No abstract

Research conducted in a variety of hardwood regions across the United States has indicated that utilization of small-diameter roundwood is hindered by a lack of markets. Efficient removal of such material could enable silvicultural practices to improve stand conditions and economic return for landowners. However, evidence from other studies has suggested that markets alone may not be enough to encourage small-diameter utilization, and that management decisions are important as well. This study sought to compare roundwood utilization at the stump and top for different ownership categories and locations in north-central Wisconsin, a region with active pulpwood and other low-grade markets and different types of forest ownerships. Thirty-six recently harvested sites were visited in 2007 and 2008 across three ownership types (managed county-owned forests, private land timber sales involving a professional forester, and private land timber sales without involvement of a professional forester) and two locations (county groupings) with different markets. Results of a linear mixed model indicated that ownership type was a significant predictor variable for the utilization measures studied (stump diameter, top diameter, and stump height). Location effects were significant for stump diameter and stump height. Sales on unmanaged private forests exhibited the largest stump and top diameters and highest stump heights, regardless of location. Overall, this study suggests that both management practices and markets influence harvest site small-diameter utilization.

A survey of industrial firms that regularly purchased wood products from a large, chain of custody certified sawmill (at the time of the study also Wisconsin's largest certified forest landholder) was conducted in 2003. Results were examined to: 1) provide baseline data on this topic from a region characterized as having a highly active wood products industry 2) ascertain the salience of environmentally certified wood products in this region and extrapolate the market implications this poses for other regions and 3) aid efforts to understand supply and demand implications for environmentally certified wood both in and beyond Wisconsin's borders. These companies, generally categorized as secondary wood products manufacturers, reported company perceptions and adoption trends regarding certified wood.Most industrial wood product consumers were not chain of custody certified. While wood product quality and price were found the most important sourcing criteria for this group, environmental certification ranked last.

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not imply endorsement by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) of any product or service.The USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director

Exporting is a critical component of the product mix for many domestic hardwood firms. Previous research has identified factors associated with hardwood lumber exporting behavior, but less is known about the advantages and disadvantages to exporting associated with the region within which a firm is located, or about exporting of secondary hardwood products. A procedure comparing a measure of production (employment) to the level of exporting in three US hardwood regions (based on aggregations of state-level data) was used to contrast regional relative exporting of primary and secondary products. Several factors were then considered as possible explanations for the observed regional differences. Overall, the results suggested that proximity to seaports (i.e., the East Coast) benefited exporting of both hardwood lumber and secondary products, but the impact was greater for lumber. Thus, for secondary products, regional exporting barriers appeared to be lower. Firm size and sawtimber quality and species were additional factors that were associated with regional exporting. Data for individual states provide clues to interstate movement of hardwood products as they make their way to US ports. This influence also is discussed, but such movement makes state-level analysis of exporting difficult.