I use both but over time lean more toward using conventional, I see a lot of people say you waste wood as you take a notch from what will be the Butt of the log, I disagree on it wasting wood, a conventional notch allows to get lower on the stump making up for the face notch loss.
Humboldt definitely leaves it look neater IMO though
Something pretty trivial and not big deal I suppose but was curious what thoughts here are?
I think the same as you on this one. The conventional leaves a lot lower stump .
If all things are the same you will end up with less waste with a Humboldt face if you're required a square butt cut. If you're cutting on steep ground a Humboldt can allow a few more tricks off the stump vs a conventional face such as slipping or sliding off the stump.
When you say Humboldt which one are we talking about the traditional or modified that's the most common now? They are two different styles of faces which allow for different things to be done on the stump at different times.
Where I cut, the deal with the landowner is that all stumps will be low enough for a machine to drive over them. Now at worst case that means a skidder or a tracked machine, but in reality, we try to make them low enough for UTVs. SO doing a Humboldt is rarely applicable. Although I some times have to cut high in order to avoid bad wood and have a solid hinge. I then trim off at ground level. I will Humboldt those. But I don't cut a lot of large trees. As far as wasted wood goes, in realty most of that notch cut is removed when opening a log up and taking off the sapwood. But I get it for commercial mills. They want square butts.
As Skeans said, on steep ground, I prefer to use it if I am felling down hill, it actually gives me the lowest stump I can get with a square butt. But I will say, I do so few of them that my skill in lining up my cuts for the upside down notch are not quite ready for prime time. I get some overcuts and that drives me crazy. I just need more practice at it.
SO I Humboldt when I can or it applies, and conventional for everything else. I've always thought the Humboldt was designed for the PNW folks who have to take stumps higher because of the steep ground and big stump flares, or for cutting off of spring boards. For those trees, it seems the only way to go.
I've never really thought about it here. I'm just cutting firewood, so I do it the traditional way. I have to leave stumps real low on my trail corridors for the SxS to ride over. I think more on where I want the tree to drop with the least damage to others ... and me.
Quote from: Skeans1 on May 17, 2024, 09:22:42 PMIf all things are the same you will end up with less waste with a Humboldt face if you're required a square butt cut. If you're cutting on steep ground a Humboldt can allow a few more tricks off the stump vs a conventional face such as slipping or sliding off the stump.
When you say Humboldt which one are we talking about the traditional or modified that's the most common now? They are two different styles of faces which allow for different things to be done on the stump at different times.
I wasn't aware there were considered two different Humboldt!
I unless you mean the humbolts with block faces and snipes ?
Sorry I should have also added I'm considering these cuts on flat land
Humbolt definitely wins the slopes
I just found it strange how I've never seen a dispute toward that humbolt claiming more wood than conventional
I can't imagine all of them were cutting on slopes
Quote from: Old Greenhorn on May 17, 2024, 10:02:12 PMWhere I cut, the deal with the landowner is that all stumps will be low enough for a machine to drive over them. Now at worst case that means a skidder or a tracked machine, but in reality, we try to make them low enough for UTVs. SO doing a Humboldt is rarely applicable. Although I some times have to cut high in order to avoid bad wood and have a solid hinge. I then trim off at ground level. I will Humboldt those. But I don't cut a lot of large trees. As far as wasted wood goes, in realty most of that notch cut is removed when opening a log up and taking off the sapwood. But I get it for commercial mills. They want square butts.
As Skeans said, on steep ground, I prefer to use it if I am felling down hill, it actually gives me the lowest stump I can get with a square butt. But I will say, I do so few of them that my skill in lining up my cuts for the upside down notch are not quite ready for prime time. I get some overcuts and that drives me crazy. I just need more practice at it.
SO I Humboldt when I can or it applies, and conventional for everything else. I've always thought the Humboldt was designed for the PNW folks who have to take stumps higher because of the steep ground and big stump flares, or for cutting off of spring boards. For those trees, it seems the only way to go.
