A survey of forest practice vendors and services in Georgia / by Albert A. Montgomery

H
I
L
3C
GEORGIA FOREST RESEARCH PAPER

36
JUNE, 1982

A SURVEY OF FOREST PRACTICE VENDORS
AND SERVICES IN GEORGIA

BY
ALBERT A. MONTGOMERY

" ClORCIA " FORESTRY

RESEARCH DIVISION

Received
MAY 30 1988
DOCUMENTS UGA LIBRARIES

GEORGIA FORESTRY COMMISSION

AUTHOR
*M
*
Albert A. Montgomery, Ph.D.
Senior Research Associate Contract Research Division Office of Services School of Business Administration Georgia State University.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author is indebted to Mr. James D. Strange, Professor Robert L.
Chaffin, and Dr. James E. Morrow who helped design the survey, and the many staff members of the Georgia Forestry Commission who did the field
work and interviews.

A SURVEY OF FOREST PRACTICE VENDORS
AND SERVICES IN GEORGIA
BY
ALBERT A. MONTGOMERY

While the outlook for the Georgia
forest economy is generally optimistic,
there is concern about the future adequacy of the pine timber supply. Even though the forest products industry will soon achieve a high level of sustained timber production on land it manages as pine plantations, the continued growth of the industry's manufacturing capacity is becoming increasingly dependent upon the future timber supply from private, nonindustrial landowners.
Reflecting this, the market economy is
currently calling for substantial annual investments in reforestation and improvements of existing pine timber stands found on non-industrial land. But the an-
nual rate of improved forest management actually being accomplished by non-industrial landowners in Georgia is falling

short of the economic potential. Consequently, the industry's continuing investments in capacity expansion are being subjected to an increasing risk of an inadequate future timber supply.
If Georgia's forest economy is to con-
tinue growing, non-industrial landowners must improve their existing timber stands and increase reforestation efforts.
One of the main purposes of this survey is to focus on the extent of the forest management shortfall on Georgia's nonindustrial timberland. The study finds
that Georgia's non-industrial landowners have been more responsive to the market opportunities for forest investment than has been generally believed particularly with respect to reforestation.
In 1979, Georgia's non-industrial land-
owners reforested some 58,000 acres to

pine. But this substantial accomplishment was less than a third of the pine reforestation acreage that is annually justified by the market economy. Moreover, there is a greater lack of accomplishment in needed timber stand improvement and prescribed burning work.
A second major purpose of the study
is to determine whether this management shortfall is due to a shortage of forest practice vendors, equipment, labor, and other resources with which to do the job
for non-industrial landowners.
The study shows that the current situation in the vendor industry results in many problems for the individual landowners, especially in the state's Upper Piedmont and Mountain Regions. Unless the landowners are being assisted by a
consulting forester or state service forest-

er, vendors can be hard to find. Relatively few vendors advertise their forest practice services through the public media. If a landowner can find a vendor, not infre-
quently, he may find that the vendor has
gone out of business, or is inactive. Or,
the landowner may be able to get his land
site prepared, but can't find a vendor to plant the land or vice versa.
But what the individual landowner is not apt to perceive is that his problems with the forest practice vendor industry are due largely to the fact that landowners generally are not giving forest practice vendors enough work. In 1980, 330 forest practice vendors listed themselves with the Georgia Forestry Commission. By the time this survey was taken in the winter of 1980-81, 55 of these firms were inactive or out of business. The lion's share of forest practices is being accomplished by a handful of large vendors while the large majority of vendors have very little work to do. This results in an
under-utilization of the vendors' equip-
ment and men. This creates labor and financial problems for the individual vendor that are reflected in the vendor's availability to perform forest practices and in performance quality.
Therefore, the forest economy of Georgia does not have a problem with the
forest practice vendor industry in general. This study concludes that the forest practice vendor industry must be count-
ed among the major competitive advan-
tages that favor continued growth of Georgia's forest economy.
The survey solicited the opinions, not
only of vendors, but of state foresters, private consulting foresters, and industry
foresters, who work daily with non-indus-
trial landowners and vendors. In the opinion of the large majority of these experts, the management shortfall, on nonindustrial land, is due mainly to a lack of landowner demand. It is the concensus of opinion that the supply of forest practices could be increased significantly if the market for these services was better organized and more stable. In support of these opinions, the study shows that the vendor industry could have reforested al-
most as much additional acreage in 1979,
with its existing personnel and equipment, as was actually accomplished on non-industrial land in that year. This ex-
cludes the many part-time and inactive
vendors who were not surveyed. A capa-
city exists, as well, to perform more acreage of timber stand improvement and prescribed burning on a smaller scale.
This abundance of real economic resources to do the job is explained, partly, by the fact that it is a legacy of the extensive landscape changes that have occurred in Georgia over the past 20 years.

