History of Forest Products

Utilization & Marketing

Assistance

2

History of Forest Products

Utilization & Marketing Assistance

John (Rusty) Dramm, Forest Products Technologist

USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry

Revised January 2006

- - - -

Introduction

We cannot be guided completely by what has gone on in the past, but history does help us keep sight of the original

goals of the organization and the sacrifices others have made to reach those goals. Much can be learned from history,

and it is appropriate that we use this occasion to recall our own utilization and marketing roots.

From the very beginning, the type of on-the-ground technical assistance provided by USDA Forest Service-State &

Private Forestry, University Extension and State forestry programs have been an important part of American forestry.

This tradition runs deep within our own utilization and marketing efforts. In a historical context, State and Private

Forestry is based to a large extent on the partnership in cooperative programs between the U.S. Forest Service,

Extension Service, and State forestry agencies (Zimmerman 1976).

However fragmented, this is still true today with our strong association among Federal, Extension, and State

utilization and marketing efforts. This is perhaps best demonstrated within State and Private Forestry’s Northeastern

Area and represented by the Northeast Utilization and Marketing (NEU&M) Council. Newly revived efforts in the

West and South focus to rebuild U&M capacity.

Early Efforts at the Forest Products Laboratory

The Forest Products Laboratory (FPL) is the world’s foremost wood products research facility. In addition to its

extensive research program, FPL provides technical assistance to a wide range of users. Wood utilization research

roots can be traced back to the FPL. Early work (1910–1913) was geared towards the basic understanding of wood,

including engineering, mechanical, and chemical properties; wood identification; wood preservation; and plywood

technology. During World War I, FPL worked extensively on the war effort, researching Sitka spruce airframes,

wooden propellers for aircraft, and shipbuilding. In the 1920s, FPL instituted “box testing,” which proved helpful in

solving World War II crating and shipping problems. By the mid-1920s, pulp and paper research was in full swing.

In the mid-1930s, FPL researchers developed and tested the earliest glue-laminated arches. The first all-wood

prefabricated house was erected on FPL grounds in 1937. World War II brought new research emphasis. During this

time, FPL operated around the clock assisting in the war effort (Bergoffen 1976).

Northeast Timber Salvage Administration (NETSA)

Sarah Smith (2000) gives a good account of State & Private Forestry and affected New England states’ efforts in

salvaging timber from the great hurricane of 1938. This may have been the first large-scale utilization effort by

S&PF. An estimated 2.6 billion board feet were blown down. Recovery efforts salvaged and purchased usable logs

and provided long-term storage in log ponds to be gradually absorbed by the log market. Efforts even included

Forest Service owned sawmills to process remaining logs, including the women’s sawmill on Turkey Pond.

Timber Production War Project

The Timber Production War Project (TPWP) was a cooperative program created in 1943 between the Forest Service

and the War Production Board. It proved highly effective during World War II by stimulating production of lumber,

veneer, pulpwood, and other vital forest products. Many States were tied into the program, working closely with the

TPWP staff.

3

The Forest Products Laboratory developed a number of publications for the numerous small mills filling war

material needs. Equipment, tools, and supplies were hard to come by. Not only did these FPL publications cover

manufacturing basics, but they also included information on how to conserve tires and fuel, how to construct

materials-handling devices with limited available materials, and recycling for the war effort.

This, perhaps for the first time, was a Forest Service effort to provide direct assistance to improve manufacturing

efficiency in the forest products industry. Working with the TPWP organization, sawmill operators, loggers, and

other forest workers were able to obtain scarce gasoline, tires, trucks, and other equipment needed to keep up

production for the war effort.