If you start your face cut first then your sight cut with a Humboldt it'll be almost as low as a conventional face without the waste, we will see stuff in the smaller timber be 3" off the ground.
I am not in the same league as you guys and generally use the conventional face except on a slope going down hill or if a need to swing the tree. I think the Dutchman works better with a Humboldt face. A least for me it does.
gg
Quote from: WhitePineJunky on May 18, 2024, 07:21:27 AMSorry I should have also added I'm considering these cuts on flat land
Humbolt definitely wins the slopes
I just found it strange how I've never seen a dispute toward that humbolt claiming more wood than conventional
I can't imagine all of them were cutting on slopes
Some places in the world a square butt will be required by the mill otherwise you will see deduction in the log or sometimes it becomes a no pay log in this scenario you will see a lot of either style of Humboldt stump. I've seen in contracts the requirement for all stump to be done with a Humboldt face so all the waste is left in the brush without having to long butt the log to clean up the face. Most time when doing a modified Humboldt the face will be in the dirt on a large fir or cedar to the point you're digging around to clear enough area to swing the saw to far side of the face to line up the cut.
Most time when doing these cutting techniques most of us are on our knees or bent over on the stump for the sight cut with out sight cut being under a foot from the ground, just enough that wrap side of the saw will clear the ground or the flare on the stump. When it comes to back cuts some will back bar for extremely low stump others will have a step by flipping the powerhead so they're always dawged into the cut with the chain doing the work vs back barring which normally will produce a mix matched back cut with a longer bar.
I think it's easier to clean your undercuts out with the humbolt. I will purposely come up short and then clean the Dutchman out for accuracy on large trees. Small trees like around 8", it's whatever but large trees the humbolt is just easier to let the saw do the work most of the time. There are some rare occasions like Skeans says where you might have to bore or back bar the lowercut. I worked with a couple old guys in large old growth who would make the lower cut first so the undercut wouldn't pinch and would slide out. I never could aim good that way.
Large trees around here like spruce or maple have a lot of but flare, so cutting low is no advantage to the producer. That'll have to be cut off square anyway or be a reject. Mill specs here will state, 'no but flare'. And you can't sell a saw log over 28" but end anyway. An exception might be white pine mills, those big old pines are well over 28".
Quote from: SwampDonkey on May 19, 2024, 03:48:41 AMLarge trees around here like spruce or maple have a lot of but flare, so cutting low is no advantage to the producer. That'll have to be cut off square anyway or be a reject. Mill specs here will state, 'no but flare'. And you can't sell a saw log over 28" but end anyway. An exception might be white pine mills, those big old pines are well over 28".
Going that extra bit lower though may give you the extra few inches you need to cut a 16' log out though
Other than that I agree with what all has been said
I use the conventional cut the get the stump low to the ground. I don't need my father to come out of the grave and ask me, do you know how to cut down a tree? ffcheesy
I am not saying anything else is wrong.
He was fussy man on his stumps. But he was right!!!
Had one of my brothers cut down some trees for firewood. My Father had a fit about his stumps. He was all ready to re-cut the stumps!! He told me, I don't want someone to see the stumps and say that I don't know how to cut trees down. :wacky:
A humboldt would still give me a clean looking stump.
The log length would be determined on the other end. No one is climbing trees with tape measures. Well low can be a foot high, a standard stump height. I've seen some trees cut 3 feet high, someone didn't want to bend too much. No flare up that high. A 3 foot high stump wouldn't pass around here. I'm cutting wood that isn't huge, so most stumps are under a foot, some I cut flush, but on trails. Never know, might need to cut 20" high on a big old rock maple 4 feet on the but. Once you get above the flare the taper is a lot slower. I wouldn't drive over a stump that big even if it was 8" high unless it's a skidder or forwarder. I will cut a popple high if it has a J-shape but to. Cut it off later. Hard splitting those, the grain is curved.
