Sabbatical Report

Loren Kellogg

Lematta Professor of Forest Engineering

Department of Forest Engineering, Resources and Management College of Forestry - Oregon State University

Sabbatical Completed: July 2007 – July 2008

The CRC for Forestry Harvesting and Operations Research

Hobart, Tasmania and The University of Melbourne

Department of Forest and Ecosystem Science Creswick, Victoria

Australia

Contents

Topics Page 1. Sabbatical Purpose and Description…………………………………………. 1 2. Summary of Sabbatical Accomplishments and Benefits……………….......... 2 3. Overview of Forest Harvesting R & D in Australia, Workforce Training and Forestry Education at The University of Melbourne………………………………….. 5 4. Description of Sabbatical Accomplishments and Benefits…………………... 8 5 Additional Detailed Reports and Presentations (#1) Australia CRC for Forest Harvesting and Operations Research – What is it Out to Achieve; ……………………………. 17 Paper published by Loren Kellogg at the Forest Industry Strategic Summit 2008, Rotorua, New Zealand

(#2) An Evaluation of Alternative Cut-To-Length Harvesting Technologies for Native Forest Thinning in Australia…………….. 32 Draft manuscript by Mauricio Acuna and Loren Kellogg submitted to the International Journal of Forest Engineering

(#3) Australia CRC for Forest Harvesting and Operations Research – What is it Out to Achieve; ……………………………. 67 PowerPoint presentation by Loren Kellogg at the Forest Industry Strategic Summit 2008, Rotorua, New Zealand

(#4) Harvesting R&D: How/Why Does it Work and

What are the Challenges? …….……………………………. 84 PowerPoint presentation by Loren Kellogg at the Forest Industry Strategic Summit 2008, Rotorua, New Zealand

Sabbatical Purpose and Description The purpose of my sabbatical (July 1, 2007 to July 1, 2008) was to conduct forest harvesting research and to travel in Australia to study plantation forest management and biomass utilization operations. The Australian host organizations for my sabbatical were The University of Melbourne, School of Forest & Ecosystem Science; and the Cooperative Research Center (CRC) for Forestry. Spending time with faculty and researchers in these organizations provided me with the opportunities to be involved with similar teaching and research that I lead in Oregon and to study other approaches to designing, funding and conducting forestry research. I spent the first 6 months working at the CRC Forestry main office located in Hobart, Tasmania, followed by 6 months working at The University of Melbourne, School of Forest and Ecosystem Science located at Creswick, Victoria. The School of Forest and Ecosystem Science (recently changed to the “Department” of Forest and Ecosystem Science) is organized within the Faculty of Land & Food Resources (recently changed to the School of Land and Environment) at The University of Melbourne. The forestry campus at Creswick, west of Melbourne and near the city of Ballarat, has hosted forest science education in Victoria for almost 100 years. The department has scientific collaboration with state and national research and land management agencies and international organizations. It is a partner in three Cooperative Research Centers (CRC). The current CRC for Forestry, established in 2005, is a national partnership between leading Australian forest research organizations, companies, government agencies and universities. Building upon the earlier work of two previous forestry CRCs – the CRC for Temperate Hardwood Forestry (1991-1997) and the CRC for Sustainable Production Forestry (1997-2005) – the current CRC for Forestry focuses on new technologies, innovation, value-adding, forest industry efficiency, landscape issues and community engagement. NOTE: See the paper in the “Additional Detailed Reports Section” for further information on CRC’s in Australia, and the CRC Forestry. The CRC for Forestry is organized into 4 research programs. Forest Harvesting and Operations (Program 3) is one of the new research areas with an aim to deliver options to industry for improving safety and efficiency in harvesting operations, transport and logistics. The program is supported by the forest industry, the Australian government, and universities for outcome oriented research, innovation and best practices. I have served as the Research Advisor for the CRC Forestry Program 3 since its inception in 2005. During my sabbatical, I worked closely with this program and helped move harvesting and operations research forward in Australia that included connections with Oregon, Oregon State University, and other international organizations.

1

Despite differing forest types, topography, species and silvicultural systems found in different regions of Australia, there are a number of common characteristics, and research & technology needs for harvesting processes in Australia with commonality to Oregon. My research and technology activities were spread within the following areas:

• Better use of analytical and quantitative tools to help harvesting managers and logging contractors optimize their operations and resources

• Better allocation of harvesting systems to forest types and operating conditions that is based on objective information relating cost effectiveness of alternative harvesting system with productivity variables

• Better utilization of automated data collection systems and technology that could improve the efficiency and accuracy of harvesting operational decision planning

• Better understanding of the economic costs and benefits with biomass utilization from logging waste and thinning for bio-based products and energy

• Better harvesting and silvicultural planning for alternative variable retention systems that account for harvesting costs & efficiencies, logging safety, and future operational activities as well as site specific silvicultural objectives

During my sabbatical, I identified and developed sustainable relationships that my colleagues and I at OSU can pursue with colleagues in Australia. To help facilitate this, I have an honorary appointment as a Principal Research Fellow within the Department of Forest and Ecosystem Science at The University of Melbourne. I will also continue serving as the Research Advisor for the CRC Forestry Program 3 Harvesting and Operations Research in Australia. In summary, I developed a strong foundation over the years prior to my sabbatical and during my sabbatical, including contacts with the forest industry, universities, and research organizations in Australia. This contributed to a productive and enjoyable sabbatical. The sabbatical experience benefited my professional development and OSU through new experiences with research and teaching activities, and through the study of forestry conditions in Australia that match my professional activities at OSU.

Summary of Sabbatical Accomplishments and Benefits In this section, I have described the positive impacts from the sabbatical on my work activities and leadership of programs at OSU; my professional forest engineering leadership roles in Oregon, the USA and internationally; and my personal development. The information summarized here follows from my reflection of how the specific projects and tasks that I accomplished during the year benefits Oregon, OSU, forest engineering, and me personally. The specific listing of work program areas during the sabbatical, and descriptions of specific accomplishments and benefits are presented in a separate section in this report (Description of Sabbatical Accomplishments and Benefits) that follows the section on Forest Harvesting R & D and Education in Australia. The overview information on Australia provides a good context for the more detailed description of sabbatical accomplishments and benefits that follow.

