Corn vs. Trees

[BlaBla]

I recall reading on here that a managed timberland can produce more income than a corn field in $ per year. I'm doing a research paper that I'd like to incorporate this idea into, and I'd like to find an online source for this. Any ideas on where to look?


Also, would this concept apply more to established timberland than freshly planted timberland?

Thanks

[crtreedude]

That gets to be a pretty interesting question. I can give you reams of data for in the Tropics - but not much up north - and corn isn't a big crop down here.

I think you need to define are you talking stumpage or value added and where. Also, the kind of land makes a lot of difference. I suspect you might also need to think about future price of oil if you are going to project out say 25 years.

Types of trees of course will be important. Some trees are perceived as having more value than others in the future - and of course predicting in the future needs to be done with grain of salt.

[Robert R]

I can't answer question but was going to caution you--Being from Kansas, you might get run out of state if you start promoting trees over corn.  Isn't corn Kansas' state tree?

Good luck on you paper.  I look forward to hearing the intelligent people respond.

[Ron Wenrich]

I think a lot of it depends on the size of the timber.  I remember doing some growth studies where we were getting about 200-250 bf/acre/yr in hardwoods.  If its oak, and stumpage is $400, then the income is about $80-100.  The only input is property tax.

If you start talking good black cherry or hard maple, then the income would be much better.  If its low grade wood, then its much lower.

When timber starts to get in the veneer category, then your values will increase a lot more.  But, from a percentage standpoint, the yield drops.

The thing to remember on stumpage is that you can sell it without any other input of labor.  Corn would require harvesting and trucking to get an acre figure. 

[Onthesauk]

We're seeing more and more farms here in the NW turned into poplar/hybrid cottenwood plantations grown for pulp.  There is apparently a living to be made at it but also believe it is a result of the smaller farms inability to comply with all the environmental rules and regulations and still make a living.  About seven years to harvest.  If I remember right, a number of farmers started their own bank because they couldn't find a banker who understood the long growing cycle.

[Ianab]

Another factor to throw in the equation is that corn must be harvested when it's ripe, no matter what the price or your cashflow needs.
With trees you have a much wider window to harvert, usually many years either way of 'ideal time'. If prices are low you can hopefully put off harvest till next year and hope they come up. With corn your crop is ready at the same time as everyone elses, and the price usually reflects that. If you need cash earlier than planned you can usually harvest earlier although you will get a lower return.

It is still a LONG TERM investment unless you buy an established forest where at least some of the area is near harvest.

Ian

[Bro. Noble]

My thinking would be that the soil type and location would make all the difference.  I think you could find situations where one would be the best and others where the other would do better.

I would start with a soil conservation service soils map for the area you're talking about.  For given soils,  they will tell what crops or trees do well and if I'm not mistaken even estimate average yields.

[floyd]

Sauk man, some of that ground is too wet to produce consistent, annual crops. Guys learning power of diversification & getting away from immediate gratification.

Plant trees then no need to muck up marginal soils with mechanized equip every spring.

[Gary_C]

There are just so many variables like climate, soils, terain, and weather that I am sure you could prove either one would be more profitable. It is very difficult to establish how much you would make on corn between two adjoining farms as well as how much on hardwoods or softwoods to make any claim meaningful.

[crtreedude]

Often these questions are not either / or but both. For example, you need to eat, and trees are important too. Often the best solutions is to use a mix of agroforestry.

Even though we grow trees, we also have cows, etc. around. This keeps the farmers we use as workers happy.  Besides, a few small cows keeps the weeds down among the larger trees.

[IL Bull]

My brother pastures cattle in his timber.  The woods has took on a different look. (no underbrush).  The only problem is there are no new trees coming up either.  It does make it easier to find mushrooms.

[floyd]

Took awhile but extension service in Eastern OR finally convinced ranchers it was cost effective to thin young stands of softwoods on their ranches. There was a marked increase in forage  available to cows.

