Showing posts with label quality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label quality. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Tree Planter Training 16 - Spacing, Density, and Excess

Although this blog is predominantly focused on my music and DJ’ing career, I also want to share some information about my other career:  Canadian Reforestation.

The information in this post is part of a training series from the Replant.ca website.  More information can be found at this link:



I’ll put the text and audio download link from this training module below, but let’s start with the YouTube video for the module:




Section 16 - “Spacing, Density, and Excess”

In this section we'll talk about Spacing, Density, and Excess.  We'll learn how these things are measured, and we'll understand why targets are set in silviculture prescriptions.  We'll talk about compliance systems, and how, as a planter, you can leverage an understanding of these systems into increased productivity and higher earnings.  If you have a proper understanding of what you can and can't get away with, with respect to spacing and density, your job will become a lot easier.


What's In A Plot?

When a forester takes a plot, he or she is not just checking the quality of the trees.  There's a lot of additional information gathered.  In rough terms, the information collected in each plot includes:
1.  The number of trees planted in the plot.
2.  The number of plantable spots.
3.  The number of excess trees.
4.  The number of satisfactorily planted trees.
5.  The number of unsatisfactorily planted trees, and reasons why they were unsatisfactory (this is the quality assessment part of the plot).
6.  Any other comments about the plot in general.

As you can see, most of these measurements are not even directly concerned with quality!


Plotted versus Planted Density

Density is a very important measurement that tells you the approximate number of trees per area on a block or a part of a block.  Since we usually use the metric system, it's usually described as the number of seedlings, or “stems” per hectare.  A hectare is 100m by 100m in size, or 10,000 square meters, and of course, it doesn't have to be a square. Earlier, I mentioned the fact that a plot within the 704 system is equal to 1/200th of a hectare.  Because of this, if you know that you have a number of plots that average 8 trees each, and a plot is 1/200th of a hectare, then when you multiply the two numbers out, you'll realize that you have approximately 1600 trees per hectare.  This density, which is determined by multiplying the average number of trees counted per plot by 200, is usually called the “plotted density.” Sometimes it's called the “plot density” or "sample density" or “statistical density” of the block.

There's another way to arrive at a slightly different density calculation:  you can take the total number of trees that were actually planted on a block and divide it by the number of hectares.  For instance, if you have a block on which you've planted 15,000 trees, and the size of the block is 10.0 hectares, then you have a density of 1500 trees per hectare.  This density, calculated from the claimed planting totals, is usually called the “planted density.” It may also be referred to as the “claimed density” or “theoretical density.”  Of course, if the planters made a mistake in their tallies, this number won't quite be correct.

It's important to understand right now that there's a significant distinction between the plotted density, which is a statistical measurement, and the planted density, which is the true density (if the planting totals are correct).  Although each density is a measure of the number of trees per area of block, and although each may be accurate by itself, the two types of density measure slightly different items.  It's possible for the plotted density be different than the planted density, and yet for each number to be “correct.”  A correct plotted density merely refers to a plotted density that is calculated correctly.  It doesn't mean that the plotted density accurately reflects the true planted density of seedlings on the block.  If you truly understand the distinction between plotted and planted densities, that distinction will form the basis for starting to understand a lot of other nuances of most quality systems.  Understanding this distinction also helps you start to learn some advanced density management issues, including issues as varied as manipulating the system to improve your quality results as a planter, and for management, investigating the likelihood that planters are stashing trees.

Some planters, especially beginning planters, will focus entirely on their planting quality, and pay very little attention to the planting densities that they achieve.  This is possibly one of the biggest mistakes that a beginning planter can make.  I simply can't over-emphasize the importance that density will play in your planting career.  Look at it this way:  making a quality mistake is not “irrevocable.”  Planting a tree poorly, so it's considered a fault tree, will unquestionably reduce its chances for long-term survival.  Even if it does survive, the tree may not achieve its maximum potential growth.  However, a tree CAN recover from many types of quality faults.  A quality fault simply means that the odds are stacked a bit higher against the tree.  A tree in a dry area may not grow well until it gets heavy rains.  A tree in a poor microsite may not grow as fast as one in a better microsite.  A tree with non-vertical or “J” roots may not establish a strong root system as quickly as it could have.  A leaning tree may take some time to straighten up.  Despite all this, a tree can often recover from a quality fault.

With density problems, the story is different.  Once a tree is planted in a particular microsite, it can never move.  Quality faults, if they don't kill the tree, may only be temporary setbacks in the total life of the tree.  But trees can't move by themselves, so density problems are permanent.  The vast majority of foresters are very intelligent, and any forester with any common sense recognizes the importance of density, and will be far more tolerant of a few minor quality issues than they will be of density issues.  

Another thing to consider is that most common quality systems are designed so that when a planter's density starts to get really out of line, it also starts to have a negative effect on your quality percentage.  For instance, under the FS 704 system, planting low density will eventually result in missed spots, which is an automatic quality fault.  Under the same system, planting high density will usually result in an excess fine, which again is not good.


Target Spacing & Minimum Spacing

Ok, now that you understand the basics of density, I'm going to explain two new issues:  target spacing, and minimum spacing.  Sometimes, target spacing is called the "contract" spacing.  On any given contract, a forester will have come up with an assessment of how many trees they want planted in an area.  If the area is rich and non-competitive and the trees are expected to do well, a “low” density of 1200 stems/Ha may be a good goal.  In areas with poor soil, or high competition from existing vegetation, a higher density of 2400 stems/Ha may be a better goal.  On some contracts, the density that the forester wants to see may not be a single number for the entire contract, but may vary from block to block, or may even vary from section to section within a block.  No matter what the desired density is, it's very difficult for a forester to get good results by telling a planter to go out and, “plant about 2000 trees per hectare.”  This instruction is too vague, unless you understand how to apply that number to the immediate area that you're currently planting in.  Even after all the years that I've spent planting, I can't tell you exactly how big a hectare is at a glance, nor could I do a very good job of just guessing how far apart the individual trees need to be in order to fit exactly 2,000 trees into a hectare.  I need a more tangible and achievable immediate measure to aim for.

