iDRY Vacuum Kilns

Sponsors:

harvest,growth rates questions

Started by Greg, August 15, 2003, 03:17:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Greg

Hello all,

I was reading an article the other day from Ohio State Forestry Service that estimated forests in our state grew approx 2 times the amount of board feet than was harvested, from a period dating back to 1986. Sorry, the link escapes me.

(Similar studies and charts of western forests were throughout the issue of Evergreen magazine I received with my last Bailey's order...)

I found that harvest to growth ratio hard to believe, even though the source was seemingly very credible. This brings several questions to my mind.

a) How are these kinds of measurements, over a large geographical region, made. How accurate are they?

b) Is Ohio forest lands (seemingly far outproducing than harvesting) similar to other areas of eastern hardwood (or western softwood) forests or are we somehow exceptional?

c) If forest land is so productive these days with all the extra billions of board feet out there, and therefore is so much excess supply/inventory, why haven't prices gone way down for lumber + wood products?

Feel free to point me to other documentation on the subject you recommend. Cheers!
Greg

jimbo

 Greg     another question is how long will it be befor trees take out the state of Ohio ? just wondering                                            jimbo

beenthere

I've heard those figures (increasing volume of eastern hardwoods) for several years, and it is not just Ohio. Its contrary to the myth that the enviro's and media want the public to hear. While we have been told for the past 50 years that we are overcutting, the forests have been growing all along. I don't know where you read the figures, but they don't surprise me and I think they are accurate and true.  
Why then the high prices at the market? First, not really that high. But, possibly because the forest service cannot cut timber on FS lands (suits, etc. stop that) and the large private owners manage their private lands. Also, small private ownerships are known for not allowing their timber to be cut - so it keeps growing and growing and  ..... (I see the bunny?).   ;D
I also suspect the supply (US and imports) is keeping up with the demand in most situations. The species mix available for cutting will likely change, due to over-cutting some species and disease taking others out. Hopefully some of the diseases going through the forests today do not make some species scarce or extinct - such as elm and chestnut.
south central Wisconsin
It may be that my sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others

Greg


OneWithWood

It is true the volume of growth has increased when compared to the harvest for most species.  The catch is that the quality of that growth is not the same as the lumber harvested.  Also note that for three prime species, Beech, Red and White Oak, the harvest exceeds the growth.  So while Ohio is growing more fiber than is being harvested it is of lesser quality and desireability.  Good management practices by all woodland owners will hopefully reverse the trend.
One With Wood
LT40HDG25, Woodmizer DH4000 Kiln

Tom

Just remember that there is a difference between Environmentalists and Environmental Whacko's.  We have an abundance of Environmentalists today in the form of Foresters, Farmers and most loggers and other plant related occupations.  It takes a special kind of person to dedicate his life to the creation of a patch of vegetation for the betterment of the world and the use of generations to come.  Look at the tree plantations with a different eye the next time you take a trip down the road and think of the hard work that is going into it for the benefit of people who are not yet born.

The Wacko's can't and don't see that but you are a part of it.  Condemnation  and malicious criticizing of these efforts does no one any good.  We must stay on the positive side of the arguments and champion the good in what's being done rather than create an atmosphere of doomsday and negativity.

Mistakes will be made, but only those who are doing anything will make them. :)

beenthere

Tom
You said that well, and I agree. My "enviro" reference was meant for the "whacko" ilk, not the forester. The "-ologists" are, IMO, also the cause of many of our problems. Again, in my opinion. Can't paint the picture with a broad brush.

All is not "gloom and doom" with our forests. They need to be managed, but at the same time, they need to be used for wood and fiber. Letting it burn or rot because of lack of management for harvesting is not good for the environment, but the whacko's don't want to hear about it. IMO
south central Wisconsin
It may be that my sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others

Bro. Noble

That Tom is a smart one for sure.  Jeff says it's because he has such a long name,  but I counted the letters and there's just three in Tom :D  

I read the other day where some preliminary data is forthcoming on a study being done in Mo.  They are studying what comes back (and shat doesn't)------all types of plants and animals  after different types of timber harvesting methods.  It wasn't trying to prove any method was good or bad  I don't think,  just trying to see what takes place.  They sited some species of birds that don't come back after a clear cut,  but some appear that weren't there before.
milking and logging and sawing and milking

Frank_Pender

One of those  that likes to return to clear cuts is the Northern Spotted Owl.  It is easier pickings for the rodents who like to set on stumps. ;D
Frank Pender

Tom

Browsers like clear-cuts because of the edges and sprouts too, Frank.  That draws humans whereas most humans stay out of dense, old growth.  'Course Browsers stay out of Dense, old growth too.  Seems that an analogy would be living on the edge of a corn field rather than the middle of New York City. :D

Ron Wenrich

One thing to remember is that when trees pass from the pulpwood stage to sawtimber, you get some very biased numbers.

