iDRY Vacuum Kilns

Sponsors:

Scale system change pending?

Started by Engineer, December 23, 2005, 05:15:02 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Engineer

Was talkin' to a professional forester today, a friend of mine who is part of a decent-sized local sawmill operation.  He runs an old Corley circular rig, and has been trying very hard to convince the owner to upgrade to a double-cut bandsaw headrig.

He told me that some of the loggers are getting upset because they are being paid based on scale for a full kerf, and then the logs go to a mill that runs a band headrig and they get 10-15% more volume out of the log.   He has apparently heard of a change in the scale used, or the way logs are scaled, that will allow the extra volume depending on how the logs will be cut.

Any truth to this?  I know I'm always happy to get logs at a standard scale and then get another 10-15% because I use a band blade.  I know if the scale changes, it will make the loggers happy, and maybe the timber owners, but certainly not the mills.

SwampDonkey

Using the NB rule and the Bangor rule already yields more in scale than Doyle. Some might say we make up for the difference in price. From what I see posted in some US states using Doyle I don't think our price is all that out of line. What I find making a bigger difference is how full the mill yard is when the buyer comes around. The smaller the log pile the less harsh they are on specs and defect calls. ;D
"No amount of belief makes something a fact." James Randi

1 Thessalonians 5:21

2020 Polaris Ranger 570 to forward firewood, Husqvarna 555 XT Pro, Stihl FS560 clearing saw and continuously thinning my ground, on the side. Grow them trees. (((o)))

David_c

In the northern logger for several months there was a heated debate about changing the way logs are scaled. It seems to me to be a moot point. The way I see it is the mills are paying what there paying for the wood if you change the way it is scaled I just see price per Thousand going down so we would still be getting same money for that load. It would just be figuired differant. But I am all for it if it meens I will make more. If not then leave it be.

WH_Conley

Kinda sounds like the "upto" logdswe had a couple years ago. Cherry, utpo, 6.00mbf, asked him how many he that made it that far. Answer= 1.

It get down to how bad they need the logs, like SD and David have said.

Had a local logger, who is a friend of mine wants to take his logs to a mill that pays more for poplar,  verses another mill the other directrion that pays less per MBF. One load, he tells me the money is better per load at the cheaper mill, three months  later it still is.

The most high dollar load of logs I have ever sold I do not know how many MBF were on that load. All I know is that the money was right.
Bill

extrapolate85

There have been some organized attempts to change the way that logs are scaled, but none have made it very far (see the following link for more information: http://www.woodlandowners.org/NCWM%20Scaling%20Memo%20to%20Committees.htm ). All of the BF rules are arbitrary. Whether you buy logs by the ton, Doyle, Scribner or Cubic, the mill will pay what the market dictates for a load of logs.

That said, with the exception of the two variations of Scribner, the BF rules are not so complicated to quantify, and even the notorious Doyle rule which seriously understates the typical recovered volume of small logs gives volume relationships by diameter that closely match monetary values relative to a big log, e.g., the understatement of recovered volume for small logs is fairly relative to the reduced value owing to higher manufacturing costs, narrower lumber and the general trend of lower grade lumber from smaller/younger logs.

Scribner is the most inaccurate and inconsistent of the BF rules; a "40' - 5" - butt-cut scales 40 bf in our region. If you cut 8' off of the top and throw that 8' hunk in the slash-pile (so now it is a 32'-6"-butt) it scales 50 bf, if you haul in both pieces you have 60 bf. A 16' - 4.5" - 5.5" log scales 20 bf; so does a 20' - 6.4" - 9.5", even though the first log will actually yield about 15 bf of lumber and the second log will yield about 54 bf in a mill cutting dimension.

In the end, cubic is the best way to measure log volume and predict recovery. After many years, industry/agency meetings, expensive software programming, and extensive scaler/cruiser training, The USFS put out the USFS Cubic Handbook (which can be downloaded from: http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/Directives/get_directives/fsh?2409.11a ). However, the outcome in our region (Western US) was that the USFS leadership in Regions 5, 6, and 10 (all of the Pacific coast states), threw in the towel on their cubic programme and went back to Scribner - what a pity and lack of leadership. Hopefully, the industry in the US will someday come to its senses and follow the examples of every other country in the world (including the third world). Anyone interested in learning more about log scaling can go to: www.roundwood-measure.com to find out more information about log scaling.

