Conifer encroachment in aspen stands

[Scott G]

All,

I am really pushing horse logging teamed with a forwarder as one of the most viable systems for aspen stand restoration. This is a huge potential market out West and from the lit search I’ve done, across North America as well.

In the lit search, other than running across a random comment, I have come across nothing substantial.

The primary need is to address conifer encroachment into an aspen stand. The problem being that due to the lack of disturbance we are losing our aspen stands, which are normally a seral species.

Removing the invading conifers from the stand is rapidly becoming a standard prescription. The problem is that this is a highly selective prescription with the need to be extremely low impact to protect the residual aspen stand. Aspen roots are very delicate and extremely subject to adverse compaction (which can inhibit suckering) and the bark, which is fairly thin, is easily scalped. Multiple species of fungal cankers can then invade the wounds and contribute to rapid decline.

Horse logging is an ideal way to selectively snake this material out without causing damage. Short turns to a forwarder make it productive enough to gain the attention of land managers as a viable, even desired, option.

Long story short, have any of you done this type of project? If you have, please let me know. I would also like to know who the project forester was and if a report and/or white paper was written.

Future aspen restoration projects involving removing competing conifers could be a huge market for horse logging if it can be demonstrated as a superior harvesting system that is both ecologically & economically viable. I have a large audience of land managers that I work with who could be the start of something great if I can provide them substantive reports & examples.

I will be pulling off some of this work this summer, but it would be great if I could cite additional examples as well.

Thank you for your support…

[Rick Alger]

Aspen is not a favored species in New England so I can’t offer anything specific. I have forwarded horselogged wood with a cable skidder and found it to be a significant economic advantage on long skids.

Simon has experience with a CTL horsedrawn forwarder. Perhaps he’ll chime in.

[simon lenihan]

semi ancient natural woodlands [ oak, birch, yew ] were underplanted with conifers 50 years ago, the idea behind this was to utilise the space between the hardwoods and it also would give a cash return down the road. This system did not work for alot of reasons, the conifers were planted too close together leaving no light on to the forest floor and in turn there was no regen from the oak or birch. The forestry divison decided in the early 1990s to remove all conifer from hardwood stands. They never gave much thought as how to extract these conifers, harvesters / processors were no good, sky line would be too awkward and end up doing too much damage so they decided to try a skidder and horses. we worked alongside this skidder for one week and extracted double what they did, the skidder crew packed it in the following week, they said that it was frustrating to watch horses nip in and out between trees and put timber at the landing, they had to follow the load out from the back of the wood, stop and readjust so as not to damage any hardwoods which took time. Comments like horses are too slow, you should be in a museum were well and truly gone out the door. The satisfaction gained at that time was immense, now here we have a harvesting system where horses are not only the best method but also the fastest and most economic. We ended up extracting over 5000 tonnes of conifers for this company alone. The best method is to cut the timber to length in the wood, skid the sawlogs with swingletree and load the smaller produce on to a sledge and extract to track side for secondary extraction with horse drawn forwarder. I know this does not relate exactly to conifers and aspen but i am sure the same system could work very well indeed.
simon lenihan

[Scott G]

Simon,

Don’t know how I missed your response, my ability to commit time to this site has been hampered lately. There is a lot going on right now…

The show you pulled off is exactly what I’m talking about. Different species, same idea.

Did anybody (resource manager) follow that job and write a report on the effort? That type of information is invaluable in furthering our cause.

Demonstrating our harvesting system as the most appropriate in these selected applications will go far in developing our niche, and ultimately, having land managers seek us out for these projects.

These types of highly specialized projects are what will allow our culture to grow in prosper in the realm of natural resource management.

[simon lenihan]

scott, There was no report carried out on the said work and for a very good reason too, most foresters are not interested in using draft animals and the idea that a combination of both draft animal and mechanised forwarder being more competitive would not go down well. The state forestry now give grants for the purchace of smaller machines, they have the cheek to say these are more enviromentaly friendly, they burn less fuel and do not compact the ground as much, i have never heard so much s_ _ t in my life but it gives the public the idea that the forestry divison are a real eco group.
simon

[Carl Russell]

Scott we just finished a job in a white pine stand, where I was the forester, and my friend Ben used his horses and his tractor powered forwarder. We didn’t do any formal report, but during our final inspection walk we spent a fair amount of time talking about these very issues.

It was a pure stand, so it is a bit different than you are describing, but it was a stand where there were many poorly formed stems scattered among good quality trees. I marked these low grade trees to release the best stems. Ben cut to length to maneuver around the stand without causing damage to the butts. It was a long uphill skid, so he landed the short-wood in glades and then hauled with the forwarder.

