BUDGETlNG FARM FOREST RESOURCES AND ENTERPRISES OF M1CHIGAN FARMS Thesis for the Dogma of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSiTY Gordon R. Cunningham 1966 “3 [,{BRARV Michigfi“ 9“” Universxty TH EBI‘ ‘ i z in. win!“ I.’ _... —.- “.9 Vi This is to certify that the thesis entitled BUDGETING FARM FOREST RESOURCES AND ENTERPRISES OF MICHIGAN FARMS presented by Gordon R. Cunningham has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for , Ph.D. degree in Forestry ,- 72 , x’) 4Z1. &‘ / - wu‘- 4—— 1/ \ r I "f I Malon’ roiessor i J I Date May 21 1966 0.169 5? BUDGETING FARM FOREST RESOURCES AND ENTERPRISES OF MICHIGAN FARMS By Gordon R. Cunningham A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Forestry 1966 ABSTRACT BUDGETING FAR” FOREST RESOURCES AND ENTERPRISES OF MICHIGAN EARMS by Gordon R. Cunningham Farm forests in the United States contain almost one-third of the forest resources of the Nation. These forests must contribute a major share of the timber to meet future wood requirements. Recent studies have shown these farm forests are less productive than forests in public and industrial ownerships. Improved management of farm forests has been encouraged through increased public and forest industry assistance and educational programs. However, one element of the problem has received surprisingly little attention, yet would appear to be the crux to the solution: integration of management of the farm forest resources and enterprises with management of other farm resources and enterprises. The primary objective of this dissertation is to contribute to the understanding of farm forest management as an integral part of farm management. Farm forest resources and enterprises of nine’Hichigan,farms were included in farm plans prepared with a systematic budgeting technique. Types of farms included in the study were feeder-beef, dairy, sheep, dairy-potato, poultry and potato-livestock. The farms ranged in size from 201 acres to 685 acres. Gordon R. Cunningham Budgets were prepared for units of agronomic, livestock and forest enterprises which would be considered in preparing two farm plans for each farm: a 'present' farm plan which would include only those forest enterprises from which an income could be received within the next 10 years, and an 'optimum' farm plan which includes forest enterprises possible when a forest reaches some optimum level of stocking, has grown to a size which allows some special enterprise (e.g., maple sirup), or is converted from one use to another. Farm plans were prepared by a sequence of repetitive steps. The initial step consisted of applying available resources to each enterprise as though it were the only enterprise being considered. Inevitably one resource would be exhausted for each enterprise, thus limiting further expansion of the enterprise. When all enterprises had been expanded to the limit set by an exhausted resource, the net income provided by each enterprise was determined. The enter- prise which provided the largest net income was selected as the first enterprise to be entered into a farm plan. The second step was a repetition of the first. The remaining resources were applied to each remaining enterprise as though it were the only enterprise being considered for second place in the farm plan. ‘Again, resources were applied to each enterprise until exhaustion of one resource limited further expansion.ef the enterprise. Net incoaes were determined and coapared. The remaining enterprise having the largest net income was then added to the farm plan. Gordon R. Cunningham These repetitive steps were continued until all enterprises had been entered into the farm plan or until insufficient resources remained for inclusion of another enterprise. Systematic budgeting assures the use of all the resources of a farm, including the forest resources, toward maximization of total net income. This is the only consideration foresters may reasonably ask for forest resources and enterprises: that they be considered along with other resources when farm plans are prepared. In this study forest resources and enterprises were systematically budgeted into farm plans with other farm resources and enterprises. Forest enterprises can contribute from three to forty-six per cent of the total net incomes of the study farms. Acmwmmm his dissertation is completed because many people contributed their time, patience, and ideas. I am deeply grateful to the nine Michigan farmers who cooperated cheerfully and patiently in the collection of necessary physical and economic information about their forests and their farming operations. My thanks are due to the nine County Extension Directors who made original contacts with the cooperators and who assisted with interviews and collection of forest inventory data. Faculty of the Department of Agricultural Economics of lichigan State University gave willingly of their time in the collection and analysis of farm business information and enterprise budgeting data. Professor Everett Elwood was particularly helpful with discussions of possible cooperators, because of his knowledge of their farming operations as cooperators in the Farm Business Analysis Project of the Department. Dr. Victor Rudolph of the Department of Forestry of Michigan State University provided guidance during preparation of a computer program for processing the forest inventories. Hr. Gerald Laatsch of the Michigan State Univer- sity Computer Laboratory progra-ed and processed the inventories, saving weeks of calculations. Dr. T. D. Stevens, Head of the Depart- ment of Forestry, provided much encouragement and necessary financial support. Eartha Earkin not only calculated for uncounted hours, but sustained our bodies and spirits during the difficult final months. Stephen and James Cunningham suffered the moves, inattention, and ii numerous other disruptions to their lives with outward equinimity, for which their father is most thankful. Dr. Lee I. James deserves inexpressible gratitude for his wise counsel and warmhearted encouragement. This dissertation is dedicated to Vera, my wife, whose limit- less energy and good humor have earned for her this third PhT. 1181.30me W.................... I.ISTOFTABLE..................... LISTOIIIGURIS .................... LISTOI'APPHDICIS................... Chapter I. INTRODUCTION .................. ObjectivesandScope ofThisStudy . . . . . . Objectives ................. Scope.................... II. mermum ............ III. mumrmmoummmmmmsns .... Simplified mm or Systematic Budgeting DeseriptiensofStudyFarms.......... PhysicalandliconcmicData .......... Agrenemic and Livestock hterprises . . . . . Foresthterprises ............. IV. MSW ............... Agronomic and Livestock Enterprise Budgets . . ruuthWCB‘dg.t.eeeeeeeeeee forest hterprises Included in Present Forest Farm P1.” 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O 0 Forest Enterprises Included in Optimum Forest Farm PM 0 O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 iv Eflaug NH N 17 19 22 2k 2k 85 39 91 Page V. SYSTHATIC superfine OF FARE PLANS FOR STUD! FARMS . . 93 FarmAhediumFeederBeef.............. 91+ Far-BhrgeDairy.................121+ ParmCSmallDairy................. 130 FarmDHediumDairy.................135 rarmESmallDairy................. 138 Far-FBIaJJHixed................. 11+]. ParmGSmallDairyandPotato............ 1R7 rarmSSmallPoultry................ 153 rarthediumBeef-Crops .............. 151i VI.COICLUSIORS...................... 162 um 61m 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 216 Table 7. 8. 9. 10. 12. 13. 1h. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. LIST OF TABLES Farms Analyzed by Barraclough and Gould in Harvard Forest Bulletin "0. 26 O O O O O O O O I O O O O O 0 Farms Analyzed by Pleasonton in His Doctoral Disserta- tion 0 O O O O O C O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O 0 Land Use, Agronomic Crops and fields, Livestock Numbers and Productivity of Study Farms . . . . . . Estimates of Available Labor, Study Farms, Man-Hours Measures of Efficiency, Study Farms Compared to PI‘OJCCt‘Vor‘ge.essseeeeseeeesseee Forest Inventory, Computer Print-Out of Stand and BtOCkTablolssssssssssssesssssee Composition of Forest lo. 1, Farm A, Per Acre . . . . Composition of Forest lo. 2, Farm A, Per Acre . . . . Composition of Forest lo. 1, Farm B, Per Acre . . . . Composition of Forest No. 2, Farm B, Per Acre . . . . Composition of Forest lie. 1, Farm C, Per Acre . . . . Composition of Forest lo. 2, Farm C, Per Acre . . . . Composition of Forest Mo. 1, Farm D, Per Acre . . . . Composition ef Forest lo. 2, Farm D, Per Acre . . . . Cempositien of Forest No. 1, Farm 1, Per Acre . . . . Composition of Forest lo. 2, Farm 1, Per Acre . . . . Composition of Forest lo. 3, Farm E, Per Acre . . . . Composition of Forest lo. 1, Farm F, Per Acre . . . . Composition of Forest lo. 2, Farm F, Per Acre . . . . Composition of Forest lie. 3, Farm F, Per Acre . . . . vi Page 10 1‘} 25 28 31 38 42 1:6 1+8 ‘+9 52 53 55 25. 31. 32. 33. 3?. Composition Composition Composition Composition Composition Composition Composition Composition Composition of Forest No. of Forest No. of Forest lie. of Forest So. of Forest No. of Forest No. of Forest lie. of Forest No. of Forest lo. 3. Farm G, Farm G, Farm G, Farm G, Farm R, Farm 11, Farm I, Farm I, Farm I, Per Acre Per Acre Per Acre Per Acre Per Acre Per Acre Per Acre Per Acre Per Acre Costs of Timber Stand Improvement and ACP Cost- BWM’Oel‘Cl-‘seeesseeeesese Forest Land Taxes and Forest Land Values , Study Farms (Systematic Budgeting Table I) Resources Available and Resource Requirements for One Unit of Each Enterprise, Farm A, Including Present Forest Enter- prises (Systematic Budgeting Table II) Determination of Limiting Resource for hterprises, Farm A, Present ’0".tsssessssseseeesesseees (Systematic Budgeting Table III) let Return Per Unit of Resources, Present Forest and Optimum Forest rm PM, I“ ‘0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 (Systematic Budgeting Table IV) Present Farm Plan, Farm A, Including Present Forest Enterprises . . . . . . . (Systematic Budgeting Table IIA) Determination of Limiting Resource for Enterprises, Farm A, Present For..t O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 (Systematic Budgeting Table 118) Determination of Limiting Resource for hterprises, Farm A, Present Forut C O O O O O O O O O O O O C C O O O O O O O 0 vii Page 62 61+ 65 67 69 72 7h 75 79 83 98 100 103 105 107 110 Table #1. 42. #3. 52s 53- (Systmatic Budgeting Table I) Resources Available and Resouce Requirements for One Unit of Bach Enter- prise, Farm A, Including Optimum Forest Enterprises (Systmtic Budgeting Table II) Determination of Limiting Resource for Enterprises, Farm A, Optimum Pout O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 (Systematic Budgeting Table IIA) Determination of Limiting Resource for Enterprises, Farm A, Optimum Forut O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O (Systmatic Budgeting Table IIB) Determination of Limiting Resource for Enterprises , Farm A, Optimum rorut O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O I O O 0 (Systematic Budgeting Table 110) Determination of Limiting Resource for Enterprises, Farm A, Optimum Forest...................... (Systematic Budgeting Table IV) Optimum Farm Plan, ' Farm A, Including Optimum Forest Enterprises . . . (Systmtic Budgeting Table IV) Present Farm Plan, Farm B, Including Presmt Forest hterprises . . . (Systmtic Budgeting Table IV) Optimum Farm Plan, Farm B, Including Optimum Forest Enterprises . . . (Systemtic Budgeting Table IV) Present Farm Plan, Farm C, Including Present Forest Enterprises . . . (Systmtic Budgeting Table IV) Optima Fara Plan, Farm C, Including Optima Forest Enterprises . . . (Systmtic Budgeting Table IV) Pruent Farm Plan, Farm D, Including Present Forest Enterprises . . . (Systmatic Budgeting Table IV) Optima Farm Plan, Farm D, Including Optimum Forest Inter-prises . . . (Systmtic Budgeting Table IV) Present Farm Plan, Farm R, Including Present Forest Rates-prises . . . (Systematic Budgeting Table IV) Optima Farm Plan, Farm 3, Including Optimum Forest hterprises . . . (Systematic Budgeting Table IV) Present Farm Plan, Farm F, Including Present Forest Interprises . . . (Systematic Budgeting Table IV) Optima Farm Plnn, Farm F, Including Optimum Forest Interprises . . . viii Page 112 11‘} 116 118 120 121 126 129 132 133 136 139 1‘00 112 1&5 1‘16 Table 55- 56. 57. 58. (Systematic Budgeting Table IV) Present Farm Plan, Farm G, Including Present Forest Enterprises. . . . . (Systematic Budgeting Table IV) Optimum Farm Plan, Farm G, Including Optimum Forest Enterprises . . . . . . . (Systmatic Budgeting Table IV) Present Farm Plan, Farm B, Including Present Forest Enterprises . . . . (Systematic Budgeting Table IV) Optimum Farm Plan, Farm R, Including Optimum Forest Enterprises . . . . (Systematic Budgeting Table IV) Present Farm Plan, Farm I, Including Present Forest Enterprises . . . . (Systematic Budgeting Table IV) Optimum Farm Plan, Farm I, Including Optimum Forest Enterprises . . . . . . . Forest Product Prices Adjusted to Species, Volumes and Quality to Provide Unit Prices by Condition Classes, StudyFarms,l96}.................. BeefhterpriseBudget,FarmA............. IheatRnterpriseBudget,FarmA............ DairyhterpriseBudget,FarmB............ SheephterpriseBudget,FarmB............ HheatlnterpriseBudget,FarmB............ BairanterpriseBudget,FarmC............ Damn-moundgotJJr-nnuuunu BeefhterpriseBudget,FarmD ............ DairyhterprineBudget,Farml............ SheeplnterpriseBudget,FarmF............ DairylaterpriseBudget,FarmG............ PotatelnterpriseBudget,FarmC ........... PeultryhterpriseBudget,FarmR........... BeefhterpriseBudget,FanI ............ RoglnterpriseBudget,FarmI............. ix Page 1148 151 155 156 158 160 173 178 179 180 181 182 183 18‘} 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 \./ Table 316. C1. C2. C3. Ch. C5. C6. C7. C8. C9. C10 . 011. 012 . C13. huthCBndBCtgrmIeeseeseeeee Present Forest Budget for Forest 1, Farm A, One Acre “mntmtiv.essssseeeeeeeeee Optimum Forest Enterprise Budget for Forest 1, Farm A, One Acre. Underplant Christmas Trees, 1000/acre, z-Zmusmc.sessseeseseeesssse Present Forest Budget for Forest 2, Farm A, One Acre 'Omutmtiv.seseeeseeesssese Optima Forest Enterprise Budget for Forest 2, Farm A, One Acre. Interplanted black mlnut seedlings .1,0mperncre,601enrrotstion......... Present Forest Enterprise Budget for Forest 1, Farm 3, One Acre. Sell 1.388 MB)! P:C Stumpage x 9% + ACP “.Hm‘thntor’I-ncrm. seseessse Optima Forest Enterprise Budget for Forest 1, Farm B, One Acre. Sell .235 MBM Stumpage Per Year seen/m Present Forest hterprise Budget for Forest 1, Farm B, One Acre. Sell .170 MB! Poor:Cut Logs + ACP Cost- SharingeInventoryIncrease............ Present Forest Enterprise Budget for Forest 1, Farm B, One Acre. Sell .170 MB)! P:C legs 4» .100 MBM G:C logs + ACP Cost-Sharing + Inventory Increase . . . . Optimum Forest Enterprise Budget for Forest 1, Farm B, W‘”.e 8011.235m1038/yr. eeseeeeee Present Forest Enterprise Budget for Forest 2, Farm B, One Acre. Sell 2.322 MBM P:C Stu-page CBC/MB)! + ACPCostSharingeInventoryIncrease . . . . . . . Present Forest Rnterprise Budget for Forest 2, Farm B, One Acre. Sell #00 MBM P:C Logs + ACP Cost-Sharing +Inmur’hcrm.esesssssessssese Present Forest Enterprise Budget for Forest 2, Farm B, One Acre. Sell .‘tOO MBM P:C Logs + .200 MB)! 6:]: Logs + ACP Cost-Sharing e Inventory Increase . . . . Optimum Forest Rnterprise Budget for Forest 2, Farm B, One Acre. Sell $80 MBM Stumpage per year USES/MB]! Page 193 195 196 197 198 199 201 202 203 2011 205 206 207 . I O O O O - a ‘ ' O a D I O D o . . \ x I . O 0 O O O Q I O . e v \ P 6 I. A o a O m C . 4 - J . 1 ,— .r . O In O m \ . . 1 K m - 1 . . m 0 O I r . 1‘ ~, . \- , _ _ . . e do Q 0 O O 0 O s . a ' , . I n _ . ‘ \. . . . .- n . l . "‘ mo .. \, I m 4| O Q Q . \ ' I \ v s I l 1 ‘ g ’ I. O - . i w ‘J L m m In D O s I O m , . _ 1 . .4 ,. .. *JU . .- . . . . 4 .‘ Table 01‘». 015. 016. C17. 018. 019. 020. 021. Optimum Forest Enterprise Budget for Forest 2, Farm On. ‘Cr0s 8.1.1 .480 KB“ Inga ‘t Road s s s s s s Present Forest Enterprise Budget for Forest 1, Farm One Acre. Clearcut and Sell at Road 9.9 Cds./A. (moucntSB‘cr..)ssssssssssssss Optimum Forest Enterprise Budget for Forest 1, Farm One Acre. Clearcut and Sell at Road 19.9 Cde/yr. (mount33‘cr38)eeeeeseeeseees Present Forest Enterprise Budget for Forest 2, Farm One Acre. Maple sirup, tubing, #0 taps/acre ”.2 .mP/upeeeesesseesseeeeeeee Present Forest Enterprise Budget for Forest 2, Farm 03“”.s Sell.1mHBMP:0105s........ Optima Forest hterprise Budget for Forest 6, Farm One Acre. Sell Cordwood Thinniugs + Sawtimber at 55’”.seesseeeseseeseeeses Present Forest Enterprise Budget for Forest 2, Farm One Acre. Cut and Deliver 0.5 cd./acre . . . . . Optimum Forest Enterprise Budget for Forest 2, Farm One Acre. Cut and Deliver 0.55 cd./acre . . . . 1:1 209 210 212 213 219 215 1. 2. 3. LIST OF FIGURES Locations of Study Farms by Counties and Type—of- FM‘rmeeeseeessseseseeeee Locations of Farms Studied by Barraclough and Gould “mam.tn'0o26sessesessese Gallons of Solution and Hours of Labor Frill-and- Sprsy Treatment, Chemical Timber Stand Improvement ForestInventoryFieldForm............. xii Page 172 LISTOFAPPENDICFS Page APPflDII A. FIELD mar FORM, AND FOREST PRODUCT PRICBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 172 APPHDIX B. LIVIBTOCX AID acmumuc ETERPRISE UNIT sunset-s . 178 mc.mmrmsrmrsumm.......... 195 xiii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Timber Resources Review of 1958 is the latest and most comprehensive statement on national timber resources and future timber needs. It discusses present and future timber production in relation to population and economic trends, available forest lands, productivity of the forest lands, timber quality, protection of the forests and the significance of forest ownership. The Review reports that 3.9 million farm owners constitute by far the largest number of forest land owners and that these farmers own one-third of all commercial forest land in the United States.1 The Review concluded that "Pro— jected growth is far short of (future) needs",2 that "The key to adequate timber supplies in the future lies with the h.5 million farm and ”other“ private holdings",3 and that "There is conclusive evidence that the productivity of recently cut lands is poorest on the farm and "other” private ownerships".u From this Review, the only logical inference is that farm forests must receive better management. lForest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, -A_ S of the Timber Resource Review, reprinted from Timber Resources for IihEEEiJ. Future, Forest Resource Report No. It (Hashington: Government Printing Office, January 1958), p. 83. 2Ibid., p. 108. 31bid., p. 107. llilibidn p. 106. . . . . ' e .u I: . . s . ‘ . J . "0 m”*mm 0...-9 '7- . .1 e . m s s m . - a . . - . . a . m . . . . 1 ’ O Objectives and Scope 9_f_ This Study Objectives How can better farm forest management be assured? By improving the management acumen of the farm forest managers: farmers, agri- cultural economists specializing in farm management, and 'farm' foresters. Such is the purpose of this dissertation. The ultimate objective of this dissertation is to contribute to the understanding of farm forest management as 1:113 integration of M33313 forest resources £92 enterprises ELI:- management 9122:; Lar_m_ resources and enterprises, usually £0; _t_h_e_ £112.11 mg; maximizing 233% income. A farmer has a certain amount of land, labor, capital and / gwicredit. These are his 'bundle of resources'. His net income depends /” gjf upon how efficiently he combines or budgets his 'bundle of resources'y 5 to produce crops and livestock. The forest resources on a farm are part of that 'bundle of resources' , yet they "are comonly left out / of farm plans, dealt with only sketchily, or planned piecemeal -/ subsequent to or without any general farm-and-home planning".6 /‘ 50. R. Heathers, Simplified Progaming...A Tool in Farm Plannin , The North Carolina Agricultural Extensi'o'n-rervi-c—r Circular 557 (Raleigh: Forth Carolina State of the Univer. of Forth Carolina 8: U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Cooperating, 1963), p. 3. 6.1. D. Black, "Farm and Other Operating - Unit Land - Use Planning" (Seminar in Land-Use and Conservation of Harvard University, April. 1955). p. 13. m 0 .e c m m c Q- 3 Foresters and agricultural economists together can solve the problems of farm forest management when both accept a farm forest as a part of the total farm resources, to be fit into the dynamic jigsaw puzzle of competing, complementing, supplementing enterprises which comprise the farm business. The initial objective of this dissertation is to expand the limited discussion on integrated farm forest management. The resources of nine Michigan farms are described and several alternative forest enterprises are considered for each forest. For each enterprise a budget is prepared for a unit of the forest--in this study, the unit is one acre. Finally, the forest enterprises are combined system- atically with agronomic and livestock enterprises into a farm plan aimed at maximizing net farm income. A post facto objective of this dissertation is to reveal the astonishing absence of extensive work-performance and management- yield data for farm forest enterprises and to recommend these as fertile areas for research in farm forest management. In 1953, Could described the kind of research needed to determine the optimum allocation of farm land, labor, and capital among possible enterprises on a farm including farm forest enter- 7 prises. Several studies of farm forest enterprises have been 7B. M. Gould, Jr., "Farm Voodland Management," (Research _i_1_1_ the Economics 2_f_ Foresigz, ed. H. A. Duerr and R. J. Vaux. Hashington, D. 0.: C. L. Pack.Forestry Foundation, 1953), pp. 235-291. 1, completed since 1953. These excellent studies are described in the review of literature. This writer believes it is time to begin teaching the budgeting of farm forest resources and enterprises at the farm level. Since World Har II, the teaching of farm resource budgeting has been intensified. Extension services of colleges of agriculture are employing increasing numbers of county farm manage- ment workers to teach farmers the essentials of budgeting. More 'farm' foresters are being employed by state forestry agencies. Channels for teaching the budgeting of farm forest resources and enterprises are becoming more numerous. Currently, the dearth of input—output data for forest enterprises limits budgeting possibilities. A more varied and realistic range of forest enterprise alternatives can be considered if foresters will provide the necessary input- output data. Scope This study includes nine farms in nine counties scattered throughout the Lower Peninsula of Michigan, Figure 1. The farms represent six type-of-farming areas, six combinations of farm enterprises, and three economic sizes. The purpose was to study as wide a variety of farm situations as possible within time and fund limitations. The study farms are described in detail in Chapters III, IV and V. Farm account records for 1960, 1961 and 1962 supply the data for budgeting agronomic and livestock enterprises. An inventory of each forest stand, using point-sampling, furnished stand and stocking data for forest enterprises. Forest growth estimates were mam-m O o. s-emmmspm .- ‘ICODU Us- e a s s e m p s OTYPE'OF'FARMING AREAS IN MICHIGAN (Areas on a natural- line basis) ' Ode-eso- I ‘1 i :. mafia 1i ' ‘l glare-e"- .m- *- I7‘ 1-.-.1 l l ! camps-s I .A. enslave" :-.:."~'.‘ \..‘L~ : MICHIGAN General Livestock and Corn Dairy, Livestock and Cor Southwestern Fruit, Dairy and Truck Dairy, Poultry and Truck Dairy and General Farming Dairy, Part-Time and Truck Dairy and Cash Crops Cash Crops and Dairy Genet sl Livestock and Part-Tune Dair . Potatoes and Truck No western Fruit and Dairy Dairy, Part-Tune and Potatoes Forestr , Part-Time and Cattle Cattle. otatoes and Part-Time Cattle, Bay and Part-Time Dairy otatoee Dairy. Potatoes. Part-Time Forestry .............. 1 emu ee‘Y on he: Stu” farms are located in underlined counties. ‘9 , u 5! mo u e. in) a ; —‘E . ! . ‘H-QU—IO— --' The 83 counties in Itchlgan are here grouped into 11 type-of-farmlng areas as indicated in this map. The 'natural' boundaries of these areas do not. how- ever, follow county boundaries. but limes representing the influences of soil. climate and markets. Figure 1. locations of StudyFarms by Counties and Type-of-Farming Areas. 6 derived fron growth studies of natural stands in.New'York. Annual budgets were prepared for agronosic and livestock enterprises. {Average annual budgets for lO—year periods are prepared for forest enterprises. The enterprises are combined into farm plans which naxinize net farn insane. Agrononic and livestock productivity and prices are assuned to be fixed over the period of this study. the scope of this study extends only to the provision of far- plans which naxinise net fars incone. Actually, the interest of this writer lies one step back, in preparation of the forest enterprise budgets which allow consideration of such enterprises in far- planning. the completed fars plans are prepared only for illustrative purposes of the relative ease with which resources can be cosbined into an optilul colbination of enterprises if the decisionplaker possesses adequate infornation. This writer agrees wholeheartedly with Barraclough and Gould's conclusion that: the owner is the person best equipped to work out, evalup ate and choose along alternative farn and forest operating plans, provided he has the right kind of technical assistance. If techniciansa work with a forest owner rather than plan for his, the operator is sore likely to sake well-inforsed decisions and put than into effect on the ground.9 8iigricultural econosists and foresters' would be preferred by the writer. 98010:: L. Barraclough, and Ernest l. Gould, Jr. , Icononic is of Far: Forest 0 at Unite (Harvard Forest Bulletin o. 2 , 7mm e ts: W Forest, 1955), p. 133. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE This dissertation is concerned with the budgeting of farm forest enterprises, and the systematic integration of those enter- prises into a far: plan. A review of farm nanagement and farm forestry literature reveals only three studies which are concerned with the budgeting of farn forest resources and enterprises into farl plans in conjunction with the budgeting of other far: resources and enterprises. These are: "Ebononic Analysis of Far- Forest Operation Units," by Barraclough and Gould;1 "Far- Forestry Planning Through Linear Progressing,” by Coutu and Ellertsen;2 and a recently conpleted doctoral dissertation, "Budgeting Fars—and-Forest Operating Units for Increased Net Income: Ales Plantation Cases," by Pleasenton. Barraclough and Gould budgeted several alternatives for the resources of nine New England far-s. These far-s have stands of northern hardwood, spruce, fir and white pine. The plans include three alternative levels of nanagenent for the forest enterprises: 1Ibid., pp. 1-1h5. girthur J. Coutu and Birger I. Ellertsen, Fhrleorestgz M Through Linear Proaanssing (Report No. 2W0; Norris, Tennessee: ennessee Valley Authority, Decenber 1960). :Alfred Pleasanton, "Budgeting Fara-and Forest Operating Units for Increased let Insole:.inee Plantation.Cases" (unpublished Doctor's thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 196%). 8 high intensity, medium intensity and low intensity.“ Forest enter- prises included sawtimber stumpage, sawlogs sold at roadside, pulpwood stumpage, pulpwood sold at roadside, maple sirup and Christmas greens. As shown in Figure 2, the farms are all located in the agricultural fringe area of New England where agriculture has declined. The authors selected four farms with limited cash and labor, buildings small and in poor repair, with agricultural enterprises generally small, and relatively large acreages of forest land. The other five had more arable land, better buildings and equipment, and relatively less forest land. Brief tabular descriptions of the farms are presented in Table 1. All of the farms had sizable forest land areas, representing at least 55 per cent of the total area of any farm. The authors “Barraclough and Gould, Jr., 0 . 223,, p. 2%. "a. High Intensity of Forest Management assumes cultural treatments at 5- to 15-year intervals throughout the life of the stand. These treatments will include weedings, thinnings, and improvement cuttings when they seem silviculturally desirable. Harvest cuttings will also be made in a way to promote prompt and valuable reproduction. This silvi- cultural program is designed to take full advantage of the productive capabilities of the woodlands, and trees will be harvested when they have reached their most profitable development. ”b. Medium Intensity of Forest Management assumes that trees will be harvested when they have reached their most profitable development and will be cut in a way to promote prompt and valuable reproduction but that no other cultural operations will be made during the life of the stand. In exceptional cases, however, weeding will be done if it seems likely to make a marked improvement in the forest cover that will take over an area. "c. Low Intensit ‘2; Forest Management assumes that stands will be clear-cut or high-graded whenever they contain enough value to attract a buyer. No special attempt will be made to improve production during the life of the stand or to promote reproduction." Figure 2. Locations of Farms Studied by harracleugh and Gould, Harvard Bulletin lo. 26. 10 .osnmn .aa ..pao .mm...uu .oasou one nwsoaouunem. w on a o: oww omH woa wmaa snow hnono one voonom omnuA I H e w man an: an IIV mm: .mouanmnouno ousnon one hnflno .pmfinnop mnondnaoo snow Haam I m om mum AII HHH IIV own .nomflnanopno onnHooos ons moon wnanonnoo snow HHHm I a ma mad ow om mom .anuu easaeoosuauaue Haas I a « om 0mm Ann mod IIV mom .mnsm onoHoaos one mono mnonansoo hnoon I H com a o mum mm m: omoa .noannnAXo moonannn panda can» nsoanonn Heavens noon sham hnaso HHHm I a on m m a ma now an. mm Iuv wno .mpoxnsa possess season ouuaaan no“: ease shame Haam I o m H :H n a won :m mm mom .Haom a» mono: hHHonpno>o nounnomo on» non» sham hnano Hafim I m H m H a. m mom am 3 mom .nsov oonoonsno hanson a nd anon HHHm I 4 .02 .02 .oz .ozu .oz .02 .oz cones menus nonoo uohoo unom uounomn moaouao usoo puonoh eunuuomo send. mush moon nonuo add: Hooch o.mN .os nduoaann voonoh ono>nsx na oanow one nwnoaoonnnm ho oouhdmnd smash .H oases g.-. ll emphasized repeatedly the lack of, and great need for, input-output data with which management alternatives can be derived. In fact, equal in value to their work with budgeting woodland enterprises is their revelation of the vast amount of information needed. They found "only bits and snatches of information".5 Out of necessity, input data were based on rules of thumb and labor input curves derived from limited information. For each farm discussion covered descrip- tions of the present physical, social and economic conditions of the township and markets and of the farm, the problems and possibilities of the farm, proposed plans for the farm and advantages and dis- advantages of each proposed plan. For the first farm the authors also discussed soil and field descriptions, input-output data, price data, the woodland enterprise plans, forest treatments, future yield and income possibilities, and the owners actual decision concerning his program. Coutu and Bllertsen6 were more concerned with the adoption of linear programming to budgeting the farm forestry enterprise than with the budgeting of numbers of farms. They budgeted the non-forest and forest enterprise alternatives for a 20-acre part-time farm and a 250 acre 'large family farm'. The former included h.§ acres of cropland, 1.7 acres of permanent pasture, 13.3 acres of woods, and 0.7 acres miscellaneous. The latter included 60.0 acres of cropland, 5Ibid., p. 92. 6Cantu and Ellertsen,‘gp, cit., p. k. c _ 7‘ )v I .‘I ' 00‘0ro-u0'.’*7.. 12 95.0 acres of permanent pasture, 90.0 acres of woodland, and 5.0 acres miscellaneous. Both farms are located in western North Carolina. Uhen more than 30 different combinations of product and factor prices, discount rates and capital levels were coupled with two levels of operator labor, optimum farm plans (for the small farm) did not include timber activities.7 However, the analysis indicated that ”forestry may be an integral component on relatively large commercial farms".8 The authors' primary objective was ”to identify types of forestry operations or resource situations that are likely to be profitable and to determine the relative advantage of using resource for timber and non-timber activities".9 Coutu and Ellertsen also noted the sad lack of information needed to budget forest enterprises. They believe "agriculturists faced the same problem when they began planning alternative uses of land, labor, and capital resources for individual farms or specific agricultural areas. Using information that was available, their analyses, though rough at first, still provide useful guides. Having to work with approximations emphasized the need for more accurate input—output data, and as these were developed the quality of the plans improved. One would expect a similar pattern in the case of forestry input-output data and forestry enterprise budgeting".lo 7Ibid., p. 10. 