Productivity and cost of cut-to-length and whole-tree harvesting in a mixed-conifer stand

Forest Products Journal

Volumn 57, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 59-69

  Adebayo, Adebola B ^a,d   Han, Han Sup ^b,d   Johnson, Leonard ^c,d  

^a WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b HUMBOLDT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO   (United States)

^d FOREST PRODUCTS SOCIETY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HARVESTING PRODUCTIVITY; MIXED CONIFER STAND; TREE HARVESTING;

COSTS; FORESTRY; PRODUCTIVITY;

HARVESTING;

HARVESTING; PRODUCTIVITY; SOFTWOODS; TREES;

CONIFEROPHYTA;

EID: 34547426405     PISSN: 00157473     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Andersson, B. 1994. Cut-to-length and tree-length harvesting systems in central Alberta: A comparison. Tech. Rept. No. TR-108. FERIC. Saint-Jean, Pointe-Claire, QC, Canada. 32 pp.
2. Bettinger, P. and L.D. Kellogg. 1993. Residual stand damage from cut-to-length thinning in second-growth timber in the Cascade Range of western Oregon. Forest Prod. J. 43(12):59-64.
3. Brinker, R.W., J. Kinard, B. Rummer, and B. Lanford. 2002. Machine rates for selected forest harvesting machines. Circular 296. Alabama Agri. Experimental Sta., Auburn, Alabama. 12 pp.
4. David, P., S. Raffaele, and R.H. Hartsough, 2005. Operational extractions of cut-to-length harvesting of poplar in a mixed wood stand. Inter. J. of Forest Eng. 6(1): 39-49.
5. Efthymiou, P.N. 2001. Efficiency problems in harvesting small-dimensioned wood. Presented at the joint FAO/ECE/ ILO Committee on Forest Tech. Workshop on New Trends in Wood Harvesting with Cable systems for Sustainable Forest Management in Mountains, Ossiach, Australia. 7 pp.
6. Egan, A.F. 1999. Residual stand damage after shovel logging and conventional ground skidding in an Appalachian hard-wood stand. Forest Prod. J. 49(6):88-92.
7. Favreau, F.E. 1997. A comparison of fiber loss during full-tree and cut-to-length harvesting. Tech. Rept., No TR-118 FERIC. Saint-Jean, Pointe-Claire, QC, Canada. 11 pp.
8. Gregg, W. 2002. Wood density information. MS Excel spreadsheet, USDA Forest Serv., Grangeville, Idaho.
9. Gingras, J.F. 1994. A comparison of fulltree versus cut-to-length systems in the Manitoba model forest. SR-92. Forest Eng. Inst. of Canada, Pointe-Claire, Quebec, Canada. 16 pp.
10. Han, H.-S., H.W. Lee, and L.R. Johnson. 2004. Economic feasibility of an integrated harvesting system for small-diameter trees in southwest Idaho. Forest Prod. J. 54(2):21-27.
11. Hartsough, B.R., E.S. Drews, J.F. McNeel, T.A. Durston, and B.J. Stokes. 1997. Comparison of mechanized systems for thinning ponderosa pine and mixed conifer stands. For. Prod. J. 47(12):59-68.
12. Ian, P.C., W.D. Greene, and G.E. Murphy. 2004. Value recovery with harvesters in southeastern U.S. pine stands. Forest Prod. J. 54(12):8084.
13. Kellogg, L.D. and B. Spong. 2004. Production and costs of cut-to-length thinning: Experience from the Willamette young stand project. Forest Res. Lab., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, Oregon. 23 pp.
14. Kellogg, L., P. Bettinger, S. Robe, and A. Steffert. 1992. Mechanized harvesting: A compendium of research. Forest Res. Lab., Oregon Sate Univ., Corvallis, Oregon. 401 pp.
15. Kozak, A. and R. Kozak. 2003. Does cross validation provide additional information in the evaluation of regression models? Can. J. Forest Res. 33(6):976-987.
16. Lanford, B.L. and B.J. Stokes. 1996. Comparison of two thinning systems, Part 2: Productivity and costs. Forest Prod. J. 46(12):47-53.
17. LeDoux, C.B. and N.K. Huyler. 2001. Comparison of two cut-to-length harvesting systems operating in eastern hardwoods. Inter. J. of Forest Eng. 12(1):53-59.
18. Meek, P. and J.A. Plamondon. 1996. Effectiveness of cut-to-length harvesting at protecting advance regeneration. FERIC, Pointe Claire. Tech. Rept. TN-242. 12 pp.
19. Miyata, E.S. 1980. Determining fixed and variable costs of logging equipment. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rept. NC-55.16 pp.
20. Murphy, G., D. Lane, and P. Cossens. 1996. Progress report on the development of an integrated value management system. In: Planning and implementing forest operations to achieve sustainable forest. CR. Blinn and M.A. Thompson, eds.USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rept. NC-186.282 pp.
21. Plamondon, F.E. and G.E. Page. 1997. A comparison of the lumber yield from cut-to-length and full-tree harvesting systems. TN-257. Forest Eng. Inst. of Canada, Pointe-Claire, Quebec, Canada. 8 pp.
22. Ponsse. 2005. The cut-to-length harvesting system, www.ponsse.com/ english/group/CTL/index.php. Accessed November 27, 2005,
23. SAS Institute. 1999. The SAS system for windows, Release 8.02. SAS Inst. Cary, North Carolina.
24. Spelter, H. 2002. Conversion of board foot scaled logs to cubic meters in Washington State. 1970-1998. Gen. Tech. Rept. FPL-GTR-131. USDA, Forest Products Lab., Madison, Wisconsin. 6 pp.
25. Twaddle, A.A. and C.J. Goulding. 1989. Improving profitability by optimizing log-making. New Zealand J. of Forestry. 34(1):17-23.
26. Wagner, F.G., CE. Fiedler, and CE. Keegan. 2000. Processing values of small-diameter sawtimber at conventional stud sawmills and modern high-speed, small-log in the western United States-A comparison. Western J. of Applied Forestry 15(4):208-212.
27. Yaoxiang, L., J. Wang, G. Miller, and J. McNeel. 2006. Production economics of harvesting small-diameter hardwood stands in central Appalachia. Forest Prod. J. 56(3):81-86.