Forest Utilization Service (1946-1967)

After World War II, the Forest Service reorganized Forest Service (FS) Research to meet new needs. In 1946, a

system of multifunctional research centers (Forest Experiment Stations) was established; each center with its own

assigned geographic territory and a program aimed at solving primary local natural resource problems (Bergoffin

1976). This included the Forest Utilization Service (FUS) under FS Research. FUS provided sawmill technical

assistance as described by Kotok (1967). In the mid-1960s, technology transfer and utilization assistance

responsibilities moved from FS Research to State and Private Forestry.

Attendees at a utilization and marketing training course held March 5–9, 1962, at the Forest Products Laboratory in Madison, WI. Bill Stump and Floyd “Bud” Hovarter are in row 1 (6th and 7th from left) and Bob Massengale is in row 6 (3rd from left).

4

The following is a brief description of the Forest Utilization Service, as described in 1967 by E. S. Kotok of the

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station headquartered in Missoula, Montana. This presentation was

given to the Wood Products Clinic.

“It is always a great delight to appear before old friends and professional associates at the Wood Products

Clinic. I’ve been attending these sessions for 12 years, and have come to include them as an annual must. I

was especially happy when the program chairman asked me to briefly describe the old Forest Utilization

Service—the FUS.

“The Forest Service has been engaged in forest products research since 1905. At the outset, research pro-

grams were established at the Forest Products Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin, and Forest Products

Sections at each of the western regional headquarters. Such names as Bradner, Rapraeger, Brundage, and

Hill may bring memories to those of you of the earlier generation. The initial emphasis in forest products

was given to logging and milling studies, durability of native species, and identification of industrial

opportunities.

“Those of you who are old enough may remember that from about 1929 to 1940 times were so substan-

tially tough for the economy as a whole and the wood industries in particular that little research was done

and still less was applied. True, few changes were made, such as the adoption of the internal fan kiln and

the pulping of southern pine into Kraft pulp. But, by in large times were so tough that the lumber industry

in particular had little opportunity to apply research results.

“During the War (WWII) the emphasis was so much on production and there were so many problems asso-

ciated with the availability of machinery and manpower that little attention was paid to industry research

needs of the application of results. By 1946 it became evident that there was as much as 20 years backlog

in wood products research, little of which had been developed beyond the laboratory bench.

“Industry felt the urgent need to start getting research into application. The Forest Service shared the

feeling of urgency, as did the United States Congress. In 1946 pressures developed, especially in the South

and in the Northwest, to create at least two new federal wood products research laboratories similar in size

and scope to the one in Madison. The Forest Service felt that such a proposal might seriously jeopardize

the continued budget and staffing support for the Forest Products Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin and

countered with the proposal that small but highly trained two- or three-man staffs be located in the impor-

tant timber regions to act in a liaison capacity.

“Congress readily accepted this counter proposal and in 1946 the Forest Utilization Service (FUS) was

born. Units were established that year at seven regional locations as part of the Experiment Station

research program. Two additional units were established in 1951 providing each of the timber regions of

the country with research-trained wood utilization specialists. Names such as Byrne, Locke, Krauss,

Erickson, and Anderson are familiar to those of you who have been attending these Clinics for a dozen or

more years.

“The charter of the FUS was three-dimensional. First, the units were to bring to the field—to industry—

previously unexploited research that was lying dormant at the Forest Products Laboratory or at

laboratories elsewhere. Secondly, the units were to bring to the FPL in Madison the real problems of the

industry reflecting the needs of the geographic area of investigation. Third, the units were to conduct such

research as they were competent to do in cooperation with the regional industry. There was a major effort

throughout the program to generate industrial development particularly where new technologies or new

products could be developed.

“Most of you old-timers will remember the active participation of the FUS in the Wood Products Clinic,

Forest Products Research Society, state and regional clinic programs, and affairs of this type. FUSers

traveled for the most part more than 50 percent of their time visiting mills, large and small, spreading the

gospel of research results. The FUS met twice annually at the Forest Products Laboratory in Madison to

assist in the formulation of the research program there. These were great days and all of us who once

served in this role can point with pride at certain accomplishments and attainments that we made. A new

plywood mill here, a new particle board [plant] there, a new drying technology at still another place—all

5

stand as reminders of the energies and efforts put into the program. None of us have ever had to apologize

for the purpose or the accomplishments of the FUS program.

