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 Brennon'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
Thursday, June 12, 2014
My last effort was on the vexed question of whether or not to prune and thin radiata pine. There I think I concluded helpfully that in the end its over to you – if farmers can’t accurately forecast the price of milk from year to year, what hope for farm foresters dealing in decades?
Nick Ledgard summed it up for the small grower very well at the recent Trees on Farms day at Winton when he commented that if his stand was pruned and looking good it would sell better than one which wasn’t. As for economics, well, the small grower had probably done most of the work himself so the cost is long forgotten.
On to other species and leaving aesthetics aside, the argument becomes clearer cut. In some cases they are firewood if you don’t prune and probably you should thin too. Cypresses must be pruned – dead knots in the end product are anathema - and they must be thinned in order to concentrate growth on the pruned stems. How high to prune and what stocking to thin to is the ide- al rural philosophers argument – how many angels on the point of a pin? - mostly indulged in by those who have no intention of reaching a conclusion.
The cypresses are not a high volume group. They are high value and have an established market, so as early as you can select the best formed dominant trees, prune little and often(as high as you dare), thin to keep the best of those selected trees free from competition. Your view will change with time, accidents happen along the way. This is the ACT party in action. Only the elect must reach the end of the race. All lesser beings lose out.
Other matters – canker. Susceptibility to canker is another of those philosophers questions – a hundred different hindsight arguments and no very helpful conclusions. Much effort has gone into selection to find less sensitive strains (mostly macrocarpa) and species. A genetic problem, or site, or climate (the bugs move south) – or what ?
My own view, based on limited experience, is that, if we want good timber, we over judge the group’s hardiness – the cypresses here aren’t pioneers to push site boundaries and if they are pushed, stressed by site conditions, competition (not enough thinning), over enthusiastic pruning etc, so they become more open to disease. I have heard it remarked (and I have found it to be so) that the incidence of canker fades with the teenage years.
One of the cures for canker in macrocarpa has been the pushing of other cypresses and their hybrids claimed to be less susceptible. That may be so but so far I have seen no evidence down here that this compensates for other deficiencies in vigour or tolerance of rough conditions. There are some with comely form but very slow growth, others which may have a place as hedges. Lusitanica, once seen as too sensitive to frost down here but resistant to canker further north seems to have a horror of exposure to strong winds of any sort.
So we come back to Macrocarpa. I’d stick with that. Get the up to date info from the Farm Forestry cypress special interest group. It has an excellent newsletter, the pick of the bunch, and Dean Satchell is the editor. The latest one is just out.
Friday, May 30, 2014
My forestry interests are mainly focused on the growing and management of plantations. Although important, especially in determining stumpage, I have less interest in wood use. As my approach is primarily that of a plantation owner I fail to get excited about a new use for wood residues. Residues can come from forest operations or wood use.
I am aware that another use of wood residues may increase the marketability of plantations but I am also conscious that users of wood residues usually expect to be supplied at no or minimal cost. A new use for wood residues is most unlikely to increase returns for the plantation owner.
I am reminded of a favourite saying of the late Leith Knowles which is that, although blood and bone is a good use of sheep and cattle residues left over from conversion of the animal carcass to better cuts of meat, no farmer would ever consider raising farm animals solely for making blood and bone. Why then should plantation owners be expected to get excited about a new use for wood residues?
Maybe I am wrong, but my thinking is that there is unlikely ever to be a shortage of markets for wood residues. Pulp, bio-energy, fuel wood, reconstituted board products such as particleboard and MDF are some of the current major uses. I am not personally aware now of any New Zealand plantation owners managing their crops specifically for the production of wood residues.
I am concerned that in the future, plantation owners may be tempted to manage their stands specifically for a wood residue market, for example as wood energy or pulpwood. If plantation owners are so tempted then before they even begin establishment they should have a watertight ‘take or pay’ contract that the wood buyers will actually pay for the wood come harvest. We appear to have a classical Catch 22 situation − no large scale user is prepared to sign such a contract because of market uncertainties but then no market can exist unless wood is grown specifically for them. Only very large companies should take such a financial risk. Perhaps New Zealand is too small for such developments.
Disclaimer: Personal views expressed in this blog are those of the writers and do not necessarily represent those of the NZ Farm Forestry Association.