[Andy Carson]

You see these nose control devices all over the world, not just east asia

Latin America

India

China
[IMG]http://travel.mongabay.com/china/600/china_02-8494.JPG[/IMG]

Africa

It does seems to be rarer in africa, and also rare in western Europe, North America, and Australia (which were heavy heavy influenced by western European traditions anyway). Still, all of Europe and North America only holds 16% of the worlds population (Africa about 15%), which means the traditions of 69-94% of the people in the world include nose control. I am not saying it can’t be done without nose control, but 69-94% is a big number to ignore.

[Andy Carson]

I think Donn’s recommendations are very reasonable and practical. From a functional point of view, I would simply do what he suggests. Still, these recommendations bring up thoughts and questions in my head…

I have always suprized me that they were designed so tongue heavy in the first place. I wonder if this was a design flaw or if being front heavy has some fundamental function for mowers. A dolly wheel would solve this front heavy problem, but it would take some weight off the drive wheels. Is it enough to matter? I don’t know… Do you ever see the drive wheels spin more with the dolly wheel setup? Do you have to be more careful about feild conditions? An alternative solution that would take weight off the tongue would be to shift the center of gravity rearwards. You could move the seat back or simply hang something heavy on a short pole extending rearward behind the drive wheels. This makes total sense to me, but I don’t remember seeing this much… Perhaps I haven’t looked hard enough, or perhaps it doesn’t work for some reason… This would actually increase the downward force on the mower (and resultings traction/force) rather than decrease it (as in the dolly wheel). Also, it is easy to set this kind of thing up. Any thoughts Donn?

[Andy Carson]

I enjoyed the video a lot too. Thanks for posting Andy. One of the things that sticks out to me when I watch international videos of people working oxen is just how common it is to have some sort of nose control. I notice is it usually not used heavily on trained animals (as in the video), but it is still there if needed. I can only guess it was used during training of younger or more energetic animals at some point. Perhaps like the curb settings on a horse bit… In the American tradition, these rings seem to be used primarily for bulls. I wonder if they have a place in training, to be used sparingingly and only when needed, and moved away from ASAP.

[Andy Carson]

The compete site analytic tool (http://siteanalytics.compete.com/draftanimalpower.com/) shows the number of unique visitors per month fluctuates somewhat, but is generally between 3000 and 7000 visitors per month. Unique visits have picking up lately, Sept 2012 was the lowest in the last year with only 3270 visits per month, Oct went up to 4011, Nov 2012 was 4588, and Dec 2012 numbers aren’t in yet. Still, we have a ways to go to attract the number of unique visitors that we had in Jan 2012 (7227 visits). Perhaps this 425 visitors is actifactual. If not, perhaps this means we are engaging repeat visitors to a higher degree. This could cause the number of users online at a given moment to increase without increasing the number of unique visits.

[Andy Carson]

@Mac 38333 wrote:

Its a good rig for what it’s for, which IMHO is to use as a cultivator.

This is what makes this the best multi-purpose implement that I have seen. I do think the multi-purpose implement concept is limited for all the reasons pointed out above. That said, if someone really had thier hearts set on trying one, going with a homesteader will give you a good riding cultivator after you end up buying a committed plow, disc, etc.

[Andy Carson]

It may have seemed that I was getting sidetracked with the quote from the FSC-US Forest Management Standard earlier, but let me explain why I think this is important to this discussion. I was actually looking through this document to find scientific standards that might be able to extended from FSC to draftwood (with the thought that these test would have some “acceptance” and draftwood might do this even better). Then I came accross the statement above, and I quit looking. When documents and people start talking about “what they are not,” it is almost always because they are immunizing themselves against criticism in these areas. “The purpose is not to make money short term” really means “I know this is not the best way to make money short term, and don’t care.” The previous paragraph makes a series of statements that “they are not.” Although they are attempting to immunize themselves against criticism, these may be the best areas to focus criticism as they already admit these are battles they can not win. Let me reverse these statements and show you what I mean.

“The goal is not to maximize diversity through management” means “We know that other approaches lead to greater diversity, but don’t care.”

I find it interesting that there is a focus on “islands of diversity” in these approaches. The size of the test area is so abitrary and the simple act of picking a large area biases the results greatly. Does there need to be indicator species A, B, and C within an acre, within a square mile, within the state??? The smaller the test area, the more it will show a demonstrable benefit for practices consistant with draftwood. Big scientific gains can be made here.

