Draft Logging Research?

[Carl Russell]

I opened a can of worms, so I’ll just post some brief comments, and then try to flesh out more understanding by peeling away layers.

The 3rd party review is something that comes with the territory when you are making claims about some superior process, or product. The model that HHFF uses, and seems attractive to me, is a volunteer committee of “informed” community members, who are capable of appraising your standards, and checking on your work, to certify that you are in fact doing what you say you are doing. It accomplishes a few things that “Green Cert” does poorly, or outright fails at. First it adds no cost, and second it brings it home to the community, or region, so that there is a level of trust and communication that has to happen for everyone to be on the same page.

I have attached a Northern Hardwoods Stocking Guide. These graphs are developed by USFS for every cover-type in US. Cover-type is a species, or association of trees species that predominate in a region. Some trees typically grow in predominantly pure stands, or in consistent association with other species. The cover-type is not why I posted this, but I just threw that out for context.

These graphs show a range of factors relating to density and tree size. Based on accompanying evaluation, they also indicate how these factors effect rate of growth. The A-line delineates the place where a stand becomes overstocked, whether by many very small trees, or by fewer very large trees. The highest rate of growth is retained between the A & B-lines. Harvesting entry schedules, and harvest volume densities are calculated based on where a stand measures, and what prescriptions best meet the objective of increasing tree growth.

The convention is to keep a stand from becoming overstocked, and to also keep it from getting below the B-line, as below that it there will be a more significant recovery time as trees gain vigor. Harvests entries could be every 20-40 years if the stand is allowed to reach the A-line, and then thinned all the way to the B-line, or they could be every couple of years with a lighter thinning.

Using the current economic model, with the advantages of mechanical harvesting, and marking to facilitate economy of scale to gain high stumpage, we typically see harvests that are spaced further apart, and often reduce stocking significantly…… all supported soundly by the science that was used to develop these guides.

My qualitative review of these guides paints a different picture that is not supported in any of the accompanying literature for managing these cover-types. What I see is that these data clearly show that trees strive to an overstocked condition, backed-up with field observation. This overstocked condition is the foundation for many of the complex interrelationships that exist in a forest ecosystem. Although thinning to the B-line is appropriate to maintain vigorous tree growth, it ignores the value of high stocking to the overall ecosystem.

Some people believe that it is less impact on the site to enter every 20-40 years, but the significant reduction in stocking is a shock to the other factors of the ecosystem. However, regular, small volume harvests would clearly have less system-wide impact. Nobody even considers draft animals as a viable harvesting method, so they give little credence to the idea. The game in town is powerful machines that can produce timber products, so the application of forestry is geared toward that method, and substantiated by the current timber-based appraisal of these guides.

Creating standards of harvesting with horses to accomplish timber value improvement while using these very guides to substantiate them, combined with a qualitative evaluation of the result (everyone can see the impact resulting from harvest), will be a big step toward helping landowners find value in the ecological services of their woodland that are best protected by using draft animals.

Now, overstocking leads to reduced vigor, and compromises tress and stands when faced with environmental pressures, but by removing worst first, and releasing high quality trees, we can maintain a high level of ecological integrity while increasing value per acre. The overstocked forest also succumbs to challenges that create openings, species changes, naturally reduced stocking, and so on, but by mimicking these phenomena we can protect the timber assets, and the ecosystem at once.

Carl

[Baystatetom]

Economy of scale forces me to, or allows me to go onto a wood lot and remove all the poor quality material at once. The stocking level is greatly reduced but the average quality of the trees left to grow is dramatically increased. So is the integrity of the available seed source.
If I understand what you are talking about Carl a lot of those poor quality trees would be retained and slowly removed in order to maintain a higher stocking level. From a finance stand point we would be allowing the growth of poor quality trees hence reducing the growth of those high value crop trees. This may indeed be a better technique as far as the greater ecosystem is concerned, but would result in a lower value timber resource over time.
It always just comes back to finance. Unless we can somehow attach a monetary value to a healthy ecosystem it will never be possible to move from a niche to a common market.
~Tom

[Carl Russell]

@Baystatetom 38247 wrote:

…..
If I understand what you are talking about Carl a lot of those poor quality trees would be retained and slowly removed in order to maintain a higher stocking level. From a finance stand point we would be allowing the growth of poor quality trees hence reducing the growth of those high value crop trees…..

