[Carl Russell]

Thanks fr sharing that Brad……What was your hourly rate??? Was it different for different tasks?

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@near horse 29893 wrote:

I don’t think the loss of various “skills” is anything new. Probably been going on since the earliest humans. When a newer, easier method becomes available, it is usually embraced and the previous technology/skill falls by the wayside.

I’m not sure how one can market their operation – even if it’s a sole proprietorship horselogging or organic farming without “selling” the way they operate or how they do stuff – perhaps even why they do it a certain way etc. Isn’t that still pitching? Perhaps our claims aren’t hollow like those of the big guys but we’re in the same game IMO.

I’m not sure I was focusing as much on the loss of skills as much as I was focusing on the marketing to a culture with the intent to replace needed skills with an advertising agenda. Dependency = market share security. We have moved beyond a culture where everyone needs to be adept at the skills of earth-base livelihood, but advertising strategists have long been marketing to the sense of need that exists within a person who has specific marketable skills that have nothing to do with taking care of their own needs.

Marketing is all about the story…. especially at the small scale, but the difference is that I can deliver my story without using a bottle of white-out to pass over the holes. I can be honest about my story because I have a lot of control over the details. When companies begin doing business at a scale where they are so dependent on the components of their production that they HAVE to accept what is available, then they lose control of the details of the story. That is when the “story” becomes a marketing scheme, and buyer beware.

B&J took this to a new level by marketing the preposition that they would use our dollars to fund a business that was supposed to address inadequacies in the story. A lot of people bought into that. A lot of people saw the success in this marketing strategy and have tried to replicate it. As Michael points out they just picked the details they knew would have the greatest import and then let the rest slide.

It makes me think….. when I started using draft animals in 1986 for logging and farming it was because I firmly believe that to produce food in a truly sustainable system, we need to use live power. It has always been a huge deal for me that Organic food can be raised using petroleum based internal combustion.

Some could come visit our farm and see the generator, diesel truck, car, bulldozer, chainsaws, cell phones, and computers and take issue, and as Erik says the irony is not lost on my either, but the bulk of our needs are being met by a system using natural resources within our local ecosystem and my family is the largest consumer of this story anyway….. any others who line up to buy the surplus are there with their eyes wide open, and usually looking for us to help them move their own lives in this direction….

..Geoff mentioned succession, which in many ways describes sustainability .. moving by changing, toward a system that can sustain itself by changing toward success.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

When you do login again click on the “remember me”, or “keep me logged in” toggle.

Also, there was some earlier discussion that your web server may not jive well with this forum…… I have good luck with Firefox.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

As has been well-stated several times “sustainability” is a very difficult term to use accurately, and equally difficult to attain. One of the reasons is that it is more of a human concept. In nature there really is nothing that remains unchanged into perpetuity. That is not to say that natural systems are not self-sustaining, but to be so they incorporate flexibility and mutability.

To my mind the best way for us to approach sustainability in the context of our culture is to restrict ourselves to systems that require very little input or maintenance. In other words, use systems that can stand alone, or at the very least have a “slow” break-down period.

Obviously with the huge dependency on petroleum, electricity, and “technology” we as a group are a very long way from that, but focusing on sustainability as if it is an alternative that is somehow supposed to last forever in a self contained vessel only leads to arguments that distract us from finding solutions that we can all agree on. Economic sustainability, social sustainability, functional sustainability, and ecological sustainability all have different meanings to different people, and trying to find ways to make a sustainable system last forever just confounds the solution because it just doesn’t exist.

The main objective in my life is to try to make decisions and take actions that limit my impact and extend the greatest amount of future possibilities based on what is available in my natural surroundings…….:confused: whatever that means….

I see a problem when companies like B&J try to sell us on the concept that our dollars are going to sustainability. It is one of those undefinable terms that advertisers love. Every consumer can get their own sense of warm-and-fuzzy. In actuality there is no way they can really deliver on their assertions. I’m sure there are some who actually believe they can back up their offer, but in the long run it will cost too much for them to actually not buy milk from farms that use Atrozine, or in the case of SFC forest products to not market lumber from logs cut by huge LO who routinely muddy the waters of the certification process.