“It is with great satisfaction to those who were early pioneers in FUS to see the Forest Service continue the

same kind of program but under a new organizational pattern. The Utilization and Marketing units of our

State and Private Forestry program will, for all practical purposes, perpetuate the FUS program, and for

this I am personally gratified.

“I hope that these brief introductory remarks help set the stage for the descriptive discussions that are to

follow. All of you are aware, I am sure, that the Forest Service continues to share in the concern for the

future of the wood-using industries of this region and the nation.” — E.S.Kotok

Kotok bid a last farewell to the Forest Utilization Service and witnessed the birth of State and Private Forestry’s

(S&PF) Forest Products Utilization (FPU) program. Authorities for S&PF to plan and implement such a program

were established in the 1950 Cooperative Forest Management Act.

Cooperative Forest Management Act

Under the Cooperative Forest Management (CFM) Act, established in 1950, the Forest Service strengthened its

cooperative programs to give direct technical assistance to private forest landowners and operators and to processors

of forest products. The Act, in addition to a number of increased authorizations, expanded authorizations to farmers

in the harvesting and marketing of forest products. The Cooperative Forest Management Act provided a strong,

effective cooperative program to bring technical services to private woodland owners and operators in both forest

management and in the harvesting and marketing of forest products.

Cooperation between State utilization and marketing programs and the Forest Products Laboratory has proven effective in developing sound solutions to real- world problems. Jim Whipple (left), utilization specialist with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and Kent McDonald (right), a forest products technologist with FPL (now retired), are shown here measuring log lengths for a study.

Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act (1960)

With the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act (1960), activities of FS Research and S&PF intensified, and emphasis on

the use of interdisciplinary teams increased. Teams began working to meet current demands on the Forest Service

and to prepare plans designed to better mesh human needs with a sustained supply of natural resources for the future.

S&PF’s involvement in forest products utilization work was about to take a major step forward as Kotok (1967) had

described.

6

S&PF Cooperative Forestry – Forest Products

Utilization (FPU) Program (1967-1994)

The Cooperative Forest Management Act of 1950 established S&PF authorities to provide forest products utilization

and marketing assistance and technology transfer. The mid-1960s saw the end of the Forest Service’s Forest

Utilization Service and the birth of the Forest Products Utilization Program. As authorized in the Cooperative Forest

Management Act, the Chief transferred the responsibility for technology transfer from Forest Service Research to

State and Private Forestry. Prior to that time, beginning shortly after World War II, FS Research maintained a staff

known as the Forest Utilization Service (FUS) as described by Kotok (1967). The FUS staff spent a great deal of

time traveling to sawmills, where they provided technical assistance based on FS-developed forest products

technology, and promoting forest products-based economic development.

Forest Products Utilization Training

The first task for the newly established S&PF Forest Products Utilization (FPU) Program was to develop new

recruits from a cadre of State and Federal field foresters. In 1966, Rufus Page, a Forest Service researcher

specializing in sawmilling, developed a training plan for S&PF utilization and marketing (U&M) personnel. Much of

the plan was based on three in-depth analyses of 147 persons from 55 individual organizations including Federal and

State agencies and industry. A national conference was also held to explore U&M training needs.

In response, an extensive and intense 6-week U&M training session was conducted for the new FPU recruits. It is

rumored that the training was held 7 days a week, morning, afternoon, and night—a sort of U&M boot camp (see

cover photo). The training was equivalent to college-level course work. Education and training have always been

part of U&M work, but it is highly unlikely that the intensity endured by those first recruits will ever be reached

again.

Can you find Vern Meyer, Vern Clapp, Lorin Hearst, Bud Hovarter, and Bob Massengale?

