Sugar Maple Value Increase

Table 3. 10 year annual rate of value increase in sugar maple for given increases in diameter, height, and grade (in percent). (from Godman, R M and J J Mendel. 1978. Economic values for growth and grade change of sugar maple in the Lake States. USDA Forest Service Research Paper NC-155. St Paul, MN.)

Present

10 Years from Present

Avg
all
ht, gd
incr -KD

Dbh
(in)

Log
ht
(16'
logs)

Butt
log
grade

Value
($)

Diameter growth only
(Dbh growth
-inches)

Diameter growth
+ 1/2 log ht incr
(Dbh growth -inches)

Diameter growth
+ 1 grade incr
(Dbh growth -inches)

Diametergrowth
+1/2 log ht incr
+1 grade incr
(Dbh growth -inches)

1.4

1.8

2.2

1.4

1.8

2.2

1.4

1.8

2.2

1.4

1.8

2.2

14

1

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

16.9

2

1 86

6.1

7.2

8.3

9.2

10.3

11.4

12.1

13.0

13.9

15.5

16 5

17 4

3

0:29

15.1

16.9

18.5

19.8

21.6

23.2

27.6

28.9

30.2

31.3

32:7

34:0

14

1 1/2

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

2.41

6.4

7.5

8.6

8.1

9.2

10.4

12.6

13.5

14.4

14.6

15.5

16.4

3

0.50

13.5

15.2

16.8

16.6

18.3

19.9

24.4

25.7

27.0

26.3

27.7

29.1

14

2

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

2.73

6.7

7.9

9.0

8.3

9.4

10.6

13.1

14.1

15.0

15.0

15.9

16.8

3

0.73

12.4

14.0

15.5

15.3

16.9

18.4

21.7

23.1

24.4

23.5

24.9

26.1

16

1

1

5.80

3.9

4.7

5.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9.5

2

3.31

5.1

6.1

7.0

-

-

9.9

10.8

11.6

-

-

-

3

1.04

8.5

9.9

11.1

-

-

18.0

19.1

20.2

-

-

-

16

1 1/2

1

7.84

4.0

4.7

5. 4

5.9

6.7

7.4

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

4.40

5.2

6.1

7.1

7.1

8.0

9.0

10.2

10 9

11 7

12 2

13 0

13.8

3

1.58

8.2

9.4

10.5

11.0

12.2

13.4

16.6

17:6

18:6

18:6

19:7

20.7

16

2

1

9.34

4.1

4.8

5.6

5.7

6.5

7.2

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

5.14

5.4

6.3

7.3

6.9

7.9

8.8

10.5

11.3

12.0

12.2

13.0

13.8

3

2.10

7.8

9.0

10.2

10.3

11.5

12.6

15.3

16.3

17.3

16.9

18.0

19.1

16

2 1/2

1

10.98

4.0

4.8

5.5

5.5

6.2

7.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

5.93

5.4

6.4

7.3

6.7

7.7

8.7

10.6

11.4

12.2

12.2

13.0

13.8

3

2.73

7.4

8.6

9.7

9.7

10.8

11.9

13.9

14.9

16.0

15.3

16.4

17.4

18

1

1

8.54

3.6

4.3

4.9

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6.6

2

5.43

4.4

5.2

6.0

-

-

-

8.4

9.1

9.8

-

-

-

3

2.20

6.3

7.4

8.3

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

18

1 1/2

1

11.49

3.6

4.2

4.9

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

7.23

4.4

5.2

6.0

-

-

-

8.5

9.2

9.6

-

-

-

3

3.21

6.1

7.1

8.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

18

2

1

13.82

3.6

4.2

4.9

5.3

6.0

6.7

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

8.58

4.5

5.3

6.1

6.1

7.0

7.9

8.6

9.3

10.1

10.4

11.2

11.9

3

4.17

5.9

6.9

7.8

8.3

9.3

10.3

-

-

-

-

-

-

18

2 1/2

1

16.15

3.7

4.4

5.1

5.0

5.7

6.4

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

9.90

4.6

5.5

6.3

5.9

-6.,7

7.8

8.9

9.6

10.3

10.3

11.0

11.7

3

5.25

5.8

6.8

7.7

7.8

8.7

9.6

-

-

-

-

-

-

18

3

1

18.54

3.6

4.2

4.9

4.6

5.3

6.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

11.21

4.6

5.4

6.2

5.5

6.4

7.2

8.9

9.6

10.3

10.0

10.8

11.4

3

6.49

5.6

6.4

7.4

7.2

8.2

9.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

KD Notes: Data for 20-30" Dbh not included in this version of the table. These rates do not include real market value increases or inflation, nor costs of management or risk. They are higher than the rates in my summary table because they are based on lumber values, not log values. The differences reflect profits to sawmills and/or extra costs in processing, especially for smaller logs. Averages in the last column assume equal weightings for all rates of Dbh growth, height and grade improvements, and all initial grades. In reality, site quality and past management will heavily influence how these factors should be weighted.