Draft Logging Research?

[Scott G]

Just catching up while I’m at Eddie & Jane’s before we had to head up north; couldn’t resist on passing this opportunity to poke on Carl a bit:
“There is obviously some degree of surplus production in any ecosystem”
In a truly functioning ecosystem…there is no surplus, by definition. Only the ebb & flow of other organisms/components that are responsive to the dynamics of that ecosystem.
A Rocky Mtn foresters observations/perspective…WAYAFI…??!! You’ll have to make a trip to the White Mtns to discuss this sooner rather than later. 80P

[Carl Russell]

@Scott G 39481 wrote:

Just catching up while I’m at Eddie & Jane’s before we had to head up north; couldn’t resist on passing this opportunity to poke on Carl a bit:
“There is obviously some degree of surplus production in any ecosystem”
In a truly functioning ecosystem…there is no surplus, by definition. Only the ebb & flow of other organisms/components that are responsive to the dynamics of that ecosystem.
A Rocky Mtn foresters observations/perspective…WAYAFI…??!! You’ll have to make a trip to the White Mtns to discuss this sooner rather than later. 80P

Oh…. I’m almost compelled to make that trip just to reply in person……. and of course you know the answer… No we’ll have to build a shrine, so when our esteem leader asks WAYAFI? we can all answer in unison….Of Course You Know The Answer…….

So if we hold ecological integrity in high regard, then we find ways that our interaction is in harmony with the

ebb & flow of other organisms/components that are responsive to the dynamics of that ecosystem.

……;)

Carl

[Carl Russell]

I had a great meeting with the folks at the Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources at UVM. They ahve some research ongoing that may speak to some of what we have been discussing. We also talked about ways that I may be able to get involved in studies at the Jericho research forest.

Also it occurred to me that I may not have shared this article in relation to this thread…..

http://northernwoodlands.org/articles/article/draft_animals_can_play_a_vital_role_in_forestry

Carl

[Does’ Leap]

Hi Carl:

Great article. Thanks for the link. Can you break down how you came up with a cost of $175 – $225/mbf?

George

[Carl Russell]

I did some googling this morning and I found some interesting things….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_ecology#cite_note-2

……Community diversity and complexity Since trees can grow larger than other plant life-forms, there is the potential for a wide variety of forest structures (or physiognomies). The infinite number of possible spatial arrangements of trees of varying size and species makes for a highly intricate and diverse micro-environment in which environmental variables such as solar radiation, temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed can vary considerably over large and small distances. In addition, an important proportion of a forest ecosystem’s biomass is often underground, where soil structure, water quality and quantity, and levels of various soil nutrients can vary greatly.^[2] Thus, forests are often highly heterogeneous environments compared to other terrestrial plant communities. This heterogeneity in turn can enable great biodiversity of species of both plants and animals. It also affects the design of forest inventory sampling strategies, the results of which are sometimes used in ecological studies. A number of factors within the forest affect biodiversity; primary factors enhancing wildlife abundance and biodiversity are the presence of diverse tree species within the forest and the absence of even aged timber management.^[3] …….

I looked up this reference Philip Joseph Burton. 2003. Towards sustainable management of the boreal forest 1039 pages and found it on Googlebooks…http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=r9rgVWO1MUkC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=Philip+Joseph+Burton.+2003.+Towards+sustainable+management+of+the+boreal+forest+1039+pages&ots=eEoNQEWUBf&sig=NKJ5IlnZzDLwnweyul5N2f6if6U#v=onepage&q&f=false It is a compilation of many interesting studies that shoot arrows all around the concepts we have been discussing here….

Carl

[Scott G]

The trees are but a partial matrix upon which a forest is built and all of the biota and abiotic components that go with that. “Forest” does not equate to a group of trees. A stand is a group of trees with like characteristics. Unfortunately most people don’t “get” that.

