 
The average price of exported hardwood plywood in 1970 

was 14 cents per square foot with Mexican and Canadian 

shipments averaging 11 cents per square foot and shipments to Great Britain averaging 13 cents per square foot. 

These prices indicate that the majority of the exported plywood was thin veneer core products-probably with one 

good face. However, hardwood plywood is a very heterogeneous product for which there is little published price 

information. 

By 1973, hardwood plywood exports more than tripled, with 

nearly all the growth resulting from an eightfold increase in 

Canadian demand. The market in 1973 was divided between 

Canada with 65 percent of the market and Mexico with 12 

percent of the market. No other market had more than 4 

percent. Average imputed price dropped to 13 cents per 

square foot with the price of exports to Canada remaining 

at 11 cents per square foot. 

As with other hardwood products, hardwood plywood 

export demand increased rapidly during the m.id-1970's. 

Unlike that of the other hardwood products markets, most 

of this increase resulted from increased Canadian demand. 

The best year for exports to Europe was 1977 with 14 percent of the volume and 34 percent of the value of total plywood exports. The Canadian share of the market in 1977 

was 70 percent of the volume and 40 percent of the value. 

Although exports to Europe averaged 37 cents per square 

foot versus 9 cents a square foot for Canada, the shear 

volume of Canadian exports dominated the market. One 

similarity between hardwood plywood exports in the 1970's 

and exports of other hardwood products was that West 

Germany was the largest European customer. 

Although hardwood plywood exports increased substantially between 1970 and 1976, changes since 1976 have 

been very erratic with respect to both the overall level and 

the shipments to individual countries. Because information 

on this market is scarce, little can be said about the causes 

of this variation or potential future changes. 

Factors Influencing Future Export Trends 

Although it is relatively easy to examine past export trends, 

predicting future trends is difficult. Still, there are several 

factors that will influence future levels of exports even 

though they may not dominate future trade. A short discussion of factors that will likely influence future exports of the 

major hardwood products follows. 

Logs 

Even with the increase in Asian demands, the export market 

for U.S. logs seems to have stabilized in recent years. Several factors might reduce or increase shipments of U.S. logs 

in the future. A major factor that could reduce shipments 

would be legislation prohibiting log exportation. Although 

no major forest industry groups have come out in favor of 

such prohibitions, the complaint that we are exporting 

potential value-added is a common theme heard at grassroot levels and was quite loud during the late 1950's and 

early 1960's with respect to walnut log shipments. Factors 

that could increase log exports include greater economic 

growth in Europe and Japan and increased furniture production in Taiwan and Korea. 

Another factor that will affect future demand for hardwood 

logs is foreign ownership of domestic veneer mills (Callahan 1985). Foreign-owned mills are heavily involved with the 

export market. Because of the transportation cost factor, 

greater veneer exports and decreased log exports will probably occur in the future. 

One factor that will influence exports of not only hardwood 

logs but also all hardwood products is the exchange rate. 

The value of the dollar against foreign currencies has fluctuated widely in the last decade. The appreciation of the 

dollar in the early 1980's was a major cause of the decrease 

in European demand during this period. The decrease in the 

value of the dollar since 1985 is causing a rebound in this 

demand. The future strength of exports will be inversely 

proportional to the strength of the dollar against foreign 

currencies. 

Lumber 

The potential for sustained exports of hardwood lumber 

from the United States is high because the U.S. supply of 

sawtimber is growing twice as fast as it is harvested 

(Araman, in press). The United States is also the world's 

largest producer of hardwood lumber (Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations 1986). 

One factor restricting hardwood lumber exports and the 

exports of all hardwood material may be a lack of exportgrade material. Currently much of the exported lumber is 

FAS and SELIIF. This is especially true for the European 

and Japanese markets. There are concerns that too much 

high-grade oak timber is being cut in an effort to get sufficient quantities of FAS for the export market. Even for cutting grade 1 sawlogs, the proportion of FAS and SELII F is 

small (36:6) relative to the proportion of lesser grade material. Lesser grade material must have a market before 

sawing logs is profitable. 
Because of these problems, the level of future exports may 

depend on expanding the market for nonoak species or 

transforming 1 C and 2C oak material into an exportable 

product (Araman 1987). Current efforts by various industry 

groups to introduce nonoak US. species to foreign buyers 

will help increase hardwood lumber exports in the late 

1980's and early 1990's. The success of such actions may I depend on supplies and prices of tropical species such as 

ramin and obeche and the relative level of furniture demand 

in Japan and Europe. 

