[Carl Russell]

TaylorJohnson;15262 wrote:

Carl,
What is this crew able to put out in a day with forwarder / horse operation ? What do the other loggers in your are get to put wood on the landing ( conventional loggers that is ) ?

This crew is putting out 2mbf/day. This is big pine with one 16′, or 2 12’s, or a 16′ and a 12′, with big tops that we are leaving lopped in the woods. They are doing a single tree selection, which would be virtually impossible with a skidder.

The $50/mbf is about half of the going rate for WHP in our area, but as I said, if a skidder were in here, they would either have to pay less because of the handling of short logs, in tight quarters, or they’d be pulling full tree, cutting too many, and damaging the rest.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Rick Alger;15261 wrote:

Thanks, Carl. I follow you on the value of thinning. I do a lot of it in s/f stands, usually 30 percent removal, favoring spruce and avoiding areas of established regen. Age of the stands around 50 years. Average dbh 9″. Somebody elses prescription.

Now as I see it, there are values in the prescription and there are values in the method used to follow out the prescription.

What would you guess the economic value of the above prescription to be?

What would you guess the added value of accomplishing this by single tree selection with no bole scarring, groung compaction, residual damage etc would be?

Stumpage at say $110 per mbf.

Rick, the way I see it, the work requires an investment. If, as you say, the prescription is truly an improvement, or restorative in Jason’s words, then performing it should have some value, then also there is the value of the way in which it is applied. For me to ensure that this expectation is met, I have to be able to make at least $250-$350/day.

Looking at all the factors that affect my ability to pull off the prescribed work, I determine how many MBF I should be able to average, and price it accordingly. Unfortunately as so many of us have mentioned, we do not as a general rule have the ability to just find a market that can immediately compensate the landowner for that investment.

Typically because of that even though the stumpage value of the residual stand would increase, it is difficult to find markets that will support that. It is similar to pruned stems. It doesn’t matter if you have 8″ of clear wood, most conventional mills will not pay extra for that. This is why these value added markets are so important for us to develop.

If I need to harvest for $200/mbf, and the logs are worth $270/mbf – $40/mbf to deliver, then stumpage is $30/mbf. If the average local price is $70/mbf, then the $40/mbf difference is added value. But I’m not sure that it is easily added on a per mbf basis. It is better accounted for as a lump sum value added to the stand, and spread out over the future growth of the growing stock. It can also be used to represent that values that the LO desired, aesthetics etc., and amortized over the tenure of ownership. These are not typically values that can be recooped in the short term.

We have been trying for several years to pull together an effort between AP harvesters in NE to direct material toward some cooperative marketing efforts. This will be the most expedient way for us to realize that added value for our LO’s.

I like your idea that the residual stumpage could have a set value based on the improvement. I am totally behind the idea of setting my own price for material I produce, or grow. When I was a kid there was a tale about the old logger up the hill, who back in the day had several crews working for him. Some mill owner tried to under price him because it seemed he had so much wood to move that he would take the price. Instead he bought a sawmill himself, and started to saw the logs on his farm. The mill owner came back and paid the asking price, and my neighbor never ran his mill again, other than to saw his own or for neighbors.

I see this discussion being a big part of how we all interact as a broad regional group/network. For animal powered forestry to support itself, there has to be a growing market for the material produced from the methods and practices that we promote. Similar to SFI, when the market pays extra, then the work will be supported. Carl

[Carl Russell]

One of the most simplistic examples of adding value to a forestland is by removing low-grade stems in favor of high quality crop trees. If Average stumpage value per acre is $25 because of the pulp and fuelwood, when you remove them then the average stumpage increases immediately by math alone, not to mention the increased future value through volume and quality.

The need to develop value added end products are directly related to the fact that timber harvesting operations based soley on removing low-grade are not cost effective of the material is to be marketed to the conventional markets. This is why so much quality sawtimber is harvested before it reaches its best value, forest densities are reduced excessively, and so much low grade is actually left in the woods. There is some preconception that log jobs should always deliver financial gain to LO, rather than seeing the improvement as real and genuine value.

There are many other values such as recreational access, ecological protection, aesthetics, etc. that can also detract from the straight line profitability of timber harvesting, although they have real and genuine value to LO, and as part of land valuation.

When I log, or administer a sale, I figure that the stumpage price must reflect the extra time/care/effort that it takes to perform the improvement. Even when there is significant income to LO, I still consider timber harvest to be an investment in the future of the stand. Therefore I insist that the harvester gets adequately compensated for the work.