Practicing “forestry” should be the art & science of practicing balanced ecosystem management. The “Golden Rule” (no pun) of maintaining ecological integrity is that you can’t change one component of an ecosystem without affecting everything else contained within that defined ecosystem. The trick is to try to maintain proportionate balance of all components, biotic & abiotic, after a disturbance. Disturbance is an essential process for all ecosystems, from a single tree falling in the woods to a landscape-scale fire/wind event, it’s what enables the system to maintain its’ “sustainability”. For me, disturbance ecology is one of the most fascinating aspects of resource management and lately, has my very focused attention with respect to my specific Rocky Mtn region, especially given our current issues out west. Too many folks are trying to “love our natural resources to death” by adopting a freeze-frame/preservation mentality that omits disturbance whether thats fire, insects/disease, timber harvest, you name it… You can “preserve” a chunk of ground for its habitat potential. You can “preserve” a stand of trees. You can’t “preserve” a forest; …only conserve its resources that are vital functioning components mandatory to maintaining a healthy, vibrant, resilient, & fully functioning forested ecosystem.

Polar opposite to the above “love it to death scenario” are those in the natural resource extraction industries that attempt to tout “disturbance ecology” in their favor as justification for their practices. You can’t continually short-rotation a stand of pine, remove most of the understory vegetation, plow off or severely compact the upper horizons of soil structure, and still be left with a dynamic, resilient, and fully-functioning forest. It will require additional inputs now that there is a deficit. Restoration is simply a one-word term used to define, often incorrectly, attempts at repairing ecosystems that have gotten to a point where they need input or output that is beyond the historical range of variability for that specific system. “Out of whack” if you prefer. They are no longer the perfect closed loop. Southern pine plantation silviculture practices are the absolute epitome of this scenario.

Often folks try to exclude humans from ecosystem function. Impossible. For to do so would be to completely disregard our place as a functioning (albeit lately, non functioning brain-dead) component on this earth. We are not surplus, because surplus does not exist, but we are functioning outside of what are traditional roles/impact would have been historically. Corrective ecosystem balance, of scale, usually occurs through mass disturbance. Despite any/all remedial measures taken, there is always a tipping point. Either the component that is out of balance (us) will “suffer” a mass disturbance to bring balance back to the system or the system will evolve to be something else.

On earth, humans are the ultimate super-predator. Caveat being is that we have a highly evolved brain, …although that definitely comes into question more often than not. We can do wonderful things for the beautifully exquisite macro-system we live in, aka planet earth, or… we can royally screw it up. Unfortunately we seem to be trending more towards the later.

We have room, and forests have the capacity, to wisely utilize the natural resources that we are a part, not seperate, from. It is up to us to use that bucket of gray goo on top of our shoulders to think things through within the context of our being part of a system rather than dominant overall strictly for the gain of our species.

Take home…, you can’t change one thing (i.e. popping that nice tree out of the hole) without affecting, literally, the whole specific ecosystem that you are privileged to be working in. Think before you cut and plan through how not only you can practice “low-impact” forestry, but what the future consequences of your actions, positive or negative may be. Could be you just did a great thing ecologically speaking by harvesting that tree or, conversely, you just destroyed the next great wildlife snag-to-be within that system.

Your decision, choose wisely…

That was way too much random thought for one cup of coffee… 😉

[near horse]

Scott and Carl – can you send that info to Axe Men? Please.

[Carl Russell]

@Does’ Leap 39646 wrote:

Hi Carl:

Great article. Thanks for the link. Can you break down how you came up with a cost of $175 – $225/mbf?

George

George, I started answering this, then got distracted with puppies, birthday parties, snow storms, and a Select Board campaign…

I have found that it is easier to use a $/Mbf pricing structure, simply because everything in the forest industry is paid for on that structure. I also like to adhere to it because there is a productivity incentive there as well, so that LO’s see that I am willing to put my skills on the line….. to some degree. Most people, even if they value my work, are skeptical about just paying me by the hour, as it opens the concept that I might not be earning my money.

Even so, I still work backward to my final harvesting rate. I have fixed and variable costs associated with my logging work. Obviously some of these are covered by what they provide for me on my own land, but from a business management standpoint, I need to consider them in the context of how I use them on a commercial job. Simply put, I need to bring home $250-$300 minimum on a daily basis when I have truck, trailer, horses(shoe, harness, vet, feed), logging equipment, and chainsaw. That averages to $35-$50/hour.

These are wide ranges really, and they are averages that I have worked out over many different instances. I have logged for $50/hour. I started out logging at $90/Mbf (1986). I have logged at $300/ Mbf. If you look at all of the firewood I have sold log length for $50/cd (or less) I have worked for even less.

