Do I want regenerative logging?

Clear cut or partial logging on 4-1/2 acre hardwood forest?

I thought I wanted a partial logging in order to keep some mature shade trees, a forest setting, and for privacy.

I can’t get a forester for such a small lot so I’m doing my own research. I learned today that selling the best trees (called “high-grading”) might yield the most initial profit but results in a drastically degraded forest as the poor specimens are left behind.

The most critical issue is that oaks require full sun to reach maturity. If I harvest and sell my best oaks, the remaining shade trees will prevent more oaks from reaching the canopy.

I also learned a couple methods to mitigate degradation such as keeping at least 400 oak seedings 4-1/2 feet or taller per acre; or keep 4-20 high quality, seed producing trees per acre.

There is such a sense of finality to this project. I want to feel a sense of accomplishment and not regret.

Would you be having the trees cut as a source of income, primarily, or to allow more sunlight onto your property?

If it's for income, perhaps you could use another source on your property to make you that income, rather than cutting down old-growth trees.

If it's for sunlight, then perhaps leave big oaks in as many places as you can, and have them cut where you absolutely need the space. I love oak trees so much, I will always go to bat for keeping them if at all possible!

I am also curious about your goals. Are you concerned about wildfire? Your location and climate certainly factors into that. If you have a bunch of mature oaks then you certainly have a lot of value. But can you harvest some of the value while leaving a lot of high-value trees in your forest? That could be a million dollar question.

If you want to thin it, you could learn some of that terminology. "Thinning from below" removes a number of small trees. "Thinning from above" removes the taller trees. There are a number of options in a commercial thinning operation.

I’m confident oaks grow in all light conditions. They have excellent germination, so i’d be surprised is there weren’t more than enough seedlings.  It might seem final but I think it’s an ongoing process.

Nature has been growing forests for millions of years before people. It has natural methods that work if we just let it.  

I would just try to follow good soil principles, (the way nature does): keep it mostly covered with oak leaf /mulch.  The tree crowns could be chipped/ composted on-site. Don’t leave it fallow if possible, keep living roots in the ground. Grow a diversity of plants.

If it was me, I would most certainly NOT clearcut. Even if you don't think about the ecological value of forest continuity, a few reasons to keep some trees standing come to mind:

-Leaving some trees will preserve the mycorrhizal networks (to some extent at least) which might actually help nurture the seedlings of the next generation.
-In the same vein, keeping trees standing preserves soil integrity, prevents erosion, prevents the soil from drying out (by providing shelter from wind and sun) and keeps the soil fertile by continously feeding leaves and other debris to the soil life.
-Depending on the intended end use for the logs, some shade might actually be beneficial, since it will encourage the trees to grow tall and straight in order to reach the full sun of the canopy (rather than spreading out and gathering light closer to the ground). This would be better for making planks, for instance, even if the trees might grow a tad slower.
-Less carbon emissions (probably). In Sweden, somebody calculated that a clearcut is a net source of CO2 emissions for 30 years, due to breakdown of roots and branches, before the planted seedlings pick up their pace enough to compensate. However, if some trees are kept standing, their developed root systems and larger stock of stored resources mean they can increase their growth speed way faster when more light becomes available, and compensate faster. Of course, this might vary between forest types, but the overall principle should be valid anywhere.

There are probably more reasons that someone more knowledgeable than me can point out. And again, forest continuity is extremely ecologically valuable in itself...

Rachel Lindsay wrote:Would you be having the trees cut as a source of income, primarily, or to allow more sunlight onto your property?

If it's for income, perhaps you could use another source on your property to make you that income, rather than cutting down old-growth trees.

If it's for sunlight, then perhaps leave big oaks in as many places as you can, and have them cut where you absolutely need the space. I love oak trees so much, I will always go to bat for keeping them if at all possible!

It is for both reasons: Income and sunlight for growing things. I really don’t know what else is going to bring in $10,000-$20,000, open a driveway up, and break up the canopy for sunlight. It’s all covered except for where trees had come down.

