Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology
Departmental Series No. 35
Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station
Gale A. Buchanan, Director
Auburn 
University
Auburn University, Alabama
J~tiFebruary 1984
~ Christmas
""
in
Alabama
r
r t.P-r

CONTENTS
Page
Preface........ .... ............. 1
Introduction...........................2
Objectives and Procedure..................3
Analysis........................
Characteristics of Growers.................5
Location of Respondents...................8
Size and Age of Plantations.................8
Species Planted.....................12
Marketing Methods................. 
...... 15
Projected Supply.....................19
Summary and Implications............." 
..... ... ...
20
Literature Cited......................23
Appendix .. .... ....... 
............
24

PREFACE
In 1979, Dr. Fred Holemo, Extension Forester for the Alabama
Cooperative Extension Service, requested the Department of Agricultural
Economics and Rural Sociology to initiate production and marketing studies
of Alabama's Christmas tree industry. Factual information was needed to
provide growers and potential growers a basis for making decisions about
growing and marketing trees. A study was undertaken and in 1980 an M.S.
thesis was prepared by Ronnie G. Daniel. Title of the thesis was
"Household Demand for Christmas Trees and Budgets for Small Christmas Tree
Enterprises in Alabama." Subsequently, several articles were published
showing production budgets and household demand for Christmas trees in the
State. Additional Extension and Experiment Station reports are being pre-
pared that update and expand the production budget information.
In the study reported herein, the purpose was to determine the
characteristics and marketing methods being employed by Alabama Christmas
tree growers. It is based on a mailed questionnaire sent to growers.
Findings reported will be useful to members of the industry, potential
growers, and educators.
Appreciation is expressed to Dr. Holemo for stimulating the authors'
interest in Christmas trees and for providing guidance in our Christmas
tree research. Likewise, the assistance of Dr. William McKee and Doug Back
of the Alabama Cooperative Extension Service is acknowledged.
CHRISTMAS TREES IN ALABAMA
1
Lowell E. Wilson and Jeffrey F. Sims
2
Interest in Christmas tree production by Alabama farmers and other land-
owners has expanded greatly in recent years, although the potential demand for
quality, locally produced trees has been recognized for many years (1). Stimu-
lating this interest was forestry research and production experience which
showed that Christmas trees can be grown in the South in a shorter time and at
less cost than in other regions. Southern growers are able to produce
marketable trees in 4 and 5 years after planting as compared to 8 to 10 years
for trees grown in northern plantations (6).
Available data indicate that the demand in Alabama for plantation-grown
Christmas trees is substantial (3). Since population growth in the Southeast
during the past decade was 24 percent, twice the national rate, the regional
market for trees should be increasing at a similar rate (5).
Until recently there were few commercial Christmas tree growers in the
State. However, since the late 1970's, plantings of trees have increased over
seven-fold and indications are that a high rate of plantings will continue. In
1979, a state-wide Christmas tree association was formed. By early 1983 member-
ship in the association totaled about 225 members.
At present, a relatively small percentage of the plantation-grown trees are
1
This report contributes to the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station
Research Project Number 488 and to the Southern Regional Christmas Tree
Research Project S-128, Development, Production, and Marketing of Christmas
trees.
2
professor and Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Agricultural
Economics and Rural Sociology.
of marketable age. Most of the in-state demand is filled with trees imported
from other states. However, the supply situation may change dramatically within
a short time. Concern has been expressed that an over-supply of locally pro-
duced trees may occur within the next 2 years in some areas of Alabama, if
the large number of trees being planted are actually harvested as Christmas
trees. Alabama tree growers are relatively inexperienced in both production and
marketing of Christmas trees. This study was undertaken to assist the
developing Christmas tree industry in the State.
OBJECTIVES AND PROCEDURE
The purpose of this study was to provide basic information about the status
of Christmas tree production in Alabama. Specific objectives were as follows:
1. to identify selected characteristics of Christmas tree growers,
2. to determine acreages, ages, and locations of Christmas tree
plantations,
3. to determine species of trees planted,
4. to estimate anticipated future plantings of trees, and
5. to appraise marketing practices presently being used and methods
anticipated by growers.
A questionnaire was developed and mailed to all known Christmas tree pro-
ducers in Alabama (see appendix). In developing the questionnaire and study
objectives, a University of Georgia Christmas tree report by Bachtel, et al. was
reviewed (2). The Georgia study had similar objectives and was also based on
data obtained through a questionnaire mailed to growers.
