[Scott G]

2500′ for a total of almost a mile turn? Thats a long haul for firewood…

Looks like you get a decent load on the ‘bob, though.

[Scott G]

You can move a lot with roll poles, aka loggin’ like an ancient Egyptian. Felling across one would have helped reduce his excavation time while trying to set chokers as well and killed two birds with one stone.

Using a set of chokers for a bridle set up would have given him a bit more lift and helped considerably as well as lessening the trench being plowed back to the landing. An arch would be optimal.

The britchen…wow, maybe the guy doesn’t own a hole punch 😉

Nice quiet team

[Scott G]

I wasn’t that familiar with CPL. Sounds like a chronic condition of pooling of lymph fluid in the distal portion of the limbs, AKA “elephantitis”. Here is a good summary from UC Davis if you’re interested.

http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/elephantitis/about.html

[Scott G]

How does CPL respond to dry cool mountain air?

[Scott G]

My ire is more directed at generalizations and how they can diminish/mar a worthy cause if it is utilized in an appropriate & sustainable fashion that benefits management of the resource and the local economy. There is no denying, however, that quarterly profit reports from mega-corporations can take things to the extreme and bring the whole idea down in a ball of flames with large profit driven alterior motives.

I have severely pissed off more than one person at various biomass workshops or conferences that I have presented at by telling them that their 50MW or cellulosic ethanol plant was a worthless idea…, diplomatically of course. Oh well, it comes with the territory and being a true advocate for sustainable natural resource management and bio-regionalism.

If it keeps a local logger with his chipper filling a local trucker’s chip van that feeds a local district heating plant while enhancing rather than diminishing the local forest resource and keeps the money local, than I am all for it.

There are no silver bullets in renewable energy, but there are a lot of silver BBs’. We need to use multiple technologies where they work, are feasible, and are somewhat benign to the natural environment. The first step is to reduce our gluttenous energy consumption as a Nation, however…

[Scott G]

First, be careful of what you read.

It is easy to spot a biased article when it is laced with terms like “incineration” (def: to dispose of waste by means of combustion) vs combustion and other innuendos. TNC (The Nature Conservancy) is actually in favor of biomass energy on an appropriate scale in appropriate regions. Quoted “excerpts” can easily be taken out of context, especially when that is the author’s intent. I work with the local TNC on biomass utilization issues. It is easier to write a biased article rather than doing a thorough literature search and putting the knowns & unknowns forth for people to make reasoned decisions.

How many of you heat with wood? Do you consider that enviro friendly?

How many of your neighbors/friends also heat with wood? Total annual volume cords/tons for your region generated from your regions forests? Probably pretty staggering.

How many folks use pellet stoves or cordwood boilers over heating oil or propane? What are your thoughts on that?

What about all of those schools in Vermont that use woodchip heating systems instead of fuel oil?

Where do you draw the line?

I have stated a couple of times on this forum my thoughts on biomass energy. I am responsible, in my County forester role, for planning/procurement for our woodchip heating system that heats our 100k/sq ft transportation/ parks admin campus. We are getting ready to build/commision an identical system for our County jail.

All of our material comes from County lands. We/I manage about 35,000 acres of forested County Open Space. When the Jail comes on line we’ll consume ~ 1,600 geen tons/heating season to heat ~ 200,000 sq ft. On average, we produce 20-40T/acre just to get down to an acceptable basal area for the forest cover type we are working in. So you don’t have to do the math, that calculates to 40-80 acres/year to supply our heating needs. At a return interval for our poor/nominal sites out here of 30-50 years we won’t get through all of the forest in over 400 years before it is time to go back again. Granted we aren’t treating/managing all of that land area but it gives you a very clear rough idea of the numbers.

One size does not fit all. That not only goes for the regions specific forested resource but for the type/size of biomass energy facility as well. Out west we have an issue of lack of disturbance (wildfire or human management) that has resulted in dramatically increased stand densities, especially in pondo pine & D-fir, that are completely unsustainable for the particular species. These forests are at substantial risk for stand replacement fire, something that these species are not adapted too, unlike lodgepole pine. Point being that people aren’t fighting over the resource out here, more in line of we are trying to figure out what to do with all of it.

