Logging down to 12'' DBH verses 16'' DBH

[Rod]

I was wondering how much more you could get out if you cut down to 12'' DBH.I've noticed that the logging going on around here looks like their cutting down to 12'' DBH how.Not all are but most are.I drove by the sawmill and it looked like they had a lot of about 10'' logs in there yard.Alot of Beech also.

I figure that this is a question that really can't be anwered without a timber ciruse.But I'm just guessing I'd say they would get about twice as much timber out.

[tnlogger]

 Rod yes they would get more logs cutting that small but at what cost thaink of how long it will be before there can be another harvest on a track cut that close.
a 10" log 16ft log has 36 board feet in it doyle scale thats almost 28 logs to the thousand. as beach is a low grade log at least here in tenn they bring 120 to 150 dollers a thousand. i dont see the economics in doing it .
now i'm one that looks to the future if they are heathy trees i would wait and havest when you can get more return on your money
just my 2cents i might be wrong 

[Rod]

Logger,I should of said that there where 10''x16' Oaks in the yard and the Beechs were 16'' and up and about 9' long.Also the logging here is on steep about 60 deg mountains that are about 800 feet tall.I seen one log job that looked like they almost clear cut it.Maybe the price is up and their getting the logs out while they getting is good.But I don't know that for sure.

[Jeff]

That sounds like diameter limit cutting. In my mind thats the same as high grading and poor management if you are talking hardwoods.

If there was a lot of beech, maybe thats a good sign, and they were harvesting and thinning the less valuable trees

[Ron Scott]

Diameter limit cutting in hardwoods is usually destructive, no matter what diameter is chosen.  :'( Why? Because it degrades the stand of timber. Stands cut in this manner require several decades to heal.

Tree diameter is only one indication of whether the tree should be harvested. Instead practice "true" selection by working in "all" diameter classes and "cut the worst first.

Diameter limit cutting, or simply "cutting the best and leaving the rest", is not sound forestry. Unfortunately it is still being conducted on some properties yet today.  :P

[tnlogger]

ron here in tenn just about all the private land is high graded it just makes me sick. but
then alot of it is the land owners down here put up with it because of the stumpage they just dont realise or dont care about down the road. Thats why my son has so much to do now its the tracks i cut 15 yrs ago.

[Ron Scott]

Yes the selection method of harvesting is often misapplied in practice by loggers and landowners who have not had formal training in unevenaged forest silviculture.

The selection method aims to develop a stand with a range of tree-age classes from saplings to mature trees, that will sustain the stand indefinitely.

The selection method of harvesting is "not" High-Grading, Diameter Limit Cutting, or Mature Tree Removal that are often performed in privately-owned hardwood stands by misinformed landowners and operators. :P

[SwampDonkey]

Yup, and it's hard to convince the owner to do anything different when there are only $$ in his eyes.  :-\  :( Most of the folks I've seen profiled in magazines who don't high grade usually work their own ground and/or have a more long term philosophy toward uneven-aged management. Some of them same folks don't even qualify for subsidies in stands with low recoveries, but get selected as 'Woodlot Owner of the Year' because they use best management practices and receive incentives from our woodlot owner organizations (procedes come from private wood sales %). ;D

[Brad_S.]

I think, in some cases, a contributing factor is also logger (and landowner) ignorance of what logs really yield at the mill as far as quality is concerned.
I once had a logger ask me why I didn't want logs under14". He stuck around while I cut one 17" log and one of his 10" logs. To my surprise, he was truly shocked when he saw how little quality lumber came out of the 10" log as compared to the 17".

[Ron Wenrich]

Add to that the production costs.  Since the foresters started marking smaller wood, the log size has gone down.  "Mature" seems to be a state of mind.  My worst days are sawing small diameter locust.  All you do is turn with little production.

With lower production, your cost/Mbf goes up, which means your profit goes down.  If mills would do a sawmill analysis, they wouldn't even run those small logs across their headblocks.  You take a loss for every one of those logs.  Saw too many of them and you're out of business. 

Scragg mills are a good alternative for small log production.

[SwampDonkey]

Logs I've seen at some mills around here do well to average 12 inches. Those 17 inchers are hollow or large dark heart up here. I do know that any mill would prefer those larger logs to the 10 inch stock, but they can be scarce at times. There may be more choice from crown lands because of volume of wood, but the average run of wood is no better than off private land. This is why we need a good hardwood pulp market or what good hardwood stands we have left will be high graded even further.

cheers

[Rod]

we have and OSB plant at Flatwoods and in Mount Hope that are paying about $30 a ton now for junk trees which comes out to about $600 a load.Their are also some Scragg Mills for the samller logs.I'd say the loggers around here high grade.The companies most of the time will tell the logger to cut eveything down to either 12'' or 16''.The only thing they don't cut  most of the time is the Hemlock.

I think it all comes down to is if they can make any money on what ever their doing at the time.Theirs alot of grovement taxes that have to be paid on the land and on the trees when you cut them.We have 6% severance tax now to help pay for workmans compassion fund. Also employer pays 52% for each emploee to the workmans compassion.And to be a logger here the grovemet checks to see if you have been paying all your taxes.If not they take your logging license away..

