an 4 5 5th; x. “ 9‘“ .‘1 o Ma‘si .v uh"; .0 w {an S. 4 ‘Y . Q d . I :7}; £4.33 3' 2: { '5 NW @r {M Emu» o . ‘3’? ‘ 3 E A’s-m W." .5. a. N4...» LIBRARY Michigan State University LUMBER USAGE BY GREATER LANSING MANUFACTURING FIRMS FOR THE YEAR 1959 BY Mitchell B. Foster AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the College of Agriculture of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Forest Products 1961 Approved ABSTRACT In Michigan today the allowable hardwood cut is about 64% more than the actual cut. This study is an attempt to explain why our hardwood utilisation is less than it could be and also what can be done to remedy this situation. Manufacturing firms in the Lansing area were first con- tacted by phone and then personally interviewed. It was found that Michigan hardwoods could be used for shipping containers and other purposes currently being filled by western and southern softwoods. Less valuable species such as beech, elm, and aspen were found potentially suitable for shipping containers and pallets; in addition the actual cut was far under that allowed. In talking to the lumber buyers some of the dissatis- factions and complaints concerning Michigan hardwoods were brought to light. It seems that better promotional efforts as well as more uniform grading between mills is needed before hard- wood lumber markets can be fully utilized. Poor service, poor sawing, wet lumber, and other similar complaints point to the inefficiency of the Michigan sawmill. The writer feels that the only way to make the necessary improvements such as more promotional effort, is for Michigan sawmills to form some sort of organization where they can mutually discuss their problems and then take steps to correct them. LUMBER USAGE BY GREATER LANSING MANUFACTURING FIRMS FOR THE YEAR 1959 BY Mitchell B. Foster A THESIS Submitted to the College of Agriculture of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Forest Products 1961 G/5733 (cf/W5" ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere thanks to Dr.Eldon A. Behr, whose guidance and supervision played an important part in the completion of this thesis. He is also indebted to Drs. Donald A. Taylor and Harold J. Raphael who, along with Dr. Behr, offered helpful suggestions and improvements. Lastly, the author wishes to thank Dr. Aubrey E. Wylie and Mr. Raymond E. Pfeifer for their continuous interest and assistance. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv PART I - INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Historical Background 2 Scope of the Study 4 Limitations of the Study 5 Objectives of the Study 6 Methods of Procedure 7 PART II - ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 How Lumber is Used 9 How Species are Used 10 Availability of Michigan Hardwoods 18 Actual and Potential Hardwood Markets 23 Problems and Complaints Arising From the Use of Michigan Hardwoods 30 PART III - RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 PART IV - BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 PART V - APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 List of Firms Included in the Study 47 List of Firms Using 50,000 Board Feet or More 49 Interview Guide 51 Michigan Folklore 56 Table 10. ll. 12. LIST OF TABLES Species Breakdown for Softwoods by Use Category . . . . . . . . . . . Species Breakdown for Hardwoods by Use Category . . . . . . . Total Softwood and Hardwood Volume by Use Category . . . . . . . Net Volume of Live Sawtimber on Commercial Forest Land, by Species and Forest Survey District, 1955 . . . . . . . . . . Allowable Cut, Actual Cut, and Excess of Allowable over Actual Cut by Species. 1954, Michigan . . . . . . . . . . Allowable Cut, Actual Cut and Excess of Allowable over Actual Cut of Hardwood Sawtimber by District and Species Group. 1954, Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prices Paid for Softwood Crating Lumber in Lansing, Michigan, 1959 . . . . . . . Nail Holding Power of Selected Species of Wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shrinkage and Strength Values for Selected Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reasons for not Utilizing Michigan Hardwoods as Given by Lansing Manufacturing Firms . Expected Plywood and Lumber Usage of Lansing Manufacturing Firms by the Year, 1970 Douglas Fir Plywood Production for Selected Years iv Page 11 13 15 l7 19 2O 24 26 27 31 34 34 PART I -- INTRODUCTION . HISTORICAL BACKGROUND For thirty golden years Michigan led the nation in lumber production. During this period from 1869 to 1899 over 160 billion board feet of white pine lumber was produced. In the peak year of 1889 nearly 5 1/2 billion feet of lumber was cut, 65% being white pine. No single factor has been more significant in Michigan's industrial development than her virgin stands of pine. It has often been said that Michigan white pine "built" the great city of Chicago. As early as 1839 cork pinel was being floated down the Muskegon River. Soon other rivers like the Tittabawassee, Au Sable, Grand, Pere Marquette, and Manistee came into prominence. The 1882 output for the Tittabawassee alone exceeded 611 million board feet (1). This fantastic figure can be appreciated by comparing it to the 1953 production of 293 million feet for the entire state. By 1900 the seemingly endless White pine forest of lower Michigan had virtually disappeared. Instead could be ”seen a barren sweep of stumpland -- the great pine plains of Michigan. The era of boisterous shanty boys and reckless river hogs had passed . The peavey2 and supply wannigan were left 1A term often applied to large white pine logs because they floated high on the water. 2A long tapered piece of wood used as a lever for prying logs and having a hinged metal hook on the larger end. behind as a momento of past days when white pine lumber sold for $13 a thousand and "jacks" were paid a dollar a day. The huge pine cuttings and daring river drives are gone forever but the spirit of Michigan's logging era remains with us today in the form of legend and folklore.3 The limbs and tree tops carelessly left by the loggers furnished the tinder for a rash of fires around the turn of the century. In the wake of the fires grew the scrubby second growth underbrush which served a useful purpose by affording cover and a food supply to increasing numbers of rabbits, ruffed grouse, and other small game. Aspen, heretofore labeled a weed, thrived as second growth material. The deer herd grew proportionally to this new food supply which also doubled as a pulpwood source. Other more valuable hardwoods such as hard and soft maple, red and white oak, elm, ash, beech, and basswood began to take over the pine lands of yesteryear. Today, our white pine forest has dwindled to a bit over a billion board feet of sawtimber.4 White pine and other softwoods (primarily red pine) are now being planted in a vast reforestation project 3See Appendix. 