Rough estimate to replant alternative site

Donald Trump

Hypothetical question.


Suppose you apply for your licence to clearfell a few acres and instead of re-planting the same site, you apply to replant another site.



My feeling is that it would rarely every be worth it from a financial perspective. My understanding is that there would be no grants applicable for the alternate planting (but would there be if you replanted the original site? Or could you get a new series of premiums, under current rules that is).


Anyone have a rough idea of how much it would cost per acre to do this? (excluding land costs). I understand that the soil where the tree were would take a time to recover. So the costs that I'd see would be
1) preparing and planting the alternate site
2) reclaiming the original site. Pulling up all the stumps and roots etc

3) Years of getting the original site back to good condition.


Could you get away with planting on some crappy land or would they insist on a like-for-like? Either way, I know that permission to do this could not be guaranteed

Kolpe

Build a wall D.

Donald Trump

Kolpe wrote: »

Build a wall D.

Need to remove trees to eliminate cover for Mexicans sneaking up close to try to get across it.




But being serious, I am sure someone has done something like that before? Even trying to reclaim after Christmas trees or something




My gut feeling is that it would not be worth it. But I'd be grateful to hear anyone's experience of actual cost.

tabby aspreme

There is no grant for planting after clear fell, so if you did get permission to replant an alternative site as a replacement, the same would apply.

Nekarsulm

It wont take years to get the land back to original condition, just lots of money.
Chip all the brash.
Decent size track machine (13 ton +) and a bloke with a dump trailer and tractor to move the stumps. Actually, two guys with dump trailers. Your'e going to need some where to dump all those dug out stumps as well.

This land was clearfelled about 4 years ago.
Probably cost near as much to reclaim as actually buying land.

Donald Trump

Nekarsulm wrote: »

It wont take years to get the land back to original condition, just lots of money.
Chip all the brash.
Decent size track machine (13 ton +) and a bloke with a dump trailer and tractor to move the stumps. Actually, two guys with dump trailers. Your'e going to need some where to dump all those dug out stumps as well.

This land was clearfelled about 4 years ago.
Probably cost near as much to reclaim as actually buying land.

This is what I had guessed



Did you have to plant an alternate site as well?

Nekarsulm

Not my land, but as far as I know he didn't.
The plantation wasn't a grant aided one.

Birdnuts

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Not my land, but as far as I know he didn't.
The plantation wasn't a grant aided one.

Was it Sitka Spruce??

Nekarsulm

Birdnuts wrote: »

Was it Sitka Spruce??

I think so.
It was clearfelled about four years ago, then lay idle for a couple of years.
12 months ago the owner ( who had bought it with the standing timber, and the adjoining farmland) had two big Hitachi's in digging the stumps and working the clay off them.
They were at it for at least a month solid.

Defunkd

I've seen it done where the stumps are pulled out with a trackmachine, chipped on-site and fed into trucks for immediate delivery to the sawmill as pulpwood use (Canada) or to a wood-fired electricity station (Denmark). The Danes left nothing behind; all branches and low value timber were put to use. Replanting happened very soon after. I don't know if the stumps of sitka have any real value as pulpwood here or is the process just not economically viable.
Heard from a French girl that they do something similar; they clear the site and replant immediately, all in one go. Ours look like warzones for the year or so before replanting is allowed. ("Won't someone think of the insects!")

So OP, it wouldn't make financial sense to rip out the stumps are replant elsewhere. Not for a couple of acres of low value forestry anyway.

Donald Trump

Defunkd wrote: »

I've seen it done where the stumps are pulled out with a trackmachine, chipped on-site and fed into trucks for immediate delivery to the sawmill as pulpwood use (Canada) or to a wood-fired electricity station (Denmark). The Danes left nothing behind; all branches and low value timber were put to use. Replanting happened very soon after. I don't know if the stumps of sitka have any real value as pulpwood here or is the process just not economically viable.
Heard from a French girl that they do something similar; they clear the site and replant immediately, all in one go. Ours look like warzones for the year or so before replanting is allowed. ("Won't someone think of the insects!")

So OP, it wouldn't make financial sense to rip out the stumps are replant elsewhere. Not for a couple of acres of low value forestry anyway.

The land it was planted on was originally top quality farmland. It was planted to get the premia and grants. It is only a few acres but is surrounded by fields, It's not marginal land, more like just a stupid place to put trees. Ruined the layout of the farm. My feeling was that it could never be worth it, but I just wanted to see if anyone else had experience of something similar.

Nekarsulm

Donald, how old is the plantation?
If its not mature, it'll be easier to deal with.

Donald Trump

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Donald, how old is the plantation?
If its not mature, it'll be easier to deal with.

Roughly 20 years. Some spruce and some hardwoods.


But I would have thought that you wouldn't get a license to clearfell until it matures anyway?