Well, I guess there’s selling the property but that’s kind of self-defeating.

I walked around the property today. There are a lot of oak seedlings. There are a lot more red maple seedlings though.

Jeremy VanGelder wrote:I am also curious about your goals. Are you concerned about wildfire? Your location and climate certainly factors into that. If you have a bunch of mature oaks then you certainly have a lot of value. But can you harvest some of the value while leaving a lot of high-value trees in your forest? That could be a million dollar question.

If you want to thin it, you could learn some of that terminology. "Thinning from below" removes a number of small trees. "Thinning from above" removes the taller trees. There are a number of options in a commercial thinning operation.

My goals for the timber sale or my goals for the property?? They do overlap some but from which set of goals to answer your question?

I plan to grow food and establish a permaculture. The timber sale is for putting in a driveway, regravel the easement, purchasing a shipping container for storage and workshop, paying off a mechanic for rebuilding my van motor, and fencing the property. I don’t know how far the timber sale is going to get me to those goals, though.

I’m not really worried about wildfires tbh. That’s just one natural disaster out of several and they’re all unpredictable.

However, I am concerned about my large trees blowing down in storms. When I move livestock and structures in there’s a risk of collateral damage and loss of life. Even now I wonder what is the value loss of these great, straight, board-worthy trees lying on the ground.

Today I found my oldest, largest tree (that I plan on not harvesting) did lose a huge 20” split trunk and damaged some other trees in the process. That seems to be the biggest threat currently.

Mike Philips wrote:I’m confident oaks grow in all light conditions. They have excellent germination, so i’d be surprised is there weren’t more than enough seedlings.  It might seem final but I think it’s an ongoing process.

Nature has been growing forests for millions of years before people. It has natural methods that work if we just let it.  

I would just try to follow good soil principles, (the way nature does): keep it mostly covered with oak leaf /mulch.  The tree crowns could be chipped/ composted on-site. Don’t leave it fallow if possible, keep living roots in the ground. Grow a diversity of plants.

Thanks for the great advice. I did find a lot of oak seedlings when I walked around the property today. There’s quite a bit more red maple, though.

Eino Kenttä wrote:If it was me, I would most certainly NOT clearcut. Even if you don't think about the ecological value of forest continuity, a few reasons to keep some trees standing come to mind:

-Leaving some trees will preserve the mycorrhizal networks (to some extent at least) which might actually help nurture the seedlings of the next generation.
-In the same vein, keeping trees standing preserves soil integrity, prevents erosion, prevents the soil from drying out (by providing shelter from wind and sun) and keeps the soil fertile by continously feeding leaves and other debris to the soil life.
-Depending on the intended end use for the logs, some shade might actually be beneficial, since it will encourage the trees to grow tall and straight in order to reach the full sun of the canopy (rather than spreading out and gathering light closer to the ground). This would be better for making planks, for instance, even if the trees might grow a tad slower.
-Less carbon emissions (probably). In Sweden, somebody calculated that a clearcut is a net source of CO2 emissions for 30 years, due to breakdown of roots and branches, before the planted seedlings pick up their pace enough to compensate. However, if some trees are kept standing, their developed root systems and larger stock of stored resources mean they can increase their growth speed way faster when more light becomes available, and compensate faster. Of course, this might vary between forest types, but the overall principle should be valid anywhere.

There are probably more reasons that someone more knowledgeable than me can point out. And again, forest continuity is extremely ecologically valuable in itself...

It’s definitely not the politically popular choice. I was floored to learn that it’s considered to be better forest management tbh.

Removing the canopy and allowing sunlight to reach the forest floor is going to be like pouring gasoline on a fire in terms of vegetative growth. It will be thick. There’s a large lot to the west of mine that was logged a few years ago that is now lush with thick, diverse growth. Believe me the mycorrhiza are going to be fine. I won’t be maintaining a wasteland. Imaging a permaculture blogger actively keeping everything from growing back?!?!