In the long-run it really comes down to buyer beware. We really must understand that businesses that do commerce on such large scale need to create stories that are attractive to consumers. The story only needs to float long enough to get folks in line. If you want to buy the story, then know that is all you are buying. If you as a consumer truly have motivations beyond that then it will take a lot of homework…… which is probably a good thing anyway. It becomes a problem for those of us who do the homework when there are probably hundreds of others for each one of us who think they are doing enough just standing in the right line….

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Michael, I am not a B&J supporter, I just mean that people should have known all along that their initiative was more about business than it was about true social responsibility……

I didn’t mean that we shouldn’t find fault with them for their underlying lack of principle, just that no one should actually be surprised. (It was poorly worded)

And yes, I have never quite been able to justify how organizations who are supposed to be representative of VT ag actually accept B$J grants…… being on the board of one……..which I am finding even more questionable as my perspective seems to be somewhat solitary. (Sometimes working for change from the inside is actually a futile endeavor:confused:)

The point here in my mind is that allowing businesses to add value to their product by attempting to convince us that they are using our money to advance more generous objectives is really the problem. Consumers need to open their eyes. Businesses don’t owe us a frickin’ thing. If you want to be associated with solid community-based commerce, then start a farm, and go into partnership with your neighbors…… anything less is just a business model designed to part you from your money, time, and emotional well-being.

We have allowed a culture to develop where people are incapable, either through lack of skill, lack of time, or lack of motivation, of making for themselves. We have allowed a commercial sector to evolve to where all our needs can be marketed to us, including our sense of social responsibility…… what a crock:mad:.

Of course it pisses me off that they are taking advantage of our communities, but I would rather put my time into creating a successful land-based community-supporting enterprise, where I know my true needs can bet met, in cooperation with people who
share similar objectives around energy efficiency, resource protection, and human development.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Does’ Leap 29840 wrote:

…. was this something you figured out or was it acquired?

This is a very old trick that I was informed about through conversations with men who logged with horses before tractors were common.

George, I also wanted to suggest that on some slopes, when felled correctly, some logs can be handled with a peavey and made to roll down to a location where they can be skidded safely. It can lead to another set of learning curves, but working with gravity can bring some functionality (and safety) to the equation.

I cut some hemlock years ago that was growing on a plateau on top of some ledges. I could get the horse up there, but there was no good way to skid the logs down. I would cut and twitch to the edge of the drop-off, unhitch and kick the logs over. They would roll about 100 feet down the slope, certainly not landing in an orderly manner, but they were much more approachable on more moderate slope.

More than one way to skin a cat…..

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Ben & Jerry’s was always an exercise in business management strategy. There’s no doubt those two were hippyish, and had some appreciation for the so-called social bottom line, but they were straight up from the beginning that they just used ice cream as the basis for a scheme. They found a great recipe, made it seem better than it was by sharing some details about its obscure source. Then they made it “The people’s” ice cream by letting customers pick the M&M’s or whatever they wanted to mix in. The social responsibility was also a value added product they tacked on to market to the yuppie consumers prevalent at the time….. but in the long run it was an advertising and management project, selling franchises to build grassroots followings, etc, all the while building the business on to higher and higher levels…….

I agree they should have put their money where their mouths were, but they really didn’t have to, they got rich anyway. I think it is kind of disingenuous for folks to find fault with them…. I mean yeah their shtick was misleading, but as long as I have known them (1980 in the small service station-turned-scoop shop with 5 gallon ice cream makers) they have been honest and open about the building of the business model. I may have a jump on most who only know them as a hugely successful supposedly socially responsible business, but both B&J came into a business class I was taking at UVM back then, and they laid it out basically as it happened.

That is not to say that I agree with the capitalization of mega businesses, nor do I endorse profiting from the use of poisons, artificial colors, or garnering market share with misleading greenwashing. Actually I think it sucks, but they are not alone….. Stonyfield Yogurt is another one….. Sierra Club……

Oh well, I don’t eat much of their product anymore, but it tastes as good or better than most…..