81bid., p. 14. 91bid., p. 3. loIbid. 13 Pleasanton budgeted the total resources, including forest resources, of eight tenant farms of the Ames Plantation in Hestern Tennessee, Table 2. This 18,500-acre 'plantation' was willed to the College of Agriculture of the University of Tennessee for research and education in 1950. As did Coutu and Ellertsen, Pleasanton budgeted agricultural enterprise alternatives as well as forest enterprise alternatives. Also, land use was planned to shift areas of brush, idle land and forest land to more profitable uses. Four plans were proposed for each farm. Except for Plan I, each plan represents "modal combina- tions of agricultural enterprises . . . computed from basic data for individual operating units prepared by experienced farm manage- ment specialists of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology of the University of Tennessee Agricultural Emperiment Station":ll Plan I represents present operation of the farm, with no timber sales. Plan II includes "intensive” forestry with harvesting and roadside sale of forest products.12 llPleasanton, 22. c_i_g., p. 185. 12Ibid., p. 170. "Intensive managememt_includes only measures now economically practicable in the region. The farmer will protect his woodland from fire and grazing, girdle cull trees, plant pines on open land and on areas occupied by hardwood stands of low produc- tivity, and harvest timber selectively to maintain a profitable growing stock. Intermediate cuts will include thinnings or improvement cuts. If natural regeneration appears insufficient following appropriate harvest cutting, planting will be used to supplement it or to lk .som one mum .mom .mmm .mmm .smm .sHm .mom .mm ..eHnH. OH H m sow emoH omH woem . mush hupnonoh I moon I noouoo I w wH m m m wwm mmom HmH Howm mush hnuoonoh I mom I noouoo I m H m wHH RH o: mHn mush haueonoh I moon» I moon I noouoo I w m on m w w :5 mm ON a: 0mm mush haunouoh I undue d oomnu I noouoo I m : H N ::H 45H 0H an Non shah hhuuouoh I hndon I noouoo I : om n m w uHH wHN mm mm mom mush hnanonoh I moon I mom I nopvoo I m m nH H m MOH wuH mm mm Hnn mush huauouom I moonm I won I noovoo I N m :H mm nuH Hm oHn mush hnouonoh I moon I mom I nonuoo I H “.02" n.oz~ n.oz~ n.oz~ m.02~ n.oz~ n.oz~ .oz A.oz~ Auonoov Auouoo~ nnouooy muonooy nouoo uoHn: unom oouHem usom oonm oo>Hoo oHuuoo on once henna vuonoh ounpuam onsH ono send mush ume noon nomoo xHHx Houoa ..aoHsu»souuHo Huuopooa uHm «H nossouaon an oouhHuna nan-u .m .Hnea 15 Plan III includes intensive forestry with sale of stumpage only. Plan IV includes "extensive" forestry with sale of stumpage only.13 These three studies were ended at the point where optimum enterprise combinations were suggested to or were selected by cooper- ators. This dissertation, likewise, will conclude with suggested substitute for it. More intensive practices than these are not cons sidered to be reasonable alternatives for present management planning. "The intensive manager's production objective is to obtain as much income from his woodland as is consistent with his overall objective of maximum net income for the entire farm. This includes satisfying needs for products for farm and home use. All round products needed for farm use, fenceposts, structural members for sheds, loading or storage areas, and so forth, will be cut and put in place by the farmer, using farm equipment, or may be custom-cut along with needed farm lumber made by a stumpage buyer whenever such coordination is feasible." 13Ibid., p. 169. ”Extensive management A farmer who has adopted extensive management of his woodland as appropriate to satisfactory over-all management of his farm-and-forest operating unit either has no wood production objective or intends primarily to hold his timber as an asset for emergency use. He has no intentional silviculture and does not invest in any stand treatment or planting of understocked areas. ”The extensive manager occasionally extracts posts, fuelwood, and possibly sawlogs for farm construction. Such harvesting of wood prod- ucts is not considered in the farm plan, however, nor is it related to farm operations except that woods operations do not compete for time with agricultural enterprises. Likewise, occasional stumpage sales are unplanned, but whenever his woods contain enough to attract a stumpage buyer-~usually about 1,500 board feet per acre-the farmer as a reasons ably prudent man will try to sell his timber advantageously. FAlthough the farmer managing his woodland extensively will take no measures to improve yields, and will build neither fences nor fire lanes, he will let his neighbors know that he objects to fire and tree- pass. In case of wildfire on his property or near enough to threaten it, he will aid suppression crews sent by the state fire organization.“ l6 optimum combinations of enterprises. Differences will be in the kinds, sizes and locations of farms studied, in the budgeting technique used and the alternatives offered for the forests. All four studies should encourage researchers and extension specialists in farm management and forestry to establish and/or continue studies over at least a decade. to allow evaluation of farm businesses which include forest enterprises. CHAPTER III BUDGETING FARM RESOURCES AND ENTERPRISES A farmer must allocate his resources among some optimum combi- nation of enterprises if he wants to maximize his net farm income. Since his physical, economic, political and social environment are changing continuously, his farm planning must be continuous. The precision and complexity of his farm plans depend upon the importance of the consequences. Hielson has described a number of farm planning methods.1 "Several of the methods tend to overlap,“ he wrote; "there- fore, no sharp lines of demarcation are implied by the . . . classi- fication.”:2 partial informal judgment, whole farm informal judgment, land-use approach, cost-accounting approach, direct comparison, productive days of work, standard system, mathematical approach (econometric models), linear programming and the budget method. The budget method is divided into simple budgeting, intermediate budgeting and advanced budgeting. All of these would appear to fit under the definition of “budgeting“ as defined by the North Central Farm.Management Research Committee.3 lJames mum Nielson, ”Application of the Budget Method in Farm Planning” (unpublished Doctor's thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1953), Chapter I. 2Ibid., p. 2. 3North Central Farm Management Research Co-ittee, ”Budgeting in Farm Management Research" (East Lansing, Michigan: Department of .Agricultural Economics, December l95h), (Mimeographed). l7 l8 Hhichever budgeting approach is used by a farmer or farm management worker, there is no question that the forest resources on a farm are part of the total farm resources. Nor is there any logical reason why forest enterprises should not be considered when a farm plan is prepared. However, the writer believes the integration of farm forest resources and enterprises into farm plans has been resisted by farmers and farm management workers because foresters have not presented forest management information in form, detail and quantity similar to information for other farm resources and enterprises. John Black has noted that, "Farm woodlots are commonly left out of farm plans, dealt with sketchily, or planned piecemeal subsequent to or without any general farm-and-home planning, with an extension forester or, more probably, a forester in the Cooperative Forest Management Service in the role of planning assistant.“u Initially, the writer planned to use partial budgeting to present budgets for potential forest enterprises, prepared in a form used for other farm enterprise budgets. Nielsen defines partial budgeting as "making an estimate of the changes in cash costs and cash returns which are expected to result from possible changes in a segment of the farm business."5 The segment of the farm business budgeted would have been the forest enterprises; then, hopefully, farmers and farm “J. D. Black, “Farm and Other Operatingeflnit Land-Use Planning" (seminar in.Land Use and Conservation of Harvard University,IApril, 1955). P- 13- 5Nielson, o . cit., p. 56. 19 management specialists would be delighted to integrate these forest enterprises into their farm plans. In 1964 the writer was introduced to Heathers' simplified programming method.6 This method recommended itself for three reasons: first, it is being used by farm management extension specialists in teaching budgeting to county farm management agents with little prior knowledge in this technique.7 Second, it requires the preparation of a uniform enterprise budget for each enterprise to be considered. This assures statement of forest enterprise budgets in the same terms as budgets for agronomic and livestock enterprises. Third, this method systematically and dispassionately applies resources to enterprises on the basis of their contribution to net farm income. Simplified Programming or Systematic Budgeting Heathers has suggested that perhaps systematic budgeting defines this method better than simplified programming; hence, systematic budgeting will be used hereafter.8 Three steps are involved in systematic budgeting of enter- prises in farm planning: 6Heathers, o . cit. 7FarmManagementAgents Training Sessions by Farm Management Specialists of the Department offlAgricultural Economics, (University of’Uisconsin, Madison, 1963-65). SPersonal conversation with.C. R. Heathers, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, April 28, 1965. 20 "The first step . . . is the preparation of a budget for each crop or livestock enterprise to be considered. An enterprise budget shows the amount of each resource required per acre of crop or unit of livestock. It also includes the net income per unit to be used in planning the farming operation. ”The second step in planning the farming operation is to inventory the farmers available resources. It is important to list the available resources as accurately as possible. ”Once the enterprise budgets are completed, and the available resources are listed, a set procedure is followed in using [systematic budgeting] to determine the most profitable amount of each crop or livestock enterprise to include in the farming opera- tion. As enterprises are added to the farm plan, resources will be used up or exhausted. . . . The principle involved in maxi- mizing net farm income is to exhaust each limiting resource in its most profitable use."9 Details of the three steps are presented in Chapter V as the farm plan for Farm.A is prepared. The essential, and most difficult, first step in systematic budgeting is preparation of the budget for a unit of each enterprise to be considered in the farm plan. Once the necessary budgets have been prepared and the farm resources inventoried, a fixed procedure is followed: 1. A resource—requirements table, Systematic Budgeting Table I, is prepared. This table presents the total amounts of resources available on a farm, the amount of each resource required to produce a unit of each enterprise and the net income from the unit.10 For an example, see Table 32, page 98. 9Heathers, op. cit., p. 3. loIbid., p. 9. 2. 3. 21 Each resource requirement for every enterprise is divided into the total amount available of the resource, and the quotients are recorded in a second table entitled "Determi— nation of Limiting Resource for Enterprises", Systematic Budgeting Table II. This reveals the number of units of an enterprise which could be produced by each available resource. The maximum number of units of an enterprise which the resources of the farm can produce is the smallest number of units under that enterprise heading. To complete this table, the net income for a unit of the enterprise (Table I) is multiplied by that smallest number to obtain the maximum net income possible from the enter- prise. For an example, see Table 33, page 100. As an enterprise is selected for the farm plan, a resource is exhausted. To double-check that enterprises are selected successively on the basis of most profitable use of a resource, a third table, Systematic Budgeting Table III, is prepared showing the net income per unit of each resource used to produce a unit of an enterprise. This table is prepared by dividing the quantity required of oach.resource for a unit of an enterprise (Table I) into the net income for the unit (Table I). Then when an enterprise is added to the farm plan, a check can be made to be certain the enterprise will use the limiting resource most profitably. For an example, see Table 34, page 103. 22 ‘I. Finally, a farm plan is prepared in tabular form: System- atic Budgeting Table IV. Enterprises are added system- atically in order of contribution to net farm income. For an example, see Table 35, page 105. Farm plans for the nine study farms are prepared by this method in Chapter V. Descriptions of Study Farms All nine farmers were operating ce-orcial farms during the time of this study. All are located in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan, as shown in Figure 1. Three restrictions were placed initially upon the selection of farms: (1) A number of types-of- farming areas were to be represented.u (2) The farmers would have been cooperators for at least one year in the Farm Business Analysis Project of the Department of Agricultural Economics of Michigan State University. (3) Inch farm would have at least 1+0 acres or 25 per cent of the farm area in forest lands. The records of 36 Project cooperators in 21 counties showed them to meet the restrictions. Consultation with advisers resulted in the decision to limit the study to 5 to 10 farms representing as many types-of-farming areas and economic sizes as penal-.12 Through the District Directors of the Cooperative ktension Service of Michigan State University, County Extension Directors of 11:. 8. Hill andR. a. lawby, mgmgmalen, Agricultural prerimemt Station, Michigan State University, Special Bulletin 206 (East Lansing, 195k) . pp. 2741. lalkaonimic sizes are based on total farm business investment: s-ll -= less than 860,000; medium a 860,000 - 899,999; and large =- 8100,000 and over. 23 the 21 counties were asked if they would discuss this study with the possible cooperators and rate interest of the possible cooperators as high, fair, or low. Seventeen of the County Extension Directors replied that 30 possible cooperators showed high interest in the study. The 30 farms were studied an aerial photographs in the state office of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service to check the areas in forests. With the County Extension Directors, the possible cooperators and their farm forests were visited. The final selection for the study included the following farms: Farm Type-ef-FarmingArea13 Kind of Farm Economic Sizell+ A 1. General Livestock Feeder Beef Medium and Corn B 2. Dairy, Livestock Dairy Large and Corn C 9. General Livestock Dairy Small and Part-Time D 11. Northwestern Dairy Medium Fruit and Dairy E 12. Dairy, Part-Time Dairy Small and Potatoes F 12. Dairy, Part-Time Mixed Small and Potatoes G 12. Dairy, Part-Time Dairy- Small and Potatoes Potato H 12. Dairy, Part-Time Poultry Small and Potatoes I 14. Cattle, Potatoes Potato- Medium and Part-Time Beef-Hog 13See Figure l for type-of-farming areas. ll(“See footnote 12, this chapter. 21+ Many excellent potential cooperators were not selected, and it is hoped that a study of forest enterprises will be initiated in every forested county of Michigan. Physical and Economic Data Agronomic and Livestock Enterprises Physical yields, resource and labor requirements and price estimates are prerequisite to the combination of enterprises.15 For this study, yields and acreages of agronomic crops and livestock productivity were obtained from the Farm Business Analysis Project FarmiAccount Summary and Code Sheets for the study farms. These data are presented in Table 3. Available labor for each farm is estimated from man-months of labor reported on the Summary and Code Sheets, and is shown in Table #. Each man-month is assumed to equal 250 manvhours. Distribution of labor over the three seasonal periods is adjusted to demands of present agronomic and livestock enterprises. A reduction for overhead labor is not made because this factor is considered in the computation of labor requirements for enterprises in the Michigan Farm Management Handbook.16 Because productivity of agronomic and livestock enterprises is assumed fixed for this study, an indication of production efficiency for these enterprises is presented in Table 3 by the following signs: productivity above or below the average for Project farms in the same group is indicated by a plus (e) or minus (-) mark, behind each production figure. 15Coutu and Ellertsen, 22. cit., p. 2. 16John Brake :2 _a_1_., Michigan Farm Management Handbook, (East Lansing, Michigan: Department efIAgricultural Economics, Michigan State University, A. E. No. 929, 1963), p. IAl. 25 Table 3. Land Use, Agronomic Crops and Yields, Livestock Numbers and Productivity of Study Farms Study Farms A B C O Acres I/A Acres Y/A. Acres I/A. Corn, silage 28 12.9 1+ 39 llI.8 TI» 18 9.1 @- Corn, grain 52 81 bu.+ 113 61 bu.- 16 58 bu.- Potatoes -- --- -- Total Row Cropland 86 11:7 '3": Rye -- -- -- wheat 21+ 47 bu.+ 1+7 1+0 bu.+ -- Oats 7 7O bu.+ #9 59 bu.- 17 #2 bu.- Barley -- -- -- Bay 7 1+.a T+ 82 3.3 2+ 36 2.2 1'- Tillable, pasture only -- 78 2.0 T 18 2.0 T Idle, tillable 9 18 -- Total Cropland 127 E21 125 Non-tillable pasture 2 ‘13? 81 Forest 1 16 97 61 Forest 2 50 #0 22 Forest 3 -- -- -- Forest h -- -- -- Forest 5 -- -- -- Forest 6 -- -- -- Total Forest 66 137 83 Farmstead, misc.... 6 26 7 Total Land 201 332 293 Average Productivity PerIAnimal, Form Number 1960-62 A Beef steers 107 fed Income per head fed 8111 - B Dairy Cows 63 11,300 lbs. milk/cow + B Eros 61 102 lambs/100 ewes a C Dairy Cows 27 7,800 lbs. milk/cow - Table 3.-centinued 26 Study Farms Corn, silage Corn, grain Potatoes Total Row Cropland Rye Wheat Oats Barley Ha! Tillable, pasture only Idle, tillable" Total Cropland Nonvtillable pasture Forest 1 Forest 2 Forest 3 Forest 8 Forest 5 Forest 6 Total Forest Farmstead, niec.“‘ Total Land Farm D Dairy Cows ‘E Dairy Cows F Ewes D Acres Y/A. Acres Y/A. Acres Y/A. 12 9.3 T+ 12 1%.? T+ -- 32 72 bu.+ 10 66 bu.+ -- 44 22 -- 9 l3 bu.- -- -- 22 61 bu.+ 22 50 bu.+ -- 2 33 bu. 7 50 bu.+ -- 80 2.9 T+ 70 2.0 T- 63 1.6 T- 9 2.3 r 22 1.9 T 77 70 -- 10 535 I13 I55 :::' "757 :::' 33 18 25 53 #1 l8 -- MI 55 86 103 98 7'9- '—5' '77 EI 3T8 326' Average Productivity per Animal, Number 1960—62 39 8.570 lbs. milk/cow - 22 10,210 lbs. milk/cow - 155 106 lambs/100 ewes - 27 Table 3.-—centinued Study Farms 0 H I Acres I/A. Acres I/A. Acres I/A. Corn, silage -- -- 7 19.0 T+ Corn, grain - -- -- Potatoes __1_2 357 bu.- _-:_ 2]; 387 bu.- Total Row Cropland 19 -- 38 m. —- -- 6 X) hue Wheat -- -- 5 #0 bu.+ Oats 23 #8 bu.- 2 30 bu.- 26 92 bu.+ Barley -- -- 23 65 bu.+ Hay 67 2.1 r- 67 1.1 r— 36 3.5 r+ Tillable, pasture only 81 0.8 T -- 56 2.0 T Idle, tillable” __2 .12 _y_I_ Total Cropland 199 195 209 Non-tillable pasture .5}: _: .11 Forest 1 59 “9 1‘9 Forest 2 52 9 180 Forest 3 3k -- 160 Forest 8 25 -- --- Forest 5 11 -- --- Forest 6 fl ; .2. Total Forest 198 58 389 Farmstead, misc.”. '1"; _17 ”31' Total Land F63 2'25 385 Average Productivity per Animal, Form Number 1960—62 G Dairy Cows 20 10,630 lbs. milk/cow - H Hens 3,462 85.98 egg sales/hen - I Beef Cows 28 26 calves born 7 I Saws (2 litters) 12 sows 7 P188 weaned/litter a ‘I/A - Field per Acre "Includes acreages im.Conservation.Reserve. “‘Includes swamp and wildlife lands. ."9 . - -. a..- 28 .uoanmnopno xo3oe>HH one onononmo homes no oooon 3 oopunnoo .93 non 0mm x nonsH no unonox .uonooou unnoooo Inch. 8mm 8mm RS 8:. 8m omen omom H 83 R: RH 33 RH 03 ooon m 38 03H 8: omen oSH om: ooon o can 83 SH earn 3 own coon . h 8... osHH 93 Son 8H II... Ram m osom oanm owom omno coo onom ooom o SH 8.: SNH 80.. RN. omm ooon 0 SR 0.3m 8mm onmm coo: omwm ooom m 08 83 0mm coon IIII IIII coon 4 6.9.535 .unenflm .nmeuémh Heeea eehm an nBenemo 8a 833233 .83 Heneneem .eéemée: .enea 33. Jenna Seeds: on need-Hes— .e .36 29 Resource and labor requirements for livestock and agronomic enterprises were obtained from the Michigan Farm Management Hand- 17 a.Quarterly Bulletin of the MichiganHAgricultural Experiment Station,18 and enterprise budgets prepared by The Department of book, Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin. These will be identified as used for individual farm plans. Input and product prices for agronomic and livestock enter- prises were obtained from or adjusted to the estimates in the Michigan Farm Management Handbook.19 The data available to this writer did not include not worth information for the farms, so investment capital borrowing capacity was estimated with an approxi- mation formula used by the Farmers' Home Administration: average net farm income, 1322 family living expense,20'l£§§ 10 per cent of average machinery investment, 1352 2.5 per cent of average land investment, 13:: a contingency fund of 8400. The remainder was considered to be available to amortize a 10—year loan at 6 per cent interest.21 The confidential nature of economic data used in this study prevents the use of actual figures to illustrate operational l7Jenn Brake £3 3._1_., Ibid., pp. IAl, 112, 1112, 1113, 1111A, 11115, 111132, 1va3. "" 180. R. Hoglund and I. T. Wright, "Economic Analysis of the Michigan Potato Enterprise ," Mterli Bulletin, Michigan Agri- cultural Experiment Station, Article 2-61, May, 1960, p. 698. 19Brake 35%., 22. cit., pp. 1131, 1132. 201bid., p. IE1. 21Ibid., p. 1B2. '0 30 efficiency of the cooperators. However, efficiency relative to other farmers in the same Project type-of-farm group will be useful to agricultural economists who study the farm plans systematically budgeted for the farms using static production data for agronomic and livestock enterprises. Using several measures of efficiency, the smdy farms are compared to the average for their Project group.‘22 These general comparisons are shown in Table 5. A plus (4») sign indicates a study farm figure above the group average, a. minus (-) sign indicates a study farm figure below the group average, and an equal (a) sign indicates a study farm figure approximately that of the group. Forest Enterprises Yields of forests were based upon Ferree and Hagar's growth rate table-.23 Met growth data (gross growth less mortality and cull) were used for enterprises with no nnagenent: the Nothing Alternative described later. Gross growth data were used for enterprises which included .magement. Productivity of forest sites for sawtinber and pulpwood no esti-ted with the use of Soil Capability Maps prepared for each farm by the Soil Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture combined with observations of dominant tree 22L. H. Brown, Some Rules of Thumb for Good Farm ____M_a_nage_m_e_n_t_, (East Lansing, Michigan: Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, 1963). (Mimoographed.) —:Miles J. red-nee and Robert 1. Hagar, Tim__b__er Growth Ro_t__ee (Syracuse College of Forestry, 1955). pp. 23-39. f\ 31 Table 5. Measures of Efficiency, Study Farms Compared to Project Averages‘ A B C D E F G H I 012 012 012 012 012 012 012 012 012“ Per Han: Gross Income -—:= ..+ .++ --+ +++ .. 4.... +.+ ".0" Tillabl. Acres +-- +=+ -++ +-- +++ :- +=+ +++ -- Per Tillable Acre: Gross income --+ --- -=— --+ +—+ -- +.+ +.- -- Machinery investment -- --- +-- +++ +== ++ +++ =-- -- Fertilizer use +++ -- --- -+- +=+ -- +-- - -+ Production per unit of Livestock: Pounds milk sold per cow +++ --- --- --+ +-- Pigs weaned per litter -+ Lasbs raised per 100 ewes ==- ++ Eggs produced per hen +-- Livestock Income per 8100 feed fed +-+ =—- +++ -=» --= -+ +-+ - — -- Gross Incoae per 8100 EXpense --+ +=+ +++ =-+ +++ -- +++ --+ -- Net Fara Incoae --+ +++ +++ +-+ +-+ -- +—- --+ -- Labor Incoae --+ +++ +++ +-+ -- +-+ --+ -- Rate Earned on Investaent --+ +-+ +++ -+ +++ +++ -- +++ --+ -- 85 Project Report used, 1960: AB 808 809 8 4 6 l 815 815 1961: AB 909 908 908 908 908 909 909 876 909 19623‘LE 915 912 913 918 918 917 919 911 917 ‘Project averages were obtained froa Department of.Agricultura1 Econoaic.AE's listed at the foot of the table. “0 a 1960; 1 = 1961; 2 8 1962. "‘(+) a above Project type-of-fars group average, (-) = below group average, (a) a about the ease as group average. 32 heights and apparent tree vigor. For each forest average volumes per acre in board feet and in cords were computed for successive decades. The growth rates for these average voluses were used as the annual yields for the forest for that decade. Decadal volune and youth estimates were continued until average annual value declined from above to below six per cent; or until average annual value began to decline if it did not reach 6 per cent. At this volume a forest was assumed to have reached optimum economic stocking. When enterprise budgets were prepared, an optimum forest budget as prepared for this level of stocking. To obtain information on present volume, composition and condition a sample inventory was taken of each forest using the Bitterlich point-sampling technique. A field tally sheet was used which allowed easy transfer of data to key-punch cards. See Ap-_ pendix A. For each tree sampled species, 1213112“ by ‘I-inch class, number of 8—foot bolts, number of 8-foot logs, tree condition and evident cause of aortality of dead trees were recorded. Diameter class limits were: lI--i.nch class, 2.0 - 5.99 inches; 8-inch class, 6.0 - 9.” inches and so forth. The number of 8—foot bolts were estinted te a variable ‘I-inch top, inside bark. The number of 8-foot logs were estinted to a variable 8-inch top, inside bark. Seven tree condition classes were included: cull, poorzcut, poor:1eave, goodzcut, goodzleave, specialzcut, and special:leave. Another classification, 2“bis-eta measured at 10* feet above the ground is referred to by foresters as "diameter breast height", or DEE. 33 dead, was included initially, but proved to be of little value because of indeterminant cause of mortality for the few dead trees tallied. 'Cull', 'poor' and 'good' descriptions were based upon recommendations of the Cutting Practices Committee of the Lower Michigan Chapter, Society of American Foresters:25 1. Good growing stock. Trees of desirable species, form, and distribution, capable of making satisfactory net growth. 5. Poor_growing stock. Herchantable trees which include: a. Poor risk trees not likely to survive until the next cut. These trees are merchantable at the present time. b. Herchantable trees in which a net loss in volume and value is occurring, usually due to decay. c. "Half” trees of poor form or quality taking up growing space needed by more desirable trees. d. Trees that should be removed in thinnings and stand improvement cuttings, such as low value species which occupy growing space needed by more desirable species. A. Cull trees. Any trees which are unmerchantable because of poor form, limbiness, rot, or other defect. 'Cut' and 'leave' refer to the writer's judgement concerning the value of cutting a tree versus retaining in the forest for another ten years. Species, form, present stocking and vigor all influenced his judgment. The 'special' description applied to maple sirup trees and white cedar post trees. Stand and stock tables were prepared by an IBM 1901 computer, programmed by Mr. Gerald Lastsch of The Hichigan.State University Computer Laboratory. An example of the computer print-out is presented as Table 6. ZsSociety of American Foresters, Lower Michigan Chapter, Cutting Practices Committee, Recommended Forest Cutting Practices ‘52: Lower Michigan (n.n., 19595, p. 5. ":mo hznoa mnazm Imo quoa waaz0 Imo hzuoa wqazm 0.0 00 bah uwaw v :i0n0- ! ~Lu-i4eH u..upm .m .Han 35 For each forest basal area per acre, trees per acre, total trees, cords per acre, total cords, board feet per acre and total board feet (the last two for trees in the 12—inch and larger classes) were computed. These data were reported for sapling and pole-size trees (4-inch and 8-inch classes) and for sawtimber trees (la-inch class and larger). The data were presented by species within condi- tion classes. Farm.A includes two forests, totalling 66 acres, or one-third of the farm. Forest No. 1 contains 16 acres with #5 square feet of basal area, 2H5 trees per acre and an average diameter of 5.5 inches. This forest is understocked according to U. S. Forest Service Standards.26 It is composed largely of low-quality trees, as shown in Table 7. This forest is on Nappanee silt loam usable for agronomic crops if drained.27 If adequately stocked with species such as white oak and white ash, sawtimber would find ready markets at 350 per MHM28 and 890 per HEM, respectively, for stumpage.29 See Appendix.A for stumpage and log prices for each farm. Elm has an erratic market at about 820 per MBM for stumpage. Hickory has no market. If this forest is to contribute positively to net farm income, it must be 26Forest Service, Timber Management Guide for Upland Central Hardwoods, United States Department of Agriculture (Washington, D. C., 1962), p. 17. 27M. M. Striker et al., Soil Survey_ of LenaweeC untz, Michigg, Soil Conservation Service,— United States Department oangriculture, Series 1997, No. 10 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1961), p. 30. 28MBM = thousand board measure, synonymous with thousand board feet. 29Stumpage refers to trees standing in the forest. An owner who sells stumpage does none of the harvesting. Table 7. Composition of Forest No. 1, Farm.A, Per Acre Species Basal Area Trees Volume ‘(Eouare feet) (number) (cords)‘ (board feet)“ Hickory 33.3 181.5 n.39 ---- Ironwood 6.7 57.3 ---- ---- El- 2.2 2.2 -...... 32 White ash 1.1 0.8 ---- 82 White oak 1.1 0.8 ---- 82 Total 44.h 2h2.6 k.39 2h6 Tree Condition“‘ cull 505 13e5 Ooh“ ——-- Poor:cut 29.9 171.9 1.75 82 Poor:leave 13.5 54.9 2.19 82 Good:leave 1.1 0.8 ---- 82 Total ht.) 2hl.l h.38 246 DBH Class! h—inch 1#.# 165.5 0.20 ---- 65-inch 25.5 73.2 I+.19 ---- 12-inch 1.1 l.“ --- 82 16-inch 2.2 2,1. --..- 16‘. Total Ma} 2h2.5 #39 21.6 ‘In trees 2 inches BBB and larger, to a variable k-inch top. "In trees 10 inches DBH and larger, to a variable 8-inch top. “‘Recommended Forest Cutting Practices for Lower Michigan, £2323 #DBH Class = Diameter Breast Height (#fi feet above ground) classes. 'h-inch" class: 2.0 - 5.99 inches: “8-inch” class: 6.0 - 9.99 inches, etc. . . o a . .- O 37 re—established or converted to some other use. Optimum economic stocking of about #000 board feet per acre would not be reached by the present stand until the end of the fourth decade. At current prices the average value of the timber in this forest for the next decade is about $16.00 per acre, only 15 per cent of its bare land value. The average net value of a stand of Christmas trees planted on this land would be about $177.00 per acre at current prices. Forest No. 2 of Farm.A is a 50-acre central hardwoods forest. Stocking is lower than Forest No. 1, but species composition is more valuable, as shown in Table 8. Although this forest is on good soils (Griffin, Genesee and Sloan silt loans) many short, steep banks and occurence of Spring flooding preclude its conversion to other uses.30 Interplanting of black walnut appears to have considerable potential because demand for this species has forced prices to a current level of 81,000 per MBM stumpage for reasonably sound trees. White oaks, sugar maple and black cherry have steady markets at about $50 per MBM. White ash now is worth.8#0 per MHM while red oak and basswood average about 335 Per HEM. Red maple currently is finding markets at about 830 per MBM. Walnut, white and red oaks, sugar maple, white ash and basswood are most valuable currently. These valuable species represent about one-third of current stocking, so timber stand improvement should prove worthwhile if initiated after the walnuts are established. Without interplanting but with timber stand improvement the stand 30Striker 2.11;, o . cit., p. 56. Table 8. Composition of Forest No. 2, Farm A, Per Acre Species Basal Area Trees Volume (square feet)' (number) (Eord37‘ (board feet)‘ Ironwood 11.1 122.6 0.20 ---- Ell 6.1 22.6 0.45 122 White ash 5.5 29.5 0.14 201 Butternut 1.7 2.9 0.09 59 Buckeye 1.7 9.6 0.12 ---- Willow 1.2 2.5 0.12 ---- Basswood 1.2 2.5 0.19 22 Walnut 1.1 0.8 ---- 94 Sycamore 1.1 1.0 --—- 100 Hickory 1.1 0.8 ---- 131 Cottonwood 1.1 0.8 ---- 194 Swamp white oak 0.6 0.2 --- #1 Total 55.5 190.2 1.26 919 Tree Condition‘ cm 6.7 1902 0.55 ---- Poor:cut 15.9 127.5 0.55 100 Poor:1eave 1.1 12.7 0.05 ---- Good:cut 2.8 2.2 ---- 205 Good:leave 8.2 28.2 .22 611 Total 33.1. 