4Softwood having a breast high diameter (D.B.H.) of 9 inches or more and at least one merchantable log. Hardwoods must have an 11 inch d.b.h. and one merchantable log. 4 which our children and grandchildren will thank us for. How- ever, for the present our eyes must be focused on our increasing volume of mature hardwood and the utilization problems and possibilities it presents. SCOPE OF THE STUDY The greater Lansing, Michigan area, including East Lansing and Okemos, was chosen for this study. No similar study has ever been made for this area, although a brief survey of lumber production and markets for low grade hardwoods was made by the Conservation Department in 1954. Certain portions of this survey have been helpful. The idea for this study came from a similar but less detailed analysis made by the Lake States Forest Experiment Station in 1959 for the Minneapolis-- St. Paul area. Since Lansing's economic base is in large part tied to the automobile industry, the observations and conclusions con- cerning lumber usage derived from this study would seem representative for the automotive industry in the state generally. This study covers only those firms that manufactured a product and that used at least 1000 board feet of lumber in 1959. Distribution, processing,fabrication, and service firms were not contacted as their lumber needs are negligible. No attempt was made to include lumber used for construction 5 purposes because this would entail a separate study in itself, dealing primarily with softwoods. Pallets and boxes although made of lumber are finished products in themselves. A problem arose of whether to count these pallets as lumber purchased by the firm using them. Since a portion of these pallets would be included in the footage figures of local pallet producers, the possibility of double counting the lumber became evident. To remedy the situation, only that lumber which was fabricated for shipping purposes by the manufacturing firms was included. Thus, all the pallets, boxes, and crates made in the Lansing area, whether by pallet producers or by individual manufacturing concerns, have been included in the study. However, pallets and shipping containers used by Lansing manufacturers but produced outside the area have not been included. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY We cannot of course expect the observations and con- clusions drawn from a study in one particular location such as Grand Rapids or Lansing to hold true for the state generally. However, in cities such as Flint, Pontiac, and Detroit which rely heavily on the automobile industry I would expect a good portion of the findings in this study to repeat themselves. We must also consider the human element. In each instance 6 the information was gained through personal interviews, usually with the person responsible for buying the lumber. Many times financial records were made available; however, in other instances the species used, footage figures, and other important factors were recalled from memory. No man's memory is perfect nor need it be. In some cases estimates were arrived at only after long thought and in several instances disagreement between indivi- duals. I also cannot guarantee that personal bias on the part of the interviewee is not present in the findings. I can only hope that some unknown bias on my own part has not crept into this work. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY In a study of this nature there can be no single objective, nor can there be a set number of objectives. An effort will first of all be made to show how the lumber is being used. The usages will then be inspected by species to see if Michigan hardwoods are being fully utilized. It is hoped that the information presented herein will broaden existing and perhaps open new markets for Michigan hardwood lumber. It is also hoped that by pointing out the current problems and disadvantages ariSing out of the use of Michigan hardwoods, Michigan lumber producers will take steps to correct these problems and in this way expand their markets. A further objective lies in comparing lumber usage trends with those of substitute materials such as corrugated paper, plastic, steel, and plywood, which is a manufactured product. METHODS OF PROCEDURE Phone calls were initially made to determine which firms to include in the study. Records from the Department of Economic Development, the Industrial Directory of Lansing, as well as the yellow pages of the phone book were all thoroughly checked to be sure that no lumber using manufacturing firms were omitted. Retail and wholesale lumber dealers were also questioned concerning their customers. Consequently, it is felt the sample approaches 100%. A four page questionnaires was utilized to gain most of the information. Personal interviews were used in favor of mailed returns because it was felt that the information received would be more accurate and complete. Another major advantage of interviewing was found to be the use of open end questioning and discussion which proved extremely beneficial to these findings. 5See Appendix. PART II -- ANALYSIS OF DATA HOW LUMBER IS USED Now we will turn our attention to an analysis of the lumber usage in the Lansing area. 5,483,668 board feet were used by manufacturing firms in 1959. It is important that we determine the purposes for which this lumber was used as such information will enable Michigan lumber producers to utilize their raw materials more fully. In many cases small lumber producers know very little about the uses of the lumber they sell. Lumber usage is grouped into three distinct categories. (See Figure 1). PRODUCT MANUFACTURE 74.2% Figure 1.--Percent of lumber pur- chased by use SHIPPING category- URPOSES 23.9% MISCELLANEOUS 1.9% Product manufacture . . . . . 4,069,595 board feet Shipping purposes . . . . . 1,308,471 Miscellaneous . . . . . 105,602 TOTAL . . . . . 