[Carl Russell]

@Baystatetom 29602 wrote:

Carl is right about loggers not knowing their actual production cost. I have 4 jobs going right now. 2 cable skidders, a forwarder, and a forwarder fellerbuncher operation. Only one of the 4 could tell me exactly what it cost him to put a log on the landing. One of the cable skidder guys has his own log truck and couldn’t even tell me what percentage of his fuel bill went into the truck verses the skidder. It seams that loggers look at the price lists from the mill then look at the standing timber and take a guess at what the stumpage should be. In a lot of cases I (the forester) set the stumpage rate based on what I am hearing for prices from other foresters and what I have gotten on other lots recently, but this reflects my idea of timber quality not a loggers production cost. It seams to me being able to figure out those cost would make good business sense. In these hard times all loggers horse, ox or machine needs every edge they can get.

That is pretty much the whole thing in a nutshell….. well said Tom

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Looks great you guys….

[Carl Russell]

@payday 29529 wrote:

Help Seems they (gremlins I guess) won`t let me in to the home page, half an hour ago everything was fine, I could get into everything else and still can. I`m getting a message. I am using Internet Explorer. What do I do? What did I do?

When you get that message that you don’t have access to that page, go to quick navigation (bottom right) and the click forums home…

[Carl Russell]

Thanks Jen, we just visited there yesterday and we were very impressed. What a great group of DAP folks.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Baystatetom 29440 wrote:

One man and a cable skidder is still $100/mbf here. Feller bunchers, chippers and multiple forwarders are defiantly more but I really don’t care for the job they do.
I agree every job is an improvement harvest. Start with the worst first, its just a matter of the taking the worst 10%, 20%, 30%….. If the LO has to keep gram-ma in the nursing home its more like 60 or 70%. I painted timber for 6 hours today and never painted a single sawlog, the parameters in which we have to work can change on every job.

Tom, I don’t think it really is about what they charge, but what they are worth…… think of the workmanship you could get if you set the stumpage so they could make $150-$200/mbf???

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Baystatetom 29433 wrote:

You make a good point Carl in that if you are doing a precommercial thinning and/or improvement harvest then indeed the stumpage value to the landowner should be down around $20-$30/mbf. In fact that type of work often cost the LO money, paying anything at all is pretty good. I could say that I routinely sell stumpage white pine for $100, red oak for $350, and have been getting north of $50 for hemlock lately. But that wouldn’t be comparing apples to apples. Those jobs remove 3-5 mbf per acre. And yes no matter how good and careful the logger regen gets squished, trees get barked up and ruts get made.
I still believe I do good work and in the long term the properties I work on will be better off then when I started, but you are providing a different service to the client. The LO has to make the choice which fork in the skid road to take.
To compare things with machinery I hear logging cost from loggers ranging from $90 -$120/mbf. So for white pine paying $220/mbf loaded on a trailer, the LO gets $90-$130/mbf. BUT they are not doing the job Carl is talking about. I still am not not convinced its better or worse but defiantly different.
I look forward more and more everyday to hitting the woods with my steers but one thing I still struggle with is how to deal with all that low value wood. I bet six out of every ten trees I mark for harvest are hemlocks. They pay $160/mbf delivered to the local mills and it’ll cost $50 to get there. Can I find enough landowners to give away there timber so I can break even, or pay money out of pocket on top of the timber?
~Tom

Tom, I have never done a timber harvest that wasn’t an improvement cut. In fact I have rarely, if ever, seen a woodlot that was that good. Even when I hire skidder operators they work for over $200/mbf, except on really big softwood. Our WHP on the landing gets about $280/mbf, so even when they pay $100/mbf they are working for $180/mbf. I would never let a logger into a woodlot of mine that was logging for anything less.

The fact is that the product I am selling is an improved residual stand…. that is my opinion of what forestry is. Timber sale administration is no doubt an effective way to enact silvicultural treatments, but I have seen way too many attempts to squeeze forestry between the mill and high stumpage rates, and it has significant limitations.

Obviously I champion my own approach, but I am admittedly part of a very small minority. I just wanted to share some of our numbers, and try to flesh out how we try to afford the delivery of our forestry product.