I also learned that cutting trees down between the months of November and March will have the trees resprouting from the stumps. The root systems are already established so they grow faster. Animals will be able to reach the tender green growth.

The trees can be pruned for straight growth as well.

I wasn’t away that plant material releases CO2 when breaking down. I wonder how much CO2 is released by dead trees and leaf mulch. But let’s not get off topic in this thread here.

How much total land do you have? Just the 4 and half acres of wood lot? Are the trees in the way of your future plans?  If not my advice is not to sell grandma’s pearls and have a life time of regret unless you really really need to or you really really need the space those oaks are taking up.  

I also suspect that you maybe over estimating the amount of revenue you will get from those trees after the logger takes his well deserved cut for the dangerous and difficult job of felling and hauling the logs out of the bush.  Have you estimated the number of board feet in those trees? That’s the basis that you will be paid. That and the grade of the logs.  Figure out how much net cash the sale will net you and ask yourself what you will regret more in 5 years, the loss of those trees or what ever you had to do to earn that cash selling your labour.  The logger will also inevitably leave a mess behind that you will have to spend a considerable amount of time cleaning up.  Factor that time into your calculations too.

The lumber value of a tree goes from nothing as a sapling, some saplings will grow into nicely formed specimens that one day be worth enough to just pay for their extraction as a young tree , that tree will is allowed to by (wo)man and nature to increase in volume and grade it will be worth big bucks. It maybe even become a veneer tree and really maximize its return to its owner. Finally if left in the bush too long it will begin to die and rot will set in, degrade over time to a rotten snag worth as much as a sapling that is to say nothing. It then becomes a home to wildlife. All the while that beautiful specimen tree was alive in your wood lot it was passing on its good genes to posterity .

As an economist who once did his masters thesis in forestry economics and carbon sequestration, mathematically the optimal time to cut a tree is when the rate of change in the value of the tree is equal to the prevailing interest rate.  Think about it what would you rather have a $1000 in a savings account earning 2% or a $1000 in living lumber growing in value at 8%.  That’s the  principle, tough to do in practice.  You’d have to know how much that tree is worth now and how much it will be worth in 10 years.

As a landowner, I select crop trees in my 8 acre maple bush and leave them alone. I cut the worst for firewood, prioritizing those around crop trees so they get more light, water and nutrients and leave the best alone.  Realistically I may never harvest the minority of my trees that have lumber potential.  I’m good with that.    

I think a lot of the reason a clearcut is considered a good practice is for when the forest is overcrowded to begin with. All the trees so close together and they are all stunted and unhealthy so it's a start from scratch method. If you take all the big trees only all the little ones are in rough shape so it's better to re-plant. Or at least that's the idea. But if you have a lot of really big wide-leafed trees they can usually shade out a lot of the junk and keep it from being too bad. But yeah, oaks are big and shady so a lot of them probably gotta go to be able to grow your own stuff there.

Where I live a lot of the loggers could play forester to the extent that you are asking, maybe run it by them? I mean they live in the woods and they know what grows where and how to get it growing again fast. The thing is they won't be paying you to wack a bunch of crappy trees, you'll be paying them.

In my opinion a clearcut isn't a death sentence on the forest, just really ugly. The roots rot in and the fungi are still there and saplings and shrubs are growing back right away. That's why a clearcut is not good wildfire prevention. You have to leave some big trees to shade out the understory or the fire danger just increases.

Man, I dunno.......

To me most of the value of this project will come from the lumber. In my opinion selling logs will not cover the costs of falling/bucking/moving them. Logs are heavy to move and require large equipment. Lumber can be moved by hand and all of that. Where I live excavator operators will move/stack logs. If you are already bringing them in for road work/clearing. I also believe that selling the lumber will be a way to recuperate the logging... not a way to gain anything.