Lists of growers and others known to be interested in the enterprise were
acquired from the Alabama Christmas Tree Growers Association and the Alabama
Cooperative Extension Service. Extension personnel believed there were about
300 growers in the State in 1982. The questionnaire was mailed in August 1982
to the known growers and others who might have planted trees. A second 
mailing
was made to non-respondents in September 1982. In October, a small 
number
of non-respondents were contacted by telephone in order to secure 
completed
questionnaires from as many growers as possible. A summary 
of mailings and
response is stated as follows:
Number
Total questionnaires mailed 
432
Completed questionnaires 241
No trees (53) and unusable (4) 57
Usable responses 184
Although all growers known to have Christmas tree plantations did not
respond to the questionnaire, the respondents include most growers with signifi-
cant plantings, as well as a wide distribution of small operations. To obtain
as wide a coverage as possible, 17 known growers who had not responded to the
mailed questionnaire were contacted by telephone. Their completed question-
naires are included in the 184 responses used in the analysis.
In the survey, growers were requested to provide information regarding
their occupations, ages, and employment status. Information requested about
Christmas tree production included the species, number, and acreage planted 
by
year. Methods used to market trees and market locations were also requested.
Information of this type will be useful in projecting the organizational struc-
ture of this new agricultural enterprise and in developing extension and
research programs to assist the industry.
ANALYSIS
Although most of the following analysis was derived from the 1982 grower
survey, a 1983 update on the number and locations of Christmas tree growers has
been provided by the Alabama Cooperative Extension Service. In November 1983,
there were 440 known plantations of Christmas trees in Alabama, figure 1. These
growers were located in 62 counties. Thus, an additional 140 growers have
been identified since the 1982 survey.
Characteristics of Growers
The Christmas tree enterprise apparently appeals to people of all ages,
table 1. The greatest concentration of growers was between the ages of 30 and
49. Over one-half of the respondents were in this age range. Only 10 percent
of the respondents indicated they had retired from their stated occupation,
table 2.
Table i. Number of Respondents and Christmas Tree Acreage by Respondent
Age, 1982
Age Growers Tree acreage
(years) Number Percent Acres Percent
Under 30 23 12.5 117.5 8.4
30-39 44 23.9 388.7 27.9
40-49 51 27.7 296.2 21.3
50-59 36 19.6 243.6 17.5
60 and over 23 12.5 221.2 15.9
No answer 7 3.8 124.2 9.0
Total 184 100.0 1,391.4 100.0
Table 2. Number of Respondents and Christmas Tree Acreage by Retirement
Status, 1982
Status Growers Tree acreage
Number Percent Acres Percent
Reti red 18 9.8 93.0 6.7
Not reti red 158 85.8 1,156.9 83.1
No answer 8 4.4 142.5 10.2
Total 184 100.0 1,391.4 100.0
Source: Alabama Cooperative 
Extension Service
Statewide Total = 440
Figure 1. Number of Christmas Tree Growers in Alabama by County,
November 1983.
Growers stated a wide variety of occupations. The responses were catego-
rized into 10 groups, plus a miscellaneous and no answer group, table 3. The
enterprise appeals to a broad spectrum of society. Perhaps the 
limiting factor
for entrance into the enterprise is ownership or availability of land for
growing trees. Although educational background of growers was not specified 
in
the questionnaire, the requirements of most respondents' occupations would
necessitate a high level of education. Over one-half of the 
respondents stated
occupations that would require some college education or a college degree.
Common occupations listed were education, professional fields, business,
and government. Surprisingly, only 12 percent of the growers stated 
their
primary occupation was agricultural production or forestry. However, 
a large
proportion of trees were in farmer-owned plantations. 
Plantations owned by
growers in the farmer-forestry group averaged 14 acres, which was 
about twice
the overall average of respondents.