As far as charging for what you are worth, I feel that it is important to link your rates to real costs that you can account for. That way I can sleep at night knowing that I am, like Tom says, getting paid an honest wage.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@near horse 29432 wrote:

Sorry if I’m asking the questions of a simpleton but I’d like to know how one calculates “cost” of said job. Is it only expendables (fuel, oil, chain etc) plus time? Or do you factor in stuff like depreciation/wear & tear/replacement of equipment (pick up, horses etc)? Just wondering because I struggle to figure out what it really costs me to perform a job – ag or in the woods.

I’d be interested to hear what you all do. It always seems like I undervalue what I’m doing.

Yes Geoff all of those factors play into the calculation. I know Scott has posted on here some work sheets to help figure operating costs, and those are a good place to start.

There is also a market reality factor that plays into the formula, and that is what ends up being the determining factor for many people. For example you may actually calculate that it costs you $X/hr but everybody else providing that service is charging $X-2/hr. That is the reality for many loggers and farmers, especially those with large financial investments tied to large production systems where the value of their product is reduced by the need to produce.

Very few loggers I know actually know what it costs them to operate, and just struggle to make ends meet based on the value of the timber and decisions they make in the woods.

In my case, as for many others, the costs associated with my operation are easier to determine on a $/day basis. Knowing that some costs are fixed, and others increase based on use (variable), helps in determining an accurate daily rate for different situations and equipment choices. I simply divide the daily rate by the number of hours I can work in a day. Then I also throw in the experience factor where I get a sense of whether this is a job that I have to have a sharp pencil and insist on $X/hr, or can I be a little squishy and accept $X-1/hr.

On a job where we are charging per MBF, then there is another example of experience factor judging what a reasonable estimate of production will be in relation to the daily expense.

However it is done, I feel that fighting for the lowest common denominator in order to be marketable is the wrong approach. I believe that when you bring quality to the enterprise, you deserve to be compensated for it. Whether farming or logging, finding a way in which I personally bring value to my products so that I value them higher than any other I can purchase is how I determine that I can market these at a higher rate than my competitors….. and to date I have no competitors.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

The conventional stumpage rates around here are usually higher…. about $40 for RES and $60-100 for WHP, and obviously HWD is higher still. Stumpage truly reflects the difference between the market value of timber and the cost of harvest.

IF timber harvest is the chosen method of delivering forest improvement, then the residual stand reflects the cost of harvest. If stumpage value is set as a regional average, then forest improvement is a standardized product, related to the income available from the market.

My objective has always been to deliver the improvement work that is important and necessary given current conditions in the existing woodlot. In this case we were harvesting a lot of small RES, and releasing well-established patches of RES and WHP regen, so some of our work was non-commercial, and much of the job required extra time and care, which decreased stumpage, but increased the value of the residual stand.

Although our stumpage payment is lower than the regional average, the “Forestry” delivered is far above the regional average.

I am so GD sick of what people accept as “forestry”, based on regional conventional stumpage rates. Ruts, damaged residuals, mashed down regen, and low stocking are not legitimate aspects of acceptable forest management in my mind!!!!

If we dig a bit deeper into the numbers we find something more. The numbers I posted above show the income from logs and fuelwood. If we take away the fuelwood, our landing log value goes up to $259/mbf, putting stumpage value at $42/mfb, vs. the aforementioned $23/mbf.

I have maintained for years that fuelwood and other low-grade product harvests are basically non-commercial work supported by the higher grade logs and higher volume harvests. On this job we left a lot of fuelwood, and softwood pulp laying on the forest floor. Part of the cost of harvesting is attributed to chainsaw time spent directionally felling and chopping to manage this residual material.

If we were to harvest all of this material you can quickly see how that will drive down the value of the higher quality material, and put pressure on the rest of the harvesting operation to cut cost corners, to harvest more crop trees, and/or to increase the density of harvest in certain areas.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Scott G 28864 wrote:

…….
Using forwarders with horses/mules has been gaining ground steadily over the past few years. What I’d really like to see from a forest operations standpoint are real numbers – time/motion, utilization, and costs. There was a study done by FERIC of Art Shannon in Ontario comparing his horse/mechanical forwarder operation to that of a cable skidder show. Art won hands down. I’m trying hard to get my hands on that paper but FERIC keeps a tight grip on its work. We need current & real numbers. Carl… that is a MAJOR hint!

We have numerous tools/techniques available to the horse logger of the 21st century that enables him/her to enhance the quality of product they already deliver while possibly even make money doing it… Let’s use them.

Carl, are you headed to MOFGA-LIF this year?

