A new study by the University of Florida’s Center for Global Agriculture Research finds that when wood-processing equipment is used to clear land, it’s actually more expensive to get the product back than when it’s harvested.
The study, published in the Journal of Agricultural Economics, found that the total cost of clearing land is more than double the value of the timber harvested.
The average value of timber harvested in the study was $14.50 per ton.
That value jumps to $19.65 per ton when processing is done with equipment with a yield of at least 1,000 tons per hectare.
This increase in cost means the timber industry has to pay more to process the wood, and that’s the case when the company has the land, the researchers found.
The study was done in a field near Lake Okeechobee in Florida.
The researchers were able to estimate how much a kilogram of wood would cost to process in a typical forest.
The study estimates the cost of processing the timber in a forest is about $15 per ton of harvested wood.
That amount is lower than the average of $25 per ton harvested, but still a significant amount, the study says.
The cost of the wood to process is also more than what a timber truck could do, according to the study.
The truck would have to haul the wood from one location to another, where it would have a minimum yield of 1,500 tons per year.
The trucks cost about $2 million per year to transport the timber.
“This study highlights the importance of getting a good deal on wood, regardless of the industry,” said Dr. Mark A. Smith, an agricultural economist at the UF Center for Agriculture and Trade Policy and the study’s lead author.
Smith said the findings highlight the importance that the timber companies take into account when they buy and sell land.
For example, when the lumber company buys land, they must pay for a piece of land that is not the land they actually use, but rather an adjacent parcel of land, he said.
“It’s not just about the land that’s being purchased.
You also need to consider the quality of the land and the size of the trees on the property,” Smith said.
The Forest Service also takes into account the value to the timber company, Smith said, but he cautioned that the value is not always clear.
If a timber company uses a small amount of the forest to clear a lot of wood, the forest will be sold for a lot more than if they only clear a small portion of the lot, he added.
“If a woodlot is used as a yard for a timber-processing plant, that’s another way of saying that the property is worth more than the land,” Smith added.
The researchers used a model that looked at a range of options that could be used to determine the average price for a ton of timber.
They found that if a ton was harvested and the value was less than 1,200, the timber could be sold at an average price of $15, compared to $14 per ton in the model where the timber was harvested.
In that case, the company would have paid $7 per ton instead of $16 per ton, Smith noted.
The report found that a ton in a wood-processing operation was worth $2.50 in 2015 dollars.
That’s slightly less than the $4 per ton the study estimated a kilo would be worth in 2015, but it still comes out to $16.50 more than a ton from a log.
The price of the lumber has dropped significantly in recent years, Smith added, and he said the cost to the forest service to process and process the timber has increased.
He said that means more costs to the company and more money to the Forest Service for clearing the forest and transporting the timber back to the site.
In addition to the price increase, the Forest Department has cut back on the amount of time it spends in the forest clearing logs and other materials, Smith explained.
It’s not a great system, and there’s been a lot less time in the past year for the Forest Services to be in the woodlot clearing, he noted.
“There’s been very little time to get that value back into the forest,” Smith noted, adding that the Forest Departments decision to remove all logging from the forest could make it harder to find timber.
The research was conducted using data from the U.S. Forest Service’s Agricultural Forestry Inventory Program.
The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization also conducted the study using the same methodology.