We remarked when the job was done, how if it had been done with a skidder they would have quit, or banged up a lot good timber. The proficiency of the skidder operation would have required that they pull several full trees at once, versus twitching one log at a time. Ben actually used his team on his log cart instead of ground skidding.

We were discussing how good it would be if someone would actually do a comparitive study, not only of production, but residual damage, as well as some evaluation of silviculture that is either facilitated one way, or compromised the other.

Carl

[Rick Alger]

I second Carl’s suggestion to study production/ residual damage/ silviculture / and I’ll add , aesthetics/ water quality/ wildlife/ etc.

I have quite a few sites scattered around Coos County that a researcher would be welcome to visit and talk to foresters/LO. There are also plenty of conventional sites around for comparison.

[Tim Harrigan]

Carl Russell;16446 wrote:

We remarked when the job was done, how if it had been done with a skidder they would have quit, or banged up a lot good timber. The proficiency of the skidder operation would have required that they pull several full trees at once, versus twitching one log at a time. Ben actually used his team on his log cart instead of ground skidding.

We were discussing how good it would be if someone would actually do a comparitive study, not only of production, but residual damage, as well as some evaluation of silviculture that is either facilitated one way, or compromised the other.

Carl

Carl, Jason, Scott, others:
Can you elaborate on what you would see as the specifics of such a study? There is considerable interest now in woody biomass for energy use and sustainability is a concern and in the discussion. Some of my colleagues are working in these areas and opportunities may arise but I would need to present a clear set of objectives and methods. Also, if you have woodlots that have been under your long-term management and might be available for evaluation that would probably be helpful and useful information.

[Joshua Kingsley]

I agree whole hartedly Joel.

I know of a few guys with skidders who are really good at what they do leaving little impact at all while I have been to one place that used horses and oxen that really made a mess.

I think there is to much generalization on what happens when X type of crew goes in. I do know that there are real good people in both fields and some that crossover between the two on hybrid jobs.

Just my .02 worth

Joshua

[Carl Russell]

Joel;16632 wrote:

Help me understand why several long logs on a turn is going to damage leave trees.

A cowboy skidder operator can screw up skidding 16’s.

A wanna be horselogger can do just as much damage.

I get really tired of folks dissing commercial logging on here. Not ALL machine loggers are cowboys. Not ALL horse loggers are the 2nd coming of the man.

Joel, I supervise several mechanical timber harvesters, and I completely agree. My comments were not about the operators but about the way my silviculture changes to facilitate the different operations.

In the above example, I knew that the wood was coming out with horses, so I marked it for cut-to-length, with only a few distinct skidding corridors. The way I marked the stand there is no way that even a forwarder could have cut in there without a small twitching device. Sure it could have been a small 4wd tractor, or it could have been something like a remote control skidding winch.

The point I was making was that because it was done with horses, I could mark trees to cut, and leave trees, based on what horse-logging could deliver in this stand. If I marked it for a skidder or a crawler, I would have had to mark for skid trails, and hitches that could be turned to those trails.

The distinction is not between the mind set of one operator vs. another, but more around the limitations and capabilities of the mechanics of the operation, and how that relates to the timber and the lay of the land.

That in a nut-shell is the basis of the study I would like to see. Marking forests for surgical removal of trees, specifically adhering to the silvicultural requirements of the procedure to make the best use of the residual stand without having to compromise the long-term forest improvement because of the type of cutting and removal system that skidders require. Instead, taking advantage of what are typically seen as liimitations of animal-power, but in this case are in fact advantages, because of how they mesh with the forestry objectives that I am trying to impliment.

Now that being said, if I were to make the stumpage reflect the cost of a skidder actually taking the time to do this job using cut-to-length, then it might be a different case, but we would still have to mark to open the stand to the machine travelling around which could also compromise some portions of it.

Carl

[Rick Alger]

Tim, Joshua, Joel I’ve done a fair share of skidder logging and a fair share of horse logging.

To me it comes down to the silvicutural prescription and the economics. Simon’s post covers this well. There are things that skidders do best such as final harvests, and there are things that horses do best such as careful thinning. The operator or teamster may or may not be effective with the tool they are using.

Woody biomass harvesting in New England is not an appropriate use of horsepower. The last roundwood biomass I twitched to a chipper brought 5$ a ton in the yard – 28$ chipped and delivered.

Horsepower is appropriate on woodland managed for multiple interventions, and an ever increasing residual stand quality. I have done work with this type of prescription, and I can point you to the foresters who managed the job.

[Tim Harrigan]

Rick: Even though the broader interest now is in woody biomass any work that I would envision would include a much broader evaluation of sustainability and impact. It would be more along the lines of matching the methods with the sensitivities of the site. So it would include more than economic considerations.

