Larger equipmnet, smaller woodlots

[Frickman]

In another thread we were talking about about economically harvesting small woodlots. It got me thinking some today. As many of us know the size of timber harvests in acres is trending downward. This is due to both fragmentation of forested land and smaller harvest units being dictated on larger tracts, mostly I guess for asthetic reasons. When I go to equipment shows thoough it seems that logging equipment keeps getting bigger and bigger. Many of the skidders and forwarders I see need a wide load permit to move from job to job. How can you justify investing in a piece of equipment to harvest large jobs when they are getting smaller and smaller? Am I missing something here?

[Ron Scott]

I don't know where all that "big" equipment is being used either. One needs to clear a lot of woods to use it. ;) It sure doesn't work very well in our selection and improvement cuts here which we do the most of.

[Sawyerfortyish]

I hear you frickman i'm hanging on to my 230 tj just for that reason

[beenthere]

I've seen a similar trend with farm equipment. Combines set up to harvest wheat fields that are 1,000's of acres in the plains are being purchased to go from little parcels of just a few acres, and running from farm to farm. Makes one wonder, but then it must be that once there, it is done quickly, and on to the next one. Just last week I saw a huge hay chopping machine in a hay field that was less than 5 acres. The operator pulled in with a huge truck right behind, spent not much more than 15-20 minutes in that field, and with a roar went off down the road to another small field about 3/4 mile away.
It is a puzzlement, but lack of labor must figure into the equation.

[Rob]

Dont really know for sure why the equipment is getting bigger and bigger , but out my way there is seeming to be alot more land clearing happening than logging . House lot's , 20-30 house developments being built . There are'nt many loggers who just do select cuts most are into land clearing and logging now , so they want bigger equipment like skidders like a 748 Deere as they can pull alot more wood at one time than smaller machines like a 440 , or a smaller grapple machine , forwarder etc.. As the deleopment contractors want the land cleared and ready to start site work about the time the loggers are unloading their machines off the low beds . State of NH timber sales are now restricting skidders wider than 10'6 as they dont want 15' wide skid trail systems , which I dont blame them really dont want the forest to look like you put a highway system through them . Just my opinion right or wrong who knows but equipment is just gonna keep growing from what I can see..

                Rob

[Ron Scott]

They need to be more aware of sustainable forestry and ecosystems. They will be limited to very large acreages and specific working areas other than the "general forest".

I hear some of the equipment manufactures saying that they are working on making smaller machines but I don't see many new ones.

[SwampDonkey]

The president of the New Brunswick Forest Products Association (who represents big industry) spoke to a committee on wood supply and stated that the use of small skidders in the forest industry will soon be a thing of the past. The trend is to fully mechanized harvesting if the industry is to survive. That's not a direct quote, but close enough. He was standing there at the podium in front of alot of woodlot owners when he said it. The president of the Federation of Woodlot Owners stood up and said that those smaller scale machines and skidders will be around long after he's gone from the planet. ;D :D

[Ed]

I think cost will be a huge factor on these smaller machines.
The bigger logging operations won't want them because they won't be as productive as a larger machine.
The guys that want & need them aren't going to be able to afford the price of a new one, so they will have to wait for a used one to come along.
With big operations not buying, there won't be a demand & they will probably quit making them.
Just like the little turbo forrest skidder.

[Ron Wenrich]

Well, you're kinda looking at cause and effect.  The cause is the lower amounts of volume per acre on timber sales.  This comes about by a constant reduction in the size of tree that is acceptable to mills today.  They have continually lowered diameters to satisfy supply. 

Consultants and procurement foresters have obliged by marking trees that used to be kept as growing stock.  Suddenly, a 14" tree now has value to the mill, so it is "mature".  One mill routinely cuts all oak 14" and up while doing "sustainable" forest management.  Meanwhile stocking levels go down.  There's just less to thin, so volume per acre must go down.

Meanwhile, the landowner thinks everything is OK since they remain in the dark.  Those armed with some knowledge can escape from having their timber cut before its prime.  But, that is a vast minority of landowners.