Given the size of the timber, the length of skid, utilization factor (tree quality and form),and the specifics of the forestry, (ie lots of non-commercial chainsaw work), I decide on what I can reasonably accomplish in a full day in Mbf. If I can get 2Mbf/ day across the board, that is some good logging, and I could reasonably charge toward the lower end of my scale, maybe $175/Mbf. If the trees are small, need butting because of red rot, and the skid is 1500 feet, I may only get 1Mbf/day across the board, so I need to get up close to the top of my scale, $250/Mbf.

There are several factors at play, the degree of workmanship I bring to the logging, the quality of the trees and their market value, and the inherent costs of the chance, access, or terrain. As a timberland owner, I realize that the value of my lumber is based on the difference between what I get paid by the mill, and the cost of getting it there. Because I know that the work I am doing on my own land will have lasting effects, I realize that some of the cost of getting the logs out can be attributed to the investment that I am making in the future of my forestland. TSI, crop tree release, access road construction, are all costs that accrue during a harvest, but they have long-term payback.

When I work for other people, I bring the same philosophy. If their woodlot has high quality timber and good access, then they should get a value that reflects those investments. If those investments have not been made, I cannot be stuck carrying the weight of that financial gap. In other words, working on a $/Mbf rate, I provide LO’s with a fluctuating stumpage rate based on the grade of the material they have been growing, and the costs associated with the harvest…… And they have not hired me to reduce the cost of harvest, the services I offer are forest improvement, and surgical harvest based on ecological principles. I also believe that this provides incentive for them to consider investment-style forestry, as down the road the returns will get higher as a result of growing higher quality timber and reduced harvesting costs.

It may be an interesting exercise for you to think about breaking down your income from logs into stumpage and logging. You can start by getting a sense of what other loggers in your area are paying, then deduct that and trucking from the mill price. This way you can get a ball-park figure of the income you are making from logging. Then think about the decision-making process you put behind your operation. Think about the maintenance costs you incur, the work that you do in conjunction with the harvest, and the other “investments” you make on your own behalf.

These are real values. I have experienced that most landowners given the chance to discuss these things realize that these are important values to them as well. Basing my business model on being able to provide these benefits with proficiency, and the inherent capabilities of animal power, allows me the framework to explore these objectives with LO’s.

This is the reverse side of the regional stumpage value concept that drives modern forestry. Every pine tree is worth”X”, every ash, “Y”, ……. This means that every woodlot is viewed in terms of how to reduce the cost of harvest in order to attain these values. No doubt there are standards to protect against the worst-case scenario, but that means that woodlots with the highest value wood, and the best access, inevitably end up subsidizing the lots with lower value material, and costlier access. Even within woodlots improvement work that would add cost is generally avoided, and many ecological principles are compromised.

Carl

[Does’ Leap]

@Carl Russell 39909 wrote:

It may be an interesting exercise for you to think about breaking down your income from logs into stumpage and logging. You can start by getting a sense of what other loggers in your area are paying, then deduct that and trucking from the mill price. This way you can get a ball-park figure of the income you are making from logging. Then think about the decision-making process you put behind your operation. Think about the maintenance costs you incur, the work that you do in conjunction with the harvest, and the other “investments” you make on your own behalf.

Carl

Economists call the stumpage I would have been paid by another logger an “opportunity cost” which gets deducted from my log receipts along with my other expenses. Since I am not trucking my horses, my logging income from hemlock saw logs is pretty good. Not so for firewood at $70 / chord. However, what is not quantifiable is all the other work I do that you mentioned in your post (girdling, acces roads, and general non-commercial TSI, not to mention the benefits to my horses and myself as we hone our skills). I have a possible line on a mill in Coventry, VT (Labranche) that, according to my trucker, pays decent money for low grade hardwood logs. I should have the price/spec sheets tomorrow and I am hoping that this might defer some of the costs of removing undesirable hardwood from the stand.

George

[near horse]

@Does’ Leap 39911 wrote:

Economists call the stumpage I would have been paid by another logger an “opportunity cost” which gets deducted from my log receipts along with my other expenses.

George

IMO – economists (not all of them) are responsible for convincing people not to do stuff under the guise of terms like “opportunity cost”. That just riles the poop out of me that I am supposed to deduct what I would have been paid by another logger etc to do a job I can and want to do. Then I could be doing something I don’t want to do and be making even more money ….. I have to wonder if economists charge themselves “opportunity costs” since they could just let another economist do their job as well.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t account for our costs of doing business but “OC” is a sham in my opinion.