The investment in equipment, labor, and know-how for road construction, pond building, and land clearing for utility rights-of-way, agriculture, home sites, shopping centers and the like can be applied in site preparation work now that these original purposes are less demanding. The abundance of tree planting vendor resources is explained by the fact that
Georgia's forests are intermingled with an
agricultural economy that gives forestry
the advantage of a local infrastructure of roads, equipment serving businesses, and labor but does not seriously threaten the use of the land for forestry.
If forest management shortfall is due primarily to a lack of landowner demand, what are the reasons for it? What will it take to overcome the lack of will to make
profitable investments? In the opinions of the foresters and vendors surveyed, the
lack of landowner demand is primarily
tied to investment cost.
What would it take to increase landowner demand for improved forest practices? About a third of the foresters and vendors were of the opinion that higher stumpage prices would be necessary. But, the majority of both foresters and ven-
dors indicated that further public initia-
tive would be necessary, either by tax
incentives or public sharing of the forest investment cost.
These survey findings raise the question as to whether the public can afford the investment costs of substantially eliminating the management shortfall.
First, while the individual landowner
must wait a minimum of 15 years for the personal economic benefit from planting seedlings, there is an immediate economic
benefit for the public. It gives industry the assurance of a future timber supply. Without this assurance, industrial invest-
ments will not be made that are necessary
to increase productivity, job opportunities, and income.
Without continued industrial investment in new, more productive manufacturing capacity, forest products will cost more. Stumpage prices, timber transportation, lumber, paper, and paperboard manufacturing costs will be higher unless the forest management shortfall is substantially reduced.
Thirdly, the real economic cost to the public would be much less than expected and non-inflationary in its impact on the economy. The resources to do the job already exist, and are substantially underemployed.
Georgia's forest practice vendor industry has trained operators and equipment for the work. Planters and labor are there to plant on a scale comparable to that of the Soil Bank Program days. As a legacy of that earlier program, there exist

state and industrial nursery facilities to supply genetically superior seedlings on a
much larger scale than at present. The real cost of doing the job would
be marginal to the public. The public outlays would be partly offset by savings in the rural cost of unemployment and poverty programs. The public economic benefit would be immediate and substantial while the public economic cost would
be minimal.
FOREST PRACTICES ACCOMPLISHED ON GEORGIA'S NON-INDUSTRIAL LAND
The acreage of site preparation, planting, timber stand improvement (TSI), and prescribed burning accomplished in 1979 on Georgia's non-industrial timberland have been estimated from the survey re-
sponses.
Some non-industrial landowners may have accomplished management practices without forester assistance, and some
practices will have been arranged by con-
sultants who did not participate in the
survey. This method of estimation has been checked against the reported acreage of practices accomplished by vendors
participating in the survey.
A total of 52,469 acres of site prepara-
tion, 57,559 acres of planting, 16,327 acres of TSI, and 67,280 acres of prescribed burning were arranged by these foresters statewide (Table 1).
REFORESTATION OF NON-INDUSTRIAL LAND-ACTUAL
VERSUS POTENTIAL
The planting of 57.6 thousand acres of non-industrial land in 1979 was a considerable accomplishment, but much less
than needed. As existing stands of pine forest type
are cutover, 180,000 acres of non-industrial land would be economically feasible for planting each year and some 70,000 acres could be annually regenerated with seed trees.
Under recent market conditions, the
planting of Georgia's non-industrial land
in 1979 was only 32 percent of the economically feasible annual rate (Table 2).
In contrast, it is estimated that industry's planting of land it manages in Georgia is proceeding at an annual rate that is
slightly higher than would be necessary to sustain a plantation economy on 3.5
million acres of industry's pine land. Bas-
ed on reported seedling use, industry planted from 100,000 to 120,000 acres in 1979 on land it owns or holds under longterm lease. This compares with a long-run annual potential of 95.2 thousand acres at recent stumpage prices and manage-

Geographic boundaries
GEORGIA SURVEY REGIONS

Table 1

Forest Practices Arranged For Georgia's Nonindustrial Landowners in 1979 by Responding State Service Consulting, and Industry Foresters, By Region

Region

Site Preparation
Acres (%)

Planting Acres (%)

Timber Stand Improvement Acres (%)

Coastal
Lower Piedmont Upper Piedmont-Mountain
State

36807 11669
3993 52469

( 70.1) ( 22.2) ( 7.6) (100.0)

36466 15900
5193 57559

( 63.4) ( 27.6) ( 9.0) (100.0)

5827 4577 5923 16327

( 35.7) ( 28.0) ( 36.3) (100.0)

Prescribed
Burn ing Acres (%)

43242 15791
8247 67280

( 64.3) ( 23.5) ( 12.3) (100.0)

State

Estimated Percentage Work Done By Vendors (V) and By Landowners (LO)

Site Prep.
V-LO 96%-4%

Planting
V-LO 92%-8%

TSI
V-LO 85%- 15%

Pres. Bum
V-LO 77%-23%

Table 2

Georgia's Reported 1979 Planting Versus Long-Run Economic Potential

Reported Planting
Acres

Potential Planting Acres

Reported/ Potential
%

Nonindustrial Land

Coastal
Lower Piedmont Upper Piedmont
State

36466 15900
5193 57559

105400 46200 28500 180100

34.6 34.4 18.2 32.0

Industry Land

State

100,000-200,000 95200

100.0+

Public Land

State

5000+

11700

42.7+

Reported nonindustrial planting from Table 1. Estimated industry planting from Southern Forest Institute seedling reports. Public planting as reported on National Forests.