Ron Wenrich

How many of these loggers complain about getting an overrun from tree scale to log scale?  I had one logger complain because he didn't get a 30% overrun.  That's what he gets from his tree scale.

A log is worth just so much money.  Scale it any way you want, it will still come up being worth the same.
Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Cedarman

All scales and measuring systems have quirks.  Scale the logs or weigh the logs. Both have problems. 
The important thing is understand the way things are measured, how they are valued and react accordingly.

When I buy a stand of cedar that has been scaled, I go in and do my own scaling.  I know what I will saw out using my own scaling method. By comparing the other persons scaling to my own, I now know the fudge factor and can bid accordingly.

I personally would like to see them get rid of the Doyle system because of the heavy penalty on smaller logs.  I would rather see an accurate measuring system and a price system that reflects the value of the different sized logs. Probably would make the same per load of logs. But I would feel differently about the whole thing.  And that is the reason for the disgruntled loggers IMHO.
I am in the pink when sawing cedar.

SwampDonkey

Quote from: Cedarman on December 24, 2005, 08:19:25 AM
I would rather see an accurate measuring system and a price system that reflects the value of the different sized logs. Probably would make the same per load of logs. But I would feel differently about the whole thing.  And that is the reason for the disgruntled loggers IMHO.

That's the system we use up here. One local mill is paying about $540/th for maple grade 2 logs with min 8" top, between 6'-4" and 8'-4". And $391/th for maple shorts 3'-6" to 6'-4". Another local mill is paying $275/th. for 8'-4". Where will you take your wood? The difference is that the one paying more is that they use small pieces in their engeneered products. The other mill isn't value added beyond the lumber. They both use the same scale and it's scaled by marketing board staff.

"No amount of belief makes something a fact." James Randi

1 Thessalonians 5:21

2020 Polaris Ranger 570 to forward firewood, Husqvarna 555 XT Pro, Stihl FS560 clearing saw and continuously thinning my ground, on the side. Grow them trees. (((o)))

Mr Mom

    What would be the best way to scale a log in everyones opion. anyone can answer this Question.

Ron Wenrich

Personally, I don't have any problem with the Doyle scale.  It doesn't reward the small log, which helps keep some of that growing stock in the woods instead of the log pile. 

I don't like log weights.  I see too much variation in weights from time of year to the density of wood.  Slow growing wood weighs more than fast growing wood.

Cubic volume is probably a better form of measurement.  Recovery is figured in at a lumber recovery factor or LRF.  That figure is differs as the logs get bigger and the cutting pattern changes.  So, I imagine there would be different prices for different sizes of logs, just like we have right now.  I think you would still need different types of grades.

Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

beenthere

I'd say listen to what Ron W keeps saying.
Learning the system is the key, not changing the system to something 'we would like', as then the 'best way' would just be everyone's individual idea (and likely an opinion as to get more for the log, or from the log, than less. The book "Collection of Log Rules" by Frank Freese lists many of the log rules that have been 'invented' over the years, probably all developed with the intent to do a better job of estimating the yield of a log. In that book they are all compared to the International rule.
International is the closest to what the log will yield 'if' that is the information that you want to know. There is an International 1/4" rule for 1/4" kerf, as well as an International 1/8" rule for 1/8" kerf. If the buyer of your logs is using Doyle, then scale them both ways and know both answers. Along with getting the gross scale, learning the scale-reducing deductions is probably most important. How much to reduce the scale for sweep, crook, rot, etc. and how subjective it can be is important when 'trading' in logs.

Knowing what one's overrun (or underrun) is when logs are sawn is important too. Some like this information, and some do not want to know.  Overrun is comparing the total sawn lumber-yield with the estimated net scale of the log.  Overrun is the bonus for doing an extra careful and better job sawing a log.  Just my take on the subject along with the good discussion going here.

south central Wisconsin
It may be that my sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others

Ron Wenrich

You've touched on one of the things that is my biggest complaints about loggers and bucking.  Sweep and crook.  Those two things will rob a log of more volume and value than any other defect.  And, in many cases, they can be bucked out by a good log bucker.

When I was scaling and grading logs, I would not give a log with sweep or crook any better than a #2 grade, no matter the length.  Only 2 sides will yield good lumber on the log.   The other sides will have pith in the boards, that will deduct the lumber grade.  And when it dries, the lumber just isn't worth much.  Give me a crooked log, and I'll give you crooked lumber.

