texas lumber and panel product market study, 1998 · 1998. various western softwood species had...
TRANSCRIPT
Publication 159
Texas Lumber and Panel Product Market Study, 1998 Weihuan Xu
Susie Shockley
I
Texas Lumber and Panel Product Market Study, 1998
Weihuan Xu, Susie Shockley
Forest Resource Development
Texas Forest Service
College Station, Texas
Publication 159 February 2001
I
Table of Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................................IV Background....................................................................................................................................................................... 1 The Wood-Using Industry Survey of Building Products Wholesalers and Retailers .......................................... 1
Respondent Profile ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 Lumber Consumption ................................................................................................................................................. 3 Panel Product Consumption ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Texas Wood Product Distribution Survey................................................................................................................. 11 Synthesis.......................................................................................................................................................................... 12
II
List of Figures Figure 1. Texas regions................................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Percentages of lumber consumption in Texas by type, 1998 .................................................................. 3 Figure 3. Percentages of lumber consumption in Texas by species, 1998............................................................. 4 Figure 4. Percentages of lumber consumption in Texas by source region, 1998 ................................................. 5 Figure 5. Factors that contributed to softwood lumber purchases from non-Texas source, 1998.................... 6 Figure 6. Factors that contributed to hardwood lumber purchases from non-Texas sources, 1998................. 8 Figure 7. Percentages of panel product consumption in Texas by type, 1998 ...................................................... 9 Figure 8. Percentages of panel product consumption in Texas by source region, 1998.................................... 10 Figure 9. Factors that contributed to panel products purchases from non-Texas sources, 1998..................... 11
III
List of Tables Table 1. Number of firms surveyed by business type.…………………………………………………...…14 Table 2. Number of operating/sale facilities surveyed by region………………………………………..…14 Table 3. Number of firms surveyed by number of facilities ……………………………………………… 14 Table 4. Number of firms surveyed by number of employees.……………………………………………..15 Table 5. Number of firms surveyed by 1998 total sales.……………………………………………………15 Table 6. Percentages of Texas lumber consumption by region, 1998.……………………………………...15 Table 7. Percentages of regional lumber consumption in Texas by type, 1998………………………….…16 Table 8. Percentages of regional lumber consumption in Texas by species, 1998....………………………16 Table 9. Percentages of lumber consumption in Texas by source type, 1998.……………………….……..16 Table 10. Percentages of regional lumber consumption in Texas by source region, 1998..………………..17 Table 11. Factors that contributed to decision to purchase non-Texas lumber in 1998..………………...…17 Table 12. Factors that contributed to softwood lumber purchases from non-Texas sources, 1998..……….18 Table 13. Factors that contributed to hardwood lumber purchases from non-Texas sources, 1998..………18 Table 14. Percentages of panel product consumption in Texas by region, 1998.…………………………..19 Table 15. Percentages of Texas panel product consumption by product type, 1998..……………………....19 Table 16. Percentages of panel product consumption in Texas by source type, 1998…………………..….20 Table 17. Percentages of regional panel product consumption in Texas by source region, 1998………..…20 Table 18. Factors that contributing to panel product purchases from non-Texas sources, 1998……….…..21 Table 19. Percentages of distribution methods for Texas lumber and panel products, 1998…………….…21 Table 20. Percentages of lumber and panel products from Texas by customer location, 1998………….…21 Table 21. Summary of distribution of lumber and panel products from Texas by destination, 1998……....22 Table 22. Summary of consumption of lumber and panel products in Texas by source region, 1998…..…22 Table 23. Summary of production, export, import and consump tion of lumber and panel products in Texas, 1998………………………………………………………………………………...…22
IV
Texas Lumber and Panel Product Market Study, 1998
Executive Summary
This study was designed to offer a more complete picture of the lumber and panel products market in Texas. It was undertaken because the consumption growth outpaced the production growth of lumber and panel products in Texas, and Texas producers are rapidly losing their domestic market share to competitors from other states and foreign countries. The results of this study show some of the dynamics of the lumber and panel products marketplace that producers and distributors of Texas wood products can use to improve their position in that marketplace. Data on production, importing, exporting, and consumption of these products was collected, analyzed and synthesized.
Two surveys were conducted for the study. The first of two surveys targeted building products wholesalers and retailers. It was designed to collect information about suppliers of lumber and panel products, their market shares, the rationale behind purchasing from those suppliers and regional differences within Texas. The second survey tallied the destination of lumber and panel products produced by Texas manufacturers.
Lumber:
Texas produced 1,485 million board feet (mmbf) and consumed 2,978 mmbf lumber in 1998. Texas was a net importer of lumber in the year. It exported 400 mmbf to and imported 1,893 mmbf from other states and foreign markets.
More than 70% of the lumber consumed in Texas was dimension lumber (2” thickness), followed by boards (1” thickness) at 24.2%, then timber (3” thickness or greater) at 2.8% and engineered lumber (parallel strand lumber/laminated veneer lumber) at 2.9%.
Southern Yellow Pine (SYP) accounted for 52.7% of all lumber consumption in Texas in 1998. Various western softwood species had 36.1% of lumber market share in Texas.
Texas lumber wholesalers and retailers purchased 72.9% of their lumber directly from sawmills, 26.2% from brokers or wholesalers and 0.9% from other sources.
Texas producers had 36.4% of the market share in Texas in 1998 compared to the Southern States (other than Texas) at 25.1%. International sources (mostly Canadian) produced 22% of the lumber consumed in Texas. The Pacific Northwest contributed 9.5%, followed by Intermountain West, Central, Northeastern states at 3.8%, 1.8% and 1.4% respectively.
While Texas had a substantial market share in all Texas regions, four regions (North Central, East, Central and West Central Texas) received more than 20% of their lumber
V
from the Southern States (other than Texas). Canada supplied from 10.2% in the Panhandle/Plains region to 42.1% to the Gulf Coast/Golden Triangle region. The Pacific Northwest shipped 24.8% of the lumber consumed in the West Central Texas region.
Panel Products:
Hardwood plywood comprised 32.9% of the total panel products purchased for the Texas market, followed by OSB at 22%, Medium Density Fiberboard at 14.1%, softwood plywood at 13.1% and particleboard at 10.1%. Insulation board (3.4%), wood/cement board (1.9%), and hardboard (1.6%) made up a small portion of the market.
Texas produced 3,170 million square feet (mmsf) and consumed 3,337 mmsf of structural panel products (plywood and OSB) in 1998. Texas exported 1,075 mmsf to and imported 1,243 mmsf from other states and foreign markets.
Texas panel product distributors purchased 87.3% of the panel products they carried in 1998 from manufacturers, 8.1% from brokers or wholesalers and 4.6% from other sources.
