Rates of return from forest plantation investments depend not only on survival and growth rates, but also costs and revenues associated with various practices. Beyond that, tax related issues are another important consideration that are often not addressed, or directly addressed at least, in forest financial assessments. Many financial assessments can be defined as “before-tax.” Forest landowners within Mississippi have the potential to reduce reforestation cost burdens through two important tax-related opportunities. The first being the Federal reforestation deduction and amortization provisions and the second being the state-based reforestation tax credit. An overabundant supply of wood in Mississippi has resulted in fairly poor pine market conditions, particularly for pulpwood stumpage. This has resulted in the likelihood of marginal returns for many landowners without some type of assistance. Beyond that, substantial inflation and increases in fuel costs have resulted in greater reforestation costs plus additional reductions in stumpage values, among other reasons, because of greater costs for loggers during forest harvesting operations.
The impacts of these two income tax reduction opportunities on loblolly pine financial returns were examined for three planting densities of 1,122 and 1,282 and 1,495 seedlings ha-1 for a site index 19.8 m site (base age 25). A combination of chemical and mechanical site preparation was conducted and mass control pollinated (MCP) bareroot seedlings were hand-planted. Varying degrees of rectangularity were assumed, reducing reforestation costs. A first-year herbaceous weed control treatment was implemented but no thinnings and fertilization treatments were conducted. A final harvest clearcut was conducted at age 26. For Federal income tax purposes, a landowner classified as an Investor within the 22% Federal income tax bracket was assumed. Whether before-tax or after-tax, the most viable planting density financially was found to be 1,122 ha-1 seedlings. Reduced reforestation costs and greater yields ha-1 of the more valuable sawlog product class were found to be more influential on landowner financial returns than any reforestation tax provisions.
Adams, J., & Clason, T. (2002). Loblolly pruning and growth characteristics at different planting spacings: SRS 48 (pp. 153–155). USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station.
Amateis, R. L., & Burkhart, H. E. (2012). Rotation-Age Results from a Loblolly Pine Spacing Trial. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 36(1), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.5849/sjaf.10-038
Amateis, R. L., Radtke, P. J., & Hansen, G. D. (2004). The effect of spacing rectangularity on stem quality in loblolly pine plantations. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 34(2), 498–501. https://doi.org/10.1139/x03-210
Aspinwall, M. J., McKeand, S. E., & King, J. S. (2012a). Carbon Sequestration from 40 Years of Planting Genetically Improved Loblolly Pine across the Southeast United States. Forest Science, 58(5), 446–456. https://doi.org/10.5849/forsci.11-058
Aspinwall, M. J., McKeand, S. E., & King, J. S. (2012b). Carbon Sequestration from 40 Years of Planting Genetically Improved Loblolly Pine across the Southeast United States. Forest Science, 58(5), 446–456. https://doi.org/10.5849/forsci.11-058
Baldwin, V. C., & Feduccia, D. P. (1987). Loblolly Pine Growth and Yield Prediction for Managed West Gulf Plantations. https://doi.org/10.2737/SO-RP-236
Baral, S., Li, Y., & Mei, B. (2020). Financial Effects of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on Nonindustrial Private Forest Landowners: A Comparative Study for 10 Southern States of the United States. Journal of Forestry, 118(6), 584–597. https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvaa032
Burkhart, H. E., & Yang, S.-I. (2022a). A retrospective comparison of carrying capacity of two generations of loblolly pine plantations. Forest Ecology and Management, 504, 119834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119834
Burkhart, H. E., & Yang, S.-I. (2022b). A retrospective comparison of carrying capacity of two generations of loblolly pine plantations. Forest Ecology and Management, 504, 119834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119834
Conservation Activities Payment Schedules. (2024).
Conservation Programs. (2024).
Cushing, T. L., & Newman, D. (2018). Analysis of Relative Tax Burden on Nonindustrial Private Forest Landowners in the Southeastern United States. Journal of Forestry, 116(3), 228–235. https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvx013
Forest Inventory EVALIDator web-application Version 2.0.5. (2023).