"Potential Planting estimated from economic model at recent market

prices and management costs. Southeast Forest Resource: An Econo-

mic

Outlook ,

Montgomery,

Robinson,

and

Strange.

Table 3

Opinions

Which Of The Following Is The Main Reason Why More Improved Forest Practices Are Not Being Accomplished On Nonindustrial Land In Georgia?

Lack of Landowner Demand For Practices Or
Lack of Vendors To Supply Practices

Coastal

Lower Piedmont

Upper Piedmont
And Mountain

State

Foresters
%

Vendors
%

Foresters
%

Vendors
%

Foresters
%

Vendors
%

Foresters
%

Vendors
%

Demand
Supply
No Responses
Total Responses (No.)

73.1 25.0
1.9 100.0
52

87.5 5.6 6.9
100.0 72

72.7 24.2
3.0 100.0
33

90.9 9.1 0.0
100.0 33

69.8 23.2
7.0 100.0
43

93.7 6.2 0.0
100.0 32

72.3 23.8
3.8 100.0
130

89.8 6.6 3.6
100.0 137

Includes Out-Of-State Responses

ment costs. As industry is cutting over existing stands of pine on land it man-
ages, it is reforesting all of that land which has the potential of yielding a
higher investment return from forestry than can be earned elsewhere in the economy.
OPINIONS OF FORESTERS AND VENDORS

Question 2. What are the major reasons
for the lack of non-industrial
landowner demand for im-
proved forest practices?
Foresters and vendors were given a choice of potential reasons for the lack of landowner demand, but were asked to
volunteer their own reasons as well, rank-
ing each reason in importance on a scale of one being the most important, two the next more important, and so on.

Each respondent was asked the following questions concerning landowner requests for and vendor availability for forest management services.
Question 1. Is it the lack of non-industrial
landowner demand for improved forest management or
the lack of vendors to per-
form the management that is the main reason why more management is not being accomplished?
Of 130 state service foresters, private consulting foresters, and industry foresters surveyed statewide, 72.3 percent responded that it was a lack of landowner demand, 23.8 percent that it was a lack of vendors, and 3.8 percent did not respond (Table 3).

Lack of Dependable Vendors
Only 3.1 percent of service, consulting and industry foresters responding statewide ranked lack of dependable vendors as No. 1 in importance, and only 12.7 percent ranked it as high as No. 2 in importance (Table 4).
Can't Afford the Investme nt Cost
Statewide, 68.7 percent of the vendors and 48.1 percent of the foresters ranked this reason as the most important.
Lack of Knowledge or Interest in Economic Opportunities
That landowners are not interested in

the economic opportunities of improved forest management, or are simply unaware of those opportunities, was cited as the most important reason for the lack of landowner demand by 29.5 percent of the foresters and 19.8 percent of the ven-
dors.
Holding Land for Potential Non-Forest Uses
That non-industrial landowners might be holding their land for real estate speculation, conversion to agricultural use, wildlife and recreational use was not frequently cited as the main reason for the lack of landowner demand for forest
practices.
Unwillingness to Bear Risks
Neither foresters nor vendors very frequently cited landowner unwillingness to bear the risks of forestry (e.g. fire, insects, and diseases) as being No. 1 in importance.
Other Reasons
Virtually none of the vendors volunteered other reasons which they consider

Table 4 Opinions

What Are Major Reasons For Lack of Nonindustrial Landowner Demand For Improved Forest Practices?

Percent of Responses Ranking No. 1 and No. 2

Respondents

Coastal
% of 1 's/2's

Lower Piedmont
% of 1 's/2's

Upper Piedmont
And Mountain
% of 1 's/2's

1
State
% of 1's/2's

Lack of Knowledge or Disinterest in Economic Opportunities

Foresters
Vendors

34.6/28.8 19.7/30.7

30.3/25.8 15.2/48.4

23.8/28.6 25.0/25.0

29.5/28.6 19.8/33.6

Unwillingness to Bear Risks (e.g. Fire, Insect, Disease)

Foresters
Vendors

1.9/17.3 3.0/27.7

0.0/22.6 9.1/12.9

0.0/14.3 0.0/12.5

0.8/17.5 3.8/20.3

Can't Afford Investment Cost

Foresters
Vendors

51.9/28.8 71.2/20.0

57.6/22.6 72.7/16.1

35.7/28.6 59.4/31.2

48.1/27.0 68.7/21.9

Holding Land for Potential Nonforest Uses

Foresters
Vendors

5.8/7.7 6.1/20.0

0.0/6.5 3.0/22.6

23.8/7.1 15.6/31.2

10.1/7.1 7.6/23.4

Lack of Dependable Vendors

Foresters
Vendors

1.9/9.6

6.1/12.9

2.4/16.7

3.1/12.7

Other Reasons

Foresters
Vendors

3.8/7.7 0.0/1.5

6.1/9.7 0.0/0.0

14.3/4.8 0.0/0.0

8.5/7.1 0.0/0.8

Total Responses

Foresters (No. I
Vendors (No.)

