Harvennuspuun korjuujälki, korjuujäljen seurausvaikutukset ja niiden arviointi.

julkaisu + laskentaohjelm

Productivity and Costs of Thinning Harvesters and Harvester-Forwarders

Machines with lower investment and operating costs can be one solution in solving the harvesting costs problem of first thinnings. The long-term productivity of thinning harvesters and harvester-forwarders was investigated in a joint project between Finnish research institutions. In the follow-up study, three harvester-forwarders and five thinning harvesters were studied. The total harvested volume was almost 30000 m3. The work performed by harvester-forwarders includes both cutting and forwarding. The average productivity of a harvester-forwarder varied from 3.81 m3/E15 hours in first thinnings to 7.87 m3/ E15 hours in regeneration cuttings. The productivity was calculated for a 250 m forwarding distance. Average stem size of the stand, removal per hectare, and number of timber assortments were the factors affecting productivity when the forwarding distance was standardized. The productivity of thinning harvesters varied from an average of 6.92 m3/E15 hours in first thinnings to 16.18 m3/E15 hours in clear cuttings. Some of the harvesters were well capable in small dimensioned clear cuttings, the smallest machines being solely designed for thinnings. Harvesting costs were compared at the harvesting system level. The costs of a medium-sized forwarder were added to the costs of harvesters. Cost data for the widely used medium-sized harvester system were added to the comparisons made for the forwarding distance of 250 metres. The thinning harvester system had the lowest costs for both two and five timber assortments. In the case of five assortments, which is the typical number in thinnings in Finland, the medium-sized harvester system had lower costs than the harvester-forwarder above a stem size of 60 dm3. At an average stem size of 200 dm3 the difference between the harvester systems was minimal. In the case of two assortments, the competitiveness of the harvester-forwarder was better, and below a stem size of 100 dm3 its costs were lower and between 100-200 dm3 at the same level as for the medium-sized harvester system. The thinning harvester system was still the cheapest alternative. Thinning harvesters and harvester-forwarders are interesting alternatives for thinnings. The high capacity and all the properties of medium-sized harvesters cannot be fully exploited in thinnings. Thus machinery with lower capital costs and reasonable productivity can be competitive. Some of the studied machines can be used effectively in clear cuttings with a reasonable stem size. The harvester-forwarder is an interesting type of machine that is currently undergoing rapid development. The harvester-forwarder is most competitive in small stands with a short forwarding distance

Co-operation and Integration in Wood Energy Production

The aim of the study was to investigate the effects of co-operation and integration in large-scale wood energy production. The total procurement cost and yield of forest chips (small-sized trees and logging residues) delivered to the consumption plant were calculated for three harvesting strategies. In Alternative 1 individual stands were harvested. In Alternative 2 the harvesting of small-sized trees and logging residues was integrated within forest holdings. Alternative 3 included both co-operation between neighbouring forest holdings and the integration of harvesting. In integrated harvesting, small trees and logging residues were jointly chipped at intermediate storages. The study material consisted of forest management planning information and forest maps, in digital form, for privately owned areas totaling 15000 ha, of which 3720 ha was forest. GIS data and costs models were used in constructing a production model for a power plant consuming 100000 m3 of forest chips per year. Integration raised the harvestable small energy wood yield by 30.5% (Alternative 2) and 31.5% (Alternative 3). The corresponding values for all forest chips were 12.9% and 13.3%. The average cost of forest chips was 3.4% lower in Alternative 2 and 4.9% lower in Alternative 3 than in individual stand harvesting. The cost effects on the total production cost of small tree chips were greater than on the production cost of logging residues. Co-operation and integration broaden the raw-material base for wood energy and make the supply more even