andy26

I presume this involves the RHI?

.....

You have to remember winter 08/09 and 09/10 were two of the coldest on record. This led to a surge in demand, which led to a surge in supply for winter 10/11 which was the warmest on record. Your website is excellent by the way.... Home page Perhaps offer a bulk discount, you look to have a very nice lorry equipped with a Hiab. I reckon delivering a bulk bag costs £20, delivering two or more doesn't really cost any more, so pass this saving to the customer and get some bulk shifted. Alternatively could you sell some wholesale? Hope this cold snap boosts sales on the run-up to Christmas.

Surely if logs had to be purchased from a Hetas certified supplier this would satisfy the fuel quality and environmental credentials. This could be seen as a positive by professional firewood outfits, differentiating their product. The RHI has suffered from being the last of the renewable schemes to be implemented. The wind and solar sector have had most of the cream.

As with much advice from above, the fact you're even contemplating employing foresters (absolute madness) full-time says you would do well to pay a Forestry consultant to view the wood with you for an hour or two. If it was unregulated and you could clear-fell without replanting, then yes you could make a healthy ROI. However thinning, or selective felling is more labour intensive, less productive and hence less profitable. As a hedge against inflation and as a safe haven for cash, then its perhaps one of the best places to invest. Relying more on the asset (land) appreciation, than the timber production. Paintballing, quad biking, game shooting etc, can all offer some reasonable income however all have their drawbacks and may not be compatible with your aims for the woodland or indeed those of the local planners. If you could give a few more details, i.e. approximate area of the country, size of trees, topography and details of your felling licence e.g. conditional or unconditional etc.

As with much advice from above, the fact you're even contemplating employing foresters (absolute madness) full-time says you would do well to pay a Forestry consultant to view the wood with you for an hour or two. If it was unregulated and you could clear-fell without replanting, then yes you could make a healthy ROI. However thinning, or selective felling is more labour intensive, less productive and hence less profitable. As a hedge against inflation and as a safe haven for cash, then its perhaps one of the best places to invest. Relying more on the asset (land) appreciation, than the timber production. Paintballing, quad biking, game shooting etc, can all offer some reasonable income however all have their drawbacks and may not be compatible with your aims for the woodland or indeed those of the local planners. If you could give a few more details, i.e. approximate area of the country, size of trees, topography and details of your felling licence e.g. conditional or unconditional etc.

As with much advice from above, the fact you're even contemplating employing foresters (absolute madness) full-time says you would do well to pay a Forestry consultant to view the wood with you for an hour or two. If it was unregulated and you could clear-fell without replanting, then yes you could make a healthy ROI. However thinning, or selective felling is more labour intensive, less productive and hence less profitable. As a hedge against inflation and as a safe haven for cash, then its perhaps one of the best places to invest. Relying more on the asset (land) appreciation, than the timber production. Paintballing, quad biking, game shooting etc, can all offer some reasonable income however all have their drawbacks and may not be compatible with your aims for the woodland or indeed those of the local planners. If you could give a few more details, i.e. approximate area of the country, size of trees, topography and details of your felling licence e.g. conditional or unconditional etc.

£8/m+Vat with LHT wire all to FC Grant spec. £12/m+Vat for Tornado or Cylone HT wire Class HC4 timber.

I have approximately 80-90t of wood to process into firewood. Its of varying diameter from 2" to 30". I have a tractor powered Wallenstein splitter with 4 way head. And of course several chainsaws. A teleporter with pallet tines and buckets. Grain trailers etc. Given the wood is not all in one nice neat stack but scattered (two different sites) about how would you go about it? I think approx. half would go through a normal firewood processor, but even that would require some cross cutting to make it into manageable sizes. How much more productive is a saw bench over a chainsaw?

This looks like the setup I've been looking for... [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug2Vd2DZbmI]Binderberger 520 Firewood Processor Hire - YouTube[/ame] What sort of output would a Binderberg 520 achieve? Obviously I'll give Landguard a call, but may be a little far for them here in Northants.

Your comments above are exactly my line of thinking. . You wouldn't find a farmer cutting with a sycthe or even a binder. I would love there to be a firewood processing contractor, operating on the scale of the chipping contractor (£300k outfit) or agricultural contractor with a £250k combine, with the output and efficiency to match. Comes in a few days throughout the year and blitzes a few hundred tonnes all handled by the processors own crane, and loaded straight into trailers or bulk store.

What is the largest Firewood processor sold in the UK in terms of output, log diameter and acceptance of uneven timber? And have any been sold? Any idea who has one?