In other words, they wouldn't give you permission to take big trees out and replace with saplings somewhere else.If it was a mature plantation, I'd imagine there's the excuse that you were going to cut them down and replace with saplings on the same site anyway.

hempel

Nekarsulm wrote: »

It wont take years to get the land back to original condition, just lots of money.
Chip all the brash.
Decent size track machine (13 ton +) and a bloke with a dump trailer and tractor to move the stumps. Actually, two guys with dump trailers. Your'e going to need some where to dump all those dug out stumps as well.

This land was clearfelled about 4 years ago.
Probably cost near as much to reclaim as actually buying land.

How old was it when it was clearfelled would love to do this at home but paying back the premium wouldn’t be worth it

Nekarsulm

hempel wrote: »

How old was it when it was clearfelled would love to do this at home but paying back the premium wouldn’t be worth it[z/QUOTE]

That plot was 30 years planted at least.
No premiums claimed on that particular plantation, I am told.

Donald Trump

Nekarsulm wrote: »

hempel wrote: »

How old was it when it was clearfelled would love to do this at home but paying back the premium wouldn’t be worth it

That plot was 30 years planted at least.
No premiums claimed on that particular plantation, I am told.

But he would have still to have obtained a licence to cut them down? And probably have had the condition to replant equal area elsewhere at least?

Nekarsulm

Donald Trump wrote: »

But he would have still to have obtained a licence to cut them down? And probably have had the condition to replant equal area elsewhere at least?

I have no idea if applying for a licence comes with a replant condition or not.
If its a grant/premium aided forest it must be replanted ( or an equivilant size area somewhere else)
For all I know, he could easily have planted a more marginal plot somewhre else.

$kilkenny

If the forestry is 20 years of age there would also be a value to the trees themselves that would offset some of the cost.
It can be done quite easily, the main factor is the area removed from forestry is planted elsewhere. The department insists on this so our forestry area doesn't go backwards and decline.
If it's good land you can plant marginal land instead no problem as long as it's the same area.
The cost of planting a grass field could be upwards of €2500 per hectare, depending if fencing is required or not is a significant cost.
An afforestation application is required on the new land to be planted, this takes time and a fee for doing it.
Clearing the land of trees is simple and easy, a felling license can be got once the afforestation approval goes through and the woof is clearfelled and timber sold.
The branches, depending on the part of the country your in and access for lorry I can find a way to deal with them that's cost effective.

Drop me PM if you would like and I can go through it in more detail.

Donald Trump

$kilkenny wrote: »

If the forestry is 20 years of age there would also be a value to the trees themselves that would offset some of the cost.
It can be done quite easily, the main factor is the area removed from forestry is planted elsewhere. The department insists on this so our forestry area doesn't go backwards and decline.
If it's good land you can plant marginal land instead no problem as long as it's the same area.
The cost of planting a grass field could be upwards of €2500 per hectare, depending if fencing is required or not is a significant cost.
An afforestation application is required on the new land to be planted, this takes time and a fee for doing it.
Clearing the land of trees is simple and easy, a felling license can be got once the afforestation approval goes through and the woof is clearfelled and timber sold.
The branches, depending on the part of the country your in and access for lorry I can find a way to deal with them that's cost effective.

Drop me PM if you would like and I can go through it in more detail.

Thanks for the reply. It was more of a hypothetical question as I know of a parcel of land for sale that has a chunk of it planted with trees.



I wouldn't see cutting down the trees as the problem. I'd imagine the pulling up of roots and getting it back to decent condition as the difficult end of it. I'd also say that the soil condition would have been negatively affected.


I was chatting to someone about it and they thought that it would be possible to buy it cheaply, cut down the trees and reclaim it to agricultural land and buy marginal land somewhere to plant instead. (Although there is not much "marginal" land in the area to be honest........if there weren't stupid trees in this field you could be planting spuds or vegetables in it).



Lets say that if there were no trees, it would be valued at maybe 12-15k an acre. Lets say 15k for the sake of argument. Suppose in theory you could buy marginal land at 5k an acre and swap the forest area to it. What do you think the residual value of the forested land (ignoring timber) could be? How much of that 10k differential would be left after reclamation? Or equivalently, how much do you think the spread would have to be between the going price for good land in the area vs marginal land to make it worth your while?

I would also assume that it would be difficult to get a licence to clearfell tree that are not mature. These are a mix of conifers, oak, beech and alder.


I know it's a bit like "how long is a piece of string", but even a general sense. I'm going to say "ignoring timber" as I'm going to assume the value of the timber would only be enough to cover cutting them down, and then planting the new site. The trees are not in great condition. say 15 years old. I have no reason to believe that the sale of them would even cover the above.

Nekarsulm

Came across these 2 photos of fhe renovation work in progress.