The cost of the improvement is always reflected in the primary product, the residual stand. Sometimes it is possible to find markets, such as Jason has described, where having control over the process allows access to purchasers/end users who value the way the timber was harvested, and the rationale behind the management. In these instances we can increase the return so that the added value is more directly reflected in the marketable products.

This is not always the case, and when I am selling logs into the conventional market, the stumpage is typically quite low, but as I said my emphasis is not on the stumpage check, but on the investment in forest improvement. I am not sure that I really quantify this for LO but I definitely qualify it for them.

For example right now I have several jobs going. One is a horse/forwarder operation cutting white pine. This stand is highly stocked with some very nice stems growing with many poorly formed codominants. We are paying $50/mbf for the pine. Actually we are logging at $190/mbf, getting $310 straight through, minus $75 for trucking, leaves $50 for LO. This is very low stumpage for WHP in our area, but we are taking only the poorest formed trees, and releasing the best. LO is obviously concerned about the low market, but we have shown him clearly how his residual stumpage value is increasing in front of his eyes. We are using a large local mill right now, but if we were to market the material for a higher price then the increase would go directly to the stumpage check, as logging cost would remain the same.

I’ll have to wait for more feed-back before going on…. long day…. brain dead.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Jason, What would the oak logs have been sold for? Were they pallet grade, or firewood?

The reason I ask is that merely sawing logs into lumber is really not enough to add value. By taking a product that would be basically worthless to the landowner and turning it into competitively priced products, you have added some practical value, but it is still difficult to purely justify it in economic terms.

It is when you take into consideration that there has been value added to the forest asset by the manner in which the work was done, this on-site milling allowing the harvest to be more economically viable, that value can be seen as added to the fence boards.

I’m assuming that if you cut and sold these logs, you probably wouldn’t even get $300/mbf

Quote:

.30 cents a foot for selection, felling and skidding

. With that in mind, it is this added income that allows you to provide the superior forestry services that add value to the product.

In many cases we can process material that is more desirable to some than it would be to the conventional market, but we still have to turn that increased desirability into some financial gain that we can use to make our approach more profitable.

I think that many times landowners are also very happy to see the value of the operation reflected in the product that they have used, such as a board fence etc..

The reason that I mention this is that I think it is really important that we maintain clear focus on the primary product as the improved forest asset, and not the log/lumber pile. I know that you practice that, but it was noticeably absent from your post, with the exception of the mention of the worst first harvest.

Quote:

A frequent first step in value adding forest products that start as raw logs is primary processing or sawing logs into lumber or beams

I just want to reiterate that the first step, in my mind, is to add value to the forestland holding. Otherwise we are just talking about cost.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Coming off the landing at the end of a day last fall, I headed the horses back toward home. I noticed a car from NJ drive by, both driver and passenger looked perplexed as they surveyed me. Not too long later, there they were coming up behind me.

They slowly gained on me, and started to pass. The woman in the passenger seat rolled down her window, and gave me the kind of look that it was obvious she wanted to ask me a question, so I stopped.

The man driving piped right up, “Does this road go to Bethel?”…..I didn’t hesitate a breath responding, “I’ve lived here my whole life, and haven’t seen this road go anywhere yet!!”:D

Carl

[Carl Russell]

DEA officer stops at a ranch in Texas , and talks with an old rancher. He tells the rancher, “I need to inspect your ranch for illegally grown drugs.” The rancher says, “Okay , but do not go in that field over there,” as he points out the location.

The DEA officer verbally explodes saying, ” Mister, I have the authority of the Federal Government with me.” Reaching into his rear pants pocket, he removes his badge and proudly displays it to the rancher. “See this badge? This badge means I am allowed to go wherever I wish….. On any land. No questions asked or answers given. Have I made myself clear? Do you understand? “

The rancher nods politely, apologizes, and goes about his chores.

A short time later, the old rancher hears loud screams and sees the DEA officer running for his life chased by the rancher’s big Santa Gertrudis bull……

With every step the bull is gaining ground on the officer, and it seems likely that he’ll get gored before he reaches safety. The officer is clearly terrified. The rancher throws down his tools, runs to the fence and yells at the top of his lungs…..

” Your badge. Show him your BADGE ! “

[Carl Russell]

Sure thing! Erika’s is the one in the foreground.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

I came across these photos that I took this fall to add to this thread.

[Carl Russell]

I have started a couple of teams of Jersey calves, and I have found that I usually had to put on sneakers….. but you should be able to teach them to walk at the speed you desire.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Thanks Tim for taking the time to post such a thorough review.

