How many bdft can you obtain from well managed area per acre?

[SawDust_Studios]

Ok, kind of a general question and I know there are alot of variables. But I'd like your best estimated, educated guess.   I'm looking at 32 acres of property, with oak, walnut, pine and maple.  It has 2 small streams going through it.

Most of it is ready again to be select cut, been about 25 yrs since it was last cut.  I'm looking at this more as a means to cut perhaps a few thousand feet a year off of and keep everything growing nicely, instead of taking everything in one haul  I know my best answer is to seek a local forester, etc.  How many bdft/year can one expect on average out of a property this size?    Is 10,000 bdft too high if you select cut and remove dead timber each year?

thanks
Dave

[crtreedude]

I have heard a number like 2 cubic meters per hectar per year in the North for hardwoods. Of course your quality of land means a lot and your climate.

That would mean (32/2.47) = 13 hectares.

13 * (2 * 425) = 11,000 BF

So, it sounds like you are in the ballbark. However, I really don't know much about Northern forest, I am a little south of you.  ;)

[beenthere]

Kind of a general answer, but I've heard sustained annual growth of a cord per acre. Guess that would translate to about 500 board feet per acre per year, depending on a lot of those variables.  
Will let the practicing, on-the-ground foresters give you a better answer.

[crtreedude]

Beenthere,

I think the difference between the numbers is that you can use more of the tree for firewood. So, we might be pretty close in our estimates.

It would be nice to hear from the pros - who are probably out working.  ;)

[SawDust_Studios]

The 32 acres has about 26 acres of timber.   It is in central, pa.

That would mean (26/2.47) = 10.5 hectares.

13 * (2 * 425) = 11,000 BF

So with the formula crtreedude said, that would put it at just under 9mbf/year.  If you include dead and fallen, probably at about 10,000 bdft/year.  Not bad, of course, it all depends on how it is managed. I'm trying to go for long term, but we will see what the pros have to say.


Dave

[SawDust_Studios]

That does seem reasonable though, if you figure on 40 avg size logs/ year say 16", you would yield about 200-300bdft each would give you around 9,000 bdft.  That seems a reasonable harvest for 26+ acres. Of course, there are alot of factors involved in what trees to take as well.

Dave

[SwampDonkey]

I wonder if DNR have permanent sample plots in the area and in the same covertype, soil, aspect.  ??? Ron W or others in your area could give you an idea, but it's like wearing a blind fold and telling you to find the burried gold on a 10 acre tract when you have not laid eyes on the woodlot. You have to know what you have now standing there to project any kind of reasonable value in the future. You also have to understand the dynamics of the different stands on the tract. An aspen stand grows alot faster than a sugar maple stand. ;D

[crtreedude]

So, what SD just said is don't go betting the farm until you REALLY see what is there. And of course he is right.

It is my experience that people tend to buy the cheapest scrub land they can get (down here), throw some trees on it without proper prep, not do any care to speak of - and then wonder why they don't get the highest return possible.

Lots and lots of factors.

[Ron Wenrich]

Its been a while since I've done any growth studies.  But, I have heard the 1 cord per acre as a rule of thumb.  The average growth per acre in PA is 39 cu ft.  That converts to roughly 240 bf.  (I think)   :P   

A lot will depend on the size of trees.  Smaller trees may grow faster, but the don't have the height the bigger trees have, so the volume is less.  And, the smaller trees aren't putting on as high a dollar value as the bigger trees.

Most guys talk about maintaining a 1/4" annual dbh increase.  That would be 8 rings/inch in the cross section.  That's about the average for most trees that I see in the mill. You will have spurts that are faster, and some that are slower.  So, your 16" tree would take 64 years of growth.  A fully stocked stand with a basal area of 90 would be able to support 65 trees.  At 18", the stocking would be 115, considering no mortality or ingrowth. 

For the sake of arguement, lets use a 2 log tree for volume.  The 16" stand would have 7540 bf Doyle, and the 18" stand would have 10660 bf.  That comes up to a growth of 390 bf/acre/yr. 

The problem arises when you don't have a stand that are all identical trees that are the same size, species or growing at the same rate.  As a manager, you want to reduce the number of slow producers and replace them with a faster, younger growing tree.  Too often the best trees are cut, and the slow growers are left as a seed source and to grow. 