Depending on the target density, it's fairly easy to use a chart to determine what the average inter-tree spacing needs to be to achieve the desired density.  Once you have a tangible inter-tree distance to aim for, you have a realistic chance of meeting the forester's goals for density.  For example, if every tree were 2.4 meters away from every other tree in a perfect grid, the resulting density would be 2000 stems/Ha.  If every tree were 2.7 meters apart in a perfect grid, the resulting density would be 1600 stems/Ha.  Your foreman can tell you the average spacing that will result in the target density that the forester is looking for.  Foremen and supervisors have charts to help us know what our target spacing needs to be.  Let me show you a couple of common numbers right now:

2000 stems/Ha = 10 trees per plot = 2.4m average between trees
1800 stems/Ha =   9 trees per plot = 2.5m average between trees
1600 stems/Ha =   8 trees per plot = 2.7m average between trees
1400 stems/Ha =   7 trees per plot = 2.9m average between trees
1200 stems/Ha =   6 trees per plot = 3.1m average between trees
1000 stems/Ha =   5 trees per plot = 3.4m average between trees
 800 stems/Ha =   4 trees per plot = 3.8m average between trees

For a first year planter in the northern BC Interior, you're probably not going to see low density numbers very often.  Those are typically target densities for coastal contracts.  A planting density of 1200 stems/Ha or less is quite rare in the Interior.  Trees are much less expensive to plant in the Interior than on the coast, so foresters there prefer to aim for higher densities, to maximize the chance of meeting Free Growing survey requirements.  In the Interior, you're most likely to see target densities of 1400 stems/Ha and above, and sometimes as high as 2400 stems/Ha in pine plantations.

Of course, when you're planting a block, the trees are not going to end up in a perfect grid.  Nor would you want to try to plant them in a perfect grid, because to get it exactly right would mean having a tape measure and measuring the distance between each tree.  That would slow you down, and you'd plant less, which means that you'd make less money.  The great thing is that your trees don't need to be exactly the same distance apart every time.  If some are closer to each other, and some are further away from each other, you can still get the right overall density by making sure that ON AVERAGE, the trees are the proper target distance from each other.  So to make your life easy, think of the “target spacing” as the optimum average distance between trees that is required for you to hit the correct overall density.  You can plant some closer together, and some further apart, as long as the average is correct.

There are two benefits to being allowed to vary your distance between trees.  The first is a benefit for the trees.  Since you have a variance, you can select the best microsites for the trees.  The forester wants you to put the trees in the best microsites, to maximize the long-term crop yield on the plantation, so it's in his or her best interests to allow you this variance in spacing.  The second benefit is for the planter, and it's a very obvious one.  If you're allowed some leeway in picking and choosing the spots to put your trees, you can select the easiest spots to plant each tree.  You want to find the easy spots to plant in.  As much as being successful at tree planting means a lot of hard work, you shouldn't be doing unnecessary work.

Of course, there are limits on how much variance you're allowed.  That's where the minimum spacing comes into play.  You won't be allowed to plant two trees closer together than the minimum spacing, or one of them will be faulted.  So for instance, if you have a contract or block where the target spacing is 2.7 meters and the minimum is 2.1 meters, then you'll want to plant your trees about 2.7 meters apart on average, with no two trees ever being closer than 2.1 meters together.

Many planters at this point will ask an intelligent question:  “If there's a minimum spacing, is there also a maximum spacing?”  There isn't, at least, not exactly.  Instead, there's a different measurement which effectively mimics the effect of having some sort of maximum spacing.  It depends on the quality system you're working under, but it usually relates to having a “missed spot” rather than “wide spacing.”  I'll explain that in more detail in a few minutes.

When it comes to density, you need to learn pretty quickly to get it right the first time.  Density problems cannot be “fixed” by replanting, unless you pull every tree up from an area and start again, which is unthinkable.  It only takes a minute or so for a planter to quickly throw a plot on himself or herself, and to count the number of trees in the plot.  If you want to be a good planter, or if you already consider yourself to be a good planter, you're only fooling yourself if you think that you don't need to throw plots on yourself to check your density throughout the day.  I personally recommend that all planters take at least four quick plots on themselves every day.  I do it.  In the long term, it's worth my while.


Excess

Many planters find the concept of density to be fairly easy to grasp, but they have much more difficulty with excess.  Some planters mistakenly think that the two are the same thing, and that high density is the same as excess.  However, this is another area where understanding the fine distinction between the two concepts will help a good planter become a great planter.  High density and excess are somewhat similar.  But high density happens when you have too many trees planted throughout the block consistently.  Excess happens when you have too many trees through just some parts of the block, specifically where the plots land.  For the mathematicians out there, let me give you a better definition:  excess penalizes you if you have a high standard deviation.

The easiest way to explain the difference between excess and high density is probably with a very simple mathematical example.  First, let me explain how excess is calculated.  In most systems, each plot on a block is considered individually.  If the plot that you're looking at has more planted trees than the target density, then each "extra” tree above the target density will be considered to be an “excess” tree.  Once the forester knows how many excess trees there are in total in the series of plots, that number is divided by the total number of planted trees in the set of plots to come up with the excess percentage.  Let's look at an example:

- First, assume that the target density is 2000 stems/Ha.  This means that if you divide by 200, because a plot is 1/200th of a hectare, you should be hoping to get a total of exactly ten trees in each plot.
- Let's assume that we have two blocks.  Each is two hectares, and to keep things simple, we'll say that each block needs two plots.  Under the FS 704 system, a block that small actually needs a minimum of five plots, but we're going to ignore that rule for this example.  Two plots per block.
- On block “A” we get 10 trees in the first plot and 10 trees in the second plot.
- On block “B” we get 8 trees in the first plot and 12 trees in the second plot.
- Let's assume that we've been told that 4000 trees were planted in block “A” and 4000 trees were also planted in block “B.”
- Although it isn't important to this example, I'm going to tell you that the trees in block A were planted with fairly even spacing, hence the reason that each of the two plots got 10 trees, while the spacing on block B was a lot more varied, with some sections having closer or “tighter” spacing than other parts of the block.

