Small scale thinning equipment - potentially silly idea needing a sanity check!

[JonnoR]

10 hours ago, Big J said:

Haha! A very amusing thread

There is a niche within the UK for low impact forestry. Mike does it far better than I ever did, in terms of marketing and sticking to his niche. I kept getting distracted by all sorts of different kit to expand my capacity, which ultimately didn't work.

 

The niche here in Sweden for small scale forestry is more limited to forest owners. It's too commercial here for anything under 5t really, and even then, some areas (like ours) are really too rocky for machines as small as that. 

 

The issue with the really small machines, like Logbullet, Kranman and Alstor is that yes, you can run them very productively and they also cost next to nothing to run. But run them hard and they will break. 

 

If I were to summarise it:

 

Small machine pros: easy to transport, low running costs, light footprint, good public perception, cheap to repair

Small machine cons: break a lot, limited capability, relatively low productivity

 

Big machine pros: can do virtually any job, very productive, reliable

Big machine cons: heavy footprint, bad public perception, cost a fortune to repair when they break (often due to propriatory parts), high running costs, high transportation costs

 

For the record, I no longer work in forestry. I run a resaw line at a large sawmill. I still spend a lot of time in the forest, but it's mainly on my gravel bike. I much prefer it that way. 

Hi Big J

Thanks so much for chiming in!  Really interesting observations, as were the other contributions 👍.  The Lennartsfors should be really useful in my random, quite densely planted hardwood forestry (especially for the first major (overdue) thinning exercise - so for my own use, I doubt I'd need to expand my kit to the next level in terms of productivity, expense etc.   I had considered that as it could be so easily loaded, it might earn some money for similar use cases as my own - and sufficiently retard proof to allow for standard equipment rental.

 

The forwarders like the log bullet look great for sure but they are quite expensive and to my brain seem to occupy an awkward middle ground in terms of expense and utility that I can't quite fit with my own thinking.  Spending incrementally more on the next step up, in terms of capability, does not seem to compromise much with regards to lower impact operability, while opening up more demanding higher volumet work.

 

 With regards to expanding my plant to the point where I can earn money from an owner/operator model, I had considered spider excavators setup for skyline, and then in the summer using the equipment on building, drilling and other non-forestry work. With an 18t dumper and the spider, I can see some potential for longer term contracts, but I'm still looking about to survey the market in these other sectors.

 

In any case, I really appreciate the advice and observations - it really helps to clarify things!

Jonno

[arboriculturist]

On 10/05/2024 at 06:30, Big J said:

Haha! A very amusing thread

There is a niche within the UK for low impact forestry. Mike does it far better than I ever did, in terms of marketing and sticking to his niche. I kept getting distracted by all sorts of different kit to expand my capacity, which ultimately didn't work.

 

The niche here in Sweden for small scale forestry is more limited to forest owners. It's too commercial here for anything under 5t really, and even then, some areas (like ours) are really too rocky for machines as small as that. 

 

The issue with the really small machines, like Logbullet, Kranman and Alstor is that yes, you can run them very productively and they also cost next to nothing to run. But run them hard and they will break. 

 

If I were to summarise it:

 

Small machine pros: easy to transport, low running costs, light footprint, good public perception, cheap to repair

Small machine cons: break a lot, limited capability, relatively low productivity

 

Big machine pros: can do virtually any job, very productive, reliable

Big machine cons: heavy footprint, bad public perception, cost a fortune to repair when they break (often due to propriatory parts), high running costs, high transportation costs

 

For the record, I no longer work in forestry. I run a resaw line at a large sawmill. I still spend a lot of time in the forest, but it's mainly on my gravel bike. I much prefer it that way. 

 

Wow, I never thought we would see the day when you would go down that route having sold a successful mill previously.  I stand corrected but isn't that a line turning cants into dimensioned boards ?   So we wait with interest to see what you migrate into next in the timber world.