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
Nick Ledgard's Blog
Rik Deaton's Blog
Roger May's Blog
School of Forestry blog
Wink Sutton's Blog
Monday, April 25, 2016
The Wellington branch intends to run a series of articles and field days on Continuous Cover Forestry. Government policies, particularly in regard to Permanent Forest Sink Initiatives and in the draft National Environmental Standard for Planation Forestry, are starting to recognise that there are alternatives to clear-fell industrial forestry and the benefits of avoiding clear-fell regimes.
Forest owners are under increasing pressure to join forestry certification schemes in order to retain overseas markets. There is a public perception, rightly or wrongly, that large-scale monoculture forestry, along with huge areas of clear fell at harvest, is not ecologically sensitive. A way to improve public opinion and be more ecologically friendly is to follow the principles of Continuous Cover Forestry (CCF).
CCF means greatly reduced coupe size, mixtures of species and age classes and maintaining or creating habitat and species diversity.
CCF may facilitate:
- a change to harvesting methods (reduced use of cable haulers),
- the need for more sophisticated forest management techniques, and
- different regulatory approaches by national and local authorities.
There is no internationally recognised definition of CCF, but in my opinion it covers a wide spectrum of forestry activities: almost anything but large scale clear-fell regimes.
In its simplest form, CCF can be a series of small compartments of single age, single species with a different specie in each compartment. Harvest is by felling a mosaic of small coupes, thus minimising negative effects on soil, water quality and wildlife disruption.
More complex forms of CCF use mixed age and/or mixed species tree regimes. At the extreme , CCF systems resemble natural forest. Harvesting is then small coupe or single tree selection and stand management may take the basal area of various size classes into account and limit the numbers of trees in each size class according to reverse J curves. These complex variants are usually much more complicated to manage than single age and single species stands.
While US and European foresters accept CCF as feasible, most NZ trained foresters reject the notion that CCF is either reasonable or profitable, particularly for Pinus radiata or on steeper sites lacking easy access.
Radiata is seen as a commodity product and profit margins are often small. Large- scale operations seem to be the norm, and the costs of logging small stands could be high due to set-up costs. Consequently radiata does not lend itself to CCF. From a harvest cost point of view, there would be advantage in growing higher value species, allowing a better margin to the grower.
In most countries CCF is built around management of indigenous species. In NZ however there are strong disincentives for cultivating native trees as there is no guarantee of a right to harvest and crop rotation times may be very long. Perhaps growing mixtures of exotic and indigenous species will provide high ecological and recreational values and still prove profitable but as yet there is little hard data to support this idea.
CCF is suited to high value species, which allow low impact harvesting systems and in some cases on-site milling. While operating costs per tonne are higher than with clear-fell, capital equipment costs can be reduced.
Factors affecting stand profitability include growth rates, saw log values, basal area, economies of harvesting, rotation times, labour of planting, silviculture and management, and appropriate markets for the species and grades obtained. It is hoped that the (potential) higher values of alternative species will offset higher extraction costs and slower growth rates but minor species can be very difficult to market.
Growers contemplating CCF also need to understand whether they want a defined rotation / investment time or the opportunity for a steady income stream over a long period while maintaining a high stand volume.
There may be tax implications here as sale of the forest attracts tax liabilities to both seller and buyer on the assessed value of the stand (cost of bush, see Tree Grower Feb 2005, Murray Downs, on NZFFA website). Amenity trees have different tax liabilities. Sole operators and companies are taxed differently.
Strengths and weaknesses
The Classic European/German system of Plenterwald has the philosophy of leaving the best performing trees until last. This could mean that some oaks would grow for hundreds of years before harvest, but ultimately deliver the highest value and fastest increments to stand volumes. Less scrupulous foresters remove the best performing trees (hi-grade) and leave the rubbish for future generations. This practise rapidly degrades the genetic potential as the poorer trees are left to breed when the higher quality trees are cut.
- the balance of a mixed species stand to be altered mid rotation to meet shifting markets
- some very long individual tree rotations to maximise value
- a more balanced forest microclimate that might improve the quality of an emerging crop
- better outcomes for water, soil and ecology
- better outcomes for recreation and amenity
- an uneven height canopy that is said to reduce pressure harmonics and reduces the risk of wind-throw
- profitable management of small scale blocks with dedicated and specialised labour input i.e. farm forestry.
- there is a limited availability of improved genetics of alternative species in NZ
- need for sophisticated knowledge to manage stand volumes according to species and age structure.
- need for care when thinning or harvesting to avoid damaging other crop trees
- coupe size may depend on shade tolerance of the species, and potential for weed infestation
- thinnings and low grade trees possibly not marketable except as firewood or round wood
- mature logs of minor species might be difficult to sell
- limited opportunities for economies of scale in harvesting and marketing
- higher risk of wind-throw or snow damage for tender advance regeneration understorey
- need for good road access and tracking to minimise extraction costs.
In New Zealand we have so much to choose from, but little experience to draw on (except for indigenous forests). But why follow the North American or European recipes when other species might provide a better return for NZ sites?