Block “A” Calculations:
- The total number of trees in the plots is 20.  There are two plots.  Therefore, there's an average of 10.0 trees per plot.  Multiply this by 200 and you get a plotted density of 2000 stems/Ha.
- The total number of excess trees in the plots is 0.  The first plot had 10 trees, and you don't get an excess tree until you go “one tree over” the target.  Therefore, that plot did not have an excess tree.  The second plot was exactly the same:  no excess trees.  Therefore, the total excess for the block is 0 trees out of 20 trees planted, or 0.0%.

Block “B” Calculations:
- The total number of trees in the plots is 20.  There are two plots.  Therefore, there's an average of 10.0 trees per plot.  Again, multiply this by 200 and you get a plotted density of 2000 stems/Ha.
- The first plot had 8 trees, so there are no excess trees in that plot.  However, the second plot had 12 trees, which is two trees higher than the target number of trees per plot, or two excess trees.
- With no excess in the first plot, and two excess trees in the second plot, the total excess for the block is 2 trees.  You then divide that number by the total trees planted, which was twenty, and you get an excess percentage of 10.0%.

Hopefully this numerical example starts to illustrate the concept.  The planted density on each of the two blocks is exactly the same, because each had 4000 trees planted over 2.0 hectares, or 2000 stems/Ha.  The plotted density on each of the two blocks is exactly the same, because each block had 20 trees total between the two plots, or 10.0 trees per plot, which when multiplied by 200 gives you 2000 stems/Ha.

By the way, in this particular example, the planted density is exactly equal to the plotted density.  Remember that it doesn't always turn out this way, depending on where the plots fall and how many trees are in each plot.  In fact, it's most common for these two numbers to be different, although they are usually quite close to each other.

Even though the plotted density of both blocks is the same, and the planted density is also the same on each block, the excess on each block is NOT the same.  The first block was planted with very consistent spacing, and did not end up having any excess trees.  The second block had inconsistent spacing, and ended up getting a few excess trees in the plots, resulting in an excess percentage of 10.0%.

Under the FS 704 system, a company is not penalized for excess charges on a block if the overall excess percentage is less than 7%.  In other words, you can have a small amount of excess and not get penalized for it.  This is fair, because even the best planters will be forced to deal with a small amount of variety in their spacing.  And to be honest, the foresters are ok with a bit of variance in your spacing too, because they want to see you looking for the best spots for the trees.


Missed Spot – A Quality Fault

Earlier we learned that wide spacing is not necessarily a quality fault.  This is especially true if the spacing is consistently just a bit wider than the target spacing.  Wide spacing only becomes a problem when it gets to be too extreme.  There's a point when your spacing between two trees becomes so wide that you could have fit another tree in without it being too close to either of the other trees.  At that point, it's considered to be a missed spot rather than just wide spacing.  This is equivalent to a fault on the plot sheet.  There's no specific code for this.  You'll still get penalized though, because you don't have enough "satisfactorily planted trees" to match the number of "plantable spots."  These are two terms that we'll look at later.

Basically, let's take a quick example where the target spacing is 2.7m and the minimum spacing is 2.0m.  To keep things simple, let's work in just one dimension, ie. going in a straight line, although of course on the block you also have to think of trees beside you, not just the ones ahead and behind.  Let's assume that as you're planting along in a line, you plant two trees that are 3.8m apart.  This is wider than the target spacing of 2.7m.  But wide spacing is not a fault.

Now let's try to figure out if we have a missed spot.  Let's see if we can stick an extra tree between the two trees.  We'll put it in the exact center of those two trees, so the new tree is as far as possible away from the original two trees.  Since they were 3.8m apart, the tree in the exact middle will be 1.9m away from each of the other two.  That's under the minimum spacing of 2.0m.  In other words, it's not possible to legally put another tree between your first two trees without it being closer to an existing tree than permitted.  If you can't legally add that tree, it's not a missed spot.  The spacing is just wide spacing, no penalty.

Let's look at a second example, where you plant two trees that are 4.8m apart.  That's really quite wide, if the target is only 2.7m.  Once again, let's try to put a tree between the first two.  If you put it exactly in the middle, then the new tree is 2.4m away from each of the other two.  This is above the minimum.  In fact, it's pretty close to the proper target spacing.  Since another tree can legally be added in the middle without causing Minimum Spacing problems, you'll be considered to have a Missed Spot.  There should have been a tree between the original two trees, so you're faulted.

Of course, in considering whether or not you have a missed spot, the forester also looks at other factors.  Is the spot that was missed good enough to allow for a tree to be planted properly?  If not, say for example there was a huge puddle right there, then the forester will not penalize you for missing the spot.  The rationale in this example is that you skipped the spot because you had no choice, so you shouldn't be penalized.


Penalties

So overall, there are three different ways that you can be penalized for planting either too many trees or not enough trees in an area:
- Missed Spots
- Excess
- Low Density

Missed spots come into play when your spacing is wide and erratic, because you'll end up leaving gaps that should have had trees.  For a planter, that's not good.  If you walk over a spot where you should have planted a tree, you just missed out on an opportunity to make a bit of money.  You don't get paid to walk around.