Quote from: SwampDonkey on May 19, 2024, 10:09:05 AMThe log length would be determined on the other end. No one is climbing trees with tape measures. Well low can be a foot high, a standard stump height. I've seen some trees cut 3 feet high, someone didn't want to bend too much. No flare up that high. A 3 foot high stump wouldn't pass around here. I'm cutting wood that isn't huge, so most stumps are under a foot, some I cut flush, but on trails. Never know, might need to cut 20" high on a big old rock maple 4 feet on the but. Once you get above the flare the taper is a lot slower. I wouldn't drive over a stump that big even if it was 8" high unless it's a skidder or forwarder. I will cut a popple high if it has a J-shape but to. Cut it off later. Hard splitting those, the grain is curved.
You're misunderstanding me. There may be a bend 15'10" up from where a humbolt would be, but if i go lower a couple inches with a conventional, I can make that a 16' log.
I don't have perfect cream crop trees like they do out west, so I scrounge what I can
Quote from: WhitePineJunky on May 19, 2024, 11:53:52 AMQuote from: SwampDonkey on May 19, 2024, 10:09:05 AMThe log length would be determined on the other end. No one is climbing trees with tape measures. Well low can be a foot high, a standard stump height. I've seen some trees cut 3 feet high, someone didn't want to bend too much. No flare up that high. A 3 foot high stump wouldn't pass around here. I'm cutting wood that isn't huge, so most stumps are under a foot, some I cut flush, but on trails. Never know, might need to cut 20" high on a big old rock maple 4 feet on the but. Once you get above the flare the taper is a lot slower. I wouldn't drive over a stump that big even if it was 8" high unless it's a skidder or forwarder. I will cut a popple high if it has a J-shape but to. Cut it off later. Hard splitting those, the grain is curved.
You're misunderstanding me. There may be a bend 15'10" up from where a humbolt would be, but if I do lower a couple inches with a conventional, I can make that a 16' log.
I don't have perfect cream crop trees like they do out west, so I scrounge what I can
Same here, huge percentage of 8 and 10' logs to make grade and that extra few inches can make all the difference. I do need to practice humboldt more, on the steep it probably won't leave a higher stump if done like Skeans says when falling downhill and no full wrap so get a couple more out of it ffcheesy It just does not feel as natural to me and don't do it much so no muscle memory to kick in.
Big root flares- pretend I am a spur cutter for a minute, get right in there
But my point is, how do you know the tree is 15'-10" when the tree is vertical?
Most often a log 12'-6" with a bigger top end is going to be more money to begin with. Same with sweep in a long log, enough deflection by 16' that don't grade, but bucked shorter, more money. Seen it many times. Cutting off flare would have to be great money to bother with. Logs are not big money up here, even veneer is 1/3 of what Ed gets in southern Ontario. I have rarely seen flare cut off a log up here, that gets old if you have a mountain of flared spruce logs in the pile barely paid more than pulp price. :D
Quote from: SwampDonkey on May 19, 2024, 12:58:55 PMBut my point is, how do you know the tree is 15'-10" when the tree is vertical?
Most often a log 12'-6" with a bigger top end is going to be more money to begin with. Same with sweep in a long log, enough deflection by 16' that don't grade, but bucked shorter, more money. Seen it many times.