How many other veteran U&Mers can you identify?

7

Forest Products Utilization Program (FPU)

Greenacres Consulting of Bellevue, Washington, was contracted by the Forest Service to conduct an extensive

review of the FPU Program. In 1968, the National Association of State Foresters (NASF) called for an in-depth

study of the Cooperative Forestry Management Act Program. The review looked at technical assistance provided by

State FPU programs and the U.S. Forest Service under Cooperative Forestry.

The final report (Greenacres 1973) found that, on average, for every $1 invested in the FPU Program, there was a

return of $11 to the National economy within 1 year. Improved forest products conservation as a result of improved

use of mill residues was also noted. In terms of rural/economic development, communities benefited with better

economic stability and growth. While there were a number of benefits realized, there were many future opportunities

outlined including better use of underutilized species and small-diameter material from thinning operations. The

report recommended strengthening FPU capabilities in a number of areas such as personnel, funding, education,

travel, and technical resources.

Eleven Million Trees Wasted

The 1970 Timber Review by the U.S. Forest Service projected that timber supplies would only increase by 15% by

the year 2000. Demand for wood would rise much more sharply. The long-term outlook demanded that every effort

be made to increase timber growth, but such increases would come slowly.

H.C. Mason and Associates, Gladstone, Oregon, conducted a national study of softwood sawlogs conversion

efficiency and the timber supply problem for the U.S. Forest Service. Mason (1973) reported that there were a

number of ways to improve sawmill processing efficiency, but there was a lack of accessible objective data on the

subject. The study examined the effect of investment in machinery that results in reduced saw kerfs, improved

sawing accuracy, and reduced planing allowance. It expected that even more favorable benefit-to-cost ratios would

result from investment in improved quality control, automation, and computer generated-sawing solutions. The

report could not have been more correct in its findings.

A thought-provoking publication written by Al Thrasher in 1972 titled Eleven Million Trees Wasted Annually

(Thrasher 1972) sparked industry’s interest in the need to improve sawmill conversion efficiency in the United

States. The publication discussed poor practices such as unnecessary lumber oversizing and poor control of lumber

sizes (thick and thin lumber). The publication, along with Mason’s study of softwood conversion efficiency, was the

beginning of a major shift to improving manufacturing efficiency in the forest products industry.

Historical Sketch of the S&PF Unit at FPL (1965-1994)

Since the mid 1960’s, S&PF has maintained liaison with researchers at the Forest Products Laboratory. Eldon Estep

was the first U&M person in this capacity. As a generalist, Eldon acted as an information broker between the

Laboratory and people requesting information on virtually any subject relating to wood and fiber products. Eldon

would answer inquiries by either using the wealth of information he had stored in his files or going directly to the

researcher. It was said that he maintained such an excellent filing system that he never had to research the same

question twice. Line accountability for this position was established in the Cooperative Forestry Branch of State and

Private Forestry in the Washington Office and has resided there ever since.

About 1970, Paul Bois joined the S&PF unit at FPL as the National Lumber Drying Specialist. Paul had a

tremendous impact in bringing drying technology to the forest products industry. He perpetuated the kiln drying

short courses started originally in the 1950’s by the drying research work unit at FPL.

In 1971, Stan Lunstrum joined the unit as the National Sawmill Specialist. Stan was charged with developing a plan

for a National program to improve sawmill conversion efficiency. Stan, along with Hiram Hallock and Dave Lewis

of the FPL, developed the Sawmill Improvement Program (SIP). In SIP’s first year, 249 mills were studied.

8

Best Opening Face and Sawmill Improvement Program (1973-1985)

To overcome increased demands for improved conversion efficiency, the Best Opening Face (BOF) system was

developed at the Forest Products Laboratory (FPL) to help extend the Nation’s timber supply. The researchers

Hiram Hallock and Dave Lewis developed the BOF algorithms (i.e., a mathematical sawing model) to maximize

lumber volume recovery from small logs. In the 1970s and 1980s, this FPL-developed technology aided the

retooling and automation of the sawmill industry to successfully adapt to the shift from large old growth to small-

diameter second-growth timber supplies.