Here is the art thing. I am not talking about maintaining high stocking across the board. Stocking is reduced to increase tree growth, but that thinning is focused on crop trees, and areas where crop trees are to be cultivated. Some areas where stocking is high may have several crop trees isolated within, so surgical harvest would release them. Also, using non-commercial thinning to reduce low grade without having to create volumes to make harvesting cost effective would reduce low grade components. And then entering more often to keep the process active.

I agree that in most cases it comes down to people being able to feel that it is worth it for them. I truly am not trying to “change the face of forestry”, just trying to show how the capabilities of draft animals lend them to a legitimate method of forestry that can be more beneficial to the ecosystem, IF there are landowners who value that.

From my experience, I have much more success with landowners discussing these values than I have when trying to explain why hiring me with my horses is economically superior…… I just plain have not found that to be a legitimate argument. I have the advantage of being a forester and logger, so I can deal directly with the landowner, and I don’t have to convince a forester to entertain the thought of using me. But I also have found that I need much fewer landowners than my friends with machinery.

I would love to see figures that somehow show that draft animals are economically superior. I didn’t start this yesterday, and I have covered a lot of forestland, and have been involved in the industry for a long time, and I truly believe that even as a niche, we will be much more effective as harvesting operators if we don’t try to take on mechanical forestry on a purely economic level.

In this day and age, it is nearly impossible to get buy-in on large enviro-social values. I realize that. I just happen to have grown up in a time when my parents and teachers were admonishing us to be stewards of the ecosystem, to recognize the values that go beyond ourselves, and our checkbooks. What can I say we didn’t have x-boxes…….

I’ll keep trying to refine it, and maybe there is a way that our work can coincide to make some significant changes for the good.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Then of course there is the point that I am talking about growing those high quality trees longer, instead of harvesting to offset the cost of harvesting large volumes of low-grade. Also maintaining a higher density of released crop trees, increased residual value per acre. Harvesting the worst first, and allowing the highest quality trees to grow adds volume, and value.

To accommodate animal power there needs to be improved access, but these roads are long-term assets that remain with the property into perpetuity, reducing future harvesting costs, and possibly adding resale value to the property.

So in the long run this method not only retains value in ecological services, but stands to create a more financially productive forest.

Carl

[Jim Ostergard]

After I posted the above on audits I was out splitting some wood and the thought came to me how much nicer it would be to audit Draftwood sites. In those areas that I described I had on the ground experience most of the time there was some adversarial vibes going on. Sometimes a lot stronger than that. Made me wonder if I should be armed. So working with loggers, foresters and landowners who were interested and invested in the process would be a neat experience. I would love to see something like that happen in New England.

[mitchmaine]

Yes carl, that was one of the finer points of my make-believe model. Instead of the logger chasing the forester through the woodlot acre per acre following paint, both of you with this myopic view of the final cut, the logger(steward) would over time, have an overview of the complete forest(however large), and range over it thinning here and there to appease the trucker without damaging the forest in one area or another. You could cull out the wood destined to mature and blow down soon, like the fir and popple, leaving the long lived wood to mature and culling out the wolves as you go. Dependant on the woodlots needs and not the checkbook. You would be making money, whatever you cut as well as the landowner, and the forester too, as long as he and you shared the over view, ( he is the abstract here, that I can’t quite find a spot for. Difficult to imagine marking several hundred acres ahead of your cutting. It would be better if he consulted and trusted your judgement to help make it work smoothly). Instead of worring about where your next woodlot would be, you would be on it indefinitely, free to work your art and magic and care for the wood and the land.

[Mark Cowdrey]

To Tom’s “PS” point in post #73 see as a secondary source, pp49-51, Changes in the Land, William Cronon, Hill&Wang, 1983.
Mark

[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?

[Carl Russell]

@Countymouse 38258 wrote:

…..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?