Forest Resource Development Program. (2024).
Fox, T. R., Jokela, E. J., & Allen, H. L. (2007). The Development of Pine Plantation Silviculture in the Southern United States. Journal of Forestry, 105(7), 337–347. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/105.7.337
Godar Chhetri, S., Parker, J., Izlar, R. L., & Li, Y. (n.d.). Forest Management Practices and Costs for Family Forest Landowners in Georgia, USA. Forests, 13(5), 665. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13050665
Henderson, J. (2019). Forestry Income Tax Series: Basics of Basis. 8.
Hernández, G. A., Harper, R. A., & South, D. B. (2016). Tree planting in the South, 1925 to 2012. Tree Planters’ Notes, 59(2), 4–8.
Huang, C.-H., Kronrad, G. D., & Morton, J. D. (2005). The Financially Optimal Loblolly Pine Planting Density and Management Regime for Nonindustrial Private Forestland in East Texas. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 29(1), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/sjaf/29.1.16
Land, S., Roberts, S., & Duzan, H. (2004). Genetic and spacing effects on loblolly pine plantation development through age 17 (pp. 413–419).
Li, Y., Cushing, T., & Frey, G. (2024). Tax tips for forest landowners: the 2023 tax year. FS 1241, 4.
Li, Y., Frey, G. E., & Wang, L. (2020). Estimated effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 on private noncorporate forest landowners’ timber income in the U.S. South. Forest Policy and Economics, 115, 102118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102118
Maggard, A., & Natzke, J. (2023). Costs & Trends of Southern Forestry Practices 2022. 8.
Measells, M., & Auel, J. B. (2022). 2021 Harvest of Forest Products. 7 p.
Mississippi Reforestation Tax Credit. (2024).
Mississippi State-wide Average Stumpage Prices - US$ per ton. (2024).
Ramirez, L., Montes, C. R., & Bullock, B. P. (2022). Long-term term effect of bedding and vegetation control on dominant height of slash pine plantations in the southeastern United States. Forest Ecology and Management, 522, 120479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2022.120479
South, D. B., Miller, J. H., Kimberley, M. O., & Vanderschaaf, C. L. (2006a). Determining productivity gains from herbaceous vegetation management with ‘age-shift’ calculations. Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research, 79(1), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpi058
South, D. B., Miller, J. H., Kimberley, M. O., & Vanderschaaf, C. L. (2006b). Determining productivity gains from herbaceous vegetation management with ‘age-shift’ calculations. Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research, 79(1), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpi058
South, D., & VanderSchaaf, C. (2006). The statistical reason why some researchers say some silvicultural treatments “wash-out” over time (pp. 333–337).
Subedi, P., Jokela, E. J., Vogel, J. G., & Martin, T. A. (2019). Sustained productivity of intensively managed loblolly pine plantations: Persistence of fertilization and weed control effects across rotations. Forest Ecology and Management, 446, 38–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2019.05.025
Title 26-Internal Revenue Code: Section 194. Treatment of Reforestation Expenditures. (2024).
VanderSchaaf, C. L. (2023). Loblolly Pine Planting Densities for Landowners in Areas with Poor Pulpwood Markets: Some Considerations. Journal of Forestry, 121(4), 383–390. https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvad018
VanderSchaaf, C., & South, D. (2004a). Early growth response of slash pine to double-bedding on a flatwoods site in Georgia. 363–367.
VanderSchaaf, C., & South, D. (2004b). Rectangular spacing: an economic benefit. 437–440.
(n.d.-a). Choosing a Consulting Forester (p. 4).
(2018). Are You Dense? Science-based Loblolly Pine Planting Density Recommendations.
(2020). Mississippi Timber Price Report - 4th quarter 2019. 4.
(2024a). Paying for a New Forest without Cost-Share Funding. Mississippi State University Extension Publication 2420, 8.