Table 3. Number of Respondents and Christmas Tree Acreage 
by Occupation, 1982
Growers Acreage
Status Number Percent Acres Percent
Farmers and foresters 22 12.0 349.9 25.1
Teachers 15 13.6 150.6 10.8
Engineers, technicians,
operators, and craftsmen 44 23.9 208.7 
15.0
Sales 17 9.2 
81.7 5.9
Government-agriculture related 12 6.5 68.9 
5.0
Government-non agriculture
related 8 4.4 45.2 
3.2
Military service 4 2.1 
21.5 1.5
Finance and accounting 8 4.4 
33.0 2.4
Managerial and business
(agr. and non-agr. related) 23 12.5 273.8 19.7
Factory and labor 8 4.4 22.3 1.6
No answer and other 13 7.0 135.8 9.8
Total 184 100.0 1,391.4 100.0
Location of Respondents
Tree plantations were reported by growers located in 54 counties. Although
plantings were reported in widespread areas of the State, some concentration of
growers was found in a few counties. The counties with the largest number of
respondents were Baldwin, 15; Lee, 15; and Elmore, 10. Five or more growers
responded in each of 10 counties. Total plantation acreage per county ranged
from less than I acre in Dale County to over 194 acres in Mobile County.
Respondents were grouped into Crop Reporting Districts as used by the
Alabama Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, table 4. The 10 districts are
established along county lines with counties included in the districts having
common or agricultural production situations. The largest concentration of
growers was in District VI, with 38 respondents, while the districts encompas-
sing the western portion of the State had the fewest growers.
Size and Age of Plantations
Most respondents had relatively small plantations, table 5. Seventy-one
percent of the respondents reported plantations smaller than 6 acres. Average
plantation size was 7 acres with a total of 7,400 trees. Only 29 respondents,
16 percent, reported plantations of 11 or more acres; however, these producers
had two-thirds of all trees reported. The largest number of acres of trees was
reported in Crop Reporting Districts V, VI, and VII, while the greatest number
of respondents was located in districts II, VI, and VII. An average of 1,060
seedlings were planted per acre for all growers. While the small plantations
averaged 870 seedlings per acre, growers with plantations of 21 acres or more
averaged planting 1,025 seedlings per acre.
An analysis of ages of seedlings planted to be cut as Christmas trees
reveals the infancy of this enterprise in Alabama. Thirty-five percent of the
8
9
Table 4. Number
Survey
of Respondents, Acreage and Trees Planted by Year and Crop Reporting Districts
of Alabama Christmas Tree Producers, 1982
District Respon- Total Trees planted by year
1  
Total
and dents acres 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 trees
county planted planted
No. Ac. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
DISTRICT I
Colbert
Fayette
Franklin
Lamar
Marion
Total
DISTRICT II
LauderdalIe
Lawrence
Limestone
Madison
Marshall
Morgan
Total
DISTRICT Ila
Bibb
Blount
ChilIton
Cullman
Jefferson
Saint Clair
Shelby
WalIker
Winston
Total
DISTRICT Ill
Calhoun
Cherokee
Cl eburne
DeKa lb
Etowah
Jackson
Total
DISTRICT IV
Greene
HaIe
Marengo
Pi ckens
Sumter
TuscalIoosa
Total
0
2
3
0
6
3
3
4
5
7
23
0
3
8
0
4
4
0
21
3
3
4
5
17
2
0
0
0
4
7
1.6 200
6.0 3,800
6.0 4,200
13.6 8,200
5.8
2.8
30.0
8.4
15.0
69.8
131.8
37 5
700
4, 000
1,000
5,485
12,449
24,009
1.8 2,160
48.0 6,200
20.5 1,875
5.1 1,620
49.0 17,400
10.0 5,550
600
250
0
850
4,000
0
5,900
3,000
3, 000
14,700
30,600
0
36,9500
13, 150
650
14,000
4,400
0
0
3,000
3,000
0
480
5,500
2,000
3,100
5,425
16,505
0
5,000
0
1 ,500
12,000
0
200
0
0
200
360
900
5,500
1,000
1, 000
14,400
23,160
0
0
0
375
4,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,500
1 ,000
0
9,600
16,100
0
0
2,100
0
1,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,500