The key steps are:
- Firstly, decide whether to grow single age stands or mixed age and or mixed species stands.
- Start with pioneer species and plant tender, shade tolerant ones later if required.
- Match your timber species with climate, soils and exposure and mycorrhiza, remembering that eventually the forest will provide shelter for regenerating trees.
Cypresses, Douglas fir, redwoods and cryptomeria are moderately shade tolerant. Stands with these species can have high basal areas. There are probable markets for medium diameter thinnings of these species.
Acacia melanoxylon benefits from competition when young but must be opened up to wide spacing by 10-15 years or else it will lose volume in low value upper branches and growth will slow. Small diameter blackwood (and most small eucalypt) is full of tension and is difficult to saw into straight boards. Thinnings therefore have little value as sawlogs, but if durable species are grown, sawn or round wood may be in demand for vineyard posts. (e.g. some stringybark eucs).
As hardwoods generally need even growth and wide final spacings, consider an understorey of shade tolerant species as an advance regeneration succession crop. There is a lot of light under a eucalypt stand, especially when thinned correctly. Why not under-plant with a succession crop of native trees? Kauri, puriri and totara could do well and be drawn up in light wells. Obviously under-plantings need to be arranged with harvest of large piece size in mind, perhaps strip planted away from harvest lanes.
Hardwoods such as acacia, oaks, elms, ash, walnut and chestnut benefit from a sheltered environment, but would need to be well spaced by mid rotation. These species are suited to a park like environment, or under-grazed with selected livestock.
Poplars could be a very useful nurse crop and are well suited to pastoral systems.
Light-demanding species such as radiata, can still establish in light wells. The growth may not be as fast initially as open grown stock. In the experience of John Wardle, selection harvesting of pine ensures that most stems harvested are at premium quality and the mean annual increment for the whole stand is higher than a conventional stand. (A conventional stand means annual increment is very low when the stand is young. The slow growing understorey trees are like advanced regeneration in a shelter wood system.)
Some species require soil disturbance or “mineral soil” for self-regeneration. Soil disturbance is often a by-product of selective harvesting, but the species ecology needs to be understood for successful self-regeneration. The tradition in NZ is to replant with improved selections of target species.
Later articles will feature case studies from around NZ and perhaps elsewhere. I understand that John Wardle will shortly publish a book on his CCF experience with black beech and radiata pine. Ian Barton, Paul Millen and those managing native forest stands also practise CCF. Ian Barton through Tanes Teee Trust published a booklet on CCF in 2008.
Sunday, March 20, 2016
News that the forestry industry is likely to fall short of its aim to treble the value of wood exports by 2022, (as revealed on page 5 of the latest Logger magazine), may come as a shock to some, but the cards were always stacked against it.
And what makes this situation so much harder to swallow is that our very own government has been largely responsible for undermining the industry's growth efforts.
In spite of what various government ministers — and the PM himself—have espoused about the importance of forestry to this country since coming to power, they have actually been working against the interests of forestry when you analyse their actions.
Our government has encouraged the wholesale chainsawing of the best forestry assets in the central North Island and made it much more difficult, if not impossible, for future investors to secure sufficient wood to supply processing plants of significant scale. Don't believe me? Look at Landcorp, a government-owned business that is right at the forefront of converting forests to farms, despite facing millions of dollars in losses on its dairy operations.
Dairying is currently a cot-case and could remain so for many years to come. But this government is so in love with dairy cows it cannot see that.
Ministers have gone even further to help farmers, at the expense of forestry, by shielding them from the ETS and then deliberately driving down the value of the carbon credits it gave to forest owners. Such policies have boosted the price of farmland and made it too expensive for anyone in their right minds to think about planting new forests.
And the argument that allowing market forces to determine where farms and forests go is the best approach, is a joke, because the government has tweaked the policy levers to make sure it isn't a level playing field.
Consequently, market forces are distorted and forestry cannot win in the face of such overwhelmingly favourable treatment of farming. Why treat forestry different? Maybe it's a perception forests are all overseas-owned, which is not true - New Zealanders own more plantation forests than foreigners.
The government tell us it is working hard to boost the use of wood and attract new investment into our industry. How naïve. Sure, it is trying to encourage foreign investors to build new high-tech mills in the central North Island to turn the wave of exported logs into value-added products. But there's no guarantee they'll get the supplies they want at prices they can afford. Government policies and actions have seen to that.
It only serves to demonstrate this government has no understanding of how forestry works.
Forestry is unique. It works in 25-plus year cycles and cannot be treated like any other agrarian business. It requires policies and actions that reflect its uniqueness. It requires strategies devised for the long term, not the next election. What we are seeing now is the result of shonky thinking and actions at the national level.
Take forestry seriously, treat it right and it will achieve great export returns. Better than dairy, in fact.
Who is going to make that happen?
New Zealand Logger www.nzlogger.co.nz
Disclaimer: Personal views expressed in this blog are those of the writers and do not necessarily represent those of the NZ Farm Forestry Association.