Excess comes into play when your spacing is erratic, and you put too many trees into a small area that a plot lands in.  Now to be honest, it's usually good for planters to have slightly higher density than the target, and if a little bit of excess is the result, that's fine.  As long as your crew's excess on the block is under 7%, your company isn't penalized.

Low density isn't something that I've mentioned yet.  I did say that wide spacing wasn't a quality fault.  But because foresters want to see a sufficient number of trees in their blocks, they often add a clause to the contract that gives a minimum acceptable density tied to payment.  This is often a number like 200 stems/Ha under the target density, or alternatively, it could be a percentage amount such as ten percent under.  So for example, a contract might say that the target density on a block is 1800 stems/Ha, but if the final density is under by more than 10%, or less than 1620 stems/Ha, there is no payment.  If your crew does end up planting less than 1620 stems/Ha, there's a simple solution:  you'll be sent back to add some more trees, until the density is brought up over the minimum.

If you have a smart foreman, he or she will probably do a quick calculation as soon as the block is done to see what the planted density is.  If it's low, say around 1590 stems/Ha or slightly lower, that will indicate that the block is likely going to be a problem, because the plotted density will probably be very similar.  In that case, it would be smart for the foreman to tell the crew to go back out and put in a few more trees as a precautionary measure.  It's easier to add more trees to a block when you're already there, instead of coming back later.  And if your planted density for the block is obviously low, it's smart to just fix the problem before the plots are even taken.

Is there a High Density penalty?  Not really.  Foresters get you on the excess charge, so they don't worry about it.  Many foresters are Ok with you planting slightly higher density than the target, as long as it's consistent.  They just don't like inconsistent high density, which is why the excess calculation meets their needs as a way of making sure you don't plant far more trees in an area than you're supposed to.  And even density that is perfectly consistent can still give you an excess charge if the density starts to get too high.


I'm sure that at this point, many of you are sitting there with your eyes glazed over, completely lost.  That's understandable.  This is the sort of material that you should revisit a couple times per season for your first couple years, until you fully understand the math behind everything.

To be honest, what we've just covered here is barely scratching the surface of a proper understanding of spacing and density management considerations.  For a first-year planter though, it's enough to get you started.  The key take-away lesson here is that you need to get your density right, and in order to do that, you need to make sure your spacing between trees is accurate and consistent.  Instead of using a measuring tape to measure between each tree, throwing a plot on yourself is a quick way of seeing if you're on the right track.  Even if you don't check the quality of each tree in your plot thoroughly, a quick density plot can be thrown in less than a minute.  If you have the right number of trees in your plot, you'll feel more confident in proceeding at full steam ahead.

Your instructor and your foreman will throw some plots with you, to make sure you completely understand how to take plots quickly and accurately.  Taking a quick plot will ultimately save you time, rather than just costing you a minute or two, because it'll let you know if your density is on track.




-----


Here’s an Audio version of this material, in case you want to listen while you’re driving, running, at work, or otherwise unable to read or watch video:




Click on the down-arrow icon in the upper right corner of the SoundCloud widget to download the mp3.


Once again, for further information about this series of tree planter training information, visit:



I encourage you to share this information with anyone else who might be interested.  Thanks for your interest and support!

-          Jonathan “Scooter” Clark





Tree Planter Training 15 - Meeting Quality Requirements

Although this blog is predominantly focused on my music and DJ’ing career, I also want to share some information about my other career:  Canadian Reforestation.

The information in this post is part of a training series from the Replant.ca website.  More information can be found at this link:



I’ll put the text and audio download link from this training module below, but let’s start with the YouTube video for the module:




Section 15 - “Meeting Quality Requirements”

In this section, we're going to learn about Quality Assessment systems.  If you don't plant your trees to a certain quality standard, your company will be penalized, which means that you're going to have a problem to deal with.  We'll talk about why quality assessment systems exist, and we'll take a detailed look at BC's most predominant quality assessment system, the FS 704 system.


When you start work, you'll probably be confident that it will only take you two or three days to master planting.  You couldn't be more wrong.  First, although you'll be able to grasp the very basics of how to plant trees within a few days, planting trees to the quality standards required of you is a challenge.  Your trees will be checked constantly during your training period.  Usually your foreman or instructor will check almost every one of your trees, especially as you're starting out.  In the long term, however, not every tree is checked.  Random sample plots will be taken instead, but this doesn't mean that you don't have to worry as much about your quality.  If your trees don't meet the minimum acceptable quality levels, you may have to fix them, so your company doesn't end up getting penalized.  In some places, only certain quality faults can be corrected after the fact, so you might not be permitted to dig trees up for a second chance.

The implications of poor quality are varied.  Most planting contracts stipulate that the pay that your company receives is dependent on the quality of the trees that you plant.  Depending on the quality system in effect, very complex formulas determine the company's rate of pay.  Above a certain point, usually above 92.6% in BC, the company is deemed to have achieved full payment, and receives 100% of the tree price that was originally contracted for.  If the quality on the block falls below the percentage for full payment, the pay rate starts to drop very quickly as the quality drops, with blocks under 85.0% quality often being designated as no payment.  So in other words, if your crew plants roughly fifteen percent of your trees improperly, you run the risk that your company doesn't get paid at all for the block.  That's a big problem.

No matter what, your employer is not legally allowed to pass financial penalties for non-payment along to their planters.  You, as a planter, will be paid in full, 100%, assuming that you actually planted the claimed number of trees.  However, in a situation where financial penalties are being assessed against your company, the company definitely has a way to deal it: you must plant your trees according to certain minimum standards, or you'll be fired.  It sounds like a pretty harsh environment to work in.  It is.  What makes things even worse is that as you move from contract to contract, you'll find quality standards enforced to varying degrees, and different faults or problems will be emphasized in different areas.  It's enough to drive a person crazy, trying to figure out if you're doing things the way that the foresters want, or at least good enough to pass.