100.0/100.0
49/48
66 / 65

100.0/100.0 33 / 31 33 / 31

100.0/100.0 42 / 42 32 / 32

100.0/100.0 129 /126 131 /128

Includes Out-Of-State Responses

Table 5 Opinions

Respondents

What Would It Take To Increase Nonindustrial Landowner Demand For Improved Forest Practices?

Percent of Responses Ranking No. 1 and No. 2

Coastal
%of 1's/2's

Lower Piedmont %of1's/2's

Upper Piedmont And Mountain %of1's/2's

1
State
%of 1's/2's

Higher Stumpage Prices

Foresters
Vendors

25.0/16.7 28.4/12.1

31.2/31.2 42.4/20.0

40.4/23.8 37.5/12.9

Landowner Educational Programs

31.5/22.7 34.1/14.2

Foresters
Vendors

14.6/8.3 10.4/18.2

0.0/21.9 9.1/16.7

14.3/9.5 6.2/9.7

Public Timber Crop Insurance

10.5712.2 9.1/15.7

Foresters
Vendors

0.0/0.0 1.5/1.5

0.0/3.1 0.0/3.3

2.4/4.8 0.0/3.2

0.8/2.4 0.8/2.4

Public Cost-Sharing

Foresters
Vendors

25.0/22.9 37.3/22.7

21.9/12.5 39.4/20.0
Tax Incentives

14.3/19.0 34.3/22.6

20.9/18.7 37.1/22.0

Foresters
Vendors

35.4/45.8 20.9/43.9

37.5/28.1 9.1/40.0

26.2/26.2 21.9/41.9

More Vigorous Vendor Marketing

32.2/35.0 18.2/42.5

Foresters
Vendors

0.0/6.2 1.5/1.5

6.2/3.1 0.0/0.0
Other Factors

0.0/9.5 0.0/9.7

1.6/6.5 0.8/3.1

Foresters
Vendors

0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0

3.1/0.0 0.0/0.0

2.4/7.1 0.0/0.0

2.4/2.4 0.0/0.0

Total Responses

Foresters (No.)
Vendors (No.)

100.0/100.0 48 / 48 67 / 66

100.0/100.0 32 / 32 33 / 30

100.0/100.0 42 / 42 32 / 31

100.0/100.0 124 /123 132 /127

Includes Out-Of-State Responses

to be important in explaining the lack of
non-industrial landowner demand for for-
est practices.
Question 3. What would it take to in-
crease non-industrial land-
owner demand for improved
forest practices?
Higher Stumpage Prices
Statewide, approximately one-third of foresters and vendors cited higher stumpage prices as the most important factor that would increase non-industrial land-
owner demand for improved forest prac-
tices (Table 5). There is a distinct regional pattern with the importance of higher stumpage prices increasing from south to north. This reflects the existing pattern of stumpage prices in which prices decrease from south to north.
Public Cost-Sharing and Tax Incentives
Jointly, these two responses accounted for more than half of the foresters' and vendors' No. 1 and No. 2 rankings as the most important incentive for increased landowner demand for forest practices.
Landowner Education and Other Factors
Among the remaining responses, only
landowner educational programs received
as much as 10 percent of the foresters'
and vendors' No. 1 and No. 2 rankings. Virtually none of the foresters and ven-
dors gave much importance to the idea of
public timber crop insurance. Similarly,
neither group foresees much being accomplished by a more vigorous marketing effort by forest practice vendors. Question 4. What would be necessary to
increase significantly the availability of vendors and vendor services in Georgia?
I ncreased Demand for Vendor Services
Statewide, 46.3 percent of the foresters and 38.1 percent of the vendors
ranked increased landowner demand as the most important factor that would
lead to an increase in the availability of vendors and services (Table 6).
Higher Contract Pr ices for Vendor
Services
Large vendors, i.e. firms site preparing
or planting more than 2,000 acres in 1979, cited the need for higher prices as the most important factor more frequently than the smaller vendors, 52.2 percent 10