This echoes to some degree how I am looking at this. One of the questions that brought the discussion here was about the use of animal power to perform these tasks. I can see that if you already have a financial investment in tractors and modern farm equipment then under taking sub-soiling may have some merit as another way to utilize that investment. I also question whether the result is the function of increased biological activity, or primarily a result of the degree of change that is made possible by the available power.

When using animal power my first thoughts tend to be “What natural processes am I trying to replicate, and can I utilize them instead of trying to artificially augment them with power needs that are either beyond what I have available, or require financial investment?” The other part of this is the question about the sustainability of trying to maintain the result of such disturbance, if the disturbance is required to provide the result.

Animal power has limitations, but enveloped in there is the response of the “farmer” to work with/around/through those limitations. Using animal power in support of a farming system requires a level of awareness about subtle ecological factors that govern that living system. People still assume that farmers are so aware of nature, working with the seasons,but more and more these days they are merely watching the weather. Machinery and enhanced cropping techniques have allowed modern farmers to overcome the limitations that the environment throws in the path of production.

I realize that there are those who just want to use animal power as a replacement for petroleum based machinery. For some the use of animal power leads to a sensitivity to the permanent ecosystem that leads to a development of craft. In this instance farming is more than methods of harvest, and enhancing production, it also has its roots in walking the line where human interests meets ecological parameters.

When I think about the values that sub-soiling and Key Line techniques bring to modern production-based agriculture, I can’t help but think about the patient and subtle moldering growth that is already in place in a natural system. It isn’t really as simple as reducing traffic, or increasing amendments, but in part must be a willingness to let nature take it’s course.

As I am clearing a 60 year old forested plantation back to pasture, and eventually cropland, I wonder about the value that the large root structures as they pertain to this issue. Over the lives of these trees, there has been organic material deposited on the site, and the roots have penetrated the soil and pulverized it to some degree. We are not going to de-stump the land, but intend to allow the stumps to rot in place, allowing a whole host of biological activities to occur within the soil. It makes me think about the type of rejuvenation that soils receive from reforestation. I just wonder what agriculture would look like if all of our soils were allowed to go through some regular reforestation, if only to a pioneer sapling stage.

This obviously would require tremendous change, and sub-soiling is probably the best type of mechanism to perform these functions, especially considering where modern methods have taken us. I am just trying to illuminate some of the thought processes that may work at the foundation of permaculture and animal powered farming, and in my mind will support a much more sustainable system.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Welcome Travis. I’m in Bethel, in case you want to do some networking some time. You’re a little out of my sphere of influence:rolleyes:, but I am working hard these days to increase the number of HL who I can involve in a regional network for marketing products and services, and other cooperative endeavors. I had a fellow working with me last summer who has moved to the Dummerston area. He has forestry and chainsaw background, and is interested in working in the woods with horses. That may be a good connection for both of you.

Anyway, glad to have you here, Carl

p.s. I lived in Londonderry one summer (1981 I think) and really enjoyed getting to know that area. I rode my bike back and forth from Londonderry to Springfield every weekend to visit my girlfriend at the time. I still remember that long uphill grade heading out of Chester:eek:.

[Carl Russell]

I also got thinking about another example. When I was building this house I had a generator with an idle control so that when I wasn’t drawing electricity it would idle, but as soon as I hit the trigger on the saw it would rev up. Even at that it was generating about 65 amps, and the saw was only drawing about 10 amps. This is the way that engines perform a lot of work. Because of the way they burn fuel it is rarely apportioned precisely to the actual power demand.

The solution in the case of the house was to put in my battery bank. Then I could dump amps into the batteries as fast as my generator could make them, then draw them out in accordance to the task at hand. This is another feature of animal power. Their bodies are like batteries is some sense. They are not burning fuel as it is being put in, they are burning reserves, and they are only using as much energy as they need to accomplish the task. They can automatically change gaits and respond to the changing demands of the work.

Another part is that animals are growing, living components of the farm system. They are actually energy sinks, whereas motors are destructive of the energy stored in fuel molecules as it passes through them. They gain nothing from it, and they give nothing back from using it.

I know I’m making this complex, but it is the basis for why I started using draft animals 25 years ago, and have never owned a tractor.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Well I didn’t mean to start a discussion to COMPARE horses and machines. My interest is in pointing out how inefficient machines are at turning fuel energy into energy output. This has been highlighted throughout this discussion in discussing the reduction of HP when applied to work.

Mitch’s point about the skidder winch is a perfect example. You can winch much more with a skidder than you can pull. Winching the load up into the basket gives them the advantage, and traction, they need to pull the load. The winch has more effective power than the wheels do.