I don't, but I'm not taking chances, sometimes it pays off sometimes it doesn't. One can get pretty close to eyeing out a 16' in a standing tree though
Seems like this is one of those discussions that burn up a ton of energy. I watch the west coast loggers like Bjarne Butler working enormous trees. Often having to work waist high even over his head. Humboldt's are about the only way to accomplish felling those trees. When the tree's get smaller AND change over to hard wood even veneer the discussion changes. There is a channel of a Pro fellow ( Good Fellers YouTube ) doing nothing but Veneer and there are no Humboldt's in his world as that leaves too much wood in the stump which is money in those tree's. Bring that up and there is this endless mental gymnastics of those pushing the one fits all Humboldt approach, never understood the big deal on which vs. just safely getting wood on the ground & prioritizing ROI. The take away for me is and has been there is a reason professionals use both. And that is where I wish the conversation would go vs. one over another. Simply in my opinion the entire concept of one fits all is BS. I use what ever technique my log buyer ends up giving the most money for. Usually in my wood it's a Humboldt on the hill sides and a derivative of a conventional /GOL on the flats. Quit paying attention to the pundits of one vs. the other and started watching the log buyers opinion & thinking for myself :)
A testy & grumpy me felling a red oak using Humboldt on a hill side.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ThF5BjS-aE
Quote from: weimedog on May 20, 2024, 08:10:58 AMSeems like this is one of those discussions that burn up a ton of energy. I watch the west coast loggers like Bjarne Butler working enormous trees. Often having to work waist high even over his head. Humboldt's are about the only way to accomplish felling those trees. When the tree's get smaller AND change over to hard wood even veneer the discussion changes. There is a channel of a Pro fellow ( Good Fellers YouTube ) doing nothing but Veneer and there are no Humboldt's in his world as that leaves too much wood in the stump which is money in those tree's. Bring that up and there is this endless mental gymnastics of those pushing the one fits all Humboldt approach, never understood the big deal on which vs. just safely getting wood on the ground & prioritizing ROI. The take away for me is and has been there is a reason professionals use both. And that is where I wish the conversation would go vs. one over another. Simply in my opinion the entire concept of one fits all is BS. I use what ever technique my log buyer ends up giving the most money for. Usually in my wood it's a Humboldt on the hill sides and a derivative of a conventional /GOL on the flats. Quit paying attention to the pundits of one vs. the other and started watching the log buyers opinion & thinking for myself :)
I basically just wanted to make this thread to have any kind of other confirmation that conventional does not means less wood or waste, it's all I've ever seen or heard said.
Definitely established they both hav their applications, in that huge timber out west I can totally understand a Humboldt!
It's been on my mind for awhile!
That's a good thing, a meaningful discussion of why a particular approach is used. On the flats, I use a conventional and have the hinge in a root flare if possible. Certainly as close to the edge to Get ALL of the wood I can to the landing. Can save over a ft per tree vs. Humboldt partly because to use a Humboldt I would have the bar in the dirt to cut that low. So save a foot a tree using conventional and My log buyers takes the measurement FROM the base on the veneer & trees where the face cut is out of the money wood. Adds up quick at over a buck a foot. Using the conventional on a typical 100 tree job is 100ft of timber. Also typically pine and other soft wood around here is less than 300 a thousand, so LOTS vs every bit of it is the norm AND feller bunchers as it's tough for a logger to make a living getting 1/2 of 300 a thousand on soft wood. Out west soft wood is the norm. Here Hard Wood with much higher value is the norm. Different techniques to maximize return on investment have been developed in both area's. Why it's tough to listen to the one size fits all and push for Humboldt's by some of the large high volume Pacific North West Canadian channels for anything other than pure entertainment and to see other peoples worlds.
Another discussion is about the species of a tree & fiber pull characteristics. Here they pull, out there in soft wood world they break so face cut angles can be less.
This is where I ended up after 25 years in this stuff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed72a3ugc2I
Quote from: weimedog on May 20, 2024, 09:17:58 AMAnother discussion is about the species of a tree & fiber pull characteristics. Here they pull, out there in soft wood world they break so face cut angles can be less.
This is where I ended up after 25 years in this stuff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed72a3ugc2I
The worst for fibre pull for around here is spruce, basically half to stump jump it as it's falling
Balsam and pine and red oak to lesser extent hinge and break beautiful
Our softwoods and hardwoods can vary tremendously. We have oak and madrona, our second growth conifer is completely different to cut than our old growth and can be completely different on the coast than inland. A shallow undercut can give you a magnificent 50' barber chair on a tight grain old growth conifer. It is 100% going to barber chair in our hardwoods and our cotton wood trees can be 5-7' in diameter and a stove pipe for a long ways up and when they barber chair( or alligator ) it's spectacular! So no shortcuts here really. Especially if you're topping a big tree in half. Better have it right
nealm and others, what are all the terms and definitions of the other terms. stove pipe, alligator ect.