Reading through a few threads, it seems there is a lot of resistance to rising Cordwood prices. Often biomass is cited as one of the reasons forcing demand for wood thus giving the market a higher bottom than its used to. After all for Biomass, quality, diameter and straightness of timber are less of a consideration. Thus if you want straight Ash cordwood with a diameter of 6-10" then surely this has to command quite a premium? When I'm producing G30 wood chip, the contractor arrives at the site with an industrial sized chipper, at no point in the system is anything handled by hand. Cordwood delivered to the yard by artic, offloaded by crane into stack. Chipper with mounted crane, chips from stack straight into store. The chip is then out-loaded with a telehandler. Chipper works out at approx. £6/t, usually use lower grade softwood, but if selling by the kwh can use hardwood that would otherwise be destined for firewood. At £55/t delivered to the yard, left to season outside for a year, this will deliver 3750kwh/t. So say at £95/t that's approx. 2.5p/kwh. For comparison mains gas is about 2.9p/kwh. My point? The biomass system takes the labour out of the system and the end user buys by the bulk lorry load. Firewood will follow suit, that is professional companies processing in bulk, everything handled by machine. Yes, some are already there. As an industry could really do with some firewood processing contractors, with processors able to handle large diameters of uneven timber and of course a mounted crane to load themselves. Thoughts?

It does look a little suspect, given the lack of effort to take a decent picture(s). However it can be very time consuming waiting around for people to come to view who either don't turn up or turn up unannounced or hours late. Likewise with collection, I think the longest collection I've had took about 19 hours! A lorry was due to arrive at 1pm, a Polish lorry turned up at 6pm in the pitch dark. It was to collect a plough, only the lorry had no room as the other items had been liberally placed on the trailer. I refused to work in the dark as they wanted me to unload and reload the lorry with my teleporter. So waited until light the next morning. Only one item weighed 6t+ so had to get a tractor and long chain to drag it about on the bed... Have had similar experiences, so if something can be delivered via a courier or palletline then that is much preferred as its a lot less time consuming and far more professional.

Skyhuck did say 'think', its was a subjective opinion. The risk does increase when people use trees as shelters during storms. Does someone sheltering under the canopy of a tree from heavy rain and high winds, accept that its normal behaviour for their to be structural damage to both man-made and natural features during such weather events?

Thanks for the cricket link; here's details of the case Miller v Jackson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Lord Dennings lyrical opening is very interesting. Glad to see common sense prevailed, even if it did take the court of appeal to see it. Although perhaps this was the more specific case you were thinking of; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolton_v_Stone

Still easy enough to get lost in 50 acres! At what point do we raise the alarm? Jack may be marking all the trees up ready for felling to commence? Paint supplied in IBC's!!

Must there always be blame? Trees prevent a risk. Period. It should be accepted if you go near a tree your are accepting the implied risk of it or part of it falling on you. I feel the more we want someone to remove all the risks from the life, the more fragile we become.

Yes, exactly how I see it. I had a contractor in to some of our woodland. Some was a Larch plantation which was felled by a harvester. But the mixed broadleaved (Mostly Ash and Oak) was cut mostly by hand. There were two or three cutters, felling and snedding with a 14t 360 with a hydraulic swivelling grab to handle and stack the timber as well as dealing with any hangups, which are frequent given the canopies of broad leaves. Seemed quite efficient and took most of the hardwork out of the job. As it's not really something you see everyday, I'm interested to know how other people do things?

What's the opinion of the balance between mechanisation and manual work. i.e. there is an economic point where one or the other is going to be the best option. There's a lot of woodland that I believe will be brought back into management. Partly due to the rising price of firewood and partly due to the RHI. Most of this woodland is not coniferous planted tightly together in neat rows. But generally a mangle of broadleaved of varying ages. A conventional harvesting head is all but useless in such situations. What's the best way to efficiently carry out felling and extraction?

No, but if it could be proved that the inspector was negligent at the time of inspection then there maybe a case for redress. (e.g. a tree was obviously rotting at the time of inspection etc.). If the inspector did everything that was reasonable and practical given the situation then there can be no case to answer.

Its not easy, this is why I really think we need a law change to switch it from a presumption of responsibility on the landowner, to responsibility on the part of the individual.

I don't agree entirely, as long as you take out occupiers liability insurance, you should be covered. Thankfully, the word 'reasonable' still caries weight in law. Yes its reasonable to expect a landowner to be responsible for a dead tree next to a public highway. Its not reasonable to expect every tree in a large woodland to be monitored with the same vigour. It can seem like that. Usually with risk comes reward. Doesn't sound like fun. There's no right to either light or a view however. Quite understandable.

I wouldn't worry about fixing it yourself, preventative maintenance yes. A harvester should be earning in the region of £150/hr, therefore if a fitter is costing £50/hr and gets you up and running quickly then this is the best option.

National Trust sued after boy killed by falling tree - Telegraph A tragic accident, but surely it was only that, an accident? Unless the tree was a clear and obvious danger, is it just to hold the NT accountable? I've always thought personal responsibility should be the first line. That's to say, you don't need telling if a tree or part of one falls on you then you could come to serious harm, therefore if this is a risk you do not wish to take then keep a safe distance from any tree (or any other hazard as applicable). In the case of a minor who is incapable of judging risk then the supervising adult should use their judgement.