Florian Seroul Thank you! Its an Panasonic GH4.

Hej, Området är fullt med kulturminnen så det är så kallade kulturstubbar som talar om att något värt att bevara finns inom "stubbcirkeln". I detta fall gamla fångstgropar och därtill hörande andra minnen.

Tack för bra svar!

Hej, Det är beroende på vilket sortiment man kör, timmer blir oftast mer (längre och grövre), massaved blir mindre. Tror de har ett snitt på 24 m3/lass (fastmeter).

There is laws that you need to follow and in Sweden there is alot about nature they are used for insects as nest and the law say that you need to save x per hectare

@@suhdude6303 Interesting although that further adds confusion to why they'd do such a thing. Aren't most insects that would "nest" in the base of a cut off tree harmful to the tender seedlings/saplings coming up to replace that which has been harvested? I mean most are harmful wood borers that would attack the new growth replacing the old. Simply saving "x amount per hectare" is confusing as well seeing that which is saved can't reproduce or won't regrow itself from it's now stunted state. Thanks for the reply but I'm still somewhat confused on the subject..

@@roberharpane3524 The reason why you need to save stumps is becouse you take away a whole ecosystem that will kill alot of species in that area or take away there habitat/Home even if the insects are harmfull for the production the nature goes before that. What i meant by x hectare is that you need to have i Think 3 high stumps per hectare for it to be legal.

The 2 feet stumps are left to indicate where trails and streams are or where historical remains are, like places where charcoal was made.

Hi, if I remember correctly, no, these where not.

Around 25 m3.

It's has something to do with enviroment, don't know what " fornlämmning" etc is called in english

Eco-log 590e går framför dom 😊

Why not?

Way less steps and less equipment needed

And you don't drag the trees though the mud and using excess fuel. Plus the objects here are mostly small so traveling around with a tree-length logging circus would never be economical.

We have a 60/40 split in our business between full tree skidding with roadside processing and single grip harvesting and forwarding... Using a forwarder is cheaper, better on the ground and works well when you have a need to cut multiple grades as the segregation of grades is done at the stump and the forwarder builds the grade stacks at roadside. Also the utilisation is better out of individual stems as you aren't constantly looking for a good long log to put on the longwood trucks before looking for your mill spec logs. The timber is easier to land in difficult terrain when doing CTL as you're not trying to bring a skidder in at the right angle then process into a stack you can load straight off. Landing areas end up smaller and ground compaction at the landing is reduced so the next planting comes up easier... Longwood systems can be more productive if it is just a one product operation as you can put a lot more volume through a processing head if it's not responsible for falling it's own wood but you then need a buncher adding capital cost to the operation. We have an operation with one buncher, two skidders and four harvesters that recently got split for a few months into two crews... one with buncher, skidder, two harvesters; the other with two harvesters and a forwarder (instead of skidder)... the longwood skidder crew averaged 1,900t per week where the CTL crew were down at 1,500t per week... however it was 4 men amd machines in one crew and 3 in the other... Horses for courses

Tried skiddin a couple of times. Never before have diesel consumption been so high per load. But i guess its a economical and production question between forwarders and skidders