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
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.
Saturday, December 20, 2014
Eucalyptus sphaerocarpa is a class 1 durable eucalypt species that I introduced into New Zealand in the mid-1990's. I was looking for a highly durable species from the monocalyptus group of eucalypts, which have shown to have good levels of resistence to insects in New Zealand.
E. sphaerocarpa is a large tree from the Blackdown tablelands in Southern Queensland and grows at about 1000 m altitude. It's called Blackdown stringybark, although actually an ash eucalypt rather than a true stringybark. The timber is highly prized in this area. Mike Wilcox, renowned botanist and eucalypt enthusiast, saw the species in its native habitat and described them to me as "huge magnificent trees, a sight to behold".
So why do I like it so much? It is disease and pest resistent, grows extremely straight and has a very high content of durable heartwood. What more could I ask for... the "silver bullet" from over 20 years of durable eucalypt species trialwork.
Is there a market for ground durable untreated posts and poles in New Zealand?
Is it viable to be production thinning 10 year old trees for naturally durable posts, then growing the remaining trees to 25 years for a high quality class 1 durable hardwood decking product that will last 40+ years in service?
Can we grow durable eucalypts with just standard practice lift pruning and thinning... without any form pruning?
I beleive yes to all questions above. However, we need the right species. In my view the only species that might fit the bill are E. cladocalyx and E. sphaerocarpa. Sugar gum (E. cladocalyx) is a woodland species and has a very open crown. Great for dryland climates where we wouldn't expect much in terms of sawlog volume per hectare. Species with good crown density like E. microcorys (tallowwood) and E. sphaerocarpa can be held at a high final crop stocking and still produce good diameters, thus a high volume per hectare at harvest. Siting tallowwood isn't so easy... wonderful class 1 durable timber but the species has an unstable crown that smashes in high winds, and the species is very frost tender.
What about siting E. sphaerocarpa? My trees were planted on a windy ridgetop in Northland, on low fertility clay soil. They have thrived. Not sure about frost hardiness but I'm working on it and have planted trees in a range of localities throughout New Zealand. The expectation is for medium frost hardiness. Anybody interested in planting this species should get in touch with the NZFFA Eucalyptus Action Group, we are looking for volunteer sites and growers willing to trial durable stringybark eucalypts.
E. sphaerocarpa plantation in Northland. Pruned stand showing excellent form. These trees have not been thinned and were planted at a low stocking. There was no form pruning.
Cross section at 4m from a tree that blew down in a storm at age 10. Five years on the ground and the sapwood has rotted away. Note the high heartwood content. I'd be interested in measuring the density of this "young" material, it certainly feels very heavy.
16 year old tree, 45cm DBHOB, looking promising for seed collection...
At 20m this tree is forming a crown. It is pruned to 15m
Comparison between 10 year old E. sphaerocarpa (in front) and 10 year old E. muelleriana (behind), both blew over in a storm 5 years ago. E. muelleriana (yellow stringybark) grows a bit faster but is not as durable and has a bit more sapwood. Both are monocalypts and put on early heart. E. muelleriana has timber similar to E. pilularis (blackbutt), pale yellow/brown whereas E. sphaerocarpa has brown timber.
For comparison, here is 10 year old E. bosistoana (coast grey box). This is a class 1 durable species and being in the symphyomyrtus group it puts on heartwood slowly. I don't beleive there is any heartwood to speak of and if there is any it certainly isn't clearly defined. This species also has poor stem form, suffers multiple leaders and is not at the top of my list.
Here is wood from 10 year old E. quadrangulata (white-topped box), another durable symphyomyrtus species. The base of the tree was cut and appeared to have some heartwood. This was placed on the ground outdoors to test durability. The wood was perishable to the core, with no "real" heartwood present at this age. Although very fast growing, trees suffer from insect damage and multiple leaders.
Disclaimer: Personal views expressed in this blog are those of the writers and do not necessarily represent those of the NZ Farm Forestry Association.