Economic analysis on log damage during logging operation in Caspian Forests

Abstract

Waste wood was studied in an economic enterprise by logging, function, tree species and log size in four Caspian hardwood sites. Damaged logs were recorded with additional information obtained for the location, dimensions and type of damage. The data were analyzed statistically to determine significant differences of damage during logging process. The results indicated that animal harvesting systems cause more volume (40.5% of log volume) and value loss (89.5 $·m⁻³) to logs than mechanized harvesting systems (13.9% and 6.0 $·m⁻³), also bucking resulted in significantly more volume (9.9% of log volume) and value loss (5.5 $·m⁻³) when compared to skidding (0.2% of log volume and 0.2 $·m⁻³), decking (0.4% of log volume and 0.2 $·m⁻³) and loading (0.2% of log’s volume and 0.3 $·m⁻³) operations. Study showed that the processes of skidding, decking and loading of logs have very little impact on damage levels. Volume and value losses of damaged logs are not sensitive to tree species and log size. The information from the field study is important in creating new guidelines or training to help minimize hardwood log damage during the timber harvesting process.

Keywords

log damage / forest operations / Caspian hardwood forests

References

[1] Boston K, Dysart G. A comparison of felling techniques in stump height and log damage with economic interpretations. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 2000, 15(2): 59-61.

[2] Carpenter RD, Sonderman DL, Rast ED, Jones MJ. Defects in hardwood timber. Agricultural Handbook. USDA Forest Service. 1989, Delaware: Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, 88.

[3] Craig R. Raw material quality control. Quality control in lumber manufacturing. 1982, San Francisco: Miller Freeman Publication, 60.

[4] Emanuel D, Rhodes C. Bulletin of hardwood market statistics: 1989–2000. Research Note NE-375. 2002, Princeton, WV: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, 22.

[5] Faust TD, Greene WD. Effects of felling head type on tensile strength of southern pine dimension lumber. Forest Products Journal, 1989, 39: 82-84.

[6] Greene WD, McNeel JF. Potential costs of shear damage in a southern pine chip-n-saw mill. Forest Products Journal, 1989, 39: 12-18.

[7] Hall R, Han HS. Improvement in value recovery through low stump heights: mechanized versus manual felling. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 2006, 21(1): 33-38.

[8] Han HS, Renzie C. Effect of ground slope, stump diameter, and species on stump height for feller-buncher and chain saw felling. International Journal of Forest Engineering, 2005, 16(2): 81-88.

[9] Hanks LF, Gammon GL, Brisbin RL, Rast ED. Hardwood log grades and lumber grade yields for factory lumber logs. Research Paper NE-468. 1980, Broomall, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, 31.

[10] McNeel JF, Copithorne R. Yarding systems and their effect on log quality and recovery levels in coastal timber of British Columbia. Proceedings of Forest Products Society. Portland, OR, 1996

[11] McMorland B, Guimier DY. Analysis of felling butt-damage in Interior British Columbia. FERIC Technical Note TN-76. 1984, Quebec, Canada: Pointe Claire, 25.

[12] Pickens JB, Lee A, Lyon GW. Optimal bucking of Northern hardwoods. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 1992, 9(4): 149-152.

[13] Sessions J. Making better tree-bucking decisions in the woods. Journal of Forestry, 1988, 86(10): 43-45.

[14] Unver S, Acar HH. A damage prediction model for quantity loss of skidded Spruce logs during ground base skidding in north eastern Turkey. Croatian Journal of Forest Engineering, 2009, 30(1): 59-65.

[15] Wang J, Ledox CB, Vanderberg M. Log damage and value loss associated with two ground-based harvesting systems in central Appalachia. International Journal of Forest Engineering, 2004, 15(1): 61-69.

[16] Williston E. Opportunity areas and leverage points. Proceedings of the electronics workshop. 1979, Portland, Oregon: Sawmill and plywood clinic, 4.

[17] Zavala DZ. The effect of log length and lumber thickness over-allowance on lumber recovery. Forest Products Journal, 1995, 45(2): 41-45.