Determining quality is a very, very inexact art, even though it's based on a detailed mathematical science.  Quality results depend on the system used, the interpretation of various rules in place, the location of random sample plots, the mood of the checker or forester at the time that the trees are checked, and a dozen other variables.  We're going to touch on common reasons for individual trees to be faulted, common variations on the key systems, and how to mitigate situations that work against planters.  I'll also touch on the impact of density on quality, although a lot of that will be left for the section that talks about Density.  By the end of this section, you'll realize that when it comes to quality, many things are not set in stone.  There are often many shades of grey.


FS 704 System Overview

Within British Columbia, the FS 704 system is a provincial standard.  It was developed by the BC provincial government, and therefore, it applies on all Ministry and BCTS jobs.  Many private mills and licensees have also adopted this system as being relatively simple to use, yet versatile enough to meet a variety of complex quality assessment issues.  Instead of trying to explain various other systems as stand-alone entities, it's usually easier just to explain where they differ from the 704 system.  By the way, if you're wondering where the name came from, I have no idea.

To give you a bit more background on the 704 system, it was originally developed in the 1980's.  There have occasionally been major revisions to the system since then, especially in 1989 and 2012.  Some of the items that were considered to be faults in the original system are effectively considered to be non-issues in the modern industry.  The mindset of planting in the 1980's, when it was usually mandatory for trees to be screefed fastidiously down to pure mineral soil, was turned on its head in the mid-1990's with the introduction of LFH and FH planting.  And of course, some scientific beliefs which were common at the time are no longer subscribed to by the majority of foresters.  However, those are just a few thoughts on the system as a whole.  There are major differences in the approach taken throughout British Columbia, even though the 704 system as a whole can encompass those variations.


Throwing Plots

Within the 704 system, quality is measured by taking a series of sample plots.  Each plot is taken by counting the number of trees and studying the placement of seedlings within an area that contains 50 square meters.  This area is exactly 1/200th of a Hectare, because a hectare has 10,000 square meters.  To take a plot, a person uses a plot cord which is 3.99m long.  The cord is affixed at one end to the center of the plot to be taken, usually by looping it over a shovel that's stuck in the ground at plot center.  The person then swings the cord around in a complete circle.  Everything that falls inside the circle outlined by the tip of the cord is considered to be part of the plot.

You may wonder why the cord is 3.99 meters long, instead of exactly 4.00m.  It's because that's the length required to get an area of 50 square meters.  The formula for the area of a circle is pi * r2, so in this case, 3.1415 * 3.99 squared is 50.0 square meters.  You may also wonder why fifty square meters is important.  It's because this number was just picked as an arbitrary standard.  It equals 1/200th of a hectare, but the system could just as easily have used a plot cord length of 5.68 meters, which would give a plot of 100.0 square meters or 1/100th of a hectare.  In fact, the plotting system for brushing or spacing is often based on a plot cord of 5.68m, but someone just decided one day that the 704 system for planting would use a plot size of 50 square meters, so 3.99m plot cords are used, and that was that.

Let's examine why we're measuring 1/200th of a hectare.  The reason is simple: because it saves work.  A checker could certainly use a quality measurement system whereby every single tree is checked, and this would result in an accurate assessment of the quality of the block.  However, it would be a lot of work to check every single tree on an entire block.  The checker would rather just check some of the trees and get a rough idea of approximately what the quality is equal to.

You might wonder at this point if the entire quality of the whole block is dependent upon this one plot, but that's not the case.  Although the checker doesn't want to measure all of the trees, he or she does have to measure a sufficient number to be assured that they have a statistically accurate approximation of the quality.  Checking just one plot wouldn't give you that accuracy.  What if the plot was thrown in a really tough or a really easy part of the block?  It would be biased.  Or what if the plot landed in an area where a planter was having a bad morning and put in a high number of faults, but then corrected the problem and planted nearly perfect trees on the rest of the block?  In either case, using a single plot would lead to misleading results.  Quite a few plots have to be thrown to come up with the statistical accuracy that we are looking for.

Within the 704 system, a checker is required to throw a minimum of five plots on any block that is five hectares in size or less.  The checker is required to throw one plot per hectare on any block measuring between five and one hundred hectares.  If the block is larger than a hundred hectares, the checker is allowed to throw one plot for every two hectares.  I won't go into the exact mathematics behind these requirements, but anyone who's ever taken an advanced statistical measurement course would understand the background behind this next bit of information:  if a checker throws the correct number of plots as just outlined, and if the plots are truly random and dispersed evenly, then the quality measured by the 704 system will be within 5% of the true quality of the block (as if every single tree were assessed individually), nineteen times out of twenty.  So in other words, the sampled quality results of the 704 system, when applied properly, are “good enough.”

Some of you will now say, “Wait a minute, what happens in that one time out of twenty when the quality IS off by more than five percent, and the statistically measured quality happens to be lower than the true quality?  Doesn't that hurt the company by giving an incorrect low quality assessment, which means a lower rate of pay?”  Yes, that's true.  That's why the system builds in a payment tolerance factor of about eight percent to compensate for statistical aberrations.  So to make a long story short, because I want to avoid paragraphs of additional detailed information about statistical analysis, you can get away with planting slightly less than 100% acceptable trees and still get paid 100%, because the system does not want to discriminate against companies due to the sampling error.

Now you know the basics.  To take a plot, swing a 3.99m cord around a shovel, count the trees within the circle, then figure out how many are good and how many are bad.  Do that as many times as the 704 system asks you to, which is a plot count that's based on how big the block is.  Add all the plots together, come up with a quality percentage, and that quality percentage determines what your company gets paid.  You don't have to memorize all of this, you just need a rough understanding of how the system works.  What you do need, however, is a perfect understanding of the ways that your trees can be faulted.  Let's get into that next.