Texas producers of panel products had 62.8% of the market share in Texas in 1998, compared to the Southern States (other than Texas) at 26.7%, the Pacific Northwest at 5.7%, and International sources (mostly Canadian) at 3.2%. The North Central region of Texas consumed the most panel products in 1998, 28.1% of Texas’ total consumption. The Southern States (other than Texas) shipped 55.4% of those panel products to the North Central region compared to 27.2% from Texas.
Four product related factors (Price, Quality, Availability and Logistics), which were rated most important, and four service and marketing related factors (Contacted by Seller, Contact Ease, Requested by Customers and Other), of lesser importance, contributed to decisions to purchase from non-Texas lumber and panel products producers. This was consistent for hardwood lumber, softwood lumber, and plywood and OSB.
Texas consumed 71% of the softwood lumber, 86.9% of the hardwood lumber and 66.1% of the plywood and OSB produced in Texas. The Southern States (other than Texas) consumed 15.3%, 6.8% and 10.4% respectively. The Central States accounted for 6.2% of the softwood lumber, 5.6% of the hardwood lumber and 4.6% of the plywood and OSB consumption. The Southwest and Other States consumed 1.8% and 5.3% of the softwood lumber produced in Texas, respectively. No hardwood lumber was reportedly shipped from Texas to the Southwest and Other States regions. The Southwest states received 2.3% of the plywood and OSB from Texas, while Other States consumed 16.4% of the plywood and OSB produced in Texas. Less than one percent of these products were sold to international customers.
1
Texas Lumber and Panel Product Market Study, 1998
Background
Dramatic changes have taken place in the Texas lumber and panel products market. Texas lumber producers have lost 24% of their market share to out-of-state suppliers in the last ten years. Texas panel consumption grew about 10% per year during that same time frame, but Texas panel production only grew about 4% per year. By understanding these changes the Texas lumber and panel producers and distributors can make better decisions that may improve their position in the marketplace.
Until this study, the information available was not adequate for describing the dynamics of the lumber and panel product markets in Texas. The Harvest Trends published by the Texas Forest Service, lists annual production information on lumber and panel products produced in Texas. What was missing was the import and export information of the products. This study sought to provide a more complete picture of the lumber and panel product markets in Texas by conducting two surveys to collect such information.
The first survey, a cooperative effort by the Texas Forest Service and the Lumbermen’s Association of Texas, was a wood-using industry survey of building products wholesalers and retailers. It was designed to answer four questions. What were the sources of lumber and panel products consumed in Texas in 1998? What were the market shares of lumber and panel products consumed in Texas from each source in 1998? What were the reasons for purchasing lumber and panel products from sources other than Texas in 1998? What are the differences among regions in Texas in answering the previous three questions?
The second survey, conducted by Texas Forest Service, was a survey of distribution of lumber and panel products by the Texas manufacturers. The survey was designed to collect information about the destination of the lumber and panel products produced in Texas in 1998.
The Wood-Using Industry Survey of Building Products Wholesalers and Retailers
The survey participants were 329 wholesalers and retailers of lumber and panel products in Texas. They were chosen from a database maintained by the Lumbermen’s Association of Texas. There were 121 responses to the survey, a response rate of 36.7%.
A mail survey was chosen for this investigation because of its efficiency and cost-effectiveness in collecting data from a large, geographically dispersed population. The survey mailing consisted of a cover letter, a questionnaire, and a self-addressed postage-paid business reply envelope. A second mailing was completed three weeks after the first
2
mailing. This mailing included a follow-up cover letter encouraging the participant to complete and return their survey, another questionnaire in case the first one was misplaced, and a self-addressed, postage-paid business reply envelope.
Firms failing to reply to the two mailings were contacted by phone to encourage their participation.
Respondent Profile
The four questions in the first section of the survey identify the profiles of the firms. Among the 121 firms that responded to the survey, 17 of them were wholesalers, 70 of them were retailers and 34 of them were categorized as “Other”, which amounts to 14%, 58% and 28% of the total, respectively (Table 1). The “Other” category included firms with a mixture of wholesaler, retail, manufacturing and other businesses.
Each firm may have had more than one operating/sale facility. There were 287 facilities in the 121 firms surveyed. In this study, Texas was divided into nine regions (Figure 1). Some firms may have had facilities in more than one region in Texas. Table 2 gives the number of facilities in each region. Since some southwest and west regions have relatively small sample sizes, they were combined together in regional analysis as in Table 2. The “All but East Texas” region was summarized to compare with data in East Texas, the major wood-producing region in Texas.
Figure 1. Texas regions
The sizes of the firms were broken down by the number of facilities, the number of employees and their total annual sales of lumber and panel products. The number of firms by number of facilities was summarized in Table 3. Table 4 describes the sizes of the
3
firms in terms of the number of employees in the firms and Table 5 defines the sizes of the firms in terms of their total annual sales of lumber and panel products.
Lumber Consumption
In the second section of the survey, respondents were asked about their lumber purchases in 1998. The questions covered the estimated volumes of lumber by type purchased in 1998 and the percentages of their purchases by species, supplier type and supplier region. They were also asked to rate the importance of eight factors that contributed to purchasing lumber from sources other than Texas. In this report, the amount of lumber consumption in 1998 was assumed equivalent to the lumber purchased by the distributors. In other words, the inventory of the distributors by the end of 1998 was assumed equal to their inventory in the beginning of the year. The same assumption also applied to the analysis for panel products in the next section.
There were 2.1 billion board feet of lumber purchased by the surveyed lumber distributors in 1998. Percentage distribution of regional lumber consumption in Texas is shown in Table 6. East Texas had the highest share (28.3%) of all lumber purchased by wholesalers and retailers, reflecting the fact that East Texas was the lumber production center of Texas. Therefore, there were more wholesaling activities in this region. The market shares of lumber consumption in other regions were consistent with their populations. For example, the three largest population centers in Texas: North Central, Central and Gulf Coast/Golden Triangle, had the highest shares of lumber consumption after East Texas.
The percentages of lumber consumption in Texas by type in 1998 are displayed in Figure 2. Dimension stock (2” thickness) accounted for 70.2% of total lumber consumed in Texas in 1998, followed by boards (1” thickness) at 24.2%. Timber (3” thickness or greater) was the third at 2.8%, and engineered lumber (parallel strand lumber/laminated
24.2%
70.2%
2.8%
2.9%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0%
Boards
Dimension
Timbers
PSL/LVL
Figure 2. Percentages of lumber consumption in Texas by type, 1998
veneer lumber) consisted of 2.9% of the total lumber consumption in Texas in 1998. Respondents indicated an increased usage of engineered lumber and metal studs. The
4
percentages of regional lumber consumption in Texas by type in 1998 are displayed in Table 7.