[jrdwyer]

I looked at some data from a timber sale done for a client a while back to help answer your question. The purpose of this sale was to sell all merchantable timber except pulpwood sized trees (granted, some of the crooked 12-14" trees probably ended up in pulpwood). The land was sold following the timber sale. Here are the results:

Location: western KY, Species: mostly white oak, red oak, and hickory, Tree Ages: 60-70 years, Site Index: 75-80 for oak, very average for the area.

Total volume per acre (12"+ DBH): 3,800 bf (All Doyle measurements)
Volume/Acre in 12" DBH class: 300 bf or 8% of total
Value per acre in 12" DBH class: 3% of total (estimation based on grade)
Vol/Ac in 14" class: 760 bf or 20% of total
Value per acre in 14" DBH class: 9% of total (estimation based on grade)

So, you are getting maybe 10-12% more return from your timber sale but you are seriously degrading the future composition and value of the stand.  Instead of being able to have another selective timber harvest in 15-20 years (as what might occur with light selective harvesting), you are now setting the next harvest back for 30-40 years. Depending on site and species, tree under 22"-24"DBH are not financially mature. Plus, you are not really doing any management to improve the quality or composition of the forest over time. Before you call me a hypocrite, I explain this to all my clients before carrying out their wishes.

There can be circumstances where a true clearcut, or a 12" diameter limit if a clearcut is commercially impossible, is the best management for some hardwood stands. For example, a woods with a history of hot fires burning through it where all the merchantable trees have basal defects (more common than you think). Or flooded bottomland hardwoods with basal defects and no regeneration due a combination of heavy shade and periodic flooding.  Or high quality sites where oak regeneration is very poor due to competition and the landowner's objective is maintaing an oak overstory. Here, light selective harvesting would reduce the quantity of oak in the stand over time and favor more shade tolerant species like sugar maple (considering the current price for hard maple, maybe not that bad). Anyway, each stand of trees should be examined separately and management carried out based on both the forest compostion and the landowner's objectives.

[Wudman]

One of the often overlooked issues with "diameter limit cuts" is the change of species composition over time.  Most uneducated landowners have no idea what they are doing to their forests.  What they see is, "I'm cutting the big trees and letting the little ones grow".  

As a forester, I see my primary duty as identifying all options and explaining the benefit / cost of each.  Give the landowner the facts, and then let them make the decision.

I worked with a landowner a while back that was interested in a "14" diameter limit cut".  He stated that his father had done one years previously and it turned out well.  It was a very nice stand of predominantly oak and yellow poplar.  I explained some of the issues involved and asked him to go with me to take a few plots.  I got him to help me lay out two 1/5 acre plots in the stand.  We tallied the trees on those two plots and took a look at what a diameter cut would do.  At a 14" break point, we would have taken every white oak (Q. alba), every poplar, and only left a couple of southern red oaks.  The residual stand would have consisted of red maple, sourwood, chestnut oak, and a few sweet gums.  That brief exercise was an eye opener for the landowner.

[Rod]

Looks like the foresters look at improving the forest while alot of landoweners are looking at how much money they can make off the forest.

[jrdwyer]

Yes, very true. I would say only a small percentage of the landowners I work with are motivated to invest anything into their forest. It is easy to help someone make money with a timber sale, but hard to convince them to do TSI afterwards at a cost to them. Why not just force the timber buyer/logger to carryout the TSI when the marked timber is being cut? Well, then I have to explain to the landowner why I have no bids on the timber or subtantially lower bids.  In most cases, my contribution to good forest management  is when I convince the landowner not to cut any trees yet because they are too small or at least cut less than they orginally planned. I am very happy to work with a landowner who say upfront, "we will be doing TSI after the selective harvest."

One thing you mentioned about the timber harvests in your area was the topography. My area has gentle topography and when it's steep the hills are not that big. I know it is easier to do light selective cuts on gentle terrain. I am curious if others out there have had success with light selective harvests removing 1000-2000 bf/acre in a 4000-7000 bf/acre forest in places like West Virginia or eastern TN or western NC? I assume it would be difficult not to damage the residual stand on really steep terrain.

[tnlogger]

jrdwyer  You do losse some residual loss on the steep hill sises but not ash much as you would think. i logged at track for a menonite freids of ours that was 40% grade to the top. It was 600yards to the crest 1/2 nile in lenth on both sides of the hallowwitch was plowed corn feild up to the trees. I slit the length and made a trail straight to the top.
er then made a terris the length at 350'  intervals to the top.by falls doqn the hill and draging bucked logs to the terris there was very little damage.
when we finished the job i went back tied the terris togather for water control
This is one of the tracks paul will havest again this summer.If the weather holds i'm going
with him to look at it. if i rember to take the camra i'll get some pics

[jrdwyer]

Tnlogger, glad to hear you can make it work on those steep slopes. Please post some pictures if you get the chance. With 40% slopes, you must be using a dozer to pull the logs?