[Carl Russell]

(This reply is meant as a broadening of the topic, and not meant exclusively as a direct response to Scott)

Scott, I understand your bristling. The scale of forestry you practice is entirely different from what we are facing here. There is no doubt that stocking guides can be used to determine stocking levels attributed to many natural features found in the forest ecosystem. However, it is still common fact that the stocking levels indicated on these charts are specifically calculated based on tree growth, independent of other ecological components in the forested stand.

In the east we are working in the third iteration of the Northern Forest since our forbears arrived. Our land was first denuded late 1700’s early 1800’s. Then around mid 1800’s many areas had regrown to mature softwoods and pioneer species, and after the civil war agricultural commerce warranted another clearing. By early 1900’s most of New England was cleared open land. What we see here now is a forest that is in the very early stages of establishing its mature manifestation (speaking in landscape terms).

To complicate things, all of the earlier clearings were complete, burning most if not all of the biomass. Then during the agricultural booms, soil was depleted through erosion and the export of nutrients in the form of mutton and milk (mostly).

Add to this that we have very small landholdings compared to your region’s public lands. I have 20-30 clients and manage about 10% of the tract that you described above. There are a lot of foresters out here practicing forestry. Most have been indoctrinated into an industrial mindset where they have more allegiance to each other, and the forestry industry, than they do to the landowners they work for. In other words, there is a strong culture among foresters that forestry is about harvesting and bringing forest products to market. In our region stocking guides are used primarily as a tool to relieve landowners of growing stock for the sake of the needs of the industry, with a little silviculture and wildlife habitat thrown in for good measure.

The other aspect of this culture is that it creates among landowners like George questions about their own ability to make management decision for themselves based on factors that they can understand easily. On a landscape that is a mosaic of independent landowners, I believe that building a working landscape of invested forest stewards is our best hope to having a sustainable resource economy. The culture of professional agents that are employed to provide off-farm knowledge runs contrary to these interests in many cases, and I try to encourage a different understanding of the principles of forestry that are based less on numbers and more on experience.

I think intelligent people should take the time to understand some of the numerical science behind forestry, but they also should be encouraged to develop some personal experience and understanding. After all, most foresters will admit that the art of application makes the difference.

My own preference is to see landowners fumbling through unknown territory learning to take ownership over the use of their own land, rather than a continuation of what I consider to be landscape scale mistakes being made by professionals with broad cultural support based on a belief that they are practicing a science that they understand better than those who own the land, when in fact what they are practicing is an industrial model of moving natural resources off of the land for the benefit of an export economy.

Faced with the repeated series of clearing and exporting of soil biomass and nutrients we really don’t have the ecological reservoir that we need to sustain this approach. The harvesting that is currently practiced doesn’t take into consideration these deeper ecological factors, and promises to set us so far back that our land may never recover adequately to support our natural resource needs. And in this region the dependance on stocking guides, and the harvesting strategies supported by them, is a big factor in this problem.

From an ecological standpoint we need to allow for much more of the stand conditions that accompany an “overstocked” delineation. Constantly managing forests to maintain a juvenile growth rate, reducing overmaturity, and eliminating mortality and natural deposits of coarse woody debris is shortsighted in the best setting, but given our depleted landscape, I feel it is unforgivable. And in my experience this utilization philosophy is supported by the adherence to thresholds laid out in our stocking guides. Obviously the “stocking guides” are not to blame for this “misuse”, but they are propped up as the standard that excuses foresters from changing their practices.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Merry X-mas to you all…..One more year under our belt. Nice to have you folks in my life.

My boys have a serious trap set for Santa. It might be an interesting night around here.:eek:

Be well all, Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Hopewell Farm 31181 wrote:

….. I guess the other aspect of this is, one of my guys I feel is ready to be hooked in a team and one is not quite ready yet. I would like to keep progressing with the one that is ready and was thinking that by getting a new teammate I could continue progressing with all. …..

There is a lot of progress that can be made without having to hitch in a team. There is nothing about being hitched as a team that will advance that horse any more than you working him single…. truthfully.

If you want to get another horse to move things along, I can see your point of view, but by no means feel that your horse will be missing out by not hitching him in a team until the other is ready.

Just my opinion.