190.1 1.27 91‘. DBH Class‘ #-inch 15.8 159.2 0.50 ---- 8-inch 6.1 17.5 .97 ---- 12-inch 7.2 9.2 ---- 527 16-inch 5.6 9.0 ---- 529 20—inch 0.6 0.2 ---- 22 Total 55.5 190.1 1.27 915 ‘See footnotes in Table 7. 39 would reach optimum stocking of about 4000 board feet per acre in about 20 years. At current prices, the average value of this timber during the next decade is about 885 per acre or about 80 per cent of the bare land value. With interplanted walnut this forest has a potential increase in value for the next decade of about 322 per acre. Farm B includes two forests totalling 157 acres, or 22 per cent of the farm. Forest No. 1 is composed of several stands of mixed hardwoods on level, dark-colored soils described by Hill and Mawby as ”burrEsicJ oak openings"31 The stands comprise 97 acres. The stands have reached optimum economic stocking, as shown in Table 9. Sugar maple is in strong demand. Current stumpage prices are approxi- mately 8100 per MBM for this species. Red oak and white oaks find ready markets at about 855 per MBM. Even red maple is in relatively strong demand at 850 per MBM, above the average price for white ash of 895 per MBM. These more valuable species32 comprise 68 per cent of the stand. However, the low percentages of stocking represented by good growing stock and by smaller diameters indicate careful harvest and judicious timber stand improvement should be profitable practices in these stands. Current volume of poor:cut trees and growth allow enterprises including moderate annual or periodic sawb timber harvests. At current prices average value of the timber in this forest during the next decade, without management, would be approximately 311:. B. 11111 and n. c. Mawby, 22. 313., p. 78. 32Including basswood, black cherry, tuliptree and butternut. 1.0 Table 9. Composition of Forest No. 1, Farm B, Per Acre .Spggies Basal Area Trees Volume (square feet), (number) (cords)‘ (board feet)‘ Red maple 15.0 58.9 5.68 860 White ash 8.0 11.0 2.62 696 N. red oak 8.0 4.5 2.65 1080 Bur oak 7.0 9-7 1.89 535 Elm 6. 5 5.9 1.89 473 Basswood 5.1 10.5 .86 159 Sugar maple 5.0 9.4 .75 158 White oak 2.0 2.5 .62 220 Black cherry 2.0 18.6 .21 ---- Ironwood, etc. 2.0 18.6 .08 ---- Sycamore 1.0 .4 .54 151 Black walnut .5 .2 .15 57 Tuliptree .5 1.4 .08 ---- Butternut .5 .6 .15 57 Hickory .5 1.4 .08 ---- Willow .2 .4 .12 62 Total 58.1 154.0 16.18 4451 Tree Condition‘ Cull 4.5 14.5 .75 ---- Poor:cut 20.5 46.9 5.51 1588 Poor:1eave 10.5 24.2 2.90 525 Good:cut 7.5 5.0 2.54 1125 Good:leave 16.0 42.6 4.44 1412 Total 59.0 154.2 16.14 4451 DBH Class‘ 4-inch 6.0 68.8 .52 ---- 8-inCh 12.5 54.4 2.55 ---- 12-inch 11.5 14.6 5.57 687 16-inch 14.5 10.4 4.82 1759 20-inCh 11.0 5.0 5.72 1445 24—inch 5.0 1.0 .88 585 28-inch .5 .1 .17 65 52-inch .5 .1 .17 78 56-inch .2 .1 .12 22 Total 59.0 154.5 16.15 4450 ‘See footnote in Table 7. 41 $285 per acre. With guidance of a forester in the careful harvest of about 1580 board feet, or 844 of the original value of low value trees, and timber stand improvement to remove the unmerchantable trees. average value of the timber for the next decade should approach 3261 per acre. The average value per MBM of sawtimber would have been increased from 857 to 364. Forest No. 2 on Farm B is a 40-acre stand of sugar maple-beech- mixed hardwoods on rolling well-drained sandy loams. It should reach optimum stocking of about 8100 board feet per acre in about ten years if only poor:cut trees are harvested during the first decade; and optimum stocking probably can be realized within twenty years even allowing harvests of 200 board feet of annual growth. As can be seen in Table 10, the valuable species comprise 60 per cent of the stand; however, good growing stock makes up less than one-third of the stocking. The proportion of sugar maple in the forest increases its potential worth if current demand for this species continues. Average timber value during the next decade for this forest without manage- ment will be about 8460 per acre. Under management, an initial volume of about 2500 board feet of poor:cut sawtimber, with a value of about 870 could be harvested per acre. Removal of the low-value trees and subsequent timber stand improvement would increase value of the timber to an average for the decade of about 8650 per acre. A maple sirup enterprise is possible for this forest if the climate is not too ameliorated by Lake Michigan to allow the above freezing days and below freezing nights in late winter which are necessary for a productive sugarbush. This forest could produce 42 Table 10. Composition of Forest No. 2, Farm B, Per.Acre Species Basal Area Trees Volume (square feet)* (number) (cords)‘ (board feet)‘ Sugar maple 55.5 95.2 9.86 2655 Elm 10.6 50.5 2.95 572 Beech 10.6 6.5 5.28 1250 Basswood 5.8 5.2 .96 595 Hickory 3.7 4.9 1.39 324 N. red oak 2.5 1.1 .66 456 Ironwood, etc. 1.9 10.7 .25 ---- White ash 1.2 7.6 .28 81 Hackberry 1.2 2.2 .45 97 Black walnut 0.6 .4 .24 115 Butternut 0.6 .8 .21 81 Red maple 0.6 .8 .26 112 Total 72.6 161.7 20.75 5895 Tree Condition‘ Cull 5.6 20.5 1.15 ---- Poor:cut 55.8 79.5 9.21 2551 Poor:1eave 5.7 8.8 1.88 519 Good:cut 5.1 1.4 .92 581 Good:leave 24.4 21.2 2.22 2461 Total 72.6 161.5 20.75 5892 DBH Class‘ 4-inch 6. 3 71.6 .33 ---- 8-inch 18.1 51.9 4.59 ---- 12-inch 15.0 19.1 4.82 1214 16-inch 20.0 14.4 6.98 2786 20-inch 5.7 2.6 1.49 733 24-inch 6.9 2.2 2.50 1078 28-inch .6 .2 .21 81 Total 72.6 162.0 20.72 5892 ‘See footnotes in Table 7. 43 about 10 gallons of sirup annually during the next decade. Advice of the local service forester should be sought. The costs and returns from a maple sirup enterprise are presented in Table C17, Appendix C. Farm C includes two forests, of 61 acres and 22 acres, which comprise 28 per cent of the farm. Forest No. l is a stand of pioneer hardwoods, as shown by Table 11. The soil is imperfectly drained loamy sand. The soil is gently sloping with little erosion.33 It is drouthy when drained, very low in fertility. Stumpage and 10g prices for this area are low, probably reflecting the low quality of trees grown on these infertile soils. Even a relatively valuable species such as white ash demands only 820 per MBM for sawtimber stumpage on the current market. Current sawtimber stumpage prices, per MBM, include 815 for red maple, 812 for Jack pine, 810 for red oak.and elm and 86 for aspen. At these current sawtimber stumpage prices, the timber will have an average value of about 817 per acre for the next decade. Current pulpwood stumpage prices average about 81.25 per cord. Evaluated as a pulpwood stand, average value of the stand for the next decade would be about 812 per acre. This forest can be managed for clearcut pulpwood harvests on a 20-year rotation, harvesting at a stocking level of about 15 cords per acre. This is somewhat below the optimum level of 17 to 18 cords, but allows for annual clearcut harvest of about 5 acres. The alternative is to 33Soil Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Conservation Plan for (name withheld for confidential reasons) farm, 1951. Table 11. Composition of Forest No. 1, Farm C, Per Acre Species Basal Area Trees Volume (square feet)' (number) (cords)‘ (board feet)‘ Aspen 21.5 87.4 5.45 221 Red maple 16.0 101.0 1.90 150 White birch 7.0 67.5 .59 ---- Elm 4.5 25.4 .52 77 White ash 2.5 14.7 .51 57 Hemlock 2.5 5.6 .58 57 Willow 2.0 8.4 .28 90 8. white oak 1.5 2.4 .54 75 White oak 1.0 1.5 .15 40 Black ash 1.0 7.2 .08 ---- Cottonwood 1.0 .4 .52 150 Basswood 0.2 1.4 ---- ---- Total 61.0 520.5 8.50 875 Tree Condition‘ Cull 705 3603 059 """' Poor:cut 11.5 72.7 1.28 150 Good:cut 1.6 5.6 .61 167 Good:leave 281;: 202.2 2.81 578 Total 59.1 319.8 8.29 875 DBH Class‘ 4—inch 20.0 229.2 1.18 ---- 8-inch 26.0 74.5 4.09 ---- lZ-inch 11.5 15.5 2.55 618 l6-inch 1.5 1.1 .34 127 20-inch .5 .2 .15 65 24-inch .2 .2 .12 62 Total 60.0 520.5 8.28 875 ‘See footnotes in Table 7. 45 convert the forest to conifers. With the acreage of relatively open land on the farm which can be planted with comparatively little over- head release, clearcutting about four acres each year for the next 15 years might be the better alternative. Forest No. 2 of Farm C includes 22 acres of mixed hardwoods and pioneer hardwood on imperfectly drained sandy loam.38 This forest contains a greater percentage of more valuable species, as well as a higher percentage of good growing stock than does forest No. 1. See Table 12. This forest appears to be converting from pioneer hardwoods to a mixture of more permanent species. Composi- tion of this forest provides more timber stumpage value per acre: 846 compared to $17 for forest No. 1. This forest can reach optimum stocking of about 5,000 board feet per acre in about 15 years. This volume should produce perpetually about 500 board feet of sawtimber annually, providing for rough lumber requirements of the farm, sawlogs for sale, and about one-third of a cord of fuelwood--or about 10 standard cords from the forest. Farm D includes two forests, comprising 86 acres, or about one-fourth of the farm. Forest No. 1 consists of 20 acres on Ogemaw and Munuscong sandy loans: imperfectly drained soils which can be used for some agronomic crops if drained.35 This forest is essen- tially a stand of pioneer hardwoods: aspen, red maple and white 3'l'Soil Conservation Service, Ibid. 350. H. Wonser, J. 0. Veatch and W. J. DeBoer, Soil Survey of Mason Count , Michi , Bureau of Chemistry and Soils, U. S. 'fizpartmen 0 gr culture, Series 1956, No. 1 (Washington: Govern- ment Printing Office, 1959), pp. 55-56, 46-47. Table 12. Composition of Forest No. 2, Farm C, Per Acre Species Basal Area Trees Volume (Square feet)' (number) (Eords)‘ (board feet)‘ Red maple 15.0 57.5 5.25 708 Aspen 12.0 28.0 2.12 194 Ell 11.0 56.9 1.46 80 White ash 10.0 14.2 2.81 645 White birch 7.0 54.4 .79 ---- White oak 5.0 5.4 .57 114 Cottonwood 2.0 .9 .68 285 Beech 1.0 2.9 .09 ---- Hemlock 1.0 2.2 .12 ---- Total 62.0 182.9 11.92 2024 Tree Condition‘ cull 5 00 1'" e3 0 51 ---- Poor:cut 20.0 57.2 5.46 456 Good:cut 4.0 1.7 1.19 497 Good:leave 22.0 192.8 6.24 1022 Total 62.0 185.0 11.90 2024 DBH Class‘ 4-inch 7.0 80.2 .56 ---- 8-inch 26.0 74.5 4.11 --.-- 12-inch 17.0 21.6 4.09 776 16-inch 5.0 3.6 1.49 563 20—inch 6.0 2.8 1.62 579 24-inch 1.0 .2 .26 106 Total 62.0 185.0 11.95 2024 ‘See footnotes in Table 7. 4? birch, with a few other hardwoods included, Table 15. Present saw- timber stocking is so low that about 55 years would be required to reach the optimum level. Cordwood stocking will average about half the optimal level of approximately 20 cords per acre during the next decade. The optimum cordwood level should be reached in 10 to 15 years. About the only alternatives for this forest are the clear- cutting of about an acre per year on a 20-year cutting cycle, or conversion to Christmas trees or agronomic crops. Present value of the timber is 812 to 815, or about one-half of the bare land value. This low valuation reflects the current low prices offered for sawtimber and pulpwood stumpage. The prices in turn reflect the relative low quality of trees grown on these "hardpan" soils}6 Forest No. 2 of Farm D is 61 acres of mixed hardwoods and conifers on Lupton muck.37 This muck apparently has sufficient internal drainage to allow tree root development, especially of the more shallow-rooted species, because of excellent growth and form of the tamarack and white pine.38 The present stand is over- stocked in smaller diameter classes. About 1,800 board feet of poor:cut trees currently are harvestable per acre, Table 14. Ade- quate stocking would allow this timber to be removed in a single initial harvest; or, annual sawlog harvests of about 200 board feet per acre, or pulpwood harvests of about one cord per acre annually during the next decade would remove this timber. Because 36Ibid., p. 56. 37W’onser, Veatch, and DeBoer, Ibid., pp. 49-50. 38Forest Service, Timber Management Guide for the National Forests of the North.Centra1 States: Mixed Conifer Swan. 2123, U. S. Department of —Agriculture(Milwaukee,‘Wisconsin, l9 1 , p. 2. Table 13. Composition of Forest No. 1, Farm D, Per Acre Species Basal Area Trees Volume ‘(EQuare feetj' (numbers IbordE)‘ (board feetj‘ Aspen 28.3 1H3.2 5.0# 67 Red maple 12.8 55.1 2.37 130 Ell 10.0 38.9 1.81 209 white birch 5.0 31.6 .72 --..- Black cherry 3.9 bh.6 .09 ---- Willow 2.2 1.9 .86 41 Ironwood 1.7 9.6 .lh ---- White ash 0.6 6.4 .02 ---- Total 6h.5 331.3 10.28 #47 Tree Condition‘ Cull 3.3 23.9 .18 ---- Poor:cut 29.5 106.9 #.69 339 Good:cut .6 .2 .12 #1 Good:leave 31.1 200.2 2.28 62 Total 68.5 331.2 10.27 447 DBH Class‘ 4-inch 20.0 229.2 1.08 ---- 8-1nch 31.1 89.2 6.37 ---- lZ-inch 7.8 9.9 1.68 17“ l6-inch 1.7 1.2 .35 86 20—inch 2.2 1.8 .82 182 Total 68.5 331.3 10.27 447 ‘Bee footnotes in Table 7. 1*9 Table 14, Composition of Forest No. 2, Farm D, Per Acre Species Basal Area Trees Volume (Ecuare feet?» (number; TEordS)‘ (board feet?‘ White cedar 37.9 219.2 5.48 106 Ell 19.6 26.1 4.79 1381 Aspen 16.5 65.8 4.04 540 Tamarack 14.0 55.7 4.16 519 Willow 11.4 94.1 1.15 ---- Hemlock 6.1 29.7 1.29 184 White ash 5.4 49.1 .65 ---- Red maple 5.3 11.6 1.45 366 White pine 4.3 4.4 1.48 600 Black cherry 2.2 11.5 .41 46 Yellow birch 1.4 2.8 .35 29 Basswood 1.4 2.8 .35 93 White birch 0.8 4.5 .15 14 Butternut 0.4 .3 .11 28 Total 126.7 577.6 25.86 3916 Tree Condition‘ Cull: 5.3 35-5 .49 ---- Poor:cut 33.6 90.4 7.13 1814 Good:cut 4.3 3.3 1.32 465 Good:leave 48.6 244.5 11.78 1532 Specia1:1eave 31.4 197.5 4.34 ---- Special:cut 2.2 6.4 .80 106 Total 126.4 577.6 25.86 3917 DBH Class‘ 4—inch 34.0 388.8 2.53 ---- 8-inch 51.8 148.4 11.37 ---- 12-inch 22.1 28.2 6.44 1887 16-inch 14.3 10.2 4.29 1627 20-inch 3.9 1.8 1.12 356 24-inch .4 .1 .12 46 Total 126.5 577.5 25.87 3916 ‘See footnotes in Table 7. 50 the major portion of the harvestable timber is elm, and Dutch elm disease occurs in this area, close watch must be maintained for signs of serious infection which would justify more rapid removal of this species. Logging operations in this forest would be most efficient during the winter. Although steep inclines border most of the forest, it is readily accessible in several locations. A young pine plantation of about 15 acres is adjacent to forest No. 2. This plantation is currently managed by this cooperator. However, he advised that this acreage soon may be deeded to another member of the family, hence, it has been dropped from the farm inventory. Farm E includes three forests which occupy 103 acres, or one- third of the farm. All three of the forests are on hilly well- drained sandy loans.39 The site is adapted only to growing forest crops, and fortunately can produce excellent sawtimber. The quality of trees which are being grown in these forests is indicated by prices quoted by the cooperator for 1964: sugar maple logs in the forest brought 880 to $120 per MBH, and the 'lowbquality' species (beech, elm and aspen) brought $35 to 840 per HBH for logs in the forest. The maple prices were 60 to 140 per cent above the average for the area, and even the lowbquality logs brought 15 to 30 per cent more. These price differences must reflect quality differences because the higher prices are being paid for logs in the forests, and the topography in these forests offer difficult logging chances. 39115.11 and Mawby, 33. 33., p. 75. 51 These forests are in the northern hardwood type group with major species including sugar maple, beech, basswood and yellow birch.“0 Forest No. 1 is a pole stand.1+1 Current stocking recommenda- tions for a northern hardwood forest call for the following basal area: 2”-4” = 10 square feet, 6"-10" = 20 square feet and 12"-24" = 62 square feet.“2 On this basis, as shown in Table 15, stocking is just beginning to move up into sawtimber sizes. Stocking is almost equally divided between good growing stock and cull plus poor:cut. At current prices, the stand is worth about $13.50 per acre, or just about equal to the bare land value. Growth to optimum stocking for sawtimber would require about 30 years. For the next decade, removal of 20 to 25 square feet of basal area of poor:cut aspen and elm by light timber stand improvement cutting or poisoning can improve quality of composition as the trees grow to sawtimber size. Forest No. 2 of Farm E is a northern hardwoods stand with 1,050 board feet of stocking, Table 16. Compared to the optimum stocking recommendations given in the description of Forest No. 1, sawtimber stocking is about one-third of the optimum. This forest should respond well to silvicultural treatment to increase the sawb timber stocking during the next decade. This forest and Forest No. 3 hobociety of American Foresters, Committee on Forest Types, Forest Cover es 2?. North America (Exclusive o_f_ Mexico), (Washington, De Co, 19625, p. e 41 Society of American Foresters, Forestry Terminology, Third Edition, Washington, D. C., 1958, p. 62. uzFbrest Service, Timber Management Guide for the National Forests 2f the Central States: Northern Hardwood Type, U. S. Depart- ment of.Agriculture (Hilwankee, Wisconsin, 19655. p. 930-1. 52 Table 15. Composition of Forest No. 1, Farm E, Per Acre Species Basal Area Trees Volume (Square feetl' {numbers (cords)‘ (board feet)‘ Basswood 22.2 168.7 2.83 ---- sum uple 21.1 21303 e7l+ ---- Aspen 18.9 70.7 3.72 82 El- 6.7 66.8 .20 —..- N. red oak 2.2 6.4 .34 ---- Red maple 2.2 6.4 .41 ---- Beech 2.2 15.9 .27 ---- II'ODVOOd ’ etc o 1 e]. 2e 2 010 "--- Total 76.6 551.4 8.61 82 Tree Condition‘ Cull 3.3 19.1 .34 ---- Poor:cut 35.2 193.8 4.88 82 Good:leave 37.8 322.4 2.2§ ---- Total 76.3 550.3 8.60 82 DBH Class‘ u—inch 38.9 445.6 1.87 ---- 8-inch 35.6 101.9 6.26 ---- lZ-inch 2.2 2.8 .47 82 Total 76.7 550.3 8.60 82 ‘See Footnotes in Table 7. 53 Table 16. Composition of Forest No. 2, Farm E, Per Acre §2e_c_i_es_ Basal Area Trees Volume (square feetT m (cords)‘ (board feet)‘ Sugar maple 40.9 278.4 5.06 369 ABpen 10.5 48.2 2.12 73 Elm 6.2 20.3 1.11 162 Red maple 5.7 17.4 1.21 73 Basswood 4.3 5.6 1.05 307 Ironwood, etc. 2.4 19.1 .12 ---- Yellow birch 2.0 3.9 .31 38 White ash 1.9 17.7 .22 ---- Beech 1.0 2.0 .14 -—-- I. red oak 0.5 .6 .10 35 39‘1““ .22 _2;2 ---- 2: Total 75.9 418.7 11.44 1057 Tree Condition‘ Cull 2.4 13.1 .27 ---- Poor:cut 31.9 121.2 5.75 369 Good:cut 2.9 1.3 .77 316 Good:leave 38.6 283.2 4.62 .42Z3 Total 75.8 418.8 11.46 1058 DBH Class‘ 4-inch 27.1 311.0 1.26 ---- 8-inch 31.4 90.1 6.32 ---- 12-inch 11.4 14.5 2.44 568 16-inch 2.9 2.0 .67 210 20-inch 1.9 .9 .47 121 24-inch 1.0 .3 .21 160 Total 75.7 418.8 11.47 1059 ‘See footnotes in Table 7. 54 have considerable potential for a maple sirup enterprise using tubing. Sap volume and sweetness can be increased by annual harvests of other species to increase the proportion of sugar maple, and to widen spacing to allow them to develop deeper, fuller crowns. About 40 taps can be made per acre during the next decade. The number should approach the optimum of about 100 taps per acre during the second decade. The average number of taps per acre by DBH Classes for the next decade should be: 8-inch class (9" to 10" trees) = 22 taps, 12-inch class = 15 taps, 16-inch class = 4 taps, and 20-inch class 2 1 tap. The total forest would allow about 3,400 taps. Forest No. 3 on Farm E possesses the best species composition, highest volume of stacking, and steepest slopes. Based on Forest Service recommendations,“3 current sawtimber stocking is about 45 per cent of optimum. The entire stand is somewhat understocked, but the optimum could be achieved within a decade with management. Almost three-fourths of the basal area is in the more valuable species. See Table 17. This forest also has potential as a sugar bush. It will provide an average of about 50 taps per acre during the next decade. However, this forest is tappable only with tubing. The volume of poor:cut trees would allow harvesting of about 100 board feet per acre per year during the next decade. Optimum stocking of about 6,600 board feet would occur in about 20 years. This assumes the poor:cut trees are harvested during the first decade. u31bid. 55 Table 1?. Composition of Forest No. 3, Farm E, Per Acre Species Basal Area Trees Volume (square feetli (number; (cords)‘ (board feet)‘ Sugar maple 40.8 178.3 7.20 751 Beech 11.3 18.9 2.37 388 White ash 5.7 9.6 1.41 306 Ell 5.1 6.6 1.26 298 Yellow birch 3.2 10.0 .53 50 Hemlock 3.1 2.3 .80 337 Red maple 2.5 12.5 .33 ---- Basswood 1.9 .9 .53 224 Ironwood 1.9 4.4 .29 --_- White pine 0.6 .8 .19 66 N. red oak 0.6 .4 .13 46 Aspen 0.6 1.8 .13 ---- Total 77.3 246.5 15.17 2466 Tree Condition‘ Cull 2.5 9.2 .41 ---- Poor:cut 33.2 97.1 6.38 813 Good:cut 8.8 6.8 2.24 911 Good:leave 32.5 123.6 6.12 241 Total 77.0 246.5 15.15 2465 DBH Class‘ 4-inch 10.6 121.8 .75 ---- 8-inch 31.3 89.6 6.17 ---- lZ-inch 20.7 26.2 4.86 1313 16-inch 10.0 7.2 2.11 624 20—inch 3.8 1.7 1.12 449 24—inch .6 .2 .16 81 Total 77.0 246.7 15.17 2467 ‘See footnotes in Table 7. 56 Farm F included three forests which cover 98 acres, or about 30 per cent of the farm. An additional 45 acres are occupied by Greenwood peat which supports a few black spruce. This is not considered as part of the forest area. Forest No. 1 is a 25-acre northern hardwood pole stand. Sugar maple comprises 68 per cent of the stocking, Table 18. The stand has been tapped lightly for maple sirup production. The soil underlying this forest is a gravelly sandy loan with internal drain- age retarded by a clay subsoil.uh The soil survey described this as Ogemaw sandy loam, gravelly phase. However, the Soil Capability Map of the Conservation Plan prepared for the farm by the Soil Conservation Service in 1961 describes the soil as a Kiva gravelly sandy loam. The Plan recommends continuing this area in forest with management emphasis on sugar maple. Although height of the dominant trees reflect the medium productivity of the site, sugar maples released by timber stand improvement cuttings have developed extensive, healthy crowns which could produce large volumes of high» test sap. About 50 taps per acre could be sustained during the next decade. Current stocking of sawtimber is about one-fourth of the 45 optimum on the bases of Forest Service Standards and the optimum economic stocking of about 5,100 board feet. 44 Z. C. Foster et a1. Soil Survgy of Cheboyggfi County, Hichi , U. S. Departiznt-bf Agriculture,-§eries 19 , No. 15 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1939), pp. 20-21. 45 Forest Service, 10c. cit. 57 Table 18. Composition of Forest No. 1, Farm F, Per Acre Species Basal Area Trees Volume ‘(square feetlf (numbers (cords)‘ (board feetj‘ Sugar maple 47.0 284.3 6.21 671 Aspen 14.5 22.8 3.44 665 Ironwood, etc. 9.2 52.9 1.36 ---- Elm 3.8 8.1 .88 138 BalBaI fir 1e5 17e6 all} "'-"- White birch 1.5 4.4 .23 ---- Basswood 0.8 2.2 .07 ---- Hemlock 0.8 .6 .20 82 Beech 0.8 8.8 ---— -..- Total 79.9 401.7 12.58 1556 Tree Condition‘ Cull 3.1 28.6 .07 ---- Poor:cut 17.7 114.7 2.97 138 Good:cut 10.7 25.4 2.62 522 Good:leave 36.1 208.1 5.07 645 Specialzleave 8.2 2 .1 1.32 251 Total 79.9 401.9 12.12 1556 DBH Class‘ 4—inch 24.6 282.1 1.21 ---- 8-inch 33.1 94.8 6.26 --- 12-inch 16.9 21.5 3.79 966 16-inch 3.8 2.8 .92 408 20-inch 1.2 .2 .40 182 Total 79-9 401.9 12.58 1556 ‘See footnotes in Table 7. 58 Forest No. 2 of Farm F is a northern hardwood stand which currently is overstocked: 101 square feet of basal area compared to 92 square feet recommended by the Forest Service,1+6 Table 19. Overstocking is in the sapling and pole sizes. At 42 square feet sawtimber sizes represent about two-thirds optimum stocking. With timber stand improvement to reduce stocking of poor:cut seedlings and saplings by about 20 square feet, optimum stocking could grow to the optimum level within the first decade. Stocking and growth of this stand would allow annual harvests of up to 400 board feet per acre from poor:cut and good:cut classes during the next decade. This would postpone optimum stocking until the second decade. This forest includes a 5—acre stand on Onaway fine sandy loam. Onaway loan is one of the best soils in this area for agronomic crops;‘.7 so, unless this stand is to be developed into a sugarbush, it probably should be converted to agronomic crops because the cooperator has only a few acres of soil of this quality. Forest No. 3 of Farm F is an aspen stand with an understory of balsam fir. See Table 20. Current pulpwood prices for balsam fir are 82.40, 814.40 and about $24.00 per cord for stumpage, at road, and delivered, respectively; compared to 31.25, 87.40 and 812.40 per cord for aspen. So, the balsam fir should be favored by héIbid. 1+7Footer 211,, o . cit., p. 11. 59 Table 19. Composition of Forest No. 2, Farm F, Per Acre Species Basal Area Trees Volume (Equare feet) (number) (cords)‘ (board feet)‘ Sugar maple 46.0 221.6 7.61 2012 Basswood 17.0 23.3 4.60 1575 Aspen 15.0 38.2 3.61 318 Hemlock 6.0 34.4 .66 ---- White birch 6.0 40.8 .71 130 White pine 3.0 1.8 .94 415 Beech 3.0 5.4 .73 114 Ironwood, etc. 3.0 34.4 ---- ---- Ell 1.0 1.3 .21 40 Balsam fir 1.0 __l_._:2 .26 __'_7_4; Total 101.0 402.5 19.33 4678 Tree Condition‘ Cull 6.0 43.0 .27 ~--- Poor:cut 16.0 118.4 1.64 154 Good:cut 19.0 30.8 4.80 1314 Good:leave 46.0 185.7 9.37 2062 Specialzleave 14.0 24.6 2.22 1148 Total 101.0 402.5 19.33 4678 DBH Class‘ 4-inch 23.0 263.6 .53 ---- B-iDCh 36 .0 103e 2 7 e18 ---" 12-inCh 16.0 20.4 4.35 1460 16-inch 16.0 11.5 4.61 1997 20-inch 5.0 2.3 1.29 571 24-inch 2.0 1.6 1.28 629 Total 101.0 402.6 19.34 4678 ‘See footnotes in Table 7. Table 20. Composition of Forest No. 3, Farm F, Per Acre Species Basal Area Trees Volume (Square feet7_ (number) (Bards)‘ (board feet)‘ Aspen 44.0 170.3 7.51 767 Balsam fir 17.5 165.4 1.46 37 White birch 6.5 57.3 .54 --_.. Elm 2.0 3.9 .36 57 Black cherry 1.0 11.5 .09 ---- Sugar maple 1.0 11.5 .04 ---- Tamarack 1.0 2.2 .18 ---- Total 73.0 422.8 10.18 861 Tree Condition‘ Cull 3.0 14.8 ---- ---- Poor:cut 13.0 81.9 1.60 208 Good:cut 9.0 29.1 1.83 485 Good:leave 48.0 296.8 6.22 168 Total 73.0 422.6 10.20 861 DBH Class‘ “‘mCh 2705 315e1 10% ---- 8-inch 33.0 94.6 6.10 ---- 12-inch 8.5 10.2 1.48 426 16-inch 3.0 2.2 .72 264 20-inch 1.0 .5 .28 106 24—inch .2 .2 .15 62 Total 73.5 422.8 10.19 861 ‘See Footnotes in Table 7. 61 all means.#8 Soils under this forest include Detour stony loam and Munuscong sandy loam. The latter is a more productive soil and better adapted to growing balsam fir,“9 so this species should be especially favored on the west and north areas of the forest where this soil occurs. If clearcutting a portion of the over- topping hardwoods each year proves to be the most profitable enter- prise for this forest, other release treatment may not be necessary. Farm G includes 6 forests totalling 198 acres, or 42 per cent of the farm. Four of the forests are northern hardwood stands, and the other two are pine plantations. Forests No. 2, 3 and 4 are 1 - 1% miles from the rest of the farm. Forest No. l is a 59-acre sugar maple-beech-yellow birch stand which includes also appreci- able amounts of red maple, elm and hemlock. The forest is on loamy sand soil with rolling to steep topography. The stocking of this stand almost matches the total desired basal area recommended by the Forest Service: 98 square feet compared to the recommended 92 square feet.50 See Table 21. However, the distribution among tree sizes is contrary to the recommendation: for saplings (4"), poles (8"), and sawtimber (12” plus) the distribution is 28, 41, and 28 square feet of basal area; rather than the recommended 10, 20, and 62 square feet, respectively, for the three tree sizes. ugForest Service, Timber Management Guide for the National Forests 2f the North Central States: Aspen-Paper Birch m, U. S. Department of Agriculture (Washington, D. C., 1958), p.10. “9Foster £51., 0 . cit., p. 21. 5oForest Service, Timber Management Guide . . . : Northern Hardwood mg, 10c. cit. 62 Table 21. Composition of Forest No. 1, Farva, Per Acre Species Basal Area Trees Volume (Square feetjfi (numbers (cordsli (board feetj‘ Sugar maple 54.5 287.2 8.32 811 Beech 14.5 81.6 2.31 202 Yellow birch 8.5 33.1 1.46 143 Red maple 6.2 12.3 1.42 169 Elm 6.2 9.0 1.72 346 Hemlock 5.3 45.6 .47 138 White pine 0.8 .6 .20 100 Butternut 0.8 2.2 .16 ---- Ironwood, etc. 0.8 2.2 .12 ---- Total 97.6 473.8 16.18 1909 Tree Condition‘ Cull 8.4 61.5 .61 ---- Poor:cut 32.3 148.5 5.53 495 Good:cut 3.1 1.7 .79 345 Good:leave 33.8 263.2 2.26 1062 Total 97.6 474.9 16.19 1909 DBH Class‘ 4-inch 28.4 326.2 1.33 ---- 8-inch 40.8 116.8 7.72 ---- 12-inch 21.5 27.4 5.40 1232 l6-inch 5.4 3.9 1.35 514 20-inch .8 .4 .20 82 24—inch .8 .2 .20 82 Total 97-7 474.9 16.20 1910 ‘See footnotes in Table 7. 63 Also, about one-third of the stocking is classed as poor-cut, so quality as well as volume would benefit from light improvement cuts and thinnings. These could produce a stand with optimum stocking of about 6,100 board feet per acre in about 15 years. This forest provides an excellent opportunity for initiating a maple sirup enterprise. During the next decade about 56 taps per acre can be made with tubing. Forest No. 2 of Farm G covers 52 acres of the farm's most productive soil with an overstocked pole stand of sugar maple, elm and basswood. See Table 22. The sandy loam is excellent for potato production.51 The high proportions of sugar maple in the larger DBH classes are of sufficient size to provide an average of about 60 taps per acre during the next decade. Also, this forest supports enough sawtimber volume to allow light improvement harvests while it is growing to an optimum level of stocking. Therefore, a decision must be made concerning the future use of this land: potatoes, maple sirup or sawtimber. Current value of the timber is about 870 per acre. With light improvement cuttings and thinnings the forest could grow to optimum stocking during the second decade. Value of the timber then would be about 8144 per acre. Forest No. 3 on Farm G is a 34-acre pole stand of northern hardwoods. This stand, too, is overstocked. See Table 23. Saplings and poles represent 72 per cent of stocking. The site is rolling, 5111111 and Mawby, 2p. cit., p. 74. 64 Table 22. Composition of Forest No. 2, Farm G, Per Acre Species Basal Area Trees Volume (square feet)» (number) (cords)‘ (board feet)‘ Sugar maple 58.0 297.6 9.33 950 Elm 37.0 112.2 7.51 906 Basswood 14.0 24.6 3.54 744 Hemlock 1.0 .7 .21 74 Total 110.0 435.1 20.59 2674 Tree Condition‘ Cull 6.0 41.4 .92 ---- Poor:cut 37.0 116.4 7.07 1022 Poor:1eave 1.0 2.9 .21 ---- Good:leave 66.0 27 . 12.40 1632 Total 110.0 436.0 20.60 2674 DBH Class‘ 4—inch 21.0 240.6 1.19 ---- 8-inch 55.0 157.6 10.66 ---- lZ-inch 24.0 30.6 6.08 1718 16-inch 10.0 2.2 2.66 956 Total 110.0 436.0 20.59 2674 ‘See footnotes in Table 7. 65 Table 23. Composition of Forest No. 3, Farm G, Per Acre Species Basal Area Trees Volume 4(Equare feet)» (number) (cordS)‘ (board feet)‘ Sugar maple 34.6 186.2 5.47 453 Elm 24.5 67.6 5.53 771 Yellow birch 20.0 59.3 3.66 140 Hemlock 8.2 44.7 .97 118 Red maple 7.3 25.2 1.37 67 Ironwood, etc. 5.5 46.9 .22 ---- Beech 4.5 5.5 .86 200 Black cherry 3.6 9.0 .80 96 Basswood 0.2 1.2 .31 26 Total 109.1 445.6 19.19 1941 Tree Condition‘ Cull 6.3 21.2 .88 ---- Poor:cut 47.3 153.3 8.66 1305 Good:cut .9 .4 .23 118 Good:leave 34.6 270.2 2.32 318 Total 109.1 445.6 19.16 1941 DBH Class‘ 4—inch 21.8 250.0 .80 ---- 8-inch 57.3 164.1 11.56 ---- 12-inch 19.1 24.3 4.28 1080 16-inch 8.2 5.9 1.88 609 20—inch 2.2 1.2 .66 223 Total 109.1 445.5 19.18 1942 ‘See footnotes in Table 7. 66 suited only to forest crops. The soil is a loamy sand which origi- nally supported a cover of hardwoods, especially sugar maple.52 One-third of the present stand is sugar maple and this forest will provide about 45 taps per acre in about 10 years. Timber stand improvement, including light harvest cuts of the poor:cut timber, should produce a forest with optimum stocking of about 6,000 board feet in about 25 years. This forest includes a considerable stocking of yellow birch. To encourage this species in areas of the forest where it shows desirable form and health, harvest cuts should be made by the group-selection method.53 Forest No. 4 of Farm G is a 25—acre northern hardwood forest on a loamy sand with rolling topography. Although Table 24 shows sugar maple to have the highest percentage of current stocking, white pine represents one-half of the sawtimber basal area. If this species is to be encouraged, the shelterwood method should be used for harvests of sawtimber, with subsequent control of more tolerant hardwoods which will regenerate with pine reproduction.sh Sapling and pole sizes are overstocked. These sizes, especially, will need careful control if white pine reproduction is to compete after regeneration harvest. 