Abstract
Small forest landowners and loggers require information on the cost and productivity of available timber harvesting systems in order to make the best equipment allocation decisions, especially when the current generation of highly productive, capital-intensive harvesting machinery is well suited for clearcutting in large stands. Conversely, small-scale equipment is becoming more readily available that can help minimize the capital and operating costs associated with partial cuts and intermediate stand treatments or when operating in small-scale forests. The present study evaluated the productivity and yardings costs of four different yarding systems for old machines—a farm tractor, bulldozer, cable-skidder and forwarder—working in a group selection harvest of a mixed hardwood stand in the state of Maine, USA. A sensitivity analysis using the break-even technique and considering the same harvesting productivity and machines brands and models was used in this study to assess study differences between yarding machines costs in two different scenarios: old and new machines. Results indicate that the total machine and yarding costs for old machines were lower than for the new machines. For old machines, the yarding cost per unit delivered to the landing was lowest for the forwarder method ($2.34/m3) and highest for the cable-skidder method ($4.46/m3). In the case of new machines, the yarding cost per unit was lowest for the forwarder method ($3.95/m3) and highest for the cable-skidder method ($9.46/m3). The older machines might be a better option than new machines, particularly for small landowners who need to harvest small areas with low levels of harvesting.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brinker R, Kinard J, Rummer B, Lanford B (2002) Machine rates for selected harvesting machines. Circular 296. Alabama Agricultural Experimental. Station, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama
Egan A, Baumgras JE (2003) Ground skidding and harvested stand attributes in Appalachian hardwood stands in West Virginia. For Prod J 53(9):59–63
FAO (1992) Cost control in forest harvesting and road construction. FAO and Agriculture organization of the United Nations, Rome
Gholami MJ, Majnounian B (2008) Productivity and cost of wheeled skidder in Hyrcanian forest. Int J Nat Eng Sci 2(3):99–103
Hanzelka NC, Bolding MC, Sullivan J, Berrett SM (2016) Productivity and costs of utilizing small-diameter stems in a biomass-only harvest. Int J For Eng 27(1):43–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/14942119.2015.1135615
Hassler CC, Grushecky ST, LeDoux CB (2000) The effects of group selection harvest size on logging productivity. N J Appl For 17(2):51–56
Hiesl P, Benjamin J (2012) Cycle time analysis of harvesting equipment from an early commercial thinning in Maine. In: 35th council on forest engineering annual meeting, pp 1–14
Huyler NK, LeDoux CB (1991) A comparison of small tractors for thinning central hardwoods. In: McCormickm Larry H, Gottschalk KW (eds) Proceedings, 8th central hardwood forest conference, 1991 March 4–6, University Park, PA. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-148. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, pp 92–104
International Labour Office (1992) Introduction to work study. Geneva
Kaakkurivaara N, Stampfer K (2017) Assessment for improvement: harvesting operations in small-scale forest on Thai steep terrain. Small Scale For 17:259–276
Kellog LD, Bettinger P (1994) Thinning productivity and cost for a mechanized cut-to-length system in the Northwest Pacific Coast Region of the USA. J For Eng 5(2):43–53
Klunder RA, Lortz D, McCoy W, Stokes B, Klepac J (1997) Productivity of rubber-tired skidders in Southern pine forests. For Prod J 47(11/12):53–58
Laitila J (2008) Harvesting technology and the cost of fuel chips from early thinnings. Silva Fennica 42(2):267–283
LeDoux CB, Huyler NK (1992) Cycle-time equations for five small tractors operating in low-volume small-diameter hardwood stand. Northeastern Forest Experimental Station Research Paper NE-664
LeDoux CB, Huyler NK (2000) Cost comparisons for three harvesting systems operating in Northern hardwood stands. Northeastern Forest Experimental Station Research Paper NE-715
Melemez K, Tunay M, Emir T (2013) A comparison of productivity in five small-scale harvesting systems. Small Scale For 13(1):35–45
Miyata ES (1980) Determining fixed and operating costs of logging equipment. General Technical Report NC-55.USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experimental Station, St. Paul, Minnesota
Miyata ES, Steinhilb HM (1981) Logging system cost analysis. Research Paper NC 208. USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experimental Station, St. Paul, Minnesota
Niebel B (1993) Motion and Time Studies, 9th edn. R.D. Irwin Inc, Homewood
Ozturk T (2010) Productivity of MB Trac 900 tractor at beech stands on mountainous areas in Blacksea region. Afr J Agric Res 5(1):28–33
Proto AR, Macri G, Visser R, Harrill H, Russo D, Zimbalatti G (2018) Factors affecting forwarder productivity. Eur J Forest Res 137:143–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-017-1088-6
Reza M, Naghdi R, Ghajar I, Nikooy M (2012) Time prediction models and cost evaluation of cut-to-length (CTL) harvesting method in a mountainous forest. Small Scale For 12:181–192
Saltelli A, Chan K, Scott M (eds) (2000) Sensitivity analysis. Wiley series in probability and statistics. Wiley, New York
Sarles RL, Luppod WG (1986) Technoeconomics analysis of conventional logging systems operating from stump and landings. USDA Forest Service Northeastern Forest Experimental Station. Research Paper NE-577
Shaffer RM, Brummel KR, Reisinger TW, Bryce B (1993) Impact of group selection silviculture on timber harvesting productivity and cost in Appalachian hardwood timber stands. N J Appl For 10(4):170–174
Soman H (2019) Productivity, costs, and best management practices for major timber harvesting frameworks in maine. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 2960. https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/etd/2960
Spinelli R, Magagnotti N (2012) Wood extraction with farm tractor and sulky: estimating productivity, cost and energy comsumption. Small Scale For 11:73–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-011-9169-8
Tufts RA, Brinker RW (1993) Valmet’s woodstar series harvesting system: a case study. South J Appl For 17(22):69–74
Turner TL, Huyler NK, Bousquet DW (1988) Farm tractor skidding cost in relation to profitability of a fuelwood harvesting system. N J Appl For 5:207–210
Wang J, Long C, McNeel J, Baumgras J (2004) Productivity and cost of manual felling and cable skidding in Central Appalachian hardwood forests. For Prod J 54(12):45–51
Werblow DA, Cubbage FW (1996) Forest harvesting equipment ownership and operating costs in 1984. South J Appl For 10:10–15
Wiant HV, Patterson DW, Hassler CC, Wood GB, Rennie JC (1996) Comparison of formulas for estimating volumes of Butt Logs of appalachian hardwoods. N J Appl For 13(1):5–7
Wilhoit J, Rummer B (1999) Application of small-scale systems: evaluations of alternatives. ASAEKSAE-SCGR Annual International Meeting. Toronto, Ontario Canada. July 18–21
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bustos-Letelier, O., Mena, C., Bussenius, W. et al. The Influence of Old and New Machines on Productivity and Costs of Four Yarding Methods in Small-Scale Forestry in a Maine Forest. Small-scale Forestry 20, 97–117 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-020-09458-1
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-020-09458-1