2

1. The sabbatical provided me with new knowledge, experience, cultural understanding, and other new perspectives that clearly run through all of the areas of my work and personal interests --- program leadership and management; education program planning; workforce training; teaching; research funding and support; project implementation and reporting; supervision and mentoring of students and staff; outreach needs assessments and developments; and collaboration at local, regional, national and international levels. Some examples follow: First, through working with the development of a new harvesting and operations research program (CRC Forestry, Program 3 – Harvesting and Operations) , I experienced and enhanced my level of appreciation of the importance in developing and communicating such things as vision and mission statements, strategic program plans, project objects, communications within and outside organizations, effectively using program advisory committees, program funding, different levels of collaboration, and outcome based program planning in research and education. Secondly, in helping to develop and implement a new stakeholder-oriented and practical harvesting and operations research program throughout Australia, I reinforced my prior research experiences and I gained a more comprehensive knowledge base on technologies and methodologies for conducting harvesting and operations research and technology transfer. Third, through my sabbatical teaching and research experiences, I learned more from other colleagues about the forest engineering topic area of forest transportation systems and planning. This new knowledge will specifically be applied in the forest harvesting courses that I teach at OSU. The perspectives that I have described here effectively ‘unfolded’ during my sabbatical year that started with a heavy focus on work activities in Australia; then provided me with broader international perspectives obtained during travels in South Korea, Japan and Canada; followed by continuing work activities with the CRC Forestry Program 3 and The University of Melbourne; and culminated with the invited opportunity to prepare and present a paper on the Australia CRC Forest Harvesting and Research Program, and my accumulated harvesting R& D experiences, at a Forestry Summit in Rotorua, New Zealand. My first sabbatical was in Rotorua, New Zealand twenty-one years ago --- during the early stages of my academic, research and industry career. 2. My sabbatical activities and contacts with people from different organizations around the world enhanced the visibility of Oregon, OSU, the College of Forestry and the Wes Lematta endowed Professorship that I hold. Throughout the year I gave numerous presentations to a wide range of audiences and I covered a wide range of topics. In most presentations, I included some component about Oregon forestry and OSU. I was especially pleased to honor the endowment and support that Wes Lematta provides to OSU and the College of Forestry. My presentations always

3

included being introduced as ‘The Wes Lematta Professor of Forest Engineering’ from Oregon State University. I also presented several seminars specifically on aerial lift operations including Wes’ background and development of the direct vision operating system that characterizes heavy lift aerial operations around the world. 3. My sabbatical activities helped to rebuild some of the much needed forest engineering expertise within Australia that includes links with OSU and other leading forest engineering organizations around the world. Three examples follow: A secondary goal of the CRC Forestry Program in Australia is to increase the capacity of researchers with industry experience to benefit society through sustainable research. This is especially needed in the forest engineering discipline. The main intent of the sabbatical work that I was engaged with others on was to ‘reinvigorate’ forest engineering research, education and workforce training programs that had largely been lost in Australia. When I began my sabbatical in Australia, the CRC Forestry Harvesting and Research (Program 3) had been struggling to get started for approximately two years, and there wasn’t a well designed and flowing research program in place. At the end of my sabbatical, the situation is completely different with a clearly visible research program and people working on numerous well-laid out projects. These positive changes are due to the hard-work of several individuals along with my work. Secondly, during my sabbatical, I facilitated forest engineering and operations collaboration with colleagues in Australia, OSU and other international programs. There are now stronger links with forest engineering expertise, research projects and information sharing between forest engineers in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, South America, South Korea, Japan, and Oregon. Discussions are now underway for starting several new Southern Hemisphere harvesting and operation programs including a Council on Forest Engineering (COFE) that would be linked to the Northern Hemisphere COFE. Third, with a changing education model at The University of Melbourne and a seriously shrinking loss of interest in forestry education in Australia, I helped this situation by leading the development and instruction of a new Masters of Forest Operations course. This course has future potential for connecting with the OSU e-campus Sustainable Natural Resources course on forest harvesting that I am developing and will teach in the fall 2008 term. 4. My sabbatical will, in one way or another, benefit other colleagues and students at OSU through connections that I have made with numerous people and organizations in Australia. I can serve as a resource to inform, connect and help with additional student and faculty exchanges, visits, sabbaticals, joint projects, conference participation, education and outreach programs, etc. I would use the words ‘sustainable’ (or long-lasting) to describe my past; current and future work in Australia. My initial contacts and work in Australia started over 20 years ago. These experiences were refreshed and updated through a strong foundation with the

4

CRC Forestry and The University of Melbourne that I started building several years prior to my sabbatical and continued during the sabbatical year. I anticipate making continual contributions to forestry and education programs in Australia with additional benefits to OSU and Oregon.

Overview of Forest Harvesting R & D in Australia, Workforce

Training, and Forestry Education at the University of Melbourne (NOTE: See The Additional Detailed Reports for further information)

Australia Forest Harvesting R & D Australia has 4 % of the world’s native forests and 2% of the world’s plantation forests in 2005. Australia has the fourth largest area of forest in conservation reserves following the USA, Brazil, and Venezuela. Australia’s forests are a total of 149 million hectares which is 19% of the total land area. Increasing the plantation timber resource is a key forest policy objective of the National Forest Policy Statement, Regional Forest Agreements and Plantations for Australia that is reflected in the 2020 Vision (Australia Government, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry). The target is to triple the area of commercial tree crops to 3 million hectares by 2020, using mainly private sector funding. Australia’s timber plantations now cover more than 1.9 million hectares (more than one million hectares of pines and other softwoods; 883,000 hectares of eucalyptus and other hardwoods). Private owners account for 92% of the plantation expansion in Australia. Investors who bought woodlots in managed schemes now own 33% of all Australia’s timber plantations. The forest and wood products industry is an important manufacturing sector in Australia that is characterized by the following statistics:

• $18 billion turnover in forest products industries per year (2005/06) • Direct employment of >83,000 workers • 1% forestry contribution to GDP • 27 million M3 harvested per year

o 66% harvested from plantations (pine 15 million M3; eucalyptus 2 million M3)

o < 1% harvested from native forests (10 million M3) • Total export of wood products (2004/05) of $2.09 billion • Major export commodities by value (2005/06) are wood chips ($839 million),

paper and paper products ($593 million), panel products ($151 million), and sawn timber ($118 million).

• Total wood product imports to Australia (2004/05) were $4.1 billion The Australian harvesting R&D has gone through dramatic changes over the last 50 years from a relatively strong and active program to one that ended temporarily with the

5

CSIRO Forestry in 2005. This historical downward trend in forest engineering research and academic capacity is similar in New Zealand and the USA. In 2005, the CRC Forestry Harvesting and Operations Program came to life. The Australian Cooperative Research Centers Program started in 1991 with the Commonwealth Government realizing that greater benefits from research could be captured including a stronger focus on key economic development areas, assuring that research results were delivered in a timely manner, and linking research with strategies for appropriate implementations of research results. CRCs involve a national partnership between leading research organizations, private industry, government agencies and universities. The Commonwealth Government generally provides cash support of approximately $1 for every $4 invested by industry, universities and research organizations. Each CRC is setup for a period of seven years. There are currently 64 CRCs in Australia. The CRC for Forestry was established as one of the first CRCs in 1991. The program is currently in the third round of funding. There are 29 partners operating in every state and territory in Australia. The head office is located in Hobart, Tasmania. The total budget per annum is approximately $13 million dollars with 45% cash contributions and 55% in-kind contributions. The current research conducted through the CRC for Forestry spans the whole value chain through the following four programs:

1. Managing and Monitoring for Growth and Health 2. High Value Wood Resources 3. Harvesting and Operations 4. Trees in the Landscape

For more information about the CRC for Forestry, see www.crcforestry.com.au The CRC Forestry Harvesting and Operations Research (Program 3) was established during the third round of CRC Forestry funding in 2005. A major challenge during the start-up years was the lack of forest harvesting and operations expertise within Australia and internationally to fill the research positions. Following a variety of interim arrangements, active recruitment strategies, and short-term research activities, Program 3 is now well underway with a full time Program Leader, two Research Fellows, two postgraduate students, plans in place for a third researcher, and scholarship funding for additional postgraduate students. Program 3 has an industry, government, and university linkage with 19 partners. The total budget per annum is approximately $1 million with 78% cash contributions and 22% in-kind support. The mission of CRC Forestry Program 3 is to develop new and innovative knowledge, work methods, technology and tools through sound practical research, and assist industry partners in the implementation of this knowledge, methods, technology and tools to improve the safety, efficiency, effectiveness, environmental impact and overall