More forage meant better stocking, read more cows on same ground. Additional benefit was increased wood production - same amount of growth on fewer stems.  win-win situation.

[Ron Wenrich]

Soil compaction from cows has a marked effect on the quality of timber.  One guy had cattle put into a marginal area.  They clustered around the ash trees when it was hot.  Trees were dead within 2 years. 

You also have the disruption of the forest litter.  That effects absorption rates for rainfall.  If the amount of litter decreases, then runoff increases instead of infiltratng. 

[Bro. Noble]

In addition to what Ron said,  it's poor economy on the livestock end too.  What makes or breaks a feeder livestock program is rate of gain and you just don't get good gain on 'timber pasture'  On cow-calf operations and especially on dairy operations,  it is milk production that counts and you can't get good milk production on 'timber pasture'.  Acorns are a disaster to milk production.  We have an especially heavy crop this year and our cows have to go through a wooded area to get to pasture.  Our production has dropped way off since the acorns started falling and will stay down until the nuts are gone

Successful 'agriforestry'  that I'm familiar with is where trees (usually walnut or pecans) are planted in wide spacings and hay crops are taken between the rows until there is enough crown development to reduce the forage yield.

[floyd]

Please help me understand how it is "poor economy" to utilize forage + logs from same ground?

This may be true under hardwoods.

[Bro. Noble]

The trees don't doo as well with livestock grazing,  Cattle don't do well in 'timber pasture'.  You can mechanically harvest forages beneficially in some situations. 

[Ianab]

Please help me understand how it is "poor economy" to utilize forage + logs from same ground?

Local experience here is that you get a better return with either full grazing or full forest. Which one depends on your climate, soil, local and future prices, land contour, etc.. If you have enough grass in your forest to make it worth grazing cattle, it should support more trees. If you take out more trees you can feed more cattle, but you reduce your timber.

When you try to mix the 2 you end up with 1/3 of the trees and 1/3 of the cattle, and actually had less return than if you had concentrated on one or the other.

Common practise here is to fence off small areas of a farm, stream edges, hillsides and other areas that are marginal for grazing or cropping and plant those areas in trees and retain the good grazing areas for stock. That gives the diversification and benefits like shelter and erosion control but makes the best use of each area of land. 

Ian

[Ron Wenrich]

Soil compaction causes less soil aeration, reduced water and nutrient availability, and a stunts root development.  Without root development, growth on the forest is lessened.  So, what you're putting on the cows is coming off of the trees.

A lot will depend on the how many cows you put in the woods and for how long.  Most pasture situations I have seen has the cows in there most of the year.  That won't work.  

Here's a report from Iowa on forest grazing.  
Link

[floyd]

This is summer graze I am referring to,  Ron. Snow gets too deep to pasture em yr round. They are put on hayfields n fed thru the winter. The manure is harrowed in in the spring, cutting down on need for purchased  fertilizer.

I understand soil conditions, stocking rate, & timing of grazing is important. The study I am referring to was conducted on a ranch leased , or owned by OR State U in Union County Oregon. Elevation is around 3500 feet.

[BlaBla]

http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/naturalresources/DD8128.html
http://www.unl.edu/nac/brochures/wtl/wtl-s.pdf
http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/agroforestry.html

Conventional wisdom, as stated here and many other places, seems to discourage "forest pastures." However, these links from UNL and Minnesota suggest that forest pastures can be beneficial. What's the deal?

[Ron Wenrich]

Floyd

From what I've read of a BC study, they said that using cattle for 1 month out of the year didn't have too many detrimental effects.  There was some compaction and some decrease in infiltration rates after 8 years.  They didn't seem to recommend any longer time frame than that.

Are you grazing in Ponderosa pine stands?  When I worked in Oregon, between Klamath Falls and Medford, it seemed like the only place that there was any grazing was in those types of stands.