I would also bust a crooked log in volume.  There is absolutely no way to take the crook or sweep out of logs using tapers.  I've tried it on literally thousands of logs, probably tens of thousands of logs..  It just doesn't work.  You will lose grade and volume.

Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Cedarman

Some band mills use curve sawing technology to get lots of good lumber out of logs with sweep. But that type of sawing is not that common in these parts.

Log buckers should have to watch those crooked logs go through the mill and look at the results.  If they know they are getting a big deduct on those curved logs, why do it. Cause they are paid by the hour and it costs them nothing.

When I start culling those crooked logs, and it comes out of the loggers paycheck, the loggers take notice. The guy cashing the check should be doing the bucking if he wants to get the best return.

I do not think the Doyle scale saves any small trees whatsoever. Small hardwood trees are sold as pulp or pallet wood by the ton.  It sends some nice logs to the wrong place.  Also they leave some good wood in the top of the tree because it is too small.

Also, in our area they measure pine on the Doyle scale.  A lot of pine is left in the woods even though a lot of fine lumber can be gotten from it.  An end dogging scragg like ours can go through a 6 through 12" log every 30 seconds to a minute. 


The mills in our area that have their own logging crews bring in those small logs. That speaks volumes about our local scaling system.

The Doyle scale has outlived its usefullness. IMHO
I am in the pink when sawing cedar.

beenthere

QuoteThat speaks volumes about our local scaling system.

What is your local scaling system? Sounds like Doyle isn't any problem for you, and in fact may be helping you get the size logs you want because you pay for more volume in the smaller logs.  I looked back but didn't find where you mentioned your own local scaling system. Just curious.
south central Wisconsin
It may be that my sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others

Cedarman

The mills in our area either buy by the Doyle scale or buy pulp and pallet wood by the ton. 

Our cedar mill uses the cedar scale which is fairly close to the International scale I hear.  Our average log size is 7 inches. We will even saw a big 4" log.  Can get a 3 1/2 x 3 1/2 out of 4 3/4" log. Some hardwood mills try to buy cedar on Doyle scale which is a huge rip off to the logger. Cedar has the best grade of lumber in the middle of the log, just the opposite of hardwood.  Also small logs tend to have less defect than big huge logs.
We usually saw about 20 per cent over even using the cedar scale.  One reason is that cedar has an average 1 1/2" taper per 8 foot.  We also buy by the ton.
I am in the pink when sawing cedar.

Frank_Pender

With the cubic being thrown into the slash pile, many different levels lose, schools, counties, taxpayers, loggers, truckers, small woodland owners.   Only the big boys win.  The mill here in Dallas, Oregon at one time, just a few years ago, was the most efficient sawmill in the world.  The overrun was in excess of 200%.  The mill was the founding site of Willamette Industries, who has since be force into selling to someone else, Nowayhouser. >:(
Frank Pender

extrapolate85

With all due respect to those that like their respective BF scaling methods, once you get accustomed to cubic you will never be able to find much use in any of the BF methods. If you agree that the desired purpose of any method of log scaling is to give accurate, consistent and relative scale through which one is able to measure volume (and thus value), predict product output (all products), establish accurate inventory and usage numbers, and convert fairly accurately from weight and stacked measure, then cubic is the only way to go.

The reason that many logging contractors and timber owners feel that something is "below board" about log scale is that the BF rule is difficult to figure out. The timber owner may only sell logs one time in his/her life (when they cut the back 40 to pay for their child's college tuition, etc.) and they are not going to know what to expect; even seasoned logging contractors and foresters often don't. I have been working with log scale for 28 years and I can tell you that when log scales have a high degree of variability in their inherent ability to predict value (like the BF rules and Scribner in particular), the risk factor goes up. Moreover, who is it that can absorb the most risk - not the little folks? With cubic, you have all the same safeguards as the BF; you cull logs that are not merchantable, you deduct for rot, sweep, shake, etc., but the difference is that you know what you have and what you will likely get regardless of whether you are chipping the logs, peeling them or sawing them into lumber.

I will leave you with a couple of hypothetical examples (and would love to see if anybody wants to take a stab at the answers):

1. A timber owner in Washington state is offered four prices for logs (DF that average 17" dbh) on truck at the landing (the haul differential is already figured in and all of the mills have a 5.5" minimum top). Mill "A" West of the Cascades is offering $ 650/m (long log Scribner) but 60%+ must be cut the 41' preferred length; mill "B" also west of the Cascades and long log Scribner is offering $595/m, but any two foot multiple between 10-40' is fine; Mill "C" East of the Cascades is offering $540/m (short log Scribner, same specs as mill "B"); and mill "D" in Northern Idaho (non-revised short log Scribner is offering $ 550/m. All of the above mills are using certified scalers and the USFS scaling rules for their respective regions; anybody have any idea what is the best transaction?