6

competitiveness of their operations. The CRC Forestry Program 3 main research and implementation activities are grouped into the following six topic areas:

• Harvesting technology and equipment • Harvesting systems, planning and procedures • Value recovery and waste reduction • Workforce and public management and training • Transportation technology and equipment • Transportation systems, planning and logistics

The Australian CRC Forestry Harvesting and Operations R&D is being carried out not only to answer forest/plantation industry questions and provide new information, but also to grow the capacity of harvesting and operations expertise within Australia as well as to strengthen international networks with other expertise and joint research, education and communications activities. For further information about the CRC for Forestry Harvesting and Operations (Program 3) see the Newsletter, The Log: http://www.crcforestry.com.au/newsletters/the-log/index.html Australia Forestry Operations Education and Workforce Training In almost every area of the world, forest operations are suffering from either a lack of work force or a lack of a properly trained workforce coupled with an increasingly negative public perception. The Australian industry is no different. This is of particular concern at the professional forester level, and on the operations side as harvesting equipment and methods are getting more complex. The adoption of efficient new technology and work procedures can only be effective with a skilled, engaged workforce. Without properly trained people the best equipment and procedures will fail. The CRC Forestry Program, the Institute of Australia Foresters, and the universities are tackling these problems with some new ideas and directions. The CRC for Forestry has an education component that includes funding for Masters and PhD students, providing postgraduate students with opportunities for engagement with industry and professional development. There are currently over 45 post graduate research projects linked with the four CRC Forestry research program areas. There is also an area within the CRC Forestry program that targets communication and adoption of research results. The CRC Forestry Program 3 has placed a high priority on activities that involve the implementation of research results. Needed forest industry workshops are also being designed and presented to help upgrade the knowledge base of the workforce. There are several workforce training organizations that compliment the work being done by the CRC Forestry. The University of Melbourne has recently changed their undergraduate degree programs from over 50 different options to less than 10 new options. The new pathway into a professional forestry degree requires the completion of a three year undergraduate Environmental Science degree that is followed by a two year Masters of Forest

7

Ecosystem Science. In addition, The University of Melbourne has joined with the Australia National University and other universities around Australia to offer a new Australia National Forest Masters Program. Students enrolled in this program have a “home university master’s degree program” but travel to different universities around Australia to complete course work. For example, as part of The University of Melbourne new Master of Forest Ecosystem Science Program, and the new Australia National Forest Masters Program, I developed a new Forest Operations course and taught the course with my colleagues for the first time from 23 June – 4 July, 2008. The course is designed as a two-week intensive format that can be taken by university students and other interested people in the workforce within Australia or other countries. Participants taking the course as an individual subject register for the course through The University of Melbourne Community Access Program (CAP): http://www.unimelb.edu.au/community/access/ The Forest Operations course provides an overview of native forest and plantation harvesting operations including mechanized harvesting methods, cable yarding, transportation systems, forest road management, and harvest planning. The subject includes harvesting and operations cost assessment techniques, and applications of harvest planning software to help frame problems and provide information for contemporary native forest and plantation management practices. Participants apply the course information on case projects that involve the preparation and presentation of a timber harvesting and transportation plan. For further information on the Forest Operations course, see: http://www.forests.unimelb.edu.au

Description of Sabbatical Accomplishments and Benefits Upon arriving in Australia, and based on my prior level of knowledge of forest harvesting research and education opportunities and needs, I identified nine work plan task areas to help guide my work during the sabbatical. The work plan tasks were presented to the Program 3 Coordinating Committee at the Annual CRC Forestry Science meeting in July 2007. Based on feedback from the Coordinating Committee and others, along with my own professional interest and OSU responsibilities, the work plan task areas listed below formed the framework for my sabbatical activities. Work Plan Tasks 1. Provide research leadership with the CRC Forestry Program 3 team to help reinvigorate harvesting and operations research and education in Australia with links to OSU and other international organizations. The following specific sub-tasks were identified:

8

• Research project planning, preparation, implementation, analysis, reporting, and technology transfer

• Develop a uniform research framework • Develop strong communications among P-3 staff, industry, state organizations,

academia, contractors, and others • Supervise OSU PhD student Mike Vanderberg on biomass utilization and remote

sensing technology research for his PhD thesis 2. Develop and lead several outreach education/training events with links to OSU. 3. Strengthen on-going collaboration between the CRC Forestry and The University of Melbourne with the OSU College of Forestry and other international organizations. 4. Contribute to forest engineering capacity building within Australia and internationally. 5. Provide a mentoring role for new CRC Forestry Program 3 Researchers (one being a recent OSU Forest Engineering PhD graduate) on research program development and implementation, and career development. 6. Increase the visibility of OSU Forest Engineering and the CRC Forestry programs through my participation in several international study tours, conferences and meetings during the year. 7. Develop the format for a new CRC Forestry Program 3 Newsletter, provide information on current activities in Australia, and provide other relevant information on forest engineering activities around the world. 8. Network with the faculty and staff at The University of Melbourne, the CRC for Forestry, other universities, industry, and contractor organizations. 9. Develop and instruct a new distance education course on Reduced Impact Logging as part of the OSU e-campus Sustainable Natural Resources Institute with linkage opportunities to The University of Melbourne Community Assess Program. My sabbatical accomplishments and benefits for each of the above work plan task areas are outlined below: Work Plan Task 1. Provide research leadership with the CRC Forestry Program 3 team to help reinvigorate harvesting and operations research and education in Australia with links to OSU and other international organizations Task 1 was a high priority activity that began before the sabbatical period while serving as a Research Advisor to the CRC Forestry. The task was a major focus of my time during the first 6 months of the sabbatical until the arrival and start-up of a newly hired Program 3 Leader.

9

I provided research leadership through the initiation and/or facilitation with four researchers (one researcher is Dr. Mauricio Acuna, a recent OSU Forest Engineering graduate) on the following activities that have been completed or are in progress:

• Develop research plans for completing the first CRC Forestry P-3 native forest thinning trials in New South Wales and Tasmania

• Organize CRC Forestry P-3 discussions with Forestry Tasmania on research in plantation thinning, conservation planning and harvesting, and biomass assessment and transportation economics

• Develop a template for written research study plans for harvesting and operations research

• Provide guidance to staff on P-3 scoping report, oral presentations, and draft research papers

• Initiate weekly P-3 staff phone conference calls to share work progress, seek input and provide updates on program directions, and begin to build a research team and family relationships through social get-togethers and other activities

• Facilitated a review of alternative Productivity and Costing models to form the basis for all CRC Forestry harvesting and operations research and modeling. This resulted in developing a contract with Dr. Glen Murphy to develop the Australian Logging Production and Costing Model --- ALPACA.

• Facilitated a review of alternative time and motion software for CRC P-3 harvesting productivity studies.