Future levels of lumber exports to Taiwan and potential 

exports of lumber to Korea will depend heavily on US. 

imports of furniture produced in these countries. Future 

furniture imports from these countries will be affected by 

relative cost advantages enjoyed by Asian manufacturers 

and US. trade policies with respect to furniture imports. 

Veneer and Plywood 

The distinction between hardwood veneer and hardwood 

plywood can be somewhat confusing since a piece of face 

veneer glued to a piece of core material and lower quality 

back material can constitute veneer core hardwood plywood. Many domestic and international purchasers of 

hardwood veneer actually produce hardwood plywood 

within their furniture or paneling plants as an intermediate 

step in the production process. 

Hardwood veneer is currently more important than plywood 

for U.S. producers in both the domestic and international 

markets. This could change if Asian supplies of inexpensive 

lauan plywood are restricted. Because both of these products are versatile and greatly increase the square footage of 

surface coverage relative to the cubic feet of timber input, 

future demand could increase. 

Specific factors that could increase U.S. exports of these 

products are reduced availability or increased price of tropical material, increased foreign ownership of domestic 

veneer slicers and plywood factories, increased consumer 

desire for the type of fancy-face look that veneer provides, 

and the increased use of veneer-wrapped parts replacing 

solid wood parts in furniture. One factor that could reduce 

veneer exports is increased use of synthetic veneer made 

from wood, foils, paper, or plastic. 

Literature Cited 

Araman, Philip A. 1986. Hardwood exports: a thriving Pacific 

Rim market. Wood & Wood Products. 91 (7): 86,88,90. 

Araman, Philip A. 1987. Standard sizes for rough-dimension 

exports to Europe and Japan. Wood & Wood Products. 

92(6): 84, 86. 

Araman, Philip A. (in press). Eastern United States hardwood sawtimber resources and export potential. In: Proceedings, annual meeting of Southern Forest Economics 

Workers and the Midwest Forest Economists; 1987 April 

8-70; Asheville, NC. 

Callahan, John C. 1985. Structural change in hardwood 

face veneer industry. Forest Products Journal. 35(6): 11, 

16. 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 

1982. Forest product prices 1962-1981. Rome: Food and 

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 115 p. 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 

1986.1984 yearbook of forest products: 1973-1984. 

Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations. 400 p. 

Lemsky, Abe, ed. 1972-78. Hardwood market report. Memphis, TN: Henry W. Jones, Jr., 1418 Madison Ave. 

Luppold, William G. 1984. An analysis of European demand 

for oak lumber. Res. Pap. NE-538. Broomall, PA: US. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern 

Forest Experiment Station. 7 p. 

Ohio Agricultural Statistics Service. 7987. Ohio timber 

prices. Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Agriculture, 

200 North High Street. 

Ulrich, Alice H. 1950-86. U.S. timber production, trade, consumption, and price statistics 1950-85. Misc. Pub. 1453. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 

1960-86. U.S. exports, Schedule B. Commodity by country. Rep. FT410. Washington, DC: US. Department of 

Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 

8 *u. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OfFlCE: 1988/548-066 /600 12 
Luppold, William G.; Araman, Philip A. 1988. Hardwood trade trends: U.S. 

exports. Res. Pap. NE-611. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 10 p. 

Presents historic trends in the export of hardwood logs, lumber, veneer, and 

plywood. Discusses factors that will influence future hardwood product 

exports. 

ODC 722.4 

Keywords: Demand, Logs, Lumber, Veneer 
Headquarters of the Northeastern Forest Experiment Station are in Broomall, Pa. 

Field laboratories are maintained at: 

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

0 Berea, Kentucky, in cooperation with Berea College. 

0 Burlington, Vermont, in cooperation with the University of Vermont. 

Delaware, Ohio. 

0 Durham, New Hampshire, in cooperation with the University of New Hampshire. 

Hamden, Connecticut, in cooperation with Yale University. 

0 Morgantown, West Virginia, in cooperation with West Virginia University, 

Morgantown. 

0 Orono, Maine, in cooperation with the University of Maine, Orono. 

0 Parsons, West Virginia. 

0 Princeton, West Virginia. 

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

College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry at Syracuse University, 

Syracuse. 

0 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 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.