52Ibid. 53Forest Service, Timber Management Guide . . . : Northern Hardwood mg, 22. cit., p. 951. 51+Forest Service, Timber Management Guide for the National Forests of the North Central States: White Pine 2123, U. 5. Depart- ment of Agriculture (Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1958), p. 3. 67 Table 24. Composition of Forest No. 4, Farm G, Per Acre Species Basal Area Trees Volume quuare feetjfi (number; Tbords)‘ (board feet)‘ Sugar maple 28.8 207.9 3.16 282 White pine 21.2 56.4 5.25 2161 Red maple 15.6 121.0 1.82 ---- Ironwood, etc. 14.4 146.4 .96 ---- White birch 7.8 28.3 1.58 127 Aspen 7.8 20.0 1.79 480 Black cherry 2.2 15.9 .41 ---- Hemlock 2.2 4.6 .34 82 Beech 2.2 6.4 .34 ---- Yellow birch 1.1 1.4 .24 82 Total 103.3 608.3 15.89 3214 Tree Condition‘ Cull 3.3 7.8 .24 —--- Poor:cut 41.1 273.1 5.03 736 Good:cut 5.6 3.4 1.43 670 Good: leave _2L4 324 .0 fl 3822 Total 103.4 608. 3 15.89 3215 DBH Class‘ 4—inch 43.3 496.6 2.97 ---- 8-inch 27.8 79.6 5.12 ---- l2-inch 17.8 22.6 3.79 1396 16-inch 11.1 8.0 3.06 1357 20-inch 2.2 1.2 .27 462 Total 103.3 608.3 15.91 3215 ‘See footnotes in Table 7. 68 Forest No. 5 is composed of 11 acres of 3—year old plantation red pine, Scotch pine and white spruce. It is on the same soil as Forest No. l: loamy sand, but with steep topography. This planta- tion can be managed for Christmas trees, pulpwood and/or sawtimber. Forest No. 6 is composed of 17 acres of 15-year old red pine plantations. The soil is loamy sand on rolling to steep topography. This forest is past Christmas tree size, but can be managed for pulpwood and/or sawtimber. Possible yields are presented in Table C19, Appendix C. Farm H includes two forests, a sugar maple stand of 49 acres and a smaller 9-acre mixed hardwood stand in which aspen, red maple and elm comprise one-half the basal area. Forest No. 1 is over- stocked in the pole sizes. See Table 25. However, it approaches optimum stocking percentages: 38 per cent of its basal area in saplings and poles versus 33 Per cent recommended by the Forest Service, and 62 per cent in sawtimber versus 67 per cent recommended.55 This forest should yield annually 300 - 400 board feet of valuable sawtimber or logs per acre. At current prices, this annual pro- duction is worth about 89 in stumpage and about 318 in the form of logs at the road. Because of the abundance of sugar maple, at least 50 taps could be expected annually per acre during the next decade. The second decade the number would be about 100 taps per acre. Tubing could be used from the trees to collecting tanks along a forest road. 55Forest Service, Timber Management Guide . . . : Northern Hardwood Type, op. cit., p. 930—-1. 69 Table 25. Composition of Forest No. 1, Farm H, Per Acre Species Basal Area (souare feet; Sugar maple 62.3 Elm 18.0 Hemlock 13.0 Basswood 9.? Beech 2.4 White pine 2.0 Red maple 1.7 Black cherry 1.0 White ash 0.7 Ironwood, etc. 0.6 Total 111.4 Tree Condition‘ Cull 6.3 Poor:cut 34.7 Good:cut 9.3 Good:leave 61.0 Total 111.3 DBH Class‘ 4—inch 7.6 8-inch 34-7 lZ-inch 31.7 16-inch 29.7 20-inch 6.0 24-inch 1.2 Total 111.4 Trees (number; 160.6 wages CDNVI :00 L 252.0 Volume TEordé)‘ (board feet)‘ 16.11 3410 4.59 645 3.60 1286 3.14 1176 ~52 73 ~73 320 .43 92 .28 112 .24 65 .14 ---- 29.78 7179 1.01 13 7.79 1212 2.99 1227 12.24 4725 29-73 7177 .56 ---- 8.42 ---- 9-27 2570 9.08 3610 1.93 789 .22 208 29.79 7177 ‘See footnotes in Table 7. 70 Forest No. 2 of Farm H covers only 9 acres. It is located about one mile from the farmstead. Stocking is high in sapling and pole sizes. See Table 26. Present value of the timber in Forest No. 2 is about 326 per acre. This value could be doubled within a decade. Species, composition and distribution of stocking among diameter classes can be improved by judicious improvement harvests to remove the merchantable poor:cut trees, and subsequent chemical thinning of the unmerchantable ones. This timber stand improvement work could produce optimum stocking of about 6,700 board feet in 10 to 15 years. Farm I includes three forests of 49, 180 and 160 acres which constitute 57 per cent of the total farm area. Forest No. 2 is located about one mile from the farmstead. Forest No. 3 is about 10 miles from the farmstead. These forests have been cut over for pulpwood and the cooperator has left well-formed trees. The result- ing forest composition has become a mixture of patches of intolerant hardwoods among tolerant hardwoods and conifers. Forest No. 1 is a 49-acre stand of pioneer hardwoods on sandy loam and loamy sand and mixed conifer-hardwoods on muck soil. The central muck area covers about one-fourth of the forest. Current stocking of 11.8 cords or 1,811 board feet per acre is about one-half of the optimum. See Table 27. Condition of this forest is above average. At optimum stocking the forest should yield about one-half cord per acre annually or about 200 board feet. These volumes would be in species with steady demand for pulpwood but uncertain demand for sawtimber: aspen, white birch, red maple. If pulpwood is to be 71 Table 26. Composition of Forest No. 2, Farm H, Per Acre Species Basal Area Trees Volume (square feet), (number) (cords)‘ (board feet)‘ Aspen 24.0 53.0 7.00 2046 Red maple 14.0 108.9 1.83 ---- Ell 14.0 50.9 2.58 228 Yellow birch 10.0 45.8 1.53 ---- N. whitecedar 10.0 114.6 .53 ---- Sugar maple 8.0 40.1 1.67 ---- White birch 6.0 28.0 1.70 560 White ash 4.0 45.8 .18 ---- Hemlock 2.0 _2;_6_ i __2_1_._._2_ Total 92.0 489.7 17.54 2846 Tree Condition‘ Cull 2.0 5.7 .31 ---- Poor:cut 40.0 198.6 7.15 884 Good:cut 4.0 4.0 1.43 670 Good:leave 36.0 166.8 7.93 1292 Specia1:leave 10.0 114.6 .22 ---- Total 92.0 489.7 17.35 2846 DBH Class‘ 4—inch 32.0 366.7 2.84 ---- 8-inCh 30.0 86.0 5.91 ---- 12-inch 28.0 55.6 8.12 2486 16-inch 2.0 1.4 .68 260 Total 92.0 489.7 17.55 2846 ‘See footnotes in Table 7. 72 Table 27. Composition of Forest No. 1, Farm 1, Per Acre‘ Species Basal Area Trees Volume (square feet) (number) (cords)“ (board feet)“ H. whitecedar .91 40 Black ash .25 40 Red maple 1.38 106 Elm 2.08 584 White birch 1.44 326 Aspen 1.73 539 Yellow birch 2.28 114 Balsam fir 1.70 262 Total 77.0 11.77 1811 Tree Condition“ Cull 3.0 Good:cut 31.0 Good:leave 34.0 Specialzleave 5.0 Special:cut 4.0 Total 77.0 DBH Classes ‘Loss of data sheet prevents detailed presentation of basal area and numbers of trees per acre by species, number of trees and volumes by tree condition and of data by DBH Classes. “See footnotes in Table 7. 73 the primary forest crop harvested from this forest, balsam fir should be favored whenever possible because of premium pulpwood prices received for this species.56 Forest No. 2 comprises 180 acres of mixed northern hardwoods and conifer. See Table 28. Total stocking is approaching 90 square feet of basal area, but 60 per cent is in the sapling and pole classes. Continued harvests of pulpwood will maintain this imbalance. If pulpwood remains the primary crop to be harvested from this forest, spruce and fir should be encouraged. The forest will yield about one-half cord of pulpwood per acre annually. The soils are loamy sands and sandy loams. An area of muck soil occurs under about 10 per cent of the forest. Topography is rolling, but does not hinder logging operations. Forest No. 3 of Farm I is a quarter-section located about 10 miles from the farm.. This 160-acre forest is underlain with level, poorly drained loams which have a sandy overburden.57 Northern whitecedar comprises 43 per cent of present basal area. See Table 29. This forest will yield about one-half cord of pulpwood, or an equiva- lent volume of cedar posts, while stocking is increasing. At the current price of 8.30 for an 8-foot post with a 7-inch top, at the farm, a cord of cedar posts of this size would be worth about 89.00. This assumes 30 posts per cord. 56Forest Service, Timber Management Guide . . . : Aspen-Paper Birch 2123, 10c. cit. 5711111 and Mawby, 32. 313., p. 75-74. 74 Table 28. Composition of Forest No. 2, Farm 1, Per Acre Species Basal Area Trees Volume (square feet)’ (number) (Eord§)‘ (board feet)‘ Aspen 30.8 113.6 6.13 784 White birch 22.4 135.4 3.19 78 Elm 8.0 39.5 1.0 121 Sugar maple 5.2 38.3 .53 ---- N. whitecedar 4.0 34.7 .32 16 Beech 4.0 8.7 .72 254 Red maple 2.4 13.8 .35 ---- Basswood 1.6 5.8 .25 111 White ash 1.2 6.2 .26 16 White spruce .8 1.7 .16 3O Balsam fir .8 9.1 .04 ---- Yellow birch .8 5.7 .06 ---- Hemlock .4 1.1 .04 ---- Total 82.0 413.6 13.05 1410 Tree Condition‘ Cull 3.6 33.1 ..... --..- Poor:cut 5.2 8.0 .88 231 Poor:1eave 2.8 21.8 .28 ---- Good:cut 21.2 43.2 4.44 830 Good:leave 46.0 277.3 7.06 332 Special:leave 2.8 28.7 .20 ---- Specia1:cut .8 1.4 .12 16 Total 82.4 413.5 12.98 1409 DBH Class‘ 4-inch 24.8 284.2 1.24 ---- 8-inch 37.2 105.8 6.83 ---- 12-inch 15.2 19.3 3.72 970 16-inch 4.0 2.9 .99 342 20-inch 1.2 .6 .21 28 Total 82.4 413.8 12.99 1410 ‘See footnotes in Table 7. 75 Table 29. Composition of Forest No. 3, Farm 1, Per Acre Species Basal Area Trees volume (Square feet)* (number) (cords)‘ (board feet)‘ N. whitecedar 32.5 240.0 3.03 228 Aspen 11.0 46.3 2.09 111 White birch 8.5 53.4 .88 20 Balsa: fir 7.5 73.0 .47 ---- Red maple 5.0 17.0 .87 74 Hemlock 3.5 16.0 .61 110 White spruce 2.5 20.0 .23 ---- White pine 2.5 14.7 .28 65 Black ash 1.5 12.9 .08 ---- Beech 0.5 .4 ----- ---- Total 75.5 493.8 8.54 608 Tree Condition‘ Cull 4.5 37.6 ----- ---- Poor:cut 0.5 1.4 .08 ---- Good:cut 7.0 14.4 1.41 249 Good:leave 32.0 213.1 4.00 131 Special:leave 25.5 214.1 1.87 20 Specialzcut 6.2 1 .1 1.16 208 Total 75.5 493.7 8.52 608 DBH Class‘ 4-inch 34.0 1.02 ---- 8-inch 32.5 5.29 ---- l2-inch 7.5 1.79 470 l6-inch 2.0 .41 138 Total 76.0 8.51 608 ‘See footnotes in Table 7. 76 For forest enterprises which include timber stand improvement (TSI), resource and labor requirements for chemical TSI were obtained from Indiana studies.58 Requirements are presented graphically in Figure 3. Costs are estimated to be 8.50 per gallon of solution: (1 gallon concentrate 2,4—D + 2,4,5—T,16 2 lbs. acid equivalent of each = 88.70 plus 20 gallons of fuel oil 0 8.16 = 31.20) = 8.47 per gallon of solution. Add 8.03 for equipment costs. The amount of timber stand improvement needed was estimated in terms of total diameter of trees. One estimate was prepared for all cull trees plus the 4—inch class trees in the poor:cut condition class. This is used for cordwood enterprises which include timber stand improvement. Another estimate included the 8-inch class trees of the poor:cut condition class. This estimate is used for sawtimber enterprises which include timber stand improvement. These residual low-quality trees should be removed after a harvest cut to improve the value of the growing stock which remains after the harvest. Landowners who improve their forests with the guidance of foresters are eligible for cost-sharing not to exceed 75 per cent of the improvement expenses through the Agricultural Conservation Program of the U. S. Department of Agriculture. Owners of study farms are assumed to have followed the management recommendations of foresters after having decided which forest enterprises to include 58John C. Callahan, Labor, Machine, and Chemical Requirements cultural Experiment Station, Purdue University, Research Progress Report 118, Project 691 (Lafayette, Indiana, 1962). umoao>onan. venom nonaaa Hmowsomo epmososona hmammromsuaaaam posse no mason one modusaom no omoHHso .n enough monomH .ooumona seems no Ammnv ouopoaman no mam I. 3 I . ., ....M . M ,. . . M§...e. M- M M.. ..4 . .-.. H. HM11M ..M ...M” ... M M M .U M... 1”... .M . . .M .. M... . . 1 . 1 e . . . ... o e . . e . .e . . . .r b .ao. } Davlilil- I I o > b ) r i Alix). . .. . .. 1 1 . M . . . .. . .. q . . .. , . . 1 . . . . e 1.. . .. . . M . ... o 1 . .. . . . 1. a . . e M . M . . . . M o o . . . . . . a . . . . . .1 H e . . M . M 1 M . . e . . . . H . H M . M M . . M n . . .... M..” H M o e o . e . . . . . M , . a . . . . . Iltllln 50‘00)91 l .9.. nllIIA ,D .o 01:1.M 1.40.)|41".vlalll l))lln¢l.lul.6lt.1..ciuecultM.zlt)‘a.)0Aattl Illtulel)¢ulclo 000000 Q o . o . . e e . . . . . -... e. e n . M . .. e. e e . . e . o. . . . . e 1 ..... . . e . . . o . .. ,. . o . . . . . . . . . . . . H . Mr . . . . a 1 1 . . . . a . a . _ . . . _ . . 1 . . 1 1 . . 1 . 11 1 . . 1 1 . .. 1H 1. W . u o H w . o . . . . o t . o o o . . . Ailtd‘t .. l)‘-¢.llt-9lan.4,‘f|'n-.I Allin- Incite): tl,nle.lth-allled)IIAII|£'llllx o- . , . :0. .I HI!!-AI.I)II. ..Iin'tllt) . ”1.11: 1M3 fl) . o . .... . . H o . .. H . . e . H e p e e o o . . .1. n M H . 1 W M . o . o . e M u. o . a o .H.. e e . . . . .1 . . . . P . b . . .a o . .1 . . . . . .1 . . . . M 1 1 1 1 i1 1. . 1 1 1\\ 1 1 . 1 . 1 M 1 1119.»).th 006.110.. ..‘Ohv.1.MAIOW110¢»‘-AOLD Ohvl Jihli Oa:»9.u|l...lllho- b ...O. a )OWDOIIILO) 4II'OAYII I” Inn‘l :10“). i; O¢L04illlv I‘lllh': . . . e . . e . . 1 . e . o e e . . 1 . . . 1 .M . . . .. .. . w , . . . e . M . . u n a N e M M M.. . M . . . . M . . L . 1 h . . . M M 1 - 1 - . _. 1 S e . . . o . . o . . . 1 . . . . . . . 1 . . . .. . .. .1 .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . 1 . . . 1.. , . 1 . M t M . . . M . . . . . . M . . 1 1 1 M 1 70-9.100- . .310... .-I be puoo: .one ..- lint: .- e.---..v-lo .e . -... , . lt-ollc-o!0-n ... . u l. :00 .001.cv.eout 1v: 1 9 1: #0....‘01I17'v54'lblv client)- > . . e M . . . . . . 1 . . 1 . . .. . 1 .H e. e e . e M . o o. M e . M . H M . v . 1 . o M 1 . .. .... . fl . e a o. . ...e.. . . .. o. a . 1 . .o . e e . e .e .1 . . o . o . o 1 . o a . e 0 W N ”1 . I 11 e . . K _ . ,. . . 1e . . . M . 1. . . . . . M . . \H h H a h . H . o .. . e , o w o . . . . . . , . . . . e e . e ... . 1 . M . 1 M t M _ . M , . M . M . . 1 .1 . . . 1. . . . . . e . . . .. . . . e e ..e . 1.. n . e .nnennl ”. . e. I . . .I _ M 0:08.. .n .00)! IIIIO1ltal)vOIIOh )ODIO-.90 t--'|0|l.||0|ul||1.CIIOEI'IoIIIIOVIYIInII?) i)» jIIIOIA . . . . . . e . . . . . . . . . 1 . . 11 . M . M e . fl . M . . \ ... . n . e 1 m . . m . M M. . e H a. H. 1 . _ . . . . . . . . . . , . . ... . e. .. . . I»)- 9 . h, M .w . . .4 A: . o . . M» . . “It . . . 11‘ . . \ M M . h . M . . M M . . . . . u . . . . . . e e . e e e e . . . . . " w . . e . ” \. w u . u e H . . . . h. . m . H , . H n . w .— ... ..... o 1. II o in In. IIIIOIII.o¢ .1001. . I4Il~11.o..411. OI..1e cutalo| till.-. .--..h-.. 10.00-14 I’c,'t!v.|.hl.enle.ulil[tutltuba 3|. ‘0‘.)M)))Ill) . M . . . . . . . . , .. M . .... . . . . 1 1 . M 1 . . 1 1 1 . . . M . . .. 1 . 1 M H . . . . . .\ M . 1 . M .. . M 1 . e . H . . . Iluel'l‘),ll I.).II. )1)lt.l).9-l [.1 > 4 4 L 1 M 1 1 . . 1 1 _ 1 . 1 1 1 M . 1 . 1 . , 1 1 1 . . 1 . . . vu|n¢h 0:41 .-.: a u. u 1 h In ”-6-.. . 0.. . \ ... .A. t h..-1 ,9-’h1-|.¢50.oo. --1 I!“ uuuuuuuuuuu 1 ¢1huOvhl.lIQM-dO| -I.Hunt.A ,.'.A.-.|. fil’lh.ulaa.!..l.¢ul .1...» “1|-Mv00hchhlllltl. .-.!)10. L. . - 1 . m h - v a h w - u . I . u I. I M a M M . . . . . o . e . . . M u e . . M . . . \ M . . . . . . . M . . . . . V: . . . . . . n e . _ leta-lo.1v.lz.r\.. ... 1 . 1 . . . 1 . 1. . .. . ON . 1 M . M 1 1 1 M 1 . 1 1 1 . 1 . 1 . mend—0m rI-rlL . 1 1.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. I. e acoll e I- .I e . .e \ ...... 1.. e o e-.o.1 e -11.! e.| v eoelll. ~0.0-01 ouao.-.lln n.e,tlv>| cult. .010--- -9'119015.M||130+,l1 $50.11 I'llleibllilo).v000|¢|u-|.e'oil . . . . . . . H . e .1 o . e e . 1 1 . M 1 1 \ M . . 1 M . 1 1 1 1 .. : 1 1 1. 1 e . . . . . . . . . . . . . u . e o ~)O!O)ALII 7\ oil. b 1). bl.||ol 4 4 b 1 4 . . _ . . o a . . . . . a w: o . . . . . . . . 1 . . . 1 . a e. I e I ..OeO \e .fi. Ihl .. e A I. e 1%. 030. H IIOIO‘.+ .ht laviu 9“ AIIIAIII v1| oecll .h.||ulall 0-1-01 Ileul ‘0 Villd.-.).hnnll9'.u )Ilnll'l h. 1.1%)...OILflI-OIHIIL _ . . 1 . . . . . . . .1 . . M . \ . n M . M . M . m M u M . 1 . . . . . M u e . . . . . . _ . 11 » ...- . J1 .. II a ._ L. J . . 1 1L . . . 1 . 0N M1 . . . _ 1 1 . 1 M . . . . . . . M . . o o . . . e e. . o1 . M . . o M . . . . M 1 . e . e M . . 1 o. .. I 1. . . . ... .el .. . . .. ... . . . 0L I .II: .nulee..1| O .I III c lit. 0 I. In! A. .h., :1 e I 41 M 1% . e e . u u M M . .1 . u . q a . ” 1 . . 1. ...-n- 1!”--- 93.1 I34 M. 1 M . 1 . . 1 1 . M . 1 . M 1 1 . . . 1 1 . . . . . , . . . M 1. _ M M M M M M M M M M . M - .r- M M 1 M 1 - . u . v fill M rain!» . 78 in their farm plans. The owners are assumed to have applied for and received115ricultural Conservation.Program (ACP) payments for their timber stand improvement work. Payments for chemicals were estimated on the basis of 196% rates of cost sharing: O-h” diameter trees at 81.00 per square foot of basal area, §"-8" diameter trees at 8.65 per square foot, 9'-12” trees at 8.h0 and 13"+ trees at 8.30. These rates were graphed and interpolated to 3.85 per square foot for #”-class trees, 8.55 for 8"-class trees, and 8.35 for 12"-class and larger trees. Pigments for labor were based on labor requirements estimated with Callahan's an?" Payment m at 31.50 per hour. Costs of timber stand improvement and amounts of’Agricultural Conservation Program cost-sharing for the study farms are presented in.!able 30. Ior forest enterprises which required the use of a chain saw, cost estimates were derived from a stud: in.fiorth Carolina.60 Origi- nal costs were inflated 10 per cent to represent mid-1960 estimates: operating costs a 8.18 per hour and ownership costs a 8.32 per hour. tractor costs for forest enterprises were estimated as follows: for each fars, hours of labor per acre for crops61 were multiplied 596.11.»... 2.2- cit. 603118.? '. mu'uu and John C. All“, Foresml In t and Du. t Data, Parker Branch Pilot‘iatershed, TVI.D1'18101 of Forestry elatioss, Technical* Note 27 (Tennessee valley'huthority, lorris, Tennessee, 1960). P. 9. 513m:- 35;" 31. 955., p. m .mnson ads x om.Ha + Amommwao nmwnwa wad :NH vhdswm x mm.a + mmwaon:w «and mewn x mm.“ + mmdaou=: «and Hanan x mw.av mm.©.§ .mhmmh OH mo nomu pdmao>oumaH uqdpm nonafip o>fiooou wade: hHQdQOHA ammohow Ho pqoo hum 0H .haadsp04 .uowuom Amohloa uo>o mqfiudnmlpmoo wad mumoo mo nowpsnwnpmau uroaad chow H.o no can. 0:. mm. on. m:. m:.H m¢.m m.mm :.mm m mH. 0:. :H. on. on. wn.H H.wm H.mm H m um. um. w:. mm. mn.m oH.n m.wm :.mmH H mm. mm. mm. m:. mo.H ::.m H.m: o.Hm n mm. mm. mH. H:. :m. mH.m n.wn m.Hm m 0:. mm. on. w:. m:.H 5H.m m.oo u.¢m H w NH. NH. Hm. Hm. mm.H mm.H m.Hm m.Hm n m:. 5:. mm. on. mm.H wu.H o.~m m.Hn m --- --- ---- ---- w:.H m:.H ---- ---- H m mH. mm. HH. mm. :m. mn.H :.~m “.mn n II' III. 'III "II 'I'nl --.ll II..I| Il'I N mm. :m. mm. om. mo.H om.H :.n: o.Hm H H mm. um. om. mm. mm. 0:.H o.¢m w.:m m --- --- u--- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- H a mH. mm. oH. om. mm. NH.H m.o~ ~.H: m on. mm. mm. um. oH.H n:.H m.m: m.nm H o --- mm. ---- mH. u--- mm.H ---- u.~n m --- 5H. ----» nH. . ----a mm. a nun- m.mm H m .nlluhmmmmmummmpuul. nmmmmwmmw .hmmmmmmww pmmmmmmmp;hmmmmmmw~_ .hmwmmmm~;nhmmmmmw~ cooxvuoo nonlavtdm pmohph shah uouonaom um 09 nouoadwa no lam vociuuoo noneapzdm voo3vuoo honaavidm ucnuq Auouoadav\doca nomlmoo.ov uuooo waduduono oooacuoo honaapzdm . ounflgmlpnoo mo< ..u04 H.o .muHuanmuuuoo mo< an: uaouo>oumaH Hanan nonaHa Ho canon .om .Hnua 80 by average acres in crops to obtain an estimate of annual use. Operating and ownership costs per hour were then selected from the Midwest Farm Planning Manual.62 Estimates of labor, chain saw and tractor requirements for forest enterprises which included sale of logs were based on estimates by Campbell63 and Callahan.6h These estimates assume less than 1,000 board feet of logs harvested per acre. Of course, larger volumes would be harvested from smaller acreages if the regeneration desired were more intolerant species. Some economics of scale would be realized under these circumstances. The following labor requirements were used per 1,000 board feet: scaling - 0.3 hours; felling, bucking and skidding - 8.5 hours = 8.8 or 9 man-hours total. Chain saw time was estimated to be 3.7 hours per 1,000 board feet of logs: 8.67 operating cost and 81.18 ownership cost. At 3.3 hours per 1,000 board feet of logs, tractor operating cost was $3.33. Tractor ownership costs differed among farms because of varying amounts of annual usage. Ownership costs per 1,000 board feet of logs were: FarI.A - 31.65 Farm D - $1.65 Farm G - 81.71 Farm B - 1.15 Farm E - 1.68 Farm H - 2.97 Farm C - 1.78 Farm F - 3.53 Farm I - 1.52 6%8. C. James (ed.), Midwest Farm Planning Manual, (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1965), p. 74. 6iRobert A. Campbell, Ten Years of Egperimental Farm.ioodland Management_ in the Southern.Appalachians, Southeastern Forest EXperiment Station, U.— 5. Forest Service, Station Paper No. 83 (Asheville, North Carolina, U. 3. Department of Agriculture, 1957), p. 10. 6“Callahan,“gp, cit., p. 12. 81 - These tractor costs are somewhat high because they do not include anticipated forest enterprise usage. For forest enterprises which included sales of pulpwood, labor to cut, buck, skid and stack at the road are estimated at 7 man-hours.65 This assumes less than one cord harvested per acre per year. As with sawlogs, economies of scale will be realized if more volume is har- vested from less area. Chain saw costs are based on two hours per cord:66 8.36 operating costs and 8.6# ownership costs. Tractor costs were based on an estimate of 1 hour per cord.67 Therefore, costs per cord at the road are 31.01 operating costs plus the following owner- ship costs: Farm A.- 8---- Farm D - 3 .50 Farm G - 8 .52 Farm B - ---- Farm E - .63 Farm H - .90 Farm C - .54 Farm F - 1.07 Farm I - .#6 One cooperator owns a pulpwood truck with loader. His loading and hauling labor and costs are estimated to be 0.75 hours and 31.65 per cord. 65Campbell, loc. cit. 66J. S. Hensel, A Northeastern Minnesotam od 0 eration, American Pulpwoodh Association, Technical Release No. 563m 2 New York, No In. 1960), peh 67J. S. Hensel, A Pulpwood Operation_ in the Central Upper Peninsula of Michi ,American Pulpwood Association, Technical Re- less—e No'IEB-mo New York, 11.1.: 1960). p.1r 68J. S. Hensel, A Jack Pine Pulpwood Operation_ in.North Central Wisconsin. American Pulpwood 1+Association, Technical Release No. 65:R15 ZN" York, N. 1.: 1960). p. 1+. 82 Physical and economic data for maple sirup enterprises were obtained from Bell's study in New York State.69 Data for Christmas tree enterprises were obtained from a report by Fox of Sinnissippi Forest Operations in northern Illinois.7O Product prices were obtained in 1963 from foresters of the Michigan Conservation Department. They are adjusted for each forest enterprise according to species and quality of composition. These prices have been adjusted to species, volumes, and quality in order to provide unit prices by condition classes. See Appendix.A. Forest land tax and valuation information were received directly from cooperators. The variation in assessment methods is evident in the brief statements of 'bases for valuation' in Table 31. 69Robert D. Bell, Costs and Returns i2 Producingand Marketing Maple Products, Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University, A. B. 1016 (Ithaca, R. 1., 1955). 70Howard H. Fox, Christmas-Tree Farming Can Be a Profitable Enterprise, Illinois Research, (fall, 1961), pp. 10-11. 83 Table 31. Forest Land Taxes and Forest Land Values, Study Farms"I Farm Forest Land Tax Forest Land Value Bases for Valuation A 81.56 3107 About‘fi cropland value B .90 101 About )5 cropland value C .39 19 1/3 cropland value D .70 39 .375 cropland value E .37 13 3/28 cropland value F .38 69 Same as cropland value G .65 67 $.cropland value R .Q6 57 Unknown (est. $.cropland value) I .36 #0 1/3 cropland value ‘From correspondence with cooperators. CHAPTER IV ENTERPRISE BUDGETS Preparation of a budget for a unit of each crop or livestock enterprise to be considered is the first important step in systematic budgeting. These budgets are essential for the systematic applica- tion of a farm's resources to the various enterprises in order of decreasing contribution to net farm income. They allow the owner or manager to compare the resource requirement of one enterprise with those of another, to decide the most profitable use of a resource or of his own labor and, most important, to select that optimum combination of enterprises which applies each of his resources to the use which will maximize his total net income. A budget defines the unit of the enterprise for which the budget is prepared. For the forest enterprises in this study the unit is always 331:; £213. The physical productivity of the unit of enterprise is stated. Gross income from sale of the unit is stated. Operating or variable costs of production are listed. These cost data must present the requirements for resources in physical terms: amounts of crops, equipment time, building space needs. Prices are then applied to determine monetary costs. Ownership or fixed costs are listed separately from operating costs. If buildings and equipment for a present enterprise can be assumed as completely owned, only operating costs need to be 8‘} 8S subtracted from the gross income to obtain a net income for the unit of present enterprise. This allows comparison among present enter- prises as well as between a present unit of an enterprise with a new unit of an enterprise with its accompanying ownership costs of acquir- ing new buildings and equipment. Net income is computed for the unit of an enterprise by subtracting operating and ownership costs from the gross income. Net income is the return to labor and management. F“ The number of hours of labor required per unit is stated on the .. budget. The budget for a unit of an enterprise, therefore, states the physical productivity of the unit, states the physical resource L requirements of the unit, applies appropriate prices, states net income for labor and management for the unit and states the number of labor hours required by the unit. ggronomic and Livestock Enterpgise Budggpg Enterprise budgets were prepared for units of agronomic and livestock enterprises. The unit for agronomic enterprises is one acre; for livestock enterprises, one steer, one dairy cow, one ewe and lamb, one beef cow and calf, or one sow and two litters. Budgets were prepared for ”present" enterprises and for "new“ enterprises for each agronomic and livestock enterprise. A present enterprise is assumed to incur only operating costs; all buildings and equipment are assumed to be owned and fully depreciated. A new enterprise incurs additional ownership costs of new buildings and equipment. Enterprise budgets were prepared for current agronomic enter- prises: wheat and potatoes. The wheat budgets were taken from 86 the Michigan Farm Management Handbook.1 The potato budgets are based on data in a Quarterly Bulletin of the Michigan.Agricultural Experi- ment Station.2 Livestock enterprise budgets had been prepared by the Depart- ment of Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin, for training of farm management Extension agents with systematic budgeting, so were readily adaptable to this study. The prices were adjusted to forecast estimates in the Michigan Farm Management Handbook. Budgets for agronomic and livestock enterprises for the study farms are presented in.Appendix B. Forest Enterprise Budgets A budget was prepared for a unit of each forest enterprise to be considered in the farm plan as was done for the agronomic and livestock enterprises. The number of alternatives could be numerous. Only a few are considered for illustrative purposes. The use of linear programming would allow the inclusion of many more alternatives, as well as the loosening of many restrictions imposed herein. Hhen forests are fully stocked and producing optimum annual crops, annual budgets for forest enterprises can be prepared with comparative ease for combination with other enterprises. Unfortunately, most farm forests are understocked, unbalanced in stocking and/or are lBrake et al., 32. cit., p. 111M. 2Hoglund and Wright, pp. £_i._t_., p. 698. 87 producing crops far below the potential quality. Only about 40 per cent of all farm forests in the United States are near optimum productivity.3' Of the 22 forest stands on the nine farms of this study, only one (Farm H, Forest 1) was producing wood crops of near optimum quantity and quality. Stocking of the other forests was low, unbalanced among size classes, and/or of poor quality. How could annual enterprise budgets be prepared for these understocked forests; budgets which would reveal the dynamic condi- tion of the forest, yet would allow planning for more than one year; budgets which would reveal the income from a forest enterprise after optimum stocking would be achieved, yet provide some indication of income during the next few years; and budgets for future forest enterprises not possible at present? To indicate possible income during the next few years from an enterprise under present forest conditions, an average annual budget was prepared for the next lO-year period: a 'present forest' enterprise budget. For each farm these 'present forest' enterprises are included in a 'present forest' farm plan. Forest enterprises which are not now included in the farm operation but which could provide income during the next 10 years are included. For example, one cooperator has sufficient tappable sugar maple trees, labor and capital to initiate a maple enterprise now. 3‘Forest Service, A M 9}; the Timber Resource Review, pp. cit. p. 7‘}. 88 For each forest enterprise an 'optimum forest' budget also has been prepared for the level of stocking at which gross periodic annual value increment declines below six per cent if it has risen above that percentage, or declines if it does not reach six per cent. The writer uses six per cent as an alternative rate of return because it represents the debt charge commonly used for lO-year farm loans.“ A silviculturist could challenge the use of six per cent on the basis that the low volume of sawtimber represented by this return would not allow perpetuation of a desired species. With this exception, one must agree with Lord, "The rational woodland owner in need of capital and able to obtain outside capital only at rates of 6 per cent or above will cut back this growing stock [returning 3 per cent annually on net worth], harvesting those mature trees which are most valuable and which are returning less than 6 per cent on their value".5 Included with the optimum forest budgets are those enterprises which can be initiated at present but from which no income can be expected during the next 10 years. For each farm these‘optimum forest' enterprises are included in an'optimum forest'farm plan. For each forest, budgets have been prepared for a limited number of enterprises. For all enterprises except the 'nothing “U. A. Duerr, John Fedkiw, and Sam Guttenberg, Financial Maturity: A Guide to Growing Profitable Timber Growing ,U. S. Department of Agriculture, Technical Bulletin.No.1 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1956), p. 5. 5Uilliam B. Lord, "A Reconsideration of the Farm Forestry Problem,“ Journal 2£_ForesE£z, Vol. 61, No. R (April, 1963), 26k. 89 alternative' the following assumptions are made: all forests are fenced for protection from livestock; all cooperating owners practice and encourage fire prevention; the owners know the initial composition and volumes of their forests; the owners are rational, responsible citizens who wish their present forests to reach optimum levels of stocking, unless the land has a higher economic use as part of the farm which does not sacrifice watershed protection benefits. Forest Enterprises Included in Present Forest Farm Plans Nothing Alternative. This is not an enterprise. It represents disinterest on the part of the owner. The forest is assumed to receive no management, nor are forest products harvested. It is similar to Pleasonton's Plan I, "present farm operation with no timber sales".6 The alternative is included to illustrate the return, positive or negative, from growth of unmanaged forest resources less ownership costs. It is excluded from optimum forest farm plans unless all of the units (acres) of a forest are not used by forest enterprises. 2§23 This enterprise includes only timber stand improvement (T51), carried on in a tenth of the forest each year of the first decade. Cost-sharing payments under the Agricultural Conservation Program of the U. 8. Department of Agriculture for timber stand improve- ment are assumed to be approved and accepted. Only the present forest 6Pleasonton,'gp, cit., p. 210. --A .0. 