So, your yield will depend a lot of what is left for future growth.  If you use the state avg of 240 bf, then your annual growth would be 6240 bf. 

[SawDust_Studios]

Well, I actually went to the property tonight to look at the tree ready for select cut.   Ok, so it wasn't quite that bad, but I now know why real-estate agents should carefully mention timber in their ads :  There are some nice trees on the lot, but I'd say the property is a few years away from a major cutting. 

Now, for what I want, it probably wouldn't be a bad piece of property, as I'm sure for the next few years, I could take 5-8mbf /yr and still maintain a good stand.

I'll keep looking, but the question i still valid. I'm looking for a local piece of land, before it gets so out of hand in this area that I"ll never afford it.  Its close enough now  >:( 

My thoughts, as strange as they sometimes are. If I could get perhaps enough acreage to support perhaps a 10,000 bdft cut/year, I could likely pay for the propery itself by sawing, drying and selling a select amount of lumber each year and still make a tiny profit.   There is a good amount of walnut on the place, so as of now, that would be pretty easy. 

Of course there is labor and the like involved, but I don't mind putting a little sweat into getting some property where I grew up.  That amount is also doable. I'm not a logger, but that is an amount I'm comfortable with.

Thanks for the help.  Anyone else want to chime in, feel free!!!

Dave

[SawDust_Studios]

BTW  For those of you like me that forget conversions all of the time, google has a great built in feature in its search engine

http://www.google.com/intl/en/help/features.html#calculator

Just type in like
39 cubic feet in cubic meters 

Most of the time, you'll get a result

[beenthere]

Before a property that has a good stand of timber on it comes up for sale, very often the owner takes that timber off to pocket the cash. Sometimes doing that doesn't affect the sale price hardly at all.
So chances of finding property with a good stand of timber at a real good price just might be rare. Still worth looking though. I've known of a few over the years.

[SwampDonkey]

That is usually what gets sold around here is liquidated woodlots and you can get them for $100-200 per acre. Without merchantable wood, or no recent sound silviculture work, they are not worth much to buyers. If there is wood on them, the buyer has to liquidate to pay for it. Kind of a viscious circle and in the middle is a big pot of cash.

[Ron Wenrich]

Pennsylvania realtors are the absolute worst when it comes to timber value.  A wooded lot is one that has been high graded to the point of absolute worthlessness.  Large trees means there are some wolf trees of low value left behind - probably rotten.  Some timber value usually means that there are a few 12-14" trees.  Something left behind during the last diameter limit cut.

I have approached several realtors with having wooded acreage given an inventory and appraisal.  They won't do it, since it cuts into their commissions.  But, it is still possible to get land with timber on it.

I know of loggers that were buying land with timber.  The timber was worth more than the asking price, and they were going to develop it.  The state bought the land to prevent it.  This happened in NJ, in just the past few years.

So, your best shot would be to get it through private sales.  Find a woodlot that you would be interested in.  Track down the owners and see if they would be willing to sell.  Tell them about your intentions of doing some good management work and how you're not going to develop it.  They also don't have to pay commissions.  Absentee landowners sometimes are the best to hit up on this.

[SawDust_Studios]

That is the sad truth today. In my neck of the woods, there are alot of inherited farms and woodlands that are going down to my generation (I'm 33) but they see no value in the place, other than a quick sale of timber, if it wasn't already cut and a sale to the highest bidder, which is often a developer that takes those nice 100-300 acre farms and chops them into the smallest lots they can get.   

Then they go build the biggest house money can buy and live off their quick sale.   I feel bad for their kids and grandkids. They will be living three generations in some loft like the chinese if they keep this up.   Its mighty depressing  >:(

I guess I just can't understand it.  I work in the big city (D.C) full-time, so why in the world do you want to turn this nice quite, green picture of nature into another city???  They just seem to have no respect once those dollars are waived in front of their face.

10-15 yrs ago around here, most of the local farmers would never dream of selling off large lots of timbers. It would be select cut by some local loggers and left to remature.  Then we started getting in a few big loggers waiving large check around a few places, cause there was still quite a few old growth stands around. Once neighbor Smith sold, the Jones where soon to follow.  We have a few spots that where just devastated nearby, one was my Aunt that passed and they cut EVERYTHING. Even down to the smallest pulpwood.

Shame!