I,000
0
3,200
5,700
134.4 34,805 68,700 18,500 4,375 3,100
8.0
19.5
5.0
23.7
23.0
10.0
89.2
1 ,000
7,265
1,500
5,800
12,200
0
27,765
2,700
4,250
1 ,000
9,455
7,700
0
29,105
4,000
4,250
0
5,932
5,280
0
19,462
0
0
0
3,800
0
82,000
11 ,800
0
0
0
600
0
2,000
2,600
1,000
4,050
7,200
12,250
4,135
2,080
27,900
9,000
12,585
59,774
116,074
2, 160
47, 700
17,125
4,145
48,400
9,950
0 129,480
0
0
0
800
0
0
800
78.5 19,375 16,200 18,000 16,200
1.0 0 500 0 0 0
7,700
15,765
2,500
26,387
25, 180
10,000
87,532
0 69,775
0 500
21.9 2,600 6,040 5,000 3,080 1,000 1,000 18,720
101.4 21,975 22,740 23,000 19,280 1,000 1,000 88,995
continued
10
Table 4. (cont'd)
District Respon- Total Trees planted by year
1
Total
and dents acres 1981 1980 1979 1978 
1977 1976 trees
county planted 
planted
No. Ac. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
DISTRICT V
Autauga
Dallas
Elmore
Lowndes
Montgomery
Perry
Wil~cox
Total
DISTRICT VI
Chambers
Clay
Coosa
Lee
Macon
Randol ph
Russel I
Tal ladega
Tal la poosa
Total
DISTRICT VII
BalIdwi1n
Choctaw
Clarke
Mobile
Washi1ngton
Total
DISTRICT VIII
Butler
Conecuh
Coyvington
Crenshaw
Escamb i a
Monroe
Total
DISTRICT IX
Barbour
Bul lock
Coffee
DalIe
Geneva
Henry
Houston
Pike
Total
3
10
sl 1
3
20
5
2
15
4
5
4
38
15
0
3
8
0
26
3
0
0
3
2
9
0
4
2
2
2
2
14
12.0
44.4
33.5
12.0
52.2
2.5
24.0
180.6
14.5
8.0
17.0
93.,1
37.*0
2.0
2.2
33.8
38.3
24599
91.1
9.0
194.2
1,800
8,700
12,120
9,600
1 1, 500
2,250
8,000
53,970
2,350
4,000
15,000
49,396
27,650
1,500
0
7,000
0
106,896
4,000
11 ,745
12,980
0
10,000
0
10,000
48,725
4,300
4,000
400
17,910
24,150
500
563
2,820
19,511
74,154
2,000
11 ,745
4,200
0
17,000
0
5,000
39,945
2,050
0
0
12, 100
0
0
0
4,300
18, 000
36,450
0
11,745
1,000
0
15,000
0
1,000
28,745
1 ,000
0
0
2,800
0
0
1 ,350
4,650
1,000
10,800
62,198 12,070 8,040 1,800
3,400 4,000 1,000
99,180 84,035 10,750
0
3,500
294.3 164,778 100,105 19,790 5,300
12.5
6.8
9.5
39.8
77.0
27.*0
.2
10.5
5.5
23.5
13.7
157.4
3 3
184 1,391.4
8,400 2,960 3,210 2,210
1,525
0
0
9,925
0
6,620
300
1,020
2,000
13,000
4,800
27,740
0
1,125
0
4,085
0
3,420
0
3,610
600
6,000
960
14, 590
5,000
800
4,750
13,760
20,000
6,000
0
1, 428
400
3,000
2,800
33,628
0
0
4,750
6,960
12,000
6,400
0
1 ,632
1 ,200
7,500
0
28,732
0
11,745
4,000
0
7,500
0
0
23,245
1 ,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,700
0
8,700
0
2,400
500
0
2,500
0
0
5,400
1,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,200
0
8,200
7,800
58,080
34 ,800
9,600
63,500
2,250
24,000
200,030
11 ,700
8,000
15,400
82,206
51 , 800
2,000
1,913
33,670
38,511
245,200
0 2,000 86,108
1,000 9,400
0 197,465
0 3,000 292,973
0 0 16,780
0
4,760
950
5,710
20,000
3,600
0
0
0
0
0
23,600
0
0
0
0
25,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
25,000
6,525
6,685
10,450
40,440
77,000
26,040
300
7,690
4,200
29,500
8s,560
153,290
0 2,500 0 0 0 0 2,500
480,063 392,154 224,040 139,352 84,055 49,100 1,368,764
1 Respondents reported the number of trees planted. Some of the trees died and some of the tree
planted i n earlier years had been harvested before the 1982 
survey.
11
Table 5. Number of Growers and Seedlings Planted by Size 
of Plantation,
Survey of Alabama Christmas Tree Growers, 
1982
Size of
plantation Growers 
Seedlings planted
(acres) Number Percent 
Number Percent
Under 6 132 
71.8 292,358 21.4
6 to 10 23 
12.5 155,728 11.4
11 to 20 10 5.4 
130,112 9.5
21 to 50 17 9.2 
645,745 47.1
over 50 2 
1.1 145,400 10.6
Total 184 100.0 
1,369,343 100.0
trees were planted during the 1981-82 planting season and 64 percent had been
planted during the 2 years prior to the survey. Only 4 
percent of the trees
were planted in the 1976-77 season and some of these should 
have been cut during
the 1981 holiday season. Thus, most of existing plantings 
in Alabama should be
reaching the market in 1985 and 1986.