5,483,668 board feet 10 Twenty-four firms or 49% listed product manufacture as their main lumber usage. Nineteen, or 38% named their primary use as shipping purposes. Six firms (12.2%) listed miscellaneous uses as foremost. Pallets, boxes, and crates play a more significant role than these figures indicate however. Nearly half of the lumber used in product manufacture is used to manufacture pallets and boxes for shipping purposes. (See tables 1 and 2). When this figure is added to the amount already listed for shipping purposes we have over 3.1 million board feet or 57.7% of the total. (See table 3). The significance of this figure can be appreciated when we notice that in the Minneapolis —- St. Paul area only 32.8% of the lumber usage was for shipping purposes. The substantially higher percentage for the Lansing area is undoubtedly due to the influence of the automobile industry, a large .user of shipping containers. Of the 49 firms inter— viewed, 36 were directly or indirectly dependent on the auto- mobile industry. Thus, we would seem to have a natural market for Michigan's overabundance of low grade hardwoods in Lansing, Flint, Pontiac, Detroit and other automotive centers. HOW SPECIES ARE USED Softwoods comprise over 56% of the total lumber usage. 11 TABLE l.--Species breakdown for softwoods by use categoryl I. Wood Southern Product Western Yellow Ponderosa Douglas Manufacture White Fir Hemlock Pine Pine Fir Type of Wood Product Pallets and Boxes 50,000 Patterns and Dies Signs and Displays 3,478 504 10,480 Furniture 250 1,200 Specialty 990,000 540,000 36,375 40,525 Total Wood Product Manf. 993,728 540,000 86,879 1,200 51,005 II. Shipping Purposes 584,125 287,709 213,750 33,112 III. Miscel- laneous 13,700 52,116 TOTAL 1,577,853 540,000 388,288 214,950 136,233 l . . Units of Measure In Board Feet TABLE l.--Continued 12 A Percent . 5 Mixed of Redwood White Pine Spruce Sugar Pine Softwoods Total Total 50,000 1.6 26,380 23,500 49,880 1.6 4,879 160 19,501 .6 9,620 11,070 .4 90,000 1,800 5,000 1,703,700 55.0 90,000 42,679 160 28,500 1,850,351 59.3 30 21,071 45,270 4,950 1,190,017 38.4 4,136 1,250 L, 71,202 2.3 90,030 67,886 45,430 33,450 1,250 3,095,370100J) 13 TABLE 2. --Species breakdown for hardwoods by use category1 I. Wood 2 Mi ed Product Oak X Aspen Elm Mahogany Ash hardwoods Manufacture Type of Wood Product Pallets&boxes 730, 000 805, 580 70, 000 150, 000 Patterns &dies 30, 000 30 26, 500 Signs &disp1ays Furniture 2, 040 6, 000 Specialty 340, 700 26, 250 8, 275 6, 200 16,975 Total Wood Product Manufacture 1,102, 740 832,130 70, 000 158, 275 32, 700 22, 975 II. Shipping Purposes 1, 797 2, 300 112, 500 === III. Miscel- laneous 24, 400 5, 000 TOTAL 1,128, 937 839, 430 182, 500 158, 275 32, 700 22, 975 Units of measure in board feet. 2Includes white and red oak. 3Includes oak, elm, beech, and maple primarily. 14 TABLE 2. --Continued % Ha.“ Cativo. Walnut Cherry Birch Bass' 50“ CheSt‘ Total of maple wood maple nut total 1, 755, 580 73. 6 2, 700 Z, 800 150 600 63, 050 2. 7 2, 650 984 1, 800 100 840 600 15, 014 . 6 1, 000 1, 050 50 300 l, 000 401, 800 16. 8 6, 350 2, 800 2, 184 l, 850 l, 000 l, 000 840 600 2, 235, 444 93. 6 —: =‘— 1,857 118,454 5.0 f —i—__=—_:——- 5, 000 34, 400 l. 4 13, 207 2, 800 2, 184 l, 850 1, 000 1, 000 840 600 2, 388, 298 100. O 15 TABLE 3.--Total softwood and hardwood volume by use category (in board feet) Per Cent Use category: Softwoods Hardwoods Total of Total Wood product manufacture Pallets and boxes 50,000 1,755,580 1,805,580 32.8 Pattern and dies 49,880 63,050 112,930 2.1 Signs and displays 19,501 --- 19,501 .4 Furniture 11,070 15,014 26,084 .5 Specialty items 1,703,700 401,800 2,105,500 38.4 Total product mfg. 1,834,151 2,235,444 4,069,595 74.2 Shipping purposes 1,190,017 118,454 1,308,471 23.9 Miscellaneous 71,202 334,400 105,602 1.9 TOTAL 3,095,370 2,388,298 5,483,668 100.0 Source: Tables 1 and 2. White fir and western hemlock are used predominately in the manufacture of specialty wood products while nearly 75%.of the southern yellow pine goes for shipping purposes. hand, pallet and box manufacturers, who specialize in pro- ducing shipping containers used only a small percentage of southern yellow pine. Likewise, On the other over one third of the white fir was used for shipping purposes while the pallet and box producers used none at all! White pine, while used more often than any other species, l6 represented only about 2% of the softwood total. Sugar pine was used almost entirely for pattern work while specialty items accounted for the redwood usage. The two largest specialty uses are in material handling equipment such as hand trucks, platform trucks, wheelbarrows, etc,. and in pre-built homes which are manufactured at the lumber yard and merely assembled at the building site. Michigan produced no more than 2% of the softwood lumber used. Although a portion of the white pine comes from instate, Idaho was mentioned most often as a white pine source. Oak and "mixed hardwoods" comprise over 82% of the hard- wood usage. They are both used primarily in pallet and box manufacture although a sizeable portion of the oak is used in specialty wood products. Aspen and elm usages are restricted almost entirely to pallets and boxes. Mahogany is used as pattern lumber because of its dimensional stability and ease of working. Approximately 70% of the hardwood lumber comes from within Michigan. A sizeable portion of the oak, most‘ of the walnut, and all of the mahogany comes from outstate. As of 1955, hardwoods comprised over 73% of Michigan's sawtimber. (See Table 4). In the lower peninsula this percentage increased to 88.5%, While in southern lower Michiganl ihardwoods totaled over 98% of the sawtimber. In view of these 1A line roughly from Muskegon to Saginaw. 17 TABLE 4.—-Net volume of live sawtimber on commercial forest land by species and forest survey district, Michigan, 1955 (million board feet). Eastern Western Northern Southern Species Total Upper Upper Lower Lower Michigan Michigan Michigan Michigan Softwoods: White pine 1,199 374 427 310 88 Red pine 571 229 74 268 * Jack pine 384 107 56 221 * Spruce 702 275 390 37 * Balsam fir 577 192 322 61 2 Tamarack 65 35 18 6 6 Cedar 1,010 445 455 97 13 Hemlock 1,891 724 1,011 141 15 Total 6,399 2,381 2,753 1,141 124 Hardwoods: Sugar maple 4,182 995 2,283 320 584 Yellow birch 1,194 405 752 30 7 Basswood 788 60 192 228 308 Beech 996 457 16 251 272 Elm 2,598 159 155 733 1,551 Red oak 2,012 17 122 676 1,197 White oak 972 * * 192 780 Aspen 1,174 241 440 447 46 : Cottonwood .135 0 0 30 105 Paper birch .460 267 148 42 3 Soft maple 1,474 337 267 192 678 Ash 503 31 76 109 287 Other hardwoods 870 208 43 178 441 Total 17,358 3,177 4,494 3,428 6,259 All species 23,757 5,558 7,247 4,569 6,383 *Less than 1/2 of 1 recognizable unit. Source: Virgil E. Findell and others, Michigan's Forest Resources, Lake States Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota, September, 1960. 