Stove pipe just means there's not a lot of taper in the log or tree trunk and looks like a stove pipe. Alligator is another and more accurate in my opinion, term for when a tree barber chairs because an alligator will bite you. It's not as common in our wider grain softwoods or conifers but it definitely can happen in our tighter grain stuff if the face meets.
Quote from: weimedog on May 20, 2024, 09:13:16 AMThat's a good thing, a meaningful discussion of why a particular approach is used. On the flats, I use a conventional and have the hinge in a root flare if possible. Certainly as close to the edge to Get ALL of the wood I can to the landing. Can save over a ft per tree vs. Humboldt partly because to use a Humboldt I would have the bar in the dirt to cut that low. So save a foot a tree using conventional and My log buyers takes the measurement FROM the base on the veneer & trees where the face cut is out of the money wood. Adds up quick at over a buck a foot. Using the conventional on a typical 100 tree job is 100ft of timber. Also typically pine and other soft wood around here is less than 300 a thousand, so LOTS vs every bit of it is the norm AND feller bunchers as it's tough for a logger to make a living getting 1/2 of 300 a thousand on soft wood. Out west soft wood is the norm. Here Hard Wood with much higher value is the norm. Different techniques to maximize return on investment have been developed in both area's. Why it's tough to listen to the one size fits all and push for Humboldt's by some of the large high volume Pacific North West Canadian channels for anything other than pure entertainment and to see other peoples worlds.
If I left a conventional face in a veneer alder log out here you'd have more then deduction you'd have a free cull log to the mill there's reason we do what we do, are you really gaining anything with a conventional face with a "lower" stump? How low are you cutting? If my sight cut is as low as the top of the face cut are who is wasting more wood?
Quote from: weimedog on May 20, 2024, 09:17:58 AMAnother discussion is about the species of a tree & fiber pull characteristics. Here they pull, out there in soft wood world they break so face cut angles can be less.
This is where I ended up after 25 years in this stuff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed72a3ugc2I
We get pull in our DF all the time. WRC breaks usually and Hem usually but not always.
Quote from: Skeans1 on May 20, 2024, 10:59:24 PMQuote from: weimedog on May 20, 2024, 09:13:16 AMThat's a good thing, a meaningful discussion of why a particular approach is used. On the flats, I use a conventional and have the hinge in a root flare if possible. Certainly as close to the edge to Get ALL of the wood I can to the landing. Can save over a ft per tree vs. Humboldt partly because to use a Humboldt I would have the bar in the dirt to cut that low. So save a foot a tree using conventional and My log buyers takes the measurement FROM the base on the veneer & trees where the face cut is out of the money wood. Adds up quick at over a buck a foot. Using the conventional on a typical 100 tree job is 100ft of timber. Also typically pine and other soft wood around here is less than 300 a thousand, so LOTS vs every bit of it is the norm AND feller bunchers as it's tough for a logger to make a living getting 1/2 of 300 a thousand on soft wood. Out west soft wood is the norm. Here Hard Wood with much higher value is the norm. Different techniques to maximize return on investment have been developed in both area's. Why it's tough to listen to the one size fits all and push for Humboldt's by some of the large high volume Pacific North West Canadian channels for anything other than pure entertainment and to see other peoples worlds.
If I left a conventional face in a veneer alder log out here you'd have more then deduction you'd have a free cull log to the mill there's reason we do what we do, are you really gaining anything with a conventional face with a "lower" stump? How low are you cutting? If my sight cut is as low as the top of the face cut are who is wasting more wood?
But are you also considering what was mentioned above ? If you need an extra couple inches or you see you'll have close to a 16' log so you cut low as possible, it pays off, you made 16 instead of coming short an inch or two . Maybe it's different on your big timber out there, on my stuff I cut 10"-2ft , I can always get lower with a conventional, maybe it matter less on the big timber your way? Just trying to understand thanks for input skeans
Let's take what the mill wants out of the equation to, I don't have any deduction for selling mine like that here
One of the problems with cutting low into the swell in big timber is it doesn't follow the face as good from my experience and if you miss your aim your going to loose a lot more wood from breakage than you ever saved cutting into the swell. Forest service wants stumps lower than 12", Loggers want stumps below the dirt lol. I've always wondered if they cut the conventional off the butt to square up the log at the mill in the east. Around here it would mess with the computers it it wasn't square
One of the differences I think is on a conventional cut for a veneer log y'all have an extremely shallow face, so the face doesn't enter into the "cylinder" of the other end and doesn't count as deduct.