Sorry if I’m on a rant but I’ll give you one more bogus economist example (not logging related). My former boss at the university, friend and colleague for 15 yrs etc, knew I was buying newborn dairy bull calves but was travelling >300 miles round trip to get them. As what he considered a favor and as department head, he offered to sell me calves from the university dairy for whatever I was paying PLUS the cost of my mileage. When I mentioned that his calves weren’t being transported 300+ miles he said it was what I was paying to get them from the other dairy anyway. After a hearty F U, we parted ways and haven’t spoken since . BTW – he had his original training in ag econ.

[Michel Boulay]

I don’t think I would call him an economist. 😡 I hope this isn’t what he educate his students to do.

Mike

[Tim Harrigan]

My interpretation of opportunity cost is that is an awareness of the alternative uses for capital or scarce resources. It is not a direct cost that has to be paid. Like most of economics it is about the numbers, not the want to or like to.

[Carl Russell]

The “problem” with the concept of opportunity cost is that it creates a basis value focused entirely on the market sale value of the product regardless of costs of production. It actually is a perfect illustration of the concepts that I have been explaining as driving the timber industry.

This concept accepts some assumption that all natural resources have a financial value based purely on what someone is willing to pay for them. This formula down-plays the commitment costs that go into fostering, protecting, or restoring the ecological systems that support the growth of these organisms. This is why economy of scale does not work with biological systems and organisms.

The concept is really rooted in capital expenses, not in production costs. When you buy forestland, some of the cost can be attributed to the value of the timber growing there. Without cutting it and selling it, the only way to determine the basis value is to get a representation of market value paid by loggers at that point in history. Over time the new owner will accrue value that is considered capital gain, and if the income from the sale of logs is high enough, one can deduct the value of the basis in order to get a more accurate estimate of the actual gain during the ownership period. It really shouldn’t be used to calculate the cutting and sale of individual trees.

The problem with using this formula to support forestry improvement is that the support system apparently has no value. It would be like a gardener growing tomatoes with no focus on investment in the long-term productivity of the garden…… which by the way has been a similar problem in agriculture run on straight-line economics.

As landowners we have the right to determine what part of our land is most valuable to us. Some may purely focus on those things that can be produced by the land with minimal cost, and maximized income. However, on my property the primary value is in the vitality of the ecosystems that support my livelihood. The trees, tomatoes, and milk, are just consequences of the work we do to invigorate those systems. For sale of items that I have total control of the sale price, I adjust upward to cover the costs of our investments. For products such a sawlogs to a local mill where price is controlled by other features, I deduct those costs from my timber basis, not from the ecosystem.

I feel that the timber basis that was passed on to me, or onto any new owners of forestland for that matter, was in part based on compromises born now by our ecosystem from generations of neglect in the name of economy. I take it as a personal mission to reinvest some of that value back into the ecosystem that will support future productivity.

Carl

[Andy Carson]

I don’t have a problem with the concept of opportunity cost, I just think people need to apply this concept to all goals and resources (not just money). Clear cut on a large scale, for example, are you have lost the opportunity to make a sustainably ecosystem for X years. This is an opportunity cost, just not one calculated in dollars. How much is this opportunity cost worth to you? This is an individual choice based on the cost of different opportunities, and taking into account the financial and ecological impacts of each. My point being the logic of opportunity cost is sound if all relavant values and principles are included. Here’s a quote from wikipedia “…opportunity costs are not restricted to monetary or financial costs: the real cost of output forgone, lost time, pleasure or any other benefit that provides utility should also be considered opportunity costs.”

[near horse]

Didn’t mean to redirect the thread.

Opportunity cost allows one to put down a number on a balance sheet – no matter how short-sighted – whereas the other values that are mentioned are more difficult to place a $$ amount on and use in a calculation. I agree with Carl and Andy regarding the broader definition of what “opportunity” is gained or lost by our decisions. Unfortunately, accountants and economists like tables and numbers in print — comparables

---

that base value of your “stuff” based on someone else’s assessment or value, not yours.

Just remember “economists know the cost of everything but the value of nothing.”

[Author]

Posts