18 figures, Michigan's lumber production will be predominately hardwood for some time to come. This analysis therefore will take a closer look at actual as well as potential hardwood availability and usage by manufacturing firms. AVAILABILITY OF MICHIGAN HARDWOODS2 The four pallet and box manufacturers used over 97% hardwood lumber, most of which came from Michigan. On the other hand, firms making pallets and shipping containers on their own used only 9.5% hardwoods. It seems logical to assume that local hardwoods could be utilized for the majority of these shipping needs instead of imported softwoods. Before discussing potential markets for Michigan hard- woods we would do well to first consider whether the annual hardwood cut could be increased, if so by how much, and for what species in particular. (See Tables 5 and 6). Allowable cut is defined as the volume of live saw- timber and poletimber that can be cut during a given period While building up or maintaining sufficient growing stock to meet specified growth goals. The term "allowable cut" is often misleading because it includes all trees that should be cut in a given area, and not all the trees that are actually Much of the material in this section is from Michigan's Forest Resources, published by the Lake States Forest Experiment Station. l9 TABLE 5.--Allowable cut, actual cut, and excess of allowable over actual cut by species, 1954, Michigan (million cubic feet) Species Allowable Actual Excess of A11. cut out over actual Hard maple 24.5 30.2 -5.7 Yellow birch 8 7 9.7 -l.0 Basswood 5 1 2.4 2.7 Beech 9 3 4.8 4.5 Elm 14.6 9.8 4.8 Red Oak 12.4 8.3 4.1 White Oak 5.7 1.8 4.9 Aspen 72.7 43.6 29.1 Cottonwood 1.1 5 .6 Birch 14.9 2.4 12.5 Soft Maple 13.9 6.7 7.2 Ash 4.0 l 9 2.1 Other hardwoods 11.4 2.7 8.7 TOTAL 198.3 124.8 73.5 Source: Michigan's Forest Resources. This 20 TABLE 6. —-Allowab1e cut, actual cut, and excess of allowable over actual cut of hardwood sawtimber by district and species group, Michigan (million board feet) 1954, Total Eastern Upper Michigan Species Group Allow- Actual Excess of Allow- Actual Excessof able cut allowable able cut allowable over over actual actual 1 Northern hardwoods 212 219 -7 76 54 22 Oak 68 40 28 1 0 1 Ash, elm, cottonwood 78 47 31 7 3 4 2 Soft maple 40 27 13 10 6 4 Aspen, birch 94 50 44 33 13 20 Other hardwoods 32 7 25 15 0 15 Total 524 390 134 142 76 66 1Hard maple, yellow birch, beech, basswood 2Red and silver maple Source: Michigan's Forest Resources 21 TABLE 6. --Continued Western Upper Michigan Northern Lower Michigan Southern Lower Michigan Allow- Actual Excess of Allow- Actual Excess of Allow- Actual Excess of able cut allowable able cut allowable able cut allowable over over over actual actual actual 82 121 -39 25 26 -1 29 18 ll 2 2 i 0 24 a 7 17 41 31 10 1 l 2 8 -6 26 5 12 14 43 1 24 19 5 8 - 3 6 4 2 l9 9 10 25 14 11 31 21 10 5 2 3 1 O 1 8 0 8 8 ‘ 7 l 117 153 -36 120 70 50 145 91 54 22 cut.3 For example, assume a 4 acre farm woodlot having 10,000 board feet of hardwood timber as the allowable cut. If 3,000 feet from undersized trees are cut in a total cut of 10,000 feet the allowable cut has not been exceeded. However, the growing stock has been severely diminished and many of the less desirable but still merchantable trees of sawtimber size have been left to rot where they stand. This incomplete utilization of the allowable cut has long been a problem to Michigan foresters. Michigan hardwoods cut in 1954 totaled only 64% of the volume recommended as the allowable cut. Little imagination is needed to see that the hardwood timber cut could be increased significantly. The species where greatest increases could be afforded are for the most part those less valuable hardwoods such as aspen, beech, oak, elm, and soft maple which are well suited for shipping containers and pallets. Substantial over— cutting of yellow birch and hard maple has led to the species group "northern hardwoods" being overcut for the state generally. However, in southern lower Michigan the allowable cut is eleven billion board feet over the actual cut. A significant portion of this figure would be composed of the two less valuable species in the group, beech and basswood which both show as 3Personal conversation with Mr. Raymond E. Pfeifer, a member of the Forestry Division of the Michigan Conservation Department. 23 being undercut in table 5. The variation between allowable and actual cut is greatest for aspen. However, at present only about 6% of the total lumber used for pallets and shipping containers in the Lansing area is aspen. Thus, new and broader markets for most species of Michigan hardwoods could easily be filled without impairment to the growing stock. ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL HARDWOOD MARKETS The quality of merchantable sawtimber in Michigan is poor. Sixty-nine percent of our sawtimber is classified as "No. 3," or the poorest grade. True, a portion of this figure is small, good quality sawtimber which will eventually grow into higher grades, but the percentage of low quality timber is rising. This is because economic conditions and selfish motives have resulted in cutting the best and leaving the worst trees in a stand (7). Unless we cut more lumber from poorer quality trees and in particular the less valuable species such as aspen, beech, elm, and soft maple the percentage of low quality material will continue to increase. The bottle- neck seems to be in the utilization of the poorer timber that must be cut to make room for the good timber. Michigan is indeed fortunate in that the container and pallet industry presents a perfect market for her surplus of 24 low quality hardwood timber. Why then are western and southern softwoods being used for shipping purposes? Imported soft- woods totaled 91% of the crating and pallet lumber purchases by Lansing manufacturing firmsi The prices paid for this lumber appear in table 7. TABLE 7.--Prices paid for softwood crating lumber in Lansing, Michigan, 1959 (prices per thousand board feet) Number Highest Lowest Average Species of price price price users paid paid paid Ponderosa pine 1 $ 85 $ 85 $ 85 So. yellow pine 7 130 74 97 White fir 4 142 76 103 Douglas fir 7 135 75 110 Spruce 3 165 90 132 ‘White pine 3 180 105 135 Sugar pine l 140 140 140 The four pallet and box manufacturers utilized NUchigan hardwoods and paid an average price of $61 a thousand board feet. Average prices for southern yellow pine and Douglas Fir, the most frequently used softwoods, were $97 and $110 respectively. In view of these figures it seems reasonable to assume that factors other than cost are responsible for this softwood usage. 