Hi

I'm a British guy, living in Finland. Been working in forestry and wood
processing in Russia, Scandinavia, South America and Canada. (not much
forest for me to play with back home ;-)

I noticed a comment about waste in cutting. I can only comment that on the
Canadian clearfell sites I visited, the amount of waste was stunning. It
seemed to be common to just blindly cut 16 foot and 8 foot poles, regardless
to market. The Foresters even admitted that they cut even when there was no
market, and there were huge piles of rotting product left on site. I find
this absolutely incredible.

There is a gradual move to CTL harvesting (mainly for environmental reasons)
there, and I understand that it is not as 'productive' as cut and skid in
terms of sheer volume. I do believe however that when implemented correctly,
it can significantly increase the best utilization of product.

I guess that most people are realising that North America and Russia do not
hold 'endless' swathes of productive forest, so it should be high time that
everyone takes a long hard look at the effectiveness of utilisation of
product.

I am not saying that the Scandinavian system is perfect, or that it suits
every operation, but I must say that I think the ethos of the system
(maximising yield) should be something professionals in North America (and
of course elsewhere) should seriously consider.

Cheers
Gavin

Gavin wrote:
Hi

I'm a British guy, living in Finland. Been working in forestry and wood
processing in Russia, Scandinavia, South America and Canada. (not much
forest for me to play with back home ;-)

I noticed a comment about waste in cutting. I can only comment that on the
Canadian clearfell sites I visited, the amount of waste was stunning. It
seemed to be common to just blindly cut 16 foot and 8 foot poles, regardless
to market. The Foresters even admitted that they cut even when there was no
market, and there were huge piles of rotting product left on site. I find
this absolutely incredible.

There is a gradual move to CTL harvesting (mainly for environmental reasons)
there, and I understand that it is not as 'productive' as cut and skid in
terms of sheer volume. I do believe however that when implemented correctly,
it can significantly increase the best utilization of product.

I guess that most people are realising that North America and Russia do not
hold 'endless' swathes of productive forest, so it should be high time that
everyone takes a long hard look at the effectiveness of utilisation of
product.

I am not saying that the Scandinavian system is perfect, or that it suits
every operation, but I must say that I think the ethos of the system
(maximising yield) should be something professionals in North America (and
of course elsewhere) should seriously consider.

Cheers
Gavin





Where was this? The amount of slash left behind when logging west coast
old growth forest is truly staggering, for many reasons. Waste is
reduced to such low levels in younger stands that it's debatable that
enough remains to replenish the duff.

Factors such as rising or falling stumpage, long distances to pulp
markets, high stand defect and even company/union policy all influence
the amount of slash left. At times I've even seen good timber long
butted because loggers were betting on a lucrative salvage deal
afterwards. An extreme case, but it happens.

"Gavin" wrote in message ...
Hi

I'm a British guy, living in Finland. Been working in forestry and wood
processing in Russia, Scandinavia, South America and Canada. (not much
forest for me to play with back home ;-)

I noticed a comment about waste in cutting. I can only comment that on the
Canadian clearfell sites I visited, the amount of waste was stunning. It
seemed to be common to just blindly cut 16 foot and 8 foot poles, regardless
to market. The Foresters even admitted that they cut even when there was no
market, and there were huge piles of rotting product left on site. I find
this absolutely incredible.

There is a gradual move to CTL harvesting (mainly for environmental reasons)
there, and I understand that it is not as 'productive' as cut and skid in
terms of sheer volume. I do believe however that when implemented correctly,
it can significantly increase the best utilization of product.

I guess that most people are realising that North America and Russia do not
hold 'endless' swathes of productive forest, so it should be high time that
everyone takes a long hard look at the effectiveness of utilisation of
product.

I am not saying that the Scandinavian system is perfect, or that it suits
every operation, but I must say that I think the ethos of the system
(maximising yield) should be something professionals in North America (and
of course elsewhere) should seriously consider.

Another thing to consider with any thinning or falling operation is
what to _do_ with the waste. At least some large-diameter (over 4"
diameter) woody debris is important for animal life and forest
regeneration. But there is no reason why quantities of smaller
diameter wood (2-12" diameter) cannot be removed nearly every year
from forest land...and converted into mushroom food.

I'm rather surprised that Finland doesn't grow more shiitake, oyster,
and garden giant mushrooms from their slash. OTOH, Americans are
likewise clueless.

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com

mhagen wrote in message ...

Where was this? The amount of slash left behind when logging west coast
old growth forest is truly staggering, for many reasons. Waste is
reduced to such low levels in younger stands that it's debatable that
enough remains to replenish the duff.

Factors such as rising or falling stumpage, long distances to pulp
markets, high stand defect and even company/union policy all influence
the amount of slash left. At times I've even seen good timber long
butted because loggers were betting on a lucrative salvage deal
afterwards. An extreme case, but it happens.