“Green Certified”, yes….. draftwood, no!
The important difference is that draftwood specifically describes a process that is associated with the practice of interaction with the land and the ecosystem, where as “Green” is mostly a marketing strategy associated with minor environmental adjustments in process that are adequate to attract customers. Large movements that require significant oversight, tend to end up with standards that are watered down. Draftwood by its nature must be local or regional, and under Jason’s model the certification is community based, presumably with emphasis on adhering to standards that are locally, or even personally important.

I have been focusing a lot on the ecological aspects of the model I follow. This is specifically because I know there is a public misconception that “Forestry” is about “The Environment”. I have tried to point out how factors in modern application do not support this assumption, and that given the capabilities of draft animals, and the limitation of the current mechanical model, there is an opportunity for draft animal loggers to secure this ground. I focus on this because I know that we cannot compete on volume production, so I believe we need to add value, craftsmanship, to the work we do with our animals.

I know that this work can be done with machines. I have known mechanical operators who have done a great job of it. Many of my clients are farmers, or forestland owners who own their own logging equipment, and under my guidance practice many of my methods. Although not a client of mine, one excellent example was Fred Hunt of Reading, VT. He was a Harvard educated forester, owned 800 acres, and a JD 440 skidder. His forest was an incredible array of diverse cover-types, age distributions, ecologically protected areas, with magnificent crop trees scattered all across the landscape.

I know many mechanical loggers who could work like this. I know some who want to, but they are not being asked to. They need to find work to cover the nut on their equipment, so they take the work that is out there. Similarly, consultant foresters need to make a living practicing there vocation, so they do the best they can given the circumstances of the modern economy.

I can get a little deeper into the economics. One of my advantages that I have explained, is not just my forestry knowledge and experience, but the fact that I can practice forestry out of my back pocket while logging. There is no need for a consultant forester to plan and administer my operations. While I do charge for writing management plans, I do not charge for those aspects directly related to the harvest. In general terms that is a 15% savings right off the top, which an average appraisal of what most foresters charge… based on stumpage income.

In the current marketplace most of the value that foresters bring to the operation is not related to silvicultural knowledge, but more specifically related to their knowledge of markets, operators, and administration of timber sales. I am not trying to diminish the value of forestry education, I am just pointing out that foresters are under a lot of pressure to act as agents to protect the landowners financial stake in the woodlot, and that requires more work, and attention to details then the actual forestry knowledge.

I believe, as does Jason Rutledge and other folks like Leon Minckler (author of “Woodland Ecology I quoted before), that there are common sense standards associated with the application of basic forestry principles that can be learned by laymen, loggers, and landowners alike. As I said before, Jason and I are two who firmly believe that there are aspects to working with horses that predispose the technician to appreciation, understanding, and sensitivity to these details that is different from other methods, namely the human scale, the craft, the slow process, and the personal exposure to ecological processes.

Standardizing some of the basic principles as a foundation to an educational process, such as Biological Woodsmen, backed-up with a certificate of completion will provide operators with credentials to provide services without the added cost of oversight by an agent. Draftwood is a certification process that verifies that the work being done by these individuals actually adheres to these standards, and in the current iteration is gaining another 15% market share from the sale of the end product. But this is entirely connected to the “back story” which in HHFF’s terminology is “Restorative Forestry”, in which draft animals play a necessary role, but ecological services are preeminent.

As pointed out before, while ecological integrity is high on the list of objectives, residual stand improvement is as well. If crop trees with high potential are released and grown to their highest potential, trees with defect and disease are removed by harvest and non-commercially, trees that have reached their marketable premium are harvested, access is improved or facilitated by cooperation with appropriate machinery to make animal power more applicable, and enacting moderate scale harvests frequently over longer periods to protect ecological services, then these methods will all add up to a more productive forest ecologically and financially.

We still come down to the current stumpage value as the measurable feature, but we have to bear in mind that if machines are used to perform this type of forestry, their costs would be much higher, making stumpage values decline. There are other factors, such as the economics of the modern harvest, that lead to removing trees that are marketable, “just because we are here now”, to help make the operation affordable in light of the expectation that so much low grade wood needs to be harvested, but which could be worth substantially more if they were allowed to grow unimpeded by competition, added volume and value, under the watchful eye of the resident local technically trained harvester.