• Assisted with industry engagement and staff recruitment activities in Western Australia

• Reviewed the first Program 3 Research Report co-authored with Dr. Acuna (see Detailed Reports Section) and prepared draft written recommendations on a process for preparing, reviewing and approving all future P-3 research reports.

• Reviewed staff research report on log measurement accuracy and contacted the International Journal of Forest Engineering Editor about submitting CRC Forestry P-3 manuscripts for review in this journal.

• Participated in several meetings in Central Victoria and gave presentations on bioenergy and biofuel development experiences in Oregon. These presentations led to the development of a new City of Ballarat, the Central Highlands Agribusiness Forum, and the Central Victorian Farm Plantations, Biomass Working Group to help move regional bioenergy development visions ahead.

Preliminary scoping identified potential research and outreach activities for collaboration with The University of Melbourne and The CRC Forestry P-3. There are also opportunities to complete bioenergy R & D and implementation objectives through experiences in Victoria that could be replicated in other states in Australia.

• OSU PhD student Mike Vanderberg withdrew his Australia thesis plans including

Australia funding because of personal reasons to remain closer to family in North America thus the project work on biomass utilization and remote sensing did not move forward.

10

Work Plan Task 2. Develop and lead several outreach education/training events with links to OSU

• Developed, marketed, and led the delivery of a two-day Harvest Planning workshop for plantation and native forest management to over 75 industry, academic, and researchers in Australia. The workshop was presented in three different locations (Tasmania, Western Australia, and South Australia) over a two-week period. Obtained funding and organized the travels for OSU Forest Engineering colleague, Dr. John Sessions, to visit Australia and lead the instruction in the three workshops.

• Developed, marketed and presented two one-day workshops on cable logging

systems and harvest planning to 35 industry participants. The workshops were delivered in Tasmania and Western Australia.

• Prepared and presented an overview of Oregon Forestry and helicopter logging

during a forum that introduced the CRC Forestry P-3 staff at an annual Forest Industry Council meeting in Launceston, Tasmania

Work Plan Task 3. Strengthen on-going collaboration between the CRC Forestry and The University of Melbourne with the OSU College of Forestry and other international organizations

• A main focus of my work, and an enjoyable activity, was assisting the career development for recently graduated OSU FE Department Alum, Dr Mauricio Acuna. This included help in designing, conducting and reporting his first research trials in Australia; instructing his first university postgraduate course in Australia; connecting him with international organizations through his participation in a IUFRO Division 3 conference in Japan and his nomination for a Deputy-Coordinator position with IUFRO; and connections with research organizations in South Africa leading to his participation in an upcoming industry study-tour and conference in South Africa and South America.

• Facilitated Dr. John Sessions visit to Australia and follow-up networking

• Recommended interviewing two OSU Forest Engineering graduate students for a

research position with the CRC Forestry

• Although I was not directly involved, there have been two additional OSU Forest Engineering faculty and student opportunities that have occurred in Australia and New Zealand around the work and organizations that I have been connected with during my sabbatical. Dr. Glen Murphy will spend 5 months during his current sabbatical working with the CRC Forestry P-3 in Western Australia. Dr. Dzhamal Amishev, a recent OSU FE PhD graduate, has recently started a research position in New Zealand that will likely include future connections with Australia

11

• Strengthened the collaboration and networking with the Korea and Japan Forest Engineering Society programs and research organizations (see Work Plan Task 6 below)

• Strengthened the collaboration and networking during the third International

Forest Engineering Conference; Mont-Tremblant, Quebec, Canada (see Work Plan Task 6 below)

• Discussions have occurred and plans have been identified for future collaboration

between the Oregon State University, College of Forestry, and The University of Melbourne, Department of Forest Ecosystem Science, and the CRC Forestry. My role will continue as a Principal Research Fellow with The University of Melbourne, as the Research Advisor for the CRC Forestry Program 3, and other related work with Program 3 as appropriate and agreed upon.

Work Plan Task 4. Contribute to forest engineering capacity building within Australia and internationally

• The five harvest planning workshops (listed above with Work Plan Task 2) were specifically aimed at capacity building within Australia with respect to developing new knowledge for workshop participants to better address their own specific issues and problems and use appropriate forest operations planning/analysis methods to aid decision making.

The workshops also provided a venue to introduce the newly hired CRC Forestry P-3 leader, and for him to meet CRC partners, share his strategic plans and obtain feedback on future directions for Program 3. • I led the development and instruction of a new Forest Operations Masters Course

that was presented at The University of Melbourne, Creswick campus. This activity provided an opportunity for the P-3 research team to gain teaching experience. The course was well-received by the participants along with good visibility with industry contacts that collaborated with several aspects of the course. In my view, this course provides a great opportunity for a gradual and sustained development of forest harvesting and operations expertise in Australia that can be complimented with additional capacity building through postgraduate research work. There are also good opportunities for recruiting students from other universities/regions around Australia, industry and government workers relatively early in their career, and other international participants. I plan to maintain involvement with this course and other education opportunities through The University of Melbourne in the future.

• While in Australia, I made contacts with colleagues in South Africa and New

Zealand to connect them with the CRC Forestry P-3 Harvesting and Operations Research. This led to an international proposal from Forestry Solutions, South Africa to collaborate with the CRC Forestry and a consulting company in New

12

Zealand, FORME, to pursue an international harvesting R & D project with the development of a “machine performance management system”. This is an ambitious project that involves several phases including the evaluation of automatic machine data capturing technology, transferring data from field machines and obtaining practical information for contractors and operations managers, and pursuing continuous improvement opportunities that are clearly identified through the machine performance management system. I will also be evaluating the interest for possibly adding collaboration with the forest industry in Oregon on this project.

• From my previous contacts with New Zealand colleagues, and other previous

international harvesting research experience, I was invited to give a presentation at the Forestry Strategic Summit 2008 held in Rotorua, New Zealand, on the CRC Forestry Harvesting and Research Program and to be a member of an international panel on Harvesting R & D. A paper was prepared for this meeting that was published in the Forestry Summit Proceedings (see Detailed Reports Section for the paper and PowerPoint presentations).

My international contacts/networks helped the new CRC Forestry Program 3 with greater visibility and contacts with faculty and students at OSU, and with

researchers in New Zealand, South Africa, Japan, Korea, and other countries.

• During the sabbatical, I completed various forest engineering professional service activities including grant reviews, program evaluations, providing letters of recommendations for colleagues and peer review of journal manuscripts. These activities contribute to the international capacity building of the forest engineering/harvesting and operations profession.

Work Plan Task 5: Provide a mentoring role for new CRC Forestry Program 3 Researchers (one being a recent OSU Forest Engineering PhD graduate) on research program development and implementation, and career development

• I was based at the CRC Forestry office in Hobart, Tasmania from July 2007 to January 2008. While there, I worked closely with Dr. Mauricio Acuna, and I had opportunities to interact with other CRC Forestry, CSIRO, and SCION program leaders and researchers based in Hobart.

• I was based at The University of Melbourne, Creswick campus from January to

July, 2008. While there, I worked closed with the CRC Forestry P-3 leader, another CRC Forestry researcher, and I had opportunities to interact with The University of Melbourne faculty, staff and students at 3 different campuses – Creswick, Parkville, and Burnley.