The numbers keep on saying that in PA we're growing our timber twice as fast as the harvest.  That may be right, but there are no logs in the logyards.  

I would like to see what the distribution is at various diameters.  If the resource is in 12" trees, it may take awhile before it is ready for the market.  Then, you would have growth greater than removals while the forest tries to catch up.
Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Greg

QuoteOne thing to remember is that when trees pass from the pulpwood stage to sawtimber, you get some very biased numbers.

The numbers keep on saying that in PA we're growing our timber twice as fast as the harvest.  That may be right, but there are no logs in the logyards.  

I would like to see what the distribution is at various diameters.  If the resource is in 12" trees, it may take awhile before it is ready for the market.  Then, you would have growth greater than removals while the forest tries to catch up.

Ron,

Here's another link from Ohio, comparing 1979 to 199 data.

These figures look positive too. Number of acres of mature trees, what they label poletimber and sawtimber, are increasing.

http://ohioline.osu.edu/forests/forst_5.html

I wonder why there is no data since 1991. The state budget situation sure isn't helping the forestry department...

Great discussion guys! Thanks,
Greg

Ron Wenrich

I don't think the state conducts the surveys.  They used to be done by the Forest Service.  Their reports are well worth the read.  They are supposed to be starting to do these every 5 years.  We haven't had one since 1989.

What they have on the web is just a glossing over of the real data.  They hit the highlights.  But, it still doesn't give a very good breakdown on the distribution by size class.  You may have a very young forest, which is what I suspect.

From the website, you can see they have 1 billion trees @ 5"+, which comes out to 127 trees/acre.  If these would be on a fully stocked stand (and not all are) with a BA of 100, then the average diameter would be about 12".  Not really big wood, and you would expect small trees to be putting on really good numbers.

You can also see that volumes for maple and poplar were much higher than the oaks.  During this time period, the maple and poplar markets were very soft.  Oaks were very hot.  A lot of cutting for the markets.
Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Wudman

Most of this type of data is collected from the "Forest Inventory Analysis" conducted by the US Forest Service.  The FIA is a systematic sample based on permanent fixed plots located throughout the United States.  The plots were originally intended to be measured every ten years (I think).  Here in Virginia, the Department of Forestry collects data on behalf of the USFS.  Virginia is releasing their 2001 data in a formal presentation in September.   Historically, data was collected to project timber inventories for the nation.  By using these permanent plots, land use patterns over time can also be tracked.  The plot that was forested in 1991 may be a Wal-Mart parking lot in 2001.  

I have seen some of the preliminary Virginia data.  We have experienced a net loss of forested acres within the state (no surprise there).  But on the remaining acreage, we have become better managers over time.  With more intensive silviculture, we are producing more wood on fewer acres.  On the pine side, growth and harvest (for Virginia) are about equal.  On the hardwood side, growth exceeds harvest.  Most of this hardwood growth is concentrated in the mountainous regions of the state, so much of it may be inaccessable or more difficult to access.  Stories may change as you get down to the local level, but the FIA data becomes less reliable as you deal with smaller areas (statistics at work here).  

Wudman  
"You may tear down statues and burn buildings but you can't kill the spirit of patriots and when they've had enough this madness will end."
Charlie Daniels
July 4, 2020 (2 days before his death)

SwampDonkey

HI:

A hole nest of issues come to mind.