(As an aside, I will say that I have come into many woodlots that have had several prior harvests where the stand structure clearly shows that the hide was taken with the tail, and there is very little increase in residual value…… under the administration of a professional forester, so I have serious doubts that the current model actually improves long-term return)

Again, I am not trying to solve some large societal problem, just trying to point out to animal loggers that this methodology offers a functional difference. I know we have a long way to go, but if we could find a way to come together around some common understanding, we could add substantiated validity to the work of each of us individually, so that we can show these landowners where their misconceptions exist, and that by hiring us, they will not be losing, but gaining on several fronts over the long run.

Of course there always will be the ones looking for short-term gain, and that will always be hard to address with animal power.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Just an interesting link here to a facebook post this morning from Jason Rutledge…..

http://www.facebook.com/barbara.corson.9/posts/307121959405841?comment_id=10066807&notif_t=comment_mention

If the value of the forest products included consideration of the ecological services the forested conditions were providing for the public good then the management practices would be different. At that point the cost of enhancing those ecological services would be based upon the cost of a living wage for those providing the ground level skills of ecological enhancement – first (Eco-Social Justice). This is a much more complete and whole approach than supply and demand for who can produce it the cheapest as just logs or lumber. The job creation from this approach would be wonderful and could be a powerful basis for re-culturing rural parts of the world everywhere. Simon Anthony Lenihan understands this intimately, just like many of our peers do (Carl B. Russell,John Plowden,Jim Axtell,Chad Vogel,Chad Miano,Blane Chaffin, i.e., the list is growing) and they continue to prove the usefulness and in fact superiority of this cultural approach – often at a personal price for income generated for their families. These men are eco-warriors/heroes to me! A few others also live to prove that animal powered worst first single tree selection is the best management practice and we understand that it’s the hard way, because it is hard to be sensitive! Nobody can put a price on our sense of human dignity- but us!

:oCarl

[Baystatetom]

How come this is only a American thread, Don’t you guys on the other side of the pond have anything to say?

[simon lenihan]

We are fighting a hard battle this side of the pond in trying to convince land owners that draft animal power is a superior means of thinning their woodlot. Mechanised logging is still going strong this side of the pond even at a time when envoromental issues are to the fore front. I think no one from this side of the pond has posted due to frustration at what is happening to our forests. we have the state body [forestry comisson ] who run and regulate the forestry sector over here. The state body have their own harvesters and forwarders and are constantly breaking their own rules and regulations, working wet sites and creating deep ruts, some as deep as 5 feet, working right up to rivers and streams and even crossing them. Then all the private estates can follow the same procedure, hammer the woods with no consequence. Let me give you an example, glen tanar forest part of the old caledonian pine forest and 7000 years old. The site is a site of special scientific intrest and therefore protected, its also protected by two european laws. The woodland is managed by glen tanar estate and recently they obtained a felling licence from the state body and scotland national heritage to harvest timber. well they sure harvested timber and in the process damaged the old pine forest, their excuse for deep ruts and damage to the ancient pines, very wet summer, [ assholes ]. There are a few people that are trying to get justice for what has been done but i fear it will be in vain. When asked why they did not consider using horse in such a sensitive area- horses are not a viable option. we will speak with the mechanised contractors and draw up a more gentle approach so this will not happen again. They said they would even consider using small low ground pressure machines [ alstor ], well we can kick their arse every day of the week if they go down that road but we will not be considered. Anyone looking to hire a cheesed off horse logging contractor.
simon

[Carl Russell]

@Rick Alger 38240 wrote:

…..My interest in comparative research is on a simple level. I would like data to show a landowner that would indicate, for example, that horses can do his prescribed 30% overstory removal with less ecological disruption and greater long-term payback than machines……

There are a few other aspects to economics that I thought might be pertinent. I am curious about why this landowner would be contacting a horse-logger? I don’t know very many landowners who are inclined toward large changes in their woodlots, even if money is to be made. One financial advantage of using horses is that this harvest can be done in stages, taking several years if the tract is large enough, without incurring moving charges and start-up costs associated with mechanical operations.

Another aspect to consider is why are they contacting you? I have found that the cost of keeping my horses averages out to be $5/day/horse year-round, shoes, harness, feed, vet, etc. My other fixed and variable costs associated with saw, truck, trailer, etc., comes out to another $20-$30/day, so I’m looking at an average of about $30/day to operate. If I make $250 in production (1.25 mbf @ $200/mbf) then almost 90% of the cost of my operation is attributed to my labor.