Success of BOF’s adoption by industry was made possible by the highly successful national technology transfer

effort through the Sawmill Improvement Program (SIP). The SIP program, led by the S&PF Unit at FPL (i.e., Stan

Lunstrum, SIP Program Manager), worked closely with FPL researchers (i.e., Hiram Hallock, Dave Lewis, George

Harpole, Chris Risbrudt, and others) and the National Wood Products Extension Program (i.e., Ted Peterson,

NWPEP Manager) in transferring BOF. This National SIP team (S&PF, FPL, and NWPEP) developed sawmill

assessment tools (e.g., Lumber Size Process Control and SIP study protocols) for increasing lumber recovery to

conserve the Nation’s timber resources by improving sawmill conversion efficiency.

SIP studies were conducted by Forest Products Utilization, S&PF and State utilization and marketing specialists (see

photograph, next page) and data analyzed by the SP&F Unit at FPL. In analyzing SIP study data, BOF was used to

predict the potential lumber recovery for a sawmill under a given set of manufacturing conditions. This theoretical

maximum recovery was compared with the actual lumber recovery and areas for improvement were identified.

Confidential recommendations for specific mill improvements were reported to each of the participating mill owners.

NWPEP also provided educational programs such as the “Tightening Up!” slide series to aid sawmillers in making

these mill improvements. Improvements were made by mill owners (i.e., at their expense—no federal funding was

used for making mill improvements and retooling sawmill equipment).

In June 1981, SIP study results were published in Softwood Sawmill Improvement Program: Selected Study Results

(1973-1979). The SIP program conducted over 2,000 lumber recovery studies. SIP reached over half of the United

States softwood lumber sawmill production capacity. Nationally, SIP was responsible for an improvement in lumber

recovery of about 4% of the total U.S. softwood production. This is over 1 billion board feet annually or enough

lumber to build all the houses in Madison, Wisconsin, each year.

One of the outcomes of the SIP program was that the sawmill industry recognized the importance and potential gains

in lumber recovery by adopting BOF technology. Commercialization of BOF was accomplished by industry (i.e.,

equipment vendors) as they incorporated BOF algorithms with optical log scanners and computerized sawing

systems to maximize recovery of softwood dimension lumber. Today, most softwood dimension lumber in the United

States and around the world is manufactured using BOF-based sawing optimization technology pioneered at the FPL

and brought to industry by the Sawmill Improvement Program.

State utilization and marketing specialists measure and record SIP log data.

9

Some of the original SIP gang at FPL. Front row: Abby Stern, Theresa Chereskin, Ann Miller, Adele Olstad, and Ted Peterson. Back row: Phil Steele, Dave Lewis, Erv Bulgrin, Hiram Hallock, Ken Compton, and Stan Lunstrum.

The Sawmill Improvement Program (SIP) received a number of awards. In 1975, Earl Butz, then Secretary of

Agriculture, presented the Sawmill Improvement Team with a Superior Service Award for Group Achievement. The

USDA Forest Service also presented a Superior Service Unit Award to the SIP Program. Stan Lunstrum accepted

both awards on behalf of the SIP Team. Industry recognized SIP’s efforts in 1992 with the Forest Industries Award,

presented at the Portland Sawmill Clinic. Dean Huber, a Federal utilization and marketing specialist, accepted the

award for the team.

Stan Lunstrum accepted the Superior Service Award for Group Achievement on behalf of the Sawmill Improvement Team from Earl Butz, Secretary of Agriculture (1975).

10

Forest Industries Award presented in 1992 to the USDA Forest Service Utilization and Marketing Team 1978–1988 for "Excellence in Raising Sawmill/Plywood Plant Efficiency.”