Figure 3 shows the percentages of lumber consumption in Texas by species in 1998. Southern Yellow Pine (SYP), which had a dominant position in the Texas lumber market, accounted for 52.7% of all lumber consumption in Texas in 1998. Various western softwood species, such as Douglas fir, hemlock, spruce, pine, true fir and western red cedar had 36.1% of lumber market share in Texas. The rest of the lumber consumed in Texas consisted of 1.4% other softwood, 7.9% oak and 1.8% other hardwood species.
Figure 3. Percentages of lumber consumption in Texas by species, 1998
There were significant differences in percentages of lumber species consumed among regions in Texas (Table 8). As one might expect, East Texas had the highest percentage of SYP and lowest percentage of Western Softwood in its total lumber consumption, 77.2% and 21.0%, respectively. That was because East Texas was the largest SYP-producing region in Texas, and it is closer to The Southern States (other than Texas) that produce SYP lumber than other regions in Texas. The North Central region had the second highest percentage in SYP lumber consumption, followed by the third, Central Texas. Although SYP enjoyed a majority market share of the Texas lumber market overall, western softwood had more than 50% of the market share in five out of nine Texas regions. The five regions were, from the highest to the lowest in market share for western softwood, Panhandle /Plains, West, West Central, Gulf Coast/Golden Triangle and Central.
Table 9 gives the percentages of lumber consumption in Texas by business type of sources in 1998. Texas lumber wholesalers purchased 96.5% of lumber directly from manufacturers (sawmills) and the rest of them through brokers. Retailers purchased 67.9% of lumber directly from sawmills, 30.7% from brokers or wholesalers and 1.5% from other sources. Mixed wholesaler and retailers, the type of business engaged in both wholesaling and retailing, was similar to retailers in terms of shares of the types of suppliers. They received 63.6% of their lumber directly from sawmills, 35.5% from brokers or wholesalers and 0.8% from others. On average, Texas lumber wholesalers and
Southern Yellow Pine52.7%Western Softwood
36.1%
Oak7.9%Other Softwood
1.4%
Other Hardwood1.8%
5
retailers purchased 72.9% of lumber directly from sawmills, 26.2% from brokers or wholesalers and 0.9% from other sources. Respondents commented on some emerging trends in the industry including mergers and acquisitions between wholesalers and mills and the increased mix between wholesalers and retailers. Small independent retailers are facing increasing competition from larger multi- functional vendors.
Texas was the No. 1 supplier of the Texas lumber market in 1998. It had 36.4% of the lumber market share in Texas. The Southern States (other than Texas) supplied 25.1% of the total. There was 22% of lumber from international sources, almost exclusively from Canada. Pacific Northwest states took the fourth position, at 9.5%, followed by Intermountain West, Central, Northeastern states, at 3.8%, 1.8% and 1.4%, respectively (Figure 4).
Texas36.4%
Pacific Northwest9.5%
Central States1.8%
Southern States (Other Than Texas)
25.1%
International22.0%
Intermountain West3.8%
Northeastern States1.4%
*
Note: lumber from Canada comprised more than 99.9% of lumber from all international sources.
Figure 4. Percentages of lumber consumption in Texas by source region, 1998
There were substantial variations in the regional markets in Texas in terms of sources of suppliers in 1998. Texas producers had a substantial market share in all regions, from as high as 54.9% for South Central to as low as 23.9% in Panhandle/Plains (Table 10). Four regions received more than 20% of lumber from the Southern States (other than Texas). They were North Central (38.1%), East (31.3%), Central (24.5%) and West Central Texas (20.7%). It was clear that the regions that received the most lumber from the Southern States (other than Texas) were the regions that are closest to them. The only exception was the Gulf Coast/Golden Triangle region, which received only 10.6% lumber from the Southern States (other than Texas). The biggest supplier to the Gulf Coast/Golden Triangle region was Canada. Canadian lumber market share in the region was 42.1% in 1998, the highest among all Texas regions. Canadian lumber had good market penetration in all Texas regions. The lowest Canadian lumber market share was 10.2% in the Panhandle/Plains region. West Central Texas received the highest
6
percentage of lumber from the Pacific Northwest region in 1998, which accounted for 24.8% of its total lumber consumption. The western regions, Panhandle/Plains/West Central/West, were the second, with 19% of their lumber supplied from the Pacific Northwest region in 1998, most likely because of logistic considerations. For the same reason, the Intermountain West region was an important lumber supplier for Panhandle/Plains/West Central/West (19.8%) and Central Texas (11.1%). Central States and Northeastern States were relatively unimportant in terms of lumber market shares. However, these regions did supply some hardwood species that were scarce in other regions.
The eight factors that contributed to decisions to purchase non-Texas softwood or hardwood lumber are listed in Table 11. The respondents were asked to rate the factors on a 1 to 5 scale. One (1) means “highly important” and five (5) means “not important”. Figure 5 displays the survey results on the average scores of the factors that contributed to decisions to purchase non-Texas softwood lumber. “Price” and “quality” received the top scores, with an average score of 1.9. Respondents cited the inability of Texas based mills to compete price-wise with Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi mills as one reason for not buying Texas lumber. Respondents also expressed concerns about “too much latitude in grading lumber and inconsistent lumber quality” from Texas lumber producers.
1.9
1.9
2.2
3.9
3.4
3.5
2.2
3.5
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Price
Quality
Availability
Requested
Contacted by Seller
Contact ease
Logistics
Other
Figure 5. Factors that contributed to softwood lumber purchases from non-Texas source, 1998
“Availability” and “Logistics” shared the second place, at 2.2. “Availability” could be either species related or grade related. Some consumers may prefer western softwood lumber to SYP lumber and therefore would not buy lumber from Texas producers. Some consumers may need specialty lumber for projects that require species not available in
7
Texas. The shortage of certain lumber grades at competitive prices at a particular time might also contribute to decisions to purchase lumber from non-Texas sources. One respondent commented that the upgrade in mill facilities improved lumber grades and thus made lower grade lumber less available. Import and tariff policy affected the availability of lumber from Canada. Respondents expressed concerns that tougher environmental regulations would impact harvesting and manufacturing and adversely affect the availability of lumber in Texas in the future. “Logistics” was mostly related to the location of suppliers. From the analysis about the sources of lumber by region, one can clearly see the impact of location of suppliers on lumber market shares in each region. One respondent commented that the high intra-state freight rates set by the Texas Railroad Commission made it difficult for Texas producers to compete due to deregulation of inter-state freight rates.