versus 28.9 percent. Considering the forest practice vendor industry as a whole, these findings imply that there could be a substantial supply response to an improved market for vendor services without the necessity of a higher level of forest practice vendor prices.
Technical Assistance to the Vendor
Virtually no vendors considered technical assistance to the vendor in running his business and performing his services as an important requirement for increasing the availability of vendors and their ser-
vices.
Increased Supply of Well-Qualified Labo r
Obtaining and keeping skilled labor was a frequently cited vendor problem. However, relatively few vendors ranked an increased supply of skilled labor as an important requirement for expanding the supply of vendor services.
Assistance in Financing Vendor Equipment
Few vendors considered assistance in financing of their equipment as an impor-
tant requirement for increasing the availability of vendors and services.
GEORGIA'S FOREST PRACTICE VENDOR INDUSTRY
Each year the Georgia Forestry Com-
mission compiles a list of forest practice vendors offering their services to non-in-
dustrial landowners. The list may not in-
clude all vendors operating in the state,
some of whom will be limiting their busi-
ness to the forest products industry (Table 7).
From the list of known vendors, 55
firms were found to be inactive or out of business. Sixty percent of the 275 active firms on the list were included in the survey.
Forestry Commission personnel interviewed 135 vendors, and 30 consultants; out-of-state, and industry vendors returned mail questionnaires. The vendors responding to the survey include virtually all of the known larger and active vendors and a large, but not complete, representation of the small and part-time vendors.
FOREST PRACTICES REPORTED BY RESPONDING VENDORS
The 41,505 acres of site preparation work done by independent vendors, on land owned or leased by the forest pro-

ducts industry, is consistent with the re-
lative use of contractors and company personnel and equipment reported for this work (Table 8).
By Vendor Size
Even considering that a substantial part of the forest practice vendor industry's site preparation and planting work is for industrial customers, it is remarkable that the lion's share of all forest practice acreage is accomplished by a few large vendors (Table 9).
This pattern is seen to apply to the timber stand improvement and prescribed burning practices, as well.
THE ECONOMIES OF LARGE SCALE REFORESTATION
The economic explanation for the distribution of acreage between large and
small vendors is well-understood in the forest practice vendor industry. Large
vendors do more work because they can do the work more cheaply. There are substantial economies of scale for this capital-intensive industry. The minimum equipment investment for site preparation and planting is quite large. For example, it would appear that a vendor in the Coastal Region can site prepare as much as 1,000 acres a year with the equipment that he may be using only for 100 acres or less. Thus, the equipment investment cost per acre will be much higher if he site prepares only 100 acres as compared with full utilization of that equipment on 1,000 acres.
As a practical matter, the high investment cost per acre of the small vendor would appear to be less of a factor explaining his cost disadvantage relative to a large vendor than his labor costs.
Among the 156 vendors who listed their
equipment in the survey, 124 indicated that they owned most of their equipment. Only 12 vendors indicated they leased most or all of their equipment.
If the vendor's equipment has been bought and paid for, the investment cost is a sunk cost. By the same token, the sunk investment cost of idle equipment will not be a financial burden.
Unless he has the opportunity to use the equipment in non-forestry operations, the fact that he does not have enough work to fully utilize his equipment will not, by itself, force him out of the forest
practice vendor business. On the other
hand, while the vendor can afford idle equipment, he cannot afford idle equipment operators, including himself. It is one of the more important findings of this survey that there appear to be econ-

m

*

f4

:

This heavy piece of equipment is used to chop forest debris in a site preparation operation.

omies of scale for labor as weil as equipment utilization (Table 10).
While more operator time is required to site prepare and mechanically plant
larger than smaller acreages, the increase in operator time and labor cost is less than in proportion to the increase in acre-
age accomplished. The increase in per worker acreage appears to hold through thousands of acres and thus, the produc-
tivity of labor increases even as the equipment investment and labor force is increased by additional sets of tractors, planters, and operators.

POTENTIAL FOR EXPANDED FOREST PRACTICE ACREAGE

One of the important conclusions of

this study is that the forest practice ven-

dor industry is capable of expanding its

reforestation acreage more than in pro-

portion to the additional equipment that

would be required. It can expand its acre-

age with a less than proportionate in-

A crease in labor.

substantial increase in

reforestation acreage could be achieved

with no increase in equipment investment

or employment. Each vendor was asked

how many additional acres of each prac-
tice he could have performed in 1979 with his existing equipment and personnel (Table 11).
When these acreage totals are compared
with those of Table 9, the percentage increases over the acreage that was done in 1979 are found to be 58.4 percent for site preparation acreage, 36.6 percent for planting acreage, 51.7 percent for timber stand improvement acreage, and 95.1 percent for prescribed burning acreage.
Even the largest vendors of each prac-
tice indicated a potential for additional acreage of each practice with existing per-
sonnel and equipment. However, the potential additional acreage of site preparation by the vendors over 2,000 acres in size was relatively modest in comparison with the large planting vendors.
More importantly, the large site preparation vendors indicated a potential for additional acreage that was much less than the 28,550 acres indicated by the smallest site preparation vendors. These small site preparation vendors indicated that they could have worked almost four times as much acreage as they did in 1979 with the same equipment and personnel.