I would be trying to find a local miller/sawyer who can process the logs on site, into lumber for sale. They might know someone who can fall and move logs to the jobsite on your property. Or they might do all the work for half the lumber...

To me if the small logs are not 10" in diameter they are better off turned into firewood/poles for building.

One thing you can do is get an app on your phone called sun's path and position. It will show you where the sun is in the summer and where it will be in the winter. This can be helpful in establishing which trees need to be taken down for a garden/house site.

here is the app
apple: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/sun-position-and-path/id1502500167
andriod: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=jp.gr.java_conf.siranet.sunshine&pli=1

Okay, so in terms of permaculture zones it seems that you would be setting up zones 1-3. Most permaculture designs would not have a woodland in those zones, anyways. So for clearing your land and putting in a driveway, a logger should be a big help. They bring in a bulldozer to create access roads and a log landing. So you can have them set those up in line with your future plans. You can also negotiate to have them pull stumps and grade your land after they log it. The more trees you sell the more money you will make, either for other things or to pay for work done.

The standard permaculture advice when dealing with a new site is to put in your earthworks and water/drainage/infiltration first.

Would trees left on the "back" part of your property shade areas in the "front" part of your property?

I have to disagree with Dan Fish, clearcutting is, in my opinion not appropriate when uneven aged forests such as the one the OP is describing are overstocked. Selective cutting is — remove  unacceptable growing stock until you reach the desired stocking rate.  A clear cut sets a forest back to pioneering species like shrubs, poplars, willows, pines and spruce, while selective cutting allows the forest to evolve towards its old growth climax species mix.

There is, in my opinion ,nothing inherently wrong with clearcutting.  Clear cuts and shelter cuts can propagate shade intolerant pioneer species.  But if you want an uneven aged forest, there are in my view better approaches.

Given the detrimental effects of clearcutting, and the financial disincentive for commercial loggers to do selective harvesting, I would look for a compromise approach that clears openings in the forest while leaving other parts more or less intact. Think along a silviculture model, with alleyways on a N-S axis to maximise sunlight on the clearings, and adapt to your terrain and planned use of the land.

Having interlocking "fingers" of managed forests and pasture/farmed space gives you the best of both worlds and a lot of edge to play with. While the loggers are in there, you may be able to have them thin the wooded area that will remain if access is easy thanks to the openings, and if they get to "cherry pick" some high-value specimens that could sweeten the deal.

Lots of variables here and you've got lots of advice that could lead to very different outcomes over the time that you're on the land, so it's good to think hard about all the angles. I suppose a lot of this will come down to the contractor you hire and how receptive they are to your vision, and whether you can make it work economically.

Hi Jeff, Yep you are right in general but it does all depend.

In my experience selective harvest leaves nothing but mutant trees that have like three tops all growing to the south at a 45 degree angle and stuff like that. Junk that is only going to be a problem as it grows. Loggers are going to take the good trees or they aren't loggin. Now if you are doing a forest management cut specifically you can have them cull a bunch of the junk but then it's not a timber sale, it's an "integrated resource timber harvest". And you'll be lucky to break even, However, if you do this you will end up with a killer patch of woods to play permaculture in!

Is coppicing a viable option after clearcutting? How large do the shoots get? I’m surprised no one mentioned that. I just stumbled upon it.

Vanessa Smoak wrote:Is coppicing a viable option after clearcutting? How large do the shoots get? I’m surprised no one mentioned that. I just stumbled upon it.

Hi Vanessa,
Younger trees are likely to grow back from the stumps, but most mature trees will not. here is a good starting thread on coppicing. In the UK it is a traditional way of creating straight thin timber for specific tasks, since the regrowth is fast because of the existing root network, and good light. Typically an area of at least 1/2 acre is cut and then left to regrow over 5 - 50 years. The mixture of newly cut and partially mature stands creates a variety of habitats.