The other four factors all scored greater than 3, with “Contacted by Seller” rated at 3.4, both “Contact Ease” and “Other” rated at 3.5, and “Requested” rated at 3.9. From the average score, the eight factors can roughly be separated into two groups. The four factors that rated higher than 3 (Price, Quality, Availability and Logistics), were product related and the four factors rated lower than 3 (Contacted by Seller, Contact Ease, Other and Requested) were service and marketing related. On average, firms rated the product-related factors much higher than the service and marketing-related factors.
The scores about the factors that contributed to softwood lumber purchases from non-Texas sources by region were consistent with their statewide averages (Table 12). There were no significant variations about the factor ratings by region. Some deviations, such as the low (1.7) score on “Requested” by West Central, compared to the average of 3.9 in Texas, were most likely due to the small sample sizes of the regions.
Figure 6 shows the survey results on the average scores of the factors that contributed to decisions to purchase non-Texas hardwood lumber. “Quality” and “Availability” are the two most important factors in making hardwood lumber purchase decisions. “Quality” scored 1.9 and “Availability” scored 2.2. One respondent commented that the decrease in the supply of high quality oak logs in Texas forced distributors to purchase them from other regions. The average scores for “Price” and “Logistics” were 2.6 and 2.8, respectively, compared to 1.9 and 2.2 for those two factors in case of softwood lumber. The importance of “Price” and “Logistics” were rated lower for hardwood than softwood lumber because hardwood lumber is a less homogenous product than softwood lumber and its uses and quality requirement are more diverse. Nevertheless, “Price” and “Logistics” were still two very important factors in making hardwood lumber purchase decisions. As in the case of softwood lumber, the other four factors, “Requested”, “Contacted by Seller”, “Contact Ease” and “Other”, were less important.
Again, scores by region for factors that contributed to hardwood lumber purchases from non-Texas sources were consistent with their averages (Table 13). Most large deviations were due to small sample sizes of the regions.
8
2.6
1.9
2.2
4.0
3.8
3.7
2.8
3.4
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Price
Quality
Availability
Requested
Contacted by Seller
Contact ease
Logistics
Other
Figure 6. Factors that contributed to hardwood lumber purchases from non-Texas sources, 1998
Panel Product Consumption
The questions about pane l product consumption were presented in the third section of the questionnaire. In the first question, respondents were asked about the estimated quantity of panel products by type that they purchased in 1998. Subsequently, three questions were designed for information about structural panel (plywood and OSB) consumption. They were asked about the types and regions of the supply sources of structural panel products purchased and the importance of the factors that contributed to purchasing them from distributors outside of Texas.
There were a total of 2.05 billion square feet of panel products being purchased by the surveyed distributors in 1998. The percentage distribution of regional panel product consumption in Texas in 1998 is given in Table 14. North Central (28.1%), Gulf Coast/Golden Triangle (27.6%) and Central (26.4%) were the three regions that consumed the highest percentage of panel products in Texas, which is consistent with the fact that these regions are the three largest population centers in Texas.
Panel product consumption by type in 1998 is displayed in Figure 7. Hardwood plywood had the highest percentage of the total panel products purchased for the Texas market, 32.9%, followed by OSB, at 22% and Medium Density Fiberboard, at 14.1%. These structural panel products consisted of 69.8% of the total panel product consumption in Texas. Softwood plywood was fourth on the list, at 13.1%. Fifth on the percentage
9
ranking was particleboard, with 10.1% of the total panel product market in Texas. The market share of insulation board, wood/cement board, and hard board were relatively small, at 3.4%, 1.9% and 1.6% of the total panel product market in Texas, respectively. Respondents indicated that the market shares for OSB and Medium Density Fiberboard were likely to increase at the expense of plywood and particleboard. The percentages of regional panel product consumption in Texas by type are reported in Table 15.
22.0%
13.1%
32.9%
14.9%
3.4%
10.1%
1.6%
1.9%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%
OSB
Softwood Plywood
Hardwood Plywood
Medium Density Fiberboard
Insulation Board
Particleboard
Hardboard
Wood/Cement Board
Figure 7. Percentages of panel product consumption in Texas by type, 1998
Texas panel product wholesalers purchased 69.1% of their products in 1998 directly from the manufacturers, and 30.9% from brokers. Retailers’ direct purchase from manufacturers was 64.8% and they purchased the rest of them from brokers or wholesalers (20.4%) and other sources (14.9%). Mixed wholesalers and retailers purchased most of their products from manufacturers (99%) and the rest from brokers or wholesalers (1%). On average, Texas panel product distributors purchased 87.3% of the panel products they carried in 1998 from manufacturers, 8.1% from brokers or wholesalers and 4.6% from other sources (Table 16).
Texas panel product producers supplied 62.8% of its domestic market in Texas in 1998 (Figure 8). The Southern States (other than Texas) had 26.7% of the panel product market share in Texas. Pacific Northwest was the third largest panel product supply region in Texas with a market share of 5.7%. International sources, mostly Canadian, supplied 3.2% of the total panel products in Texas market in 1998. Central States, Intermountain West and Northeastern States each supplied less than 1% of the Texas panel product market in 1998.
10
Texas62.8%
Southern States (Other Than Texas)
26.7%
Central States0.8%
Intermountain West0.4%
Pacific Northwest5.7%
International*3.2%
Northeastern States0.4%
Figure 8. Percentages of panel product consumption in Texas by source region, 1998.
In the Texas regional market, the most noteworthy observation in terms of source of suppliers in 1998 is about the North Central region. Panel products produced in Texas had only 27.2% of the market share in this region, compared with 62.8% average in Texas. Where Texas producers lost market share, producers from outside of Texas gained it. The Southern States (other than Texas) had 55.4% of the market share in the North Central region, compared with its 26.7% average market share in Texas overall. Pacific Northwest and International suppliers also fared better in this region, with a 7.7% and 6.3% market share, respectively. North Central region was the largest region in Texas in terms of panel product consumption in the year. It consisted of 28.1% of the total consumption in Texas in 1998. Texas panel producers must concentrate on gaining strength in this North Central region in order to achieve overall success in the Texas market.
Suppliers in the Southern States (other than Texas) also did well in Central Texas, with 30.5% of the regional market share. Texas producers were dominant in the Gulf Coast/Golden Triangle market with 79.9% of the market share, compared with 12.3% of the market share for the Southern States (other than Texas) in the same market (Table 17).