I have to bring something to that operation based on my experience and capability. With mechanical operations the numbers are nearly reversed, so the operators have very little room to differentiate themselves from their competitors if they intend to make enough money to cover the machinery and their personal needs.

When a landowner contacts me, I take full advantage of the fact that they have some interest in having horses on their land, and I put a hard sell on what I bring to the operation. If they really don’t appreciate these factors then I don’t work with them, but generally I don’t let them dwell on their misunderstandings. I educate them about the real comparisons of costs, both operational and external, and I am very clear about how my approach to forestry and timber harvesting is different, and that if they hire me, that is what they are going to get.

I have always paid competitive stumpage rates.

If we continue to look to stumpage rates as the guiding factor then we need to look at some other financial considerations. If I routinely leave the best trees in the woods to increase in volume and value, then the logs I cut during a harvest are generally not going to be worth as much in the marketplace, and the stumpage I pay will be less.

Cash-flow also affects how we look at relative income scenarios. Mechanical operators can run “red” hitches, even “red” days, or even “red” timber sales, because by the time the deficit hits the operation they are moved on to another site where they are operating in the black. Using the regionally standardized approach to stumpage allows operators to forecast how they will need to manage costs associated with certain species, log grades, and woodlots. Operational variances are made up by averaging their costs across the landscape. Unfortunately there are some landowners whose high value woodlots are actually subsidizing other lots where value is low, but in the long-run the cash-flow for the mechanical operator evens out.

However with animals the production is so low that nearly every hitch needs to be profitable, and I certainly don’t have the flexibility to pay more than what is profitable on one job with the expectation that the next job will give me more financial wiggle room. And given the slow nature of my harvesting cash-flow, and investment approach to building residual value on a woodlot, there rarely is the opportunity to pay high stumpage right off the bat.

There are so many angles to selling this approach effectively, but it just comes down to understanding what you have to offer in relation to an educated appraisal of how the industry works.

I also always come back to why I am using horses. I didn’t choose this purely as a way to sell my services, nor as a way to get rich. I truly believe in animal power. I believe that building operations that are resilient due to their (at least partial) independence from fossil fuels is a culturally prudent thing to do. I also believe that reducing air pollution in my small way is an important contribution. As Simon points out, while I have seen some pretty serious impacts from horses, by their nature the on-site impacts are much less than machinery, and not only do I appreciate that personally, but it has important ramifications throughout our environment.

But in the long-run I come down to the art, the craft, the pure personal expression of my own creativity. I am doing the kind of work I want to do, the way I want to do it, with inherent levels of personal satisfaction that make me a better father, a better partner, and better citizen, and a better human being than I know I would be if I weren’t doing this……….. And most days I take my profit in this understanding before I even hit the woods. This doesn’t help pay the grain bill, but it certainly takes the sting out of it.

Carl

[Tim Harrigan]

Carl, for this to work the increased value of the woodlot has to be transferable and valued by the next land owner. Some of the best long-term management gets short-circuited when the landowner decides to cash out with a hard harvest.

[Carl Russell]

@Tim Harrigan 38293 wrote:

Carl, for this to work the increased value of the woodlot has to be transferable and valued by the next land owner. Some of the best long-term management gets short-circuited when the landowner decides to cash out with a hard harvest.

That is so true, but that doesn’t change the salient points. They don’t need to hire me if what I have to offer doesn’t fit into their formula.

I have seen several properties over the years that I feather brushed into nice woodlots, sold and immediately cut off. I don’t care how you slice it….. that is not forestry, but in our culture it is part of the acceptable continuum that passes for forestry.

I am not going to change the world, I can only control how I move through it. There is no doubt that a cultural shift is needed for a lot of the values I profess to have meaning to more people, but that doesn’t diminish the validity of those values.

Perhaps creating regional cooperative efforts between animal powered practitioners that support market awareness of these values (ie. Draft Wood) will offer a real possibility for these values to become more culturally understandable and acceptable. It just isn’t going to come from the mechanically dependent industry.

Carl

[Author]

Posts