By the same token, the smallest planting vendors indicated that they could have accomplished more than two and half times their 1979 acreage with existing equipment and personnel.
MINIMUM ACREAGE FOR FOREST PRACTICES
There is a concern as to whether the forest practice vendor industry is inclined to provide services to small landowners. Vendors were asked what if any mini-
mum acreage was required for them to
offer services within their normal operating areas (Table 12).
SEASONAL AND REGIONAL AVAILABILITY OF VENDORS
The monthly availability of all but site preparation vendors exhibits distinct
seasonal patterns (Table 13).
VENDOR MARKETING METHODS
A large percentage of vendors indicat-
ed that most of their business was obtain-
11

Table 6 Opinions

Respondents

What Would Be Necessary To Increase Significantly The Availability Of Vendors and Vendor Services?

Percent of Responses Ranking No. 1 and No. 2

Coastal
%of 1's/2's

Lower Piedmont
% of 1's/2's

Upper Piedmont
And Mountain %of 1's/2's

Higher Vendor Prices

1
State
% of 1's/2's

Foresters
Vendors

4.1/12.5 31.8/25.8

6.2/21.9 36.3/35.5

11.9/4.9 31.2/21.9

Technical Assistance

7.2/12.2 32.8/27.1

Foresters
Vendors

0.0/8.3 1.5/1.5

3.1/6.2 0.0/0.0

2.4/2.4 0.0/0.0

1.6/6.5 0.8/0.8

Assistance Financing Equipment

Foresters
Vendors

22.4/10.4 6.1/24.2

28.1/0.0 15.2/16.1

2.4/7.3 9.4/18.7

Increased Supply of Qualified Workers

16.3/6.5 9.2/20.9

Foresters
Vendors

4.1/2.1 1.5/10.6

0.0/25.0 6.1/16.1

2.4/7.3 0.0/3.1

A Better Organized And More Stable Market For Vendor Services

3.2/9.8 2.3/10.1

Foresters
Vendors
Foresters
Vendors

28.6/33.3 19.7/15.2

12.5/34.4 3.0/19.4

26.8/41.5 21.9/21.9

Increased Landowner Demand For Veindor Services

40.8/31.2 39.4/22.7

50.0/12.5 36.3/12.9

51.2/36.7 37.5/34.3

Other Factors

24.4/35.6 16.0/17.8
46.3/28.5 38.1/23.3

Foresters
Vendors
Foresters (No. ) Vendors (No.)

0.0/2.1 0.0/0.0
100.0/100.0
49/48
66 / 66

0.0/0.0 3.0/0.0

2.4/0.0 0.0/0.0

Total Responses

100.0/100.0 32 / 32 33 / 31

100.0/100.0 41 / 41 32 / 32

0.8/0.8 0.8/0.0
100.0/100.0 125 /123 131 /129

1 Includes Out-Of-State Responses

12

Table 7

Forest Practices Offered By Vendor Firms in Georgia, 1980

Firms Offering

Site Preparation

Timber Stand Planting Improvement

Prescribed Burning

Site Prep., Plant., TSI, P. Burn

12

12

12

12

Site Prep., Plant., TSI

4

4

4

Site Prep., Plant., P. Burn

9

9

9

Site Prep., Plant.

18

18

..

Site Prep, P. Burn

5

5

Site Prep.

185

..

Planting, TSI, P. Burn

--

3

3

3

Planting, TSI

--

23

23

Planting, P. Burn

--

2

2

Planting

--

71

..

TSI, P. Burn

2

2

Prescribed Burn

1

Total Firms

233

142

44

34

Separate Firms
12 4 9
18 5
185 3
23 2
71 2
1
335

Region

Table 8

Georgia Forest Practices Accomplished By Respondiiig Vendors in 197S1, By Ownership and Region

Site Preparation

Acres

%

Planting

Acres

%

Timber

Stand Improvement

Acres

%

Prescribed Burn

Acres

%

Coastal
Lower Piedmont Upper Piedmont-Mountain
State

67794 17660 8031 93485

72.5 18.9
8.6 100.0

64766 24715
5672 95153

68.0 26.0
6.0 100.0

10871 1569 1870
14310
1

76.0 11.0 13.0 100.0

29020 11548 4824 45392

Coastal
Lower Piedmont Upper Piedmont-Mountain
State
% All Owner Acres

30052 8378 3075
41505
44.4

72.4 20.2
7.4 100.0

Coastal
Lower Piedmont Upper Piedmont-Mountain
State
% All Owner Acres

37742 9282 4956
51980
55.6

72.6 17.9
9.5 100.0

38215 14637 2622 55474
58.3

68.9 26.4
4.7 100.0

150
1350 1500
10.5

10.0
--
90.0 100.0

N onindustrial Land --

26551 10078
3050 39679
41.7

66.9 25.4
7.7 100.0

10721 1569 520
12810 89.5

83.7 12.2
4.1 100.0

1150 1403
592 3145
6.9
27870 10145 4232 42247
93.1

63.9 25.4 10.6 100.0
36.6 44.6 18.8 100.0
66.0 24.0 10.0 100.0

Industry land does not in elude acreage accomplished by i ndustry personnel and equipment but nonindustrial land includes acreage accomplished by industry */endors.