25 Perhaps hardwoods aren't as well suited for shipping needs. If this were true, however, why then did aspen account for 62% of the wood boxes made in Minnesota in 1955 (14)? Pallet producers in the Minneapolis--St. Paul area are also finding aspen useful for lightweight expendable pallets. Aspen, being less dense and more resilient than most hardwoods seems to be lasting longer when handling frequency is high because of the reduction in splitting and relative ease of repairing (16). Being light in weight, use of aSpen is advantageous where long shipments are concerned. It also takes paint, ink, or glue readily and is low in price. Aspen's low tendency to split at the nails compensates for its low nail holding ability (See Table 8). Incidentally, the nail holding power of any species can be increased significantly by using drive screw nails. Surprisingly, aspen has a lower shrinkage value than southern yellow pine, western hemlock and the spruces. (See Table 9). The acceptance of aspen as a usable species has been slow. For many years after the great pine cuttings people considered it merely an overgrown weed. This situation has resulted in aspen lumber being underrated in most corners yet today. It is hoped that the previously mentioned advantages of popple, as it is sometimes called, will become apparent to 26 TABLE 8.--Nai1 holding power of selected species of wood. (7d cement-coated nails driven to a depthcflfl 1/4 inches and pulled at once) Specific End Radial Tang. Species Gravity* surface surface surface (pounds) (pounds) (pounds) Aspen .41 157 202 207 Basswood .41 138 199 194 Beech .67 358 495 460 Elm .54 236 344 339 Red Oak .66 312 466 422 Soft Maple .51 280 333 338 Douglas Fir .51 183 273 296 So. Yellow Pine (longleaf) .64 244 362 376 Spruce .36 136 177 184 Western Hemlock .46 149 266 277 White Fir .41 104 176 203 *Based on volume and weight of oven-dry wood. Source: Madison, Forest Products Laboratory, 236, U. S. Forest Service, Technical Note Wisconsin, July, 1931. 'l .1 . . ‘5'233 ‘21:“! ‘V-KW“-‘U-‘ 27 TABLE 9.--Shrinkage and strength values for selected species Shrinkage from green Species Specific . to oven dry gravity* Radial Tang. Voluf per cent per cent metric Douglas fir .40 3.6 6.2 103 So. yellow pine .55 5.3 7.5 124 Spruces, Ave. of Red, White, Sitka. .37 4.3 7.7 121 Sugar pine .35 2.9 5.6 79 Western hemlock .38 4.3 7.9 120 White fir .35 3.2 7.0 95 White pine .34 2.3 6.0 83 Aspen .35 3.5 6.7 111 Basswood .32 6.6 9.3 158 Beech .56 5.1 11.0 162 Elm, American .46 4.2 9. 5 145 Elm, Rock .57 4.8 8.1 137 Red oak .56 4.2 9.0 143 Soft maple .49 4.0 8.2 128 White ash .54 4.6 7.5 126 *Specific gravity oven dry, ' Source: Bulletin 158. based on green volume. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Technical TABLE 9.--Continued 28 f -- Composite strength values -- 2:22:33, GETSEZEZEW Stiffness Harnessd reiiiiince 75 83 142 52 67 106 123 189 76 103 71 74 136 42 71 64 68 112 38 55 74 84 144 50 73 72 73 127 42 6O 63 67 119 35 55 63 58 107 31 67 61 62 126 31 54 102 94 169 96 135 85 74 130 66 123 106 97 148 104 189 101 92 168 103 139 93 87 158 79 110 110 106 161 108 139 29 Michigan lumber users. Aspen, granted, does not have the high strength properties of the softwoods, but it is adequate for all but the most severe loads or stresses. For these situations, other hardwoods such as beech and elm compare very favorably. (Table 9). At present, Michigan hardwoods total 1,668,808 board feet or only about 30% of the lumber used by Lansing manu- facturing firms. It is true that for pattern work, cabinet making, and certain specialty uses imported softwoods are more desirable. However, it was found that if Michigan hardwoods were fully utilized for shipping, maintenance, repairs, and other purposes their total usage would increase to 3,795,517 feet or 68% of the total volume. At this point several observations seem in order: 1. Michigan has the necessary timber resources to fill a considerable expansion of her hardwood lumber markets. 2. An increasing percentage of Michigan's hardwood sawtimber is in the less valuable species which must be utilized to make growing room for the more valuable species. 3. There are certain advantages in using these less valuable species, which have already been mentioned. 4. Although Michigan hardwoods seem well fitted for more extensive usages, such as for shipping containers, imported softwoods remain the dominant factor. Why? THE: 1???th 1H. '. F6531: 30 PROBLEMS AND COMPLAINTS ARISING FROM THE USE OF MICHIGAN HARDWOODS Before attacking any problem one should first become thoroughly acquainted with the problem. Similarly, before attempting to increase the utilization of Michigan hardwoods, let us first consider the problems and complaints being currently encountered. These complaints or dissatisfactions can be grouped into three categories: (See Table 10). 1. Those due to the inherent qualities of the wood. 2. Those having to do with economic factors or outside influences which are difficult to control. 3. Those which are the fault of Michigan lumber producers and could be corrected. For the most part the complaints were directed against hardwoods generally rather than a particular species. This, no doubt, is partially due to a limited knowledge of the individual species. The hardness of the lumber itself accounts for most of the complaints given under the inherent characteristics category. The hardness of course cannothe altered. However, feelings about it could be improved by sound promOtional efforts. I might add that hard maple was extolled more often than any other native hardwood. It is used successfully for a share of the pattern work and one individual stated that, "Michigan hard maple is the finest available." Another firm 31 TABLE lO.--Reasons for not utilizing Michigan hardwoods as given by Lansing manufacturing firms. m©003umom 00 mm: Hmcofluflomua l .1 a mmcwnu o» wansoue £032 009 m .m .EmuH HHme d wmcmmxm @003 4. .4 o m r mcoo3umom D o Suflz Hmflmmmm wmum mumxno3 l .1 xuoz ow xmmm mpooz mucmg om nmflm mumou.nonmq 2 .2 mxmmuum Hmumcflz.mnflmucou l l h>mmm 008 A. 4 t . . n m s.w Hwnmflm mumou mCHHHmz 2 “2 e e o h.1 w n t .iwn.m Emanoum d mommumz l 4 .5 o a t t u qf w 0 33mm mudguifioumm cos 1 2 3 D wuflaflnmxnoz Hoom l 52 s. 8 s d O o w M... m ..._ a u c h T e V. t O P h r u d T S c r n e h r e m »n 1. x s .i .n .l a a .i A B C E O W M influfi. 32 TABLE lO.