Tenco is one of New Zealand’s largest exporters of forest products. We have built to this position since 1991 when the company was set up to export lumber to growing Asian export markets. Experience and reputation count; from small beginnings Tenco has become the largest independent exporter of New Zealand lumber and New Zealand’s 4th largest log exporter. Tenco has a regular shipping program of their own log vessels and in combination with these and other ships currently calls at 7 New Zealand ports (5 North Island and 2 South Island).
Tenco buys standing forests. Tenco currently has a number of forests which they purchased at harvestable age to log over a number of years for export and domestic markets. Tenco also regularly buys smaller tracts of forest to harvest immediately or immature forests to hold until harvest time. Tenco is interested in broadening the base of owners from whom it purchases forests and stands of trees. A deal with Tenco is a certain transaction. The owner and Tenco will agree on a value of the tree crop and then Tenco will pay this amount to the owner either in a lump sum amount or on rate per volume unit out-turn from the forest depending on the nature of the tree crop.
Tenco knows there are a lot of farmers who have trees that are close or ready to harvest and will be asking themselves how they should proceed with the sale of their trees. For some farmers the kind of certain transaction with money in the bank could well be appealing. Tenco is actively interested in buying harvestable forests or trees from areas including all the North Island (except the Gisborne and East Coast districts) and Nelson & Marlborough in the South Island .
If you own a forest in this area (16 years and older) and are ready to enter into this kind of agreement Tenco is interested to develop something with you.
Please contact: Josh.Bannan@tenco.co.nz
Work: +64 7 357 5356 Mobile: +64 21 921 595 www.tenco.co.nz
NZFFA Member Blogs
Any member of NZFFA can set up their own blog here, just ask Head Office to set one up for you and join the ranks of our more outspoken members...
You can either publish your blogs yourself, or email a document to head office for publishing.
Brian Cox's Blog
Chris Perley's Blog
Dean Satchell's blog
Denis Hocking's blog
Eric Cairn's Blog
Hamish Levack's Blog
Ian Brown's Blog
John Ellegard's blog
John Fairweather's blog
John Purey-Cust Ponders
Murray Grant's Blog
Nick Ledgard's Blog
Rik Deaton's Blog
Roger May's Blog
School of Forestry blog
Wink Sutton's Blog
Friday, February 13, 2015
From Treegrower, February 2015:
During my Canadian secondment from 1992 to 1994, I attended a meeting addressed by the then Chief of the USDA Forest Service who talked about the major biological threats to North American forests. Below are listed some of the major introduced biological threats, now updated, together with a brief description.
- Gypsy moth Lymantria dispar – This was introduced in 1868 for its silk spinning caterpillars but escaped soon afterwards. Now it is one of the most destructive insects in the eastern United States defoliating about 400,000 hectares of hardwoods each year.
- Kudzu Pueraria lobata – It is known as the vine that ate the south. It was introduced from Japan in 1876 to stabilise road cuttings and later promoted as a landscape vine. It smothers trees and kills them and can grow at a rate of a 30 cms a day. Now it covers three million hectares in south eastern United States.
- Chestnut blight – This is caused by a pathogenic fungus Cryphonectria parasitica which was accidentally introduced around 1900 possibly on imported Japanese chestnut nursery stock. By 1940 almost all mature eastern American chestnut trees had been killed, estimated to be four billion trees. The once common chestnut was praised for its fruit and its beautiful, decay-resistant wood.
- White pine blister rust Cronartium ribicola – A fungal disease which kills five-needle pines also called white pines. It was accidentally introduced from Europe in 1909 and alternative hosts are currants and gooseberries. Although white pines Pinus stobus and P. monticoli are often fast growing, there are few mature white pines left alive in the United States and Canada.
- Dutch elm disease – This is a vascular wilt fungus Ophiostoma ulmi spread by elm bark beetles. It was accidentally introduced from Europe in 1928. Avenues of handsome elms which were once common in many cities are no more.
- Emerald ash borer Agrilus planipennis – A native of Asia and eastern Russia it was unintentionally introduced in 2002 probably in ash wood used to stabilise crates during shipping. It has greatly reduced or even eliminated the ash timber industry in eastern United States, once estimated as being a $25 billion a year industry. There are now fears that the borer will attack fringe plants of the same ash family such as forsythia and lilac.
Our relative isolation combined with our very strict border biosecurity has meant that New Zealand has generally escaped devastating introductions in forestry, agriculture and horticulture. I compare our strict biosecurity controls to vaccinations against such devastating diseases as diphtheria, tetanus and polio. When almost no-one suffers from such devastating diseases for decades, the public can become apathetic and complacent about the need for vaccinations. We may be sometimes inconvenienced by our strict biosecurity checks but the United States forestry examples convincingly show what could happen if imports are not subject to close inspection.
On a recent visit to Chile I was horrified to find some radiata stands there unhealthy and defoliated.The cause was Phytophtheria pinifolia. We want to ensure that pathogen is never introduced into New Zealand. Every visitor to Chilean pine plantations should declare their footwear on arrival in New Zealand and have their clothes dry cleaned as soon as possible after arrival.
Monday, February 09, 2015
From Treegrower, November 2014:
On a recent cruise we visited several countries in the Middle East including India and Egypt. As a forester I was well aware of the absence of trees but very much aware of the large population. What on earth do all these people do? What future do they have? Sure, most of their homes and buildings are often constructed without the use of wood but there is a constant demand for fuel wood − more than half the global annual wood harvest is now used as fuel wood. Burning dried animal dung is probably not a sustainable practice because it ultimately deprives the soil of nutrients necessary for growth.
In parts of India as well as in the Arabian peninsula and north Africa, the local population devote an inordinate amount of time to the collection of fuel wood. There is a common belief that the reason for the absence of trees which could supply fuel wood is because much of the land is desert and that there little or no rain. But rarely is the lack of rain the main reason that there are so few trees.
Rainfall may be low and inconsistent but only very rarely is rain totally absent. Some trees can survive and grow in low rainfall areas such as some eucalypts and acacias. What prevents trees from surviving is generally not the very low rainfall but the grazing pressure of goats and camels. Any tree that starts to grow is soon eaten by foraging animals – to get enough to survive the grazing animals must eat all the growing vegetation.
The result is a disturbing dilemma and an almost hopeless situation. Grazing animals provide the locals with a survival livelihood but that can be at the expense of trees which could provide future fuel wood. Research on possible tree species which might survive low and inconsistent rainfall is possibly pointless. Any trial area must not only be fenced off but also guarded 24 hours a day. Unless the area is under strict control and constant surveillance locals desperate for grazing are probably going to let their animals into the trial areas.
Unless the trial area is rigorously controlled how could they ever find an acceptable solution? Even if the trials were a success in finding what tree species should be planted and how they should be managed, a successful fuel wood plantation is far from guaranteed.
Disclaimer: Personal views expressed in this blog are those of the writers and do not necessarily represent those of the NZ Farm Forestry Association.