Have a good x-mas, Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Baystatetom 31160 wrote:

I hate arguing silviculture with other foresters but here I go anyway. To me forestry is more an art then a science. I take or leave trees based on the exact situation and therefore a formula for how many dead snags per acre or trying to remove or retain an exact basal area makes no sense at all. I realize there has to be someway of explaining what we are doing but all the numbers and formulas just don’t work their way through my thick head. If you want “woodpecker trees” I would girdle trees with little or no timber value or potential for improvement, the number per acre would depend on the quality of the trees.
~Tom

I agree completely……

The thread started with questions about biometrics….. which I have some knowledge about. I keep current on these things as the Vermont Current Use Taxation Program for forestry requires that we have complete numerical data to underlay any plan submitted. This is because a State regulated tax program needs to have quantifiable standards to make sure people are conforming, and to give the Department of Forests and Parks base-line data to review properties as they move forward.

However, I am totally with Tom on this. I am an extremely intuitive person. I feel my way through life, and I work in the woods because early on I felt a connection to, and an understanding of, forests and wild places. Yes I have studies the science, and I can recite it, but to me forestry is very much a communication with most basic human instincts. My work with landowners is all about this. I don’t try to educate people about forestry as much as I help them to accept what they already know about forests, particularly their own. As an animal species we have all the observational capacity that we need to gain appreciation for the complexities of ecological communities, even if we don’t know what to call all the parts.

As far as making forestry decisions in conjunction with harvest, these things take practice, but they are not beyond the capability of the average adult landowner. Besides, the mistakes that someone like George MIGHT make are going to be very small compared to the degree of potential dissatisfaction with poor choices made by someone else, AND if the mistakes are recognized they can actually be of value from an educational standpoint.

It is easy for us trained foresters to say that we go by the seat of our pants, because we have a lot of experience, and an understanding of the science. It is a valuable discussion to try to understand some of the science, but in the long-run a strong sustainable culture of stewardship depends on landowners who can take the time and initiative to understand and practice forestry fundamentals.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Scott G 31153 wrote:

…. Overstocked is definitely not just a human concept in the Rocky Mountains. In my region, it truly is a measure of a site’s carrying capacity….

I did not mean that it was not a real forest condition without ecological ramifications. It’s just that without human evaluation and intervention, the situation would be self limiting, with some results being perhaps more ecologically important than the maintenance of the covertype or the currently established biological community.

The basis for these stocking guides is timber management, so the underlying definition of “overstocked” has to do with the condition of the forest in terms of producing timber. If there are other objectives such as wildlife habitat, or soil protection, or aesthetics, then the term “overstocked” is out of context.

It is a pet peeve of mine because it sets up a finite expectation for people in how they look at biological communities. Life is a continuum, where extremes are attained, collapse/mortality occurs, and recycling and regrowth follows. Restricting certain extremes from occurring has its place, such as in fire suppression, but on a whole I think we need to allow for more appreciation of broader ecological goals. In my mind letting sections of forest attain an overstocked condition can have very important impacts.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

So the one component that I didn’t have time to get to before is that BA is a stand-wide measurement, and therefore should not be used as a cutting guide in small sections, nor on a tree-by-tree basis.

Understanding the biometrics of stand structure is really only a start at the science of forestry. We (us forester) have all kinds of tables and charts to help us decipher management strategies etc. When we talk about reducing BA we are speaking on a stand, or even landscape, scale. These guidelines are based on an even-aged philosophy of growing trees at their optimum growth rate given competition with other trees. Reduce stocking, increase growth rate.

However, when it comes down to application it is much more art than science. We rarely use a prism, or BA tool, when marking for harvest. Those decisions are based more on specifics of tree health, growth form, and other micro-site factors. If a stand is “over-stocked” the theory is to reduce stocking. There is a minimum stocking level below which a thinning could decrease the growing stock to a point where the stand area is not being used to its fullest capacity. These lower levels may also allow for the establishment of undesirable species. However there are times when we purposely reduce stocking to actually encourage stand regeneration.

All of this is to say that when trying to maintain adequate stocking, the guidelines are just that. If there is a lot of defect and decline in a section of your woodlot, you may want to do a patch-cut, significantly reducing BA. There may be other areas where you may want to maintain a higher stocking than the guidelines call for.

George, I think you should be able to develop a “feel” for what you want to see in your woodlot, and not have to carry a calculator…. I don’t. One important thing to remember is that “overstocked” is a purely human concept. Forests naturally strive to an Overstocked condition, with mortality, blowdown, defect. This condition is what leads to the ecological state known as “forest”. To blindly reduce stocking purely to increase growth rate of trees is too simple. Just look at the way your stand wants to grow, and work accordingly.

Look at the individual trees in the cutting area and decide based on your experience watching them, and from what you know about the ones you have cut, and decide whether or not they need more room, or if there are some that are wasting your resources, or if they can just keep going for a few more years, or whether you need a new stand to start over with.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Rod 31133 wrote:

How far away from the tree do you stand to do the thumb measurement?