--Continued Fault of lumber producers :03 cos 3me mNHm Ho mmflommm Hmasofiunmm mo mommuHOSm HHHS may um mcfi3mm Hoom 00H>H®m HOOQ umS 009 “$9859 aafiz on Haas Eonh mmfinm> “$9559 mafiumuo mo thHmsc Hmnfidq >HQIGHH¥ m>Humz mom swam 009 mofinm owuomusov comm Hm>mz I mOSuHuud unmomamEOU I GOHHOEOHm Hoom economic factors outside influences swam 009 moaum umxumz Hmnfidq Hm>o mcfixme momma omummsunoo Hmmum mmD OB Hmfimmm . :. mommz Hmnfidq woodpmm comm: ©003>Hm mommz HwnEdA mmoflomm mmmmD Uflummam 33 mentioned elm as being suitable for crating lumber especially if green narrow boards were used, so that nailing would be easier and warpage reduced. An inspection of the second category, outside in- fluences, reveals some of the economic reasons why softwoods are preferred. Due to an ever-increasing wage level nearly everyone today is vitally interested in saving labor costs. Two firms mentioned that since softwoods are easier to work, the consequent saving in labor costs more than offsets the increased material costs of using them. It is hard to combat such preferences, but Michigan lumber producers should at least be aware of them. In another instance, union pressure has kept a firm using softwoods because the workers complained when heavier and rougher hardwoods were used. The threat that substitute materials pose to lumber markets is a national as well as a local problem for lumber producers. In this study, nine different firms listed either corrugated paper, steel, plastics, or plywood as successful substitutes for their lumber needs. In 1959, Lansing manu— facturers used 542,792 square feet of plywood. Table 11 shows the trend to be decidedly upward. True, anticipated plywood increases total 22 while only 17 firms expect their lumber volume to increase, but the alarming factor is that 12 concerns expect their lumber volume to 34 TABLE 11.--Expected plywood and lumber usage of Lansing manufacturing firms by the year, 1970 Number of Firms Number of Firms E ect Product Expecting Increases Expecting Decreases x50 0- 20- 101- Tot- 0- 21- 101- Tot- Chan e 20% 100% 500% a1 20% 100% 500% a1 9 Lumber 5 8 4 17 5 7 - 12 20 Plywood* 7 12 3 22 l 2 - 3 11 *Discrepancy between plywood and lumber totals is due to some firms not using plywood. decrease while the figure is only 3 for plywood. These figures are not unique for the Lansing area. Since 1950 national sales figures (for plywood) have increased over 500%: ,(See Table 12). One of the largest industrial firms in the area recently reduced its lumber usage drastically by switching from wooden pallet boxes to collapsible wire mesh baskets for material shipments and intra-plant handling. TABLE 12.--Douglas fir plywood production for selected years. Number of Plywood Production Year Plants (in square feet) 1930 17 305,000,000 1940 25 480,000,000 1950 68 1,200,000,000 1955 111 5,075,189,352 1960 152' 7,815,581,261 Source: Douglas Fir Plywood Association, Bulletin No. 2900. 35 Another case in point concerns a large manufacturer of material handling equipment that once used 5 to 6 million feet of lumber each year. Their 1959 usage totaled only 250,000 board feet and the lumber buyer estimates that by 1980 lumber will be completely replaced by steel, aluminum and other substitutes. The third category of complaints concerns the actual production .and distribution of the lumber. Most often listed as a complaint within this group was the shortage of a particular species or size. In some instances this shortage may be real; however, in other cases the inefficient and be- clouded channels of distribution give rise to these "shortages." Poor promotional effort on the part of lumber producers and dealers was mentioned seven times as a reason for not utilizing native hardwoods. Three users mentioned they had "never been approached." One of these buys low grade soft- woods in carload lots for crating purposes! Another individual mentioned that personnel within the lumber companies usually are unable to answer his questions and are generally less helpful and less sales-minded than metal salesmen are. Complaints such as poor sawing at the mill, lumber being too wet, and poor service, are a direct result of the unfortunate state of Michigan's sawmill industry today. In 1954, Michigan had 2000 sawmills and 1900 of these were cutting 36 less than a million board feet annually. A native mill cutting 30,000 feet daily is considered large, but many western mills cut 150,000 feet in eight hours.4 Michigan's sawmills are small and inefficient today mainly because there just isn't enough timber available to support the present number of mills. In 1945, we had only 1400 mills but the volume cut was 16% higher than the 2000 mills produced in 1954. So we have the situation today of many mills struggling for survival and few prospering. Michigan's mills are not presently dependable for carload quantities. If a user wishes to buy a car of native hardwoods he must call a series of mills and even then delivery is questionable. Lumber users as well as wholesale dealers generally find it much easier to make a single phone call and order a car of western or southern softwoods. Large outstate mills have another advantage in that many own their own timber land while Michigan producers must buy the cutting rights. The small mills can't afford to buy dry kilns or the latest sawmill equipment which would result in better satisfied customers and increased volume. Most of the mills are inflexible, or suited for only a single type of sawing. The small mills often aren't well equipped to saw large logs and consequently 4 . . Personal conversation Wlth Mr. Earl Turner, a central Michigan lumber wholesale dealer. 37 much good lumber is wasted. Likewise, most mills, especially the larger ones, don't cut small logs efficiently. This is one of the reasons more aspen is not On the market at the present time. Most small mills can't afford competent lumber graders and consequently lumber grading is usually a haphazard pro- position on a mill to mill basis. One local user of Michigan hardwoods mentioned that the quality of crating lumber varies greatly from mill to mill. A large pallet manufacturer claimed that Michigan sawmills were, "wasting a heck of a lot of lumber," because they don't grade it. He mentioned that his "pallet grade" lumber was better than he needed, in that he often received clear hard maple and oak. He concluded by saying that Michigan sawmills should be required to grade their lumber. By offering poorer quality lumber and unreliable service, the small inefficient mill hurts not only itself but also other more prosperous mills because the general reputation and price of the lumber will decline Whenever a poor product is offered for sale. Perhaps some of the reasons for the problems and com- plaints concerning Michigan hardwoods are now more apparent. Next, this analysis will briefly consider what can be done to eliminate some of the dissatisfaction concerning the use of native Michigan lumber. PART III -- RECOMMENDATIONS 39 In review, it was found that the complaints and problems concerning Michigan hardwood usage fell into three main cate- gories: 1. Those due to the inherent qualities of the wood. 2. Those having to do with economic factors or outside influences. 