Within the FS 704 system, there are approximately two dozen separate fault types listed.  Some of them are more prevalent in the field than others.  They're divided into three groups.  The first group, the "A" group, are faults relating to Damage to Seedlings.  These are bad, very bad.  I rarely see these on plot sheets.  The second group, the "B" group, are associated with Microsite Selection, which of course refers to where you picked your spots for your trees.  Pick a good spot, and you can't get faulted with this group.  The final group, the "C" group, consists of faults related to the actual Planting Quality.  Several of these faults are unfortunately seen on plot sheets fairly commonly.

Let's look at each of the two dozen faults individually.


Specific Faults – Damage To Seedlings

First, let's cover the five assessments in the "A" group of FS 704 faults, all of which relate to damage to the seedling being examined.

A1 – Broken, Cut, or Damaged Roots.  This fault occurs when you physically damage the roots or plug of the seedling.  The most common way for this to occur is if you push the plug into a hole with your shovel blade, and slice the roots.  Since we teach people not to do this, it's not a common fault to see.  Tuck the roots in with your hands.

A2 – Broken Top.  When the top is broken off a seedling, it will lose a full year of growth, assuming that
it even survives.  Be careful when pulling trees from your planting bags.  Don't grab them by the top.  Grab them by the stem and plug simultaneously.

A3 – Scarred Stem.  This damage might occur if you kick the hole closed and accidentally kick the tree at the same time, removing some of the fragile bark or otherwise damaging the stem.

A4 – Wasted Tree.  A wasted tree is one that's not properly planted.  Commonly, this fault is used to indicate when you drop a tree onto the ground and don't notice.  Remember that none of the "A" Group faults that we've looked at so far show up on plot sheets very often.

A5 – More than One Tree in a Hole.  This is a fault that I've almost never seen on a plot sheet.  It's very difficult to plant two trees in a hole unless you're doing it intentionally.  Twenty years ago, it was common to plant very tiny trees that came with as many as a thousand trees per box.  Frequently, this was bare-root stock.  With stock that was that small, sometimes the roots of a couple trees could stick together tightly, and when you pulled them out of your bags, you didn't notice that it was actually two trees.  You'd have to be really negligent not to notice this happening with the larger stock that we plant today, so this fault is extremely rare.


Specific Faults – Microsite Selection

Next, let's cover the eight assessments in the "B" group of FS 704 faults, all of which relate to the microsite selection of the seedling being examined.

B1 – Too Close.  If a pair of trees are planted closer together than the contract's "minimum spacing" requirement, then one of the two trees is considered to be faulted as "too close."  This is the only spacing problem that can get directly listed as a quality fault.  Note that both trees are not faulted, under the rationale that if you removed one of the close trees from the plot, the remaining tree would be fine.  This is a fairly common problem on plot sheets if planters are not paying careful attention to their spacing.

B2 – Too Wide (Not A Fault).  This again is a spacing issue, but a very curious one.  Spacing that is too wide is NOT considered to be a fault.  This is the only example of the two dozen so-called faults that doesn't actually have a direct negative impact on the quality percentage.  It's only included in the list of faults, and recorded on the plot sheet, as an "explanatory item" to clarify why there were less trees in the plot than the target number.  If this code is not recorded, then it would be assumed that the low number of trees planted is due to a "missed spot" which DOES count against quality.  Be aware, however, that even though consistent wide spacing does not get recorded as a quality fault, it will still ultimately cause problems with low density when density results are being assessed, and there can be penalties in that separate process.

B3 – Overhead Obstacle.  As a tree grows, it needs to grow into open space vertically.  If you plant a tree underneath the branch of another tree, or under a large piece of slash, there could be problems as the tree grows.  Eventually, the top of the tree is going to hit the obstacle above it, so the tree will have to try to grow around the obstacle.  This is bad for commercial value, plus there's the risk that as your tree sways in heavy winds, the top of your tree will be damaged and it will fail to keep growing.

B4 – Medium Too Shallow.  This happens when the depth of the acceptable planting medium is insufficient.  For example, consider a contract which specifies that the plug must be in 100% mineral soil.  Let's assume that the planter is working on mounds that were created when a piece of sod was flipped upside down by an excavator.  If the planter puts the seedling in the middle of the upturned mound, the plug will probably be in 100% mineral soil.  If the planter puts the seedling at the edge of the mound, it's possible that there might not be enough dirt there, and the roots and plug end up planted partially in the grass layer of the upturned sod.  In that case, the planting medium was too shallow.  Another example could be when there's just an inch or two of dirt covering a sheet of slate rock, and the planter tries to compress the plug in that narrow layer of dirt.

B5 – Too Dry.  Planting medium that's too dry is anything that is so well drained that it doesn't regularly hold sufficient moisture.  If you're planting in a microsite full of gravel, any water that reaches that gravel will filter through and seep away, and won't stay there to benefit the plug.  On the other hand, if you're planting in good planting medium and the weather is hot and dry for a couple weeks, and the ground dries out, you won't be faulted for that.  Ground that dries out because of a temporary weather condition is beyond the control of the planter.  A tree planted in loose gravel, which is perpetually dry, should have been planted elsewhere.

B6 – Too Wet.  Determining what is "wet but ok" and what is "too wet" is a bit of a gray area, and your forester will attempt to provide clarification.  After all, the moisture content of the ground at the time of planting can be very different than the moisture content two weeks later when the block is checked.  The general rule is usually that if you open a hole and, at the time of planting, it immediately fills up with water to the surface, the area is too wet.  You should look for a higher microsite, above the water table.  If the ground is fairly wet and makes a big sucking sound, but takes five or six seconds to fill with water, or only partially fills, the forester might consider the spot to be Ok.  Ask your foreman for clarification, as this fault will be interpreted slightly differently on every contract.

