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
Howard Moore'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
Shem Kerr's blog
Wink Sutton's Blog
Thursday, May 25, 2017
Interpol has estimated that the annual global cost of corruption in the forestry sector is of the order of US$29 billion. This supply of wood has had the effect of suppressing global timber prices by seven to 16 per cent. ‘Bribery is reported as the most common form of corruption in the forestry sector. Other forms of corruption, in order from most to least common after bribery, are the following – fraud, abuse of office, extortion, cronyism and nepotism.’
This corruption has consequences far beyond stealing revenue that should have gone to governments or private forest owners. Most concerning is that it reduces the financial return to legitimate forest owners. As a result, there will be less money available for forest management.
Because, over a rotation, forestry labour expenditure accounts for the bulk of forest management costs, I used to consider forestry as being a labour intensive industry. However, a Canadian forest economist challenged this reasoning. Although forest management costs are generally labour-related, there is very often no financial return until the forest is finally harvested and the wood is sold. Forestry should therefore be treated as a capital-intensive industry. Forestry is probably the most capital intensive of all the world’s major industries.
Providing that the logged forest is not converted to another land use such as palm oil plantations, all indigenous forests eventually regenerate. However, intensive forest management can hasten when the forest can be harvested again.
Compared with plantations of fast growing introduced tree species, such as radiata or some species of eucalypt, managed indigenous forests are generally slower growing and therefore require longer rotations. A managed indigenous forest is generally more capital intensive than plantations. Unless there is money available for intensive forest management there will be little or no management. A minimally managed or an unmanaged indigenous forest requires longer rotations with lower harvest volumes and lower financial returns.
The consequence of forest corruption is not just that there will be less money for future forest management but that there will be less future income as well as lower volumes of wood available for harvest. If, because of current corruption future wood harvests are to be reduced, is not forest corruption in effect stealing from future generations?
No posts yet
Sunday, May 21, 2017
At a couple of recent conferences we have had speakers urging higher stocking rates to increase total recoverable volume and returns from plantations. A recent paper by John Moore & other Scion researchers suggests an optimum stocking rate, using best genetics, of around 600 sph.
However I think this “recipe” is rather simplistic. First note that as the author state this is suggested for unpruned, “structural” regimes where volume, straightness and branch size/habit are the key determinants.
For pruned regimes diameter is also important. At this year’s conference harvesting day, Peter Martin from Waverley Sawmills emphasised this, showing some planks through several pruned logs. What he is after is a wide sheath of clearwood, but he also pointed out that small diameter, pruned logs have a much higher proportion of low value defect core than larger diameter logs with similar sized defect cores. Consider two 6.1 metre logs, one with an sed of 35 cm. and an average diameter of 40 cm., the other 45 cm. sed and an average diameter of 50 cm. If both logs have defect cores of 20 cm. the smaller log is 25% defect core while the larger log is 16% defect core. With 25 cm. defect cores the figures are 39% and 25%. Add in the losses to outside slabwood and sawdust plus extra handling costs with small logs and you can see why he wants large diameter pruned logs - he has less of this expensive waste wood. This translates into lower stocking rates for the plantations. Note though that while Waverley can handle logs up to 120 cm. in diameter, many other sawmills are limited to 90 and even 85 cm..
So there are advantages for structural regimes in having high stocking rates for maximum volume and for pruned regimes in having lower stocking rates and larger diameter trees. What seems to be missing from the debate is recognising the versatility of radiata pine. If we could get high productivity from lower stocked stands without excessively large branches we could get the best of both worlds. And perhaps we can.
In the 1980s, in response to Rogernomics, I started production thinning my teenage pine plantations to generate an early cash trickle. At the time FRI/Forest Research was advocating 200 sph for pruned regimes, but I carried on and thinned down to 100 – 150 sph.
In 1992 Forest Research installed a series of permanent sample plots (PSPs) to measure performance at these “very low” stocking rates. The results were interesting. Eight PSPs were measured for between 3 and 8 years (2 to 7 increments). Stocking rates ranged from 90 to 133 sph. on sand dunes and flats that had rather modest site indices between 22.8 and 29.4. This was before the introduction of the P300 productivity index. The average
annual volume increment, the amount of wood added each year on these plots, was a very respectable 25 cubic metres per hectare with a range of 16 to 30. And this was with paleolithic 1963 to 1970 genetics.
This increment is exactly the average measured by John Moore et al. for post 1975 sites measured round the country 15 years later at higher to much higher stocking rates. Certainly they measured some sites with annual increments up to 40, and one near Hawera at 60 m3/ha./year, possibly some top land that had escaped from dairying.
There were some other pluses for these stands of mine. The early confinement meant good branch control on second and third logs while continued good diameter increments through their 20s meant these trees had a higher proportion of the stiffer, denser, adult wood compared to the lower density, unstable, juvenile wood contained in the first 10 to 12 to 15 growth rings. (Note we are not talking pruning defect cores here, juvenile wood is an undesirable but inevitable feature of radiata pine’s early, annual growth rings.) The downside was that recovered volumes at harvest were a modest 350 – 500 m3/ha. Since they were still adding plenty of valuable wood I should perhaps have left them longer than the 28 to 31 years they had.
So what do I see as the lessons here?:
- Radiata pine is a versatile species that responds very well to thinning, with remaining trees picking up much of the growth lost by removing some, perhaps many, of the original trees. Wink Sutton says his early silvicultural trials demonstrated that this endearing feature of radiata pine was not shared by most other forestry species, though I would claim that the cypresses also respond well.
- The timing of the thinning is important. Thin too early and the trees will branch heavily, downgrading the second and third logs; thin too late and there will be insufficient green crown to maintain productivity and the trees don’t seem to grow new crown as vigorously. I have found thinning in the teens, 13/14 to 20, perhaps early 20s, has worked well.
- Production thinning is not an option on many sites and is not a big cash generator. However it comes early and certainly pays all my establishment and silvicultural costs, with quite a bit left over in years like this.
- I would add the comment that you shouldn’t look for recipes for silviculture; rather you should understand the principles and trade-offs and manage your trees in a manner appropriate for your situation.
Disclaimer: Personal views expressed in this blog are those of the writers and do not necessarily represent those of the NZ Farm Forestry Association.