I would say for the oaks, yes, coppicing might be an option. I don't think I have ever cut an oak that didn't pop out a bunch of new shoots the next year. The ones I have been cutting are generally less than 16" diameter I would guess. I have a couple that I am trying out coppicing on myself but they are only 1-2 years since cut so nothing of value to report.

Vanessa,

There have been a lot of answers so far and all have good points.  I will add one more experience about my own sorta-clear cut episode.

I own about 3-4 ish acres of woods with tall, mature oaks and hickories.  I 2009 we had a terrible storm—a derecho—come through that blew down about 20-25 tall trees and left 1/2-1 acre a blowdown zone—almost like a clear cut area.  I was heartbroken and basically didn’t go into the woods for 3 years because I could not bring myself to look at the destruction.  

By 2012 I decided to do something about it and I ventured in for the first time in years.  The added sunlight had indeed fueled a burst of new growth—of raspberries that lacked fruit but seemed to double their thorns!  I had to get my little subcompact tractor with a 4’ rough cutter to VERY SLOWLY back in and clear lanes.  I eventually got to fallen trunks which I cut up and hauled out.  After 2.5 years I had cleared most of the storm debris (2015).  

Since then the trees left standing have regained much new growth and a lot of small saplings are now tall but narrow trees looking for sunlight.  The woods is coming back to life and the canopy has mostly replaced itself.  The raspberry growth is severely stunted for lack of sunlight.

So while I did not clear cut, I inadvertently accomplished much of your intended aims.  Mature trees will not grow back in your lifetime, but new trees will burst forth.  The ground will shade quickly.  I don’t know if this meets your needs or not so take these observations for what you will.

Good luck on whatever decision you intend to make!

Eric

I learned a new word, Derecho!

Dan Fish wrote:Hi Jeff, Yep you are right in general but it does all depend.

In my experience selective harvest leaves nothing but mutant trees that have like three tops all growing to the south at a 45 degree angle and stuff like that. Junk that is only going to be a problem as it grows. Loggers are going to take the good trees or they aren't loggin. Now if you are doing a forest management cut specifically you can have them cull a bunch of the junk but then it's not a timber sale, it's an "integrated resource timber harvest". And you'll be lucky to break even, However, if you do this you will end up with a killer patch of woods to play permaculture in!

Dan, in that case I believe the examples you have been presented with as selective thinning were more cases of high grading where trees whose current value exceed the cost of getting it out the bush are harvested.  In my understanding selective thinning is when the opposite happens , when inferior trees who due to their species or form are removed leaving more water, sunlight and nutrients for future crop trees.  

The following extension note provides a description of tree marking where a land owner hires an independent forester to mark trees to be harvested, culled and those  to be retained as crop trees.  It does a better job describing

http://www.lrconline.com/Extension_Notes_English/pdf/tree_marking.pdf

This one describes silvocultural systems like selective cutting, clear cut and shelter cut.

http://www.lrconline.com/Extension_Notes_English/pdf/slvcltr.pdf

http://www.lrconline.com/Extension_Notes_English has lots of great extension notes on other forestry topics with a focus on the Ontario region.  

Ive owned my property for 17 years and have been harvesting firewood from the wood lot  as my sole source of heat for 14.  Before I  started cutting I hired a forester to mark which trees to cut and I am glad I did. In just that short period of time I can observe a improvement in quality of the trees .

Don’t clear cut. There is no reason to. There is no benefit to it.

There’s value in most hardwood trees over 20 DBH (20 inch diameter at breast height), but below that there isn’t much value.

Thinning the canopy will help other understory trees grow as well as other vegetation.

I think anyone who says you need to clear cut because the trees are too crowded, or says clear cutting is best practice doesn’t know beans about it. Closed canopy and competition is what make the trees grow straight and branchless and make them higher grade lumber. Occasional thinning is needed to increase growth. Plenty of info online about this.

You can also remove damaged and low value trees (because of the species), but there’s no reason to remove a healthy small sized tree of a valued species…
Unless you plan on bulldozing the whole site and making it a field.