Carl

[Carl Russell]

George, I like to make trails that run along contours as well. To do this I use “Slue” logs. Cut small poles, 6-12″ Dia. in long lengths spanning from rock or tree stump along the downhill side of your trail. As you skid the logs they will roll down and ride against the logs. After a few trips there will be loose soil pushed up against them and eventually you will have a very workable side-hill trail.

This is a section of my woodlot where I have been skidding logs along the contour, slightly uphill, for years. (A side note: After 25 years of working like this I just bought a little JD 1010 (1964) and I am steadily working around my land doing away with landscape like this…). With this method it makes sense to try to locate the trail in a place where it can be used for several trees, and repeatedly over time.

It works best to overlap the ends with the uphill one overlapping the end of the next one downhill so that your logs don’t catch on the ends. I usually can find trees and such to hold the ends, but occasionally I will sharpen a 4″ hardwood stake and drive it into the ground to support the rails. I also toss brush on these bumper rails.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Scott G 29706 wrote:

Very nice, Carl! If you were to write this up I’m sure Joe M. would buy it and publish it in RH. Every bit of coin helps.

Questions beget more questions…

-average turn distance (twitch & forwarding)
-average turn time (twitch & forwarding)
– average volume per turn (twitch & forwarding)

Also, were you looking for this harvest to pick up all of the road costs?

I am already putting this all together in a format that can lead to a pretty in-depth article. I have several reason for that, not necessarily to be published. I am also putting together a multi-media presentation with text, photos, and video for workshops etc.

The road cost should be covered by the time we actually complete the sale area….. we got cut short this year by Irene. I will say though that we have separated the cost of the roads from the timber harvest, as a long-term infrastructural investment in the property, so the cost is not directly attributed to the current logging operation….. however, in reality, they are seeing the income from logs go directly to paying the cost of the road.

Turn distances were 100-300 feet for twitching across the entire job. I would say they averaged closer to 100 feet. The twitching volume is really hard to estimate as it has to do with chopping, swamping, and product, but I would guess between 75-200bf per team. Twitching turn time is another one that we would need to have a data collector for, as there are factors associated with all the different activities that can occupy the time of the teamster. Thinking purely in terms of driving, hitching, and unhitching, I would say the average was between 5-10 min depending on how full the landing areas were. When using the sled, the teamster spent more time pre-decking logs to be loaded.

Turn distance for the forwarder was usually about 3/4 mile, as there was one landing area from which he could not bring a full load, being an uphill haul with slimy soil, topping off the load from other piles on his way back. The average was about 1 hours per round trip, hauling 1000 bf per load.

Turn distance with the sled was 1/3 mile, averaging 50 minutes round trip, including loading and unloading, averaging about 450 bf per load.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Looks like a canker (Fungus)….. not sure about the forest type, but the fact it has scarred over makes me think of something like Armellaria, or Nectria. These cankers usually kill cambium in a parasitic manner, living on sugars there and killing the living tissue, thus the small scars. I’m sure there is some particular species that is prevalent on this species of tree.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Very well done Tim.

Thanks, Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Tim Harrigan 29685 wrote:

If I understand this correctly you have the flexibility to bring the forwarder in when needed and only pay for it when it is working? So this forwarder is sort of on-call for multiple jobs? That is a nice option to have. From a machinery economics perspective once you make the equipment investment you are locked in x number of mbf/year to cover fixed costs at a minimum. That is when the equipment investment sort of takes the drivers seat.

This is complicated….. The machine belongs to one of our operators, Ben Canonica. The cost to him is ongoing, which is why we have to pay for it at the high hourly rate. I think that if it were to be integrated into an operation that utilized it more efficiently, it could be operated at a lower rate. I suppose we could get into other situations where we rented or leased it by the month, but currently we are working close enough, and we try to plan ahead, so that when we get wood stockpiled he can move it onto the job and then try to use it to its fullest capacity.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

One thing that I was interested to see was that forwarding with the sled, hand loading and hand stacking only cost $87/mbf as apposed to the mechanical forwarder at $75/mbf…… I have long been questioned about the comparable cost of horse and hand versus mechanical, and while this is not a scientifically accurate study, it does show that the machine doesn’t automatically increase financial functionality by a large degree…. (especially as the portion of the woodlot where we worked with the horses and sled was where the smallest timber was, and it was mid summer…. I will try to start keeping these types of records in other situations, like on snow and ice to see how these figures change)….