I have stated that I am completely in favor of appropriately scaled heat and combined heat/power facilities provided they are based on an appropriate sustainable yield model that is locally based. I am completely opposed to stand alone electrical generation and cellulosic ethanol plants. They have to reach out too far and utilize volumes that are not realistically sustainable from a forestry or local economy perspective.

With biomass heat you realize efficiencies in the 80-85% range, with electrical generation the number drops to ~ 30%. You need to use the heat…

Biomass is carbon neutral when compared to fossil fuels. With petroleum the carbon source has been/would be sequestered for millions of years (don’t get me started on BP/Gulf) vs wood fiber that is part of the short term carbon cycle. Many of the slighted arguments you the faulty assumption of the “decades it take a tree to grow”. When we work the numbers, like all of forestry, it is on a stand, not an individual basis. What period of time it takes to grow a ton of wood in a stand, not a tree to maturity.

So, I caution all of you to not take the “one size fits all” approach.

If you want to see where I am coming from/background on this, google “Scott Golden Colorado Woody Biomass Energy” and you should be able to come up with something…

[Scott G]

When I ran my mechanical show I was often staying at base camp up to 8 months out of the year, winter, spring, summer, and fall. Didn’t get to see my oldest daughter grow up much…

I used a wall tent with a wood stove. Set up with a cot & kitchen it worked pretty well for long periods of time even when the weather turned nasty. The record was having it set up for almost 9 months straight on a very large government contract I had. My guys would have their own individual tents set up around the area and use mine as the cook shack/warm spot. A couple of years we had quite the tent city going.

I, like Taylor, am always looking for efficiency though. My scenario is now more in the line of being out for 2-4 days and then coming home. Most of my away work is/will be out a good distance and/or the haul is just to rough to put the horses/myself through daily. Even though the tent doesn’t take long to put up, I’d still rather spend my time logging than giving my job the homey touch. Pull up, put some t-posts & hot wire up, fill the water trough, and be done with it.

So now I am more in the mode of putting the cot in the back of the trailer and cooking off the coleman stove. Thats all I need other than a solar shower now & then. I haven’t been staying in my trailer during nasty weather to get the condensation and resulting interior thunder storm from it. My situation being what it is now I don’t have to log in nasty weather… I think if I put my sheepherders stove in the back, however, and stick the flue out the back that it would burn off enough moisture to cut down on the raining inside issue.

When I save up enough pennies I’m going to buy a stock-combo trailer and customize it for my operation. I’ll buy the plain shell and build it up myself with the front goooseneck for the bed and about 6′ of floor for LQ with a gas stove & small sink. I’ll have a walk through door back to the stock compartment so I can spread out a bit. The slam gate will be 4′ from the front wall and I’ll use that area for storing harness, rigging, etc. with an escape door off each side of that. Open the whole 20′ trailer up and I’ll have a base camp/shop all in one. Pull up and you’re there ready to go, no camp to set up other than a hot-wire corral. Per a previous post shelter for the horses really isn’t an issue if I have part of the corral in heavy timber.

[Scott G]

Sawlogs bad, post & poles good.

I was just at one of our local small mills yesterday & today and they need 12′ & 16′ poles, 3-4″d in a bad way. Paying $3.25 & $4.25/stick respectively. A guy can fell/skid a lot of those toothpicks in a very short time. I very seldom pay any stumpage.

How does that compare to pulp, boys? 😉

[Scott G]

Usually dark timber and two-strand hot wire (turbo rope) works for me.

The main issue we have is wind and that is what seems to affect the horses the most.

I have to admit, however, that Stockyards Supply has started selling a three-sided shelter that is based on porta panels with a roof that looks pretty handy. I thought putting some pressure treated plywood sides on it fastened with U-bolts to the panels would work pretty slick.

My biggest issue would be to anchor it so it doesn’t end up in Nebraska with the type of winds we have.

Hell Taylor, maybe if the wind blew hard enough it would make it to your place in Wisconsin and you’d be all set! 😀

[Scott G]

I think you’re a natural for a draft powered forestry business…

“Skidmore Logging” … it’s a natural! 😀

Welcome!