13

Table 9
Responding Vendors, Members and Forest Practice Acreage By Size of Vendor Acreage

Site Preparation

Vendor Size Vendors

Acres (%)

Under 500 Acres 57

500-999

11

1000-1499

6

1500-1999

5

2000 & Over

16

Total

95

10083 (10.3) 7084 (7.3) 6342 (6.5) 7900 (8.1)
66274 (67.8) 97683(100.0)

1979

Planting 1

Vendor:

Acres (%) 1

36

7943 (7.2)

9

6350 (5.7)

4

4362 (3.9)

1

1800 (1.6)

21

90096 (81.5)

71 110551(100.0)

Timber Stand Improvement

Vendors

Acres (%)

12

1560 (10.9)

1

550 (3.8)

2

2200 (15.4)

2

10000 (69.9)

17

14310(100.0)

Prescribed Burn

Vendors

Acres (%)

15

3292 (7.3)

4

2600 (5.7)

3

3300 (7.3)

3

4700 (10.4)

9

31500 (69.4)

34

45392 (100.0)

Includes out-of-state acreage by Georgia vendors.

Table 10

Full-Time Equivalent Veiidor Employees and Acres Per Vendor,
Acres Per FTE Employee, by Size and Type of Vendor

Under 500

Size of Vendor (Acres)

500999

10001499

15001999

FTE Employees Per Vendor Acres Per Vendor Acres Per FTE Employee Number of Vendors

1.53 170.8 111.9
37

(Site Preparation Vendors)

3.03 616.7 203.7
6

4.00 1100.0
275.0
1

3.67 1500.0
409.1 2

FTE Employees Per Vendor Acres Per Vendor Acres Per FTE Employee Number of Vendors

.81
208.7 258.3
10

(Planting Vendors - Machine)
.80 680.0
850.0 5

FTE Employees Per Vendor Acres Per Vendor Acres Per FTE Employee Number of Vendors

1.27 193.7 152.5
4

(Planting Vendors - Hand)
6.58 1110.0
168.6 2

FTE Employees Per Vendor

Acres Per Vendor

1
Acres

Per

FTE

Employee

Number of Vendors

(S ite Preparation and Planting Vendors)

2.09 268.1 128.2
10

4.53 600.0 132.5
3

5.42 1121.0
207.0 2

6.37 1700.0
266.7 2

2000
& Over
9.45 4900.0
518.5 5
4.8 5287.0 1109.8
6
15.17 2250.0
148.4 2
11.88 3800.0
319.8 10

i
The Larger of Site Prep, or 1 5 lant ing Acres where not the same.
14

Table 1
Additional Acres Of Forest Practices That Could H<ave Been
Performed In Georgia With Vendor Personnel And Equipment Existing In 1979 By Vendor Size

Vendor Size

Site Preparation
Acres % lncr/1979

Planting

Acres

% lncr/1979 1

Tim ber

Stand Improvement

Acres

% lncr/1979 1

Prescribed Burning

Acres

% lncr/1979 1

Under 500 Acres 500-999 1000-1499 1500-1999
2000 & Over
Total

28550 9000 3000 5650
10850 57050

283.1 127.0
47.3 71.5 16.4 58.4%

13275 1700 450 2700
22300 40425

167.1 26.8 10.3
150.0 24.8 36.6%

--5050 --1100
1250 7400

--345.9 --61.1
12.5
52.1%

13950 5000
--7500
16700 43150

423.8 192.3
--227.3
53.0 95.1%

1 SeeTable9.

Table 12

Minimum Acreage For Vendor's Services Within Normal Operating Area By Practice

Number Of Vendors

No Minimum

Less Than
10 Acres

10-19 Acres

20-49 Acres

50 Or More Acres

Site Preparation

No.

20

(Percent) (20.0)

Planting

No.

11

(Percent) (13.6)

Timber Stand

Improve .

No.

1

Prescribed Burning

(Percent) ( 5.6)

No.

4

(Percent) (12.5)

12 (12.0)
13 (16.0)
3
(16.7)
4
(12.5)

29
(29.0)
28
(34.6)
8
(44.4)
9
(28.1)

20
(20.0) 10
(12.3) 2
(11.1)
4
(12.5)

19 (19.0)
19 (23.5)
4
(22.2) 11
(34.4)

Total
100
(100.0) 81
(100.0) 18
(100.0)
32
(100.0)

15

-V
In the top photo, the blade on the tractor clears a path for the tree planter it is pulling. Below, a vendor makes an adjustment
to his tree planter.
16

1 DO -O

A TM

-.>|

4-
c

S
^

--

e o

CO "O

^ C

CD

CO

>

nnnnnnront^no

^^l-'3-^-'3-*d-'3-'3-^-'3-<tf

, 5l-

*- -S
CO c

m in in p)
J

J^i-lo in

> -

a. CL
D

^^nM^cooooooocooorN

<u
I

00

O
-a
c

o
c
oa
en

DC

E O

oa,

3 -o CO c
>CD
a.'
J, CO
c ho
pE

OOOOOiriCOCOCOCOCNCNlOCO cococo*j-oococoinmcocooo

Q-



co

o a-

O i- +j

O CN

CO -

'

|o)CN

]

!

j

!