• The specific accomplishments and benefits related to this task have been

described within other work plan tasks and they are not repeated here.

13

Work Plan Task 6. Increase the visibility of OSU Forest Engineering and the CRC Forestry programs through my participation in several international study tours, conferences and meetings during the year.

• Participated and served as a technical session host representing OSU Forest Engineering and the CRC Forestry at the International Forest Engineering Conference held in Mont-Tremblant, Quebec, Canada. This event included co sponsorship from IUFRO and the Council on Forest Engineering (COFE)

• Invited to be a keynote speaker for annual Forest Engineering Professional

Society presentations in South Korea and Japan on the topics of small scale forestry operations in North America, an overview of forestry in Oregon, and an overview of the CRC Forestry Program 3. I was also hosted by colleagues in South Korea and Japan on a two-week forest operations education, research and training technologies tour.

• Co-authored a Eucalyptus native-regrowth thinning paper with Dr. Acuna that

was presented by Dr. Acuna at the IUFRO Forest Harvesting Conference in Sapparo, Japan in June, 2008. This event helped to further the visibility of both the OSU Forest Engineering and CRC Forestry programs.

• Participated, and served as a Session Moderator representing OSU Forest

Engineering and CRC Forestry at the international “Old Growth Forest, New Management Symposium” held in Hobart, Tasmania, February 2008

Work Plan Task 7. Develop the format for a new CRC Forestry Program 3 Newsletter, provide information on current activities in Australia, and provide other relevant information on forest engineering activities around the world.

• I led the development of the first CRC Forestry website newsletter featuring Program 3: The Log. This included working with the CRC Forestry Communications Leader in developing a website format, identifying topics to cover in the newsletter, writing several sections of the newsletter, and coordinating the completion of other sections of the newsletter.

• Developed a draft CRC Forestry P-3 communications plan for maintaining

information transfer with partners.

• Distributed our Newsletter to international colleagues and organizations. Gathered and maintained a list of international contacts that are interested in receiving future P-3 Newsletters.

• I will continue providing relevant international forest engineering information for

future newsletters and other CRC Program 3 communications with OSU and other international forest engineering organizations.

14

Work Plan Task 8. Network with the faculty and staff at The University of Melbourne, the CRC for Forestry, other universities, industry, and contractor organizations

During the year, I prepared and gave presentations on various aspects of Forestry in Oregon, OSU, forest engineering research and education around the world, the CRC Forestry Program, and Harvesting and Operations research in Australia. This included the following organizations:

• CRC Forestry • The University of Melbourne

o Creswick o Parkville Dean’s Lecture Series

• Australia National University • The Forests and Forest Industry Council • Old Forest New Management Symposium in Hobart, Tasmania • Forest Products Commission • Midway Plantations • City of Ballarat • Central Highlands Agribusiness Forum • Central Victoria Farm Plantations • New Zealand Forestry Summit

Work Plan Task 9. Develop and instruct a new distance education course on Reduced Impact Logging as part of the OSU e-campus Sustainable Natural Resources Institute with linkage opportunities to The University of Melbourne Community Assess Program

Unfortunately there wasn’t enough time during my sabbatical to complete this task. Therefore the plans are to complete the course development at OSU and present the first distance education course on this topic from September to December, 2008. There is future interest in connecting the OSU e-campus course with courses at The University of Melbourne and possibly some new courses and/or education and training events in other South East Asia countries.

15

Additional Detailed Reports and Presentations

(#1) Australia CRC for Forest Harvesting and Operations Research – What is it Out to Achieve Paper published by Loren Kellogg at the Forest Industry Strategic Summit 2008, Rotorua, New Zealand

(#2) An Evaluation of Alternative Cut-To-Length Harvesting Technologies for Native Forest Thinning in Australia Draft manuscript by Mauricio Acuna and Loren Kellogg submitted to the International Journal of Forest Engineering

(#3) Australia CRC for Forest Harvesting and Operations Research – What is it Out to Achieve PowerPoint presentation by Loren Kellogg at the Forest Industry Strategic Summit 2008, Rotorua, New Zealand

(#4) Harvesting R&D: How/Why Does it Work and What are the Challenges? PowerPoint presentation by Loren Kellogg at the Forest Industry Strategic Summit 2008, Rotorua, New Zealand

16

FOREST INDUSTRY STRATEGIC SUMLMIT 2008

WOOD SUPPLY CHAIN COMPETITIVENESS; REVIVING FORESTRY’S FINANCIAL PERFORAMANCE

22-24TH JULY 2008, NOVOTEL LAKESIDE HOTEL/ROTORUA CONVENTION CENTRE – ROTORUA, NEW ZEALAND

FOREST INDUSTRY STRATEGIC SUMMIT 2008

WOOD SUPPLY CHAIN COMPETITIVENESS – REVIVING FORESTRY’S FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE

AUSTRALIA CRC FOR FORESTRY HARVESTING AND OPERATIONS RESEARCH –

WHAT IS IT OUT TO ACHIEVE

Loren Kellogg Professor of Forest Engineering and Principal Research Fellow CRC for Forestry and The University of Melbourne School of Forest and Ecosystem Science Creswick, Victoria, Australia P: +61 3 5321 4300 F: +61 3 5321 4166 E-mail: lkellogg@unimelb.edu.au and Department of Forest Engineering, Resources and Management College of Forestry Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon, USA P: 541 737 2836 F: 541 737 4316 E-mail: loren.kellogg@oregonstate.edu

17

INTRODUCTION A premise and strategic objective of the New Zealand Forestry Summit is that targeted and well managed R&D investment linked to education and training is critical in sustaining real productivity growth and long term industry competitiveness. The aim of this presentation is to demonstrate how the relatively new CRC for Forestry LTD, Harvesting and Operations Programme 3 (established in 2005) links the industry, government, and academic institutions to carry out R&D, education and training in Australia. The information presented in this paper reflects the experience and observations on harvesting and operations R&D in Australia from a range of people working in research, education and industry (see acknowledgements). The paper is organized into the following sections:

• Brief overview of Australia’s Forestry • A look at previous harvesting and operations R&D in Australia • Brief overview of CRCs in Australia and the CRC for Forestry • The strategic objectives and plan of work for the current CRC Forestry

Harvesting and Operations Programme • Conclusion: A combined assessment from the author and others on what the

CRC Forestry – Harvesting and Operations R&D is Out to Achieve? The repositioning of applied forest engineering research, and capacity building of the forest engineering/operations management discipline is greatly needed around the world for securing an effective international wood supply chain to meet increasing global demands from society for wood products, and other goods and services from the forests & plantations of the world. There are opportunities to build on the presentations and discussions during this summit with a slow, but growing strength in forest engineering expertise in Australia and New Zealand that could be linked with other key global forest engineering expertise. AUSTRALIA’S FORESTRY Australia has 4% of the world’s forests and 2% of the world’s plantation forests in 2005. Australia has the fourth largest area of forest in conservation reserves following the USA, Brazil, and Venezuela. Australia’s forests are a total of 164 million hectares which is 21% of the total land area. With a total population of approximately 20 million people, this breaks out to about 8 forest hectares per person. There are approximately 10.5 billion tonnes of carbon in the Australian forests. Australia’s forests are further characterized by the following statistics:

• Native forest area is 162.7 million hectares (99% of total forests) • Forest area in conservation reserves is 21.5 million hectares (13% of total forests)

18

• In Tasmania, 47% of the land mass is in conservation reserves • Plantation forest area is 1.9 million hectares (2007)

The proportion of forest cover by Australian state and territory along with the proportion of Australia’s total native forest and plantation areas are shown in the table below: State and Territory Forest Cover (%) Australia’s Native

Forest (%) Australia’s Plantation Forests (%)

A. Capital Territory 55 0.1 0.5 New South Wales 34 16 19 Northern Territory 24 20 0.9 Queensland 32 34 13 S. Australia 11 6 9 Tasmania 50 2 13 Victoria 36 5 22 W. Australia 10 15 22 The forest and wood products industry is an important manufacturing sector in Australia that is characterized by the following statistics:

• $18 billion turnover in forest products industries per year (2005/06) • Direct employment of >83,000 workers • 1% forestry contribution to GDP • 27 million M3 harvested per year

o 66% harvested from plantations (pine 15 million M3; eucalyptus 2 million M3)

o < 1% harvested from native forests (10 million M3) • Total export of wood products (2004/05) of $2.09 billion • Major export commodities by value (2005/06) are wood chips ($839 million),

paper and paper products ($593 million), panel products ($151 million), and sawn timber ($118 million).

• Total wood product imports to Australia (2004/05) were $4.1 billion Increasing the plantation timber resource is a key forest policy objective of the National Forest Policy Statement, Regional Forest Agreements and Plantations for Australia that is reflected in the 2020 Vision (Australia Government, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry). The target is to triple the area of commercial tree crops to 3 million hectares by 2020, using mainly private sector funding. A recent Bureau of Rural Sciences report showed that Australia’s timber plantations increased by 4.7% in 2007, now covering more than 1.9 million hectares; more than one million hectares are pines and other softwoods, with eucalyptus and other hardwoods covering approximately 883,000 hectares. Private owners account for 92% of the plantation expansion in Australia. Investors who bought woodlots in managed schemes now own 33% of all Australia’s timber plantations.

19

A LOOK BACK AT HARVESTING AND OPERATIONS R&D IN AUSTALIA The Australian harvesting R&D has gone through dramatic changes over the last 50 years from a relatively strong and active program to one that ended temporarily with the CSIRO Forestry in 2005. This historical downward trend in forest engineering research and academic capacity is similar in New Zealand and the USA. In 2005, the CRC Forestry Harvesting and Operations Programme came to life. However first, let’s briefly review the 50 year period before the CRC Harvesting and Operations Programme. From the mid 1950’s until 2005, the Australian harvesting R&D can be divided into five eras. The first era covers approximately a 25 year period from the mid 1950s until 1974. Harvesting R&D was carried out through the Timber Supply Economics Branch; a unit within the Forestry and Timber Bureau of the Commonwealth Government. The Timber Supply Economics branch was initially located in Melbourne and then Canberra. Staff levels were between 20- 30 people. The R&D focus was on logging in the native forests as well as plantation and sawmilling R&D. Harvesting activities included the following:

• Importing and demonstrating new equipment types for operation in Australian forests including the first skidder and the first forestry hydraulic crane.

• Technology development and introduction to the industry. One of the new equipment types that was a major success was the Windsor RW30 softwood tree harvester which later was manufactured in Canada as the Timberjack TJ30 series

• Conducting a series of different logging method studies The second era covers approximately a 10 year period from 1974 until 1984. A Harvesting Research Group was formed through the consolidation of the prior research group from the Timber Supply Economics Branch. The sawmilling group from the prior R&D was dropped, and the new harvesting research group moved to the CSIRO in 1976 with the rest of the forestry R&D functions. The staffing was approximately 15-20 people that were based in Canberra. During the second era, the harvesting R&D mission shifted from importing technology from other countries to research aimed at improving forest operations productivity and performance. Harvesting activities included the following:

• Developing a truck fleet and mill unloading simulation (FLEETSIM) • Developing a heuristic computerized truck dispatch system • Integrating shift level studies with detailed time & motion studies for assessing

the operations performance of logging equipment and harvesting methods • Developing and using first generation microprocessor based electronic data

capture for machine performance data collection (time and productivity) • Further equipment development including a mechanized high pruner, and feller

buncher head designs • Adding a stronger training and extension profile in conjunction with research

20

The third era was from 1984 to 1991 and focused on a young eucalyptus R&D program. There was approximately 10 staff during this seven year period. The R&D was organized through a joint CSIRO and Industry Task Force to develop the basis for the silvicultural management of higher yielding regrowth Eucalypt forests. The staffing and financial contributions for this research came from all parties, and were managed through a board of representatives from the different organizations. This era of research was mission focused for the fixed term. Activities included the following:

• Young eucalypt forests assessment, growth modeling and yield projections • Evaluating non commercial and commercial thinning equipment and the full

harvesting system economics for alternative harvesting methods • Development of new technologies such as a prototype chemical injection

hammer for non commercial thinning • Eucalypt debarking trials that led to the development of new technologies for

mechanical debarking eucalyptus • Damage and decay assessment from logging operations • Sawmilling wood harvested from young eucalypt forests

The fourth era covered a nine year period from 1991-2000. During this time period, harvesting R&D was carried out as a joint venture between CSIRO, the Australian Logging Council, and Universities (Australian National University, and The University of Melbourne). The R&D program was funded by CSIRO, industry and government. There were also leveraged postgraduate projects that resulted in approximately seven honors, masters and PhD level projects being completed. The R&D program identified specific projects and funding sources. There was approximately five staff during this era. Activities included the following:

• Harvesting method studies including mechanized eucalypt commercial thinning and human factor studies

• Software and hardware development including: o TRACKER – GPS based data logger o A GIS based Harvest Plan Mapping System o RATESETTER & TRUCKCOST o TRUCKSIM – A log truck simulation for drive train and road design

studies • Driver behavior and road surface interaction studies on fuel efficiency • Pavement management support and evaluation

The fifth era was harvesting R&D conducted by CSIRO Forestry from 2000 to 2005. Activities included the following:

• Risk assessment associated with pavement management • Small scale harvesting for farm forestry operations • Operational level skidding traffic and soils impact studies using the TRACKER

GPS data logger

21

• Code of Practice development and evaluation • Systems analysis to support commercial environmental farm forestry