Our red alder will typically split and pull with such a shallow face so we go as deep as we can many times. In looking at cuts on the what are you cutting page, we often just go deeper so the hinge is much closer to the middle of the tree and not so close to the outside.
Quote from: quilbilly on May 21, 2024, 12:20:50 PMOne of the differences I think is on a conventional cut for a veneer log y'all have an extremely shallow face, so the face doesn't enter into the "cylinder" of the other end and doesn't count as deduct.
Our red alder will typically split and pull with such a shallow face so we go as deep as we can many times. In looking at cuts on the what are you cutting page, we often just go deeper so the hinge is much closer to the middle of the tree and not so close to the outside.
95% of I got have taper definitely not super great quality, but since that is, knowing you'll only get out of the log the size of the smallest end, the material the notch took would have mostly been wasted material anyway
Conventional notch lives matter! ffcheesy
I buy logs from loggers around me in NH. Some do a good job some not so much. As a mill, I want 8' logs as well. big sawmills want only want 16' some 14' a hand full of 12' no 10' or 8'. I tell them to let the tree tell them what to cut. Strate logs make strate lumber.
I sell 8' to 24' in all the sizes. W pine and hemlock.
When I get 8' with a big notch in it. butt log I might get 7'.
But that is in the butt swell, so no matter.
I do have a good bunch who will call to see what I need for the length I want. I have a load coming with a bunch of 10' and 8' Hemlock. I told the logger to cut 17' and I will make 8' out of them.
I sell my lumber with the trim of the log on it.
After I cut the 17' into 8' then I scaled them. I even pay $50.00 a 1000 more than the big mills pay. I find if I treat them right they give me what I want or need. I am selling some 36' to 40' and they know what makes a good beam.
I love good loggers.
That's definitely different than how the bigger mills operate here. They have a minimum length average for the higher price as they know scribner will give them a lot of free wood on longer logs with taper
So the conventional undercut is typically shallow enough it doesn't go deeper than the swell is why it's no big deal over there? They would either cull the whole log or charge a reman over here. Can't be wasting space on them boats
I will get 2'' of trim and scale to the foot if it is a square cut I like 6" of trim.
Nice to see how mills work on scale in the country.
I use International 1/4"
Quote from: Nealm66 on May 21, 2024, 07:20:25 PMThat's definitely different than how the bigger mills operate here. They have a minimum length average for the higher price as they know scribner will give them a lot of free wood on longer logs with taper
I wouldn't just say higher price, to keep an open purchase order they can have the minimum average length as well.
Quote from: Skeans1 on May 20, 2024, 10:59:24 PMQuote from: weimedog on May 20, 2024, 09:13:16 AMThat's a good thing, a meaningful discussion of why a particular approach is used. On the flats, I use a conventional and have the hinge in a root flare if possible. Certainly as close to the edge to Get ALL of the wood I can to the landing. Can save over a ft per tree vs. Humboldt partly because to use a Humboldt I would have the bar in the dirt to cut that low. So save a foot a tree using conventional and My log buyers takes the measurement FROM the base on the veneer & trees where the face cut is out of the money wood. Adds up quick at over a buck a foot. Using the conventional on a typical 100 tree job is 100ft of timber. Also typically pine and other soft wood around here is less than 300 a thousand, so LOTS vs every bit of it is the norm AND feller bunchers as it's tough for a logger to make a living getting 1/2 of 300 a thousand on soft wood. Out west soft wood is the norm. Here Hard Wood with much higher value is the norm. Different techniques to maximize return on investment have been developed in both area's. Why it's tough to listen to the one size fits all and push for Humboldt's by some of the large high volume Pacific North West Canadian channels for anything other than pure entertainment and to see other peoples worlds.