IMPROVE System (1987-1992)

In 1987, the IMPROVE System Technology Transfer Plan was developed in cooperation with the FPL and the

Extension Service. IMPROVE is an acronym for Integrated Mill Production and Recovery Options for Value and

Efficiency. In February 1988, this plan was approved in the Washington Office. The mission of this effort was to

improve the use of wood processing efficiency over a 5-year period through implementation of an active technology

transfer program. The concept was to develop utilization software that analyzed various aspects of improving forest

products processing efficiencies.

A number of computer routines were developed and distributed. The routines included compiled computer software

for personal computers and complete supporting user guides and manuals and related publications. Technology

transfer was accomplished through a series of train-the-trainer workshops. The software routines included tools for

analyzing log processing, lumber recovery, lumber size control, veneer size control, saw design, and lumber target

sizing. Over 4000 routines were distributed over the program’s 5-year lifespan. In addition, a series of lumber drying

checklists was published and distributed.

A programmatic review of the IMPROVE System was done in 1991–1992. This included an extensive survey that

was sent to all requestors of one or more IMPROVE routines. Survey results showed that, of those who actually used

the routines, improvements in efficiency of 5% to 10% or more were achieved in their operations. Analysis of the

survey indicated that there was a lack of necessary on-the-ground technical assistance support to ensure the

widespread successful use of the software routines. Where there was on-the-ground support, impressive

improvements in mill efficiency were realized. Unfortunately, the delivery system was not sufficient to achieve

anticipated success. The IMPROVE System never realized its full potential, as indicated by the survey. The program

concluded in 1992.

National Wood Products Extension Program (1981-1992)

Since May 1981, the National Wood Products Extension Program (NWPEP) was co-located at FPL as a special pilot

project. Dr. Ted Peterson of the University of Wisconsin Extension Service headed up NWPEP. The program’s

objective was to develop a partnership among Forest Service forest products research, other agency technology

transfer efforts, and the Nationwide Cooperative Extension System (Federal, State, and County) to accelerate forest

products technology transfer. NWPEP supported ongoing extension programs and initiatives not only in forest

products but also in housing, energy, natural resources, agricultural engineering, marketing, community resource

11

development, and youth development by translating and disseminating research information, developing model

programs, building information networks, serving as liaison to researchers, and providing Extension coordination in

mutual forest products technology transfer efforts. NWPEP was funded by the USDA–Extension Service under a

cooperative agreement with the University of Wisconsin Extension Service and with support by the USDA Forest

Service Forest Products Laboratory. USDA–Extension Service funding and support in the partnership were

discontinued as of October 1, 1992.

Refocusing the S&PF Utilization and Marketing Program

The Forest Products Conservation and Recycling Workshop was held on May 12–14, 1992, in St. Louis, Missouri, to

refocus Cooperative Forestry’s Utilization and Marketing Program. The workshop kicked off an expanded program,

now called the Forest Products Conservation and Recycling (FPC&R) Program. The refocused program expanded

opportunities for improving resource conservation. FPC&R identified three national priority issues: (1) economic

development, (2) forest products conservation, and (3) recycling.

Under the FPC&R Program, new emphasis and focus are referenced in the strategy document Forest Products

Conservation and Recycling—A new program for People, Jobs, and Environment. The FPC&R Program provides

national goals and strategies for integrating healthy environmental quality and economic growth through responsible

use of forest resources to meet human needs.

FPC&R’s charge was “To encourage and facilitate conservation of forest resources in their conversion and

adaptation to products and services that meet the needs of people and improve their economic well-being.” Its vision

included the continuing role of an active network of professionals capable of quick and reliable delivery of

knowledge and expertise relating to…processing and marketing of forest goods and services.