“(the goal is not to) create museum forests” I interpret to mean “this is going to be ugly, but we don’t care”

‘nff said. Aesthetic appeal is not non-scientific, you just have to poll many people to account for observer bias. This would be a very very strong argument for landowners who are subject to public strutiny, as Carl points out.

“(the goal is not to) explicitly mimic natural disturbance regimes” means “What we are going to do is not natural, but we don’t care”
this is similar to the next statement
“(the goal is not to) re-create pre-European-settlement conditions” means “The forests created by this management plan will not be similar to what was here before, but we don’t care.”

This was where I was going before, comparing the ecology of undisturbed forest to ecologies created by conventional logging, “green” logging, and draftwood logging. Clearly, the industry fears this sort of simple “one of these things is not like the others” comparisons. Perhaps this the the greatest “bang for you buck,” but I am not sure as there will inevitably be differences between all groups. Still, it makes the most scientific sense to me and flows from the logic that naturally evolved systems are the best fit for each environment. Looking for difersity on a smaller scale will have a big impact here.

Just a bunch of thoughts from someone who has never done any professional logging! Still useful, though, as a representation of what data or sales pitches an educated consumer might find compelling. 🙂

[Andy Carson]

I was doing a little reading about “green wood” because I was curious. I found the FSC-US Forest Management Standard, and found this passage buried on page 47 of this document under the topic “landscape scale indicators.” I was looking for something else, but stopped here, because this was interesting enough. Don’t you love how they hide this kind of stuff in the fine print of a 122 page document???

ref: http://us.fsc.org/download.fsc-us-forest-management-standard-with-family-forest-indicators.96.pdf

“Intent: The goal of this Indicator is to maintain, enhance, or restore the biological diversity associated with the mix of successional stages by forest type that would occur across the FMU under natural conditions. This goal includes plants, vertebrates, invertebrates, fungi, lichens, and other organisms associated with those plant community types and other elements of site diversity. The goal is not to maximize diversity through management, create “museum forests,” explicitly mimic natural disturbance regimes, or to re-create pre-European-settlement conditions. Non-catastrophic disturbance should be the focus of analyzing for natural disturbance.”

[Andy Carson]

I am still stuck on this comparison to organic foods. Mostly because it is a case where having a product that is seen as environmentally aware has been successful. I understand that green cert wood might jsut be “window dressing” focused on marketing rather than real change. I think the same case could be made for industrial scale organic food producers. I think that a small scale producer embody the spririt of the organic movement better. That said, I think that for many consumers, the entry-level product is the mass produced one. I don’t have the stats to back this up, but I think it is true from my experiences. I think it is after buying the mass produced stuff, some people move to another level of understanding. I think many people in this next level might appreciate that being local, or especially knowing the person or people that produce the food and the specific nature of thier practices (on a one-on-one level) is probably more important than having a piece of paper that says they follow specific, somewhat arbitrary rules. Overall, I see commonalities between green wood and mass produced organic food and commonalities between locally produced artisan scale foods and draft wood. It seems to me that organic food consumers had to go through the mass produced “window dressing stage” before going to the the next one. They had to walk before they could run, in other words. I worry that going strait to a marketing strategy for draftwood might be asking consumers and landowners to run before they can walk. Does this worry anyone else? It sure would be nice to have an entry-level half-measure of some sort… Perhaps this is green wood, but it seems this product doesn’t sell. This alone is worrisome.

[Andy Carson]

this reminds me of when I brought my new calves home for the first time. They had just been weaned an wanted to get to my big team in a big way. I kept them separate for a couple days, as i had a very secure paddock to keep the calves in. When I turned the calves out with the oxen, they ran over as fast as they could. One of the oxen lowered his head as if to say “you dumb little squirts.” The calves scattered and ran through the electric fence that acts as a perimeter fence. That started an hours long calf chase. They didn’t know what grain was so I couldn’t lure them. My place is completely surrounds by fencing, so the only way back in is to cross though neighbors land, go out to the main road, and up my driveway. I didn’t really want them on the road though, and they where scattering rather than herding. I ended up walking/sneaking them down one by one, wrestling them down, altering them and leading them back. It was a heck of a project. I feel your sense of relief that Will helped!! Are these steers for a new team??? Are you sticking with the belts in the future? Just curious…

[Andy Carson]

i wonder if this certified reen wood will follow patterns similar to organic foods. Organic foods are very successful… there are several similarities and differences between the two products, and the people who might buy them. These similarities and differences are probably worthy of discussion, because it would be nice if certified wood followed the organic food path. Here are my comparisons, by no means complete.