If I left a conventional face in a veneer alder log out here you'd have more then deduction you'd have a free cull log to the mill there's reason we do what we do, are you really gaining anything with a conventional face with a "lower" stump? How low are you cutting? If my sight cut is as low as the top of the face cut are who is wasting more wood?
Actually i cut a fair amount of veneer. No cull logs yet! As I mentioned several times most of the face cut is in the root flare and I bore cut a lot. No fiber pull. I can get a lot more of the butt log & less chance of fiber pull with a open face cut in the root flare than if I do a Humboldt cut into the "money" wood with a shallow face cut angle on the flat ground. And as I mentioned I'll use a humboldt on the hill sides. But that really misses the point. It's the location of the hinge that matters more than the face cut. If I can have that hinge out of the "money' wood it's the ground & clearance for the bar that determines what face cut I use. Did a video where I made a point of having the hinge in the root flare. The open face was essentially trimming root flare as well, something I would have had to do anyway. A bit of a time savings as often it's a pita to get to the part of the root flare once the tree is down and laying on it. About the only time I use either a conventional cut or Humboldt where the hinge is into the "money" wood is when I'm cutting tapped maple, cull wood, or fire wood.
Man, it's so different over there. So you're just undercutting in about as deep as the flare as low to the ground as possible which means even though you're top cut is taking wood out of the log, it's basically in the waste wood anyways when they mill it? Even the veneer logs? Our veneer logs all goes to plywood and logs are 8' multiples with a huge amount of trim. So a 16' they want 18' log
I haven't seen a refusal contract for missing length average but always has a price breakdown for shorter stuff. A close by mill that allows camp run won't buy Doug for under 26' 8". Or I should say won't hardly give anything for it. Peter, I had to google 1/4 scale. I didn't see where it showed longer logs? But definitely appears you would be plugged with logs around here quickly
The scale goes to 20'. For longer stuff, I scale the small end and then halfway down. And I am plugged now. ffcheesy ffcheesy ffcheesy
Quote from: Nealm66 on May 22, 2024, 08:44:58 AMMan, it's so different over there. So you're just undercutting in about as deep as the flare as low to the ground as possible which means even though you're top cut is taking wood out of the log, it's basically in the waste wood anyways when they mill it? Even the veneer logs? Our veneer logs all goes to plywood and logs are 8' multiples with a huge amount of trim. So a 16' they want 18' log
The back cut is right close to the ground, if I DID a Humboldt, then I would loose log length. On tree's where there is likely fiber pull, an open Face cut( conventional ) in a root flare if it's there to use, on the flat ground, and IF I have a hill side it will be more "Humboldt" style. The hinge location is more flexible. But the back cut is always as low as I can get it and the face cut is about access and hinge location. On tapped tree's, it doesn't matter as I will cut off a bunch anyway. But on veneer is does.
Here is another guy who takes a similar approach, not the same, but along the same lines as I do and for the same reasons. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ar2M6GSjiI
What a different world. I'm kinda glad we don't have the high value in our hardwoods after watching all the different cuts he had to make to get that thing on the dirt.
I want to say our hardwoods aren't that forgiving either. Would be interesting to have a guy from the east fiddle around with a cotton wood of similar size to see what happens. Once they get a little lean they're not going to hang out on the stump like that but maybe I'm missing some tricks he's doing
We do have black walnut and pretty much everything under the sun here just isn't logged commercially. I've had a resi tree removal/backyard logging business for many years that was a weekend job from falling timber, now it's pretty much all I do besides some sawmilling. I've cut down trees I don't even know what they are. I cut down a huge sycamore tree ( according to the 90 year old homeowner) in yelm Washington that would have been cool to slice into lumber but I didn't have a mill back then
Part of the "extra" cuts are mixing the cleaning / trimming up of the log into the felling operation. My approach is a little more conventional and simple compared to that "Good Fellers" approach, but the object is the same, get as low to the ground as possible and let the log buyer decide how much to keep. Maximize the volume of wood to be considered. All my wood is hardwood. I have maple, cherry, ash, oak mostly. Because of the more value in this wood the techniques used are a balance of things. In my case the face cut also is the trimming of the root flare while it's out of the mud. The hinge is as low as I can physically get and the bore cuts depends on the fiber whether I take out more hinge material. IF I have a strong hinge for things like a leaner or the need to wedge a tree, the back cut is a little higher, safety and fiber pull the priority over that inch of wood.