So, the effect of having lower volume per acre is that the logger has to make better production.  They can't drive it back to the stump anymore and they aren't getting much more from the markets.  They have to become more effecient, which means more production.

So, to get more production, they need bigger equipment, which yields bigger payments, which means you need more production.....  Looks like an endless circle.

The other problem with smaller diameters is that you have to cut more stems per acre to make up the volume.  Again, a production problem.

When we get around to managing our forests like a resource instead of a commodity, things will change.  It won't be anytime soon.

[spencerhenry]

from my looking around, there is no shortage of used skidders of all sizes.

[Ga_Boy]

This past weekend I was at the NC Log N Demo in Vass.

One of the NC Foresters noted the same observation at the vendors dinner on Friday night.

There were some big machines on show there, but they were harvesting some might small pines.

[Frickman]

Ron Scott said some of the equipment manufacturers may be working on small machines. I went around talking to some manufacturers reps at different shows the past couple of years to see if anyone still made a little smaller machine. Most of them told me, in a round about way, that they weren't interested in the smaller machines they used to make, that there wasn't a market for them. I was looking for another skidder at the time, and told a John Deere man that they didn't have to design a new skidder, they already have the 440 blueprints on file and most of the parts in stock. I told him if they built a dozen or so 440 B's that he was bound to sell them to guys like me. All he had to do is print up a parts book with exploded views of everything and the part numbers and I'd do all the repair work. I didn't even need a warranty, except for maybe on the motor and transmission. His answer was if that is the size skidder I want then go buy a used one, there are alot around.

That really pithed me off, on account of here is a man who claims to sell equipment, but he has no interest in selling me anything. I wanted a new skidder on account of I'm tired of continually patching together old equipment. I got lucky and found a 440 B in great condition this summer, but they could have sold me one a couple of years ago if they wanted to.

Something else I noticed about the new skidders and forwarders I've been looking at. You spend $140,000 minimum for a machine, and there's no place to put a chain saw. Even if your skidder driver does just that, drive skidder, he should have a saw with him in case he has to trim something or get out of a jam. Also, it's nice to have an extra saw back in the woods in case the feller breaks his. The new Deere's had radios, heaters, even cup holders, but no place to store saw and gas and oil.

The two Ron's mentioned wise management of the forest resource. That is what I'm trying to do, and I've been fortunate enough to find landowners who think the same way as me. I have struggled though with the equipment issue, and finding machines that will do the job I want. A small machine can do alot of damage in the wrong hands, that is true. But operated in a careful manner it can be a very efficient and environmently sound way to harvest timber.

[Ron Wenrich]

I have noticed that from the equipment dealer's standpoint, the only equipment you need is the stuff they sell.  The stuff they sell is what they can make the most money on.  Build it and they will come.  They have no other alternative.

[SwampDonkey]

I'm not sure, but with the price of wood being 20 % less than it was 2 years ago, the equipment dealers must be suffering as the loggers are. With the logger's cost of production rising, they must be thinking hard about buying new very expensive equipment. Pretty soon those loggers aren't going to be able to travel that 1-2 hours back into the crown forest especially since the forest companies lower the rates all the time. I realize though, it may take a bit of time to affect the dealers because they still have business in their parts and service departments.

[Ron Scott]

The larger machines are getting more and more in conflict with "good forestry", especially with more and more environmental issues and concerns with roads and skid routes. Large equipment "shouldn't dictate" the proper forestry practice.

Large equipment use was often  an evironmental concern on National Forest timber harvests. Thus, the environmentalists effort to shut down logging in National Forest system lands.

Most landowners here just won't allow the "large armor" in their woods. One of the primary concerns when they have me prepare a timber harvest on their property is the size of equipment that will be used.