2. Similar scenario as the above, except the timber owner is in Georgia, the timber is loblolly pine, the average DBH is 14", all of the mills have a 7.5"minimum top (8" scaling class) inside bark. Mill "E" is offering $500/m Doyle (same spec as mill "E"); mill "F" is offering $53/ton; mill "G" is offering $260/m (international 1/4") - which is the better deal? For a bonus question; you have a choice to sort and haul both mills "E and "F" (we will leave mill "G" out of this scenario), if you choose to do this, what would be the approximate minimum top size that you would sort to mill "E" before taking the smaller logs to mill "F"?

These are the type of questions that people are faced with everyday, and finding the right answers even when you work with these issues everyday is not easy.


   


Frank_Pender

Frank Pender

RMay

S






scenario 2 $53.00 per ton would be $190 per m. in lumber scale.

Doyle would be $300 per m. in lumber scale
International would be $234 in lumber scale ::)









RMay in Okolona Arkansas  Sawing since 2001 with a 2012 Wood-Miser LT40HDSD35-RA  with Command Control and Accuset .

Ernie_Edwards

My lack of experience and just being a hobbiest has me totally overwhelmed by this discussion.

I was fortunate to win the new scale of my choice from LogRite and don't know what to ask for.

I have a small home made mill that I use mainly for personal use and am building a small inventory of lumber for projects around here. Pine, oak, maple, ash, walnut, cherry, beech, poplar and hemlock.

Never do a log under 10" small end or over 30". Usually 10'-12' logs but max out at 16'6'' logs.

Now I want to keep this fun, and can add fun to it by scaling a log and then seeing what I actually get.

Please keep it simple for this newbie, what scale should I ask for from the good folks at LogRite?

Thanks

Jeff

Ernie, the international 1/4 scale is the most accurate for what you will be doing. If you are sawing with a bandsaw, the international 1/8 scale would be even better, but I dont know if Kevin has the 1/8 in production or not.
Just call me the midget doctor.
Forestry Forum Founder and Chief Cook and Bottle Washer.

Commercial circle sawmill sawyer in a past life for 25yrs.
Ezekiel 22:30

Ernie_Edwards

Jeff,

Thanks, I will go with the International and try the 1/8 if they have it.

You can always count on good info here.

jrdwyer

This is always a good topic.

For background, I sell all of the standing timber for my clients on the stump-lump sum. Usually, the buyer is a sawmill. They take their current green lumber prices and subtract the milling, logging, and hauling costs to come up with a bid. With this system, issues such as log rule (Doyle in this area) and scaling deductions are eliminated as the experienced buyer has generally figured these into his or her bid. Competition forces buyers to be agressive with their bids.

In order to reduce risk, the buyer is concerned with the accuracy, and more importantly, the consistancy of my standing timber estimates. Through experience and feedback from buyers, I know that for 100% mark and measure sales, my estimates will be very close to Doyle log scale for very heavy cuts and 10-15% conservative for light selective cuts of larger hardwood timber. Other consultants in the region are more conservative and can be 20-30% under log scale. The buyers quickly learn each consultants style. Finally, there are mills in my area with their own logging crews that don't even scale logs because the employees are not paid on a board foot basis. They just get the acres per day cut or loads per day hauled and are super efficient.

I believe the market can and does work for both landowners and loggers as long as there is competition between buyers for the trees and/or logs. In some areas and with some low quality timber, there isn't always competition for the resource. The landowner then has to accept reality or cancel the sale. Loggers have to accept lower prices or find better markets or go into sawmilling themselves.

The different specifications of various buyers does make it harder to compare apples to apples.  My gut feeling is that a slightly lower unit price, but with broader specifications, would yield the highest total return. It is too easy for buyers with tight specs. to reject material when cash gets tight. Of course, specifications always get easier when the log yard is empty.

As far as log rules, I would be in favor of refining the current system. A change to cubic feet or meter wouldn't affect me that much as I would still have to measure tree diameter and merchantable height for sawtimber. Most of the hardwood sawmills don't go much smaller than 10" on the small end for sawn products. The smaller trees/logs are chipped and sent to the pulp mill.


Thank You Sponsors!