So, although these are not HARD numbers, and they certainly aren’t part of a time and motion study, these are some of the result of our latest go around…. And Scott, while I am not personally going to LIF this year, Brad Johnson will be, and he will be making a presentation about these figures.

During this harvest we yarded 45.518 mbf of red spruce, white pine, and mixed hardwoods, plus 12 cords of fuelwood (51.518mbf assuming 2cd/mbf).
We charged $25-$30/ hour for saw labor, performing extra duties such as girdling and crop tree release during production felling.
We charged $30/hr for teams skidding logs, and $75/hr for the forwarder. Forestry administration and supervision was charged at $50/hr.

The break-down was as follows; Labor = 120 hrs (37%), Team = 160 hrs (49%), Forwarder = 40 hrs ( 12%), and Forestry = 6.5 hrs (2%)

Our total cost was $11,198.43, or $217.37/mbf. The average value of the logs and fuelwood on the landing was $240.66/mbf. So the average stumpage value for timber is $23.29/mbf.

These numbers exclude the additional time we put into noncommercial work cutting two 2-acre patch cuts. That is money we will divide with the landowner based on costs that are separate from harvesting.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Carl Russell 29032 wrote:

Congratulations on the election of your new board of directors. What a great group of folks to all get to work together.

I just want to remind you to make the necessary changes to the e-mail list associated with this portion of DAP.com. Both Lisa and I need to be removed from the DAPNet Board of Directors User Group, as well as having our clearance status of Administrator reduced to Registered User.

I’m not sure that I can do that to myself. I don’t mind keeping that status for a limited time IF I can be of assistance, but I definitely feel like I should not be aware of the inner workings of the BOD, which if I am Administrator here will be available to me. Not that I am going to be snooping, nor do I expect incredibly secretive work, but I just want to move on…..and let you do the same.

Thank you all for what you helped to accomplish in the last year. It is a feeling we haven’t had for several years in this season, to be able to spend our time together milking in the morning planning our immediate and long-term projects.

We are reclaiming a part of our lives, and we are incredibly grateful to all of you.

Thank you, Carl and Lisa

Just want to remind you to take care of this for me.
Please remember that both Lisa (User Name; Earthwise) and I are listed as Administrators on DAP.com, so we both need our status reduced to Registered User.

…. Thank you, Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Vicki 29191 wrote:

…..and settlers on the move or just arriving in new lands, being in more of a hurry to make a usable yoke with less sophisticated tools and from different types of trees.

Any thoughts, anyone?

This I think is pretty much on target. And they worked well enough so the changes became customary. And then horses took over the serious draft requirements so the culture was never pushed to revisit more fundamental aspects of yoke making.

At NEAPFD we were discussing this phenomenon as related to some questions about horse harness adjustment and draft. When the internal combustion engine took over, there were many innovations and complex mechanisms associated with animal-power that just fell by the wayside. As we reclaim this power source, many of us only have at our disposal limited traditions of our own regions. As we demand more from animal-power, and as we connect between ourselves and our regional communities, our discussions will unearth some of these fundamentals.

Like Vicki I really appreciate how so many folks from far-flung communities can contribute so thoughtfully to this discussion.

Thanks, Carl

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@dominiquer60 29095 wrote:

Carl,

This comes at just the right time because I am finishing my 7″ yoke and would like to improve upon the 6″ that I borrowed. I am more of a visual person and though I think I understand the jist of what you have written, perhaps a picture of your 9′ yoke would clarify a lot for me.

Here is a visual of what I am currently dealing with a 6″ with a shallow belly and a rather flat neck seat. I am aiming to make my 7″ neck seat deeper and more elliptical like Tillers recommends, I can see how it will prevent a pressure point and allow it to roll better on their necks. I am having a hard time trying to finish shaping my 7″, it still seem so bulky and I would like to make it as functional as possible so we can work to our best potential as a team. If I get a moment later I will take a couple shots of my yoke in progress, I would love to get some feedback from fellow DAP members on it.

Well I seem to need a 101 in managing my pictures as well, I will have to come back to this after potato harvesting.

