“Efficient and Sustainable Management of our Operational Forests.” Derek Dougherty, CEO, Center of Forest Research and Applied Management, Athens, GA

DDFSI Center of Forestry Research and Applied Management, Copyright 2014

Efficient, Effective, and Productive Management of Our New Plantation Pine Resource

Southeastern Forest Managers Meeting Valdosta, GA October 28, 2014


Purpose:Completing focused research to address high priority limitations to forest growth and markets.

Location:Located in Danielsville, GA

Director: Phil Dougherty, PhD.

Some Project Examples:• Silvicultural regime support for a containerized seedling producer• Testing and Characterization of new genotypes out of tree breeding systems• Genetic benchmarking , assessment, and modeling for large landowners • Chemical screening tests for pesticides to be used over loblolly pine • Process modeling of Biomass Yields for 5 species across 33 states • Developing and documenting biomass supply, chain-of-custody, and long-term contract models for emerging bioenergy facilities • Silvicultural regime development and harvest scheduling for Eucalyptus in Florida• Audit of an integrated eucalyptus growth and charcoal processing system in N. Brazil• Research measurements, study installation, and plot maintenance


Specializing in the sale of SE

US Timberland Properties

www.progressiverealtysells.com/landlistings

PROGRESSIVE REALTY SERVICES, LLC

DOUGHERTY & DOUGHERTY FORESTRY SERVICES, INC.

Land Management Division

www.progressiveforestry.com


PRESENTATION OBJECTIVES

1. Evaluating the impact of increased efficiency and effectiveness on pine plantation productivity, from two perspectives:

a. From a producer (or manager) standpointb. From a forest sector (aggregated production) view.

2. List and discuss key understandings and focus areas for improved productivity and efficiency today.


BASE DEFINITIONS

Effectiveness is the capability of producing a desired result. When something is deemed effective, it means it has an intended or expected outcome.

Productivity is a measure of outputs compared to inputs.

Efficiency is the ability to do something or produce something without wasting materials, time, or energy


These definitions compare:1. What comes out versus what is invested (Productivity definition)2. Whether inputs were wasted or not in the process of production (Efficiency)3. Did we hit the mark? (Effectiveness)

What they don’t say:1. Is the mark set too low? (individually or collectively)2. Should the target-mark be stationary or moving? If it escalates, at what rate?3. Are we personally and collectively progressing (increasing the goal and

reaching it) at the rate that we should be?

Why would it matter?1. Missed opportunities? (Inventory creates opportunity)2. Missed characterization (of a manager or an industry). (i.e. That manager’s

productivity is low; The forest industry is unsustainable?)3. Just less than we could have been (excellence evaded; excellence eroded)


KEY STATEMENTS

There is ALWAYS another level of efficiency and productivity

Efficiency ALWAYS wins out

Inefficient systems (or inefficient managers) may last for a long time if shielded, or if they exists in a non-competitive environment.

A CULTURE OF EXCELLENCE inherently seeks the next level, of efficiency, productivity, and value. It proactively culls out the less efficient and less productive.

A positive culture is the result of purposeful FOCUS and MANAGEMENT.


PRESENTATION CASE STUDY

Productivity as the focus; Specifically Tons/acre of pine timber produced

Using Site Index Base Age 25 as a surrogate for tonnage (with 10’ of SI = 3.5+- Ton/A/Yr)

Impacts of Scale Considered

Impact on Growth

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

NaturalStands1950's

FirstPlantations

1970's

CurrentPlantations

1990's

FuturePlantations

2010's

To

ns P

er

Acre

Average Annual Growth

Arborgen 2013, developed by P.M. Dougherty


1978 Planted LoblollyEarly OP; Early Tech; Age 38; SI=71’

2006 Planted LoblollyEarly CMP; Adv. SilvicsAge 9; SI = 84’Dom/Co-dom = 40’

2007 Planted Loblolly Varietal; Adv. SilvicsAge 8; SI = 87’Dom/Co-dom = 40’

2007 Planted Lob. Varietal; Adv. SilvicsAge 6; SI = 82’Dom/Co-dom = 27’


0

20

40

60

80

100

50's 60's 70's 80's 90's 00's 10's 20's

He

igh

t in

Fe

et

Decade

Exhibited Site Index @ 25 YearsFor the Decade of Establishment

Site Index

5 Ton MAI

12 Ton MAI

8 Ton MAI

3 Ton MAI


100’