90 budget includes the payment under the Agricultural Conservation Program since this payment is allowed only once for any part of a forest. Sell P:C Stumpage. This enterprise includes the sale of poor:cut trees as cordwood or sawtimber stumpage, as well as timber stand improvement (TSI) during the first decade. Only good trees are assumed to remain in the stand for the optimum forest budget.7 Sell P:C Logs. In this enterprise, an owner harvests and sells poor:cut cordwood or sawlogs at the forest as well as carrying on timber stand improvement (TSI) during the first decade. As above, only good trees are assumed to remain in the optimum forest. Sell P:C + G:C Logs. Some of the forests had sufficient volume of annual growth to allow the owners to harvest part of this annual growth as well as the poor:cut trees. Timber stand improvement is included for the first decade. Clearcut. Clearcutting of a limited acreage is alloted annually for forests of pioneer hardwoods when reliable pulpwood markets exist. Christmas trees. A Christmas tree enterprise was budgeted for young coniferous stands which can be managed for harvests of Christmas trees during the next 10 years. Maple sirup. A maple sirup enterprise budget was prepared for forests which would provide #0 taps or more during the next 10 years. ZSee page 33 for definitions of "poor" and "good". 91 Forest Enterprises Included in Optimum Forest Farm Plans. Nothing Alternative. (Same as for present forest farm plans.) This alternative is used only if all acres of a forest are not used by forest enterprises. Sell Stumpage. The forest stocking is at an optimum level. Annual growth is sold annually or periodically as stumpage in trees marked by a forester. Harvesting is by the buyer. Annual timber stand improvement is done with the guidance of a forester. However, Agricultural Conservation Program cost-sharing is not received. It is assumed that such payment can be received only once for a forest and it is received during the first decade. Sell Log . The forest stocking is at an optimum level. Annual growth is sold annually or periodically as logs at the farm. Trees are marked by a forester. Harvesting is to the log deck at the road by the owner. Annual timber stand improvement is done with guidance of a forester. However, Agricultural Conservation Program cost- sharing is not received. It is assumed that such payment can be received only once for a forest, and it was received during the first decade. Christmas Trees. Several cooperators have opportunities to include a Christmas tree enterprise. A tenyyear rotation is assumed. To allow spruce to reach marketable size in 10 years, four-year-old transplant planting stock is assumed to have been used. Maple Sirup. An optimum maple sirup enterprise budget was prepared for approximately 100 taps per acre. 92 Special enterprises are considered for single forests--e.g., 'interplanted black walnut' for Forest No. 2 of Farm A. In Appendix C an example is presented of each enterprise considered in either a present forest farm plan or optimum forest farm plan. CHAPTER V SYSTEMATIC BUDGETING OF FARM PLANS FOR STUDY FARMS Systematic budgeting "is a valuable tool in determining the combination of crops and livestock which will make the most net income from a given amount of land, labor, investment capital and other resources . . .".1 It is a procedure by which farm resources are applied systematically to enterprises so each resource is used most efficiently. This method of combining farm enterprises appears to have great potential as a means of integrating management of forest resources with management of other farm resources. This technique can be best illustrated by proceeding with preparation of the farm plans for the study farms. Prior to development of a farm plan, three systematic budget- ing tables must be prepared: Table I includes the amount of resources available: land, labor, building capacities, investment capital and any allotments or restrictions which would limit use of any of the resources; the amount of each resource needed by the budgeted unit of each enterprise being considered and the net income for that unit. Table II shows the maximum number of units of each enterprise which would be possible with each resource lHeathers, 22, cit., p. 3. 93 94 if that enterprise were the 22ly_enterprise being considered. It includes the net income provided by those units. Table III is a check of the net return per unit of each resource as applied to a unit of each enterprise. The systematic budgeting method is described in detail as farm plans are prepared for Farm A. Two plans are prepared: the present forest farm plan includes forest enterprises possible now, and an optimum forest farm plan which includes forest enterprises possible with optimum stocking or if the forest can be managed for a special product such as maple sirup or is converted to another use, such as Christmas trees. Farm A - Medium Feeder Beef Farm A is a one-man feeder beef operation. The owner is under 50 years of age and is in good health. His one son is 18 years of age. The owner plans to continue his beef and wheat enter- prises. He wants to increase the number he feeds, but feels hesi- tant about borrowing for increased silage storage and possible conversion of Forest A to cropland until his repayment ability is certain. On the basis of a rule-of-thumb formula of the Farmers Home Administration,2 he has no current borrowing capacity. The two forests of 16 and 50 acres comprise one-third of the farm area and represent 9 per cent of the total farm investment. Present 2See page 29 for procedure used to estimate borrowing capacity. 95 forest enterprises for the forests of Farm A are non-existent for the present forest time period (the next 10 years). Both forests are understocked to the extent that re—establishment by artificial means is necessary if forest crops are to be harvested during the next generation. Interest on forest capital plus taxes exceed the value of growth or inventory increase. Only nothing alternatives are possible for present forest conditions (Tables Cl and C}, Appendix C). One optimum forest enterprise is considered for each forest. Both require mininl cash expenditures since the owner cannot borrow investment capital. A Christmas tree enterprise on Forest lo. 1 would accomplish two purposes: a profitable crop could be harvested from the land in about 10 years instead of 35 or ‘40 years; and the land would be easier to convert to cropland if such appears warranted after the first Christmas tree rotation. Poisoning of present hard- woods with 2,ll,5-T and control of grasses and weeds with simazine would remove competing vegetation. Detroit and Toledo offer ready markets for Christ‘s trees. In Table CZ, Appendix C, a unit of this enterprise returns a gross income of 8900. Of the 1,000 It—year (2-2) white spruce transplants planted, 80 per cent are assumed to survive and 90 per cent of those which survive are assumed to be salable en the stump at 81.25 each. his price is the average for all species as reported by the district forester of the Michigan Conservation Department. The value and quality of the present hard- woods would interest mo buyer so they are killed with basal spray or frill-aad-sprsy using 2,#,5-T in oil: 1,300 diameter inches require 96 about 13 gallons of treating solution and 9 hours of labor. This Operation is completed the fall before planting. Also during this time weeds and grasses at each planting spot are killed with amazine. The costs of these operations are capitalized at 5 per cent compound interest for the 10 years until harvest. Hand planting is necessary: 15 hours per 1,000 trees. To assure control of tree sprouts and brush, 85.00 and 10 hours are allocated to this activity during the 3rd and 7th years. Three hours hand weeding time is allocated every year from the 4th year. Shaping of the trees is necessary if they are to be assured of a market. Labor for shaping increases as the trees grow. Some trees need shaping the 2nd or 3rd year, others may not need shaping until the 7th or 8th. Most trees are assumed to need shaping from the hth year on, and the labor needed per acre to be as follows: hth year - 1.5 hours, 5th - 1.5 hours, 6th - 2.5 hours, 7th - “.0 hours, 8th - 7.5 hours, 9th - 10.0 hours, lOth - # hours. Less labor is required the year of sale because the trees should receive only a 'touching up' that year. The labor requirement may be slightly high for spruce, since they are taken from pine studies.3 Return to labor and management is discounted to the middle of the decade, then divided by 10 to obtain an average annual net return. Interplanting of black walnut on about half of Forest No. 2 appears to be as profitable an enterprise for this forest as the vicissitude of future consumer preferences will allow. (See Table Ch, 3Fox, op. cit., p. 10. 97 Appendix C) The current price for black walnut trees of moderate size and quality is reported as 81,000 per MBM stumpage. A yield of 6,700 board feet at 60 years of age is anticipated.“ Among the enterprises considered for this present forest farm plan for Farm A are: present beef, present wheat, forest no. 1 - nothing alternative and forest no. 2 - nothing alternative.5 The forests are so understocked currently that little in the way of management can be recommended for the next decade. Among the enter- prises considered for the optimum forest farm plan are: present beef, present wheat, forest no. 1 - Christmas trees and forest no. 2 - interplanted black walnut. Available resources, resource requirements and net income for a unit of each present forest enterprise are presented in Table 32 and for a unit of each optimum forest enterprise, in Table 38. To illustrate, a unit of the present beef enterprise is a #00 pound steer calf, fed a liberal roughage ration with silage; 600 pound gain, 300 days on the farm. This unit requires the crops from 0.7 acre of row cropland for ear corn and corn silage and 0.9 acre of total cropland for the corn crops plus hay. The owner lot feeds, so no pasture is needed. Of course, no forest land is needed. 1‘S. R. Gevorkiantz and H. F. Scholz, Timber Yields and Possible Returns from the Mixed-Oak.Farmwoods 22 Southwestern Wisconsin, Uisconsin Department of Conservation, Publication Fe". 521' TMadison, 19%). p. 25. 5See Appendix B for descriptions of the present beef and present wheat enterprise budgets and Appendix C for the forest enterprise budgets. 98 Réé No.0.“ 8.9,; 3.63 has: Nam 2.83 mum usual ulna: 0.:N until III: madcapoaad nunnu ununn nuns: o.H mmH museum .mumn «com g a .......... m.m n.: cam .oon -.pdom ---..- ..---- in as coma 9: .. an: Inns: ulna: lulu: u.m 0mm .mm4 I .msm endow .monmq o.H nnnnn lulu: nuns: on N .02 smooch uuuuu o.H Inna: lull: ma H .02 smooch momo< .vmmq pmouoh ..... .2... 04 To RH 83¢ .3 gas Ilia nuns: Inn-i 5.0 cm mouo< .Imlmwlmolmu. ”mm a lam-mg amen.) moom efinmqoui meohsomom N phenom H phenom umeoeum vmouomm vasoad eufimmuovsm norm no was: one you mpnesomaawom eohsooem .mouammuopsm season unomomm wmacsaomH .4 Bush .emaumnoumu puma we was: one now nanosemasuem eoasomom use eHanHm>< moomsomom AH canes weapowcsm capsaouuhmv .Nm canoe 99 Labor requirements include 5.7 hours during January-April, 7.1 hours during May-August and “.3 hours during September-December. These labor requirements include overhead labor. Each unit, or steer, requires one unit of space in the barn. Buildings and equipment for present enterprises are presumed to be completely owned, so investment capital is not required. The net income for a unit of this present beef enterprise is 326.78.6 A unit of the present wheat enterprise is one acre, so it requires one acre of total cropland; also, 3.“ hours of May-August labor, 2.6 hours of September-December labor, has an allotment limitation of 29 acres, and provides a net income of 899.97 per unit (acre). A unit of any forest enterprise is one acre, so forest no. 1 nothing alternative requires one acre of forest no. 1 and nothing else, because nothing is done in this alternative.7 A similar condition exists for the nothing alternative for forest no. 2. After the resources required by a unit of each present forest farm plan enterprise have been set down the next step is to determine the maximum amount of net income each enterprise would provide if it were the only enterprise on the farm. This step will guide the owner's decision concerning the selection of the primary enterprise for his farm plan. As can be seen in Table 33, resources can be 6See Beef Enterprise budget, Appendix B. 7See page 89 for a definition of the Nothinnglternative. 100 wmuo owl“ mma. .3 mmofiu eaoomH Mum Banana: IIII memos :m upmoapoaad ..-..- o ... amass unnuu stun: Inns: mma mNH museum .mmmn meom fine. a .....i- ..-...i NR wwa as .25 ...»dou Ii-.. .5... En 3H ST .34 u R: Inna: lllll Inns: :ua 0am .aad I .msb mason .monmq om unuun uuuuu Inn: on m .oz amouoh nuns: ma IIIII nun: ma H .02 phenom meuo< .cmsn phenom ----.. ..... RA 2H RA 334 .§ 309 --..-- I--- ...}-.. :3 on 38¢ .3 ”Hm am 3 vmoni moom cansdm>< moonsomom m puommml H phenom snomomm unomeum ansoad souowusm on use moan: omamflmoufim zoom no #5634 Eng preach vmooonm .4 3.3m .mouauamoumm mom oohsomom magmas mo ‘33anon CH 0.3mm. wfiuomvsm ofiumaopmhmv .mm 0.35.... ' --.. . on- I I 9 t e 0 a v I O D s m y t e a s O C e . p O t o e u --. - '0. - .' . . C e e O I l . D O 0 e v . I . I . I I . t q 0 n n s 0 u I e . I . lOl applied to any given enterprise only until the supply of one resource is exhausted. For example, if present beef enterprise is considered as the only enterprise, it cannot be expanded beyond the 11# head which will consume all the corn, grain and silage produced by the 80 acres of row cropland; at least, not with the restrictions that fix physical productivity, acreages of crops and enterprise requirements at present levels. Total cropland would support lhl steers, January-April labor is sufficient for 990 head and the barn will hold 125 head. However, row cropland at present yields will support only 114 units (steers). Likewise, the present wheat enterprise cannot be expanded beyond the 2“ acres allotted to it on this farm. The limiting resource for the present forest alternatives is acreage. When optimum forest enter- prises are budgeted, acreage still limits the Christmas tree enter- prise for forest no. 1. The interplanted black walnut enterprise for forest no. 2 is limited by the interplantable area of the forest, which is assumed to be 25 acres. Table 33 is completed when the net income per unit (Table 32) for each enterprise is multiplied by the smallest number of units which can be budgeted for each enterprise, and the results are recorded in this table: for present beef, the unit net income of 826.78 is multiplied by 114, and the product, 83,053, is recorded on Table 33. This amount, 33,053, is the maximum net income provided if present beef is the only enterprise considered for the farm. Similarly, the present wheat enterprise alone would provide a net income of 81,199. Forests no. 1 and no. 2 are so understocked that .102 for the present forest situation (i.e., next 10 years) interest on forest capital and taxes will surpass the value of inventory increase, resulting in negative net incomes. It should be remembered that computations are made with data in Table 32: each resource require- ment is divided into the total amount of resource available. When a farm plan is prepared which includes optimum forest enterprises, Table #3, the potential contributions to net income from the forests become more evident. For forest no. 1 a Christmas tree enterprise can contribute a net income of 8694 per acre about every tenth year; or, discounted to the middle of the decade, and divided by 10, an average annual net income of 350 Per’acre. From forest no. 2, interplanted black walnut can contribute a net income of about 89,935 every 60 years. Discounted to the middle of the first decade, and expressed as a permanent annual income of 5 per cent of the discounted value, this represents an average annual net income of 815.15 per acre-~not to mention income from annual or periodic harvests of other species in the forest. One other table must be prepared prior to budgeting of the farm plan. Table 3h provides a means of checking relative profit- ability of resource use if the resource should become limiting for two or more enterprises. It is prepared by dividing the amount of each resource required per unit of enterprise into the net returns per unit of that enterprise. The resulting data show the net income per unit of resource. Thus, if the resource should become limiting to two enterprises, the enterprise which uses the resource more profitably could be selected. 103 38! ca ...... ..--... --..-- ...-... ...... ...-.... m onus. --- --- --- --- --- whom .53 25 g ammo-m 3.2 $6 --- --- 8:3 36 68 and; Inn!- Iu-x-I ...-II. III... 2...? tan .9: -. he: no.3 soda --- --- --- 2.... :22 - .98 ~33 3.3 --- 3.7 II- --- --- ~ 6: ...-2o." --- 3 8 Il- No.9 --- --- a 6: ...-38 3 amt-nah --.- all... all... ll!- RT. Rumm a doves ---. ---. ---. ---. ---. 3.3 g ...-..m noose chansons»: 3.33.3qu nlllll eeousoaem Sad-a 3.8 33320 was. 35°: 2.25 «8n N touch a asehoh N season .n ass-3h umeeeam use-emu ooeauw-ueuofl useuoh guflo seq—"E35 useuoh unemeum emahfineumfl soon you eohsoeem no .525 hem gem as: .4 mush {no.8 mush ...-each madame use ...-up... sac-3d £3,388 as «as to 55 a... an .319 weapon—5n ounces-ha in .35 1 I I . I e I I 0 O O ! ell-I e e cl. I I C I I O. I I 9 v . e I O a. I C I | - e I 9 v - V I I l | I e I t 0 0 I 'v - O Q I a I r . a! D 0 C . ' . O - .vu-O IOOIOII- Till Ill ‘5 E'OIII‘ 4' . l-IIlL I..v l' - - n- I - III 0 I I I a '0 0 v 0 - O U - . ' U I " a . 9 9 v eellllv'e li.I|IIeO 3‘ P I OI! I I. IIIV YI- I 70". :0 I e!" I I I '- .'.". ..‘I-.-" ..- Oi. ‘.-l-l. . t- ,---I! - ‘ .l- V. Ic.-'l--.'c‘le.--.“. v’.I’IUIv..l."-O-IIII O --.-I ‘lll'.-. I.‘ v 0: - I..'e.‘o I I [III E e.' O O . I I Q. J IC‘QQOI 9. 0 -II -9000 . I ’ ...-II' ' I --.1 CI I‘IIII 3. I earl I . A A . Ill 10 III. e C m. V J n v a. .1. .v v 3 o -. . u I. l -0 Q.- 90 II...- I a I v I I! ,III ‘0 O I v I In - e '0 1e90 I 104 Now a farm plan can be prepared which will apply the limited farm resources to a most profitable combination of enterprises. As mentioned, two farm plans are prepared. One includes present forest enterprises, and another includes optimum forest enterprises. The present forest farm plan is discussed first. A farm plan table is prepared (Table 35). The initial amount of resources available are transferred from Table 32 and entered under initial resources, Column (A): 80 acres of row cropland, 127 acres of total cropland, and so forth. The first enterprise to be included in the farm plan should be that which produces the greatest net income before some resource is exhausted and limits further expansion of the enterprise. Reference to Table 33 shows the most profitable enterprise to be present beef: no other enterprise provides more net income than 83,053. If present beef is budgeted into the farm plan, row cropland will be the resource exhausted, hence limiting expansion of the enterprise. A glance at Table 34 shows no other enterprise competing for this resource. Since the present beef enterprise provides the most net income, and no other enterprise can use the row cropland at a higher net income per acre, present beef is the first enterprise budgeted into the farm plan. The number of steers which can be budgeted is limited to 119 by row cropland. The amount of each resource required by 119 steers is determined by multiplying the resource requirements for one unit, or steer, in Table 32 times llh. These amounts are entered on Table 35 under present beef enterprise as follows: at 0.7 acre per steer (unit), llh steers require 80 acres of row cropland; at 0.9 acre per steer, 105 so} £1: Nam; 39m w. .385 mflm ......fl 8- 8- 8H; Rafi M .885 Mum ...-.- -.I-. memos :m an: spoon—pond o -- o -- o -- o -- o ... Winslow-ano- HH -- as -- Ha -- Ha sad nwa coco». .nnun doom swan-mam momma-«4n mmw -- wnw -- wmw mo can can can .ooo -.»non son -- mom -- mom mm Han mow coma .on4 - he: osn -- on» -- can -- onn one can .nn<_- .nus mason ..uonsq o -- c on on -- on -- on w .o: «canon 0 on on -- on -- on -- as a .o: saunas e934 .umsq 93.3% o -- o -- o :m nm nos sma cocoa ammummmmm_aunna o -- o -- o -- o 8 8 83¢ .3 ”mm ”0.455 Obfivaoa: Utah— :flvlflhtv: 60.39 #10; 39 HO‘ Icahn-.00.“ IOOHq—OOCN x3 oflfl£ 8v 33%: A8 s88d 3v HSZAHSSS H umemoh N umemoh A: messaged :28 one-:5 23.203 .< and .58 In: ans-8m 9H can-a 3:38 03-33an .3 32.9 I I I O O I I I I I I O I I I I I l I 106 103 acres of total cropland are required; no forest land is required; 650 hours of January-April labor at 5.7 hours per steer; 809 hours of May-August labor and #90 hours of September-December; the 114 steers occupy 114 spaces in the barn; no investment capital borrowing capacity, but none for present enterprises is needed because buildings and equipment are assumed fully owned or depreciated. The net income from this enterprise is 83,053. When the resources required for the 11k steers have been allocated to the present beef enterprise, those quantities are subtracted from the initial amounts of resources. The amounts of unused resources are recorded in column (B) of Table 35: 2% acres of total cropland; 16 acres of Forest No. 1 and 50 acres of Forest No. 2; 3h0 hours of January-April labor, 391 hours of May-August labor, 320 hours of September-December labor, and 11 barn spaces. After this first enterprise has been entered into the farm plan, Table 35, how can the remaining resources be used most profit- ably? To decide, the remaining resources are applied to each remain- ing enterprise as though it were the only added enterprise to be considered. For Table 36 the remaining resources have been trans- ferred from the farm plan, Table 35: 2% acres of unused total cropland, 16 acres of Forest No. l, and so forth. The unit require- ments for each enterprise, Table 32, are divided into the unused resources. The limiting resource for the present wheat enterprise remains the allotment of 2% acres. It is probably not coincidental that this equals the remaining total cropland. May-August labor is still 107 umamaoz N phenom ma unaspoz H phenom mmH_Hn :N MNH m: :N anon) umomohm vopomosm on moo moan: omaamuopmm zoom mo umsos< adaaxoz Omm Hmm mH nm 0 engage 9.5.2: osoomH MImIm 5.5.3: womospOHH4 .m .mlflflmmm museum .mnsn moom ammo. g .oen I.pmem .ws4 I he: .um4 I .msb mason .uonmA N .oz phenom a .02 pooaoh momo4 .mmmA poomoh n23 .mmw-mmmm .38 I22 .w-ndwmoflv. "mm no Ogomom .ooemoh pmomomm .4 Bush .moufiaauepmm mom oohdomom mmwuasdq no moausndshouon A4HH canoe woauowosm cannaonnamv .wm canes 108 sufficient for 115 acres, and September-December could handle 123 acres. However, the allotment limits the enterprise to 24 acres. The present forest alternatives still are limited by their total acreages. Again, as with Table 33, the unit net income for each enter- prise, in Table 32, is multiplied by the smallest number of units of each enterprise which can be budgeted (i.e., 24 for wheat) to determine the maximum net income each remaining enterprise can provide. The quantities of limiting resources remain the same as in Table 33, so the maximum net income provided by each remaining enterprise is unchanged: 81,199 for the present wheat enterprise, negative 866 for forest no. 1 nothing alternative, and negative 380 for forest no. 2 nothing alternative. The present wheat enterprise provides the most net income, so it will be added to the farm plan. The enterprise remains limited to 24 units, or acres, so the unit resource requirements in Table 32 are multiplied by this number to allocate the necessary quantities of resources to the enterprise. These quantities are entered in the farm plan, Table 35, under the enterprise heading: 24 acres of total cropland, no forest land, no JanuaryeApril labor, 82 hours of May- August labor, 62 hours of September-December labor, the allotment of 24 acres, and the net income of 81,199. The net income from this enterprise is added to the 83,053 provided by the present beef enterprise. The accumulated net income is 84,252. After resources have been allocated to the present wheat enter- prise, the unused quantities are listed in Column (C) of the farm 109 plan table: only forest land remains since all cropland has been used by the present beef and present wheat enterprises. Considerable labor remains and 11 spaces remain unoccupied in the barn. The two remaining alternatives are the forest no. 1 nothing alternative and the forest no. 2 nothing alternative. Since these are not true enterprises in that they represent complete disinterest on the part of the owner, no resources are used except the forest acreages. The acreages then are the limiting resources. When another table is prepared to determine which remaining enterprise provides the most net income from remaining resources, Table 37, forest no. 1 nothing alternative still is limited by the total number of units, 16 (acres) and provides the same negative net income, ~880. The forest no. 2 nothing alternative remains limited by its total number of units, 50, and still contributes a negative income of -$66. The fixed costs of these two alternatives exceed the value of their growth or inventory increase. When they are added to the farm plan, total net income is reduced to a final amount of 84,106. Considerable labor remains unused, as do the 11 spaces in the barn. Investment capital, more cropland, higher yields, or other enterprises could make use of the unused labor and/or barn space. When several possible optimum forest enterprises are included in a plan for the farm, the potential income from managed forest resources can be illustrated. The procedure for incorporating enter- prises into the plan has been explained above. The present beef and present wheat enterprises are repeated. An optimum forest Christmas 110 mmuo ow-a om III-I IIIIIIIII 0H unanooz unanooz N smooch H uoemoh wouomvsm e9 ado moHs) omHumwoanm soon we umdoa4_msmfixsx mwN Han won mm mH nm cann§< p.384 osoomH Helm gum: opsosuoHH4 ... isle-swam omen «com gum a .009 I.»mom .w54 I he: .mm4 I .msh mason .monmq N .oz smooch H .oz phenom mouo4 .mmsH pmouoh 2.84 .3 H309 8.3. ..mflaflflm "mm meohsomom .uoomoh vmomomm .4 Bush .oooHuauepmm mom eonsomom muHuHsHH mo moHummHsueaon AmHH eHnms mmHuewpsm cannaosnhmv .sm canes lll tree enterprise is added for forest no. 1 and an interplanted black walnut enterprise is added for farest no. 2. These have been included in the new optimum forest, Table 38. The Christmas tree enterprise for forest no. 1 requires 1 acre of the forest, 1.5 hours of January- April labor for planting, and 8.9 hours May-December labor for brush control, weeding and shaping. The net income is 850.49 per unit, or acre. These figures were obtained by: (l) capitalizing all costs at 5 per cent to the end of the rotation, (2) discounting the net return 5 years to the middle of the decade and (3) dividing the discounted amount by 10 to obtain the average annual net income figure of 850.49. Labor required over the lO-year rotation was 104 hours per unit. This figure was divided by 10 also to obtain the annual labor requirement of 10.4 hours. In a similar manner, costs of the interplanted black walnut enterprise were capitalized to the end of the rotation (60 years). The net income was discounted 55 years to the middle of the first decade. This income is considered to be periodic, but at such lengthy intervals little annual income is lost if the periodic income is considered a capital fund and annual income is assumed to be 5 per cent of it. Therefore, the net income at the end of the 60-year rotation, 84,435, is discounted 55 years to the middle of the first decade. Then 5 per cent of this amount, 815.15, is assumed to be the annual net income for the enterprise. Labor requirements are assumed to occur during the first decade, so are assigned to this decade. Only half of the forest is considered interplantable, so only 25 acres are allotted to this enterprise. 112 mm.HIu mH.mHa a¢.oma IIII menus mN IIII IIII :.H a.w IIII m.H m.H H o.H -- -- -- o.H opaonnpooa< sane: henna moons wanaoz N vmomoh msspmHmso pneoehm amouosm N umoamm H pmoufim oonmueunm scum no anD omo mom oumoEeanmom oohsooom um.m:o wu.mNa -- o.H m.~ n.: :.n H.u III" N. e n o.H m.o -- a.o amen) Hoom mNH OHw OONH com om wH uNH ow cannaanpa nnnoa< vaD you eaoonH poz mauonOHH4 .m_zmmmmmum sump moem .ummmmmmmzummmmmmm. .oon I.»mom .ms4 I has .ua4 I .mmh endow .aoan N .02 puouom H .02 uoouoh moao4 .cumq phenom I33. .3 H38. 8.84 ..mmmmmmm Helm moousomom momHuauopmm aooaoh adaHumo wansHomH .4 Bush .omHumaounm scam no pHnb one you opmosouHssom eonsomom was oHanHo>< mooasomom fiH oHme weapomvsm OHpmsepmhmv .wm oHnt 113 Preparation of the optimum forest farm plan progresses as for the present forest farm plan. A farm plan, Table 43, is initiated by listing resources available, Column (A): 80 acres of row cropland, 127 acres of total cropland, and so forth. The maximum net income provided by each enterprise is determined in Table 39 by (l) dividing the unit requirements from Table 38 into the available resources (Table 38) and (2) by multiplying the unit net income (Table 38) by the smallest number of units of an enterprise possible because of some limiting resource, as determined in Table 39. As for the present forest farm plan, present beef is limited by row cropland and present wheat is limited by its allotment. In Table 39 for optimum forest enterprises, the Christmas tree enterprise for forest no. 1 is limited by the number of acres in the forest. The total acreage allows only 16 units (acres), though January-April labor is available for 660 units (or acres). The maximum annual net income provided by this enterprise, therefore, as shown in Table 39 is 8808. In Table 39 the 25 acres allotted to interplanting are the limiting resource for the interplanted black walnut enterprise for forest no. 2. The total forest area would allow 50 units (acres) of the enterprise, and May-December labor would be sufficient for 1,436 units. Maximum annual net income is 8379. Table 39 of the optimum forest farm plan shows the 114 units (steers) of present beef enterprise to provide the most annual net income of any enterprise, 83,053. This enterprise is entered into the farm plan, Table 43. The quantities of resources required and maximum net income are listed under the enterprise heading, Table 43: 114 man. moms mad: Rod .5... 2.85 Mum. Sana: mohom mm IIII memos :m III IIII mpsosvoaad I... III. I..- mma mma EB .23 g a man wwa cam .oon I.»mom m9: mmm Rm m2 003 .mp4 .. 3‘ men 80 ...: its 08 3:2 I .53 mason .nonsfl R ..-: ..-- --.. on m 62 peach I--- 3 I- .i- 3 H .oz snatch mound .umsq pmenoh --.: -..-.. mg d: as 2.34 .3 .309 -..... ..--.. ..-- :2 8 2:3 .waflmflm wands) mocha uses) moon cansadmbd moohsomom N amouoh assumahno umomeum anemonm undead H amouoh voaouvsm on ado moan: omammuopmm noon no vasoad assfixs: amouoh assaumo .<.shsh .momaumuousm you oousomom wmapasdg no soapsdashopon aHH sands mmavomcsm caussovmhmv .mm magma .z 115 80 acres of row cropland, 103 acres of total cropland, no forest land, 650 hours of Januaryqipril labor and so on to the net income from the enterprise, 83,053. Resources not required by this first enterprise are listed under Column (B), unused resources. The next most profitable application of resources is decided by budgeting the unused resources to the remaining enterprises in Table 40. Again the assumption is made that each enterprise is the only one being considered. The unused resources are divided by the unit requirements for each enterprise. For example, Table 38 shows a unit of the present wheat enterprise requires row cropland, 1 acre of total cropland, 3.4 hours of Hayqdugust labor, and 2.6 hours of September-December labor. then these requirements are divided into the unused amounts of resources available in Table 40, the quotients show that unused total cropland will allow 24 units of the wheat enterprise, Hay- Lugust labor is sufficient for 115 units of the enterprise, and September-December labor is sufficient for 123 units. Also, only 24 acres are allotted to this enterprise. The unused total cropland and the allotment coinsidentally limit the size of this enterprise to 2# units. Multiplying the unit net income in Table 38. 819.97, by the maximum.nunber of units produces the maximum net income that the present wheat enterprise can provide, 81,199. The other enter- prises are treated in the same manner. Table 40 then shows that the Christmas tree enterprise for forest no. 1 is limited by the 16 acres of the forest and this enterprise can provide 8808 of net income. The interplanted black walnut enterprise for forest no. 2 is limited 116 8.8-.. 2.3 wows mad. S III 385 slam Sag: III menus mm III moses :N III mvmoEpOHH< III III III III 0 ..m .fldflm III III III III Z :53 .