[Carl Russell]

Joel;16646 wrote:

….I think it is great that you have the opportunity to work animal & machine extraction sites.

You are talking a Europeon model, Carl. Individual tree management is practiced alot over there.

Joel I just need to reply to clarify for others who may be reading this.

I don’t have “the opportunity” to do anything. I make it all happen. I am a self-employed private forestry consultant. I have a couple of thousand acres of forest land that I manage for several dozen clients. I decide whether I am going to work with machines or horses based on the operators and not based on the sites.

There are always aspects of every site that are challenging. I have not found a site yet that I didn’t see how it could be done with horses. In fact in our area, they all were done at least once already with horses. I have found a few mechanical operators who have sensibilities and skills that they can apply to the type of forestry I want to practice, so in some cases I actually use them.

As far as the European forestry, for someone who has a hard time with people generalizing….

My approach to forestry is not based on any style that I picked up from any cultural or educational sources. I practice silviculture based on 30 years of experience working in the forest with an eye toward ecological factors. The reason why my approach is not commonly found in USA is because of the industrial support for research that is the underpinning for silvicultural stocking guides. The practices that are based on these guides are mostly developed to facilitate what are typically thought of as modern harvesting systems. This has led to widespread mismanagement of our forests. And this is not just my generalized opinion. There is broad consensus on this.

I see draft-animals playing an extremely important role in the practice of silviculture that focuses on forest ecology, silvics, and the improvement of growing stock. Using draft animals allows for those objectives to be paramount, rather than becoming compromised by the logistical requirements for large scale mechanical harvesting.

I feel like the time is right that we develop some studies that could sort out some of these factors, so that we don’t have to continually debate apples and oranges.

Carl

[Scott G]

Even though the intent of the original posting was looking for specific examples in a specific forest cover type, it has taken a turn, which isn’t a bad thing.

I have mentioned several times that I am not opposed to mechanical harvesting systems, and like Carl, I administer them on a regular basis. It is my job that pays most of the bills.

It boils down to several factors that affect the quality of the job: operator experience and attitude, site conditions (i.e. not running in the mud or when soils are easily compacted), harvesting plan and layout, AND the application of the appropriate harvesting system for the job.

I am not one that supports harvesting of timber as the primary objective. Utilizing all of the tools in our toolbox and always keeping forest health, ecological integrity, and productivity as the foremost objectives; timber/biomass is the result of proper management and should be utilized to its highest potential.

I can tell you, as someone who had a fairly decent sized mechanical operation which included a 525 CAT dual-arch skidder, feller buncher, and whole tree chipper (among a collection of other pieces of iron), that quality work can be accomplished. My operation was highly sought after on the Northern Front Range for our low-impact harvesting, quality of work, and commitment to the resource.

That said, there is a huge difference in what I could/can do with a 35,000# 250hp CAT skidder with a 10’6″ wide foot print versus my 1,600# single horse with a 2’6″ wide path. Individual tree selection on scattered conifer in a sensitive aspen clone is one example of that. In tight stands, even if I hopped out of the cab to pull cable (which many operators of grapple skidders won’t) I would be severely limited in my ability to not damage leave trees without setting up blocks to redirect the mainline. That is something that just the plain economics of the operation will not allow. Spending 5 minutes to pull a single stem of crap out of a stand doesn’t pencil out. Even with the small feller buncher I had, an 8′ wide foot print through a bunch of aspen regen is completely unacceptable if the objective is to leave it as undamaged residual. A horse is perfect for this scenario, team the horse with a forwarder and now you have production as well.

The beauty of mixed harvesting systems is that you are using all of the tools in the toolbox when combined with an appropriate prescription.

So, as I mentioned before in this and other posts, my thoughts on applicability for draft powered systems are: individual selection where residual stocking is high, sensitive sites (such as SMZs’), smaller properties where move in costs for a mechanical show are prohibitive, in areas where aesthetics are a primary concern, and where low-impact harvesting (as measured by several parameters such as visual, noise, etc..) methods are paramount.

Horse logging can be productive when used on the right job, in the right application, and when supported by appropriate other systems when appropriate. With the aforementioned scenarios alone, there is more than enough work to keep us busy.

Let’s focus on the most appropriate and profitable “low hanging fruit” first and that will keep us fed for a very long time. It will also demonstrate/validate the appropriateness of our harvesting system with the forestry community, which in turn will add to our credibility as a tool rather than just a PR plug.

If we take the tact of being inclusive in the tool box rather than exclusive, our utilization and acceptance by the current forestry community cannot help but be enhanced.

[Tim Harrigan]

Good discussion, friends.

[Author]

Posts