80’

90’

55’

110’

}

}

}}

} Coastal Plain Research Potential-Opportunity

Piedmont Research Potential-Opportunity

Current Operational Potential For Most All Sites

Operational Falldown / Old Resource

Off-site / Non-plantable

Current Site Index Range (Ft)Loblolly Pine – Base Age 25 Years


But what is “Site”?

It is all things, biotic and abiotic, that affect the growth of the tree:

Inherent TextureSoil Organic Matter

Nutrient AvailabilityAir Gas content Climate Temperature

RainfallAnimals Deer, rabbits, volesInsects Pales weevils

Tip MothScales

Induced Chemicals - toxicityeffects Litter Layer/Topsoil Movement or incorporation

Nutrient AdditionsCarbon:Nitrogen RatioSoil profile changes due use/drainageSoil structure changes (improved or crushed)


Assumptions Regarding Site Index

1. Originally; focused on inherent soil productivity (Fixed based on Soil)2. 1970’s - 1990’s; Understanding of “Exhibited Site Index” emerged3. Currently Emerging; Our realization that “Site” is not constant

Impacts?

1. Can we decrease site potential with our actions?2. Can we take advantage of the potential increases?3. What silvicultural tool allows us to leverage increasing available

resources?4. Impacts on Growth and Yield?

Manager Capability

The potential productivity of your land base is a function of 1) the site’s potential, 2) the technology applied, and 3) the manager capability. It is not, or should not be, stagnant.

Site Potential

Fixed

“Site” PotentialChanging

OR

TechnologyIncreasing

Quickly

OR

OR

TechnologyIncreasing Modestly

Lim

ite

d R

ese

arch

Limite

d Te

ch Tran

sfer

Manager Capability

Silviculture Econ

om

ic/Mo

delin

g

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

Biology

Manager Capability

Increasing

OR



Realized AverageProductivity in Tons

Producer Area Producer Characteristics Current One Decade Later

Type % Effective Efficient Vision Adoption BaseBase Fixed Base +

A 25 No No Boxed No 3 3 4

B 25 Yes No Boxed Limited 4 4 5

C 25 Yes Yes Boxed Adequate 5 6 7

D 15 Yes Yes Yes Moderate 7 9 11

E 10 Yes Yes Yes Strong 10 13 15

Totals 100 29 35 43

Weighted Average 5.1 5.9 7.0

Productivity By Producer-Manager Type










Totals 100 29 35 43












Totals 100 29 35 43












Totals 100 29 35 43












Totals 100 29 35 43






Type % Effective Efficient Vision Adoption Base Base Fixed Base +

A 5 No No Limited No 3 3 4

B 10 Yes No Limited Limited 4 5 6

C 25 Yes Yes Moderate Adequate 5 6 7



Totals 100 29 35 43


Weighted Average Prior Mix 5.1 5.9 7.0

Difference 1.7 2.7 3.2



Additional Tons and Value Produced Per-Year on Managed Acres at Elevated Production Levels

Acres under 1.7 (Tech Transfer and Adoption) 3.2 (tran, adopt, adv., site)Influence Total Tons $ at $15/ton Total Tons $ at $15/ton

100 165 2,475 315 4,725

1,000 1,650 24,750 3,150 47,250

10,000 16,500 247,500 31,500 472,500

100,000 165,000 2,475,000 315,000 4,725,000

1,000,000 1,650,000 24,750,000 3,150,000 47,250,000

7,000,000 11,550,000 173,250,000 22,050,000 330,750,000


Top 4 ways to improve productivity and efficiency today?(assumes planting quality and seedling quality are a given)