[crtreedude]

Sort of going off topic a bit, but it might explain what you are seeing. Most folks have almost nothing in the bank. They only have what has been growing in their lifetime out in the fields. They are looking to retire and this is the only way that they can.

One of those unspoken thoughts is that we have to retire. I personally have no plans for retirement even though I have enough to retire if I wished to. (I am also pretty young I think at 47). If I were to retire at this point, the odds of having a legacy for our kids is probably not very good. Not that I feel compelled to leave one, just making the point that if you barely have enough to live on, you sure aren't leaving much.

Somewhere along the way we are going to have to also realize that the forest has to be managed for the long term. If the forest are actually evaulated correctly - well, people can actually sell the forest still standing - and get the money they need and the next person can take up where they left off. Liquidating a forest makes as much sense to me as liquidating a thriving business (selling off the assests) just because you want out. No, normally people sell the business and it's current value as a business - not just the value of the equipment in the business.

At some point, we are going to have to realize that there is value in leaving the forest standing - and also selectively removing trees.

just my dos colones

[Ron Wenrich]

SawDust

Do you commute on a daily basis, or do you have a house/apartment in the DC area?  Commuters are what's driving the massive housing explosion here in the state.  People in the developments close by are commuting to Philadelphia and NY.  The Poconos have the NYC commuters.  York has a bunch from Baltimore, while Gettysburg and Chambersburg have been getting the DC crowd. 

These commuters bring in big bucks to those developers, since they're the only ones who think they can afford those homes.  That is driving the high cost of land.

As far as the farms being sold off, most of that is because there is no one left to give it to.  All the kids have left home and don't want to farm.  What other option does a retiring farmer have?

The reason that the trees are sold before the final sale is that the tree removal has a minimal effect on the sale of the land or the price.  No one is interested in the timber, because they're just trees.  That was actually told to me by a real estate agent.   >:(

[Phorester]

Back to your original question, if I was buying forestland for a long term investment, the first thing I would look at is the soil.  Soil type will determine what trees will grow there the best.  It would not do to buy a property that has soil so poor that it would not grow good quality commercially valuable timber in a reasonable time. Second thing is the species growing there already.  Are they suitable for the soil?  Third thing is the current forest health, size, and quality.  Has it been highgraded to death?  Access for logging is important. Other considerations:  Adjacent land uses.  Zoning.  How does it fit into the county Comprehensive Plan?  Is this area slated for residential development, commercial use, industrial development, or to stay rural?

I'd get a professional forester familiar with your area to give you a report on the potential of the property to include at least the above variables.  I suspect you will have to hire a consulting forester.  I know in Virginia we (the State) can only work for a landowner.  We can't look at a property for someone who is thinking about buying it.

[SawDust_Studios]

Sorry for getting so off topic.
:-\

To answer your question.  I was born and raised here.  I just got lucky with the job I have, I'm a computer programmer/web developer, so I work from home 90% of the time.  I only go into DC when I HAVE TO.  Usually once a week or less.  Works great, cause that leaves me with evenings and weekends for my business.

My gripe is definetly not the retiring farmer. I come from a family of farmers and my uncle has the longest running implement business in the county.  Its the people you refer to that left, don't want to farm.  But they gladly take the family farm and just sell to the highest bidder without regard to the fact that is gets broken up into little pieces.

Back to the topic... Thanks for all the helpful advice.  There is alot to consider that is for sure.  Seems like it is definetly worth hiring a forester if I get serious about a particular property.

THANKS TO ALL!

SawDust

Do you commute on a daily basis, or do you have a house/apartment in the DC area?  Commuters are what's driving the massive housing explosion here in the state.  People in the developments close by are commuting to Philadelphia and NY.  The Poconos have the NYC commuters.  York has a bunch from Baltimore, while Gettysburg and Chambersburg have been getting the DC crowd. 

These commuters bring in big bucks to those developers, since they're the only ones who think they can afford those homes.  That is driving the high cost of land.

As far as the farms being sold off, most of that is because there is no one left to give it to.  All the kids have left home and don't want to farm.  What other option does a retiring farmer have?

The reason that the trees are sold before the final sale is that the tree removal has a minimal effect on the sale of the land or the price.  No one is interested in the timber, because they're just trees.  That was actually told to me by a real estate agent.   >:(