During the later part of this time period, the staff also assisted with the development of the new CRC Forestry, Programme 3, Harvesting and Operations R&D. CRCs IN AUSTRALIA AND THE CRC FOR FORESTRY The Australian Cooperative Research Centers Programme started in 1991 with the Commonwealth Government realizing that greater benefits from research could be captured including a stronger focus on key economic development areas, assuring that research results were delivered in a timely manner, and linking research with strategies for appropriate implementations of research results. CRCs involve a national partnership between leading research organizations, private industry, government agencies and universities. Each CRC is setup for a period of seven years. There are currently 64 CRCs in Australia. The initial strategic focus of CRCs was to enhance the economic, environmental and social benefits for Australia through the various research areas. However there was a period where there was a stronger focus on the commercialization and industrial growth aspects of research findings. In more recent years, there has been a shift back to a more balanced perspective of economic, environmental, and socially sustainable development. Generally, the Commonwealth Government provides cash support of approximately $1 for every $4 invested by industry, universities and research organizations. The CRC for Forestry was established as one of the first CRCs in 1991. The program is currently in the third round of funding. The CRC for Forestry focuses on innovation, value-adding and competitive advantage, maintaining biodiversity, landscape and community values. There are 29 partners operating in every state and territory in Australia. The head office is located in Hobart, Tasmania. The CRC for Forestry is run by an independent board of directors. The total budget per annum is approximately $13 million dollars with the proportion of funding from different sources summarized below: Source of Funding Proportion (%)

Cash Contributions

Government 32 Industry 8 Universities 5 In Kind Contributions 55 Research Organizations Industry ____ 100

22

In kind contributions to the CRC Forestry Programme (55% of the total budget) are approximately 80% from research organizations and 20% from industry partners. The primary goals of the CRC for Forestry are to foster research to:

• Maintain and improve security of access to land and resources for the forest industry by:

o Developing strategies that consolidate the industry’s social license to operate;

o Increasing investment confidence in the establishment of new forestry ventures;

o Identifying pathways for the industry to contribute positively to pressing environmental and social issues (including carbon sequestration, wildfire and water resource management).

• Increase yields and reduce the costs of production through improvements in site selection, resource monitoring and management.

• Increase the value of wood products through more targeted breeding and silvicuture.

• Reduce the cost of delivered wood through development and communication of safer, more efficient harvesting, handling and transport.

• Increase capacity for innovation and continuous improvement by training greater numbers of industry-oriented researchers, building lasting knowledge networks and improving industry access to global expertise.

The CRC for Forestry measures of success include the following:

• A billion dollars in net present value added to the Australian forest industry as a demonstrable outcome of the CRC’s research, education and communication.

• A more adaptable, innovative Australian forest industry, which recognizes that it cannot function effectively without the CRC.

• Achievement of tangible outcomes from each major area of the CRC’s activity: changed practice, analysis of options, risks avoidance.

• Substantial funding support for the CRC from industry beyond the current seven year term.

In addition, the CRC for Forestry has an education component that includes funding for Masters and PhD students, providing postgraduate students with opportunities for engagement with industry and professional development. There are currently over 45 post graduate research projects linked with the four CRC Forestry research programme areas. There is also an area within the CRC Forestry programme that targets communication and adoption of research results. The current research conducted through the CRC for Forestry spans the whole value chain through the following four programmes:

23

1. Managing and Monitoring for Growth and Health 2. High Value Wood Resources 3. Harvesting and Operations 4. Trees in the Landscape

For more information about the CRC for Forestry, see www.crcforestry.com.au CRC FOR FORESTRY HARVESTING AND OPERATIONS RESEARCH (PROGRAMME 3) The Harvesting and Operations Research (Programme 3) was established during the third round of CRC Forestry funding in 2005. The Harvesting and Operations Programme started from no capacity while the other research programmes already had researchers and topics in place. This provided some unique advantages and challenges in designing a new harvesting and operations R&D programme. There have certainly been a visible set of advantages in developing a strategically planned program with input and involvement from all of the stakeholders. The major challenge however during the initial start-up years has been the lack of forest harvesting and operations expertise within Australia and internationally to fill the research positions. Following a variety of interim arrangements, active recruitment strategies, and short-term research activities, Programme 3 is now well underway with a full time Programme Leader, two Research Fellows, two postgraduate students, plans in place for a third researcher, and scholarship funding for additional postgraduate students. Programme 3 has an industry, government, and university linkage with 19 partners. The total budget per annum is approximately $1 million with the proportion of funding from the different sources summarized below:

Source of Funding Proportion (%) Cash Contributions

Government 50 Industry 18 Universities 10 In Kind Contributions 22 Universities Industry ____ 100 In kind contributions to the CRC Forestry Programme 3 (22% of the total budget) are approximately 50% from research organizations and 50% from industry partners.

24

The mission of CRC Forestry Programme 3 is to develop new and innovative knowledge, work methods, technology and tools through sound practical research, and assist industry partners in the implementation of these knowledge, methods, technology and tools to improve the safety, efficiency, effectiveness, environmental impact and overall competitiveness of their operations. The Programme 3 objectives are listed below:

• Provide new and innovative knowledge, work methods, technology and tools that will allow the Australian forest industry to:

o Significantly reduce operating costs (>10%) o Significantly reduce the energy and greenhouse gas emissions intensity of

operations (by >10%) o Significantly increase the value recovered from operations (by >5%) o Significantly improve the safety and wellbeing of their workforce

• Implement new and innovative knowledge, work methods, technology and tools

with all the CRC Forestry Programme 3 industrial partners that result in one or more of the following benefits:

o 10% or greater reduction in operating cost o 10% or greater reduction in energy intensity of operations o 5% or greater increase in value recovery

• Enhance the competitiveness of CRC Forestry Programme 3 partners • Build an increased capacity in Australia for forest operations and operational

research The CRC Forestry Programme 3’s main research and implementation activities are grouped into the following six focus areas:

• Harvesting technology and equipment • Harvesting systems, planning and procedures • Value recovery and waste reduction • Workforce and public management and training • Transportation technology and equipment • Transportation systems, planning and logistics

A brief description of each of the above work areas along with the current activities and planned future activities are presented below. For further information about the CRC for Forestry Harvesting and Operations (Programme 3) see the Newsletter, The Log: http://www.crcforestry.com.au/newsletters/the-log/index.html

Harvesting technology and equipment A key component to any industrial operation is the equipment used to perform the job. It is important to have the right equipment, use it to its full capacity and effectively track and measure performance to allow for ongoing improvements and management. Research is being conducted to evaluate, develop and adapt, both technology add-ons

25

intended to improve harvesting operations as well as assessing new and existing machines to better understand their performance. Particular effort is being placed on technology for improved productivity, enhanced automated data collection, reduced energy demand, improved sorting capabilities in pine and mixed stands, improved debarking of eucalyptus and improved utilization.

Current Activities: • Evaluation of the accuracy of length and diameter measurement from

multifunctional harvester heads for value recovery optimization with Pinus radiata.

Planned Activities: • Evaluation of the accuracy of diameter measurement from multifunctional

harvester heads for value recovery optimization with Eucalyptus sp. • Implementation of operational tracking technology for improved resource

management and machine productivity • Comparison of the relative efficiency of different harvester heads • Evaluation/development of improved debarking technology for eucalypt

harvesting

Harvesting systems, planning and procedures When planning harvesting operations, there is a wide range of equipment available to choose from and an equally wide range of combinations of how that equipment can be assembled into harvesting systems. The key is to get the right system with the right machines in the right stands to be cost effective. This research area focuses initially on the performance of existing systems in different stands and operating conditions to identify which systems offer the best performance, productivity, recovery and site impact, which will feed into decision support tools for the industry. Once the performance of the various systems is better understood, research efforts will also be targeted at identifying and addressing the weaknesses of different systems.