[Scott G]

Nope, the underlying cause has more to do with current over-stocked, over-mature forest conditions in the West, coupled with climate and other environmental factors.

[Scott G]

Hi Ira,
The answer is yes, specifically woodpeckers and a few predatory insects. There are not near enough of either to make a difference.

Another looming issue we have related to the bark beetle epidemic is severe obesity being observed in our woodpecker population…:D

[Scott G]

I am a strong advocate of appropriately scaled woody biomass systems, both thermal & co-gen.

The key in that statement is appropriately scaled. Small installations that are close to the resource is paramount. For example, our facility is a hot water system that heats the building where my office is as well as the road and bridge department. Total area that is heated ~ 95,000 sqft. Our next door neighbor, Gilpin County, heats their 25,000 sqft road & bridge shop/office with the same type of system we have. Both are wood chip/hot water systems. Our system consumes about 700-800 green tons a year. Our forest management treatments typically generate 20-40 green tons per acre as a result of active management. As you can see it doesn’t take many acres to keep it fed, especially when you consider we have ~35,000 acres under management. Our return intervals run about 20-30 years in this area, so we won’t even begin to touch the area we have before it is time to go back for re-entry into previous treatments. All of this management is structured to maintain the optimal basal area for that unit as well as leaving enough woody debris for coarseness and nutrient cycling.

I am also an advocate for small-scale pellet systems used for thermal. Nothing would make me happier than to remove propane tanks and replace them with 1 ton grain silos for bulk pellet delivery. Our biggest issue currently in this region is having the infrastructure in place to accomodate bulk delivery. As soon as that piece of the puzzle is put into place I could envision many of these coming on line as the numbers are currently a slam dunk for pellets over propane.

I am absolutely opposed to large electrical generation plants, i.e. 30 megawatts and larger. Thermal applications with biomass approach 85% efficiency on average where electrical generation is only in the 30% range. You need to have cogeneration capability (heat and electric), with a use for the process heat, if you are looking at electrical generation in order to make it pencil out on its own.

Large plants have to reach too far out for their supply. Here in Colorado to accomodate a 50 megawatt plant, or worse yet, a cellulosic ethanol plant, you would have to reach out 200-250 miles for supply and that would not even be on a sustainable yield basis. Conversely, the two small pellet plants we have (had) would not need to reach out more than 60 miles and that would be on a sustainable yield basis; local money, local forests, local jobs into perpetuity…

It is important to not lump “Biomass Energy” into one context when it comes up for discussion. Different applications, different forests, and different regions all come into play. It can be a sustainable form of energy that does pencil out carbon neutral if applied correctly.

There is no ‘Silver Bullet’ when it comes to renewable energy. There are, however, a lot of ‘Silver BBs’ such as wind, solar, biomass, etc. and when used collectively in a wise fashion they can make a huge difference. Better than the alternative currently drifting around destroying the ecosystems of the Gulf…

[Scott G]

Phil,

In endemic population situations, a.ka.“normal’, individual tree sanitation is an excellent way to keep bark beetle populations in check across all species of conifers . In epidemic circumstances, individual sanitation still works in some forest cover types and species, although lodgepole is not one of them.

Grand, Summit, Pitkin, Jackson, and Routt Counties all tried the individual sanitation method in lodgepole early in the epidemic until they realized it was somewhat a futile effort on a landscape scale.

I will state to landowners that are motivated, that it is better than doing nothing and often folks need to feel like they are trying to do something. We refer to it as the 5 stages of beetle grief…

Other species, such as ponderosa, D-fir, and spruce definitely benefit from active, ongoing sanitation efforts throughout the course of the epidemic. The reason being that there is much more age & structure diversity in those forest cover types as opposed to lodgepole.

So, on a landscape scale with larger projects, multiple entries year after year to cut/remove the ‘bug smack’ is not a desirable situation. This falls in line with constant multiple entries being avoided for forest management projects in general, at least in our neck of the woods. Primarily for soil compaction and disturbance issues as well as encouraging other bark beetle species, such as Ips pini, to build to epidemic levels and cause widespread tree mortality.

