Historic hardwood stumpage prices anyone?

[Clark]

I'm curious if anyone might have information (graph or table would be ideal) that lists past stumpage prices paid for hardwood timber?  And preferably by species!  I'm not looking for prices paid in year 19XX, but rather would like continuous data over the course of say 20-30 years or more. 

I realize that I, the beggar, cannot be too choosy, so I happily accept whatever help is offered.  THanks a lot!

Clark

[beenthere]

For Washington?

Or across North America?

Googling Hardwood Log Prices brings up a number of different sources.

Contact the USFS (Portland Region office would be a start) and ask for a lead on such info. The economists and statisticians keep track of a ton of numbers, and publish a lot of info as well.

[Ron Scott]

Ditto! to what Beenthere said. Also, contact the local State Forestry Department for the particular area you are interested in.

[Ron Wenrich]

You'll probably end up with a range.  Stumpage prices are subjective to quality, trucking distance, and logging difficulty in addition to lumber market prices. 

What are you planning to do with the information?

[Clark]

Thanks for the ideas, I hadn't even considered the USFS.

beenthere - You made me chuckle at the idea of hardwoods in Washington :D  They've got two of value out here; big leaf maple which has the form of box elder and then red alder which rarely has good form and size.  So no, not Washington.

I'd be looking at the real hardwood producing areas of the US, possibly narrow it down to a state or three and see if I can get any consistency in species and grade prices over several decades.  I fully expect a range for each species and grade but that's all I really want.  And maybe I won't be looking at stumpage prices but rather scaled price at the mill?  Shouldn't matter too much as they both reflect the growing or shrinking supply or demand for any given product.

The reason I want this data is that I find it frustrating when foresters push land towards growing species that are currently valuable when the land doesn't naturally support those species.  I worked for Plum Creek one winter and they were constantly pushing sugar maple on land that was much more suited for ash, basswood and yellow birch.  But sugar maple was worth more so they pushed it.  In 30 years will sugar maple be worth more?  Maybe, but maybe not, so that is where I need the data to support my position.

So right now there is no real practical use for this data beyond my own curiosity.  Hopefully in several years I'll be in a management position where this data can be used to show the cyclical nature of hardwood prices.  ;)

Clark 

[Clark]

In a not so distant sub-forum, Ron Wenrich read my mind and stated it much more concisely than I ever do (Thanks!):

Managing tomorrow's forest for today's markets can often lead to disappointment.  30 years ago, you would have wanted to manage for walnut, 20 years ago it was red oak, 10 years ago it was black cherry, and now its hard maple.  You could also throw in ash and white oak.  And during that same time, those high valued trees also hit market lows.  Markets fluctuate and its hard to hit a moving target. 

If you have high quality trees, no matter what species, you can find a market.  The site should dictate what you're managing.  Get rid of the low quality trees, and manage for the high quality.  Maintain good spacing to allow good crown expansion and optimum growth.

[beenthere]

Thanks for the ideas, I hadn't even considered the USFS.

beenthere - You made me chuckle at the idea of hardwoods in Washington :D  They've got two of value out here; big leaf maple which has the form of box elder and then red alder which rarely has good form and size.  So no, not Washington.
.......

  I chuckled too, when I wondered about the question bein you was from Vancouver, WA. 

The Dept. of Commerce collects a lot of such figures, and might be a place to poke around.

I've been managing my small lot for white ash for 40 years. Only to learn now that the threat of EAB could mean it was for naught.  Nothing cyclical about the EAB.

[Ron Wenrich]

Stumpage prices are also victims of bubbles.  Cherry has hit a couple of them.  There was a timber sale in northern PA where the stumpage was $3.25.  Uppers for cherry lumber was around $3.  So, every log that rolled onto the headblocks was produced at a loss.  Veneer was going for $8.  Predict when that bubble hits, or when it bursts.

For lumber, there are various cycles, as well.  A lumber buyer once told me that it goes about 30 years.  The cycle varies from ring porous woods like oak and ash to the diffuse porous woods like maple and birch.  Those markets invert and it seems to be generational.

For my grandparents, the wood species was primarily white oak.  Look at the mission style craze of the 1930s and those big old oak farm tables from that era.  For my parents, it was primarily knotty pine and maple.  For us boomers, we went into oak, especially red oak.  Now, we're getting back to maple. 

Red oak peaked about 2003.  When I first started buying timber in 1975, I was told not to buy red oak.  It was junk.  We wanted primarily tulip poplar, even though the market was soft after the 1974 recession.  We were selling red oak for casket lumber and pallets.  After the recession, boomers started building houses and were looking for cheaper wood.  Red oak fit the bill, and the markets took off, especially after the crazy interest rates of the late '70s and early '80s.  The cycle lasted a little longer than 30 years, but it did cycle.

When markets fall, the price for uppers generally remain stable, but lower than at peaks.  Tulip poplar upper prices stayed fairly consistent throughout their downturn.  The lower common grades were hard to get rid of, and generally went for pallet.  Poplar gets used in a lot of moldings.

Common prices in maple are pretty close to the upper prices.  That tells me there is pretty much going into furniture, cabinets and flooring.  When demand drops, usually the common prices drop the hardest.

Lumber prices might be available from some of the lumber associations or lumber pricing agencies.  Just make sure you adjust them for inflation.  Going with a 1 common price might yield a better market outlook. 

[jrdwyer]

The longest running hardwood log report that I know of comes out of Purdue University and is called "Forest Products Price Report and Trend Analysis" by Bill Hoover. It goes back to the early 1970's or further. There are some assumptions built into their valuation of timber stand prices (delivered not stumpage) that may not apply to all tracts of timber, but it is a great database of the log market prices over time.

Here is the link:

http://www.ag.purdue.edu/fnr/Pages/extpubs.aspx#Timber

As can be seen by the delivered price of a "quality stand", the markets have been very good to those who grow high quality timber in Indiana.

[Chico]

Areas of the country ie southern applachian and northern are going to cause a diff also scale doyle scribner etc make sure you're comparing apples to apples
Chico

[caz]

http://www.ohiodnr.com/tabid/5253/Default.aspx

Here is some prices from ohio dating back to the 60's

[Cedarman]

At Indiana Forestry and Woodland Owners Association, we do our best to promote growing what will grow the best for the site.  Also, when doing TSE, if it is nice and straight and tall, keep it growing until harvest time.  Don't worry too much about species.  If your goal is to grow high quality timber, then manage for it.