Some want "horse logging" only. ;) I'd like to see the Gafner Iron Mule back in production. ;)

[timberjack240]

if somebody wood use there head they wood start makin a Timberjack 240 agian with 18-34 tires agian and for old times sake put a detroit in em so the beast may live again  ;D  8)

[Barkman]

This is a topic that is near and dear to me, so I spent a little time researching it on manufacurers' websites.  The lightest new cable skidder I could find was the Franklin Tree Farmer 405 S2 with a weight of 19,500 lbs with standard equipment.  Is that much heavier than some of the older small machines?  I've been told that my TF C3 is around 9 ton.  I've never had it weighed, so maybe it's less, I don't know.  But if it is, the new 405 would only be 3/4 ton heavier than my older one.  That doesn't seem that significant to me.  Not that I'm ready to go out and buy one because the payments on a new 405 probably are significant.  The smallest machine Deere and Co. sells  today is the 540 GIII at 22,780 lbs.  Kind of seems like they just eliminated their smallest line, the 400 series, in hopes of reaching a better economy of scale on the 500 series.  I couldn't research Cat because their website is down tonight.  Kind of disappointing for such a big company?  Anyway, it seems from my looking like the really small machines are mostly gone, with one noteable exception, and the upper end continues to get a little bigger each year.  I hold an arborists license in Maine and do some work that is in between logging and tree service work and I definitely agree with some of the previous postings that there is a demand for smaller machines to be used on lots that are residential/woodlot.  Much of this work is being done with farm tractors and the myriad of attachments made for them today, but I think there is still a place for the smaller skidders.

[Cedarman]

On a comparable note it has been said that sawmills must get bigger and pump out more footage. Seems to be a lot of portable mills and smaller operations doing just fine out there.  Just from that perspective I believe small logging equipment will be around for a long time.  There are just to many 10 acre patches out there growing trees.

What is Europe doing and especially the Scandinavian countries?  I would guess that inovation in the small scale logging will come from that direction.
The Farmi winch I bought 15 years or so ago is as good today as it was then and it has pulled a gazillion trees out of the woods.

[SwampDonkey]

From what I've seen the quality of sawn lumber is better from the smaller and portable mills. Any large mill I've toured was ramming the wood through so fast that the saw could barely keep up. Might as well use a giant knife to split the logs, the lumber was so rough looking.  : You can say the same about the mechanized harvesting, the man with the saw produces a better product.

[floyd]

One can get a tracked machine & put a lot more weight out there without compaction.
Biggest problem with any machine is operator error.

Longview Fibre  has a 5K ac block above me. 3 guys pulled out bout 250 loads from there last spring using a D-5 hightrack with grapples, & 2 rubber tired machines with grapples. Can't recall what mech faller they had.

The point here is what was left looks very nice. They processed tree length at the landing then burned the piles last winter & planted last spring.

[Scott]

 Floyd, how would you rate the D5 against the wheeled machines as far as site disturbance?
    This topic is something that my dad and I have talked about many times. When i first started noticing skidders, most of them where TJ 230s and at the time i thought they where a pretty big machine. Now a small skidder is a TJ 450 which is wider than a transport truck  : and things just keep getting bigger.

[floyd]

With a good operator there will be less compaction because tracks cover more ground than tires.

With a poor operator there could be more damage.

These guys bedded any questionable ground with small trees & slash.

I prefer to use my horses when logging but am getting to crippled up to walk with them anymore & I do not like arches except on main skid trails. I feel 1 loses too much mauneverability with an arch.

I did use what I call a log doggie to lift the front of logs in the brush. log rode on top of a set of wheels with a bar little above & betewwn the wheels. A 90 degree turn would load the log onto the doggie. Start horses perpendicular to length of log then swing to long axis & log was loaded.

[CosmoPack]

I work for a logging equipment manufacturer.  I work with skidders and Wheel Feller Bunchers.  There are a few things I'll share with you concerning equipment development.

First and foremost is everone wants more power!  I all the travels that I do talking to loggers and dealers, they always want more power.

On skidders, it has been proven that one larger skidder can produce just as much wood as two smaller machines with less ground disturbance and less ground compaction and with one less operator.