The factors that contributed to decisions to purchase non-Texas panel products were the same as listed in Table 10, with the absence of the “Contact Ease” item. “Price” had a score of 1.2, the highest among the seven factors. “Logistics” and “Quality” had close scores of 2.1 and 2.2, respectively. “Availability” was fourth on the list, with a score of 2.7. “Contacted by Seller”, “Requested” and “Other” were far less important, with a score of 3.5, 4.7 and 5.0, respectively. The existence of tough competition in the sector, the importance of physical location of the suppliers, and quality control underlie the scores of these product-related factors. Service and marketing factors were relatively less important
11
when making panel products purchasing decisions. Factors that contributed to panel products purchases from non-Texas sources by region are presented in Table 18.
1.2
2.2
2.7
4.7
3.5
2.1
5.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Price
Quality
Availability
Requested
Contacted by seller
Logistics
Other
Figure 9. Factors that contributed to panel products purchases from non-Texas sources, 1998
Texas Wood Product Dis tribution Survey
A Texas wood product distribution survey was mailed to 74 sawmills and plywood and OSB plants. After three rounds of mailings, 43 of them returned the survey. The response rate was 58%. The survey asked three simple questions. The first question asked what distribution methods were used in selling their manufactured wood products in 1998 and what percentages of their products were shipped directly to customers, through a broker, wholesaler or other marketing channel.
Table 19 provides the results of the first question. Direct distribution to customers was the most preferred mode of distribution for all three types of lumber and panel products manufactured: softwood lumber, hardwood lumber, and plywood and OSB. This mode of distribution accounts for 60.8%, 81.8% and 97% of the three types of products they produced, respectively. The rest of the products were all distributed through brokers or wholesalers. The second question asked the primary locations of customers in 1998. Respondents were asked to give percentages of their products sold to six primary locations of customers: Texas, South (other than Texas), Central, Southwest, Other U.S. States, and International Customers.
12
Table 20 gives the shares of customer locations for Texas lumber and panel products in 1998. Texas consumed 71% of softwood lumber, 86.9% of hardwood lumber and 66.1% of plywood and OSB produced in Texas. The Southern states (other than Texas) were the second largest customers for the three products. They accounted for 15.3%, 6.8% and 10.4% of softwood lumber, hardwood lumber and plywood and OSB from Texas, respectively. The Central states, which were third, shipped 6.2% of softwood lumber, 5.6% of hardwood lumber and 4.6% of plywood and OSB. The Southwest and other states consumed 1.8% and 5.3% of the softwood lumber produced in Texas, respectively. There was little hardwood lumber from Texas shipped to Southwest and Other States. The Southwest region received 2.3% of the plywood and OSB produced in Texas. Other States consumed 16.4% of the plywood and OSB produced in Texas, which was a relatively large proportion compared with softwood and hardwood lumber. There was less than one percent of the lumber and panel products from Texas being sold to international customers.
The third question was for those firms that had international customers. They were asked to give the percentages of their products sold to each of six international destinations: Europe, Asia, Mexico, Caribbean region, South America/Central America, and other regions of the world. Since the export of lumber and panel products to other countries was very insignificant in Texas, the results from this question are not presented.
Synthesis
According to the Harvest Trends 1998 (Texas Forest Service, 1999), Texas sawmills produced 1,293 million board feet (mmbf) of softwood lumber and 191 mmbf of hardwood lumber in 1998. Texas plywood and OSB plants manufactured 3,170 million square feet (mmsf) of structure panels. Combining these production data with the percentage distribution data in Table 20, a summary of the distribution of lumber and panel products from Texas by destination is derived in Table 21.
From Table 21, there were 918 mmbf of softwood lumber and 166 mmbf of hardwood lumber produced and utilized in Texas in 1998. From Table 10, that was 36.4% of the lumber consumed in Texas in 1998. With consumption of lumber by source information in Table 10, the volume of lumber consumed by source was derived in Table 22. Similarly, from Table 21, there were 2,092 mmsf of plywood and OSB produced and utilized in Texas in 1998. From Table 17, that accounted for 62.8% of the total structural panel consumption in Texas in that year. Combining the percentage information from Table 17 and data on plywood and OSB produced and consumed in Texas in Table 21, the volume of plywood and OSB consumed in Texas by source in 1998 was derived in Table 22.
With data on production, and information on species composition in Table 8, distribution information in Table 21 and consumption information in Table 22, the production,
13
export, import and consumption of lumber and panel products in Texas in 1998 were summarized in Table 23.