You can get multiple stump bids, your state department of conservation is also usually helpful in giving free consulting about it. But you’re right, limited acreage like that becomes low value for most operations. It’s hard to justify the cost of bringing out the equipment.  That doesn’t prevent you or someone from taking trees to a woodmill.  My dad had a hired hand clear a dozen walnut trees from a ditch between fields. The man did all the labor for free, transported the trees to the mill and split the money with my dad…. Those were nice high value trees though and they both pocketed $6k. So, there may be value for someone to do the work.

I have about 100 acres in CRP programs for forest management. Long term Id like a future grandchild to be able to do a selective harvest.

Jeff Marchand wrote:

Dan Fish wrote:Hi Jeff, Yep you are right in general but it does all depend.

In my experience selective harvest leaves nothing but mutant trees that have like three tops all growing to the south at a 45 degree angle and stuff like that. Junk that is only going to be a problem as it grows. Loggers are going to take the good trees or they aren't loggin. Now if you are doing a forest management cut specifically you can have them cull a bunch of the junk but then it's not a timber sale, it's an "integrated resource timber harvest". And you'll be lucky to break even, However, if you do this you will end up with a killer patch of woods to play permaculture in!

Dan, in that case I believe the examples you have been presented with as selective thinning were more cases of high grading where trees whose current value exceed the cost of getting it out the bush are harvested.  In my understanding selective thinning is when the opposite happens , when inferior trees who due to their species or form are removed leaving more water, sunlight and nutrients for future crop trees.  

That's the trick, though. Making sure you get a logger who will truly thin instead of high-grading. And who is to say that it would be safe for him to thin all those 6 inch trees if he doesn't take out this 30 inch tree first? Working in the woods is complicated and dangerous. A logger's incentives always point towards cutting more, not less. And that complication and danger gives a lot of cover should a logger make unethical decisions.

In a thinning situation where I couldn't do the labor myself, I think I would find a tree surgeon and pay him to cut down the specified trees, with his assessment of what is a hazard tree and what isn't. Then I would market the resulting logs myself. I think that way my incentives and his incentives would be aligned.

Jeremy VanGelder wrote:

Jeff Marchand wrote:

Dan Fish wrote:Hi Jeff, Yep you are right in general but it does all depend.

In my experience selective harvest leaves nothing but mutant trees that have like three tops all growing to the south at a 45 degree angle and stuff like that. Junk that is only going to be a problem as it grows. Loggers are going to take the good trees or they aren't loggin. Now if you are doing a forest management cut specifically you can have them cull a bunch of the junk but then it's not a timber sale, it's an "integrated resource timber harvest". And you'll be lucky to break even, However, if you do this you will end up with a killer patch of woods to play permaculture in!

Dan, in that case I believe the examples you have been presented with as selective thinning were more cases of high grading where trees whose current value exceed the cost of getting it out the bush are harvested.  In my understanding selective thinning is when the opposite happens , when inferior trees who due to their species or form are removed leaving more water, sunlight and nutrients for future crop trees.  

That's the trick, though. Making sure you get a logger who will truly thin instead of high-grading. And who is to say that it would be safe for him to thin all those 6 inch trees if he doesn't take out this 30 inch tree first? Working in the woods is complicated and dangerous. A logger's incentives always point towards cutting more, not less. And that complication and danger gives a lot of cover should a logger make unethical decisions.

In a thinning situation where I couldn't do the labor myself, I think I would find a tree surgeon and pay him to cut down the specified trees, with his assessment of what is a hazard tree and what isn't. Then I would market the resulting logs myself. I think that way my incentives and his incentives would be aligned.

Great points, everyone. Unfortunately in my circumstances I only have 1 or possibly 2 loggers willing to log 4-1/2 acres and generate a cash flow for other projects. My income from work is fairly low (<$30k/year). I wouldn’t be able to afford a tree surgeon much less make any progress on other projects like establishing a 500-foot driveway.