The smaller skidder market has declined to the point of being non-existant.  (Deere used to build a 340 skidder) The cost of developing a small machine is just as much as the cost of developing a larger machine that can be marketed to a larger audience.  Most companies have followed this path.

Third, no matter what the size of a machine, loggers always tend to overload them.  Overloading leads to component failure which leads to a redesign that uses larger, heavier components.  That has resulted in model size "creep" over the years.  For instance, in one of our product lines, the smallest machine that we build would have almost been the largest machine 15 years ago.

Ultimately, what the market buys is what the companies build.  In logging equipment, that has led to bigger, more powerful equipment over the years.

Personally, with the dramatically higher fuel cost we are now seeing, I believe that we will see some smaller companies come out with smaller, logging equipment that can burn less fuel.  Still for production logging, equipment will always tend to be bigger, badder, stronger, faster.

[Saxon]

I happened across this link while checking other things.

http://www.vannattabros.com/skidder6.html

It has info on a small (7500lb) skidder.

[Frickman]

That little TurboForest skidder was advertised a bit when it was in production. Assuming parts are available it would make a great alternative to logging with a farm tractor.

[whitepine]

Hi I live in an area of about even land ownership of  government and private ownership and have bought and sold timber for years. In big tracts of land the big iron is the only thing reasonable but on private sales one is starting to see a market for something that could go in cut 20 acres and get out the big guys cannot make that pay. I have noticed  in my lifetime the scandinavian countries are way ahead of us in the big and small timber harvesting and from what I can see is we are about to get a huge change in timber proceesing. For big iron look at Ponsee but the exciting is  the small processors. Expect that soon the value of any biomass will make recovery profitable. I am talking about using tops limbs etc for fuels. New in scandinavia is a plow that lifts the stump so that wood can also be recovered they have recovered  the limbs tops for years. Expect  in the future a logging site will be picked clean. John Deere has developed a bundler that makes budles of anything for heat power generators (talking big iron here big $) but the writing is on the wall. With the use of wood products for  heat/power generation there will be money there for biomass and that will make smaller operations profitable again and machinery dealers  will make products for the market. Something of interest a coal fired heat/power generator has to treat its ash as hazardous waste and pay big to have it shipped  to hazardous waste site, if over 50 % wood is mixed it's waste ash is not considered hazardous and can actually be sold as fertilizer. One can see what that means.

[Ron Wenrich]

I will agree that the Scandanavian countries are ahead of us in the forest resource field.  So are a lot of countries.  But, I do have to disagree about the use of biomass.

From a management standpoint, there will be a loss of nutrients if you do wholesale harvesting of biomass.  That will lead to lowering yields and quicker rotations.  Most soil nutrient value is in the fines and small limbs.  Harvesting biomass would consume a lot of that material.

I was in the biomass field back when it was a new thing in the late '70s.  We could not compete with coal.  Anytime we found a project, coal would undercut us.  Then natural gas came along and undercut us.  Hydrogen is on the horizon.  I doubt if we beat that, either.

There was quite a bit of research done on biomass plantations.  Primary species was the hybrid poplar (fast growing aspen).  These plantations were going to be the salvation to our energy problems.  You would simply go in and harvest biomass like you do corn.  But, you had to fertilze in order to make the process work.  For the reasons stated above, nothing every developed off of it.

If the timber has sufficient value, then small woodlots can be worked.  The problem lies with cutting timber before it has that value.  I've seen cutting sizes drop quite a bit in the past 20 years in hardwoods. 

[Ron Scott]

Biomass Wood Fuel Bundle. Processed from topwood and woody debris that would normally be left on the timber harvest area. John Deere/Timberjack is producing specialized equipment for productive processing on the harvest area.

[floyd]

ron, does thr bundler look anything like a round baler?

[floyd]

whitepine, stumps have been pulled in the SE US for yrs.