From table 23, Texas produced 1,485 million board feet (mmbf) and consumed 2,978 mmbf lumber in 1998. It exported 400 mmbf and imported 1,893 mmbf of lumber to and from other states and foreign markets. Texas produced 3,170 million square feet (mmsf) and consumed 3,337 mmsf of plywood and OSB in 1998. It exported 1075 mmsf and imported 1,243 mmsf of plywood and OSB to and from other states and foreign markets.
Table 1. Number of firms surveyed by business type
Business Type Number of Firms Percent of FirmsWholesaler 17 14%Retailer 70 58%Other 34 28%All 121 100%
Table 2. Number of operating/sale facilities surveyed by region
Region All FacilitiesEast 44North Central 57Central 56Gulf Coast/Golden Triangle 27South Central 54Coastal Bend/Valley 21Panhandle/Plains 10West Central 7West 11South Central/Coastal Bend/Valley 75Panhandle/Plains/West Central/West 28All but East 243Average 287
Table 3. Number of firms surveyed by number of facilities
Number of Facilities Number of Firms Percent of Firms1 98 81%2 8 7%3 5 4%4 4 3%5 and more 6 5%All 121 100%
Number of Employees Number of Firms Percent of Firms1-10 46 38%11-20 29 23%21-30 8 7%31-40 8 7%41-50 7 6%51-100 10 8%101-150 7 6%150 and more 6 5%All 121 100%
Table 5. Number of firms surveyed by 1998 total sales
1998 Total sales Number of Firms Percent of FirmsLess than $1,000,000 25 21%$1,000,000 to $10,000,000 64 53%$10,000,000 to $25,000,000 14 11%$25,000,000 to $50,000,000 5 4%Greater than $50,000,000 13 11%All 121 100%
Table 6. Percentages of Texas lumber consumption by region, 1998
Region Share of LumberEast 28.3%North Central 25.5%Central 12.7%Gulf Coast/Golden Triangle 17.7%South Central 8.2%Coastal Bend/Valley 2.7%Panhandle/Plains 2.0%West Central 1.5%West 1.4%South Central/Coastal Bend/Valley 10.9%Panhandle/Plains/West Central/West 4.8%All but East 71.7%Average 100.0%
Table 4. Number of firms surveyed by number of employees
Table 7. Percentages of regional lumber consumption in Texas by type, 1998
Region Boards Dimension Timbers PSL/LVLEast 23.6% 74.3% 1.5% 0.5%North Central 16.3% 79.8% 0.9% 3.0%Central 6.9% 89.0% 1.8% 2.3%Gulf Coast/Golden Triangle 40.0% 45.2% 7.5% 7.4%South Central 52.5% 43.0% 2.6% 1.9%Coastal Bend/Valley 17.6% 70.9% 8.2% 3.2%Panhandle/Plains 11.7% 84.7% 2.1% 1.4%West Central 12.0% 83.6% 3.2% 1.2%West 11.3% 77.8% 6.7% 4.2%South Central/Coastal Bend/Valley 43.8% 49.9% 4.0% 2.3%Panhandle/Plains/West Central/West 11.7% 82.4% 3.8% 2.1%All but East 24.4% 68.5% 3.3% 3.8%Average 24.2% 70.2% 2.8% 2.9%
Table 8. Percentages of regional lumber consumption in Texas by species, 1998
Region Southern Yellow PineWestern
Softwood Other Softwood OakOther
HardwoodEast 77.2% 21.0% 1.4% 0.2% 0.2%North Central 53.4% 32.8% 1.8% 9.9% 2.1%Central 48.0% 50.7% 0.2% 0.4% 0.7%Gulf Coast/Golden Triangle 29.9% 51.4% 1.2% 14.4% 3.1%South Central 34.6% 24.2% 2.6% 32.2% 6.4%Coastal Bend/Valley 48.7% 47.6% 0.9% 0.9% 1.9%Panhandle/Plains 17.3% 75.4% 3.3% 3.0% 1.1%West Central 45.1% 53.2% 0.6% 0.4% 0.7%West 39.6% 56.5% 0.6% 1.8% 1.5%South Central/Coastal Bend/Valley 38.0% 29.9% 2.2% 24.6% 5.3%Panhandle/Plains/West Central/West 32.1% 63.3% 1.7% 1.9% 1.1%All but East 42.9% 42.2% 1.4% 11.0% 2.5%Average 52.7% 36.1% 1.4% 7.9% 1.8%
Table 9. Percentages of lumber consumption in Texas by source type, 1998
Business Type ManufacturersBrokers or
Wholesalers OtherWholesaler 96.5% 3.5% 0.0%Retailer 67.9% 30.7% 1.5%Mixed Wholesaler & Retailer 63.6% 35.5% 0.8% Average 72.9% 26.2% 0.9%
Tab
le 1
0. P
erce
ntag
es o
f reg
iona
l lum
ber c
onsu
mpt
ion
in T
exas
by
sour
ce re
gion
, 199
8
Reg
ion
Texa
s
Sout
hern
Sta
tes
(Oth
er T
han
Texa
s)Pa
cific
Nor
thw
est
Inte
rmou
ntai
n W
est
Cen
tral S
tate
sN
orth
east
ern
Stat
esIn
tern
atio
nal*
Eas
t46
.3%
31.3
%2.
8%0.
8%1.
4%0.
0%17
.4%
Nor
th C
entra
l25
.8%
38.1
%10
.8%
3.0%
1.9%
1.9%
18.5
%C
entra
l27
.6%
24.5
%22
.6%
11.1
%0.
1%0.
1%13
.9%
Gul
f Coa
st/G
olde
n T
riang
le33
.7%
10.6
%6.
6%1.
9%2.
5%2.
7%42
.1%
Sout
h C
entr
al54
.9%
8.3%
9.8%
1.0%
5.3%
5.3%
15.3
%C
oast
al B
end/
Val
ley
50.5
%6.
4%5.
7%0.
4%0.
0%0.
0%36
.9%
Panh
andl
e/Pl
ains
23.9
%7.
5%20
.0%
37.9
%0.
5%0.
0%10
.2%
Wes
t Cen
tral
28.3
%20
.7%
24.8
%11
.1%
0.0%
0.0%
15.0
%W
est
34.4
%11
.7%
11.1
%3.
0%0.
9%0.
0%38
.9%
Sout
h C
entra
l/Coa
stal
Ben
d/V
alle
y53
.8%
7.8%
8.8%
0.9%
4.0%
4.0%
20.6
%Pa
nhan
dle/
Plai
ns/W
est C
entra
l/Wes
t28
.2%
12.8
%19
.0%
19.8
%0.
5%0.
0%19
.7%
All
but E
ast
32.4
%22
.7%
12.2
%5.
0%1.
9%2.
0%23
.8%
Ave
rage
36.4
%25
.1%
9.5%
3.8%
1.8%
1.4%
22.0
%*
Lum
ber f
rom
Can
ada
cons
ists
mor
e th
an 9
9.9%
of l
umbe
r fro
m a
ll in
tern
atio
nal s
ourc
es.
Tab
le 1
1. F
acto
rs c
ontri
bute
d to
dec
isio
n to
pur
chas
e no
n-T
exas
lum
ber i
n 19
98
Abb
revi
atio
nFa
ctor
Pric
eC
ompe
titiv
enes
s of
pric
eQ
ualit
yQ
ualit
y co
nsis
tenc
y of
lum
ber
Ava
ilabi
lity
Lum
ber w
as n
ot a
vaila
ble
or n
ot fo
und
in T
exas
Req
uest
edC
usto
mer
requ
este
d no
n-Te
xas
woo
d or
spe
cies
Con
tact
ed b
y Se
ller
Sour
ce c
onta
ct m
akes
per
iodi
c sa
les
calls
, ini
tiate
s co
ntac
tsC
onta
ct e
ase
Ava
ilabi
lity
of s
ales
con
tact
, 800
/888
num
ber,
fax,
em
ail,
web
pag
e, e
tcLo
gist
ics
Tran
spor
t or l
ogis
tic c
onsi
dera
tions
suc
h as
tim
ely
deliv
ery
and
loca
tion
of s
uppl
ier
Oth
erO
ther
fact
ors
(ple
ase
spec
ify):
Tab
le 1
2. F
acto
rs c
ontri
bute
d to
sof
twoo
d lu
mbe
r pur
chas
es fr
om n
on-T
exas
sou
rces
, 199
8
Reg
ion
Pric
eQ
ualit
yA
vaila
bilit
yR
eque
sted
Con
tact
ed b
y Se
ller
Con
tact
eas
eLo
gist
ics
Oth
erE
ast
1.8
2.0
2.0
4.5
3.3
3.5
2.0
2.0
Nor
th C
entra
l2.
01.
62.
23.
63.
53.
11.
72.
0C
entra
l1.
51.
72.
03.
13.
43.
82.
42.
7G
ulf C
oast
/Gol
den
Tria
ngle
2.0
2.3
2.0
3.7
3.4
3.5
2.8
5.0
Sout
h C
entr
al1.
71.
62.