We've been struggling to get a handle on wood supply and AAC in my province for years. Its hard to do the math since 38 % of the woodland is private, 12 % is industrial and 50 % is public. On private woodlots some wood have been exported through wood brokers. Some of which don't report wood volumes to marketing boards since they are liable to the local marketing boards for levy on the private wood. The reporting has not been enforced since 1992 when government took powers of negotiations away from private wood producers and also allowed wood brokers to start-up. These wood brokers contribute nothing to forest management, where as marketing boards and government do in the form of silviculture and education. In 2002, the government and marketing Boards implemented a wood tracking system with what's labeled the 'transportation certificate' to get  a handle on wood flows and try to calculate AAC. One loop whole in the system is that the US buyer is not required to report volumes to the marketing Board, its volentary. Wood products under 4 feet are not being reported, firewood for example. Also, some large brokers do not report their wood. Each load of wood is to have a certificate attached to it and returned with a scale to the Marketing Board. This in turn is reported to government monthly and annually. Truckers have been made responsible for this certificate system, since they move the wood. Some wood harvested by industry is reported late also, as government has reported that some companies are behind on wood royalty payments to the government. I suspect this may be due to weather conditions slowing harvest operations or sub-license holders are slow to report volumes harvested to Licensees.

What gets reported as productive forest land includes low productivity sites with little merchantable timber such as boglands, high elevation shrub, swamplands, boreal black spruce barrens, overmature cedar swamps etc. Take these areas from the equation and I bet you loose 10 % of the land base. But, at the same time we have been hearing from nay sayers for 30 years and we still harvest timber. Although, piece size and quality is reduced. But, just because trees are large doesn't neccessarily make them better either. I've read crown land reports from the 1920's that indicated that more wood was being lost to natural senesence, bugs and fire than was harvested. But, one could argue that government may have been pushing for the startup of the pulpwood industry. And this is simply an arguement to justify its existance.

Concerning hardwood, most sugar maple I've seen cut and bucked with diameters over 40 inches have heartwood mineralization going on. And short lived species like aspen and balsam fir are way past their prime at that size, usually making good culverts. A tree may look really nice standing there, but when bucked they reveal some hidden defects. Locally, at least 80% of the volume from hardwood stands is pulpwood. Even on well managed woodlots.

that's my penny's worth

regards
"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)))

crtreedude

I would think just measuring volume to be mis-leading. In my experience, trees will grow anywhere (my garden, my lawn, fields, etc.) with little or no help.  Leave a field alone for a small period of time, and you have trees starting to grow every where.

However, it is very possible those trees will not amount to much.  The value of the trees (from an economical point of view) is how it has grown.  One article that I read was pretty interesting on this.  It implied that we may be starting to enter into a different time - before lumber harvest was basicly similar to hunter / gather.  Now, it is may becoming more and more necessary to manage the trees - shoot, in Costa Rica, I even have to put up fences to keep them from running away. (just kidding, it is to keep the neighbors cattle out of the young trees.)

In Costa Rica, there is very little being harvested from the rainforest anymore - the forest are too valuable to tourism to waste on harvesting wood.  The money brought in from tree-huggers is much better than the money received from loggers. Costa Rica is actually having to import wood now because they do not have enough local. So is India by the way. Used to, the locals would just go into the nearest forest and wack down a tree and cut it up with something like an Alaskan saw.  Now they have to go to the local sawmill to get it.

Also, about 9 years ago, the government encouraged bunches of landowners to plant teak.  They did, and most of the stands are nearly worthless because of lack of management - well they still are valuable, but no where near as good as they might have been.

Of course, the problem with managed lots is that it cost money to manage them (don't I know it!) and you have to have the available capital to support the investment until it starts to return money. Thankfully, the time period before getting some harvest is much less in the tropics.

In tropical silviculture, you grow the trees close and prune them for the first 3 years so that a large percentage of the trees will be first grade - or better.  In nature, I would think you would have to have a mature forest to achieve something similar.  In a mature forest, the trees will compete against each other, causing the sapling to grow straight and tall quickly in order to get good sunlight.  I wonder what happens after a clear-cut?

As someone said, I wonder if what is happening is that we are slowly replacing quality stands of wood with weedy stands of wood. I once owned ten acres with a lot of black walnut and oak.  You would have thought it was a goldmine.  But the reality was it had been clearcut about 30 years before and almost all the trees were misshapen.  The value was to the wildlife, but the timber value was almost nil.  I suspect though that the local forestry people include it in their volume calculations. There was a lot of volume, but very little value. (The turkey's loved it and so did the deer)

Fred


So, how did I end up here anyway?

SwampDonkey



Black spruce boreal barren. Nothing but boulders, sand, moss and black spruce in stagnation. Picture taken in the Upper Graham Plains, home of the extinct New Brunswick woodland caribou herd. Near Serpentine Lake. This area was known for big game hunting (moose & caribou) in the late 19th and early 20th Century. What a horrible piece of forest to walk through. Thank goodness for forestry roads. ;)
"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)))

Max sawdust

Quote from: SwampDonkey on January 05, 2004, 05:01:46 PM
A tree may look really nice standing there, but when bucked they reveal some hidden defects. Locally, at least 80% of the volume from hardwood stands is pulpwood. Even on well managed woodlots.