Species Planted
Choice of species planted has an important influence on the ultimate har-
vest and sale of the Christmas trees. Murray of the University of Georgia has
identified several considerations influencing the choice of species to be
planted. These considerations include consumer preference, characteristics of
the different Christmas tree species and growing requirements, characteristics
of the lands to be planted, and presence or absence of damaging insect and
animal pests and diseases (4). Influence of these factors was not measured in
this study.
Survey information in table 6 and figure 2 shows that the great majority of
plantings are Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana). Of all the seedlings planted
since the 1976-77 season, 95 percent were this specie. 
In the 1981-82
Table 6. Seedlings Planted and Expected Plantings by Species and Year, 
Survey
of Alabama Christmas Tree Growers 1976-1984.
Planting Virginia White Other Total
season Pine Pine
- - - - - Thousands -- - - - - - --- -
1976-77 41.7 0 7.4 
49.1
1977-78 75.2 2.5 6.4 
84.1
1978-79 127.9 2.0 9.5 139.3
1979-80 214.5 1.3 8.2 224.0
1980-81 378.7 
4.1 9.4 
392.2
1981-82 464.8 1.6 14.7 481.1
Expected plantings
1982-83 501.4 4.4 14.3 520.1
1983-84 428.6 3.6 9.6 441.8
Includes Sand Pine, Arizona Cypress, and Red Cedar
12
5 0
0 
T
450
400+
350.!
3004-
250 +
200
150
100 -
50?
Figure 2
480. 1
84. 1
139.4
392.2
49.1
- -$~w4> --
1976-- 7-7 197"-78 1978-79 1979-80 
1980-81 1981 -82
Years
Number and Species of Seedlings Planted 
by Year, Alabama Christmas Tree
Grower Survey, 1976-82
C,
Cd)
O.)
0
r--
d
C,
Q)
- -- 1..... _ .. _..
~v44Other
White Pines
FMII Virginia Pines
14
planting season 97 percent of the trees planted were Virginia pine.
Small plantings of white pine (Pinus strobus), red cedar 
(Juniperus
virginiana), sand pine (Pinus clausa) and Arizona cypress 
(Cupressus arizonica)
were reported. Usually these species were planted 
along with Virginia pine.
Some plantings of all species were reported 
throughout the State.
Respondents stated that they expected 
to increase plantings to 520,000
seedlings in 1982-83. This was an 8 percent increase 
in plantings and the
smallest expansion of the study period. 
Then in 1983-84, plantings are expected
to be reduced. Comments made by some respondents 
indicated a "wait and see"
attitude about planting after 1982-83. Some growers 
expressed concerns about
future over-supply in their local markets.
Forestry specialists of the Alabama Cooperative 
Extension Service have
estimated that total seedlings purchased for 
planting in the 1981-82 season
amounted to 1,020,000 seedlings and 960,000 
seedlings in 1982-83. Although
these totals were substantially larger 
than reported in the survey, the
reduction in plantings is similar to the 
anticipated reduction by the responding
growers.
Marketing Methods
In the questionnaire, growers were asked to provide information about the
methods used to market trees during the 1981 holiday season 
and their satis-
faction with the alternative marketing methods. Also, growers 
were questioned
as to the marketing methods they anticipated using in the upcoming 1982 season.
Sales in 1981
Forty three growers, 23 percent of the total respondents, sold 18,544
Christmas trees during the 1981 holiday season, table 7. Average sales per
grower amounted to 431 trees. The choose and cut method was employed by 31
growers; however, many of these producers used a combination of marketing
Table 7. Sales Methods used by Alabama Christmas Tree Growers in 1981
,brfToa trees
Method Num
gr
Choose and cut
Self-operated retail lot
Sales to retailers
Sales to wholesalers
Other
Total
nber of Total trees
,owers sold
..- - - Number 
- -
31 8,912
11 3,604
8 1,117
6 4,480
3 431
18,544
Average sales
per grower
287
328
140
747
144
431
methods. About one-half of the trees marketed were sold by choose and cut,
where the customer comes to the grower's production site and selects the tree
before it is harvested. Sales to wholesalers were made by six growers and
accounted for about 25 percent of the trees marketed. Growers with a larger
15
16
number of trees for sale depended more heavily on the wholesale market. Sales
through self-operated retail lots and to retailers accounted for 19 and 6
percent, respectively, of the trees marketed.
