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
Monday, February 27, 2017
Particularly since the conversion or trashing of second or third rotation radiata stands to make room for dairy farming, we no longer hear claims along the lines that stands of radiata deplete the soil and therefore limit the future growth of the site. Such a claim was challenged by Alfred Hyde Cockayne, son of the better known Leonard Cockayne, over 100 years ago. In an article ‘Pinus radiata – effect on soil fertility’ published in the 1914 New Zealand Journal of Agriculture Cockayne concludes that ‘....it is evident that the growing of Pinus radiata, instead of weakening the soil fertility has a very opposite effect.’
Even fast-growing radiata takes very little from the soil. Over a rotation, radiata takes similar amounts of chemicals from the soil as many agricultural crops, such as grains and potatoes but not pasture, take in just one year.
Some tree species, notably black walnut Juglans nigra and possibly our own kauri, release through their roots and falling leaves an allelochemical which inhibits the growth of competing vegetation. It is a biological phenomenon called allelopathy. There appears to be no record of pines using allelopathy.
On some New Zealand sites we are into our fourth or fifth rotation of radiata pine. On almost all sites there have been no reports of site decline. In Chile they have also replanted radiata at least four times on the same site and have reported an increasing growth. An increasing growth rate is very difficult to quantify as all growth influences must remain the same, especially tree genetics, silviculture, climate and competing vegetation. In the past, 30 to 40 years ago, local Chilean farmers were known to plant clear felled sites with wheat crops before the radiata replanting. The farmers knew that these sites were very productive. Stumps of the harvested mature trees were not a problem as the grain was harvested with hand tools rather than heavy machinery.
Extensive global reviews, especially those of Julian Evans, have failed to find unexplained examples of soil nutrient depletions in subsequent rotations of plantations. Where there have been reports of site decline the soil was very infertile to start with or continual leaf or needle litter removal has been the cause.
For a more complete review of plantations and the soil deterioration question see chapter six of Piers Maclaren’s excellent 1996 publication Environmental Effects of Planted Forests in New Zealand - FRI Bulletin No 198.
That growing forests, including plantations of pines or other non-indigenous tree species, do not deteriorate the soil is not surprising. Forests have dominated the surface of the earth for at least several hundred million years. How often do we hear the claim that if a site has been exhausted by agricultural cropping let the site convert back to forest or be planted?
No posts yet
Friday, December 16, 2016
Should the NZ Farm Forestry Association (NZFFA) merge with the NZ Forest Owners Association (NZFOA) to possibly form the NZ Forest Growers Association? This was the main item on the agenda of the FFA Council meeting held in Wellington recently (Nov 9). The Council is made up of single representatives (Councillors) from every FFA branch and Action Group, and offers the opportunity for members to guide the National Executive in its decision-making. There were 28 Councillors present at the Wellington meeting.
Needless to say, we had some vigorous discussion on this important topic. It has mainly been brought about by the Forest Growers Levy, which has created a large fund for deployment by the forest ‘industry’. A work programme is proposed by a range of levy committees, each addressing a different aspect of forestry (biosecurity, health and safety, fire, transport etc). This programme goes via a ‘servicing’ Secretariat for final approval by the Levy Trust Board. The levy has been in place for 3 years, and has resulted in the Trust being in a robust financial position, with a work programme which continues to grow. The small grower (FFA) is well represented on the Trust and its underlying committees, but Secretariat control largely rests with the FOA.
The main case for a merger between FFA and FOA is one of operational efficiency. At the moment, the levy governance structure involves both bodies in many levels of administration and reporting – which leads to additional costs. The point was also made at the meeting that the Government would be happier liaising with one forestry body – not two.
Even though outsiders might see the FFA as being ‘small fry’ in the forest industry compared to the corporate FOA ‘big boys’, the Levy has greatly increased the FFA’s importance. This is because we represent 12-14,000 small forest growers (SFGs) who own an increasingly large percentage of the mature national forest estate. Even though very few SFGs are FFA members, they pay a levy on all harvested trees, and therefore must have a say in Levy Trust decision-making. The FFA is required to represent these SFGs, thus forming a powerful lobby group. Hence, the interest of the forest owners (FOA) in formalising a closer relationship with the FFA.
Councillors at the Wellington FFA meeting were presented with a ‘position’ paper on a merger and the possible formation of a single Forest Growers Association. As can be imagined, the main fear of those present was that a merger might end up as a ‘sub-merger’ of the FFA, and that we would lose our unique character and identity. The need to safeguard against such a loss was underlined by a reported comment from a key FOA member who attended our last FFA conference in Hokitika. He particularly noted and admired the high level of ‘passion and enthusiasm’ that was so obvious at that event. We take such passion as the ‘norm’, but I (Ed) can assure you that it is not nearly so evident at comparable ‘industry’ gatherings.
The Wellington meeting concluded that it was currently a little premature to make decisions for or against a merger. We felt that first of all there is a need to evolve the Governance structure of the Levy administration, particularly relative to the representation of the FFA at certain levels. To this end, the following motion was approved ‘That the FFA Council recommends that the FFA Executive work with the FOA to improve the structure, governance and equity of Levy administration’. (Bolding by me)
Another important issue addressed at the meeting was the vastly increased administration workload faced by our national Executive – much of it directly related to new responsibilities brought about by the Levy. As nearly all of us are volunteers, the Association just does not have the resources of time and skills to meet these commitments effectively. Amongst the suggestions made for addressing this problem, was the obvious one of proper payment for the services required (maybe via outside consultants). But we just do not have the budget for that, so at this point in time there is no simple solution.
The farm forestry movement has been in existence for 60 years, and there is evidence out there that it is on the decline. Membership is falling, many branches struggle to keep going, and the national Executive is overcommitted. However, the Levy has definitely given the FFA greater power and impetus, together with new opportunities which we must try to embrace. This was endorsed by the Wellington Council meeting, at which the Branches were well represented. But a core question still remains – how do we, at both the Executive and the branch level, rise to meet these new challenges?
Disclaimer: Personal views expressed in this blog are those of the writers and do not necessarily represent those of the NZ Farm Forestry Association.