I agree with SwampDonkey.  This seems to especially true on marginal soils.  Trees may look big but most have substantial defect and end up as pulp when harvested.  I have land in Wisconsins MFL program, I belive I read that the states goal was to have 80% inventory of merchentable timber on private woodlots.  I know that half to three quarters of the volume of wood would qualify as pulp and not saw logs on our wood lot.  Not that the mature Oak and Sugar Maple are not big tree's it is just defect and end of life span issues.

I wonder if this is true because most of the mature old hardwood trees in our forest today were alive durning the big White Pine clear cut in 1900, therefore the were suppressed trees in a forest dominated by White Pine ???
Maybe I am way off ::)
True Timbers
Cedar Products-Log & Timber Frame Building-Milling-Positive Impact Forestscaping-Cut to Order Lumber

crtreedude

About 10 years ago there was a "everyone and his brother plant teak" movement (it currently is pineapple, which just dropped in price 62%)

Unfortunately, it was planted and not cared for - which grew really bad stuff. People bought land, put the trees in the ground and figured there wasn't anything more to do for about 6 years. Incredible bad trees at times - and we don't have paper mills.

Finding good trees is hard at times in these "plantations" I usually don't waste my time.

A tree has no reason to grow a straight bole except as a way to get more light - it actually makes more sense to spread out as soon as possible to prevent competition.  On the way to our fincas, there are some trees that are older by one year than ours. Never pruned, not cared for. MUCH smaller than ours with limbs everywhere - I hate it for the owner, but I love it as a contrast for our trees.

So, how did I end up here anyway?

Ron Wenrich

Max

I believe you might be right about the old hardwoods being surpressed.  I don't know if it was from the white pine harvest.  Seems to long ago to represent your current mature trees.

If your woodlots are anything like ours, they've been high graded many times since the last clearcut.  Those residuals were both surpressed and had logging damage.  Then you have the wildfire factor of years gone by.

I've been in stands with large hardwoods with very little damage.  Past use has a real impact on current conditions.
Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Hoop

Onewithwood hit the nail on the head dead center.  The forests may be producing more than in the past, but the species/grade of wood is different.

In Wisconsin, the oak forests with high grade veneer are rapidly being depleted.  The maple forests are also going the way of the buffalo.   Aspen (popple) and pine are without a doubt, the woods of the future. 

With a northern hardwood forest taking a minimum of  80+ years to reach maturity, there are very very few tracts of land being set aside for this purpose.   




jrdwyer

In the hardwood forests of the eastern US, we are presently growing a large volume of timber on generally small diameter class trees (12-20" DBH). As reported in many states like Ohio, the volume added tends to be a lot more than the volume removed.

One might logically assume that harvesting capacity would increase to capture this "extra" volume and thus result in more lumber production and generally lower prices for hardwood lumber. Lately, the opposite has happened. Hardwood lumber production in the US peaked in 2000 at around 14 billion board feet and has dropped down to around 10 billion board feet annually. This is due to end products (furniture, flooring) being made overseas and utilizing cheaper hardwood species like rubberwood or Russian oak. Also, consumers today have more choices and many want exotic woods like Brazilian Cherry or Kempas for their new wood floors, as just one example.

On the positive side of things, many loggers and sawmills in the eastern US are now utilizing timber harvesting machines that makes cutting smaller diameter trees quicker, safer, and more profitable. Also, higher energy costs will eventually hinder imports by making them more expensive and less desirable to conumers. And even though oak is currently out of fashion in the US, its low price and natural attributes will eventually bring buyers back.

Getting back to forests, on sites that haven't been severly grazed or burned, there is a lot of potential to grow high quality sawtimber and veneer in the next 20-40 years. It will just take time. With proper forest management (thinning, vine removal, etc.), we can also increase the future quality and value of these young stands.  To give you one example, bottomland ash in southern IN can reach 17" DBH in as little as 35 years in a managed stand. On productive upland sites in Southern IN, red oak can reach 24" DBH in 60-70 years. Also, many landowners are now treating their private forestland as an investment to be passed on to heirs and generally limit harvesting until the trees reach financial maturity (22-26 inch DBH size).

Thank You Sponsors!