The concept that macines are so effective at converting fuel into motive power is at the root of modern assumptions about animal power. I agree that pure comparisons of energy/unit of work are pointless, especially for draft people, but there is an undisclosed INefficiency associated with machines that continues to relegate animal power to the dark ages.

When fuel was cheap and apparently endlessly available, the inefficiency was overlooked for all the EASE that the motor provided. It still provides ease, and PROficiency, but the inefficiency should be more significant, except that most people are so inamored with MOTOR EASE that they don’t want to believe how much fuel/energy they are wasting.

A particular example of how I see this being applicable is the difference between using a tractor with a mower or baler, versus a team with motorized forecart and mower or baler. There is an increased energy efficiency because the horses are moving the load which they are ideally suited for, and the motor is running at it’s designed level of out put, getting the most out of the fuel. We ran into this when we were setting up a demo at NEAPFD. If you read the specs for the round baler, the tractor HP required is much higher than the HP provided by the motor on the forecart.
However the smaller motor is entirely sufficient to perform the task of baling.

Obviously in this case there is still an energy requirement to move the load, and as Geoff pointed out it is the same amount of calories regardless of the motive power. It’s just a matter of where the calories are coming from, and are they renewable, and can that power unit be used for many different applications?

Another point to consider is even though it takes the same energy to travel a distance running or walking, what if you were yelling at the top of you lungs and swinging you arms wildly? There would be alot more energy spent then. This is the type of energy that I see motors using. There is a designed level of fuel use that exceeds the amount that is actually needed to complete the task.

Anyway, 10 below here today, gotta go feed some critters, Carl

[Carl Russell]

Pulling red pine when I get a chance. Clearing some land at home for more pasture. Got 2 loads out, and will probably have another, then on to white pine through Feb. Looked at a blown-down Red Oak the other day… must be 4-5 cords in it. Two 12’s in the butt, pulled roots and all so I can’t really tell how sound it is. The tree lays across the slope, about 15 feet from the cresr of the hill, and has to come up hill because of a swamp at the foot of the slope. Butt measures at least 40″. She HAS to have horses move it. I’ll have to chain the tree in place and put skids under the logs before I can cut it, then roll them up-slope before rolling again onto the bobsled to take down to the farm house. I’ll try to get pix to post. Gotta get the truck into the hospital first…bearings:mad:.

Oh yeah, overseeing four harvesting operations besides mine, three with man/saw/skidder, and one with horses and a trcator-drawn forwarder. Using lots of orange paint.

And Timber, my seven year old, is after me to help him yoke the 6 month old steer and heifer so that he can start skidding wood:D.

Spent 8 hours out in the crisp air today.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Traveling Woodsman;15067 wrote:

……..

And as far as comparing animals to machines on fuel efficiency per unit of force, that is a very interesting idea. You would have to come up with some unit of energy that you could measure both muscles and fuel/engines with. I’m sure somebody somewhere has worked on this idea at some point. I know of several old books that at least deal partly with this. I think I will start looking into it.

…….
I wouldn’t rule out making a presentation on some aspect(s) of this if you were interested Carl. I would have to do more research before I would feel comfortable making a presentation. Is anybody aware of research about this stuff? Anybody have thoughts?

I am considering a break down of the different energy centers, if you will, those points in the machine where the energy produced by the motor is reduced. Not so much a comparison of how efficiently horses or tractors utilize the intake fuel, but some comparison that can show the power apportionment.

For example a tractor has to use a certain amount of fuel to run all the attachments, drive the transmission, carry the weight, and perform the work. Because the power range is limited by the engineering, then there is always some portion of the power that is not fully utilized to perform the task. (A similar example is that it take 2 KW to transmit every KW of electricity used in the average home.)

Horses however inefficient they may be in terms of conversion of food into power, they are a flexible power unit, and they can be used to exert a wide range of energy output to more appropriately meet the exact power demands of the task.

These types of facts and figures may not be easy to arrive at, but as our culture begins to evaluate energy sources, one of the primary factors need to be efficient conversion. If we can show that for every calorie of petroleum that is used, that a certain portion is being wasted because of the dependence on the internal combustion motor, then we may be able to engage more people in this thought process. It makes me think of the figure that Michael Pollan used in the Omnivores Dilemma, something like it takes 10 calories of petroleum for every calorie of corn in processed food. How much of this is actually applied effieciently to the process, and how much is burned because of inherent inefficiency? These kinds of comparisons seem to be captivating to people.

I just don’t have the time or resources to do this research, so I am hoping that some others have done something like this. But I would be glad to be involved somehow.

Carl

[Author]

Posts