«oom gamma III mma ow mma own .03 tumom III m3 m3 an .92 I as. III III smm III 3m 3:2 I .33. mason .uonsq H on III III on m 6: scones III III 0H III 0H H .oz phenom mouod .vmdq phenom III III III :m :m 83¢. .gisoa III III III III 0 may: .3 Hum o>apmsuoua< ponds) moose soon) oHQsHfis>< mooudomom qusoz m 393m :3»..an 33on ”.584 N phenom H puouoh wouomwsm on use moan: onaumuopmm scum no unsos< assdxsx .puouoh assaumo .4 Bush .mooaunuousm sou oousouom waspfisaq no moaussfiauopon Aaouauoofl< noose canaaou>< m stones masssoz nuasuauso oqsoa< N phenom H vmouoh wooewssm on use moan) euaumuoumm scum mo umsoad sunfixsx esoocH a sundae: mosespoaad mq.mmmmmum cusp «com .Nmmmumumgummmmmmm .oea I.umem .ms< I he: .und I Imam mason .honeq N .02 pmouoh H .oz phenom mouo< .umsq preach 2.84 .mmmdmmm 33 23¢ .fluflmflm ....Imm mooasouom .uuouom mundane .4 Bush .oooaumuousm you eonsomom mmapfisfiq mo mowpsmashouon AmHH canny mmauomusm odpmsopuhmv .H: oases ul 119 The interplanted black walnut enterprise is the only optimum forest enterprise remaining. Preparation of a last table (Table 42) shows the limiting resource for this enterprise to be the 25 acres of interplantable area. All other resources (total forest land, Januaryedpril labor, Hayqiugust labor, and September-December labor) would support more units of the enterprise. Therefore, the 25 units (acres) of this enterprise are entered into the farm plan (Table 43). The 25 units require 25 acres of forest no. 2, 32 hours of January- April labor, and 35 hours of Hay-December labor. They provide a net income of 8379 (25 x $15.15). This net income is added to those accumulated from the other enterprises to provide an accumulated income of 85,439. Unused are 25 acres of forest no. 2, 284 hours of Januaryeipril labor, 390 hours of combined Haybbecember labor, and 11 spaces in the barn. Because half (25 acres) of forest no. 2 remains unused, the nothing alternative from the present forest plan must be included. Inventory increase (growth) and fixed costs continue for this half of the forest. Since fixed costs exceed the value of inventory increase, the net income from the 25 units (acres) is negative. This negative income is deducted from the accumulated net income of 35,530 for the optimum forest farm plan. The total net income from the optimum forest plan, 85,406, is considerably larger than that from the present forest farm.p1an, 84,139. Of course, 8808 of this represents income which will not be available until the end of the first decade, and 8379 represents income which has been discounted from the sixth decade. These facts 120 mMIo mama III mm III son III mam mm on e>HpsmuopH< psmHsr mfifioz m autos N pneuoh venomosm on mac soHnJ omHumuopmm comm no unsosd sundae: mmH wmm mHm C) o o o3sdu>< 385 osoomH mum asses»: assessed: In. .3 upon moom g a .oonI .pmom .ms4 I has .hmd I .msh mason .uonsH N .02 phenom H .02 phenom neuo< .nmsH phenom p.83 .flaflqfim 309 8.84 .gflm moohfiouom .pmohoh assvao .<.snsh .mouHuauoucm you eonsomom wcHuHsdA no moHumcHsnooon AOHH oHnsa msHpomcsm oHpssopuhmv IN: OHQmB ... 121 Ric an So.n mam... nmo.n 3H. H mac. n o .emoouH as: .34 In .2323. no: HH 0mm sz mm o o o eon-as H8 mN mm mm and; N ameueh O bcH RN mHn O ...-8p 2: I...“ ass-2.8 H ...-.....— ...-sap 8s is III III 0 III HH 533 III R ...N :N III 6 uses: women: unseen.“ A5 ..HH cm: mow Rm n3 3 O nNH 3 H. .IHMWan £3 moan and a 63 tomes .92 I 3. eh“‘ I e55 asses .IsaImuHI N e0“ #IOHON H .... sagas Iaqumm .33 anon... Manda .41..ng Haven. 3.84 . 2.1%vo Helm Hee- «see-uh Hanna 3 1! ameueh Imldvho aid—3H3 .4 lush .3 Ike.- gmo AR" 9319 a»? savings 833...»..— In: eHnsa I e I el I I - I 0 a v 0 ..-..--.-..I..---..-"‘..-. ..h.I----'-..-.--".-.--.-.I. , n . .I a I v o e."'-- -A'-’ ...... II‘IQII e‘lul' 1‘. uh I! I.I.Io . |II ll ‘ a I Inlu‘l I use Ile’s. e a a I I. O I I II D e I O I e e t I e I 0 I ...-I t a I O U I I I. e e I i a I e o O -- - e I I.-. 0“e ..- IIeI 122 8:6 o .esoomH pea .oo< N. 2305 $02 HH :mN o 0 tags A5 apnea—50H: H .IHSIHmum muss moon gamma-J Icon IIameu .93 I on. .34 I :3. mason 53an N .6: awoken H .02 veeuoh sound 63 phenom 8.84 .ulaadmmm H309 meuod . cusHmouo sou :vaqu 5oz N phenom eeousoeom .oasfiasooII.? .28. 123 notwithstanding, if the land now in forests is to remain in forests, management can offer opportunities for increasing the income from the forest lands, and systematic budgeting can help select the manage- ment alternatives which will be most beneficial to the total farm business. These farm plans have but one purpose: to provide "a basis for analyzing the overall farming operation to determine needed changes in the bundle of resources as well as the crops and livestock to produce".8 The farm plans just completed have been prepared to help Farmer A decide the best way to integrate management of his two forests with the rest of his farm resources. His forests represent only about 9 per cent of his current total investment, yet his forests with those of over three million other farmers must grow a major share of the future wood supplies for the United States. How can he make decisions which help to assure both a continued supply of timber and his own continued economic existence? Reasonable pro- tection from destructive grazing, fire, insects, diseases, and cutting will assure a continued supply of timber. His own continued economic existence depends upon his ability to select those forest management alternatives which maximize his net farm income. Systematic budgeting bases the selection on facts: physical and value productivity of forest enterprises in comparison with other farm enterprises. The plans for Farm A show the owner that the optimum forest enterprises can increase the contribution of his forests to net farm income from 8Veathers,{gp, cit., p. 17. 124 a negative 8146 to a positive 81,187 without reducing income from his other enterprises. Optimum forest plans will not always provide more total net income. Forests on several study farms are overstocked, usually with poor:cut trees. Therefore, the harvestable volume during the period of the present forest farm plan (the next decade) can be, greater than the volume which can be harvested from the forest at optimum stocking. If the unit value of the optimum volume is not sufficiently higher than that of the present forest, the latter will show a higher net income. Following are present forest and optimum forest farm plans for the other eight farms, with brief discussions of different forest enterprises which are considered, and brief analytical state- ments concerning each farm plan. Farm B - Largg Eels: Farm 8 is a father-son operation. The 29 year old son manages the farm. About 14 months of labor are hired. The dairy loose- housing capacity is being enlarged to handle about 95 cows and replacements. .A flock of 61 ewes has been kept. Also about 47 acres of wheat have been raised for a cash crop and straw annually. Borrowing capacity is estimated to be 834,500. The two forests of 97 acres and 40 acres represent 22 per cent of the farm area and 8 per cent of total farm investment. 125 Forests on Farm B have sufficient stocking to allow the follow- ing present forest and optimum forest enterprises: Present Forest Enterprise Optimum.Forest Enterprise Nothing Alternative Stumpage Poor:cut Stumpage Logs Poor:cut Logs Poor:cut and Good Logs Every present forest enterprise also receives income from cost-sharing under the Agricultural Conservation.Program and income from inventory increase. The above budgets are presented in Appendix.C. In the present forest farm plan, Table 44, the first enterprise to be budgeted is the present dairy. Hith housing capacity expanded from 65 to about 95 cows,9 this enterprise utilizes most of the labor. In fact, September-December labor is sufficient only for 88 cows. Selling of poor:cut logs from Forest No. 2 utilizes most of the remaining labor. The budget for a unit of this enterprise is- presented in Table 611, Appendix C. The few hours of unused labor allow timber stand improvement and stumpage sales from 80 acres of Forest lo. 1. The remaining 17 acres of'Forest lo. 1 are considered to have 'nothing' in the way of management. The forest enterprises take precedence over the ewe & lamb and wheat enterprises because the former require labor during no specific season. .A unit of the poor:cut logs enterprise for Forest No. 2 requires 3.8 hours per unit which can be used any time of the year. Of course, September to April are the preferred gAllows room for 25 per cent replacement. 126 madam #Hmfiw :rm Taumw IIII .m .385 NH ..oled RHI in TN; definm IIII ... .eaeenH mum. _8m IIII 38533 eons III Sara III in II. soars IIII Sean H 1% 5 III a. III a. III s 8 am «can 58 . a can mH :NHn 3Hm .05 Ideas 0 III 0 mH mH mmH Ho ER or...» 6:4 I be: 0 III Hm mMHn ommn Inm< I Imam mason .933 0 III 0 III 0 9. 3 IIII 3 m 6: ceases 0 5H 5H ow um III mm IIII mm H .oz vmeuoh asked 63 phenom NNH III mmH III «NH III mmH mam Hm... 8.84 .flaflmflm H38. rm III rm III rm III rm an EH 884 .olfifla mam. season espouse»: seems: 3 seems: a roleleflmm Inna eeohsomem eeousoeem a: mfifiez 2: H reason a: m season 2: oneness H133 H phases 3 connects—fl smooch pmoseam mausHomH .m mush .msHm mush «seesaw 9H eHcsn. depemvsm oHpsmeuuhmv I +3 0..”nt 127 months for forest work, but such work 333 be carried on during May to August if other work allows. This freedom from a temporal restric- tion allows the budgeting of all 40 units of Forest No. 2, providing a net income of 81,278. A unit of the ewe and lamb enterprise requires 7.1 hours of labor; however, 3.3 hours are needed for lambing during the January-April period, 1.0 hour is needed each of the other two periods for care of the ewe and lamb, 1.6 hours are needed during May- August for feed crops. Labor for this enterprise is restricted to the extent that the 16 hours of September-December labor allow only 13 units (ewe and lamb) of this enterprise to be budgeted. This number of units would provide 8102 of net income, considerably less than.that from the poor:cut logs enterprise for Forest lo. 2. In the same manner the wheat enterprise is restricted by the 16 hours of’September—December labor to only 6 units which provide 8161 of net income. The restriction of fixed resource quantity and productivity is, of course, unreal. Unused are 24 acres of row cropland, 122 acres of total cropland, 97 unlogged acres of’Fbrest No. 1, 7 spaces in.the loafing shed, and 834,500 of borrowing capacity. One more hired man could be combined with the physical resources and 86,600 of borrowed capital to produce an additional return to labor and.management of $6,100."Vith the restriction, however, a combination of the present dairy, Forest No. 2 poor:cut logs, and 80 acres of Forest lo. 1 poor: cut stumpage enterprises provide the most profitable present farm plan. After 8135 is subtracted for the unused Fbrest lo. 1 acreage, this combination provides 825,178 of net income. 128 In the optimum farm plan, Table 45, the present dairy is the first enterprise budgeted. The second enterprise entered in the plan, however, is a combination of two enterprises: Forest No. l stumpage and Forest No. 2 stumpage. This combination will yield a net income of 8513. If the forests are treated as separate enterprises, a negative income, -83l4, would be provided by the forests: the Forest No. 2 legs enterprise is the second most profitable enterprise after present dairy, providing .468 from 37 units. However, this enterprise would require all remaining 168 hours of labor, leaving none for improving the remaining 3 acres of’Fbrest No. 2 and the 97 acres of Forest No. 1. Nothing alternatives would have to be included for these, resulting in a negative income of -8782, or a net of -8314 from the forests. Combining the forests into one enterprise also allows the inclusion of 6 units of present wheat, providing an additional net income of 8233. The total net income from the optimum farm plan is 824,467. Total net income from the optimum farm plan is less than the total from the present farm plan, because present forests contain considerable volumes of timber which should have been harvested before now: Forest No. 1 included 1,427 board feet of poor:cut timber per acre, one—third of the sawtimber volume and.Fbrest lo. 2 included 2,331 board feet per acre, 40 per cent of the sawtimber volume.1° These volumes are planned for harvest during the present 1OISee Tables 9 and 10 for composition of the forests. 129 swim and Hake III a .385 mum has Rm ms Hake III H .385 mu». muse—50H: ocean III Shim III 8min III coals ... .flfldelo. 5 III a III 5 mm mm seem mannom enooq alum a o mH mH III 0H :mHn oer .oeo I.scom Hr om Hm III Hm manm cram .ms4 I an: no III as am Hm mmHn ommn Isa< I .nes carom .uoosq 0 III e 3 9.. III 3 N 6: reaps 0 III 0 so am III as H .02 phenom 2734 €de phenom mHH m NNH III mmH mom Hm: henna ammummmmm Henna rm III rm III rm an SH n32. .flcdmmflmflmm nouns: uses: nouns: swam—55m nouns: Ihulmwml couscous“ moohsomom Ass oneness Hos m a H ransom Ame oneness HemuwnH momHIHauouflm phenom asaHsno wnHrsHonH .m aces .nnHm aces asaHsco A>H eHnee manewunm oHseaesnsmv em: eHan. 130 plan time period, i.e., the first ten years. Added to the income from the sawtimber sold as logs or stumpage are small cost-sharing payments from the Agricultural Conservation Program and considerable income from inventory increase as the forests grow. Under optimum forest conditions the only income is from the assumed sale of annual growth as stumpage or logs. This difference in returns from an enterprise for the present forest and for the optimum forest can be seen by a comparison of a present budget and an optimum budget for a forest enterprise (Tables C5 and C6 in.Appendix C). These farm plans illustrate the supplemental nature of the forest enterprises of Farm B. They can utilize the few hours of unused labor more productively than can other possible supplemental enterprises. They can contribute about 6 per cent of the present net income. Under optimum.conditions, the forests can provide about 2 per cent of total net income. Whether or not the owners wish to receive this supplemental income is their decision. Aside from the small net income, the management included with these present or optimum farm plans would assure efficient production of future timber crops from the farm forests. Farm C - Small 2355: Farm.C is a one-man small dairy operation. One month.of family labor and three months of hired labor are added to 12 months for the operator.11 The operator is 55 and in good health. His 11Table 4, page 28. 131 22 year old son may not remain on the farm. Capital borrowing capacity is assumed to be 82,800. The two forests of 61 acres and 22 acres represent 28 per cent of the farm area and 4 per cent of total farm investment. The present farm plan, Table 46, and the optimum farm plan, Table 47, differ considerably. Poor:cut and good: cut logs provide profitable enterprises in the present farm plan. A new enterprise considered for Forest No. 1 of Farm C is clearcut pulpwood, Tables 015 and 616, Appendix C. Initial stocking would allow annual harvests of about 10 cords per acre. Optimum stocking would allow harvests of about 15 cords per acre. To allow annual harvests, cutting would be limited to 3 acres per year. A rotation of 30 years would be used. Although the net incomes per acre from this enterprise (818.81 and 841.15, respectively, for present and Optimum budgets) exceeded the net returns from other enterprises, the 3-acre limit excluded this enterprise from the farm plans. The forests contribute about 10 per cent of total net income in the present farm plan. The addition or refurbishing of building space for four new dairy cows may be possible more in theory than in reality. Unused row cropland in Column D of the plans is not possible after 'new dairy' requires the remaining total cropland. ‘Uithout total cropland there can be no row cropland. Forest enterprises contribute more to net income in the optimum farm plan than in the present farm.p1an primarily because of the Christmas tree enterprise planned for part of 81 acres of land designated as ”trees and wildlife" on the Soil Conservation Service farm plan. In reality this land is idle. The Christmas tree 132 ooon are... 8...... com... H .825 a... .....MH He con man 9mm... H .385 ......elz. SnefioHHd 8H III 8H 3rd 8rd III cord III 8nd H. .IHMIoHdmc. 0 III 0 III 0 III 0 mm aw sham shes a a m or an mmH an ma mam ~8H 8~H .oen tones 3H III 3H RH mom III new amHH 8.: .9: I he: am III am mmH RH em mom H8 3~H :34 I .5... mason .uocsn 0 mm mm III mm III mm III - N 6: peered 0 III 0 III 0 Ho Ho III Hm H .oz reesos oeuo< .nmsq pueuoh 0 III 0 rH 3 III ...H 8H m~H e984 flung Hosea o III HH m ..H II ..H 8 an eesoe .flqfldflm ”mm canons H3 one reason HnleIN census ”Ha To census EH8 eeonseeem Rouse-em any N vuehoh Anv 302 on H “IOAOh Aflv adenehfi HAHWdH memHumnovnn aeeuoh pmemeam mmHssHosH .0 much .msHm mush unseenn A>H eHcsa umHueussm 0Huwmeoehmv .3 eHoea 133 TR. m 31m «noun ONH.H saw... Rm... H .385 ......eIm ......mm H .eseoaH mum b Ho 0 HH mNN 33.6 380 a8. 3 H «8.3.. 00H Hw HH H5 3w.~ 3H ”NH wH n teas Hal...” He 3 ..H $538 ON :39 gag A3 essaa is: Q 5'81 OH 3H wN NOOH bmHH Ham 8H ON I veal» fl 5 aloe...— Sw. N ”N 3NH 8.2” gNH NN .5 Ha nNH an seasoned, H.133 A: Bee-rode H .flfl when has ”Wed-load .oem tone. .34 I he: ea4 I e55 “Mada... :33 .e. .ea poets H e.. vIOen’n leeNH .13 sees...— eesod .eHuH IeIelseH ....IaIeHIdeIulo Heron IeuIanH .flaelHam New. seasoned 8.29.31 oeeuoa Essa 53.3 .0 Ben .53 and guns 9H eHaeu wanes—.8 eta-sue»: .2 .26 ‘4 I): .II. 131+ minm adb.m o .oloonH uoz .004 o .oaoonH no: owH Ho HH 85:5 25 333.8»: 33%.. H anono~ Goa 3 O valanb CV saucepandd .m 433 93 5a a; ..oon I.»Aom .92 .. 9.: ...—"Q4 I can. unuom .uondq m .0: vacuum H .0: vu0h0h 0.904 .undn vacuum nouod .oHUH 8.34 .flnfldflm H33. naked .uudamouo 30m 23:5»3 9:52 m vacuOh coonsouom 63538-...3 finds ’..“ ..-- ------ ..tt.‘ "vl .-,---.-....-- ' 0.... ---.II I n. n. C 0"! .0 In: I v o-- 013 v 135 enterprise is limited to 20 acres, partly to limit the size of this somewhat speculative enterprise and partly because 20 acres is about the maximum number one man can manage as a supplemental enterprise. On this farm with relatively infertile sandy soils, other crop yields are low and the forest enterprises can contribute a greater share of net farm income. In the optisum farm plan the forest enterprises provide $1,169, or 20 per cent of total net income. Farm D - Medium Dairy This medium-sized dairy farm is a two-nan operation, with about 11 months of family labor and 2 months of hired labor. The operator is #3 years old and is good health. A son is 16 years old. He may go to college then return to the farm. Borrowing capacity is esti- mated to be 8#,300. The two forests of 33 acres and 53 acres represent 2% per cent of the farm area and 5 per cent of total farm investment. In the present farm plan, Table #8, Forest No. 2 provides a net income of 8359. The best choice of enterprises for Forest lo. 1 is to clearcut about 1 2/3 acres each year on a 20-year rotation. The acreage limit, however, restricts net income to only 826 from the clearcut enterprise; and taxes and interest from the remaining 31 acres of Forest Ho. 1 provide a negative income of -8h3, resulting in a negative net income fromvrorest lo. l of -817. The two forests cemtribute 5 per cent of the total net income. Of the unused 108 acres of total cropland, #8 acres are in Conservation.Reserve. However, considerable unused cropland and labor would suggest the inclusion of some cash crop such as field beans into the farm plan. \J 136 w~m6 M86 91m 3n.n no. Juneau Helm ..de om man mom son ... g mum 3553: 3m --.. 3n --.. 3m 83 83 --- 8n; ... .flflmm o --- o --- o --- o :m on noun “noun a a son osa son :wa mom mad cow onH osoa .oon u.omom cow --- cow --- cow Ham HHoH aumfl osnw .mp4 - as: mmm --- mos --- mos was mam soda owow .gn4 . .nue 230m .3an o uuu 0 mm mm --- mm nu- mm m .0: season an m mm --- mm --- mm --- mm H .oz smooch e984 .3 veeuoh moH --- on --- mos ma sun mod mum anouua..mmummmmm_auooa 3 ..-- fl ...... 3 .. 8 :N .3 3.84 .§ .....mm 3.35 .28 film-IE... ”N o:— 333 thulo 23.5 45.8 88:8..— 88.88: any one u¢.Ho “as m oo.ugu nos so: “no sac-ohm Huaoauu a »-.ugu Auomom soaps>uomsoo dd one ounce ms. as $3 . .232; film no.3 91 mm fl .0833“ Hum updoapoaad 2 --- 3 mm m. .§ 0 all 0 III sham huddn a a own --- own :: .oon u.»aom mmn nu- mmu an .mp4 n he: awn 3. :mm an 3&4 u .93. uhdom .nonmq 0 II: o nan N .oz phenom 0 an an Inn H .oz phenom oouo< .vqsq phenom m3 --.. mg m. .mohi 6'53 309 i ..-- 4H m 8&2 .flflm a condo: o>aposueua< woods: moom noonsomom A8 mgooz A5 :5 a phenom .vossfiusooll.w: canoe 138 In the optimum farm plan, Table #9, forest enterprises contri- bute 81.8#2, or 23 per cent of total net income. The Christmas tree enterprise for Forest No. 1 of this farm has the same purpose as for Forest No. l of Farm.d: a means to increased income from an interim forest enterprise with the possibility of eventually converting to agronomic crops. If the Christmas tree enterprise proves competitively profitable, the area can be continued in this use. If not, conversion to agronomic crops is relatively easy and inexpensive. The produc- tivity of Forest lo. 2 may have been underestimated. The soil de- scription on the Soil Conservation.8ervice farm plan led to the. classification of the site as supporting relatively low productivity of about 190 board feet per acre per year. This accounts for the low not return from this forest. Farm I - Small Egigz This one—man dairy operation is located in hilly country. Uhether or not the forests are managed, the land now in forests should remain tree-covered. The owner is fit years old and is in good health. A son is It years old. Borrowing capacity is estimated at 85,900. The three forests of 18 acres, #1 acres, and h# acres comprise one- third of the farm area and h per cent of total farm investment. In the present farm plan, Table 50, the forest enterprises contribute about 11 per cent of the total net return. Forest No. 2 supports two enterprises: maple sirup on 12 acres, and log sales from the renining 29 acres, Tables Cl? and 018, Appendix 0. his owner has great potential for maple sirup. Forest lo. 2 can.average 139 do.» 3mg ing 8~§ 8nd ... .335 film .....dd a... on man as; 82 ... .383 New 38332 as fin 3n _ 2n 8am 8m... 8m; 8n... a .7: 8 o -... o I. o I: o 3.. c an ..n .88 58 a uflwmmm mu. .3 R: a 8n RH 3a 8H 8» 33 2.8 68 -238 «R .8 mom I. 3» 3 Ru and 23 find 3n~ .95 .. .3. :3 an one ...... m3 8." n...» on new 33 88 :34 .. ...-s as... £13 0 u... 0 mm mm In mm ...... R ...I mm ~ 3: season 0 ...I o ...i o ...... 0 mm mm ...... mm a .0. ones-h asked .3 veeuoh mas e 3H .1. mg as 5 ...I 5 8a Rm .834 . so: 26 gas 1: ~ 3 ...I ma ._ on II 8 ..~ .3 884 .3 ......M 23.5 M..-mm 23.5 Ifluaujaeoaas nhldm 3.3: 9.8.26 ...-.36 Ina...— lohsls 8883s 5 a... 3 ~ «.88 A8 .5. 8s a scones 3 :38...» new“: ...-«aton— o-ouoa assoc 538a .n .5...— ...-.8 la... gone 2; oases asap-mess oases-snag .3 .35 a I I ‘ Q t I t ‘ 0‘. I I O .... III n ‘I All- ’11.. I . a O o l o t I I n,’tl ....-. .‘ ‘.QJIA till}. I I . Q q . . I C o I Q I ' I I C - ‘ I o In I 0 I IMO ..mmé tug. wads ~36 mm...» o— .m ......qu My... ..fl. 8 mm on 9... mm... .... .385 ....um undefined“: $06 3.. ..mo.m ...... :86 ...... ..wofi m8 oomfi Ii oomé ..o. ...nlapladmm o -..- o --.. o -..- o ...: o ..m ...o. flan .58 ufllfiflm a R --- mm 9% 8m .05 ...»mom mm m 9. mm mm 3 m2 ...: woa $3 2.3 6:4 .. 7: m mu i. 8» 3a .34 u .9... Egon £33 0 --- o --.. o .... .... a... .... ...... .... n 62 «.20.... o .3 0 mm mm ..-- mm NH 3 -... d. m .3. 0.3.3...— o 3 ma a... 3 2... ma E. 3 ...... ma a .3. «83.... I934 .3 weaken 9. --- 9. --- 9. -..- 9. -..- 9. w... 9: 3.34 .§ 33 m ..-- n -..- m --- m ...... m 3 mm 8.3 flag mm 3 92.-3 33...: lung 33.5 man ca ...-8.. lam—«m 73.5 lama .8988 89383 as ...-m .3... a: m 98.8... 3. n :22: 8. 3.3. a: ......2m 30.3 A touch m «couch A3 .Iouaunuovnfl vacuum ado-PE 312.325 .a 5h :33 lush “vac-tum 9H 0.3.5 913525 “Janina-ha .8 Spam. lhl #0 taps per acre for the first decade, and about 90 taps the following decade. Forest No. 3 can average about 50 taps the first decade and about 90 the following decade. These could be tapped with tubing to save such gathering labor. The total potential nusber of taps for the first decade is about 3,800 tape on the 85 acres. As can be seen in Table 017,.Appendiz.c, #0 taps per acre will return lore than 833 to labor and aanageaent. A potential net incoae of more than 82,800 can be realized it the owner can provide or hire about 500 hours of labor during the Harchadpril sap season. Bis location in a recreational area of the state assures a ready aarket for quality sirup. Unfortunately, only 7% hours of JanuarybApril labor reaain after dairy chores, both in the present farn plan and the optimum tars plan, Table 51. If the son reaains on the tars, or if one nan can be hired, the aaple sirup enterprise could pay sore than.82,800 of his wages. Cropland, labor and capital borrowing ability would allow the addition of 7 new dairy cows to the herd. This would add 81,315 to net incose and toward paysent of wages. Furs.r - Baall Mixed This is a one-nan sheep tars. the owner is a bachelor, 27 years old and in good health. One parent contributes about IDS aonths of labor annually. He hopes to increase the size of his flock to #00, and is interested in a larger aaple sirup operation. Unfortunately, these two enterprises coapete for Januaryhlpril labor. iithia 10 years the nuaber of saple taps could be doubled. this would require an additional 500 hours of Jannaryalpril labor. If the sheep flock is 1h2 ...... 9.... ...... s. .33.. u... ...l. .9 .... ...... ... .23.. ...... 35303 9.1m -..- 9.1m Rs 8% --.. 8% .m 1% o --.. o u-.. o ..m ..m .55 so 3% o mm mm --.. R a...» 8m .05 .....Eom 0 NS NS --- mod $3 2.3 .92 u 3. o in o i. i. 8w 03m ....3 .. .5». canon .uonsn m on 3: In: a: In: :3 n .oz uaenoh on ...... mm m 3 --.. d. N .oz 9.88 ms --- w.” .5. ma -..- m: H .3. «8qu oeuod .unsq smooch 9. --.. 9. ..-- 9. mm 9: 8.84 .43 33. m --- m ..-- m S mw 8.84 .gmfl season Ila-Woufll voodoo Ids—Mud! season Ifll neon—Seem oeousoaem 2: n ...-.8...— 6. can: 8. sue-:5 and: N vIOHOh Adv 5.5.6 95305 .a .5: .58 and game an .36 gasses cans-sagas deeds—unsun— paeuoh .Hm eHnsa 143 NBNK muNK :bNK o .oaoonH mm ..Nmfl :n N ma w. .23qu Holz. magmapoaa< mid --- 91m ...... mid --- .m .mmflnmfl o --- o --- o --- nuum “pawn .Nmmmmmmmzummmmmmm 0 an: 0 an: 0 III .009 I.vmom o In: 0 nun o uni .wzd I an: o --- o --- o --- .um< u .qan madam .uonuA 0 an: o m m nun m .02 unouoh o nu: o II: o on N .oz unouoh 0 ma ma nu: ma nun H .02 puouoh nouod .cndn vaHOh 9 a. 9 was mad :3. m --- m ..-- m -..- 8.3 .wmfluwflflfi woman: o>auaauopa< woman: o>aumauova< vousap o>aunuuovd< moouzouom on nuanpoz Amy mqanpoz Amy mnanuoz H amouom m amou0h N amouom .uosqflpqoo--.flm canny ‘Ililll . u l o o u 14“ increased by 100 head, an additional 270 hours of JanuarybApril labor would be needed. Since only 10 hours of labor for this period renains unused after present require-cuts for the two enterprises have been satisfied, either more labor must be obtained for this period, or one of the enterprises must be reduced to favor the other. Borrowing capacity is estimated to be zero. the three forests of 25 acres, 18 acres, and 55 acres constitute 31 per cent of the farm area and 20 per cent of total fars investsent. This is one farner who night consider converting almost con- pletely to forest enterprises, increasing his maple operation to about 3,000 taps and growing Christ-as trees as well as selling logn fros Forest lo. 3. In the present fars plan, Table 52, forest enter- prises can contribute 81,600 or #0 per cent of total net incose. Doubling saple sirup production can increase net incose fron this enterprise to about 82,h00 annually. Christmas trees should conp tribute about 850 of net incose per acre annually. These two enter- prises could be conplenentary in the use of labor. In the present farm plan, sale of poor and good:cut logs from Forest No. 2 add sore to net incone than does the 131 enterprise for Forest No. 3. However, in the optinun fars plan, Table 53, annual sale of logs fros Forest lo. 3 contributes more not incone than sale of logs fro- the snaller Ibrest no. 2. These are ninor changes in colparison to those possible, should this far-er decide to favor forest enterprises. 1&5 Hom.m mud mwm.m mum.m Hmn.N .m. .2305 vs; .34 . .oaoonH 9oz 0 mm 0 seal- 0 I." o .IeII. o Isl- census ueolapnsm ans Has n vnouoh fig 5% mm --- ma --- o ".l o as" oeeanp.mumq o+m any N useuoh conga: «undo .Huax, any H pa.uou om ow: com mm ma mN o o Amy end 0 oawa OQHH mm wH mN end 0 endeavodad ”mamummmum noun ocean Jummmmmmwmmmmmmmm. .oen n.9nem as: eh“‘ I eaha endow .uonsq m .o: useuoh N .0: poeuoh H .oz uneuoh oeuo< .onsq poouoh .usd I u.uo<..equauono Hopes .undamouo 30m oeuod saunas snag a can onenenm neonuosem Haapaaa aH sansa wndvemosm owes-eaohmv .Nm sanda I ‘.‘- 'l-.-i- .. O D O . . Q I I v 0 I . O a l I 1 e. I 0 e u - -II. I .l-.. D, s O o v I v 0 e s c .. e t . l A . c . s .. a A I q I 1&6 Rn... mm 3N! 2K. «ugh :HN.H awn.N me.N o .enoonH 9oz .004 .m . 23025 no: 0 banana :5 anon N puouoh owH OH ma 0 o ...-35 A3 i§9~ mm muon n aseuoh §8 mm --- mH --- velnnb “luau eHNs! H8 H peace 8 of 8m mm ma mN o o Tll 3.25 oqu a 2‘ 3v and 0 0mm." owda mm ma MN oma O sononpofldd .7ylwmum chum Assam gamma .oon I.pmem he: ohfid I cash endow .uonsq n .oz oneuoh N .oz useuoh H .oz poouoh oeuo< .onsq voouoh .mn4 I n 934 . efiHmouo H38. oouod .unsH ouo tom uneoohm oceanosem HdavflaH seounoaem 9.28 .5530 mfiusHoaH .a an... .53 and sin—so 9H .Hoaa avenge 0333.58 .oeodunuoona .mn sassy 11+? Farm 6 - Small Dairerotato This cooperator is 50 years old and in good health. His son is 19 years old. The owner plans to favor his dairy enterprise. Borrowing capacity is estimated to be zero. This is unfortunate, since this farmer has the potential for a sizable naple sirup enter- prise. Vith present labor unused after requirements for present dairy, present potatoes and present Christies trees have been satis- fied he could produce about 500 gallons of maple sirup from Forest Ho. 1 alone. This would provide about 82,000 of net income. However, about “,000 worth of equipment is needed to initiate this enterprise. The six forests comprise #22 per cent of the farn area and 20 per cent of total farm investment. In the present farm plan, Table 51+, forest enterprises contribute 31,995. or 21 per cent of total net income. In the optimum farm plan, Table 55, forest enter- prises can contribute 82,213, or 23 per cent of total net income. If equipment can be purchased for the maple sirup enterprise possible with present available labor, forest enterprises could contribute at least “,000, or one-third of a total net incose of lore than 811.500. In the present far- plan Forest No. 1 provides “22 per acre of net incose from the sale of 100 board feet of poor logs and 100 board feet of good logs per acre annually while stocking builds toward the optimun level. Once optimun stocking is obtained this forest can provide about 8629 of optisum net income fron the sale of about 385 board feet of logs per acre annually. A naple sirup enterprise, on l‘I8 onouoh anooohm mansaonH .0 shah .HHsHm lush unooeum 9H 2.38.. wavemonm causleashmv wmmé momd mung new... IoI .oaoosH Helm ..mIoIm mm: 03 Rafa. $0.: .m .2305 Hum 35303 0 III 0 III 0 III 0 III 0 m .IHISIWWm 0 III 0 III 0 III 0 Hm Hm .23 £8 a mmHIeIHmlsm 0H0 mm non mm 8a wow wmmH mam 30m 63 Ifiaom 3m III 3m R in mwm Rm HnoH 03H .92 I 3. NR as HR III HR III HR 3a 8H :34 I .56 madam ..HonsA HIH III S III S III S III S m 6: “touch 0 III o HH HH III HH III H m 6.. sconce R III R III R III R III R .. 6.. :95 0: III 0: III 0: III 0: III 0: n .2. oneuoh c on 8 III 8 III 8 III 8 m 6: Hogan 8 III 8 III 3 III S III 8 H a: :28 3.84 53 uneuoh 3 III 3 III 3 S 3 RH 8H 8.84 .mwdHIfiMm H38. 0 III 0 III o S «H III S 8.84 .flmmdmwm Hum. Hosanna ”S can vegan 33.55, and: 33oF canon: INHHIIsINI soon—Hosea soon-Hosea as m p.28 2: m nausea- H8 “Banana :3 H325 HaMwWaH ...-Hafiafl 1% edges 1M9 03$ :Nm.m :Hm.m 89m m. .2303” a .Iodm m: on sow my. ..I .383 Mum 38.503 0 III o III 0 III 0 III N 1am 0 III 0 III 0 III 0 III 83 has Hmmmmmumnummmmmmm. S: III NIH: HR 8: we mHm 8H .08 I338 3m III 3m III 3m III 3m III .34 I 3. RH III NH 9,. SH 3 Nsm on 3&4 I .56 show ..Hoosn o NIH S III S III NIH III 0 .oz “.8qu 0 III 0 III 0 III 0 III m .3. 3.3.... 0 III 0 III 0 R on III .o .0: £8qu 0 III 0 3 3 III 3 III n .0: “.33.... 