53.
63.
73.
42.
14.
0C
oast
al B
end/
Val
ley
1.5
2.2
3.0
3.5
3.7
3.5
2.0
0.0
Panh
andl
e/Pl
ains
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.7
3.3
3.3
2.4
1.0
Wes
t Cen
tral
2.0
1.7
1.7
1.7
3.7
3.3
2.0
0.0
Wes
t2.
01.
62.
63.
82.
83.
62.
04.
0So
uth
Cen
tral/C
oast
al B
end/
Val
ley
1.8
1.8
2.5
3.8
3.8
3.5
2.1
4.0
Panh
andl
e/Pl
ains
/Wes
t Cen
tral/W
est
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.8
3.4
3.6
2.1
3.0
All
but E
ast
2.0
1.9
2.2
3.8
3.4
3.5
2.3
3.5
Ave
rage
1.9
1.9
2.2
3.9
3.4
3.5
2.2
3.5
Tab
le 1
3. F
acto
rs c
ontri
bute
d to
har
dwoo
d lu
mbe
r pur
chas
es fr
om n
on-T
exas
sou
rces
, 199
8
Reg
ion
Pric
eQ
ualit
yA
vaila
bilit
yR
eque
sted
Con
tact
ed b
y Se
ller
Con
tact
eas
eLo
gist
ics
Oth
erE
ast
2.7
1.7
2.0
5.0
2.7
3.4
2.4
4.0
Nor
th C
entra
l2.
41.
71.
84.
03.
53.
52.
62.
5C
entra
l2.
71.
51.
45.
02.
74.
03.
00.
0G
ulf C
oast
/Gol
den
Tria
ngle
2.5
1.9
2.4
3.8
3.5
3.5
2.7
5.0
Sout
h C
entr
al2.
71.
71.
73.
03.
33.
82.
33.
0C
oast
al B
end/
Val
ley
2.0
1.7
2.0
3.7
3.0
3.3
2.7
4.0
Panh
andl
e/Pl
ains
2.4
1.8
2.0
3.8
4.0
3.6
2.6
1.0
Wes
t Cen
tral
2.0
2.0
3.0
5.0
2.0
4.0
1.0
0.0
Wes
t2.
73.
04.
35.
04.
04.
73.
05.
0So
uth
Cen
tral/C
oast
al B
end/
Val
ley
2.6
1.7
1.7
3.3
3.6
3.7
2.4
3.5
Panh
andl
e/Pl
ains
/Wes
t Cen
tral/W
est
2.6
2.3
2.9
4.1
4.3
4.0
3.0
3.0
All
but E
ast
2.6
2.0
2.2
3.9
3.9
3.7
2.9
3.4
Ave
rage
2.6
1.9
2.2
4.0
3.8
3.7
2.8
3.4
Tab
le 1
4. P
erce
ntag
es o
f pan
el p
rodu
ct c
onsu
mpt
ion
in T
exas
by
regi
on, 1
998
Reg
ion
Shar
e of
Pan
el P
rodu
cts
Eas
t7.
8%N
orth
Cen
tral
28.1
%C
entra
l26
.4%
Gul
f Coa
st/G
olde
n T
riang
le27
.6%
Sout
h C
entr
al4.
9%C
oast
al B
end/
Val
ley
2.6%
Panh
andl
e/Pl
ains
0.8%
Wes
t Cen
tral
0.6%
Wes
t1.
2%So
uth
Cen
tral/C
oast
al B
end/
Val
ley
7.5%
Panh
andl
e/Pl
ains
/Wes
t Cen
tral/W
est
2.7%
All
but E
ast
92.2
%A
vera
ge10
0.0%
Tab
le 1
5. P
erce
ntag
es o
f Tex
as p
anel
pro
duct
con
sum
ptio
n by
pro
duct
type
, 199
8
Reg
ion
OSB
Softw
ood
Plyw
ood
Har
dwoo
d Pl
ywoo
dD
ensi
ty
Fibe
rboa
rdIn
sula
tion
Boa
rdPa
rticl
e bo
ard
Har
d bo
ard
Woo
d/C
emen
t B
oard
Eas
t38
.2%
33.9
%7.
3%0.
2%10
.5%
0.3%
7.6%
2.0%
Nor
th C
entra
l21
.8%
3.8%
38.7
%18
.0%
2.8%
12.5
%1.
3%1.
3%C
entra
l16
.1%
10.4
%40
.3%
18.7
%0.
4%12
.4%
0.8%
1.0%
Gul
f Coa
st/G
olde
n T
riang
le11
.0%
14.1
%38
.7%
17.8
%3.
9%11
.8%
0.7%
1.9%
Sout
h C
entr
al65
.1%
19.3
%1.
9%0.
2%6.
0%0.
3%1.
4%5.
9%C
oast
al B
end/
Val
ley
36.4
%42
.3%
1.6%
0.2%
10.1
%0.
4%2.
0%7.
1%Pa
nhan
dle/
Plai
ns48
.3%
25.7
%2.
5%1.
5%2.
0%2.
7%14
.8%
2.5%
Wes
t Cen
tral
50.3
%39
.0%
2.6%
0.2%
0.1%
0.3%
1.7%
5.8%
Wes
t62
.9%
26.3
%1.
2%0.
4%2.
4%0.
6%2.
0%4.
2%So
uth
Cen
tral/C
oast
al B
end/
Val
ley
55.1
%27
.3%
1.8%
0.2%
7.4%
0.3%
1.6%
6.3%
Panh
andl
e/Pl
ains
/Wes
t Cen
tral/W
est
55.5
%29
.1%
1.9%
0.7%
1.7%
1.2%
5.8%
4.1%
All
but E
ast
20.6
%11
.4%
35.1
%16
.2%
2.8%
10.9
%1.
1%1.
9%A
vera
ge22
.0%
13.1
%32
.9%
14.9
%3.
4%10
.1%
1.6%
1.9%
Tab
le 1
6. P
erce
ntag
es o
f pan
el p
rodu
ct c
onsu
mpt
ion
in T
exas
by
sour
ce ty
pe, 1
998
Bus
ines
s T
ype
Man
ufac
ture
rsB
roke
rs o
r W
hole
sale
rsO
ther
Who
lesa
ler
69.1
%30
.9%
0.0%
Ret
aile
r64
.8%
20.4
%14
.9%
Mix
ed W
hole
sale
r & R
etai
ler
99.0
%1.
0%0.