Your eye forms a triangle, the apex is the center of your eye, and the two sides are the lines of sight at either side of your thumb, or the nickle. By sighting at your thumb you project this triangle out into the stand. If the the object of measurable size is held at a constant distance from your eye, then the area within the rays of the triangle are constant in relation to the distance from your eye, using the relationship between similar triangles.

Basal area is the area of the circle of the plane that intersects the tree trunk at breast height. There is a correlation between basal area and diameter, and a relationship between diameter and tree size, which in turn relates to stand density. Using the area of the circle of tree diameter, a cumulative number can be created to show the percentage of an area that is occupied by trees, in other words measurable stand density.

Many small trees per acre can have the same measured BA as a few large trees, so that is where mean stand diameter comes in.

When measuring BA with an object such as a thumb or a nickel, you sample the trees that are larger than the displacement of the object. Small trees up close may count, but farther way won’t. Large trees can be counted at a longer distance from plot center. There are formulas relating tree size, object size, and numbers of trees per acre.

Suffice to say that the rule of thumb is 10 sqft/ac/per tree sampled.

Carl

Here is a link to Ben Meadows catalog showing another more accurate device.
http://www.benmeadows.com/BEN-MEADOWS-Cruise-Angle_s_102336/Cruising-Prisms-and-BAF-Tools_31221837/?cat_prefix=OAWP

[Carl Russell]

George, it is not as simple as just finding BA. You should also have mean stand diameter. In stands with more than 30% hemlock, 9″ MSD residual BA should be above 120 sqft/ac.. For similar stands with 16″ MSD, residual BA should be 160 sqft/ac or higher.

Every tree that you count (larger than your thumbnail at arms length) equals 10 sqft/ac.

Of course this is all depends on generalizations on a stand-wide basis, and total acceptance of even-aged management. In Hemlock you will notice that it generally reproduces in patches, so you may be reducing BA in one area and not in another. Also Crop Tree management is more of an all-aged management strategy, which is based more on diameter distribution than on BA.

One of the subtleties of crop tree management is recognizing that sometimes there are no crop trees without creating openings where regen can get established.

If you are just trying to keep the overstory stocking high, then the rule of “thumb” will be adequate. I would say you’d be safe keeping the residual BA above 120-140 saft/ac. (12-14 tree bigger than your thumb, or nickle).

Carl

[Carl Russell]

John, there is no doubt that hooking an inexperienced horse with one more experienced CAN be a great way to introduce them to work.

Judging from the way one is working (from video), I personally think you have a good foundation laid. The question still remains whether or not you can get a horse that is worth hooking them to. AND if you are questioning your own experience, then will that more experienced horse be able to make up for what you think you lack?

When I was beginning and hooking inexperienced horses, I asked an older very savvy teamster to come and assist me. I was pretty unsure of myself, but he just stood by and watched. First he felt he needed to make me do it myself, and second he knew if I couldn’t do it, I wasn’t ready.

I was hooking two that had been working well single, but had no experience working as a team. They became a very steady well-behaved team.

There may be some teamsters in your area that you could call on. There also may be some more experienced horses in your area that could stand in, saving you money and possible headaches. The problem with you introducing any other horse into the picture is that you need to get comfortable with that animal too, as I wouldn’t suggest that you allow someone else hook your horse next to their animal…. it should all be under your control.

I’ll let you decide for yourself where you go with it, but know that you can call on me if you think I could help.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

It is people who choose to show, not the horse. That being said, I never like buying another person’s horse. I purposely look for animals 2-3 years old with little or no training. Handling is great, but the less time in the harness, or even task orientation, the better.

This is not to say that there aren’t capable working horse trainers out there, nor that you couldn’t buy a horse with a good start, but my preference is to put the foundation under my own horses myself.

It may be true that you need to go to the show market to get the breed-line and features that you are looking for, but I would have the same hesitation buying a conditioned show horse that I have considering a conditioned plug.

John, you have done a fantastic working with your young horses. If your objective is to have reproductive capacity on the farm, I would just consider the timing, and whether or not you need to buy an adult conditioned mare. If so, then all of the above comments by others are totally appropriate.

I don’t envy you trying to consider finding breeding stock in the midst of the show horse industry. Those are considerations that are way over my head. I would start now looking for someone to talk to who has a lot of experience with judging the Clydesdale bloodline, and then work backwards from there to find the right mare.

It’s good to constantly be raising your line of sight above the horizon….. keep up the good work.

