Should a timber tract be underwritten on the whole appraised value or on the dirt alone

Take a borrower bringing 300 acres, appraised at 1.6 million, with the appraiser splitting it into 900k of land and 700k of standing timber. The underwriting question worth working through is whether to lend against the whole number or only the dirt. The conservative position is dirt only. Standing timber is collateral that can walk off the property in three weeks with a crew and a logging deck, and unlike a roof, its absence isn't obvious from a drive-by. Advance against it and the borrower cuts, and the loan-to-value moved without anyone telling the lender. Lending on land value keeps the collateral where it can be seen. The other position is that dirt-only pricing ignores the actual asset and pushes every timber buyer into cash or seller paper, which is why so many small tracts trade on land value alone. Advancing against inventory works if the lender controls it: cutting covenants requiring lender consent, assignment of harvest proceeds with a paydown schedule, periodic cruises at borrower expense, and a UCC filing on the severed timber. Mechanically the timber becomes goods once it's cut, and how a security interest attaches and gets perfected varies by state, so anything here needs a licensed attorney in the state where the land sits. Monitoring cost is the real problem. A cruise every two years on a small loan eats the margin.