One can utilize almost all slash with some marketing.

big limbs sold as cook stove wood, limbs with needles for wreaths(seasonal...duh), get a chipper and sell small limbs as mulch. etc

[SwampDonkey]

They have been talking about biomass energy in New Brunswick, but that's it. Just over in Maine at Fort Fairfield they've had a biomass plant for 15 years I think and alot of it's biomass is exported from New Brunswick in the form of chips with bark.

Up to this point in time, what Ron W writes has been pretty much the case here.

[Frickman]

What Ron W. said about the nutrient loss I've heard from a number of sources over the years, and I'll agree with him. A major forest management problem in my area is regenerating native hardwoods with the extreme deer pressure we have. As has been written on the forum before, sometimes the only way to regenerate hardwoods is to leave almost impenetrable slash on a timber harvest to discourage the deer from eating the new seedlings. Removing all the biomass and leaving the ground bare will probably just allow ferns and other undesriable species to grow.

[whitepine]

Hi I mentioned biomass as they are planning on opening two new plants in our area. A couple of questions. Deer what a pain, I wonder dont they have deer in scandinavia? what do they do? I agree it is very difficult to grow hardwoods here because of them, I planted alot and used plantskyd (scandinavian deer repelent) to poor success. Thru the years I have been approached repeatedly to grow hybrid aspen and here they are not profitable  the plantations I have seen are terrible though I have heard they do well out west (Idaho). That picture of the bundle the ones I saw were 8 ft long the one in the picture looks shorter. ??? Rotation where I am is much longer than  most we are only on the second cutting here however there are alot of other  wood sources that have never been cut that may have potential for fuel (highland and swamp bushes). The vision I see is being able to sell anything that burns that could be bundled, an oportunity for smaller operations.

[Ron Scott]

Yes, it is best to leave a sufficient amount of the small woody debris (the fines from topwood, branches, twigs, etc.) on the harvest area to replenish soil nutrients. Don't remove it all.

"Heavy slash" is often an aesthetic issue with forest landowners and environmentalists, but the slash can and should be managed in an orderly manner for nutrient retention. Landowners sometimes need to be convinced that leaving woody debris on theit harvest area is good, especially if they have poor soils to begin with.

[Frickman]

Ron Scott,

In my area "heavy slash" is always an issue. If not with the landowners then the neighbors and general public. Many folks see either a "mess left by those dirty loggers" or "hey, lot's of easy pickin's firewood." It's very, very difficult sometimes to convince a landowner to leave the slash alone. I do my best to educate the landowners, and if they still "clean up my mess" and cause a setback to natural regeneration then that's their problem. It's a mostly free country after all.

I'm not advocating brushing up roads or leaving bent over and broken saplings. I do my best cleaning up these kinds of things. In the general harvest area though I frequentally lop tops to four to six feet above the ground, and no lower if possible.

[SwampDonkey]

After having looked after thinning on 1000's of acres, some hardwood sites, some mixed...I can say after 12 years there's hardly any slash left when it's left to rot where the tree fell. Hardwood and poplar thinnings are the creme de la creme of clean footing to thin under. 

[Ron Wenrich]

Most guys are calling to cut slash down to 4'.  That means to cut all those bigs tops down so that they aren't as unsightly.  Most people won't object to that, since they really can't see it.

Its those monster white oak tops that are 20' high that usually bring out the howls. 

[timberjack240]

Most guys are calling to cut slash down to 4'... i call it tryin to get yurself killed with all the pressure that on the tops just so people think its looks good. actually around here its refered to as "lop the tops". thats what the forseters always say when they want em layed down to make it look better

[Ron Wenrich]

Its not only from a "look better" aspect.  When you get those tops down on the floor, they decompose a lot quicker.  We are looking at management in addition to aesthetics. 

[Ron Scott]

Our standard practice is to "loop and scatter" the slash down to 4 feet on hardwoods and 2 feet on pine for the above reasons mentioned.

[Ron Scott]

Video shows the John Deere Wood Bundling Machine and Forwarder.

http://www.deereforestry.com/flv/index.htm#

[beenthere]

Quite the 'wood-gathering' machine. Working to keep fire danger down? That must be in the 'larger equipment' category  :