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
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 27, 2018
The pre-election intentions on forestry of the New Zealand political parties were ably summarised by Hamish Levack on pages 12 to 15 of the August 2017 Tree Grower. All except the National Party responded to his request − I cannot accept that this major party has no policy on such an important export earner. Log exports feature in the intentions of some parties. Most significant was that of the Labour Party spokesman Stuart Nash. The Labour Party proposed to implement ‘...an export levy of between one and five dollars a cubic metre on all wood exported without value added, in other words on logs’.
In 1957 the Japanese first came to New Zealand to buy our logs.The Japanese offered a stumpage of around two shillings and six pence a cubic foot − nearly nine dollars a cubic metre.This price represented a premium of 10 times the then average stumpage of three pence a cubic foot or 88 cents a cubic metre.
The domestic price had been ‘unintentionally’ set by the long-term government contract to sell wood from Kaingaroa forest to Tasman. Similar to today there was much discussion then along the lines of why not add value by processing within New Zealand and export a finished wood product. Typical of the time is a quote in the 1958 Annual Report of the New Zealand Forest Service ‘...it is very much in New Zealand’s interests that the export of forest produce should be undertaken in its most elaborate form, viz, in paper rather than pulp and in processed rather than rough sawn timber’.
Although there was a small increase in domestic wood processing the log trade has continued to increase and be more profitable to the plantation owner than domestic processing. This has been despite local processers having the advantage of not exporting round logs with about 50 per cent of their weight being water.
There were many reasons why we appear to have exported costs rather than increased our overall profits or export earnings including our high labour costs as well as the long delay and distance from the actual market place. This meant we were unable to quickly respond to changing markets. Most important of all were the increased tariffs and non-tariff restrictions on the import of processed wood products. New Zealand wood processors then, as now, could get all the wood they want by simply matching the log export price.
A levy on log exports is in effect a subsidy to local processors − not paid for by the government but unfairly deducted from the earnings of the forest grower. Is not a levy on log exports effectively a tax on exports? Governments should be aware that private investors could be very reluctant to invest in an industry, such as forestry, where the government can reduce final returns simply by imposing an export levy.
A billion new trees
Since the 2017 election New Zealand has been governed by a Labour/New Zealand First/Green coalition. To provide regional employment, as well as increase the nation’s carbon sink, it is proposed to plant a billion trees over the next 10 years. Not all will be new planting − about half of the trees to be planted are to be the replanting of harvested plantations. Even so, this ambitious proposal appears attractive.
However, to be successful, much more is involved than just planting pines and other tree species. Where is the land to come from? Are the sites suitable and available for plantation forestry, especially given that some sites are more suitable than others for tree growing? Will the forest be highly productive? Site location greatly determines profitability as well as its carbon sink potential. Who will own the plantation? Where are the trees to come from? There are not enough trees currently available from our nurseries to immediately start an additional planting effort.
At least eighteen months of advance commitment is required before nursery owners could be expected to produce the extra millions of trees required each year. However, a recent report suggests that one nursery could supply five million trees this coming winter - see Timber and Forestry E News 493 for 15 December 2017.
Is the plantation to be tended? Peter Clark, CEO of the consultancy P FOlsen, in his comment in Wood Matters of 9 December 2017 asked ‘where will the labour come from? ’This is relevant since many unemployed are totally unsuited, as well as being most reluctant, to be employed as tree planters or for other forestry work. Who will pay for the many and considerable overheads – site preparation, rates, insurance premiums for fire or wind damage, pest and disease control, mapping, the measurement of growth, the maintenance of roads and fences, annual inspections and project management?
Plantation forestry is very capital intensive. Over a rotation the cost of trees and their planting may be only 20 to 40 per cent of the total plantation management cost. To an outsider the proposals may seem to be simple but much more is involved than simply planting. More policy development needs be done before the proposal proceeds.
The proposal is achievable but until these questions are answered there must be doubts about the proposal ever achieving its ambitious target. Forestry would be the loser if the scheme is abandoned or fails.
No posts yet
Disclaimer: Personal views expressed in this blog are those of the writers and do not necessarily represent those of the NZ Farm Forestry Association.