Not all "pine" is the same: the role of the species and origin in the resistance of the packaging and wooden pallets

Dramatization of the different types of wood used in wooden packaging such as crates, boxes, and pallets. Although sometimes the color may be quite obvious, there are times when it will be difficult to distinguish them with the naked eye.

Introduction

When you or your supplier request “pine pallets” or “pine packaging,” many people assume it’s the same thing: an inexpensive, lightweight wood suitable for moderate loads. But behind that “pine” lie many different species (and geographic variations) with distinct mechanical characteristics that can transform a safe design into one that fails prematurely. In this article, we’ll see how species such as Southern Yellow Pine (USA), Ponderosa Pine, Mexican pines (e.g., Pinus oocarpa), as well as woods from Chile or Brazil, differ in density, modulus of elasticity, and durability, and how these differences affect the design, manufacturing, and inspection of industrial packaging.

Based on the Wood Handbook: Wood as an Engineering Material (USDA Forest Products Lab, 2010)[1] and supplementary international sources.

1. Common species with outstanding technical properties

Species / Origin	Scientific name	Dry density (kg/m³)	Modulus of elasticity (MOE, MPa)	Flexural strength (MOR, MPa)	Relevant comments
Southern Yellow Pine (EE. UU.)	Pinus taeda, P. palustris, P. elliottii	537–626[2]	11,500–13,000[2]	85–95[2]	High strength, good nail retention, requires rot treatment.
Ponderosa Pine (EE. UU., Canadá)	Pinus ponderosa	450–500[3]	8,900[3]	70–75[3]	Easy to work with, permeable and moderately stable, requires preservative
Radiata Pine (Chile, Nueva Zelanda)	Pinus radiata	470–500[4]	9,800–10,500[4]	70–80[4]	Fast growth, lightweight, stable, moderate structural strength.
Slash Pine (Brasil, EE. UU.)	Pinus elliottii	550–650[5]	11,000–12,000[5]	85–90[5]	Similar to SYP, good rigidity, adaptable to heat treatment and preservatives.
Caribaea Pine (Caribe, Brasil)	Pinus caribaea	560–620[6]	10,500–11,800[6]	82–88[6]	Strong, durable, widely used in Central and South America.
Pino oocarpa (México, Centroamérica)	Pinus oocarpa	470–520[7]	9,000–10,000[7]	70–78[7]	Good workability, light, variable depending on region and altitude.
Pino ayacahuite (México)	Pinus ayacahuite	420–480[8]	8,000–9,500[8]	65–70[8]	Lightweight, soft, ideal for low-weight packaging; requires reinforcements.
Encino blanco (México, EE. UU.)	Quercus alba	750–770[1]	13,000–14,000[1]	100–110[1]	Hardwood, high resistance, expensive and heavy.
Eucalipto (Brasil, Chile)	Eucalyptus grandis	600–700[9]	12,000–13,500[9]	90–100[9]	High rigidity and density, difficult to nail, ideal for structural parts.

Table conclusion: The differences between species are not only technical: they also affect purchasing decisions and supplier evaluation.

As a buyer or quality manager, interpreting this table means understanding that:

• Density ≠ absolute quality. Denser wood is not always better; it can increase transportation costs and require more handling.

• Modulus of elasticity (MOE) indicates stiffness: woods with a high MOE better withstand distributed loads, but are also less tolerant of impacts; this can be a good alternative for bases in server crates, which often weigh more than 1 ton.

• Modulus of rupture (MOR) measures the capacity before breaking; it is useful for stacked or large-volume wooden packaging.

• Availability and origin influence supply stability and final cost. Local pine can offer a smaller carbon footprint and shorter delivery times.

• Treatment and certifications are just as important as mechanical properties: they ensure compliance with ISPM-15 and pest resistance.

Thus, choosing wood is not about comparing prices per board, but about evaluating whether the species and origin guarantee performance, consistency, and traceability for your logistics operation.

2. How the Choice of Species Affects the Design of Wooden Packaging and Pallets

2.1 Load Capacity and Safety Factor

Each species has a different modulus of elasticity and bending strength. If low-density wood is used, the safety factor must be increased or structural reinforcements (slats, plates, metal corners) must be incorporated.

2.2 Weight and Freight Costs

Denser wood increases the weight of the wooden packaging and, therefore, the cost of transportation. For example, replacing oak (770 kg/m³) with Pinus oocarpa (480 kg/m³) can reduce the net weight by up to 35%.

2.3 Dimensional Stability and Moisture Content

Woods with higher shrinkage (such as oak or southern pine) require more controlled drying. Species with permeable sapwood (such as Ponderosa) require appropriate heat treatment or preservative. A poorly dried wooden pallet can lose up to 15% of its bending strength.

2.4 Biological Durability and Treatment

Resistance to insects and fungi depends on extractive content and density. Although oak is naturally more durable, a properly treated pine can match that protection.

3. What a Quality Inspector or Purchasing Manager Should Check

Clear botanical specification: avoid generic terms (“pine”). Request the exact species.

Batch test report: density, MOE, MOR, and shrinkage.

Moisture content: ideally ≤ 12% before assembly.

Certifications and treatments: ISPM-15, preservatives, pest control.

Tolerance and variability: statistically review deviations. A professional supplier should compensate for variability with design and quality control.

Conclusion

Choosing the right wood species is an engineering decision: it influences structural safety, logistics, and sustainability.

At Kayak Packaging, we analyze each project considering density, elasticity, stability, and origin to design wooden packaging, pallets, and server crates that not only meet but exceed international regulatory requirements.

References

[1] Forest Products Laboratory. (2010). Wood Handbook: Wood as an Engineering Material. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report FPL-GTR-190.[2] American Softwoods. (2024). Southern Yellow Pine: Characteristics and Applications.[3] Dendrology Lab, Virginia Tech. (2020). Pinus ponderosa: Wood Technology Summary.[4] Green, D. W., Winandy, J. E., & Kretschmann, D. E. (2006). Mechanical properties of wood. USDA Forest Service.[5] FAO. (2022). Forest Resources and Timber Statistics for Latin America.[6] IBAMA & EMBRAPA. (2021). Physical and mechanical properties of Pinus caribaea.[7] Wikipedia. (2024). Pinus oocarpa.[8] CONAFOR. (2020). Technological properties of Mexican woods: Ayacahuite pine.[9] Technological Research Institute (IPT, Brazil). (2019). Eucalyptus grandis: Mechanical properties and industrial applications.