National program goals were (1) increase economic opportunities from a full range of forest resources through

market and community development; (2) reduce the impact on forest resources by promoting the use of

environmentally sensitive and efficient methods when forest resource utilization and processing occur; (3) increase

understanding of the range of values and applications of forest resources by land managers and other forest users; (4)

reduce wood fiber contribution to the solid waste stream and reduce national dependency on fossil fuels for energy;

and (5) extend useful life of forest products through increased awareness of appropriate practices and applications.

Attendees at a Northeast Utilization & Marketing Meeting held in West Virginia.

12

With the refocusing of the S&PF Utilization and Marketing Program into the FPC&R Program in 1992, the S&PF

unit at FPL also saw some dramatic changes. The Forest Products Laboratory (FPL) expressed a need for an even

closer working relationship between S&PF Cooperative Forestry and the Forest Service Research. To this end, the

S&PF unit was officially transferred to FPL on October 1, 1992. The unit was renamed Technology Marketing Unit

(TMU). While still an S&PF unit with funding from the FPC&R Program, administrative direction would now come

from the FPL.

Purposes of refocusing the S&PF unit included the need for FS Research to work closer with technology transfer

specialists and vice versa. Technology transfer specialists need to get in on the ground level with scientists to

understand what is happening in order to best transfer research to the end user. Also, having the TMU attached to

FPL made it easier to coordinate program efforts. There were two main benefits of having program direction come

from the FPL Director’s Office: (1) there was a better coordinated program for FS Research technology transfer and

(2) reporting directly to FPL, rather than through the Washington Office to FPL, streamlined TMU’s operations.

TMU’s function is to improve marketing effectiveness and efficiency of the USDA Forest Service by discovering

new opportunities for Forest Service research and by finding technological solutions to problems using Forest

Service-developed technology. This is accomplished by providing leadership in marketing technologies to meet the

needs of people while conserving our Nation’s natural resources. Roles of the TMU include leading a coordinated

effort to market forest products technology, strengthening processes that identify and encourage participation of

external organizations and individuals with the FS Research program; and helping to focus tech transfer efforts.

Is There Still a Need for U&M Technical Assistance Programs?

Improved utilization remains as one of the fields where the need for expansion is greatest. There are substantial areas

where the level of utilization of the Nation’s forest resources can be improved. The dollar return for each dollar

expended in this program can be very gratifying. Moreover, it results in an improved local economy and stretches the

production volume. Quality is improved and operating costs reduced by advanced techniques in forest harvesting and

wood processing. The work done by utilization specialists in improved utilization of small logs and more efficient

processing of forest products has already brought about substantial benefits, but future years should see a

considerable expansion of these efforts (Zimmerman 1976). The continued need for utilization assistance is as

strong, or stronger, than ever. It has been an integral part of economic/rural development as well as pioneering forest

products conservation since the early days.

References

Bergoffen, W.W. 1976. 100 years of Federal Forestry, USDA, Forest Service, Ag. Info. Bull. No. 402

Kotok, E.S. 1976. History of the Forest Utilization Service. Proceedings: Wood Products Clinic.

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Missoula, Montana

Greenacres Consulting. 1973. The Forest Products Utilization Program (its effectiveness and future

opportunities). Greenacres Consulting. Bellevue, WA. 259p.

Lunstrum, S.J. 1974. Origin and background of the Sawmill Improvement Program. Southeastern Section

Meeting, Forest Products Research Society, Mobile, Alabama.

Mason, H.C. 1973. Study of softwood sawlog conversion efficiency and the timber supply problem. H.C.

Mason and Associates, Inc. Gladstone, OR.

Smith, S. 2000. They sawed up a storm. The Northern Logger and Timber Processor. April 2000.

Thrasher, E.W. 1972. Eleven million trees wasted. Thrasher Publications. Ukiah, CA. 47p.

Zimmerman, E. 1976. A historical summary of State and Private Forestry in the U.S. Forest Service. USDA

Forest Service, State and Private Forestry. Government Printing Office: 1984-460-941:20005-FS. 119p.