|
|---|
| Figure 7. Total Number of Ohio-Grown Christmas Trees Harvested 1976-1996 |
Figure 7 shows the total number of Ohio-grown Christmas trees harvested per year as reported by producers in the 1981 (Brown, 1983) and 1994 surveys. The similarity in trees reported as harvested per year in those studies is striking. From 1976 through 1980 Ohio producers harvested a relatively consistent number of trees, averaging 341,000 trees per year. From 1981 through 1983, producers predicted harvests would increase to slightly more than half a million trees per year. Overall, the average estimated annual harvest from 1976 through 1983 was 367,000 trees.
|
|
|---|
| Figure 7. Total Number of Ohio-Grown Christmas Trees Harvested 1976-1996 |
From 1989 to 1993 the number of trees harvested annually gradually increased from slightly more than one-quarter million to more than one-third million, averaging 316,089 trees per year. As in the 1981 survey, producers predicted that harvests would increase in the next three years to slightly more than half a million trees per year by 1996. Overall, the average estimated annual harvest from 1989 through 1996 was slightly more than 368,000 trees.
Figure 8 separates the total Christmas trees harvested from 1989 through 1996 into cut and dug trees. As expected, far more Ohio trees were cut for Christmas trees than were dug, but the percentage of trees dug has gradually increased from slightly more than seven percent in 1989 to 14 percent in 1996. Ohio producers appear to be expanding fairly rapidly into the dug Christmas tree market. As reported in Table 4, 10 percent of Ohio producers reported participating in wholesale dug tree sales and three percent in retail dug tree sales. Small to medium trees were reported as the most commonly dug trees sold, with 44 percent being 3-5 feet tall and 40 percent 6-8 feet tall.
|
|---|
| Figure 8. Total Number of Cut and Dug Trees Harvested for Christmas Trees 1989-1996 |
The number of Christmas trees reported harvested per year by producers is substantially lower than production levels commonly claimed for Ohio producers. This would suggest that either the survey missed a substantial number of producers, the producers provided inaccurate information, or Ohio's productivity is, in fact, lower than commonly believed.
While the survey undoubtedly missed some Ohio producers, its accuracy in predicting a known population, members of the Ohio Christmas Tree Association, suggests that the methodology was sound and the results accurately portray Ohio's Christmas tree harvests. This conclusion is further reinforced by noting the similarities in results between the 1981 and 1994 surveys, particularly when both harvest and planting data are compared as is done in the section (later in this report) entitled "Harvest-to-Planting Success Ratio."
A second possible explanation of the low estimates of annual harvest is that producers did not accurately report harvesting data. Such misreporting could be unintentional because producers did not accurately know the requested information, or intentional because producers did not want to share the requested information but did not want to appear to be uncooperative. In an attempt to evaluate these two potential sources of error in the harvesting data, more than 100 producers were interviewed individually or in groups and asked to verify that the reported harvests were their best estimate and to comment on the apparent low success ratio. Producers confirmed that they did, in fact, provide as accurate as possible estimates of the number of trees harvested. While there undoubtedly was some unintentional grower error in estimating the number of trees harvested, grower interviews indicated little, if any, intentional misreporting.
These survey results, then, appear to provide a reasonably accurate estimate of Ohio Christmas trees harvested from 1976 through 1980 and from 1989 through 1993. It is important to note that harvest data for the years 1981 through 1983 and the years 1994 through 1996 were based on grower estimates of their future harvests. These estimates of future harvests represented substantial increases over their previous harvests and may, in fact, be higher than the harvest levels actually achieved in those years.
Figures 9, 11, and 13 present, respectively, the number of total, cut, and dug trees harvested by species from 1976 through 1996. Figures 10, 12, and 14 present, respectively, the percentage composition by species of total, cut, and dug trees harvested from 1976 through 1996. Figure 9 shows that the gradual increase in the total number of Christmas trees harvested between 1989 and 1996, seen in Figure 7, was the result of an increase in numbers for all species. However, Figure 10 suggests that the relative composition of the harvest has changed. Between 1989 and 1996, the percentage of harvested trees that were Scotch pine decreased substantially; white pine, Douglas-fir, and "other species" remained relatively constant; and blue spruce, Fraser fir, and West Virginia balsam increased substantially. These trends are consistent with the common perception that consumer demand has shifted away from Scotch and the other pines to the firs and Douglas-fir.
|
|---|
| Figure 9. Total Number of Ohio Christmas Trees Harvested by Species, 1976-19961 |
|
1 Successive bars over each species represent trees harvested from 1976-1996 with 1985-1988
missing. WV Balsam Fir data 1992-1996 only. |
|
|---|
| Figure 10. Percentage Composition by Species of Total Christmas Trees Harvested, 1976-19961 |
|
Successive bars over each species represent the percentage of total trees harvested that
species accounted for from 1976-1996 with 1984-1988 missing. WV Balsam Fir data 1992-1996 only. |
|
|---|
| Figure 11. Number of Cut Trees Harvested for Christmas Trees by Species, 1989-19961 |
|
|---|
| Figure 12. Percent Species Composition of Cut Trees Harvested for Christmas Trees 1989-19961 |
|
|---|
| Figure 13. Number of Dug Trees Harvested for Christmas Trees by Species, 1989-19961 |
|
|---|
| Figure 14. Percent Species Composition of Dug Trees Harvested for Christmas Trees 1989-19961 |
Figures 11 through 14 detail the relative importance of cut and dug trees in determining these trends and provide the basis for much of the remaining discussion in this section. In the case of Scotch pine, since more than 99 percent of Ohio-grown Scotch pine Christmas trees are sold as cut trees, the cut tree trends mirror the total tree trends. Between 1989 and 1996 the number of Scotch pine cut annually increased from 140,265 to over 216,000, while its percentage of cut trees decreased from 59 to 47 percent. The small amount of Ohio-grown Scotch pine sold as dug Christmas trees has remained relatively constant during the eight-year period, and the percentage of Scotch pine in the Ohio-grown dug-tree harvest has decreased. Earlier it was noted that the amount of Scotch pine planted in Ohio has decreased dramatically in the past eight years from 41 percent of the Christmas trees planted in 1989 to around 25 percent in 1996 (Figure 6). This planting trend would suggest that the proportion of Scotch pine in Ohio's Christmas tree harvest will continue to decrease.