0 III 0 III 0 III 0 III N 6: peace 0 III 0 III 0 III 0 8 H 6: Hagan meuod €53 pneuoh .3 III 3 III 3 III 3 III 8.64 .wmmdmm H38 0 III 0 III 0 III 0 III 3.84 .3 HM 83.5 £33.51 335 a“? a alumna H8 can 82:88 HS wfifioz a: n :88 as H 3.3a a: H Hogan 0 asshoh .YsfinnooIIJm .Hnaa .0,- 150 the other hand, could yield about 82,997 of present not incone fron 3.7% taps, and optilun net incose of about 810,290 fron 5,100 taps. Forest lo. 2 provides 8&22 per acre of present net incone fron sale of poor and good logs as the forest grows toward optinun stocking. At optinun stocking, this forest can provide about 852# per acre of net incone annually fron sale of logs. It can produce sap fron 3,800 taps, to yield about 800 gallons of sirup worth {£800. The net incone would be about 83,000 annually, alnost six tines the optinun net incose fron log sales. Forest lo. 3 provides 8210 per acre of present net incose fro- sale of poor logs, and can provide about 8310 per acre of optinun net incose fros sale of logs. {About #5 tsps per acre will be possible in about lO'years. A yield of 0.2 gallons of sirup per tap will provide 9 gallons of sirup per acre or 360 gallons for the forest. The net incone would be about {LMO annually. Forest lo. 5 is a white pine-northern hardwood stand which can provide ssall anounts of net incone annually fres.sales: 8210 in the present fars.plan and 8109 in the optinun farn plan. Or, this forest can provide lunber for a saphouse, storage sheds, and other new buildings. Forest lo. 5 is an ll-acre Christ-as tree plantation of red pine, Scotch pine, and white spruce. this enterprise contributes slightly lore n the present farn plan (8630) than in the optilun plan (8596) because the current stand is‘} years old, so establish-eat costs and several years of taxes are not deducted. Another 20 to 25 acres of adjacent pernanent pasture land is classified in the sane 151 ”a... $3 mum. to... . .383 M..... .84 mmm mmm wmmé 3o... .m .385 Mum sadonpoflfld 0 III o III 0 III o III o ..I ..Hlfiwmflfl 0 III o III o III o H H 8.8 58 g a 2.. 3... 3.. mm 8.. m8 $2 ~$ 38 J... I333 3m III 3m ..m in mam Rm HS 83 .34 I 3. En III mun MH HR III HR m3 83 .....4 I .9... endow .uonsq ..H III ..H III ..H III ..H III ..H m ...... «8.8.. 0 III 0 HH HH III HH III HH n .8. .38.... 3 III on III 3 III on III on ._ .... ...... 3 III 3 III 3 III 3 III 3 n .3. .83.. 00 III om III ow III om III om N .oz pseuoh o 3 3 III 8 III 3 III 8 H .3. .38.. sound .unsa «coach 3 III 3 III 3 2 no :3 SH 1.9404 .3 309 0 III 0 III o S 2 III S .284 .g ”mm ocean: llsfloa ocean: 33.qu wens—5 33cm pong—D Inhalelnl seasons“ soohsossm .8 H .83.. .5 m 93.3.. .8 .88.... .3 ...-8.... H131 .83.... game 33232: .u so... .55. an... ...-3.8 .3 .349 .5».qu salsa-hm. .senwhnuspnfl Inn sassy 152 wwu.m 2... m mmm. m o .OIbouH no: .004 o .oaoonH voz at? 000000 I I I 0.: III 0 III vousap nonldpudm aHv m puouoh 00000 w: o .838 .5 "non : plough QJH {N 000302 o: 0 32:5 .8 muoq n vuouph °£§§ °°SR°S w: o Gonna: .5 “non N anthem opaoEpOHad .m .flplflmm 93. 5a 3% Icon IIumom .34 I 7: .34 I .8... canon .uonuq .oz anouoh .oz oucuoh Io: p00hoh .oz vuouph NM-‘I'lfiw .oz poouph H .0: vucuoh cohod .undq weaken 3.84 .§ 38. ucuod .vquamouo 30m coouuo-om .voaflpnooIIdm .Saa 153 capability class as the area now planted. Presumably this land can be used for the Christmas tree enterprise. To supply the feed lost when this per-anent pasture is converted to Christ-as trees, part of Forest No. 2 can be converted to hay land. The soils under this forest are the best on the fare, so should produce at least 2.1 tons of hay, the average production on current hay fields. The pernanent pasture provides feed equivalent of about 0.8 ton of hay per acre or about #0 per cent of the potential of Forest No. 2 acreage if converted. On a lO—year rotation, the Christ-as tree»enterprise can.yield an average annual net return of about 860 per acre. Crops for one dairy cow require 6.“ acres of cropland. The net income from one unit (cow) of the dairy enterprise is $221.27. Therefore, the crops produced by one acre are worth less than 835. Poorer cropland can be converted to the Christ-as tree enterprise if this provides sore net incone than the hay enterprise, and if the loss of hay production on the poorer land can be replaced by higher production on other fields. Forest No. 6 is a l7-acre stand of lS—year-old pine. A possible budget for this forest is presented as Table 019, Appendix C. The net incose per unit (acre) of $2.66 is obtained by discounting net returns to the present and assusing 5 per cent of the discounted value as the annual net insole. Phr- H - Slnll Pbuls£z This ssall poultry fare is a one-Ian operation. The owner is 33 years of age, a bachelor, and in good health. Borrowing capacity is estisated to be zero. The two forests of #9 acres and 9 acres are one-fourth of the fare area and 8 per cent of the total fern invest-ant. 154 In the present fars plan, Table 56, forest enterprises contribute one—third of total net incone fros sale of logs. In the optisus farn plan, Table 57, forest enterprises contribute 15 per cent of total net incose. Lack of investsent capital prevents initiation of the lost profitable forest enterprise: ssple sirup. Forest No. 1 has suf- ficient larger sugar saple trees for an average of 70 taps per acre during the first decade, and 115 taps the second decade. 'lstisated net incose fros this enterprise is 868.86 per acre, or 83,37h annually fros this enterprise. Of course, this enterprise would be in cospo- tition with the poultry enterprise for Januaryeipril labor. The poultry enterprise now utilizes 1,020 hours of the 1,130 hours available for those sonths. The saple sirup enterprise would require over 500 hours during the sane period. Equip-eat to initiate the saple sirup enterprise would cost about 85,780. Sale of poor:cut and good:cut logs other than sugar saple in both forests would provide about 32,300. Harvesting would require about 720 hours. With 3&0 hours unused after poultry enterprise require-outs are supplied, two years of logging would be required to harvest the logs. If 1,800 fewer pullets were purchased the second year, the owner could purchase the necessary building and equip-est. tars I - Medina Potato-Beef-Hog This potato-livestock fars is a ZI-san operation: the father contributes 10 sonths of labor, one son works full tine, ene son helps during susser sonths while cospleting university education, and about 3.5 sonths of hired labor is used. The owner's health is poor, but 155 So... 3....“ a$.~ .m .o-oofi Hum ..molq. 9a 2b.. H$.~ Io. ...-Sea Hum 385...: 0 III o II 0 III e a. 1% oom III com III oom coon comm canon hauasom and. algal”. m d on :3 8. 8m 83 Jon flames on III 2 8.. on 83 can .92 I 3. o 2 ca 8a 2. 82 and ..ae I .3... canon .uonsq o m m III a III m m 6.. 228.— 0 II. o o. 3 III m. a .... ta... seao< .onsq ooeaoh 9: III a... ..II 9: III min .83 .g 33.. o III o III 0 III 0 3.84 .3 .....mm ocean: .uMMMImMM ocean: .uHMMImmm .oesnso .Nmmmmmm. seoasosem eeoaooeem .3 ~ “.33... .3 a nachos .5 vagina 333 .3 .8395 ".33.... »e....& 95.52: .a and .898 .5.— »88& .5 cases caucuses finals-ha .mm sHQsH 156 2.1m andm ”$.N ..I ...-8.: ...: «$4 on be: .39“... In. .2323 ale-m gauged: o IIII o III o III 0 a. .3 com IIII com III com coon comm sea—om Egon. a amalgam o _ em. em mm 8. 8a 80.. .08 tacos 8.. s can III o... 83 03. $3 I on: o S 3 8. ad owe. RS ..aa I 5:. shnom gonna o m m III a III m N .oz peenoh o IIII o .m: on III 9. H 5: veeach e984 .og poeaoh mi IIII 9.. III 9: III mi .23 .3 .38. o IIII 0 III 0 III 0 eeaod .3 Hod ocean: nummlvlom ocean: llouflulu ocean: doom seoasoeem seoanooem .5 N coach .3 .n peeaoh A5 useeeam 338a .3 .sesdaauevofl 3.3.... gnao 3:335 .m an... .58 an... 5530 .3 .35 e333..." canals-hue . mm canon. 157 the two sons, 30 and 27 years of age, are in good health. The owner hopes to increase the acreage of potatoes grown and to increase the size of his beef herd. He owns a pulpwood loader and a new ab-ton pulp truck. He wants to harvest 150 cords of pulpwood annually. At current rates of growth, he can.harvest 190 cords. Borrowing capacity of this farner is estinated to be zero. the three forests of #9 acres, 180 acres, and 160 acres represent 57 per cent of the fern area and 19 per cent of total farn invest-eat. Forest enter- prises contribute l? per cent of total net incone in the present fern plan, Table 58. They contribute 35 per cent of total net incone in the optinun farn plan, Table 59. The increase results prinariLy free the change in product sold fro-Irorest.lo. 3, free pulpwood to sawlogs. If the owner can borrow invest-eat capital he can increase his beef herd by 12 aninals or increase his potato enterprise by # acres with present unused resources. let incene fron a unit (acre) of a new potato enterprise is 8127.1h. the budgets for a unit of the cut and deliver pulpwood enterprise, Tables 020 and 021, Appendix.c, shows the net incene fro-.one acre of potatoes to equal that free h? units (acres) of the present pulpwood enterprise or #1 units of the optima pulpwood enterprise. 8c, the net incone fron ‘I additional acres of potatoes would equal the net incone free about half of the total forest acreage in.a cut and deliver pulpwood enterprise. this ends the presentation of farn plans prepared for nine Michigan fares using the systenatic budgeting technique. In.all but one of the fern.plans forest enterprises are included solely on the basis of their conparative contribution to total net incone. 158 08;. ego «86 mafia In. .825 Mum .Mmm m3 mam at. mfifi w. .38.: Hum sense an opnosuoaad o III 0 III 0 III 0 III 0 .m 1%.qu 0 III 0 III 0 NH NH III NH cocoa mom mm III mm III mm III mm III ow 83m moon and a 3m Rm KS 08 and“. oi mam ma Run .03 Ideas 33 III 23 III mama own nnwu 3: 85w .9: I he: was III was III was mmn 82 III on: :34 I .5.» endow .uoneq 0 III 0 8H 03 III 03 III 03 n 6.. peace 0 8H 8H III 8H III and III 8H ~ .8. :88 9. III 9. III 9. III as III a: a .8. ...-non eenod .unea neeuoh 5: III SH III SH on n2 an ..om .23 .3 38 a II. 5 III 5 III a R R :84 .g ...dm. dog—ab UdhOO “50 60.159 £00 #50 6.39 lg 60.39 Q'ssofi .0098.“ 0.090..“ a: .3335 8o 3&5 So 3825 So awe-cum 3.23 N veenoh m aneuOh Adv .eeednnhevnfl oneuoh oneoenm wndonaonH .H flush .non lush unseenm A>H eases mndvemonm cave-evehmv .mm .33. -.-.-- 159 m:m.u o .eloonH uez .ood IoI . oaoonH uez mwN MNNH me om : 3.35 .38 26 8v cepaaoo H pneu0h 4’8 3‘00 ...-as A5 no neon aneoenm ounonuoaad ”c.4mmmumm_ oenom mom chem moon cummmmmmemmmmmmmmm .oon I.»nou .95 I be: e&‘ I efiha canon .uoneg n .oz aeenoh N .oz aeenoh H .0: enough eeuo< .oneq peenoh 2.84 $3M"... .38.. eeuo< .ondamouo tom eeonnoeem .oosflsnooiém .25 160 l p83...— esaapao maesaoaa .a 5m .58 Ewe 5.53 Ca gases eaaoomuam causes-3o ~54. m8.» on: Pun . ....85 man ......oIm new at. .33 Fun ..I .88.: ......am sense an 3:25 0.33 0 III 0 III 0 III 0 IIII o ..I nan-Ma 0 III 0 ma ma III ma IIII Na :58 mom mm III mm III mm III mm IIII am 8am noun ”a a can Ra. mooa 3a mama ~an mama. mam RR 6.5 Isaac mama III mama 0% Raw III mmmm 3.. Sam 63 I 7: mm... III was Ra Ra III omaa IIII onaa :34 I ...-a. aha—om ..aonsq 0 III 0 III 0 8a 8a IIII 8a n .3. 988a 0 8a owa III 8a III 8a IIII 8a ~ 6.. ...-:8 9. III 9. III 9. III 9. IIII 3 a a: team e984 Juan phenom Baa III aaa on nua III Ea an :8 8.84 .3 afloa. 5 III a III a. III a an on .32 .3 Ha. oceans eouoo one soon: lluflall coed—5 owed coca—n: 330m eeohnoeom neonnoeem a: ...»aaoa 8V 9:39am A3 n 3.8.... 2: 283a afloana N peach A3 .eooaunueanfl . mm 933.. 161 Now.m o .oaoonH 9oz .oo< o .oaoonH poz ma MNNH omN on : ooosnb on ooaoo vso ao>aaon H pooaoh ma MNNH so. m: J census Amv :mm mam msm no n uoom uncooam upcoapoaa< .m nmmmmme omdom mom anon moom ammmumum;ummmmmmm. .ooa IIpmom .ms< I he: .am< I .ndo nanom .aocmq m .02 poouoh N .02 phenom H .02 pooaoh noao< .ondn poohoh 83¢ .muflnmmm 33.. 8.84 .gflfl oooasomom .uosnapqooII.mm oases CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS Pars forests in the United States contain elsost one-third of the forest resources of the Nation. These forests sust contribute a sejor share of the tisber to seet future wood requirements. Recent studies have shown these fars forests are less productive than forests in public and industrial ownerships. Isproved sanegesent of fars forests has been encouraged through increased public and forest industry assistance and educational progress. However, one element of the problem has received surprisingly little attention, yet would appear to be the crux to the solution: integration of sanagesent of the fars forest resources and enterprises with senagesent of other fars resources and enterprises. Astonishingly little has been published on fars forest manage- ment as a part of fars sanagesent. The three studies which have been concerned with the coordinated sanagesent of the fars forest with the rest of the fars business were reviewed and were described in sose detail. In two of the studies forest enterprises are cosbined with other fars enterprises after independent selection of optisus alternatives for forest and other fars resources. Linear progressing is used in the third study to apply sisulteneously all resources to all enterprises to cospute en optisus cosbinetion of enterprises. In this dissertation, another technique is studied; a sethed which lies between those used in the previous studies. It is tersed 162 163 sisplified progressing or systesatic budgeting. This sethod for systesetically integrating all fers resources and enterprises into a fers plan has been developed by Clyde R. Heathers of the North Carolina Extension Service. Pars forest resources and enterprises of nine Michigan ferss were included in fers plans prepared by this systesatic budgeting technique. the ferss are located throughout the Lower Peninsula, in six different type-of-farsing areas. ‘All three general econosic sizes of ferss are represented. The ferss include feeder-beef, dairy, sheep, dairyapotato, poultry, and potato-livestock. the ferss range in size fros 201 acres to 685 acres. Two to sin forests on each fers represented 22 to 57 POr cent of the fers areas and k to 20 per cent of total fers investsents. the forests ranged in size fros 11 acres to 180 acres. rorest types included were upland hardwood, nixed conifer swasp, northern hard- wood, aspesppaper birch, and white pine. The forests were inventoried using the Bitterlich technique and stand-stock tables were prepared using an IE! lkOl cosputer. Budgets were prepared for units of agronosic, livestock, and forest enterprises which would be considered in preparing two fers plans for each fers. One was a 'present' fers plan which would include only those forest enterprises fros which an iscose could be received within the sent 10 years. Asong the forest enterprises considered for present fars.plass were 'tisher stand isprovesent', 'sell poor:cut stuspage', 'sell poor:cut logs', 'sell poor:cut + good:cut logs', 'deliver cut cords', 'clearcut', 'Christsas trees', and 'seple sirup'. A 'nothing alternative' was included to represent 161v disinterest on the part of the owner. The other was an 'optisus' fers plan which includes forest enterprises possible when a forest reaches sose optisus level of stocking, has grown to a size which allows sose special enterprise (e.g., saple sirup), or is converted fros one use to another (e.g., a severely understocked stand of low- quality hardwood to a Christses tree plantation). Asong the forest enterprises considered for optins fers plans were 'sell stuspage' , 'sell logs' , 'sell cords', 'deliver cut cords' , Christ‘s trees' , 'saple sirup' , and 'interplanted black walnut'. The fers plans were prepared by a sequence of repetitive steps. The initial step consisted of applying available resources to each enterprise as though it were the only enterprise being considered. Inevitably one resource would be exhausted for each enterprise; i.e., would lisit the further expansion of the enter- prise. Uhen all enterprises had been expanded to the lisit set by an exhausted resource, the net incose provided by each enterprise wee detersined. The enterprise which provided the largest net incose was selected as the first enterprise to be entered into a fers plan. lext, the unused resources were listed. The second step us a repetition of the first. The resaining resources were applied to each remixing enterprise as though it were the only enterprise being considered for second place in the fers plsn. Again, resources were applied to each enterprise until exhaustion of one resource lisited further expansion of the enterprise. let inoeses were detersined and cespared. The ruining enterprise having the largest not incose as then added to the fers plan. 165 These repetitive steps were continued until all enterprises had been entered into the fers plan.or until insufficient resources resained for inclusion of another enterprise. A 'present' fern plan and an 'optisus' fers plan was prepared for each of the nine ferss. Bystesatic budgeting assures the use of all the resources of a fers, including the forest resources, toward saxisization of total net incose. This is the only consideration foresters say reasonably ask for forest resources and enterprises: that they be considered along with other resources when fers plans are prepared. In this study forest resources and enterprises were systesatically budgeted into fers plans with other fers resources and enterprises. Bose forest enterprises were never entered into fers plans because the supply of labor or isyestsent capital (if available) was exhausted by sore profitable enterprises. Bose forest enterprises were included in fars.plans because they could utilize labor any tine of the year. And sose forest enterprises were included in fers plans because they could utilize resources sore profitably than other enterprises. Preparation of enterprise unit budgets such as those in Appendix:c is the essential first step of systesatic budgeting. It is also the soot difficult and nest frustrating stop, because physical yield data, resource and lahor requiresents, and price inforsation for forest enterprises are neager at sost. Data for livestock and agrenosic enterprises are vastly sore volusinous and detailed. Data for the budgets in this study were cospounded fros a lisited nusber of studies in.Indiana4 lichigsn, Minnesota, New Iork 166 Tennessee, and Hisconsin. Collection, analysis and publication of inforsation for forest enterprises is a fertile and relatively untrod field for any interested research forester. lore inforsetion is needed on the production of rapid, lucid and reliable periodic physical yield estisates using aerial photographs, the Bitterlich inventory technique, and electronic cosputers. Hensurational techp niques for ssall forests need further study and refinesent. What voluses and values justify the costs of inventories? Can periodic fars forest inventories be incorporated into cosputerized business analysis progress being initiated in.sany states? The relationships between silviculturel saturity and econosic saturity for all forest types should receive priority in sanagesent studies. The alternative rate of return of 5 per cent used to detersine the optisus stocking level would find antagonists asong silviculturists and econosists. The writer searched diligently for resource and labor require- sent date for fers forest enterprises. In the end, he was forced to use sostly the ease few sources used by previous authors. lhero are the studies on costs and returns of silvicultural practices, of hose-use of tisber products? Hhere are the studies of price trends for forest products of the Lake States? This profound paucity of reliable inforsation notwithstanding, conclusions can be drawn concerning the incorporation of forest enterprises into plans for the ferss in this study, and the contri- butions of these enterprises to the total net incoses of the ferss. The fers plans prepared in this dissertation provide evidence of the feasibility of including forest resources and enterprises when 16? preparing fern plans. In all except one of the fern plans, incose fros forest enterprises can pay ownership costs, operating costs, and leave a positive contribution to total net incose. Individually, the plans illustrate the wide variation in contributions by forest enter- prises to net incose. Under present conditions, forests on the study ferss can contribute fros less than nothing to #0 per cent of total net incose. The real value of net incose fros present forest enter- prises ranges fros 8-113 to 82,056. when forests are optisally stocked and the soot profitable continuous enterprises can be in! corporated into fers plans, forests could contribute fros 3 per cent to #6 per cent of total net incose. Reel value of net incose fros optisus forest enterprises ranges fro-.8h85 to 33,351. For one of the study ferss, total net incose would sore than double if the owner converted entirely to forest enterprises. If investsent capital or additional capital were available for several ferss, saple sirup enterprises could increase total net incose by several thousands of dollars. The esount of total net incense relative or real, contributed by forest enterprises varied with the size of total net incose, value of forest crops harvested, labor supply, and/hr available investsent capital. The relative contribution can represent considerably dif- ferent real contributions fros fers to fers. ‘Ier exasple, under present forest conditions the 81,600 which can be contributed to net incose by forest enterprises of'rers r represents #0 per cent of the total net incose of 83,961. For Fern B, the 81,h57 which can be contributed to net incose by forest enterprises represents 168 only 6 per cent of the total net incose of 825,178. Solely fros the econoaic point of view, one would assuse the owner of Fara F to have sore intense interest in fern forest sanagesent. Apparently he has sore interest in intensive forest sanagesent because he sells logs, pulpwood, and saple sirup, and carries tisber stand inprovesent annually; while the owners of Earn 3 have sold stuspage periodically and do not presently carry on tisber stand isprovesent. Foresters sust be cognizant of the relative as well as the real contributions of forest enterprises to net incose. d forester should have suffi- cient inforntion about possible forest enterprises for a fers to provide the owner with realistic estisates of costs and net incoses fros an acre or sose other unit of each of the enterprises. If the forester can include an estiaate of the hours of labor required, the owner can then decide which enterprise or enterprises to include in his fers plans on the basis of real or relative contribution to not incose, return per hour, return on invest-ent, or sose cosbina- tion of these. Bisable increases in relative contributions to total not incose by optisus forest enterprises ever present forest enterprises usually were associated with changes to sore profitable crops or «my... For exasple, the contributions fros Christsas tree enterprises in the optisus fers plans for turns 1, C, and D would be considerably greater than those fros the relatively long-rotation, low-value hardwoods of present fers plans. Likewise, the contribution fros optisu forest enterprises of Tara I would be sore than fros 169 present forest enterprises because logs instead of pulpwood could be harvested fros one of the forests after it had reached optisus stocking. For all the ferss in the study, the sore profitable enterprises were those for which considerable labor would be applied to growing and harvesting highpvalue crops. Enterprises can be grouped in order of decreasing profitability in this study: Christsas trees and saple sirup, logs, cut cords, and sawtisber stuspage. The con- parative profitability of enterprises becoses evident when the enter- prise unit budgets and systesatic budgeting tables are prepared for a fers. Lisited labor supplies allowed inclusion of sose forest enter- prises on.sese fers plans and excluded others. All forest enterprises except saple sirup, Christsas trees, and interplanted black walnut were assused to be unrestricted by seasonal labor require-eats. This assusption allows forest enterprises to be included in plans for three ferss. ihen lisited Septesber-Decesber labor prevents further exp pension of the present dairy of Fern B, reseining labor for other seasons allows the addition of sawlog and stumpage enterprises. bhen lisited September-December labor prevents addition to the dairy of Fara 1, sufficient labor resains to add several forest enterprises. A few hours of JanuaryeApril labor allow the addition of a ssall saple sirup enterprise in one forest. Labor for other seasons allow the addition of sawlog‘and stuspage enterprises. Likewise, when lisited labor prevents further expansion of the poultry enterprise of'Fars H, the unused labor can.be applied to sawlog enterprises. 170 Thus, the coupleaentary nature of these forest enterprises favors their inclusion in several of the fars plans. Lisited seasonal labor can restrict or exclude forest enter- prises as well as agronosic and livestock enterprises. For two ferss saple enterprises are restricted and for another fers a potentially profitable saple enterprise is excluded because of insufficient JanuaryeApril labor. The restriction or exclusion of a saple sirup enterprise can result in considerable loss of net incose because this enterprise can contribute fros 835 to 880 of net incose per acre annually. On one fers especially, Fara r, the owner sust soon decide whether to continue to apply his JanuaryeApril labor to lashing or apply it to a growing, cospeting and potentially sore profitable saple sirup enterprise. Choosing the saple sirup enterprise would preclude the sheep enterprise. A Christsas tree enterprise could be established on present hay land and could be an excellent cosple- sent to the saple enterprise in the use of labor. Ten.yeers hence another fers plan nay identify the saple sirup enterprise as the nest profitable for the fers. If profitability of enterprises included in fers plans is cospared on the basis of net return.per hour of labor, the sale of high-quality logs fros.Farss B and H as part of present forest fers plans provide the highest returns, 88.hl and 811.86 per hour, respectively. lext sost profitable would be the Christsas tree enterprises at 85.32 to 87.35 per hour, then saple sirup enterprises at 35.86 to 85.89 per hour. Sale of logs fros other forests return 81.27 to 83.53 Per hour. Cut and delivered pulpwood returns 8.80 to 8.98 per hour, and cordwood at the road returns 8.18 to 8.20 per hour. 7 _ . . . . . - J C t' ’ _ v g \a . . a . e — . - . , " ,, I x . — I O . s . . .- s c— o e w 7 ' . . ‘ . ' —. .— s 7 A , - - .i \ . l ‘J ' ‘ .i - . s . 7 i a — - , . . r R i 7 G v g _ q .u n , . A . ‘\ . . , 171 Lack of investnent capital probably restricts expansion or initiation of sany potentially profitable fars enterprises. Certainly current inability to borrow capital prohibits the initiation or expansion of saple sirup enterprises on three of the study ferss. For Fern G, en investsent of 8e,000 for a saphouse and equipsent should return about 82,000 of additional net incose annually. Invest- sent of about 85,800 for a saphouse and equipsent for Fern B should return about 83,700 of net incose annually. These propitious conclusions presuse use of sodern gathering and evaporating techni- ques and a dynasic sarketing progres. In sussary, the nine pairs of fers plans prepared in this dissertation illustrate the allocation of fars.resources aseng cosbinations of enterprises on the basis of soot profitable use of each resource. The forest resources and enterprises of these ferss have not been ignored; neither has their econosic isportence been exaggerated. The esount of each forest resource which can be expended without ispairing productivity of the forest was detersined. These controlled asounts of forest resources were applied to enterprises systesatically along with all other fars.resources. loch of the forest enterprises which was considered for the fers plans was included or excluded on the basis of whether or not it could contri- bute sore to net incose than sese other forest, agronosic, or live- stock enterprise. The forest enterprises can.oentribute positive net incoses to all fers plans except one. They can provide three to forty-six per cent of total net incose. APPENDIXA FIELD INVENTORY NEH, AND FORE! mower PRICES 172 1 WOODLAND ENTERPRISE STUDY Date:___ 10 BAP Point Sample Sheet State(02-03): County(Ou-OS): Farm(06-07):___ Woods(10): Stand(ll): - Number Number Tree , Point Tree , DBH B-Foot B-Foot Condition Mortality No. No. S ecies Class Legs Bolts Class Cause TIT-7137 TT—Uu-J. (2.16-177 Tie—.157 .1207 "(217' (22) (23) Figure u. Forest Inventory Field Fora 173 Table A1. Forest Product Prices Adjusted to Species, Volumes and Quality to Provide Unit Prices by Condition Classes, Study Farms, 1963‘ Condition Classes Stumpage At Road Farm Forest Included“ Bd. Ft. St. Cd. Bd. Ft. St. Cd. A l Poor:cut+ 8 35 8 S 3 2 Poor:cut+ 68 83 B 1 Poor:cut+ 57 Poor:1eave+ 6h 79 Poor:cut 32 #7 2 Poor:cut+ 87 Poor:1eave+ 125 1#O Poor:cut 30 #5 C l Poor:cut+ 13 1.35 31 7.20 Good:leave+ 15 1.20 25 6.90 Good:cut+ 13 1.H0 7.75 Good:cut 31 Poor:cut 6 1.20 22 6.80 2 Poor:cut+ 17 1.30 7.05 Good:cut+ 20 1.15 29 7.05 Poor:cut 1.15 23 6.70 D l Poor:cut 16 1.35 29 6.50 Good:cut+ 19 39 Poor:cut l“ 25 2 Poor:cut+ 22 . 38 . 1 30 6 50 Good:cut+ 30 1.30 #9 6.50 Poor:cut l# 1 30 6 50 17“ Table A1.--continued. Condition Classes Stumpage At Road Farm Forest Included“ Bd. Ft. St. Cd. Bd. Ft. St. Cd. E 1 Poor:cut+ 3 4 3 1.25 3 8 7.25 Good:leave 12 1.25 50 7.25 2 Poor:cut+ 20 1.10 42 7.#0 Good:cut 25 1.00 55 7.50 Good:cut+"‘ 2h 51 Poor:cut 10 1.15 24 7.50 5 Poor:cut+ 19 1.20 #5 7.90 Good:cut+“‘ 2# 1.20 #9 7.80 Poor:cut 10 1.05 2h 7.56 F 1 Poor:cut+ 20 1.55 #5 8.05 Good:cut+ 21 1.55 45 8.05 Poor:cut 8 1.55 19 8.05 2 Poor:cut+ 35 1A0 54 8.25 Poor:1eave+ 56 1.40 55 8.50 Poor:cut+1eave 27 l.h0 #2 8.25 Poor:cut+good:cut 51 5 Poor:cut+ 12 1.45 29 8.50 Poor:1eave 15 1.50 5“ 9.00 Poor:cut+ 11 1.50 28 7.50 175 Table Al.--continued. Condition Classes Stumpage At Road Farm Forest Included“ Bd. Ft. St. Cd. Bd. Ft. St. Cd. G 1 Poor:cut+ 8 21 3 2.00 3 #5 3 7.65 Poor:cutfifl 2# 51 Good:cut+ 26 1.05 5# 7.75 Poor:cut 9 1.00 21 7.50 2 Poor:cut+ 19 1.05 #0 7.55 Poor:cut+# 25 #8 Good:leave 2# 1.00 51 7.50 Poor:cut 10 1.10 22 7.60 5 Poor:cut+ l# 1.15 51 7.70 poor:cut-J 17 1.15 39 7.75 Good:cut+ 21 1.25 #6 7.85 Poor:cut 11 1.00 2# 7.50 Poor:cut# 15 52 1+ Poor:cut-o} 29 1.95 1+2 8.65 Poor:cut+ 51 2.00 #5 8.75 Good:cut+ 5# 2.25 #6 9.15 Poor:cut 15 1.25 27 7.70 H 1 Poor:cutfifl 25 1.55 #9 8.00 Poor:cut+ 25 1.55 55 8.00 Good:cut+ 25 1.#5 55 8.10 Poor:cut 15 1.15 28 7.70 2 Poor:cut+ 7 1.55 2# 7.65 Good:cut+ 8 1.50 27 7.55 Poor:cut 5 1.10 16 7.75 176 .puoao>oumaa ocean noses» mqauso oonouwom mooosaoqfl non ouoao paouuoom as EHHK .uouusao e>eeH “noon was poouuoom ca xooasos was .cmo cyan: .souwp noaaeh .onua human noosaouHsos .hauo ousao has» you oowum s nouooaoud .+. scoops: .pnonuoom. .oocsaoud won one uoasaoo .puounoom. one .Haso. novoofioua .+o>ooa "noon. .ooosaoud as osdHo> venom Had oouoowoua .Haso. .oHoadxo Mom .uopuon one pesos omsHo on» ad ooasHo> sourdoua coaum < .mn omen so confluence one moomsHo soauaouoOs. .owsuo>s on» o>ono vcoo hem mm ooufiou moons .ooow. you mooaum one .uoaoomu on» you sowed omuuo>s one )oHon voodoou psoo hem mm neoua .uoom. you moofium cps: .Auaus hem coaum x oasaop ooaoomov n ooouoHo soapaouoo soon so ouo you sesame mm.ma oa.a an o:.m om +psoucooo m 0H.:H om.s mm m~.H ma +s=oueooo m om.:H » a mm.u . o: . m:.a o am a +saoueooo a H .20 .sm .sa .em .o .sm . a .em .oo,.pm .ss .em eoesaoaH pmuuoa.mmmm oouo>fiaoa ooom p< owommnpm nemusao uoapaouoo .eosnacaoo--.ae oases mm B LIVESTOCK AID mmnouxc ms: WIT 30mm 177 178 Table 81. Beef Enterprise Budget,* Farm A. Purchased #00 lbs. steer calf, fed a liberal roughage ration with silage; 600 lbs. grain, 300 days on the farm. 1. INCOME: Sold 1,000 lbs. @825.00 cwt. $250.00 Less 1.5 per cent death loss 3.25 Total Income $2#6.25 II. OPERATING COSTS: Purchase cost #00 lbs. @828.00/cwt. $112.00 Corn (ear) #0 bu. @$ 1.00/bu. #0.00 Protein 360 lbs. @$ .0#5/1b. 16.20 Mineral 16 lbs. @$ .03/1b. .#8 Grinding 8 mixing 1.58 tons @63.00/ton #.7# Hay .75 ton @520.00/ton 15.00 Silage 2.50 tons @86.50/ton 16.25 Straw .# ton @$IZ.OO/ton #.80 Misc.: vet., medicine, elect., supplies 5.00 Interest on cost of cattle x per cent of year on farm 100 x 5% 5.00 Total Operating costs $219.#7 “Present beef” enterprise, net income $ 26.78 111. OWNERSHIP COSTS: Taxes, insurance and maintenance of buildings and equipment $ 75 x 3% $ 2.25 Depreciation, buildings, new cost 60 x 3% 1.80 Depreciation, equipment, new cost 15 x 10% 1.50 Interest on % bldgs. and equip. cost 37 x 5% 1.85 Total cost (excluding labor) $226.87 "New beef” enterprise, net income $ 19.38 Hours required per unit - 17 for present beef 15 for new beef *Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin, "5,500 Series - Livestock Enterprise Budgets," (Madison, 1963). p. 5.532 (Mimeographed). 179 Table 82. Wheat Enterprise Budget,* Farm A. One Acre, #7 bushels per acre. INCOME: #7 bushels per acre @$l.60 bu. $75.20 OPERATING COSTS: $25.23 ”Present wheat” enterprise, net income #9.97 OWNERSHIP COSTS: Taxes, insurance 8 maintenance of buildings 8 equipment 3.13 Interest on land 10.z# Total costs $ 39.10 “New wheat” enterprise, net income $36.10 Hours required per unit = 6.0 for present wheat S.# for new wheat *Brake, et a1., 92. cit., p. III A #. 180 Table 83. Dairy Enterprise Budget,* Farm 8. Dairy cow - Grade A, 12,000 lbs. milk annually, 25 per cent replacement rate. I. INCOME: 11,800 lbs. milk x unit price $3.80 $##8.#O Other income: Beef, 20% milk sales 89.68 Total Income 11. OPERATING COSTS: (raised replacements included) Corn 29 bu. €81.00/bu. $ 29.00 Oats 38 bu. @$ .52/bu. 19.76 Protein 810 lbs. @$#.50/cwt. 36.