Author Topic: Cords in a patch of Aspen (Read 1275 times)

Gary_C · « **on:** January 17, 2011, 02:46:58 am »

How many cords in a small patch of Aspen with 8-11 inch DBH and 6-100" sticks? About thirty five trees.

northwoods1 · « **Reply #1 on:** January 17, 2011, 07:43:53 am »

Quote from: Gary_C on January 17, 2011, 02:46:58 am

How many cords in a small patch of Aspen with 8-11 inch DBH and 6-100" sticks? About thirty five trees.

I'd say about 5 cords give or take. it's pretty small.

Rick Alger · « **Reply #2 on:** January 17, 2011, 08:24:03 am »

Is this a trick question?

Ten inch avg dbh hardwood around here runs about 6 trees to the cord if the trees are reasonably tall and sound. So the hypothetical answer is about 6 cd.

ahlkey · « **Reply #3 on:** January 17, 2011, 10:11:21 am »

It doubful that you will get six straight logs per tree but overall it you could average six straight logs that would be about 7 cords. If you go to the toolbox and do an average of 9.5 inches per log and then divide by 4600 lbs per cord you will get about the same.

SwampDonkey · « **Reply #4 on:** January 17, 2011, 10:40:36 am »

About 4 cords based on NB Standard Volume Tables. If they average 10" they are 0.224 m³/tree. x 35 trees x 0.484 cord/m³ in 8' lengths. The conversion factor to cords varies by length of product and Sw vs Hw/Pop. This estimate is for trees a little better than average site index.

6 - 100" bolts isn't at all hard to come by in aspen, it grows about 80 feet here and 6 bolts is only 50 feet. Even if it wasn't the best site and it reached 65 feet, that leaves a 15 foot top. I don't think Gary is implying they are all veneer grade sticks.

Is this a 1/4 acre area Gary? I ran it through by acreage and by single tree, comes out about the same.

Jeff · « **Reply #5 on:** January 17, 2011, 12:28:43 pm »

In good aspen you can easily get 6 logs. When I was out in the woods running slasher many times it was 8 sticks and a top to toss over to the chipper.

Gary_C · « **Reply #6 on:** January 17, 2011, 12:35:28 pm »

This is to keep the state honest, which they are not.

I am cutting a small state job that I've owned for about five years but could not get quota to cut and sell. I've known it was a bad job and would have forfeted my 15% down payment and walked away, but some years ago before the bottom fell out I was going to cut it and put a bond on it along with some other jobs and now they will not let me out and would have to pay the full amount if I walked. So I started cutting it.

But their estimates of volume were fictional and the job will be short in every species. So I complained and they said too bad, the job was sold as appraised. The aspen on the whole job was estimated at 60 cords and there was probably 40-45 cords there. So as I was searching for all the aspen on the job, I found this small patch that should have been included in the sale but for some reason is outside the sale boundary and not marked. So trying to be honest, I asked if I could cut this patch and the answer was no. And the only way was if it was added to the contract as additional wood and pay the inflated price on the contract, even if the contract was short.

So the forester is supposed to come out and give an estimate and I will decide if they have learned how to estimate volumes. I have heard from a couple of sources that even their estimates of volume on scaled sales are coming up as much as 40 % short.

SwampDonkey · « **Reply #7 on:** January 17, 2011, 01:21:16 pm »

I know what your running into Gary and I have proven to myself the cruise they gave my boss was fiction on one job I was involved with in marking trails. The wood was 4-5" dbh and nothing taller than 30 feet. So you may get a 16 foot log, since they took the top diameter down to 2.5". Some trees were only 3" and very, very few 6" or 7". It had only been spaced with brush saw 11 years before. Well I have a woodlot I spaced some 5 years ago and the spacing was 1000-1200 trees/acre. There's only 2.5 cord per acre and that's fibre not anything to run through a sawmill. Anyone think another 5-6 years is going to yield 36 cord/acre?

Some fellas think we are in the tropics or something when they give you a figure off the top of their head for annual volume growth per acre. It just baffles someone that knows a little bit of something to start with.

Gary, I think I would sue them for something. Like false representation of crop yield (which no insurance company will insure), unprofessional conduct of an RPF representing a state agency.......Must be something.

I've had to recruise a few woodlot sales I looked after for woodlot owners. The first cruises you could say with certainty they were windshield cruises.

Gary_C · « **Reply #8 on:** January 17, 2011, 01:39:34 pm »

These are state employed foresters which makes it worse. If you can't trust the state, who can you trust?

I think what the problem is with the state is they have some computer program they require the foresters to enter their cruise numbers into for volumes and somebody in the main office has been fiddling with the tables to make it look like they are selling more wood than is there. Then they just blame the shortages on logger theft.

And there is absolutely no oversight of them other than the courts and that is so expensive that you cannot go there.

SwampDonkey · « **Reply #9 on:** January 17, 2011, 01:42:37 pm »

File a complaint with their association. If there is no peer review, then the association is useless.

Clark · « **Reply #10 on:** January 17, 2011, 05:16:13 pm »

Sue the state!

Let's be honest, that is typically a losing proposition. I'm doubting there is any way to get out of this one without taking it on the chin. The only lesson, which I'm sure you know, is to know who cruised the timber, especially on lump sum sales.