This brings me back to the purpose for having a forwarder on this job. As a way to bring more horse-power (live power) into the forestry enterprise, a mechanical forwarder is a practical compliment.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

If your hames are long enough above the collar you can hang a lot of things there. I often tie loops of bailing twine around the handles of fuel jugs, and even on my saw. Some horses don’t like all the stuff bouncing around, so I have found that if the saw is hung on the off side, with the trigger handle over the hame and the bar tucked under the front trace (with scabbard obviously) it can ride there without too much bouncing.

I also used to have a small tool box that I lugged up in the woods and would leave all my tools in it, just bringing the fuel jugs back at night. In those days (20+ years ago, when I only worked with a single) I had a single-horse bobsled that I would bind my tool box onto when I was moving into a new area, then work from there like Mitch describes.

I have also used grain bags tied to the hames as sacks to hold smaller items like hand tools, lunch, etc…..tied hay bags and grain there too. Sometimes the horse can look pretty top heavy.

I also hang the peavey with the hook in the rein ring and the handle tucked into a side strap…..

Good luck, Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Scott G 29500 wrote:

Carl,

Even though I know you didn’t delve into time/motion on tracking numbers, do you have any rough mental figures on PH(ProductiveHours) vs SH(ScheduledHours) and/or the rough utilization% of PH (i.e. how often was someone standing waiting for someone else to finish or get out of the way)?

Also, do you feel as though you were maximizing each turn, both skidding(twitching) and running loads with the forwarder?

-S

OMG, I just worked for an hour and then lost all of this….. here goes again.

We worked in two distinctly different areas this year, using two different systems.

The first area we worked in was about 1700 feet from the landing. It was characterized by very small (75-100 bf) red spruce trees growing in dense thickets surrounding patches of spruce and white pine regen. We started in there with one chopper, a team twitching and a team forwarding with a bobsled. It was all downhill to the landing, but it was all uphill back, and it was 80-90º, so the sled was tough on the horses.

We were hand-loading the sled, and stacking by hand on the landing, surgically harvesting small logs from out of pockets of regen, girdling trees and chopping down CWD, working at an hourly rate of $25/hr/saw, and $30/hr/team.

These are the number we put together;

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD=”class: xl25, colspan: 3″]2011 Team/Chopper/Sled
[/TD]
[TD=”width: 75″][/TD]
[TD=”width: 75″][/TD]
[TD=”width: 75″][/TD]
[TD=”width: 75″][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 3″]10mbf / 6 days = 1.667mbf/day[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 3″]$2226 income / 10mbf = $222/mbf[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”class: xl24, colspan: 4″]Total cost = $3945 / 10mbf = $394.50/mbf[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 7″]Chopping = 44% of cost @ 64.5 hrs / 10mbf = 6.5hrs/mbf / 2 Men =3.3Mh/mbf = $174/mbf[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 7″]Twitching = 33% of cost @ 43 hrs / 10mbf = 4.3 hrs/mbf / 1.25 Men = 3.4Mh/mbf = $130/mbf[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 7″]Team/sled = 22% of cost @ 29 hrs / 10mbf = 2.9 hrs/mbf / 1 Men = 2.9Mh/mbf = $87/mbf[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 4″]Forestry = 1% of cost @ 1 hrs / 10mbf = 0.1 hr/mbf[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 5″]Forwarding with sled = 2.9 hrs/mbf x $30/hr = $87/mbf[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 5″]2.3 Mhrs chopping and twitching / 1 Mhr with teams and sled[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

In this case we were working at a rate that far outstripped the value of the wood. The costliest portion of the work was chopping and twitching, most likely reflective of the non-commercial nature of the forestry prescription.