One of my beefs with the current style of "mechanical thinning" with
feller bunchers and skidders is that landing sizes are rather big. To
accomodate the literal mountain of slash from whole-tree yarding and
the multiple machines on the landing, you end up with a landing nearly
as big as a helicopter landing. Combine that with the almost
inevitable scorching of adjacent trees when that mountain of slash is
burned. Maybe the USFS has to make the "purchaser" remove the slash,
hoping co-gen electric plants would buy the cheap fuel for at least
the transportation costs. It sure beats polluting our air and letting
that energy go out into space.

Working for the last few months here in South Carolina, I've seen why
the pulp market is so low. Trees grow so dang fast down here. I've
seen a 21 year old tree that is 62 feet tall! The fall colors here are
quite nice and work couldn't be more idyllic except for the fact that
I'm sharing the woods with deer hunters. I'm wearing bright colors and
have my FS radio turned up real loud.

Larry

"Larry Harrell" wrote in message
om...
mhagen wrote in message
...

Where was this? The amount of slash left behind when logging west coast
old growth forest is truly staggering, for many reasons. Waste is
reduced to such low levels in younger stands that it's debatable that
enough remains to replenish the duff.

Factors such as rising or falling stumpage, long distances to pulp
markets, high stand defect and even company/union policy all influence
the amount of slash left. At times I've even seen good timber long
butted because loggers were betting on a lucrative salvage deal
afterwards. An extreme case, but it happens.

One of my beefs with the current style of "mechanical thinning" with
feller bunchers and skidders is that landing sizes are rather big. To
accomodate the literal mountain of slash from whole-tree yarding and
the multiple machines on the landing, you end up with a landing nearly
as big as a helicopter landing. Combine that with the almost
inevitable scorching of adjacent trees when that mountain of slash is
burned. Maybe the USFS has to make the "purchaser" remove the slash,
hoping co-gen electric plants would buy the cheap fuel for at least
the transportation costs. It sure beats polluting our air and letting
that energy go out into space.

Why not use forwarders and leave all that junk in the woods?




Working for the last few months here in South Carolina, I've seen why
the pulp market is so low. Trees grow so dang fast down here. I've
seen a 21 year old tree that is 62 feet tall! The fall colors here are
quite nice and work couldn't be more idyllic except for the fact that
I'm sharing the woods with deer hunters. I'm wearing bright colors and
have my FS radio turned up real loud.


Have you ever watched Deliverance? G


Larry

"Joe Zorzin" wrote in message ...
"Larry Harrell" wrote in message
om...

One of my beefs with the current style of "mechanical thinning" with
feller bunchers and skidders is that landing sizes are rather big. To
accomodate the literal mountain of slash from whole-tree yarding and
the multiple machines on the landing, you end up with a landing nearly
as big as a helicopter landing. Combine that with the almost
inevitable scorching of adjacent trees when that mountain of slash is
burned. Maybe the USFS has to make the "purchaser" remove the slash,
hoping co-gen electric plants would buy the cheap fuel for at least
the transportation costs. It sure beats polluting our air and letting
that energy go out into space.

Why not use forwarders and leave all that junk in the woods?


Most logging outfits in the West don't have that fancy and expensive
equipment. Besides, these projects are actually "Fuel Reduction
Projects" G. With a CTL system, I would probably have them make
slash piles out in the woods to be burned later.


Working for the last few months here in South Carolina, I've seen why
the pulp market is so low. Trees grow so dang fast down here. I've
seen a 21 year old tree that is 62 feet tall! The fall colors here are
quite nice and work couldn't be more idyllic except for the fact that
I'm sharing the woods with deer hunters. I'm wearing bright colors and
have my FS radio turned up real loud.


Have you ever watched Deliverance? G


Thankfully, I think Deliverance was set in Arkansas or Missouri?

Larry

"Joe Zorzin" wrote in message ...
"Larry Harrell" wrote in message
om...
mhagen wrote in message
...


One of my beefs with the current style of "mechanical thinning" with
feller bunchers and skidders is that landing sizes are rather big. To
accomodate the literal mountain of slash from whole-tree yarding and
the multiple machines on the landing, you end up with a landing nearly
as big as a helicopter landing. Combine that with the almost
inevitable scorching of adjacent trees when that mountain of slash is
burned. Maybe the USFS has to make the "purchaser" remove the slash,
hoping co-gen electric plants would buy the cheap fuel for at least
the transportation costs. It sure beats polluting our air and letting
that energy go out into space.

Why not use forwarders and leave all that junk in the woods?


Good call, that stuff makes good slow-release fertilizer. Important
to think about the definition of coarse woody debris? How coarse is
coarse? Large branches on the west coast probably compare with
medium-sized trees here in the east. Lots of critters need that
stuff. One solution to the full-tree harvest system they started
using around here, maybe 5 years ago, is to use skidders to drag all
the slash back into the cuts from the landings and spread it around.
It doesn't look too bad when they're done... almost like a CTL
harvest, I'd argue that the slash is spread even better.

Scott

(Scott Murphy) wrote in message . com...
"Joe Zorzin" wrote in message ...
"Larry Harrell" wrote in message
om...
mhagen wrote in message
...