0%A
vera
ge87
.3%
8.1%
4.6%
Tab
le 1
7. P
erce
ntag
es o
f reg
iona
l pan
el p
rodu
ct c
onsu
mpt
ion
in T
exas
by
sour
ce re
gion
, 199
8
Reg
ion
Texa
s(O
ther
Tha
n Te
xas)
Paci
fic N
orth
wes
tIn
term
ount
ain
Wes
tC
entra
l Sta
tes
Nor
thea
ster
n St
ates
Inte
rnat
iona
l*E
ast
72.6
%20
.8%
2.8%
0.3%
0.7%
0.3%
2.4%
Nor
th C
entra
l27
.2%
55.4
%7.
7%0.
9%1.
7%0.
9%6.
3%C
entra
l60
.5%
30.5
%4.
0%0.
6%1.
2%0.
6%2.
7%G
ulf C
oast
/Gol
den
Tria
ngle
79.9
%12
.3%
6.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.3%
Sout
h C
entr
al79
.0%
14.2
%4.
2%0.
1%0.
8%0.
1%1.
5%C
oast
al B
end/
Val
ley
76.4
%9.
3%11
.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.3%
Panh
andl
e/Pl
ains
85.5
%2.
9%4.
7%0.
0%0.
0%0.
0%6.
9%W
est C
entra
l74
.7%
13.5
%8.
2%0.
0%0.
0%0.
0%3.
6%W
est
40.3
%42
.1%
8.0%
1.1%
2.1%
1.1%
5.3%
Sout
h C
entra
l/Coa
stal
Ben
d/V
alle
y78
.1%
12.5
%6.
6%0.
1%0.
5%0.
1%2.
1%Pa
nhan
dle/
Plai
ns/W
est C
entra
l/Wes
t61
.4%
24.1
%7.
1%0.
5%1.
0%0.
5%5.
4%A
ll bu
t Eas
t60
.6%
28.0
%6.
3%0.
4%0.
9%0.
4%3.
3%A
vera
ge62
.8%
26.7
%5.
7%0.
4%0.
8%0.
4%3.
2%
Tab
le 1
8. F
acto
rs c
ontr
ibut
ing
to p
anel
pro
duct
pur
chas
es fr
om N
on-T
exas
sou
rces
, 199
8
Reg
ion
Pric
eQ
ualit
yA
vaila
bilit
yR
eque
sted
Con
tact
ed b
y se
ller
Log
istic
sO
ther
Eas
t1.
22.
52.
55.
03.
82.
15.
0N
orth
Cen
tral
1.3
2.1
2.5
4.6
3.4
2.1
5.0
Cen
tral
1.2
2.0
2.1
4.4
4.2
2.7
5.0
Gul
f Coa
st/G
olde
n T
rian
gle
1.5
2.4
2.5
4.2
4.2
2.3
0.0
Sout
h C
entr
al1.
02.
62.
94.
53.
92.
00.
0C
oast
al B
end/
Val
ley
1.2
3.0
2.3
4.3
4.3
1.8
0.0
Panh
andl
e/Pl
ains
1.2
2.4
3.0
5.0
2.5
2.0
0.0
Wes
t Cen
tral
1.0
2.7
1.7
3.7
4.7
2.0
0.0
Wes
t1.
03.
03.
05.
05.
03.
35.
0So
uth
Cen
tral
/Coa
stal
Ben
d/V
alle
y1.
12.
62.
64.
63.
92.
25.
0Pa
nhan
dle/
Plai
ns/W
est C
entr
al/W
est
1.1
2.6
3.0
4.6
3.8
2.6
5.0
All
but E
ast
1.3
2.2
2.6
4.7
3.5
2.3
5.0
Ave
rage
1.2
2.2
2.7
4.7
3.5
2.1
5.0
Tab
le 1
9. P
erce
ntag
es o
f dis
trib
utio
n m
etho
ds fo
r Tex
as lu
mbe
r and
pan
el p
rodu
cts,
199
8
Woo
d T
ype
To
Cus
tom
erT
o B
roke
rO
ther
Cha
nnel
Soft
woo
d L
umbe
r60
.8%
39.2
%0.
0%H
ardw
ood
Lum
ber
81.8
%18
.2%
0.0%
Plyw
ood&
OSB
97.0
%3.
0%0.
0%
Tab
le 2
0. P
erce
ntag
es o
f lum
ber a
nd p
anel
pro
duct
s fr
om T
exas
by
cust
omer
loca
tion,
199
8
Woo
d T
ype
Tex
asSo
uth
Cen
tral
Sout
hwes
tO
ther
Sta
tes
Inte
rnat
iona
lSo
ftw
ood
Lum
ber
71.0
%15
.3%
6.2%
1.8%
5.3%
0.4%
Har
dwoo
d L
umbe
r86
.9%
6.8%
5.6%
0.3%
0.4%
0.0%
Plyw
ood
& O
SB66
.1%
10.4
%4.
6%2.
3%16
.4%
0.3%
Tab
le 2
1. S
umm
ary
of d
istr
ibut
ion
of lu
mbe
r and
pan
el p
rodu
cts
from
Tex
as b
y de
stin
atio
n, 1
998
Woo
d T
ype
Tex
asSo
uth
Cen
tral
Sout
hwes
tO
ther
Sta
tes
Inte
rnat
iona
lSo
ftw
ood
Lum
ber (
mm
bf)
918
197
8024
686
Har
dwoo
d L
umbe
r (m
mbf
)16
613
111
10
Plyw
ood
& O
SB (m
msf
)20
9433
114
672
518
8
Tab
le 2
2. S
umm
ary
of c
onsu
mpt
ion
of lu
mbe
r and
pan
el p
rodu
cts
in T
exas
by
sour
ce re
gion
, 199
8
Reg
ion
Tex
asSo
uthe
rn S
tate
s (O
ther
Tha
n T
exas
)Pa
cifi
c N
orth
wes
tIn
term
ount
ain
Wes
tC
entr
al S
tate
sN
orth
east
ern
Stat
esIn
tern
atio
nal
Tot
alL
umbe
r (m
mbf
)10
8574
828
311
353
4265
529
78Pl
ywoo
d &
OSB
(mm
sf)
2094
893
190
1328
1310
633
37
Tab
le 2
3. S
umm
ary
of p
rodu
ctio
n, e
xpor
t, im
port
and
con
sum
ptio
n of
lum
ber a
nd p
anel
pro
duct
s in
Tex
as, 1
998
Woo
d T
ype
Prod
uctio
nE
xpor
tIm
port
App
aren
t Con
sum
ptio
nSo
ftw
ood
Lum
ber (
mm
bf)
1293
375
1770
2688
Har
dwoo
d L
umbe
r (m
mbf
)19
125
124
290
All
Lum
ber
(mm
bf)
1485
400
1893
2978
Plyw
ood
& O
SB (m
msf
)31
7010
7512
4333
37