3. Those which were the fault of the lumber producers themselves. Little, outside of better salesmanship and promotional effort, could reduce the dissatisfaction arising out of the first and second categories. Perhaps the biggest possible boost to the Michigan lumber industry would be in a successful promotional campaign. Michigan should be proud of her lumber industry and should let all interested parties know What she has to offer. A partial list of specific promotional needs follows: 1. A "Use Michigan Lumber" campaign should be instigated similar to the successful "Use Michigan Sugar" and "Buy American Made" slogans. 2. The advantages of hardwoods, such as high strength, beauty of grain, reSistance to wear, etc. . . should be advertised. People are generally prone to associate only the actual hardness of the wood with hardwood lumber. Slogans like "Built to last a lifetime -- built with hardwood lumber" would do wonders to I increase the general acceptance of hardwoods. 3. Aspen should be promoted as a valuable species. People today generally associate aspen with either deer food or a pulpwood source. 40 4. The "Hardness of oak" and the tendency of "elm to warp" should be advertised as being ex- aggerations. There would likely be more than a grain of truth in such promotional efforts. 5. Red oak should be promoted as a valuable wood for furniture. One local furniture manufacturer preferred oak, but he said people still tended to associate oak furniture with the heavy, crudely designed oak furniture of forty and fifty years ago. 6. There should also be promotional efforts made to advertise the advantages of wood over substitutes such as steel, aluminum, and corrugated paper. Of course, this is a national concern for lumber pro- ducers. The individual sawmills don't have the time or money to even attempt to promote their product, while Wholesalers and middlemen are finding it generally easier to sell soft- woods. Maybe the only way for the individual sawmills to help their own cause is for them to band together and at least talk over their problems such as promotion. Perhaps where individually they are weak and inefficient, collectively they could eventually grow into a force that someday would be able to successfully promote the product that Michigan has to sell. The idea for an association of small sawmills within .Michigan goes back to 1942 when a group was formed but lasted only several years. Perhaps nothing would be gained from the eastablishment of an association of this type but this writer feels that here is the place to start. The link between 41 advisory groups such as the Forestry Division of the Conservation Department and University consultants and the small sawmills is a very weak one. Many fine recommendations have been made and more surely will be forthcoming, but only to deaf ears. Why talk about better aspen utilization through using smaller head rigs? Why talk about utilizing our increasing percentage of low quality hardwoods like beech and elm? Why give recommendations if each sawmill takes a "I'll leave it to the other guy" attitude? Another "must" for Michigan lumber producers is more consistent lumber grading practices. How can grading uniformity be established and then enforced without some sort of organizational arrangement? It has not been the purpose of this study to arrive at a series of recommendations. The preceding observations have been derived from combining what this writer has read, opinions of those he has talked with, and his conclusions concerning the findings of this study. It is felt that an effort should be made to organize the small Nfichigan sawmills into a working group where they could mutually discuss their problems and then take whatever action they deemed necessary. In conclusion is a partial list of the benefits that could be derived from an organization of this nature: 1 l. The promotional needs of lumber producers could be better met by collective action. 42 Grading would be uniform between mills as NHLA grades, or a revised set of grading rules would be closely adhered to. Minimum quality standards would be enforced which would soon result in a "higher quality" reputation for the members. Members would be kept abreast of new techniques and improvements within the industry. The possibility of large concentration yards having grading, drying, and shipping facilities could be discussed. A closer link between governmental and university advisory groups and the small sawmill operator would arise. Better relationships with wholesale lumber dealers would arise with the emergence of a united group of lumber producers potentially capable of supplying carload quantities of Michigan lumber. PART IV -- BIBLIOGRAPHY 44 BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, Clifford, and Titus, Harold. Muchigan Log Marks. ’ Memoir Bulletin No. 4, 1942, Agricultural EXperiment Station, Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan, 89 pp. Cook, David B. Beech For Containers. Beech Utilization Series No. 7, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1953, 13 pp. Findell, Virgil E., et a1. Michigan's Forest Resources. Station Paper No. 82, 1960, Lake States Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, St. Paul, Minn., 46 pp. Fontanna S. G., et a1. Wood Utilization Problems and Possibilities in Michigan. A report of the con- sultants to the Forest Products Research Committee of the Michigan Planning Commission, Lansing, Michigan, 1946, 22 pp. Forest Products Laboratory. Nail-Holding Power of American Woods. Technical Note No. 236, U. S. Forest Service, Madison, Wisconsin, 1931, 4 pp. Garland, Hereford. Inventory and Directory of Wood Using Industries of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Michigan Department of Economic Development, Lansing, Michigan, 1947, 99 pp. Guilkey, Paul C. "Hardwood Resources in Michigan and Their Current and Potential Uses." Forest Products Journal. Nov., 1957, Forest Products Research Society, Madison, Wisconsin, Wisconsin, pp. 24-A, 25-A. Maybee, Rolland H. Michigan's White Pine Era 1840-1900. Michigan Historical Commission, Lansing, Michigan, 1960, 55 pp. McIntire, G. S. "100 Years of Michigan Forests,” Michigan Conservation, March-April, 1957, Michigan Department of Conservation, Lansing, Michigan, pp. 2-8. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 45 Michigan Department of Conservation, Division of Co- operative Forest Management, U. S. Forest Service, A Survey of Lumber Production and Markets for Low Grade Hardwoods in the Lansing, MiChigan, Area. Cerca 1954, 8 pp. Michigan Forest Industries Committee. Michigan Forest Facts. 