Market locations of sales were provided by the growers, table 8. Most
growers depended on local customers, with 19 of them selling to customers
located in the same county. Thirteen stated that their customers came from the
same county, plus adjoining counties. Only four persons stated that they had
made sales in out-of-state markets.
Thirty-three of the 43 persons stating they had sold trees in 1981 answered
a question regarding their satisfaction with the marketing arrangements used.
Eighty-five percent were satisfied with their markets, while 15 percent were
not. The five growers expressing concern over their marketing arrangements had
almost one-fourth of all trees planted by the respondents and, in total, had
annual plantings of 30,000 to 50,000 seedlings over the past 5 years. Further,
these five producers expected to plant over 50,000 trees each year in the 1982-
83 and 1983-84 seasons. Except for one grower who had marketed all of his
production in out-of-state markets, the other four had depended primarily on
choose and cut and self-operated retail lots. Because of the age of their
plantings, a substantial number of trees should be marketable in the next 2
years. It is likely these growers recognize the limitations of the methods
being employed and realize that these methods may not be adequate to fully
market their future supply.
Marketing Plans for 1982
Fifty-one of the 184 respondents stated that they expected to market trees
during the 1982 season. This group included 33 of the growers selling trees in
1981 plus 18 growers who did not sell trees the previous year. Total sales by
Table 8. Christmas Trees Marketed, by Location and Method, 1981
Number of Total Percent of Marketing method by location
1
Market growers trees total Self Op. Sale 
to Sale to
marketings C&C lot ret* w/s Othetoa
Number Number------------------Percent- ------- --------
Same county
Same county, plus adjoining
counties
More distant Alabama counties
Scattered sales in Alabama
Alabama and out-of-state
A l 1 out-of-state
Not specified
Total
19 2,958
13
2
2
2
4
43
9, 207
3,000
919
1,410
650
400
18,544
1 C&C represents choose 
and cut; self
wholesalers.
op. lot, self operated retail lot; sale to ret., sale to retailers; sale to w/s, sale to
15.9
49.6
16.2
5.0
7.6
3.5
2.2
100.0
60.0
69.3
15.0
0.0
4.3
.0
62.5
48.1
34.5
16.8
10.0
41.8
.0
53.8
0.0
19.4
3.8
6.0
.0
.0
.0
46.2
37.5
6.0
0.7
7.3
75.0
58.2
70.9
.0
0.0
24.2
1.0
.5
.0
.0
24.8
.0
0.0
2.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
18
the six respondents who did not expect to market trees in 1982 amounted 
to 845
trees. Four of these sold small quantities of trees in 1981 
by choose and cut.
Marketing methods are shown for growers with plantations of up to 10 
acres
and for growers with 11 acres and more, table 9. Choose and cut was the most
often stated expected marketing method. Of all growers, 41 expected to use this
method to sell all or part of their 1982 harvest. Most of the 33 small planta-
tion growers anticipated using the choose and cut method to market trees; 
28
expected to use this method only or in combination with other marketing outlets.
Growers with 11 acres or more apparently recognize the limitations 
of
marketing a large volume of trees by choose and cut. These growers more fre-
quently stated other methods, such as sales to wholesalers, retailers and self-
operated retail lots, although over one-half of the growers with larger opera-
tions stated that some of their sales would be through choose and cut.
Table 9. Expected Methods of Marketing Christmas Trees 
During the
Season
1982 Harvest
Method
of
marketing
Choose and cut only
Self-operated retail lot
Sell to retailers
Sell to wholesalers
Choose and cut plus self operated
retail lot
Choose and cut, plus sell to retailers
Choose and cut, plus sell to wholesalers
Choose and cut, self operated retail lot,
and sell to retailers
Choose and cut, self operated retail 
lot,
and sell to wholesalers
Other combinations of methods
Total
Christmas tree acreage
10 acres 11 acres
and and
less more
- .
.... 