CN CN -

I

I

I

1

I

CN

o c oo.*

03

co to

Q. C *- O

O DC
>
00

Q- l/>

CU l.
o /Qi." -o c <u

OOCOC00010(NM(N'-0
CNCN'-'-'-'-CNCNCNCNCNCN

CN

CO >

o t: ->-(oc)ivminincxi(o 00 CN

<

CQ C
CD

CM CN r-

CN

a. >

c

o

--o

co -a CNCNOr^CO-OOCOCNCNCN

*~ g
>

CD

oo o i^r^co^-rMCNCNCNCNLnnr^

TO
c

CO CO CN

CN CO

co

Eo
Q. -O

icNnctnmo^c^ofco^cioDcinioicNicnoicnoicno

co LO

CO>

o

-ca

CD

> i_ < ^ _ Q. CD

c 3

3

O Z Q > Q_ 4-"

C_>

o o 57

cd

co

>

ed from direct contacts with landowners, as opposed to having the landowners referred to them by foresters and others
(Table 14).
MAJOR PROBLEMS
Vendors were asked to identify what they consider to be their major problems in performing forest practices. Of 146 responses, 24 vendors indicated no major problems and 122 cited a total of 185 problems (Table 15).
VENDOR REASONS FOR NOT
PROVIDING PRACTICES Few vendors provided the full range of forest practices and many specialized in
one of the two reforestation practices
(Table 16).
17

Table 14

Vendor Methods of Obtain ing Business

Direct Contacts With Landowners as Opposed to Referrals From Foresters and Others By Region

Percent of Business from Direct
Landowner Contacts

Coastal

Percent of Vendors Responding

Lower

Upper Pied.

Piedmont

& Mountain

100.0% 90-99 80-89 70-79 60-69 50-59 40-49 30-39 20-29 10-19
1-9 0.0
Total Responses

30.0% 21.3
5.0 6.2 3.8 16.2
1.2 6.2 5.0 1.2 3.8
100.0%

25.7%
11.4 5.7
17.1 2.9
11.4 2.9
2.9 11.4
2.9 5.7
100.0%

43.3%
3.3 10.0
3.3
3.3 10.0
3.3
23.3 100.0%

State
31.7%
14.5 4.8 9.7 2.8
12.4
.7
1.4 6.2 6.2 1.4 8.3
100.0%

Table 15 Vendor Problems

Problem
Getting and Keeping Good Labor High Fuel and Equipment Maintenance Costs
Weather Poor Terrain and Site Conditions
Insufficient Demand
High Interest Rates and Capital Cost
Equipment Break Down
Small Tract Size
Cooperation and Compliance With Government Collecting From Landowners Scheduling Work Insufficient Equipment Size Profit Margin Other
Total Cited
No Major Problems

Times
Cited
41 31
22 15 14 12
7 7 7 5
4 4 4 12 185 24

% Of All
Problems Cited
22.1 16.8 11.9
8.1 7.6 6.5 3.8 3.8 3.8 2.7 2.2 2.2 2.2 6.5
100.0

18

3 2106 DM55M 2530

Table 16

Vendor Reason:, For Not Offering Selected Forest Practices

Site Preparation

No.

%Of

Responses Total

Planting

No.

%Of

Responses Total

Timbe

Stand Irriprov.

No.

%Of

Responses Total

Prescribed B urning

No.

%Of

Responses Total

Insufficient Demand

4

22.2

12

27.9

26

34.7

14

20.0

Equipment Or Investment

Cost Too High Labor, Obtaining Or Problems Too Much Other Work Land Clearing Only
Lack Knowledge & Experience

--------13

Lack Time Or Too Time Consuming Not Profitable

--1

--------72.2 --5.6

5 8 4 5
--3

1

11.6

5

18.6

10

9.3

4

11.6

5

--7.0

13 4

2.3

3

6.7

3

13.3

11

5.3

6

6.7

5

17.3

8

5.3

8

4.0

2

4.3 15.7
8.6 7.1 11.4 11.4 2.9

Liability Or Risk Business Would Be Too Large Seasonality of Work

---- ---- 2 1

4.7

2

2.3

1

9

2.7

2

1.3

1

12.9 2.9 1.4

Too Much Trouble
State Requirements
Contractors Do It Cheaper

---- 2

1

4.7

--1

1.3
--1.3

----1

----1.4

Total Responses
No Equipment

18 16

--100.0

43 25

-- 100.0

75 26

--100.0

70 24

-- 100.0

Not Interested

3

11

22

29

19

GEORGIA
FORESTRY
A. Ray Shirley, Director
John W. Mixon, Chief of Forest Research