1. Avoid the most common methods of fall-downa. Avoid Herbicide toxicityb. Avoid degrading the microsite (bed quality; top-soil/OM disturbance)c. Deployment of seedlings with low performance values

2. Leverage the resources you have made available – Advanced seedling deployment

3. Evaluate the benefits of a mixed-regime planting system (specialized regimes with matched genotypes).

4. Optimize nutrient availability throughout the rotation; and across rotations.


Herbicide Toxicity Poor Bed Quality


BAXLEY FLEX PLANTING PICTURED AT 8 MONTHS AND 21 MONTHS; MARION CO, SC. SI = 90’


Enhanced Genetics x Density Study

Randomized Complete Split-Block Design

Split on Density (Low 388 TPA; High 518 TPA)


Legend

CAI (ft^3/acre/yr)

0 - 350

350 - 400

400 - 450

450 - 500

500 - 550

> 550

Marion County, GA

Forest Productivity Cooperative 2014


Age 5 - Marion County, GA Site (UCP) - Site Index by Genotype

Genotype 518 TPA 388 TPA Diff.VAR 93 87 90 3CMP 16 86 85 -1VAR 32 84 86 2CMP 15 83 85 2CMP 2 82 87 5OP 3 81 83 1NC 40 77 80 3NC 36 71 74 3Means 81 84 3

16’ 16’


AGE (Years)

He

igh

t (f

t)

90’

85’

80’

Elite genotype

Superior genotype

Improved genotype

At a given density, a better genotype may move exhibited site index by up to 10’+ at an early age

If the genotype allows you to go to a lower density, site index may be increased further (an additional 1-5’)

Isolated Effect of Genotype on Site Index

Walton County, GeorgiaFirst Gen PiedmontAge-9, ExhSI =74435tpa40 % ST potential


Walton County, GeorgiaFirst Gen Coastal9 years oldExhSI=74302 tpa,


Walton County, GA2nd Gen OP –Prime-Superior9 years oldExhSI=79418 tpa65% ST potential trees.


Walton County, GAFull-Sib (CMP)9 Years 0ldExh. SI=84302 tpa%ST=80%



Base Systems To Meet Productivity Potential and Increase Efficiency

1. Fall down approach for assessment (limitations listed, quantified, and addressed; potential quantified).

2. Early rotation monitoring and feedback (First 2-5 years)1. Identify problems and address.2. Identify what is working and optimize it.

3. Annual Full Program Assessment - Review


Genetic Potential: 105 feet

Residual

Limiting Factors

Fall

Down Silvicultural Offset Fall-down

Climatic -9 N/A 0 -9

Soil Texture -4.5 N/A 0 -4.5

Genetic

Efficiency -18 Varietal 18 0

Weed

Competition -8 2 hwc 5 -3

Soil Fertility -8 2 fertilizer 6 -2

-19 feet

86.5 feet

Adjusted Potential:

Expanding “Site” Potential

Expanding Technology

Expanding Manager Capability

Expanding Market Potential

Government Regulation

Pu

blic

Pe

rce

pti

on

Ce

rtif

icat

ion

Government Taxation


Conclusions

1. There is always another level 2. Our opportunities for success are linked3. We are all responsible and impactful in advancing our sector; the

generational transfer is one of our greatest challenges4. Efficiency always wins out; Efficient nutrient optimization, genetic

leverage, and day-to-day monitoring are keys to remaining competitive.

5. Productive and Efficient Cultures are purposely created 6. Increased productivity is a mute point if our rights to operate and

access to markets are degraded.


THANK YOU!QUESTIONS?

Environment

“Efficient and Sustainable Management of our Operational Forests.” Derek Dougherty, CEO, Center of Forest Research and Applied Management, Athens, GA