#5 Mineral 80 lbs. @53.00/cwt. 2.#0 Grinding 8 mixing 2.07 tons @$3.00/ton 6.21 Hay 3.6 tons @820.00/ton 72.00 Silage 3.8 tons @86.50/ton 2#.70 Pasture (hay eq.) 2.0 tons @$I0.00/ton 20.00 Straw 1.0 tons @612.00/ton 12.00 Misc.: breeding, vet, medicine, e1ect.. supplies 26.00 Interest on breeding stock, #00 x 5% 20.00 Total operating costs “Present dairy” enterprise, net income Ill. OWNERSHIP COSTS: Taxes, insurance and maintenance of buildings and equipment $660 x 3% Depreciation, buildings, new cost #80 x 2.5% Depreciation equipment, new cost 180 x 10% Interest on 3 bldgs. 8 equip. cost 330 x 5% Total cost (excluding labor) ”New Dairy” enterprise, net income Hours required per unit - 110 for present dairy 99 for new dairy $538.08 $ 19.80 12.00 18.00 16.50 $333.82 203.06 *Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin, 22. Si—t_0, p0 505200 181 Table B#. Sheep Enterprise Budget,* Farm B. Ewe and lamb - 160 lbs. Ewe - Early Lambing (Feb.) 150% lamb crop - 95 lbs. lamb - 20% replacement. INCOME: Sold 12# lbs. @$.20/cwt. $2#.80 Other income Cull Ewe 160 lbs. x .05 x 20% 1.60 9 lbs. wool x .60 5.#O Total Income OPERATING COSTS: (raised replacements are included) Corn 2.5 bu. @81.00/bu. $ 2.50 Oats #.3 bu. @$ .52/bu. 2.2# Protein 25 lbs. @$ .0#5/cwt. 1.12 Mineral 20 lbs. @8 .23/cwt. .60 Grinding 8 mixing .15 ton @$ #.00/ton .60 Hay .50 ton @820.00/ton 10.00 Silage .13 ton @5 6.50/ton .8# Pasture (hay eq.) .#9 ton @$ 5.00/ton 2.#5 Straw .09 ton @512.00/ton 1.08 Misc.: breeding, vet, medicine, e1ect., supplies 2.50 Total operating costs ”Present ewe 8 lamb” enterprise, net income OWNERSHIP COSTS: Taxes, Insurance and maintenance of buildings and equipment $27 x 3% Depreciation, buildings, new cost 2# x #% Depreciation, equipment, new cost 3 x 10% Interest on capital investment #0 x 5% Total cost (excluding labor) “New Ewe 8 Lamb" enterprise, net income Hours required per unit - 7 for present ewe 8 lamb 6 for new ewe and lamb $ 31.80 $ 23.93 $ 7.87 $ .81 .96 .30 2.00 $ 3.80 *Ibid., p. 5.500. 182 Table 85. Wheat Enterprise Budget,* Farm B. One Acre, #7 bushels per acre. INCOME: #0 bushels per acre @51.60 bu. OPERATING COSTS: “Present wheat“ enterprise, net income OWNERSHIP COSTS: Taxes, insurance and maintenance of buildings and equipment Interest on land Total costs Net Income Hours required per unit = 6. 5 $25.23 0 ON \OkD 0 for present wheat .# for new wheat $6#.00 38.77 $26.89 *Brake, et a1., 22. cit., p. 111 A #. 183 Table 86. Dairy Enterprise Budget,* Farm C. Dairy cow - Grade A market, 8,100 pounds milk annually, 25 per cent replacements rate. I. INCOME 7,800 lbs. milk @$3.80 cwt. $296.40 Other income: Beef, 25% of milk sales Z#.10 Total Income $370.50 200 lbs. milk fed to calf 1|. OPERATING COSTS: (raised replacements included) Corn 18 bu. @S 1.00/bu $ 18.00 Oats 22 bu. @$ .52/bu. 11.## Protein #20 lbs. @8 .0#5/1b. 18.90 Mineral 50 lbs. @$ .03/1b. 1.50 Grinding, Mixing and hauling 1.22 tons @$ 3.00/ton 3.66 Hay 3.6 tons @520.00/ton 72.00 Silage (corn) 8.8 tons @$ 6.50/ton 2#.70 Pasture (hay eq.)2.0 tons @810.00/ton 20.00 Straw 1.0 tons @812.00/ton 12.00 Misc.: breeding, vet., medicine, e1ect., supplies 22.00 Interest on breeding stock, 300 x 5% 15.00 Total operating costs $219.20 ”Present Dairy“ enterprise, net income $151.30 111. OWNERSHIP COSTS: Taxes, insurance and maintenance of buildings and equipment $660 x 3% $ 19.80 Depreciation, buildings, new cost #80 x 2.5% 12.00 Depreciation, equipment, new cost 180 x 10% 18.00 Interest on % bldgs. and equip. cost 330 x 5% 16.50 Total cost (excluding labor) $285.50 "New Dairy" enterprise, net income $ 85.00 Hours required per unit - 11# for present dairy 102 for new dairy *Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin, 92. 513., p. 5.522. 18# Table 87. Dairy Enterprise Budget,* Farm 0. Dairy cow - Grade A market, 8,500 lbs. milk annually, 25 per cent replacements rate. INCOME: 8,300 lbs. milk @$3.80/cwt. Other income: Beef, 25% of milk sales Total Income $315.#0 28.85 OPERATING COSTS: (raised replacements are included) Corn 19 bu. @Sl.00/bu. Oats 23 bu. @$ .52/bu. Protein ##6 lbs. @$.0#5/1b. Mineral 53 lbs. @$.03/1b. Grinding, mixing and hauling 1.30 tons @$ 3.00/ton Hay 3.8 tons @820.00/ton Silage (corn) #.0 tons @$ 6.50/ton Pasture (hay eq.)2.l tons @810.00/ton Straw 1.1 tons @812.00/ton Misc.: breeding, vet., medicine, elect., supplies Interest on breeding stock, 300 x 5% Total operating costs ”Present Dairy" enterprise, net income OWNERSHIP COSTS Taxes, insurance and maintenance of buildings and equipment Depreciation, buildings, new cost Depreciation, equipment, new cost Interest on % bldgs. 8 equip. cost Total cost (excluding labor) "New Dairy" enterprise, net income $ 19.00 11.96 20.07 1.59 3.90 76.00 26.00 21.00 13.20 23.00 .12-.02 $660 x 3% #80 x 2.5% 180 x 10% 330 X 5% Hours required per unit - 110 for present dairy 99 for new dairy $39#.25 185 Table 88. Beef Enterprise Budget,* Farm 0. Beef cow and calf to 1,000 lbs., 20% replacement rate: 90% calf cr0p: calf fattened on a liberal roughage ration. INCOME: Sold (slaughter steers) 1,000 lbs. @$22.00/th. x 95% $99.00 Other income (slaughter heifer) 850 lbs. @$21.00/th. X 25% 4H.62 Cull cow 1,000 lbs. @$15.00/cwt. x 20% 30,00 Total Income OPERATING COSTS: (raised replacements are included) Corn (ear) 35.# bu. @$I.OO/bu $35.#0 Oats 7.# bu. @$ .52/bu. 3.85 Protein 299 lbs. @$ .0#3/cwt. 12.86 Mineral ## lbs. @$ .03/1b. 1.32 Grinding 8 mixing 1.50 lbs. @5 3.00/1b. #.50 Hay - legume 1.8 tons @$20.00/ton 36.00 Corn fodder .90 tons @$ #.OO/ton 3.60 Silage 1.37 tons @$ 6.50/ton 8.90 Pasture (hay eq.) 1.8 tons @$ 5.00/ton 9.00 Straw .78 tons @$12.00/ton 9.36 Misc.: vet., medicine, elect., supplies 13.20 Bull cost - (1/25 x $50.00) 2.00 Interest on value of breeding stock, 295 x 5% 14.25 Total operating costs OWNERSHIP COSTS: Taxes, insurance and maintenance of buildings and equipment $107 x 3% Depreciation, buildings, new cost 92 x 3% Depreciation, equipment, new cost 15 x 10% Interest on 5 bldgs. 8 equip. cost 53 x 5% Total cost (excluding labor) ”New Beef Cow 8 Calf" enterprise, net income Hours required per unit - #9 for new beef cow 8 calf $173.62 $150.75 $ 3.21 2076 1.50 2.65 $16#.86 $ 8.76 *lbid., p. 5.531. 186 Table B9. Dairy Enterprise Budget,* Farm E. Dairy cow - Grade A, 12,000 lbs. milk annually, 25 per cent replacement rate. INCOME: 11,800 lbs. milk @$3.80/cwt. $##8.#0 Other income: Beef, 20% milk sales 89.68 Total Income 200 lbs. milk fed to calf OPERATING COSTS: (raised replacements are included) Corn 29 bu. @Sl.00/bu. $ 29.00 Oats 38 bu. @$ .52/bu. 19.76 Protein 810 lbs. @$.0#S/1b. 36.#5 Mineral 80 lbs. @$.O3/lb. 2.#0 Grinding 8 mixing 2.07 tons @$ 3.00/ton 6.21 Hay 3.6 tons @$Z0.00/ton 72.00 Silage 3.8 tons @$ 6.50/ton 2#.70 Pasture (hay eq.) 2.0 tons @$I0.00/ton 20.00 Straw 1.0 ton @$IZ.OO/ton 12.00 Misc.: breeding, vet., medicine, elect., supplies 26.00 Interest on breeding stock, #00 x 5% 20.00 Total Operating costs "Present Dairy" enterprise, net income OWNERSHIP COSTS: Taxes, insurance and maintenance of buildings and equipment $660 x 3% Depreciation, buildings, new cost #80 x 2.5% Depreciation, equipment, new cost 180 x 10% Interest on % bldgs. and equip. cost 330 x 5% Total cost (excluding labor) "New Dairy" enterprise, net income Hours required per unit - 116 for present dairy 10# for new dairy $538.08 $ 19.80 12.00 18.00 16.50 $335.86 $202.22 *Ibid., p. 5.520. 187 Table 810. Sheep Enterprise Budget,* Farm F. Ewe a lamb - 160 lbs. Ewe - Early Lambing (Feb.) 150% lamb crop - 95 lbs. lamb - 20% replacement INCOME: Sold 124 lbs. @8.2O/cwt. $24.80 Other income Cull Ewe 160 lbs. x .05 x 20% 1.60 9 lbs. wool x .60 _§;&9 Total Income OPERATING COSTS: (raised replacements are included) Corn 2.5 bu. @81.00/bU. $ 2.50 Oats #.3 bu. @$ .52/bu. 2.2# Protein 25 lbs. @$ .0#5 cwt. 1.12 Mineral 20 lbs. @$ .23 cwt. .60 Grinding 8 mixing .15 ton @$ #.OO/ton .60 Hay .50 ton @$Z0.00/ton 10.00 Silage .13 ton @S 6.50/ton .8# Pasture (hay eq.) .#9 ton @$ 5.00/ton 2.#5 Straw .09 ton @$IZ.OO/ton 1.08 Misc.: breeding, vet., medicine, elect., supplies 2.50 Total operating costs “Present ewe 8 lamb” enterprise, net income OWNERSHIP COSTS Taxes, insurance and maintenance of buildings and equipment $27 x 3% Depreciation, buildings, new cost 2# x #% Depreciation, equipment, new cost 3 x 10% Interest on capital investment #0 x 5% Total cost (excluding labor) ”New Ewe 8 Lamb” enterprise, net income Hours required per unit - 9 for present ewe 8 lamb 8 for new ewe and lamb $31.80 $23.93 $ 7.87 $ .81 .96 .30 2.00 $28.00 $ 3.80 *Ibid.. p. 5.5#0. 188 Table 811. Dairy Enterprise Budget,* Farm 0. Dairy cow - Grade A market - 10,500 lbs. milk, 20 per cent replacement rate. INCOME: Sold lO,#00 lbs. @$3.80/cwt. $395.20 Other income: Beef, 20% of milk sales Total Income 200 lbs. milk fed to calf OPERATING COSTS: (raised replacements included) Z9.0# Corn 2# bu. @51.00/bu. $2#.00 Oats 32 bu. @$ .52/bu. 16.6# Protein 689 lbs. @$ .0#5/1b. 31.00 Mineral 6# lbs. @$ .03/1b. 1.92 Grinding 8 mixing 1.71 tons @8 3.00/ton 5.13 Hay 3.8 tons @$20.00/ton 76.00 Silage #.0 tons @S 6.50/ton 26.00 Pasture (hay eq.) 2.1 tons @$l0.00/ton 21.00 Straw 1.1 tons @812.00/ton 13.20 Misc.: breeding, vet., medicine, elect., supplies 25.#O Interest on breeding stock, 380 x 5% 19.00 Total operating costs “Present Dairy” enterprise, net income OWNERSHIP COSTS: Taxes, insurance and maintenance of buildings and equipment $660 x Depreciation, buildings, new cost #80 x Depreciation, equipment, new cost 180 x Interest on % bldgs. and equip. cost 330 x Total cost (excluding labor) "New Dairy“ enterprise, net income Hours required per unit - 110 for present dairy 99 for new dairy 3% 2.5% 10% 5% $#7#.2# $259.29 $215.95 $ 19.80 12.00 18.00 16.50 $325.59 $l#8.65 i'ilbid., p. 5.521. 189 Table 812. Potato Enterprise Budget,* Farm 0. One acre, non-irrigated, follow recommended practices. I. INCOME: Sold 213 cwt. @$1.50/cwt. $319.50 11. OPERATING COSTS: Fertilizer $53.98 Seed potatoes #8.?2 Rye - cover crop #.#8 Spray material 2#.68 Fuel and oil 7.06 Custom hire 5.60 Misc. 21.00 Total operating costs $165.52 ”Present potato” enterprise, net income $153.98 111. OWNERSHIP COSTS: Taxes and insurance $ 7.28 Depreciation, interest 31:28 Total ownership costs $39.26 Total costs (excluding labor) $20#.78 "New potato” enterprise, net income $TTET72 Hours required per unit - #8 for present potato enterprise #3 for new potato enterprise *C.R. Hoglund and K.T. Wright, "Economic Analysis of the Michigan Potato Enterprise," The Quarterly Bulletin of the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, Article #2-61 (May, 1960), p. 698. 190 Table 813. Poultry Enterprise Budget,* Farm H. Commercial laying flock (over 1,000) average 1,000 laying hens. I. INCOME: Sold 19,000 doz. eggs @$.30/doz. $5,700 Other income: 936 cull hens @$.#0 32# Total Income II. OPERATING COSTS: (12% death loss included in costs) Purchase cost: 1,06# pullets @81.75 $1,862 Feed (5 lb. feed per doz.) #7.5 tons @$60.00/ton 2,850 Electricity 76 Medication 57 Misc. (litter, supplies, oyster shells, etc.) 285 Interest on % pullet cost ___#Z Total operating costs “Present Poultry” enterprise, net income Ill. OWNERSHIP COSTS: Taxes, insurance and maintenance of buildings and equipment, new cost $3,750 x 3% Depreciation, buildings, new cost 2,250 x 5% Depreciation, equipment, new cost 1,500 x 10% Interest on 5 bldgs. 8 equip. 1,875 x 5% Total cost (excluding labor) "New Poultry” enterprise, net income Hours required per unit - 1,000 for present poultry 900 for new poultry $5.074 $5.177 $ 897 $ 112 112 150 9# $5,355 5 429 *Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin, 22. E—i—E” p0 5056'. 191 Table Bl#. Beef Enterprise Budget,* Farm 1 Beef cow and calf to 1000 lbs., 20% replacement rate, 90% calf crop: calf fattened on a liberal roughage ration. INCOME: Sold (slaughter steers) 1000 lbs. @822.00/cwt. x #5% $99.00 Other income (slaughter heifer) 850 lbs. @$21.00/cwt. x 25% ##.62 Cull cow 1000 lbs. €815.00/cwt. x 20% 30.00 Total Income OPERATING COSTS: (raised replacements are included) Corn, equiv. oats 8 barley 69.# bu. @$ .63/bu. $#3.72 Oats 7.# bu. @$ .52/bu. 3.85 Protein 299 lbs. @$ .0#3/lb. 12.86 Mineral ## lbs. @$ .03/1b. 1.32 Grinding 8 mixing 1.5 lbs. @$3.00/lb. #.50 Hay - legume 1.8 tons @$20.00/ton 36.00 Corn fodder .90 tons @$ #.OO/ton 3.60 Silage 1.37 tons @5 6.50/ton 8.90 Pasture (hay eq.) 1.8 tons @$ 5.00/ton 9.00 Straw .78 tons €812.00/ton 9.36 Misc., vet., medicine, elect., supplies 13.20 Bull cost - (1/25 x $50.00) 2.00 Interest on value of breeding stock 295 x 5% l#.Z§ Total operating costs Present "Beef cow 8 calf” enterprise, net income OWNERSHIP COSTS: Taxes, insur. 8 maint. bldg. 8 equip. new cost $107 x 3% Depreciation - buildings - new cost 92 x 3% Depreciation - equipment - new cost 15 x 10% Interest on % bldg. 8 equip. cost 53 x 5% Total cost (excluding labor) ”New beef cow 8 calf" enterprise, net income Hours required per unit - #7 for present beef #3 for new beef $173.62 $ 3.21 2.76 l 50 2.65 $173.18 J. A Ibid., p. 5.531. Table B15. 192 Hog Enterprise Budget,* Farm I One sow and two litters - raising and finishing market hogs - average efficiency - 7 pigs weaned per litter - sows hand fed #0% annual sow replacement. INCOME: Sold 2,992 @$l#.00 Other income: 500 lb. cull sow @811.00/cwt. x #0% Less 1.0 per cent death loss- weaning to market Total Income OPERATING COSTS: (raised replacements are Corn (equiv. oats 8 barley) 317 bu. @$ .63/bu. Oats #7.7 bu. @$ .52/bu. Protein 1302 lbs. 65 .05/1b. Mineral 160 lbs. @$ .03/1b. Grinding 8 mixing 6.6 tons @$ #.OO/ton Hay .65 tons @820.00/ton Straw .5 tons @812.00/ton Misc.: breeding, vet., medicine, elect., supplies Interest on breeding stock, 90 x 5% Total operating costs “Present Hog" enterprise, net income OWNERSHIP COSTS: Taxes, insurance and maintenance of buildings and equipment Depreciation, buildings, new cost Depreciation, equipment, new cost Interest on % bldgs. and equip. cost Total cost (excluding labor) "New Hog" enterprise, net income Hours required per unit - 65 for present hog 58 for new hog $#18.88 22.00 #.#1 included) $199.71 24.80 65.10 4.80 26.40 13.00 6.00 28.00 #.50 $38# x 3% 327 x 4% 57 x 10% 192 x 5% $#36.#7 $ 11.52 13.08 9.60 *Ibid., p. 5.550. 193 Table 816. Potato Enterprise Budget,* Farm 1. One acre, non-irrigated, follow recommended practices. I. INCOME: Sold 231 cwt. @S1.50/cwt. $3#6.50 II. OPERATING COSTS: Fertilizer $57.8# Seed potatoes 52.20 Grain cover crop ‘ #.80 Spray material 26.#0 Fuel and oil 7.56 Custom hire 6.00 Misc. 22. 0 Total operating costs $177.30 ”Present Potato" enterprise, net income $169.20 111. OWNERSHIP COSTS: Taxes and insurance $ 7.80 Depreciation, interest 3#.26 Total ownership costs $#2.06 Total costs (excluding labor) $219.36 "New Potato" enterprise, net income $127.15 Hours required per unit - #8 for present potato #3 for new potato *c,R, Hoglund and K.T. Wright, Loc. cit. APPENDIXC FOREST mm}: UNIT 311mm 19‘: 195 Table C1. Present Forest Budget for Forest 1, Farm A, One Acre. Nothing Alternative 1. Income: Inventory increase .054 MBM 31335.00 $1.89 11. Operating Costs: None 111. Ownership Costs: Taxes $1.56 Interest on Forest, $107 x 5% 5.35 Total Costs (except labor) $6.91 Return to Labor and Management -$5.02 Hours required per unit - 0 Table CZ. 196 One Acre. Optimu- Forest Enterprise Budget for Forest 1, Far. A, Underth Christ-as bees, 1000/acre, 2-2 white Spruce I. III . Incoae: 720 Christ-as trees ”1.25 Operating Costs: Release 1300 inches dia. x 3.005 e 10 = 86.50 x 1.629 Site preparation. 10 1b. alanine ”.30/lb. g 83.00 t 10629 White spruce transplants, 360.00 x 1.629 Hand planting Brush control. 3rd yr. “5.00 x 1.110? W contrOI, 7th ”a “5.00 1 1.158 Hand weeding. annually fro- #th year Shaping. annually fro- #th year ”1.00 x (.3011 e .05) Marketing. final year ”.05 per tree Total Operating Costs Ownership Costs: Taxes. 81.56 x (.629 e .05) Interest on Forest 8107 x 9% x (.629 e .05) Total Costs (except labor) Return to Labor and flange-eat {614111.23 discounted 5 yrs. :- 850#.88 .wkeaa . 10 ‘ Hours required per unit a 10# e 10 a 10.11 hre./yr. 310.59 #.89 97.711 7.04 5.79 6.80 2§0m 19.62 8900.00 168.85 1225.22 865111.23 8 50.49/yr- 197 Table C3. Present Forest Budget for Forest 2, Farm A, One Acre. Nothing Alternative Income: Inventory increase .082 MBM @$68.00 $ 5.58 Operating Costs: None Ownership Costs: Taxes $ 1.56 Interest on Forest, $107 x 5% 5.55 Total Costs (except labor) $ 6.91 Return to Labor and Management -$ 1.33 Hours required per unit - O 198 Table C#. Optisus Forest Enterprise Budget for Forest 2, Far. A, One Acre. Interplanted black ualnut seedlings 0680 per acre, 60 year rotation. I. III. Incose: 6.7 10311 black walnut e 3800/1091 85,360.00 Operating Costs: Bite preparation 0 37.50 x 18.68 31110.01 Brush control. 5th yr. 0 85.00 x 1#.6# 73.20 Brush control. 10th yr. 0 85.00 x 11.117 57.35 Black walnut seedlings e 850/)! = 834 x 18.68 622.12 Total Operating Costs 92111.36 Omership Costs: Taxes (charged to relaining stand) Interest on Forest (charge to remaining stand) Total Costs (except labor) 8 2211.56 Return to Labor and Management 8#,#35.6# 8#,#35.6# discounted 55 Years = 8302.98 ‘m2098 I 005 3 3 15015 Hours required per unit - 37 (first decade) 199 Table C5. Present Forest Enterprise Budget for Forest 1, Farm 8, One Acre. Sell 1.388 MBM P:C Stumpage x 5% + ACP Cost-Sharing + Inventory Increase 1. Income: 1.388 MBM stumpage @632/MBM x .05 $ 2.22 ACP Cost-Sharing @66.80 + 10 .68 Inventory increase .238 MBM @$6#/MBM 15.22 Total Income $ 17.87 11. Operating Costs: Poisoning 262 inches dia. 08.005 + 10 .13 III. Ownership Costs: Taxes .90 Interest on Forest $261.50 x 5% 13.08 Total Costs (except labor) 1#.11 Return to Labor and Management $ 3.92 Hours required per unit - 0.2 Table C6. Optimum Forest Enterprise Budget for Forest 1, Farm B, One Acre. Sell .235 MBM Stumpage Per Year @$6#/MBM 1. Income: .235 MBM Stumpage @$6#/MBM $15.0# 11. Operating Costs: None 111. Ownership Costs: Taxes $ .90 Interest on Forest $256 x 5% 12.80 Total Costs (except labor) 13.70 Return to Labor and Management $ 1.3# Hours required per unit - 0.21 Table C7. 201 One Acre. Present Forest Enterprise Budget for Forest 1, Farm B, Sell .170 MBM Poor:Cut Logs + ACP Cost-Sharing + Inventory Increase Income: .170 MBM logs @$#7/MBM ACP Cost-Sharing @86.80 + 10 Inventory increase .238 MBM i$6#/MBM Total Income Operating Costs:9 Poisoning 262 inches dia. @5.005 + 10 Chain saw 0.6 Hr. x $.18/Hr. Tractor 0.6 Hrs. x $1.01/Hr. Total Operating Costs Ownership Costs: Taxes Interest on Forest, $261.50 x 5% Interest, Depreciation on buildings 8 equipment Total Costs (except labor) Return to Labor and Management Hours required per unit - 1.7 $ 7.99 .68 .13 .11 $23.90 Table C8. 202 One Acre. Present Forest Enterprise Budget for Forest 1, Farm B, Sell .170 MBM P:C logs + .100 MBM G:C logs + ACP Cost-Sharing + Inventory Increase. Income .170 MBM logs @$#7/MBM .100 MBM logs @579/M8M ACP Cost-Sharing $#.20 + 10 Inventory increase .117 MBM x $6# Total Income Operating Costs: Poisoning 262 inches dia. @$.OOS + 10 Chain saw 1.0 hrs. x $.18 Hr. Tractor 0.9 hrs. x $1.01/Hr. Total Operating Costs Ownership Costs: Taxes Interest on Forest $230.#0 x 5% Interest, Depreciation on buildings 8 equipment Total Costs (except labor) Return to Labor and Management Hours required per unit - 2.6 $ 7.99 7.90 .#2 .13 .18 .90 11.52 $23.81 1.21 $l#,26 $ 9.55 203 Table C9. Optimum Forest Enterprise Budget for Forest 1, Farm B, One Acre. Sell .235 MBM Logs/yr. 1. Income .235 MBM logs @$79/MBM Operating Costs: Chain saw .9 hrs x $.18/Hr. $ .16 Tractor .8 hrs x $1.01/Hr. .81 Total Operating Costs Ownership Costs: Taxes .90 Interest on Forest $256 x 5% 12.80 Interest, Depreciation on buildings 8 equipment .56 Total Costs (except labor) Return to Labor and Management Hours required per unit - 2.3 $18.56 .97 $15.23 $ 3.33 Table ClO. One Acre. Present Forest Enterprise Budget for Forest 2, Farm B, Sell 2.322 MBM P:C Stumpage @830/MBM + ACP Cost Sharing + Inventory Increase. Income: 2.322 MBM stumpage @$30/MBM x .05 ACP Cost-Sharing $10.10 + 10 Inventory increase .392 MBM @SlZS/MBM Total Income Operating Costs: Poisoning 327 inches dia. @$.005 + 10 Total Operating Costs Ownership Costs: Taxes Interest on Forest $6#9.63 x 5% Total Costs (except labor) Return to Labor and Management Hours required per unit - 0.2 .16 .90 32.#8 $53.#9 .16 $33.5# $19.95 Table Cll. Sell #00 MBM P:C Logs + ACP Cost-Sharing + Inventory Increase 205 One Acre. Present Forest Enterprise Budget for Forest 2, Farm B, Income: .#00 MBM logs @$#5/MBM ACP Cost-Sharing $10.10 + 10 Inventory increase .392 MBM @SlZS/MBM Total Income Operating Costs: Poisoning Chain saw 1.5 hrs. x $.18/Hr. Tractor 1.3 hrs. x $1.10/Hr. Total Operating Costs Ownership Costs: Taxes Interest on Forest $6#9.63 x 5% Interest, Depreciation on buildings 8 equipment Total Costs (except labor) Return to Labor and Management Hours required per unit - 3.8 $18.00 1.01 #9.00 .16 .27 .90 32.#8 $68.01 1.76 $36.02 $31.9# 206 Table C12. Present Forest Enterprise Budget for Forest 2, Farm B, One Acre. Sell .#00 MBM P:C Logs + .200 MBM G:L Logs + ACP Cost-Sharing + Inventory Increase. 1. Income: .400 MBM logs @$#5/MBM $18.00 .200 MBM logs @$l#O/MBM 28.00 ACP Cost-sharing $10.10 + 10 1.01 Inventory increase .138 MBM @$125/MBM 12.25 Total Income $6#.26 II. Operating Costs: Poisoning .16 Chain saw 2.2 Hrs. x $.18/Hr. .#O Tractor 2.0 Hrs. x $1.01/Hr. 2.00 Total Operating Costs 2.56 111. Ownership Costs: Taxes .90 Interest on Forest $52#.50 x 5% 26.23 Interest. Depreciation on buildings 8 equipment l.#O Total Costs (except labor) $51.09 Return to Labor and Management $33.17 Hours required per unit - 5.6 207 Table C13. Optimum Forest Enterprise Budget for Forest 2, Farm B, One Acre. Sell .#80 MBM Stumpage per year @SIZS/MBM 1. Income: .#80 MBM stumpage @$125/MBM $60.00 11. Operating Costs: None 111. Ownership Costs: Taxes $ .90 Interest on Forest $990.50 x .05 49.52 Total Costs (except labor) $50.#2 Return to Labor and Management $ 9.58 Hours required per unit - 0.2 208 Table Cl#. Optimum Forest Enterprise Budget for Forest 2, Farm B, One Acre. Sell .#80 MBM Logs at Road 1. Income: .#80 MBM logs @$l#0/MBM $67.20 11. Operating Costs: Chain saw 1.8 hrs. x $.18/hr. $ .32 Tractor 1.6 hrs. x $1.01/hr. 1,60 Total Operating Costs 1.92 III. Ownership Costs: Taxes .90 Interest on Forest $1012.50 x 5% 50.62 Interest, Depreciation on buildings 8 equipment 1.12 Total Costs (except labor) $5#.56 Return to Labor and Management $12.6# Hours required per unit - #.5 209 Table C15. Present Forest Enterprise Budget for Forest 1, Farm C, One Acre. Clearcut and Sell at Road 9.9 Cds./A. (Allotment: 3 Acres) 1. Income: 9.9 cds x $7.20/cd. $71.28 11. Operating Costs: Chain saw 19.8 hrs. x $.18/hr. $ 3.56 Tractor 9.9 hrs. x $1.01/hr. 9.09 Total Operating Costs 12.65 111. Ownership Costs: Taxes 21 acres x $.39 8.19 Interest on Forest 21 acres x $.95 19.95 Interest, Depreciation on buildings 8 equipment 11.68 Total Costs (except labor) $52.#Z Return to Labor and Management $18.81 Hours required per unit - 69 210 Table C16. Optimum Forest Enterprise Budget for Forest 1, Farm C, One Acre. Clearcut and Sell at Road 1#.9 Cds/yr. (Allotment: 3 Acres) 1. Income: l#.9 Cds. x $7.20/cd. $107.28 11. Operating Costs: Chain saw 29.8 hrs. x $.18/hr. $ 5.36 Tractor l#.9 hrs. x $1.01/hr. 15.05 Total Operating Costs 20.#l III. Ownership Costs: Taxes 21 x $.39 8.19 Interest on Forest 21 x $.95 19.95 Interest, Depreciation on buildings 8 equipment 12.58 Total Costs (except labor) $ 66,15 Return to Labor and Management $ #1.15 Hours required per unit - lO# Table C17. One Acre. Present Forest Enterprise Budget for Forest 2, Farm E, Maple sirup, tubing, #0 taps/acre<@ 0.2 gal sirup/tap Income: Maple sirup 8 gals. x $6.00/ga1. Operating Costs: Tractor 8 x $.08 Fuel 8 x $.#O Miscellaneous and repairs 8 x $.06 Marketing 8 x $.3# Total Operating Costs “Present maple” enterprise, net income Ownership Costs: Taxes Interest on Forest Insurance Interest, Depreciation on buildings 8 equipment Total Costs (except labor) “New maple” enterprise, net income Hours required per unit - 6.0 for present maple sirup and 5.# for new maple sirup .6# 3.20 .#8 2. 2 .65 .50 2% $#8.00 $14.42 $33.58 212 Table C18. Present Forest Enterprise Budget for Forest 2, Farm E, One Acre. Sell .100 MBM P:C logs 1. Income: .lOO MBM logs @$#2/MBM $#.20 Inventory income l.#2 Total Income $ 5.62 11. Operating Costs: Chain saw 0.# hrs. x $.18 .07 Tractor 0.3 hrs. x $1.01 .53 Total Operating Costs .#0 III. Ownership Costs: Taxes .37 Interest on Forest 1.37 Interest, Depreciation on buildings 8 equipment .29 Total Costs (except labor) $ 2,#§ Return to Labor and Management $ 3.19 Hours required per unit - 0.9 213 Table C19. Optimum Forest Enterprise Budget for Forest 6, Farm G, One Acre. Sell Cordwood Thinnings + Sawtimber at 55 years. 1. Income: At 25 yrs: 5.6 cds x $3.50 x #.322 At 35 yrs: 7.5 cds x $3.50 x 2.653 At #5 yrs: 8.5 cds x $3.50 x 1.629 At 55 Yrs: l#.7 MBM x $#0/MBM At 55 yrs: 18. cds. x $3.50 Total Income Operating Costs: None Ownership Costs: Taxes ($.65 x 6.0#O) + .05 Interest on Forest ($#.OO x 6.0#O) + .05 Total Costs (except labor) Return to Labor and Management Hours required per unit - Discounted 35 yrs. = $53.28 x .05 = $ 84.71 69.64 #8.#6 588.00 65.10 78.83 #8§.20 $855.91 $562.02 $293.87 $ 2.66 21# Table C20. Present Forest Enterprise Budget for Forest 2, Farm 1, One Acre. Cut and Deliver 0.5 cd./acre 1. Income: 0.5 cd. x $1#.IO/cd. $7.05 Inventory increase .06 Total Income $7.11 11. Operating Costs: Chain saw 1.0 hr. x $.18 .18 Tractor 0.5 hr. x $1.01 .50 Hauling 0.5 cd. x $1.65 .82 Total Operating Costs 1.50 111. Ownership Costs: Taxes e36 Interest on Forest $#0 x 5% 2.00 Interest, Depreciation on buildings 8 equipment .55 Total Costs (except labor) $#.#1 Return to Labor and Management $2.70 Hours required per unit - #.2 Table 021. 215 Optisus Forest Enterprise Budget for Fbrest 2, Fara 1, One Acre. Cut and Deliver 0.55 cd./acre I. Income: 0.55 cd. x $1#.10/cd. II. Operating Costs: Chain saw 1.1 hrs. x 8.18 Tractor 0.55 hrs. 1 81.01 Hauling 0.55 cd. I 81.65 Total Operating Costs III. Ownership Costs: Taxes Interest on Forest $#O x 9% Interest. Depreciation on buildings & equipaent Total Costs (except labor) Return to Labor and Hanagesent Hours required per unit - #.2 87.76 8 .20 .56 O 21 1.67 .36 2.00 .60 34.62 83.13 216 LITERATURE CITED Barraclough, Solon L., and Ernest M. Gould, Jr. Economic Analzsis of Farm Forest Operating_ Units. Harvard Forest Bulletin No. 26. Petersham, Massachusetts: Harvard Forest, 1955. Bell, Robert D. Costs and Returns 25 Producing and Marketing Maple Products. Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University, A. E. 1016. Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University, 1955- Black, John D. "Farm and Other Operating-Unit Land-Use Planning." Seminar in Land Use and Conservation of Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts, April, 1955. Brake, John, £2 _a_]_._. Michifl Farm Management Handbook. East Lansing; Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, 1963. Brown, L. H. "Some Rules of Thumb for Good Farm Management." East Lansing, Michigan: Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, 1963. (Mimeographed.) Callahan. John 0. Labor, Machine, and Chemical Requirements for Improving Woodlands on The Southern Indiana Forage_ Farms. Research Progress Report 118, Project 691. Lafayette: Agricultural Experiment Station, Purdue University, 1962. Campbell, Robert A. Ten Years of Experimental Farm WOodland Manage- ment in The Southern Appalachians. Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, U. S. Forest Service, Station Paper No. 85. Asheville, North Carolina: U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1957. Coutu, Arthur J., and Birger W. Ellertsen. Farm Forest Planning Throug§_ Linear Programming. Report No. _236:60. Norris, Tennessee: Tennessee Valley Authority, 1960. Duerr, William A., John Fedkiu, and Sam Guttenberg. Financial Maturitz. A Guide to Profitable Timber Growing. U. S. Department of“ Agriculture, Technical Bulletin No. 11#6. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1956. Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin, "5.500 - Livestock.Enterprise Budgets." Madison: 1963. (Mimeographed.) 217 Ellertson, Birger W., and John C. Allen. Foresgz Input and Ougut Data, Parker Branch Pilot Watershed. TVA Division of Forestry Relations, Technical Note 27. Norris, Tennessee: Tennessee Valley Authority, 1960. Ferree, Miles J., and Robert K. Hagar. Timb____e__r Gr___o___wth Ra__t__es for Natural Forest Stands in New York §____tate. Technical Publica- tion 73. Syracuse: State University of New York College of Forestry, 1956. Forest Service, Central States Forest Experiment Station and North Central Region, U. S. Department of Agriculture. Timber Management §____uide _f__or Upland Central Hardwoods. Columbus, Ohio: Central States Forest Experiment Station, 1962. Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, "A Su-ary of The Tiaber Resource Review,” Tisber Resources for America' s rutur____._, pp. 1-109. Forest n.sour‘—“—c. n.port‘ro.—1T—‘. WTshington: Government Printing Office, 1958. . Tinber Management G___uide for The Mat____i_.o___nal For___e__sts 9_f The North Central States: A_sp_-Paper___ Birch 3112. Milwaukee, Wisc.: 19%. . Timber Management Guide for The National Fo__r____ests o__f_ The ——'hor—th Central s_t3___t..: 147.373 _E m. Mil-:uTe-e, Wisc.: 1961.—— . _‘I_‘_in___ber Management G_u_i__de for The National Forestso _o_]; The Central States: Northern Hardde 212:. Milwaukee, Wisc.: 1&5. . Timber Managgent Guide for The National Forests of The Central States: White Pine m. Milwaukee, Wisc.: 1953. Foster, 2. C., e__t_ a1. Soil Survg_ of Chebole! Conn , Mic U. S. Department of Agriculture, Series 19 , lo. 15. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1939. Fox, Hoard W. “Christa-Tree Farming Can be a Profitable hter- prise,” Illinois Research, (Fall, 1961), 10-11. Geverkiants, S. R. and R. F. Schols. _T_:l_n__ber Ii__e__lds and Possible R_e____turms from The Mixed-Oak Farmvoods of Southwestern Wis- consia. Wisconsin Department of Conservation, Publication no. 521. Madison: 19118. Gould, Jr., 3. M. Research i_n_ “he Scone-ice of Foressz. Edited by William A"'"_._ Duerr and_ n. "V—‘J. aux. Wm Charles L. Pack Forestry Foundation, 1953. 218 Hensel, J. S. ‘A_Pulpm mod Operation_ in The Central Upper Peninsula of Michiggg. American Pulpwood Tssociation. Technical Release No. 60-R10. New'York: American Pulpwood Association, 1960. . A Northeastern Minnesota mlpwood Operation. Technical Release No. 60—R12. New York: American Pulpwood Association, 1960. . A Jack Pinem lpwood Operation_ in North Central Wisconsin. American Pulpwood Association. Technical Release No. EO-Rlfi. New York: American Pulpwood Association, 1960. Hill, Elton B., and Russell G. Mawby. Types_ of Fm ming_ in Michigm Special Bulletin 206. East Lansing: Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, 1954. Hoglund, C. R., and K. T. Wright. "Economic Analysis of the Michigan Potato Enterprise," Quarterly Bulletin of the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, 52:58 -703, May, 1960. James, S. C. (ed. ). Midwest Farm Plannin Manual. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University_ Press, 1955.* Lord, William B. "A Reconsideration of the Farm Forestry Problem," Journal 2_f_ Forestry, 61:262-6h, April, 196}. Nielson, James M. "Application of The Budget Method in Farm Planning." Unpublished Doctor's thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1953. North Central Farm Management Research Committee, "Budgeting in Farm Management Research." East Lansing, Michigan: Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, December, 195%. (Mimeographed.) Pleasonton, Alfred. "Budgeting Farm-and-Forest Operating Units for Increased Net Income: Ames Plantation Cases." Unpublished Doctor's thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1964. Society of American Foresters, Committee on Forest Types. Forest Cover Mes a: North America (Exclusive 91 Mexico). Washington: Society of American Foresters, 1932. . Lower Michigan Chapter, Cutting Practices Committee. Recommended Forest Cutting Practices for Lower Michigan. n.n., 1959. 219 Striker, H. M.. 3.22}: Soil Survsz it; Lenawee Countz, Michiga_n. Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Series 1947, No. 10. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1961. Heathers, Clyde R. Simplified Programming..._A_ Tool _ig Farm Flaming. The North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, Circular “+7. Raleigh: 1963. Vonser, C. 11., J. 0. Veatch, and V. J. DeBoer. Soil Survez _o_; Mason Countz, Hichim. Bureau of Chemistry and Soils, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Series 1936, No. 1. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1939.