Number
15 4
2 0
1 1
1 2
4 2
5 
1
2 2
0 1
0 2
3 3
33" 18
Total
respondents
marketing trees
in 1982
19
2
2
3
6
6
4
1
2
6
51
~A IV~~\rl 3 1~ I~II ~LI U\rlLJ VI IIIVI \r Urr~lLIICIIJ I ~~Vrj
r
~.rlr ~~~m~~
Projected Supply
Total plantings between 1976 and 1981 amounted to 1,369,000 Seedlings. The
number of these trees to be harvested as Christmas trees will be substantially
smaller. Respondents replies to the question of percentages of seedlings they
expect to harvest as mature Christmas trees ranged from 100 percent of all
seedlings planted to a 1 percent of plantings. Average expected harvest
percentage by all respondents was 76 percent. The most common response was an
80 percent harvest rate. Since a large majority of the respondents were not yet
experienced in a completed production period and the subsequent harvest of
trees, their estimates lacked the validity of experience. Forty-three grdwers
reported they had sold trees in 1981. The average harvest rate reported by
these experienced growers was 67 percent of seedlings planted.
In projecting the supply available from respondents in the next few years,
a 67 percent harvest rate was used. It was assumed that one-half the marketable
trees will be ready for harvest at the end of the fourth growing season with the
remaining trees being available for harvest in the fifth year. In south
Alabama, growers are able to harvest trees after the third and fourth growing
seasons, while in the northern part of the State over 5 years of growth are
needed. The assumption used of harvesting in years 4 and 5 is most suitable for
central Alabama.
Based on the plantings shown in table 6, the estimated marketings by the
respondents for 1982 through 1986 are projected as follows:
19
20
Projected
Year harvest
thou. trees
1982 75
1983 122
1984 206
1985 292
1986 395
In this estinmate, no consideration was given to the number of growers who
will not market any of their plantings as Christmas trees. A few respondents
remarked that their plantations will likely not be harvested as Christmas trees.
Thus, the estimate above probably overstates marketings by the respondents
during the next few years.
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS
Purpose of this study was to determine the status 
of Christmas tree produc-
tion in Alabama. Information was acquired by means of a mailed questionnaire
sent to growers in 1982. A total of 184 growers, an estimated 61 percent 
of all
growers, located in 54 counties responded to the questionnaire.
This enterprise appeals to people of many occupational backgrounds. Only
one-eighth of the growers stated that their primary occupation was agricultural
production or forestry, although this group reported about one-fourth of all
trees planted. The largest concentration of respondents was located in Baldwin,
Lee,and Elmore counties; however, the largest concentration of trees was in
Mobile County with 194 acres. Since 1976, the respondents had planted a total of
1.4 million seedlings with the intention of harvesting them as Christmas trees.
About 95 percent of the seedlings planted was Virginia pine.
In most cases, the enterprise was a small-scale, part-time activity.
Average size of plantation was 7,400 trees planted on 7.0 acres. Less than 30
21
percent of the respondents reported plantations of 11 acres or more; however,
they had two-thirds of the acreage planted.
Infancy of the industry in Alabama is revealed by the fact that two-thirds
of all plantings since 1976 were made during the past 2 years before the survey.
Respondents expected to increase plantings about 8 percent in the 1982-83
planting season, but to decrease plantings in 1983-84. According to Extension
Service information, the number of growers in the State increased about 100
since 1982 to 407 growers in late 1983.
Few growers were experienced in harvesting and marketing trees. Many
expected to harvest an unrealistic percentage of seedlings planted. Most of
those with marketing experience had sold small quantities of trees, usually by
choose and cut or other direct marketing methods in local areas. Larger growers
were using alternative marketing methods, however, choose and cut was also a
popular sales method.
With the rapid expansion of this new agricultural enterprise in the State
attracting growers with a diversity of backgrounds, educational information
about cultural practices and costs are of immediate need. Information is needed
about cultural practices and costs of producing trees in different areas of the
State and on plantations of various size. Auburn University Extension and
Experiment Station staff have responded to these needs with research and prepa-
ration of published information and meetings with growers and potential growers.
It is not likely that the availability of mature plantation-grown trees in
Alabama will exceed demand at satisfactory grower prices by 1986. However, the
concentration of plantations in some areas may result in over-supply if the
marketing choices are local sales by the various marketing methods. If pro-
ducers in these areas are to avoid excessive competition and low prices, plans
22
should be made in advance to develop alternative marketing methods. The
Christmas Tree Association and Auburn University can provide leadership in
identifying marketing methods and developing new markets.