On the trees where compromised roots indicate center rot, I don't have to be in the "dirt" opening up the options to things like a higher felling cut, Humboldt or a simple conventional. Same with tapped maple. I do have to assume cutting the stump low at some point as leaving a clean & low stump is part of the job.
The point I was making early is to say an absolute one vs. the other should really be a discussion about which approach gets the most money from one region to the next and why. That "metric" has to be considered from a over all job perspective from log pricing , felling technique , skidding , and to clean up or what the land will need after the logging is done. From the comments some prioritize speed or a square stump over additional "butt" log & low stumps. Where I prioritize more wood over speed and a perfect square cut. The way log sales are will drive those priorities for most. So I NEVER assume what works here in my jobs has to be what's the best for other places. No shortage of smart folks out there. Conversely there are a lot of folks who assume what they do should be what I do.. :)
One last point I see even here. Our log buyers certainly aren't going to argue if I cut Humboldt high and leave a foot per tree on the stump. They won't even blink if the woods cut have a sea of 1ft to 18 inch x 28 to 30 inch stumps out there. It's only the person getting the check that cares if they even know to. A lot of hired pro fellers get a small percentage of the sale therefore care even less. Here is the math, say I as a logger/company gets 40 percent. Then my employee's get a percentage of that. The larger the operation where production volume & pressure offsets the desire to squeeze the value out of every tree at the cost of time, THOSE "fellers" are all about simplicity and speed. Especially in wood where that "lost" wood on the stump isn't worth the extra time required to get it. Hence the angst of folks from that world looking at mine.
I either own the wood outright or am working close with a landowner. On my place I get ALL of the proceeds, the land owners I do work for only want to harvest the valuable wood. In fact unless it's a favor type job I'm not interested unless I'm getting 500 a thousand or better. Most pine is down in the 200 to 250. SO I do prioritize putting in the extra time. On my wood it's been averaging a 1000 a 1000. That extra 1 to 1.5ft is worth chasing. Also the fiber pull and tall stumps are things that are tangible negatives. Fiber pull cuts the value of the log. Tall stumps left behind are a sign of a lazy logger loosing dollars for the person owning the tree's. Looking over a 100 tree job and seeing 100 1.5 to 2 foot tall stumps is looking at money left and wasted, even if they are Humboldt pretty. Access and value being the reasons. On my place I go back and cut the stumps I left tall if they are in a place where I will skid later. Winter time for example it's harder to get low when there is a foot of snow. Bottom line? Like I've said , there are no shortage of smart folks making a living doing this. I assume that balance of time & technique is going to be different for different regions and rather learn why vs. assume my approach is better in some esoteric way than theirs. It's a humility thing.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they would can me if I started cutting for a contractor over there. I just don't know if the style they use over there would be very safe over here and would want anyone over here thinking about tackling a big cotton wood to be aware
My hardwood strips look like they were dropped out of a helicopter. The only hardwood we have with any commercial value is the alder and it still looks like a hay pile when I'm done
Every logger I've ever cut for wants high production. Once they get the green light to log, they want it flattened yesterday.
Every logger seems to have some little quirks. I helped a contractor out of mineral Washington for the Ramsey bros who wanted all the undercuts conventional. This was down hill tree length for a tower. Made absolutely no sense but they told that poor contractor they'd fire him if the saw one that wasn't
Glad I made this thread now lots of good info. I'd say both parties are correct, in their own environment/context.
different wood, land, different factors etc
Both have their applications and uses
Good post Weimedog, you summed it up just about perfectly.
Nealm66, it sure is refreshing to see a west boast cutter with an open mind that can see that things are done differently in other places for a reason.