BlaBla

All the studies seem to indicate that growing quality hardwoods and cattle grazing are not compatable for any sustained period.  Those that do say anything about grazing always go back to saying a stand of poor quality wood. 

I don't see any reason to put cattle into a poor quality stand.  It should be converted over to a high quality stand, and that would mean you need good reproduction.  You won't get that with livestock in the stand.

One report talked about livestock not causing soil compaction, but then stated it was sheep.  I can see sheep being a much better option than cattle.  Although, if they are anything like goats, there won't be much left.

I think if you want to get into agroforestry, I would go more on the mushroom and herbal alternatives.  Shitake and morels have a good market value.  Ginseng will probably give you more money than timber.  If you could get black truffles, then there's another high value crop. 

I think any grazing considerations have to be looked at pretty hard.  Its not just a matter of letting the livestock run free.

[Robert R]

I have far more experience with sheep than cows.  Sheep are nothing like goats.  If they have grass, they will not debark your trees or eat the saplings.  In fact, sheep are often used in maintaining orchards of apple and peach trees around here and I imagine would work well in a plantation type atmosphere of almost any there.  The sheep drawback would be in using them in a more natural woodland.  The burrs and sticktights in a wild timber setting would destroy the marketable wool crop from your sheep project but if you had planted walnuts or maples or cottonwoods or whatever and it ws relatively clean of briars and brambles, sheep will do an excellent job of maintaining the grounds and provide income in the interim until the tree crop is ready.  Free range hens do well also in this setting providing you have good predator control fence and not a large bird of prey population.  That predator fence or an LGD is a must with the sheep flock as well.

[floyd]

Ron, K Falls caddy corner to Union County. Not alot of PP in study area. Mostly true firs & doug fir. Grazing season from May til snow flies...Oct or Nov. This study was geared towards ranchers more interested in forage vs timber production. Most of this ground is 2nd growth. Scattered stands surrounded by range. K Falls also higher elevation than study area. OSU was trying to help ranchers understand multiple use(NOT abuse) can help the bottom line of the ranch. Also trying to help them understand clear cut & conversion to range not necessary for forage production.

PP is fire species, meaning it survives intermittant(sp?) fires that keep brush...& some reprod at bay. Makes for large, scattered overstory with plenty of sunlight hitting forest floor so grass, forbs ,etc can survive. Grazing also helps to promote forage growth. An acre of mature PP may only contain 20 stems but trees will be 150'+ & say 25-40"DBH, & any where from 100-200yr old. Selective harvest is norm in these stands. Maybe remove 50% of merchanable volume per entry with 100 yr rotation.

By opening up these scattered stands of fir sunlight gets to forest floor allowing grass to grow.

Sheep need to be kept moving when in forest situation. That is why there is always a herder with them & he has a wagon. Constantly moving camp.

[crtreedude]

Our use of cattle is by using them when they are small and we used them between the trees which are planted on a 3.5 meter grid. We have a lot of grass between the trees. We don't use any cattle until the trees are higher than 15 feet. We have observed no ill effects. But, we have very good soil. You do have to be careful - too soon and the younger cows can damage the trees. Also, if the soil is marginal, you don't want to use cattle.

We use cattle as a help to keep ahead of the grass.

[SwampDonkey]

I have to go with Ron W here, as he explained it. I know one farmer that ran his cattle freely in his mixed woods and within a couple of years the trees were dead. From first glance at the woods, you'de have thought it was burnt by a wildfire in spring. That happens alot around here, but no, the cattle tore the ground up and killed the feeder roots and  alot of things Ron mentioned. I'de never run cattle in my woods. Nor would I burn my good pasture land every spring, runs the ground out and promotes weeds while killing the good feed. Now if you just have 3 or 4 cows, that's not a big impact on 50 acres for example. But I've still noticed under 'cow shades' you'll end up with roots of your spruce up on top of the ground because the cattle tramped it up. And your spruce will have the lovely red or butt rot.