One of my beefs with the current style of "mechanical thinning" with
feller bunchers and skidders is that landing sizes are rather big. To
accomodate the literal mountain of slash from whole-tree yarding and
the multiple machines on the landing, you end up with a landing nearly
as big as a helicopter landing. Combine that with the almost
inevitable scorching of adjacent trees when that mountain of slash is
burned. Maybe the USFS has to make the "purchaser" remove the slash,
hoping co-gen electric plants would buy the cheap fuel for at least
the transportation costs. It sure beats polluting our air and letting
that energy go out into space.

Why not use forwarders and leave all that junk in the woods?


Good call, that stuff makes good slow-release fertilizer. Important
to think about the definition of coarse woody debris? How coarse is
coarse? Large branches on the west coast probably compare with
medium-sized trees here in the east. Lots of critters need that
stuff. One solution to the full-tree harvest system they started
using around here, maybe 5 years ago, is to use skidders to drag all
the slash back into the cuts from the landings and spread it around.
It doesn't look too bad when they're done... almost like a CTL
harvest, I'd argue that the slash is spread even better.

Coarse woody debris is defined by many people at the Forestry Sciences
Lab at Oregon State University as "debris larger than 4" in diameter".
In other words, this is the material which is unlikely to be totally
burnt in a cool forest fire.

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com

Joe Zorzin wrote:

"Larry Harrell" wrote in message
om...

mhagen wrote in message

news:...

Where was this? The amount of slash left behind when logging west coast
old growth forest is truly staggering, for many reasons. Waste is
reduced to such low levels in younger stands that it's debatable that
enough remains to replenish the duff.

Factors such as rising or falling stumpage, long distances to pulp
markets, high stand defect and even company/union policy all influence
the amount of slash left. At times I've even seen good timber long
butted because loggers were betting on a lucrative salvage deal
afterwards. An extreme case, but it happens.

One of my beefs with the current style of "mechanical thinning" with
feller bunchers and skidders is that landing sizes are rather big. To
accomodate the literal mountain of slash from whole-tree yarding and
the multiple machines on the landing, you end up with a landing nearly
as big as a helicopter landing. Combine that with the almost
inevitable scorching of adjacent trees when that mountain of slash is
burned. Maybe the USFS has to make the "purchaser" remove the slash,
hoping co-gen electric plants would buy the cheap fuel for at least
the transportation costs. It sure beats polluting our air and letting
that energy go out into space.


Why not use forwarders and leave all that junk in the woods?




Working for the last few months here in South Carolina, I've seen why
the pulp market is so low. Trees grow so dang fast down here. I've
seen a 21 year old tree that is 62 feet tall! The fall colors here are
quite nice and work couldn't be more idyllic except for the fact that
I'm sharing the woods with deer hunters. I'm wearing bright colors and
have my FS radio turned up real loud.



Have you ever watched Deliverance?

Larry



That was Georgia. The Chattahoochee river, right?

Larry, were you anywhere near those tornadoes?

Really big landings were used up here for a while - usually when whole
tree processing was done. Second/third growth, pulp/chip$saw - not big
or particularly valuable trees. The piles left afterward are pretty
big, but the wood left in the stand is minimal. Probably not enough to
support a ground fire the next year. That stand age is past in most of
the region now. There are decent but smallish sawlogs on most trucks.

mhagen wrote in message ...

Working for the last few months here in South Carolina, I've seen why
the pulp market is so low. Trees grow so dang fast down here. I've
seen a 21 year old tree that is 62 feet tall! The fall colors here are
quite nice and work couldn't be more idyllic except for the fact that
I'm sharing the woods with deer hunters. I'm wearing bright colors and
have my FS radio turned up real loud.



Have you ever watched Deliverance?


That was Georgia. The Chattahoochee river, right?

Larry, were you anywhere near those tornadoes?


They mostly bypassed south Carolina but the thunderstorms were pretty
violent as they zoomed on by.

Really big landings were used up here for a while - usually when whole
tree processing was done. Second/third growth, pulp/chip$saw - not big
or particularly valuable trees. The piles left afterward are pretty
big, but the wood left in the stand is minimal. Probably not enough to
support a ground fire the next year. That stand age is past in most of
the region now. There are decent but smallish sawlogs on most trucks.

I really think we need to place a size limit on these landings. Safety
is a very important issue to factor in, also. It seems to me that the
slash should be hauled away concurrently with the operations, to keep
the size of the slash pile down.

Yes, don't those thinned stands look nice?!?!?! It's really
interesting to see what they look like 5 and 10 years from now.
Working here in South Carolina, I'm seeing lots of pine stands in
different stages of growth and with different burning intervals. I'm
also coring trees and seeing the results of thinning and burning on
tree growth. There is a very healthy timber industry down here but
there's not much market for small pine still. Land owners want to thin
but also want some return. Meanwhile, the stands get more and more
crowded and overall growth slows, because the owner hasn't thinned.

Larry