1959 Edition, Detroit, Michigan, 15 pp. Sands, Waldo. Aspen For Containers. Lake States Aspen Report No. 10, 1947, Lake States Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, St. Paul, Minn., 12 pp. Smith, Norman F. "White Pine - Tree of Legend." Michigan Conservation. July-August, 1957, Michigan Department of Conservation, Lansing, Michigan, pp; 21-23. Sullivan, Edward T. The Wooden Container Industry in Minnesota. Paper No.4044, Scientific Journal Series, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota, 1958, 42 pp. U. S. Department of Agriculture. Strength Properties of Woods. Technical Bulletin No. 158. Warner, John R., and Tubbs, Carl H. Wood Pallets in the Minneapolis-—St. Paul Area. Lake States Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, St. Paul, Minn., 1956, pp. 6, 7. . Wood Use By Manufacturing Firms in Minneapolis and St. Paul. Station Paper No. 75, Lake States Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, St. Paul, Minn., 1956, 30 pp. PART V -- APPENDIX 47 PART A List of Firms Included in the Study: Arens Sign Company Assid Furniture Company Atlas Drop Forge Auto Air Industries Barber Sign Company Bean, John Division Food Machinery and Chemical Corp. Capital Capital City Lumber Company Pattern Consolidated Industrial and Agricultural Chemical Company. Davison Chemical Company Demmer Tool and Die Dyer Sign Company East Lansing Manufacturing Company Fisher Body Division - General Motors Corporation Hebblewhite Kitchens Industrial Metal Products Corporation Industrial Pattern Jet Die and Engineering Inc. Lans Corporation Lansing Lansing Lansing Lansing Lansing Lansing Company Die Sinking Company Foundry Lumber Company Pattern and Manufacturing Company Tool and Die Company Lundberg Screw Products Company Metal Machining Company Motor Wheel Corporation 48 Multi-Lead Tool and Engineering Company Novo Pump and Engine Company Nu-Way Industries Oldsmobile Division-General Motors Corporation Olofsson*Corporation Planet Corporation Quality Advertising Company Quality Industries Rehabilitation Industries Reo Division - The White Motor Company Sarvis Manufacturing Company State Lumber Company Superior Brass and Aluminum Casting Company Suburban Wood Products Company Tranter Manufacturing Inc. Universal Sign Company Verhoeven Lumber Company Warner and Swasey Company - Duplex Division WHW Machine Tool Company Wohlert Corporation Wolverene Company 49 #00 000.00 0:00 waoum ammflnoflz BOHHmW .om 000.00H 000.00N .QHOU Hmmfiz 00002 000 .0000 000.00 0c0m 300000 .00 000.00 000000 00000002 00300 00x02 000.00 paw HHHE3mm Gmmflnuwz #00 000.000 000.000 >cmm§oo 0aflmcma 0008300 00000002 000030000 00x0: 000.000 .00 .00: 0000000 0000 meoum cmmflnoflz Ham 000:3 000.000 .0“: 000:009 00300 00x02 000.00 10000300000 0002300 00000002 000.0000: 000.00m AmUOOBumomv waoum :0003002 mcam .Ucom 00>.mam 000.00% 000002 00m 0000500 0000 00000 0050 I HHHE3mm C000£UHZ mCOOBUHmm 00x02. 000.00m .OU Hmnfisq cm>mO£Hm> 0:00 Axmo .om 0cm Boaamw .00 000.00 .0.».00 0000000003 00000002 000 000.000 10000300000 0005300 0000000: 00300 00x0: 000.000 000.000.0 .00 000200 0000 0000000 pOOBpmm 000.00 xmo 000.000 000000 009854 Muoafiwm .3 000.0vm mammmaonz :0003002 000 00033 000.000 000.000.H .oo HmQESA 0:00:04 0000 unmom mm 0000 mmflommm :0 mEdHo> mammfioo 000: 00 0000 00mom 000.00 0:000 08000 no 0000 m BMdm 50 000000000 0000000: .00300 0000: 000.0 0000 . 000000 00000I00I00o 300000 .00 000.00 000.00 .000 0000000000 000 .0000 000.0 000000 000.00 00o 000.0m 000000 0000000: 00000 000.000 000.000 .000 000m 0000 ummm pnmom hm UHom 0000000 G0 madao> . hammEoo UODGHHGOUII.m BMflm 51 PART C Interview Guide for the Study of Lumber Purchases in the Greater Lansing, Michigan Area, for the Year 1959. Name of Firm Date of Interview Firm Address Interviewee Title Number of Employees Age of Firm 1. Uses of lumber by species: (Include dimension and blocking) Per cent Per cent Performance Use Category_tot. use _§pecies of total - 0 + a. 1. fi_ 2. 3. 4. b. l 2. 3. 4. c 1. 2. 3. 52 2. In Question 1., if negative performance is indicated give reason why performance is unsatsifactory. Use Category Species Reasons Unsatisfactory a. b. c. d. 3. Where non-local species are being used: Tried local Non-local species Use category Species? Which? Results? Yes No 4. When local species were not tried or used, reason was: (Rate reason numerically by order of importance) 8. b. C. d. 8. Required grade nOt available Required species not available Dependable supply not available Price was too high Other (explain and rate) 5. From whom was lumber purchased: a. b. Michigan sawmill e. Outstate sawmill Michigan broker f. Outstate broker Michigan wholesaler g. Outstate wholesaler Michigan retailer h. Other (Specify) 6. 53 Form and moisture content of lumber purchased: Form % of total MoiSture Content b. 10. 11. 12. Rough lumber % Green % Air dry %.K.D. Finished lumber Volume of lumber in board feet purchased in 1959 Do you have wood waste? Yes No If so in what form? Chips Slabs-edgings sawdust Other Approximate yearly volume of waste Is waste used? in plant by employees sold burned Other (specify) Do you expect your wood usage to: remain the same decline % or increase % from 1960 to 1970? Volume of plywood usage in square feet for 1959 Do you expect your plywood usage to: remain the same decline % or increase % from 1960 to 1970? Additional comments: 54 .30 33033 .ao> ICD .30 353 .Ho> HHHE .30 000000 a .Ho> .800 m# .30 .800 .Ho> N# .30 .800 00> 0# .30 000000 .HO> .30 mdm .Ho> .0002 33033 .mp3.©m 3OHHm 00002 mammz 0003 00300 ICD .0009 m m Cmmm< 80m Immmm 30¢ #00 000000 mmeXUH3u Dam mEDHo> mmfiommm ©003©Hmm .womum .mmflommm >3 000030050 009250 0m0a::.ma 55 .30 03003 .00> 10D .00 cum .0o> 0002 30 000000 0 .0o> .2500 m# .30 .500 .00> N# .30 .8800 .00> 0# .00 000000 .00> .30 .HO> mfim cBocan .0002 00x02 0:00 00 C000003 30000 0:00 0>0umz .umz 02 00x02 0.0.0 .0000 .0 0.0 000000 00000mw 60030000 00sc0ucoouu.m0 56 PART D Folklore from Michigan's Logging Days: 'Ole Pete Bateese' Ole Pete Bateese got chase one night By wolf up by de 800. Dese wolf dey t'ree, four in de pack And dey scare him tru and tru. Pretty soon ole Pete climb up a tree; He t'ink he stay awhile. Dese wolf dey sit down in de snow And lick dere chops and smile. Pretty quick two wolf go trot away; Pete t'ink de rest soon go Pretty quick dese wolf come right straight back; Pete's Spirits dey sink low. For w'at you t'ink dese wolf dey got? Big beaver--one? No--twoi Dey set dem down beside dat tree And say, "by gar, now chew." Dose beaver start in chew dat tree; Dey chew like beat de band. Pete t'ink he soon be on de groun' Unless he take a hand. So Pete pull out his one-quart hooch And let it run out slow. It trickle down de trunk to where Dose beaver chew below. Dose beaver dey got drunk, by gar. Dey don't see none too good. Dey make mistake and chew de wolf Instead of chew de wood. Dose wolf run 'way, and Pete climb down And sit down in de snow. And cry and cry to t'ink for where His one-quart hooch she go. R3 NE“- 003 00: 00L! TAT UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES E M'CIH'ITWINIIIISII 3 1 293 03056 6081