1. Historical mistakes with herbicides and pesticides make the public suspecious of chemical use. Conventional farmers today point to studies demonstrating safety, but everyone remembers DDT and other chemicals that did real harm. These destroyed the public’s trust and (I would say) created an industry. Now, even if safety studies are done, there is much sceptisism. I am sure there are examples of large scale logging doing real harm everyone cares about. I think it is important to make a few cases that are demonstrably true, so as to demonstrate that the issue is important and effects people in thier everyday lives. Perhaps everyone will remember these and be more skeptical in the future.

2. Food is perceived as cheap. Although I am sure I spend more on food in a year than lumber, it is in small frequent purchases. These feel small,and spending 10-50% more does feel like its “a big deal.” Lumber purchases are less frequent and more expensive for the individual purchase. Paying 10-50% more here feels muc h more rough. I think that this an inherent limitation that means prices of green lumber aren’t going to be as marked up as organic foods.

3. Many organic foods taste different. This is subjective and only applies to some foods. Bananas taste the same to me. Carrots are different. Milk is very different. I am not sure if the consumer or user of lumber would know it is different. If would be interesting to note any charactoristics that would carry through to the end user. These could be good selling points.

4. The clintel buys organic foods is very different from the clintel that buys lumber. Walk into a hardware store and look around, then walk into an organic food store and look around. These is some crossover, sure, but i don’t see much. It seems to me that the “hardware store folks” want to know why this hammer is better than that hammer, not just “feel better” about their hammer. I think this is a harder group to sell to, but i believe they are rational folks, perhaps the most rational of all folks. Many think they cant understand things because thye didnt like school, but when interested in soemthing they are some of the best students. I believe they need to hear these arguments in terms that are understandable and relate to thier everyday lives in a meanful way. I notice that my local big box hardware store started to carry recycled “natural” insulation. The market is growing…

5. I find it interesting to note that at least some scientific studies demonstrate that organic farming in “easier on the land” than organic farming in some aggreed upon, scientifically verifiable ways. I would be interested to hear if the average organic food consumer know or thinks this is the case if this impacts there purchases. If it does, I think it would be smart to make the case for small scale logging being easier n the land in at least a few verifiable ways. I believe a strong case could and should be made here. It is interesting to note that even one or two verifieable, defendable positive aspects gives a product a “halo effect” that is very effective for people who don’t have the time or inclination to look into an issue completely.

I am curious to hear from others if they are modelling this green wood after organic foods and if they expect the two to be comparable. What are other important differences?

[Andy Carson]

@Rick Alger 38225 wrote:

I think Andy’s idea of quantifying what animal power can do could result in powerful selling points for us folks who still log in the old dispensation.

Yes, Rick, that’s the idea. Do you have any idea what factors your folks might care about other than money? A lot of people around here also care about hunting. Many would be attracted to spending some money (or making less) on low impact logging if it could be shown that increases populations or quality of deer, turkey, bear, or other game animals. Mast production from mature trees would seem to support this wildlife. I understand, by the way, that this is not ecology in the spirit of ecology. I am just looking at alternate arguments that might be allied with ecology.

[Andy Carson]

I agree that fire events provide another historical model. In some ways, this is a good model of what happens when trees are removed by logging. I recognize that it is not exactly the same, but probably a good natural model in in some forests. I would guess these studies would be particularly well suited to some western forests, where fires seem to occur with high severity at a regular frequency. I am less convinced about it’s applicability to eastern forests. I am not sure how frequent fire was in virgin eastern forests, if it was severe enough to kill large trees, and how widespread the damage was from a single fire. This info would let one know what naturally happens after a fire (and parhaps a logging event), but also how much of this is going on at a steady state level in a natural environment. All useful info. Without it, one could argue “1) Fire is natural 2) Recovery from fire is beneficial 3)clearcut logging is like a fire, and thusly, 4) there is a ecological benefit to clearcutting everything I see.” To counter this argument, one needs both qualitative and quantitative information. It is a good example, actually, of why both are important.