I was unaware that the state did many lump sum sales, was this an exception or have I missed this aspect of their operation?

Clark

SwampDonkey · « **Reply #11 on:** January 17, 2011, 05:26:00 pm »

One thing I know I'd be doing is my own estimations before my dollars are on the table.

One thing is for sure, they must need money and why they get off taking it off the back of a guy doing the work is a mystery. Another certainty is, they won't be working any saws.

Gary_C · « **Reply #12 on:** January 17, 2011, 07:54:50 pm »

Clark, it's hit and miss on sold as appraised sales. Years ago I did a scaled sale on a hardwood thinning and it was a nightmare, partly because of the anal forester. At first he wanted two days notice on scaling requests and then tried to limit them to two on the entire sale. That was the last scaled hardwood thinning I've done.

And the last couple of sold as appraised sales were marked and run by a real good forester that you could bank on having the appraised amount to 15 % over. And that forester was forced to put his name on this sale though someone from the main office in St. Paul did the marking and cruising.

I think the problem got bad some years ago when a appointed DNR Commissioner who was basically an accountant decided that allowing up to 15 % extra wood on sold as appraised sales was giving state property away and demanded the practice be stopped. Since then most loggers refuse to buy sold as appraised sales because they come up short.

But lately even the scaled sales are coming up short by as much as 40 %. Technically it does not make any difference as you pay for what you get, but when you buy a thousand cord sale expecting to be busy for some time and you end up without anything to cut for some time when the estimate is short, it sure can screw up your plans.

I don't have much choice but to take this one in the shorts, but I may just tell them to keep that little patch if they come up with another phoney scale estimate.

Ron Scott · « **Reply #13 on:** January 18, 2011, 06:50:37 pm »

It appears that it may be time for the Minnesota Loggers Association to schedule a meeting with the State's Forest Managers to discuss the issue and concerns of the State's appraisals and payment procedures on State timber sales.

chucker · « **Reply #14 on:** January 18, 2011, 08:05:59 pm »

4.5cords with out guessing that your taking them tops down to 3.5" on a 100" stick... good luck with the mndnr forestery dept!!!!

Gary_C · « **Reply #15 on:** January 19, 2011, 07:51:06 pm »

This is not going well. The forester finally came out today. He made a quick walk through and came back and said he had to go back to the office to get the final numbers. When I pressed him for an estimate he said there were 70 trees and they were as much as 8 sticks per tree. Then he was multiplying by by some factor and sticks per tree and dividing by 2 and said there were 2 cords per tree.

He said that didn't seem right so he was going to use another table he had back in the office.

Buy the time he gets done screwing around I will be out of there and on to the next job. I've lost enough on this disaster of a job.

Ron I wish there was some organization that could have a voice to keep this MN DNR from being so arrogant and independent but sadly none exists. Even members of the legislature get totally frustrated with them as I found some years ago. They only follow their own rules when they want to and there is little anyone can do. Absolutely no oversight other than the courts and that's too expensive and time consuming for these small disputes. What I think these large loggers do is just make their own rules and the DNR can't catch them or stop them. The rest of us just have to take some jobs like this on the chin and move on.

SwampDonkey · « **Reply #16 on:** January 19, 2011, 08:27:43 pm »

Sounds interesting Gary. You guys need a new chief out there.

I don't think he needs a table, I think he needs some experience. Doubled the tree count and then them 35 trees have as much volume as 5 acres of fully stocked mature land, with the 2 cord per tree figure on 70 of'm.

banksiana · « **Reply #17 on:** January 20, 2011, 01:32:45 pm »

At .12 cords per tree, 35 trees would be 4.2 cords. Sounds like a green forester, impressionable so you can straighten him out for everyone after this.

Ron Scott · « **Reply #18 on:** January 20, 2011, 04:16:07 pm »

He really shouldn't be in the woods yet estimating volumes.

Gary, doesn't the State have an experienced check cruiser that can be called out to check the volumes being offered and to determine if the foresters are making correct estimations of the timber volumes sold and to also settle volume disputes?

Gary_C · « **Reply #19 on:** January 20, 2011, 11:07:02 pm »

Ron they do have a scale expert in the Grand Rapids, MN office if they haven't put him out to pasture yet, but he only gets called out for special jobs and this is too small a job for him to get involved. The new guy did call late today with an estimate of 11.5 cords for the 70 trees. I did take a quick walk thru and did count about 65 trees.

I am not sure if I will pay for these extra trees when the original sold as appraised sale is going to be about 10 cords short and they still say I will have to pay extra for these trees just outside the boundary that should have been included but were left out. There is nothing behind them and they want them out of there but are unwilling to add them without me paying an additional $29 per cord.

I could demand they reappraise the sale and if the actual comes up 10 % or more short they will have to reduce the price. But they also threaten that if it is not at least 10 % short, I will have to pay for their rescale. And I can't trust their scale so I am sure they will claim there was enough there. I believe they will reappraise based on stumps and estimated heights even though I have scale tickets from the mills for everything. But of course they will claim that I have not produced all the tickets.

So I will probably tell them to shove those extra trees and move on. I've got 570 cords of aspen on another sale that needs to be cut yet before breakup.

News:

Author Topic: Cords in a patch of Aspen (Read 1275 times)