In Lee County, where one of the greatest concentration of plantations and
trees exists in the State, local growers with the assistance of Auburn
University Extension personnel have formed a marketing association. Through
marketing associations, growers can combine individual supplies to attract
wholesale buyers and other markets. These associations should be particularly
appealing to growers with relatively small volumes of marketable trees.
LITERATURE CITED
(1) Alvord, B. F. Marketing Christmas Trees in Alabama. 1957. 
Ala. Agr. Exp.
Sta. Bull. 309.
(2) Bachtel, Douglas C., B. R.
1981. Georgia's Christmas
Development Center, Tifton.
Murray, Jim W. Demski, and Turner, S. Davis.
Tree Industry. Ga. Coop. Ext. Ser. Rural
Vol. 1, No. 1.
(3) Daniel, Ronnie G. 1980. Household Demand 
for Christmas Trees and Budgets
for Small Christmas Tree Enterprises in Alabama. M.S. Thesis. 
Auburn
Univ.
(4) Murray, B. R. 1980. Christmas Trees, a Profitable Crop for Georgia. Ga.
Coop. Ext. Ser. Athens.
(5) U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1980. 1980 Census of Population. PC80-1-A.
(6) Utz, Keith A. and William A. Balmer. 1983. Growing Christmas 
Trees in the South.
USDA. Forest Service, Southeast Area, State and Private Forestry. Gen.
Rept. SA-GRS.
23
APPENDIX
ALABAMA CHRISTMAS TREE SURVEY
Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station
Auburn University, Alabama 36849
Please complete the following form and return in the enclosed 
envelope.
1. NameDate
AddressTelephone
2. Are you currently growing Christmas trees or intend to plant seedlings
for Christmas trees in 198283? Yes No_ . If yes, complete this
questionnaire. If no, stop here and return the incompleted questionnaire.
3. Age: Under 30 ; 30-39 ; 40-49 ; 50-59
60 and over
4. Major occupation (if retired, what was your major occupation?)
5. Are you now retired from your major occupation? Yes ___No __
6. In what counties are your Christmas tree plantations located?
7. Total acreage in Christmas trees _________ acres.
8. 'Pl anti ngs by species and expected dates of harvest for the following:
Planting Species- Seedlings planted Acres Expected harvest date
season planted _ prer planted (or did harvest)
Winter 198182
Winter 1980-81
Winter 1979-80
Winter 1978-79
Winter 1977-78
Winter 1976-77
No.
No ..
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No .
No.
No.
______ ______acres
_____ ______acres
_______ _____acres
______acres
_____ ______acres
___________ ____acres
____________ ____acres
____________ ____acres
______________acres
____________ ____acres
_____________acres
ye a r ( s)
____yea r (s)
__ye a r ( s)
year(s)
year (s)
yea r (s)
__ ____year (s )
ye a r (s )
_ye a r (s )
gyear (s)
acres ______year(s)No.
24
7tingi
r .. eg
25
9. What percentage of the seedlings planted 
do you expect to harvest as
Christmas trees? percent.
10. The total number of trees you intend to plant:
Number of Acres to be
Planting season Tree species seedlings per acre planted
Winter 1982-83
Winter 1983-84
11. Methods you used
were:
__________ No., _______ ____acres
____________ _No. _ ______acres
SNo ._ acres
__________ No. _________ _ _ acres
to market your trees during the 1981 Christmas season
Marketing method
Choose and cut
Self-operated retail ]ot
Sales to retailers
Sales to wholesalers and brokers
Other (explain)._____________
Number of trees sold
No.
No.
No.
No. _______
No. ________
Total trees sold No.
12. For the 1981 Christmas season, briefly identify the location(s) of the
market areas for your trees _____________
13. Were any of your trees shipped to customers located in other states?
Yes_ No_ . If yes, what percent of your total sales in 1981
were shipped out-of-state %_
14. Were you satisfied with your sales (marketing methods and prices re-
ceived) for the 1981 season? Yes ___No___ If no, explain
f- ++.
Total treessold
26
15. How do you expect to sell your trees (method of marketing) during the
1982 season?
16. If you know of any individuals who should be 
included or may wish to be
included in this Christmas tree grower survey, please 
give names and
address in the space below. They will receive a questionnaire.
All information is confidential. Results 
of the survey will be reported
only as grouped information and will 
not reveal individual data. Thank
you for assisting in this study.
If you desire a copy of the finished report, 
please indicate by a check
in the following box.