The 2.3 ManHours of chopping and twitching per ManHour with sled does not represent a bottleneck, as the sled team could easily disconnect and start twitching. Each of us is capable of stepping into any part of this system, so there was never anyone standing around waiting. The only exception was related to saw-time. Because there was so much saw-work, when there was only one chopper, the teamster was often waiting for a hitch or chopping himself. Once we got a second chopper, there was too much wood for the team on the sled to keep up.

At that point we decided to stockpile logs on small landings along our main haul roads. At that point we had also finished the section with small timber and moved into a are we had opened up during the previous harvest. This portion of the stand had much larger trees (150-200bf) within close proximity of land areas where we could pretty much unhitch and go back, very little hand work. This section was about 4000 feet from the landing, and located on well-made main haul roads.

We worked for about a week before the forwarder came in, when he was able to move stockpiled wood and keep up with fresh-cut material.

This is what the numbers look like;

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD=”class: xl24, colspan: 3″]2011 Chopper/Team/Forwarder
[/TD]
[TD=”width: 75″][/TD]
[TD=”width: 75″][/TD]
[TD=”width: 75″][/TD]
[TD=”width: 75″][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 3″]41mbf / 11 days = 3.7 mbf/day[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 3″]$9872 income / 41mbf = $241/mbf[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 4″]Total cost = $8780 / 41mbf = $214/mbf[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 7″]Chopping = 32% of cost @ 99 hrs / 41mbf = 2.4 hrs/mbf / 2.5 men = 0.96Mh/mbf = $69/mbf[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 7″]Twitching = 31% of cost @ 90 hrs / 41mbf = 2.0 hrs/mbf / 2 Men = 1.0Mh/mbf = $66/mbf[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 7″]Forwarder = 34% of cost @ 40 hrs / 41mbf = 1.0 hrs/mbf / 1 Men = 1.0 Mh/mbf = $73/mbf[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 5″]Forestry = 4 % of cost @ 5.5 hrs / 41mbf = 0.1 hrs/mbf[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 4″]Forwarder = 1.0 hrs/mbf x $75/hr = $75/mbf[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 5″]1.96 Mhrs chopping and twitching / 1M hr with forwarder[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

In this case the ManHours of chopping and twitching do represent a bottleneck. We never really had enough wood on the ground to keep the horses moving, so it seems reasonable that another chopper or two would significantly increase efficiency. I’m not sure that it would necessarily increase profitability as we don’t pay for the forwarder when it isn’t working, except that if we could keep it moving we might find that the hourly rate might go down.

I also combined last year with this year to show how things have averaged out.

[TABLE=”width: 525″]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 3″]2010 & 2011 Combined totals[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 3″]120mbf / 65 days = 1.8 mbf/day[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 3″]$29473 income / 120mbf = $246/mbf[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 4″]Total cost = $27058 / 120mbf = $226/mbf[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 7″]Saw= 33%cost @ 404 hrs / 120mbf = 3.4hrs/mbf / 2.5 Men =1.4mh/mbf = $75/mbf[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 7″]Twitching = 32% of cost @ 339 hrs / 120mbf = 2.8hrs/mbf / 2 Men = 1.4Mh/mbf = $72/mbf[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 7″]Forwarding = 33% of cost @ 160 hrs / 120mbf = 1.2hrs/mbf / 1 Men = 1.2Mh/mbf = $75/mbf[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 5″]Forestry = 2% of cost @ 13.5 hrs /120mbf = $4.50/mbf[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 5″]2.3 Mhrs chopping and twitching / 1 Mhr with forwarder[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 4″]2010 Road building 1 mile @ $ 4117.50[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 3″]2010 Logging cost = $15,615.00[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 3″]2010 Logging income = $17,374.99[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 4″]2010 Stumpage payment = $1,760 = $25.50/mbf[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 3″]2010 Total Harvest Volume = 69mbf[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 6″]2011 Logging Cost = $12,725 – $1,275 cost share for patch-cut = $11,450[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 3″]2011 Logging Income = $12,098[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 4″]2011 Stumpage payment = $650 = $13/mbf[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 3″]2011 Total Harvest Volume = 51mbf[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 2″]Logging cost = $27,065[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=”colspan: 3″]Logging income = $29,473[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Carl

[Author]

Posts