Here are a few pics of my 9″ yoke. If it isn’t clear in the pics, the triangle between neck seats and the bottom of the staple is 37.5″x10.5″. The pics from above shows how wide the neck seats are to provide stability against too much roll. Also the staple is set at a little more than 50% of the depth of the bows…. at least set up for the steers the last time I had them in it. The second pic shows the staple offset by 1/2″(you can see the scribed center line). I always put that on my off steer as I tend to drive that steer…… the nigh one is easy to get to so I put the focus, and the weight, on the off one.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

This is a good discussion as it gets to the basics of adjusting and building yokes. Bows and staples should be set so that they allow the yoke to roll forward on top, creating that triangle formation (at least looking straight down from above). In this way, the yoke acts like an evener, placing increasing weight on the advancing bull.

I know there are some who set their bows and staples so that the yoke pulls back and settles into the shoulders similar to horse collars. In this instance the yoke will not have as much triangular shape to the pulling points, the two neck seats and staple.

A while ago Wolfgang was asking about yoke depth, and bow alignment. The deeper the yoke in relation to the bows, and neck of the animals, the more rolling action you will get on the yoke. The yoke should roll somewhat, so that the bearing surface is actually the neck seat and not the bows. In fact the bows should be adjusted so that when under heavy pull the yoke could rest in the hollow of the bull’s neck without the bows at all. This is a combination of depth of the yoke/draft angle and the depth of the bow which allows that yoke to turn in at the top of the neck, where the ox can apply its power most effectively.

(I know this is a bit divergent, but it is appropriate in relation to establishing a more triangular mechanism out of the yoke/draft points)

You want the pulling ox to be able to lift the load with the base of his neck at the shoulders, rather than pushing the load by leaning into it with his shoulders. The rolling yoke requires the ox to lower its head then lift as the yoke seats into the base of the neck. The yoke that slide back into the shoulder requires the animal to push against the yoke with shoulders more than neck. The latter is fine for short pulls with steep draft angles, like in pulling contests, but in the working situation a yoke that settles into the neck gives the ox a better working leverage, and creates a better evener affect.

The rolling yoke with a deep draft also can be applied to a variety of draft angles, like carts and other wheeled vehicles because the higher angle is off-set by the depth of the yoke, and the pull forces the yoke forward and down onto the neck so that the animal still has lift even against a high angle of draft. Also a deep yoke will create a better triangulation than one with a shallow setting. This goes a long way toward making for a better working yoke that can be applied to pulling loads over varying terrain over longer distances, as opposed to a pulling yoke that is applied against loads on level ground over very short distances.

My favorite 9″ yoke is very old. The draft is deep, and the depth of the staple is adjustable with threaded ends, as well as a wedge-shaped shim. It also is made with the staple off-set 1/2″ from dead center. 1/2″ is not a lot, but it seems that there is often one ox that works harder than the other, so the yoke can be swapped one way or the other depending on which steer needs the load.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

I’ll be there with horses and equipment.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Scott G 29051 wrote:

… I was always taught, and have witnessed, that working a 45% (not 45 degree) slope with a ground system was usually the upper limit. ……

But…, I’m coming at this from the Rocky’s, not New England. A few work in steeper ground with skidders out here, but they really shouldn’t be doing so from a resource damage perspective.

If I’m coming down a really steep stretch with a horse I’ll skid tree length, often with two trained together or I’ll do a lousy job of limbing to create a bit more resistance.

My personal preference is to use a block in a spar with a rope.

Just couldn’t be done out here. Possibly our soils are less sandy, and therefore more stable. I know your slopes are certainly steeper than ours as a rule. We don’t harvest on these slopes without creating contoured trails.

With animals using a sled on these slopes is ideal. Bridle chains for breaks. Of course horses can handle the slope much better than machinery, as they are naturally self-leveling, so are the teamster cutters.

I have yarded to the top of steep slopes and rolled the logs down to pick them up again at the bottom. Hand logging on steep slopes can be pretty dangerous, but gravity can be used to one’s advantage, keeping the animals and machines in safe circumstances.

As far as the counterweight system…. I’m having a tough time remembering the specific details, but I remember seeing an old film of cattle being used to move a revolving cable system. The teams were worked on a flat section in the loop. Several teams were employed, hooking on to the cable and traveling some distance to a place where they unhooked and walked back to their starting place. There were usually several teams hooked at once. The other, downhill side of the cable ran along a sluice-way and had logs attached to it at the same intervals that the oxen were hitching into on the other side. It ran kind of like a fair ride with animals stopping to unhitch while choker setters were hooking logs in. Obviously this was a system they used after they started clearcutting big wood out west, as the time required for this set-up would need to be justified by sending a lot of wood down it.

Carl

[Author]

Posts