Carl

p.s. A big part of my rationale for buying unseasoned animals is the price :rolleyes:

[Carl Russell]

Awesome Tom….. That must be such a good feeling…

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Ours should be in the signature at the bottom of this post.

http://www.earthwisefarmandforest.com

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Does’ Leap 31071 wrote:

Carl:

Regarding chaining down the load using your chaining method: is it important to have the loops that go around your bunks toward the outside of the scoot for larger loads? Those loops tend to drift toward the center (with no load) and I find myself having to arrange them toward the outside edges of the bunks unless I am chaining down one large log.

George

[IMG]http://www.draftanimalpower.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1028&d=1250183807[/IMG]

I’ll just keep re-using this pic. The chains on my front bunk are set about 4-6″ in from the runners. The way I hook up the load chain, they rarely move from there. I wrap them by taking the ends under the bunk, up in front, over to the back, then under the loop and then to the outside of the load. It’s just the way I do it. I like the wraps out near the edge to hold the load more securely.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

#1. Carl, are you talking about Mitch’s scenario here with the draw chain going through the ring on the nose chain? The question in my mind is does the turning happen solely from sweeping the horses in one direction thus scooting the opposite runner forward or should some pressure on the nose chain help facilitate this turn? Is this the crux of the disagreement between Carl and Mitch? Also, based on your picture Carl, it seems that your evener is pivoting in front of your nose chain, no?

I prefer that there be no pressure on the nose chain. In my mind the nose chain has no other purpose than to assist in keeping the pole in front of the load. I never run my draw chain through the nose ring, even when pulling without the pole. When not using the pole a sharp turn can put pressure against the nose of the runner instead of pulling from under the bunk if the draw chain is run through the nose ring. When using a pole I want the nose chain loose enough to swing the pole precisely so that there is no lateral pressure against the nose, and the pull is still directly under the bunk where all the weight is.

As far as the evener, yes it “Pivots” as an evener in front of the nose chain, but the draft to the load actually pivots at the ring in the spread chain.

#2 If the draw chains are attached to or fed through the nose ring I can see how that would put pressure on the nose but I don’t see the forces acting against each other. For example if the horse sweep left, this would simultaneously tighten the right nose chain and front runner while scooting the right runner foward, correct? Carl, can you elaborate on “how the angles will work against each other under load causing changes in pressure against the horse through harness?”

This happens because of the dynamics of the triangular set-up of the draw chain. When making a turn on a pole the evener should be able to sweep a bit off-line from the pole to redirect the draft to the off-side runner. If it is held in-line, then it will lengthenen the distance between evener and neckyoke. This may be a subtle change, but to me it runs contrary to my use and belief in the D-ring harness. So while it may not make a huge operational difference, to me it is the basis for the kind of consistency that I try to practice that underlies my use of draft animals.

#3 Carl, are suggesting I have too much play in my pole here? Also, are you talking about 15 degrees using the bunk as the base. If so, it looks pretty close to 15 degrees to me. Irregardless, I dropped two links in my nose chain to tighten things up as I was getting some jackknifing going down hill. Mitch, how tight or lose are your nose chains?

If you use the line of your centered pole, I think a variance of up to 15º either side would be sufficient. This is not a lot, but it is enough to change pressure from one runner to the other. I actually can’t tell if you have “too” much play, but it sounds like you figured it out for yourself during use.

#4 I tried hooking the evener above and below the pole and it doesn’t seem to make much difference in functionality either way as the are both hooked more or less to the same spot under the bunk. Either way it seems one is going to be rubbing up against the other.

Functionally I like to be able to skid in logs and load the sled, then hitch the horses to the loaded sled. I like to get my evener as close to the load as possible, and I find working the evener in under the pole more difficult than hitching to the draw chain above the pole.

Admittedly sometimes I express my chosen habits as cosmic facts. For this I apologize. For me in my own cerebral world they are. I do realize however that there is a huge degree of art that underlies these practices on a community level. There is no one way, and there certainly are more than one way to skin a cat. I appreciate being able to share my perspective, and sometimes I get detailed and energetic in my attempts to clarify, but in no way do I actually believe that my way is the best, or only way. On my farm, and in my operation this is the way I do it.

Make of it as you wish.

Carl

Carl

[Carl Russell]

A Spread Chain is the chain they used to use for eveners. A center ring with short chains that go to the end of a shaped piece of wood. The pull on the ring is transferred longitudinally against the wood. In this manner a piece of wood can be used to pull a weight that would snap it if it were pulled laterally. In this instance it provides me with a centered hitch point.

Everything else is as you say Mark.

Carl

[Author]

Posts