Removal intensity and tree size effects on harvesting cost and profitability

  • Authors: Kluender, R.; Lortz, D.; McCoy, W.; Stokes, B.; Klepac, J.
  • Publication Year: 1997
  • Publication Series: Miscellaneous Publication
  • Source: Forest Products Journal. 48(1): 54-59.

Abstract

Sixteen stands were harvested at intensities (proportion of basal area removed) ranging from 0.27 to 1.00. Logging contractors used chain saws and rubber-tired skidders. Harvested sites were similar in slope and tree size. Harvest cost per hundred cubic feet of wood (CCF) was inversely related to harvest intensity and tree size. Harvesting profitability per CCF was near zero when removing trees averaging less than 8 inches diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). Harvest intensity had the greatest influence on profitability in small-diameter timber. Harvest profitability was greatest when removing large trees at high levels of harvesting intensity. Because of the differences in average tree size removed by different harvesting prescriptions, some prescriptions were more profitable than others. Most profitable for harvesting contractors in our study was single-tree selection in an uneven-aged stand. Less profitable were selection in an even-aged stand, clear cutting, and shelterwood harvests, in that order. Selection at low removal intensities with small trees removed would always be the least favored harvest method with the equipment spreads we observed. Average removed tree size needed to be at least 8 inches d.b.h. to break even.

  • Citation: Kluender, R.; Lortz, D.; McCoy, W.; Stokes, B.; Klepac, J. 1997. Removal intensity and tree size effects on harvesting cost and profitability. Forest Products Journal. 48(1): 54-59.
  • Posted Date: April 1, 1980
  • Modified Date: August 22, 2006
  • Print Publications Are No Longer Available

    In an ongoing effort to be fiscally responsible, the Southern Research Station (SRS) will no longer produce and distribute hard copies of our publications. Many SRS publications are available at cost via the Government Printing Office (GPO). Electronic versions of publications may be downloaded, printed, and distributed.

    Publication Notes

    • This article was written and prepared by U.S. Government employees on official time, and is therefore in the public domain.
    • Our online publications are scanned and captured using Adobe Acrobat. During the capture process some typographical errors may occur. Please contact the SRS webmaster if you notice any errors which make this publication unusable.
    • To view this article, download the latest version of Adobe Acrobat Reader.