The number of white pine cut for Christmas trees increased from 52,312 in 1989 to 85,853 in 1996, maintaining a relatively consistent percentage of Ohio-grown cut trees, fluctuating between 19 to 23 percent. In contrast, although the number of white pine dug for Christmas trees during the same time period almost tripled, the percentage of white pine in the Ohio-grown dug-tree harvest appears to be decreasing somewhat.
Though representing a very small proportion of the total harvest, Douglas-fir is important because it is a species in high demand. The number of Ohio Douglas-fir cut and the number dug for Christmas trees have both increased substantially since 1989, doubling and tripling respectively. These increases have maintained Douglas- fir as a relatively stable part of both the Ohio-grown cut- and dug-tree harvest, generally accounting for between two and three percent of each harvest.
The category "other species" includes Austrian pine, Norway spruce, balsam fir, red pine, concolor fir, Serbian spruce, and other species not specifically identified. In general, species in this group individually represent a small proportion of Ohio's Christmas tree market, but collectively they are important. Between 1989 and 1996 the number of cut "other species" doubled from slightly more than 10,000 to over 21,000, maintaining it at between four and six percent of the Ohio-grown cut-tree harvest. During this time period the number of "other species" dug increased more than five-fold, from less than 3,000 to almost 15,000, resulting in an increase from 14 to 20 percent in the portion of the dug trees accounted for by "other species." Because this species group contains several species, there are probably several reasons for the observed increases. One certainly would be grower experimentation with a variety of single-needle conifers, such as concolor fir and Serbian spruce, in an attempt to identify species that would grow successfully on their individual sites and would satisfy consumer demand for single-needle conifers. Another may be the perceived increase in the number of consumers interested in purchasing a living Christmas tree that can be planted after the holiday season. This category contains a number of species traditionally used for landscape planting in Ohio including Norway spruce, Serbian spruce, and Austrian pine.
Between 1989 and 1996 the number of blue spruce cut for Christmas trees increased approximately four-fold, from 11,970 trees to 45,555, resulting in a doubling of its percentage of the Ohio-grown cut-tree harvest, from five to 10 percent. The number of Ohio-grown blue spruce which were dug increased more than sixfold, from 5,185 to 32,760, resulting in an increase in its percentage of Ohio-grown dug-tree harvest of more than six-fold. These somewhat dramatic increases probably have at least two causes. Blue spruce may be enjoying some increased demand because of the overall increase in demand for single-needle conifers. However, blue spruce has not traditionally been perceived as a highly desirable single-needle Christmas tree because its sharp needles make it difficult to handle and less desirable around children, and because of its undeserved reputation as having poor post-harvest needle retention. Nevertheless, the number of cut trees is increasing, as is the number of dug trees. This increase is undoubtedly due, at least in part, to the fact that blue spruce is a very attractive landscape tree that tolerates a variety of planting sites.
Current industry wisdom would suggest that single-needle conifers are the premium species for the latter part of the decade, and in the eastern United States, Fraser fir, balsam fir, and West Virginia balsam fir are the important single-needle conifers. Very little balsam is grown in Ohio because of its sensitivity to late spring frosts, and data on balsam was included in the "other species" category.
The amount of Ohio-grown Fraser fir cut for Christmas trees has increased threefold since 1989, and its percent of the Ohio-grown cut-tree harvest has increased from seven to close to 12 percent. While the number of Ohio-grown Fraser fir dug for Christmas trees has increased about 50 percent, only about 3,000 trees are dug annually, and its portion of the Ohio-grown dug-tree harvest has decreased since 1989 from 10 to around four percent. Industry "wisdom" suggests that, at least in the near future, consumer demand for the firs will increase or strengthen. Given this, and the increasing numbers of Fraser fir being planted by Ohio producers (Figure 4), Ohio-grown Fraser fir's market share should be maintained or expanded. There is, however, a limit to increases in Fraser fir production. It is a very site-specific species, and a high proportion of Ohio producers do not have land suitable for Fraser fir production.
West Virginia balsam fir, or Canaan fir as it is commonly referred to throughout much of the industry, is a relatively new variety to Ohio Christmas tree production, with widespread planting beginning only in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It is similar to Fraser fir, but has several characteristics that make it more suitable for Ohio producers, including a broader site tolerance and less susceptibility to late spring frosts. Significant numbers of West Virginia balsam fir are just now reaching market size and appear to be selling well. Most are being sold as cut trees, but West Virginia balsam fir would seem to have substantial potential as a dug tree. Its broader site tolerance, particularly of poorer drainage, and less susceptibility to late spring frosts could make it a more attractive landscape plant than many of the other single-needle conifers, including Fraser fir. Consumer and grower acceptance of West Virginia balsam fir, its suitability for many Ohio sites, and the number planted since 1989 would all suggest that the number of West Virginia balsam fir harvested in the next few years will increase markedly.