B7 – Poor Microsite Selection.  This fault is recorded when the planter simply made a bad choice for a microsite, which is not covered by one of the other faults.  For example, on a contract that specifies that trees must be planted in high spots, if a tree is found to be planted in a low spot while just twelve inches away there's a beautiful high microsite that could have been used, you'll probably be assessed with this fault.  This fault is probably more common on plot sheets than most of the other "B" Group faults, although it's still not too common.

B8 – Poor Planting Medium.  This fault refers to unacceptable planting medium.  On a number of contracts, organic soil may be considered to be an acceptable or even preferable planting medium.  However, the forester may say that although organics are encouraged, any non-decomposed organics, such as chunky red rot, are unacceptable.  So if you then plant a tree in non-decomposed organics, you would be assessed with this fault.


Specific Faults – Planting Quality

Finally, let's cover the eleven assessments in the "C" group of FS 704 faults, all of which relate to the actual quality assessment of the seedling being examined.

C1 – Inadequate Microsite Preparation.  If you have screefing requirements that you're not meeting, it would be a good example of inadequate microsite preparation.  For instance, if the contract specified that you needed a 20cm x 20cm screef and you were only making 10cm x 10cm screefs, you'd be faulted on each screef.

C2 – Improper Position.  Improper position can arise when your tree is in the wrong spot on site prep or in a screef that you've prepared.  For instance, if you're asked to plant your trees at or above the hinge on a trenched block, and you plant all of your trees in the bottom of the trench, they'll all be faulted.  If you're asked to make a 10cm x 10cm screef and you do so, but you plant the tree at the edge of the screef, touching the grass, then you'll be faulted for not having planted the tree in the center of your screef.  This can be a moderately common fault on some plot sheets, especially if planters get lazy or don't understand the specs.

C3 – Improper Roots.  Improper roots are roots or a plug that are not straight and vertical.  Usually, the term "J-Root" is used to describe a plug that's bent.  Roots that aren't straight will not grow as quickly and effectively, because they'll be putting some of their energy into straightening out rather than growth, which compromises the ultimate success of the tree.  Even if the plug is straight, if it's at an angle in the ground, rather than vertical, it's considered to be a problem.  This is probably the worst possible fault to find on a tree, and it's very important for planters to learn good technique in the beginning to ensure that roots are planted properly.  Your instructor or foreman should pay very close attention to your planting technique, and dig up some of your trees to check your results.  Always make sure you have your fingers on the bottom of the plug, so you'll know just by feel that the roots are good.

C4 – Exposed Roots.  This fault is a bit of a holdback from the days when most of the trees planted in BC were bare-roots, not plugs.  If some of the roots were planted properly in the hole, but some root strands stayed out of the hole and were left exposed on the ground, this fault would apply.  This fault is rarely seen on plot sheets anymore.

C5 – Tree Not Straight.  Trees grow best when they grow vertically.  If your trees are leaning over, the trees need to put some of their energy into straightening out, rather than growth.  Of course, they'll straighten out on their own in a few weeks, thanks to a process called phototropism, but this means that vertical growth hasn't been optimized.  If you hear a reference to a "leaner," it refers to a seedling that's leaning.  It's a really good idea to plant straight trees.  A big part of quality assessment is perception.  If a forester walks into your piece and sees straight trees everywhere, he or she will assume that the planter cares about their work, and is less likely to dig around, looking for problems.  If a forester sees lots of leaners, he or she is likely to be annoyed and will do a more thorough examination of the planting, and is more likely to discover faults.  If you want to keep the forester off your back, plant nice-looking straight trees.

C6 – Improper Shading.  This is a fairly rare fault.  An example might be when planting directly beside a large boulder, on the north side of the boulder.  Direct sunlight won't hit the tree very often.  If the planter had moved the tree a few feet to the side of the boulder, more sunlight might hit it, which would be better for the growth of the tree.  Thus, this fault could apply.

C7 – Air Pocket.  There used to be a couple different faults relating to air pockets.  The first was an "underground cavern" type of air pocket, where the ground surface was sealed, but the roots of the tree were dangling in a small cavity.  The second type occurred when the hole was not properly closed, and therefore air could leak down from the surface along the side of the plug, which tends to dry out the plug and kill the tree.  Foresters often referred to this latter type of air pocket as a "hole not closed."  Eventually, the FS 704 system changed.  Underground air pockets are no longer a big focus, because they're really hard to identify.  Also, if the ground is sealed at the surface, there's not as much risk of desiccation, or drying out of the plug.  The modern focus is upon making sure that the hole is closed properly.  This fault can appear fairly commonly on plot sheets, especially in grass mat, if planters are not taking care to close their holes properly.
 
C8 – Too Loose.  If a hole is closed properly, it's fairly unlikely that you'll have problems with this fault.  To check to see if a tree is too loose, a forester will grab onto two or three needles and give a very light tug.  If the tree pops out of the ground, then it's too loose, and a bit more pressure should have been exerted when closing the hole.  This fault is not very common on plot sheets.  It usually only results when holes are not closed properly, therefore, it would be more common to see a C7 fault than this one.

C9 – Too Shallow.  If the depth of the tree is insufficient, you'll see this fault.  The depth requirements can vary significantly from contract to contract, and your foreman will communicate the specs to you.  This is by far the most common fault for first-year planters as they're learning to plant.  In most places, if there's going to be some leeway in the depth requirements, foresters would rather see a tree planted slightly too deep instead of slightly too shallow.  A shallow tree runs a high risk of desiccation in the plug.  After you plant your tree, give it a little twirl and make sure that you can't see the top of the plug.  If you can, chances are on most contracts that it's probably too shallow.  This can be a common fault.