[Andy Carson]

@Carl Russell 38209 wrote:

However, I am not sure, and I have questioned this for many years, that we actually have enough time to wait for scientific methods to quantify the complicated nature of an ecosystem.

I agree this is a challange, and a challenge faced by researchers in a number of fields. One way to address this limitation is to do retrospective studies. If I was designing these studies, I would focus heavily on dynamics in old growth forests. These are our best examples of what forests looked like before man started to “mess around.” This is the best example we have of a system that “works” long term, and I believe our best model to emulate going forward. An example of a study like this would be to ask several questions of old growth forests in particular veins. How old are the trees? What is the species makeup of the trees? Do the young trees grow in a pattern that is indicative of a single adult tree falling, or are there patchy acres of young trees indicating a more widespread destruction? What is the relative species makeup around young vs old trees? The answers to these questions would let one which plant or animal species are good indicators of these processes. Next, one can study old impacts and look at these indicator species. Maybe at some time, there was a powerline, road, or gas line cut through virgin timber that got later transitioned to a protected forest. Maybe in another area of forest people cut a few trees down illegally. Maybe in another area, there was a disease or fire that killed a patch of trees. These become case studies that can be looked at retroactively. How long do these indicator species take to come after these types of impacts??? Comapring this will let one know, how to minimize long term damage in a scientific way. This is real research.

@Carl Russell 38209 wrote:

That is why I argue that a qualitative approach may make more sense. Qualitative evaluation can bring a vast array of “values” together, and at the same time make room for values assigned to unknowns, in a way that science cannot. Breaking an ecosystem apart into measurables denies the existence of interrelationships that support the shared existence of each of those measurable components, which is actually what an ecosystem is.

I think there is some confusion here between holistic science and reductionist science. Not all science is reductionist. Science does not deny that components of an ecosystem are interdependant. In fact, over and over again science has proved that these are interdependant. I think it is good to point out that extreme scientific reductionism fails in complex systems because it can focus too strongly on one factor. Extreme holistic science (whihc I would call “holism”) can also fail in complex systems because is fails to produce testable hypotheses. If a methodolgy does not produce testable hypotheses, it is not able to be criticied. I can imagine that producing hypothesis that are not able to be disproven might be attractive to some, it also means these ideas are not critically examined and not verified. This produces a belief system, which I would say is more like a religion that a science. Because it cannot be verified, and can only be spread to or explained to, people that share this belief system and can be converted to it. Moreover is takes on a smell of snakeoil, when, in fact this is not snakeoil. I believe extreme holism is not a way forward, but actually a step back. I believe is is a movement back to the dark ages where pointing out that the earth rotates around sun (which can be proven by careful observations of stars, not holistic oggling) could get one burnt at the stake.

PS. This is not to say that holism is all bad, just extreme holism. Anything that does not produce a testable hypothesis is not science, no matter how much scientific sounding language they use.

@Carl Russell 38209 wrote:

That is why this is not an easy endeavor. Any success at changing cultural norms, or even success at the personal level of trying to apply draft animals to forestry, is probably going to have to rely on comparable evaluation, personal experience shared with landowners and other loggers and foresters.

It is not easy, but it is important. Some people are greatly impacted by untested personal experiences of others. Many are more skeptical. I think many people want to “buy” this forestry product, but how can they explain to themselves and thier families why they want it and why they should pay for it. Purely subjective terms do not carry weight with many people. Being able to explain yourself in many ways to many people is very important.

[Andy Carson]

I agree, Carl. I did understood your earlier point, I just didn’t completely believe you. Feel free to say “I told you so”… 🙂

I also think that Tim’s point about how many people read these discussions and how few participate is a good one.

Let me ruminate on these ideas a bit. Interpretting this data is not something I want to do rashly…

[Andy Carson]

I want to respond to to effect of threads being highlighted on the homepage due to recent activity.

If this were the main cause of increased activity, than all new posts would have dramatically increased activity. It is worth noting that while the draft logging research page was racking up over 4000 views, another thread was started celebrating our anniversary. It accrued only 63 views. So, its not just being highlighted that caused the high number of views.

[Author]

Posts