Official website of the New Zealand Farm Forestry Association

NZFFA logo: green conifer tree on white background

Tenco logo
About Tenco
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: 
Work: +64 7 357 5356  Mobile:  +64 21 921 595

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.

Member Blogs

Recent blogs:

Ringbarking as a method for thinning trees

Dean Satchell's blog
Friday, April 13, 2018

Radiata pine, because of a long history of genetic improvement, is often planted at stockings of less then 1000 stems per hectare. Douglas fir, on the other hand, is often planted at high stockings of 1600 stems per hectare, to minimise branch size and improve selection of crop trees. Other species planted as unimproved seedlings, such as cypress and eucalypts, benefit from high initial stockings to improve selection of crop trees and to minimise branch size. This means removal of large numbers of trees is required for crop trees to put on diameter.

Traditional thinning to waste can be problematic when the tree stocking is high. Problems include "hangups" where trees being thinned hang up in crop trees, which can be dangerous to resolve. Thinned trees on the ground get in the way of access and branches sticking up are a hazard, especially for eyes. Thinned trees get in the way for years.

Thinning should be staged in multiple operations to minimise windthrow risk for residual trees. Because access is impeded from previously thinned trees, removing as many as three trees in four is often accomplished in as few operations as possible. Sometimes a single thinning operation, sometimes two, but overall costs increase with number of operations

Furthermore, thinning trees with chainsaws is inherently dangerous work. the chainsaw is dangerous and the falling tree is dangerous. Dangerous work requires skills and such skills require adequate remuneration. Workers also cannot thin trees on their own, they are required to work in pairs just in case something happens, which in itself can be dangerous and requires careful planning and good communication.

Alternatives to chainsaw thinning are rarely considered economically viable, it seems the assumption is that this model cannot be improved upon. Indeed, although methods of ringbarking and tree poisoning have received some attention at times, this has not been sustained as issues emerged. Poisoning of trees carries with it a risk that non-target crop trees will be poisoned too, because root grafting between neighbouring trees translocates the poison, with disastrous consequences. How much poison to use and how to apply it is under-researched for reliable prescriptions for thinning trees to waste. Ringbarking is very effective at killing young trees, especially conifers, and simple methods have been devised to achieve this. However, once roots start to graft, the ringbarked tree often doesn't die with less and less successful results as trees age. Ringbark thinning becomes haphazard and inconsistent.

Chemical ringbarking

By combining ringbarking with the application of chemical herbicide, consistent results are achievable. The tree dies every time and its neighbours don't. The concentration of chemical I have found to be effective is 3% glyphosate in water, with a little spray dye added to clearly see where the chemical is applied and the mosaic of trees that have been ringbarked.

The advantage with this method is that it is cost-effective. The use of a reciprocating saw means it is effortless and fast to ringbark trees, which allows progressive thinning of a forest to be staged over a time frame that minimises risk of windthrow. The drawback is that for it to be easy it must be done in spring when the sap is flowing, so the bark peels easily off the tree.


Fed Farmers Need to Flush in some new Thinking

Chris Perley's Blog
Monday, November 27, 2017

If the speech summary of Federated Farmers President Katie Milne is anything to go by, the farming lobby group needs a bit of radical thinking. Ms Milne effectively laid down a challenge to the government to allow land use to continue as before.  No change. “This is what we do.  There is no other way.”  All our past senseless Lincoln-borne industrial maximise-production mediocrity, where each failure is rationalised using selected metrics as justification to stay on the treadmill.

Katie Milne’s rhetoric was wrapped up in clichés of “certainty,” “properly thought through,” “solid evidence,” “sound analysis” and “the business of farming”.  Many of us bridle at those so-often poorly thought through, unsound and empty phrases.  And life isn’t certain.  We can either delude ourselves that it is and strive to develop some soulless machine of perfect fragility – or we build those capacities that make us resilient within our communities, enterprises and farm landscapes.  Resilient to inevitable change; the drought, the flood, the fertiliser price leap, the commodity price crash.

Resilience and scope are the new paradigms, replacing fragile commodity and the delusion of factory scale efficiencies.

Her comments that the governments recent decision not to permit mining on DoC land as “a surprise announcement and policy made on the hoof,” beggars belief.  If that comes as a surprise, so I would presume will be the next drought.

The currently prevalent view dominating all the discussion within land use is to make us all cogs of course; all ‘efficient’ producers of lots and lots of cheap stuff on bigger and bigger land holdings run like corporate businesses, processed though large centralised factories, to “feed the world.”  And, naturally, without having to worry about things like water pollution, climate change or the effects of those trends on community and local economy.  The mechanical construct will support the delusion of certainty.

Let the treadmill keep spinning, ever faster.  Never think of getting off.

Where does “evidence-based” fit within that particular model?  There is no ‘objective’ framework outside a particular worldview, a paradigm gold fish bowl where the fish don’t see the water within which they swim.  If Katie Milne’s comments are anything to go on, Federated Farmers are still very much in the economies of scale, cheap production paradigm dominated by corporate and colonial thought.  With all land rightfully open to extractive practices — including DoC – so never mind building creativity and realising a world where healthy commerce, community and environment can co-exist.

Federated Farmers need to change their water.  The stagnant backwater of thought over which they preside is part of the reason their membership is dropping.  They do not represent the viewpoints of all farmers, for which we ought to be eternally grateful.

Their corporate view of farming is a culture in crisis.  It isn’t working. We face vulnerabilities in our markets and our business structures because discerning markets want safe, quality food.  Our farms are aggregating, farm families are leaving, real prices are in long-term decline, our large processors lack imagination, we marginalise the ‘scope’ within our landscape systems, the potential of our marketing structures, the creativity of our people and the value potential of our processing chains.  A focus on scale ‘efficiencies’ destroys our potential to reduce costs, increase enterprise options and provide the market narrative to dictate a premium price.

In the light of our potential future, Ms Milne’s comments that “there are very limited mitigation measures farmers could take,” is very far off the mark. Let us be specific.  A farm can mitigate green house gases by reducing energy inputs particularly of nitrogenous fertilisers – many of which are at levels far above optimum profit and risk – and by building soils, establishing wetlands and adding woodlands.  We can do this for climate change and make more profit and lower risks and lower costs and increase enterprise potential and enhance the environment and provide the narrative for market premiums.  Think scope, not scale. Think systems, not machines.  Think knowledge intensive, not energy intensive. Think soil systems, not hydroponics.

Of course, many will see that as “not what we do,” perhaps even a bit hippy or greenie.

And that is the problem.  New ideas that fundamentally challenge the structure of that faith in the “feed the world ever cheaper” mythology, with all its wariness of a tree or a wetland spoiling the monochromatic symmetry of grass, are marginalised.

It is not the potential within our agricultural landscapes and enterprises that is limiting, it is the dominant mindset within land use that we must only think and act as we have always done.

Accepting a little uncertainty would go a long way.


Chris Perley

Chris Perley is an affiliated researcher at Otago University’s Centre for Sustainability with a governance, research, management and policy background in provincial economies, rural communities and land use strategy.

Disclaimer: Personal views expressed in this blog are those of the writers and do not necessarily represent those of the NZ Farm Forestry Association.

Farm Forestry - Headlines