As a side note, it is important to put the issue in perspective. This is not just a mountain pine beetle issue. We have several other species of bark beetles that are tree species specific that are at epidemic populations as well. Spruce, D-fir, true firs, pinyon, & juniper all have bark beetle pressure that is off the scale. We also have other species of bark beetles, such as Ips and various twig bark beetles, that are causing severe mortality on their own within the pine species.

What is a major concern for us is that the epidemic populations, building across all bark beetle species, is something that is not within the normal range of variability nor the landscape/western continent-wide scale at which it is occurring. There are other factors at play here other than overall forest health and many of us within the field strongly believe it is climate. Multiple generations of bark beetles occurring in species where that is not normal as well as earlier/later flight times coupled with an increase in elevational tolerance.

From an on the ground agency management perspective, our primary concern is safety and resource protection. Lodgepole has a notoriously shallow root system that is extremely susceptible to windthrow (hence why heavy thinning in lpp doesn’t work). As these trees die they start coming down fast within a very few years. As you can appreciate, when you are looking at a landscape that is pure dead lodgepole as far as the eye can see, that is a major problem. Roads, power lines, buildings, and other infrastructure are at extreme risk when all of this stuff starts coming down. Many campgrounds and trails have been temporarily closed due to this.

Where all of this fits in for a horse logger is the small privately owned forest parcels that are either a primary residence or a second home. Removal of the hazard trees and/or windthrow will be a delicate operation, especially in the mixed-conifer forests where other species are not affected. As time goes by, regeneration will be very prolific and the only way to effectively remove the material without excessive residual damage will be by hand or horse. There will be more than enough work to go around as people ‘clean’ up their place for multiple objectives including fuels reduction.

Probably more info than you wanted to know…

[Scott G]

Matthew,

My primary profession is as a forester, although in a government capacity as a forest health specialist who deals primarily with forest insect & disease issues as well as administering contracts. This current position is what pays most of the bills (keeps the wife happy) and I fill up the rest of my available time with the horse logging biz.

Previously, I owned a forest management company that included a large-scale logging operation.

The realm of procurement foresters is more prevalent in other areas of N. America, including yours. I have known a few procurement foresters, some have an interest in sustainably managing a woodland, but sadly, I have to say most that I have encountered or heard of are more in the liquidation frame of mind. Procurement foresters exist only in a very limited quantity/scope in the Rockies and I am happy to say that almost all of them have sustainable silviculture as their primary focus.

I have known many sage woodsmen who could put many of my so called “peer” foresters to shame when it came to silvicultural knowledge and application. That said, IMO thorough knowledge of what you are doing is paramount as the results of your actions are influential on what is left as far as ecological integrity & productivity. I, like Carl, am focused on forest improvement. What is left in the residual stand, its ecological integrity, and future growth potential mean much more to me as opposed to merchantable volume removed.

With that in mind, sell your operation as a service. There are folks out there that will recognize yours as being the superior harvesting system for their woodlot. If some folks balk at the bottom line, the key word is “next” and move on to the customer who recognizes the increased value of your services and values their woodlot enough to use them. Latch onto someone who has the local silvics knowledge of your area to layout the work. Avoid getting into the “cut” scenario where you are giving one another some coin for the job. The “forester” gets paid for laying out an improvement cut, you get paid for harvesting and skidding to the landing, and someone (you or reputable others) find appropriate markets. Just starting out you would be much better off trying to work yourself into the equation as a superior harvesting system than to take care of the whole show. Starting out part time is a great way to receive an education while taking on limited risk. Really shoot for that niche of the small affluent landowners of CT. That is a demographic where you should be very well received as most of those types of folks objectives lean more towards aesthetic & ecological values as opposed to strictly timber production.

You should charge for volume or time, $/mbf to the landing or an hourly rate for your services. Keeping your services reasonable to start while not selling yourself short. You do not want to be paying for the work…

Firewood in your situation is viable, just make sure it pays for itself. Keeping the job simple without a layout or sales strategy you could log windthrow, storm damage, culls, etc.. without getting too involved. Be cautious though, logging windthrow and storm damaged timber is often the most technical and hazardous material to remove. It also often takes the most time as the felling done by nature wasn’t done with you in mind…

Good luck, be safe, and have fun.

[Author]

Posts