C10 – Too Deep.  This is pretty obvious, as it's the opposite of a tree being too shallow.  If you don't have the absolutely perfect depth, most foresters would probably rather see your tree as being a bit too deep rather than too shallow.  Just don't overdo it.  If the bottom laterals of the seedling are underground, you're probably planting too deep.

C11 – Unacceptable Backfill.  When you close a hole, the planting medium matters.  If you have a seedling planted in a hole and the plug is completely surrounded by a good mix of mineral soil and/or organics, and then to close the hole you stuff it full of dried grass and twigs, then obviously the forester will not be pleased.  This is not a very common fault on the plot sheets.


Depending on the client, it's possible that they'll have a quality system of their own, rather than using the FS 704 system.  It's also possible that they'll use most of the elements of the FS 704 system with just a few modifications.  No matter what system is in use, the types of faults that can be assessed will be very similar to the list of faults that are possible under the 704 system.  If you understand all the faults that we just talked about, coupled with information about the required specs for the blocks that you're working on, you'll have a great understanding of how to plant a proper tree, no matter where you are in the province.




-----


Here’s an Audio version of this material, in case you want to listen while you’re driving, running, at work, or otherwise unable to read or watch video:




Click on the down-arrow icon in the upper right corner of the SoundCloud widget to download the mp3.


Once again, for further information about this series of tree planter training information, visit:



I encourage you to share this information with anyone else who might be interested.  Thanks for your interest and support!

-          Jonathan “Scooter” Clark





Thursday, October 21, 2010

Pioneer HDJ-2000 Headphones

I am in an extremely good mood right now. I just got a set of HDJ-2000 headphones.

I've always been a fan of Pioneer's HDJ-1000 series, in some respects. I love the sound quality that they had. I've tried Sony headphones many times, which have a pretty good name in the industry, but I just never really enjoyed them. I always felt happier going back to the Pioneer brand. In fact, I've owned three sets over the past ten years.

The problem with the 1000's though is that there was a serious design flaw. The parts connecting the earpieces to the frame are made of plastic. And they broke quite easily. I got my first two pairs at the same time, back around 2002 or 2003. I ordered a set from DJMR, who then wrote back and said that they were not available. I ordered a set from overseas, and as soon as that set showed up, DJMR sent me a record order with a set inside. I didn't bother returning the second pair, figuring that someday I'd need a second set anyway after I wore out the first set, and besides, it's always good to have extra pairs in the studio.

Before long, I became a victim to the broken plastic problem in one set. I wasn't really pulling on it at the time either - the headphones got knocked off a table onto a carpet floor, and broke. I managed to put them back together with a bit of crazy glue and part of a plastic bread bag tab, to help reinforce them. Unfortunately, between my two sets, I managed to have several more accidents, from pulling them off at customs in airports, to having other DJ's break them during sets. One set got repaired so many times that I finally threw it out and ordered a third. I know - seems crazy, but as I said, I really liked them. You can see a couple photos below which show where they always crack, and a crack that I fix and then covered with the plastic tab for reinforcement (in retrospect, I should have maybe used a dime).





About a month ago, I was doing some work in the studio and once again, had an accident with the older of my two pairs. So I called the music shop and asked them to order another set. They replied that the model had been replaced and only the 2000's were available. Same specs, but they looked different. I went online and looked at a photo, and didn't really like the look, but I went ahead and ordered them anyway. They showed up this week, and I opened them a few minutes ago.

The box that they came in is really quite nice. Sort of reminds me of the classy sort of packaging that Apple uses with iPods. But the packaging is going in the garbage, so that's pretty irrelevant.



The first really pleasant discovery was that the cord is detachable. If you break the cord, you don't have to replace the headphones - just buy a new cord. And the connection is very, very high quality, and very solid. Not the sort of thing that will ever wiggle and cause shorts, or fall out accidentally.

The real surprise was when I put them on. Soft padding, instead of the hard padding that the 1000's had. This model is extremely comfortable compared to the HDJ-1000's.

So we have the same high specs on the drivers in the headphones, a solid brand name, and a couple of great improvements. Pioneer really listened to feedback on this one. If you want to see a bit more detail, you can click on any of the photos in this post and see them in larger size.

Features:
- Lightweight magnesium design
- Protein leather surface with memory foam padding
- Removable Mini XLR connector
- 'i-hinge' design with 90° auto return
- Type: Fully enclosed dynamic headphones

Specifications:
- Frequency response: 5 Hz to 30,000 Hz
- Impedance: 36 ohms
- Sensitivity: 107 dB
- Maximum power input: 3,500 mW
- Driver units: 50 mm dome type
- Cord: 1.2-m-long one-side connection coiled type (extended length 3 m)
- Plug: 3.5 mm 3P mini-plug (gold-plated, threaded type)
- Weight: 290 g (without cord)
- Accessories: Carrying pouch, 6.3 mm 3P plug adaptor (gold-plated, threaded type)



I'll be using these both in live performance settings, and also in the studio. And the odd time when I'm in the house and have time to relax and listen to music, I'll use them in the living room. The current price in Canada is about $320.



I'm Jonathan Clark, known online as DJ Bolivia.  Do you want to learn more about DJ'ing and music production?  If so, visit:



If you happen to enjoy techno tracks, most of my tracks are available as free downloads from this link:



Thanks so much for visit, and for your support!  I really appreciate the fan base that I've been able to build up over the years.

Also, if you want to visit any of my other sites, here are a few links:
    YouTube:  youtube.com/djbolivia
    SoundCloud:  soundcloud.com/djbolivia
    Blogger:  djbolivia.blogspot.com
    Main Site:  www.djbolivia.ca