Current Activities: • Optimization of inter rotation plantation planning and establishment for future

harvesting activities • Evaluation of productivity and cost of alternative harvesting systems for thinning

in native forest re-growth stands

Planned Activities: • Evaluation of system productivity and cost as they relate to piece size in thinning

and clear-felling in plantations. • Quantifing the impact of alternative harvesting systems on the production

capacity, cost and effectiveness of harvest operations.

26

Value recovery and waste reduction As important to the bottom line as minimizing costs, is retrieving the maximum value possible from the forest or plantation being harvested. This can involve the optimization of merchandising to extract as much high value products (veneer logs, posts, saw logs, etc.) as possible, the extraction of new and novel products (biomass, fuel wood, etc.) and/or simply reducing waste. This research area looks at the operational implications of producing higher value products and maximizing recovery within current specifications, evaluates the economic viability of extraction and transportation of new and novel products, and adapts equipment to optimize their production.

Current Activities: • Evaluation of ground-based LIDAR for improved pre-harvest inventory modeling

and harvest planning • Evaluation of potential existing and developing markets for forest operations

biomass utilization and an economic evaluation of accessing the markets

Planned Activities: • Evaluation of new technology and software for improved merchandising • Evaluation of using LIDAR and transportation modeling for biomass feedstock

assessment • Evaluation of the impact on harvesting productivity and cost with increased

product sorts at the stump or road side and identifying the best practices for multiple product extraction operations

• Evaluation of technology for collecting and handling small sized biomass • Evaluation of sub-optimal recovery of products at current specifications.

Workforce and public management and training In almost every area of the world, forest operations are suffering from either a lack of work force or a lack of a properly trained workforce coupled with an increasingly negative public perception. The Australian industry is no different. This is of particular concern on the operations side as the equipment and methods are getting more complex and effective adoption of efficient new technology and work procedures can only be effective with a skilled, engaged workforce. Without properly trained people the best equipment and procedures will fail. From a public perception, these changes in the industry, when not effectively explained, are seen as more damaging to the environment and community. This area of research focuses on identifying the knowledge gaps within forest operations and targets technology transfer of Programme 3 results and international best practices to fill these gaps.

Completed Activities: • Industry workshops on coupe harvest planning conducted in different states

throughout Australia • Industry workshops on operational machine evaluation and basic costing

conducting in different states throughout Australia

27

Forest Engineering Harvesting and Operations Capacity Building: As part of The University of Melbourne new Master of Forest Ecosystem Science Programme, and the new Australia National Forest Masters Programme, a new Forest Operations course has been developed and taught for the first time from 23 June – 4 July, 2008. The course is designed as a two-week intensive format that can be taken by university students and other interested people in the workforce within Australia or other countries. Participants taking the course as an individual subject register for the course through The University of Melbourne Community Access Program (CAP): http://www.unimelb.edu.au/community/access/ The Forest Operations course provides an overview of native forest and plantation harvesting operations including mechanized harvesting methods, cable yarding, transportation systems, forest road management, and harvest planning. The subject includes harvesting and operations cost assessment techniques, and applications of harvest planning software to help frame problems and provide information for contemporary native forest and plantation management practices. Participants apply the course information on case projects that involve the preparation and presentation of a timber harvesting and transportation plan. For further information on the Forest Operations course, see: http://www.forests.unimelb.edu.au

Planned Activities: • Annual workshops on programme 3 research results and skill improvement needs

identified by partners • Promote the acceptance and adoption of new technology and work methods

within the forestry workforce • Affect change with contractors while maintaining an independent business

relationship • Approaches for effectively communicating forest operation activities to the public

to help maintain or increase the social license to practice forestry

Transportation technology and equipment Like harvesting, efficient transportation operations are very reliant on the equipment used. Poorly specified equipment can easily add 25% to the transportation costs. This area focuses on evaluating the performance indicators of transportation equipment including payloads, fuel consumption, availability, operating costs and productivity to identify the best in class and identify areas for, and methods of, improvement across the forestry fleets. With this base knowledge, Programme 3 will work with the industrial partners and regulators to develop and test new specifications and configurations for increased transportation efficiency.

28

Current Activities: • Evaluation of existing industry partner fleets to identify the range of efficiency in

payload for each common configuration and identification of opportunities for efficiency gains

Planned Activities: • Optimizing performance-based designed trucks for forestry transportation in

Australia • Testing of new eclectic hybrid technology for shunt and haul trucks for reduced

fuel consumption

Transportation systems, planning and logistics The typical approach to transportation is to focus on a single harvest location and plan the transport of the various products to the associated destinations. This approach is often very inefficient on a regional level where if all operations are considered, truck utilization could be increased and costs reduced but the complexity of planning and managing makes it unattractive. As more products are extracted from the forest in an attempt to increase value recovery, transportation planning and management at this regional level becomes more complicated. This area of research looks at the opportunities that exist within current operations to reduce transportation cost through better logistics and work to develop, adapt and implement systems, software and tools to facilitate the integration of complex logistics into normal operational planning and management.

Current Activities: • Investigation and modeling of trucking operations with forestry plantation

expansion in Australia to determine trucking needs, road impact and identify options to reduce adverse effects and costs through alternative approaches.

• Optimization of logistic planning, scheduling and management methods and tools for forestry transportation

CONCLUSIONS: WHAT IS THE CRC FORESTRY – HARVESTING AND OPERATIONS RESEARCH OUT TO ACHIEVE? In previous sections, the stated goals and measures of success for the CRC Forestry programme, including the Harvesting and Operations Programme 3, have been presented. In this concluding section, an expanded summary of statements is presented on “what the Harvesting and Operations Research Programme 3 is out to achieve” based on the perspectives of the author of this paper, and other individuals that were interviewed (see acknowledgments) in order to obtain a broader perspective on the expected outcomes. Perspectives on What the Harvesting and Operations Programme 3 Are Out to Achieve 1. Provide tangible outcomes from a collection of research projects. The Australian forest industry is very supportive of the strategic plans, research topic areas, research structure and other Programme 3 management guidelines. The expectations are to

29

provide information from research along with the tools and training for implementing research results that will improve existing harvesting operations (e.g. increase productivity, cost savings, increase value, improve safety, improve social license to operate, reduce environmental impacts; decision support systems). 2. Provide new information for Australia harvesting operations that may already be available from other countries around the world (e.g. biomass utilization, and appropriate harvesting technology for scattered and remote plantation locations). 3. Include R&D where there are potentials for huge gains in specific areas such as transportation efficiency, and eucalyptus debarking. 4. Provide credible and independent data from research trials that clearly shows the relationships between harvesting cost and the cost drivers, such as piece size and snigging distance, which will help in providing a sound basis for negotiations between companies and contractors. 5. Provide effective implementation approaches of research information for the contracting work force. 6. Strengthen the linkages between harvesting and operations with other disciplines/industries. The principals and science of sustainable forest/plantation management could be carried out more effectively with a better understanding of forest engineering/operations design principles and the knowledge base associated with this discipline. The harvesting and operations discipline can also learn from other related disciplines such as precision agriculture, civil engineering, and other transportation industries. 7. Improve the industry and contractor knowledge base and their access to appropriate data collection and machine evaluation tools and techniques to enhance their recognition of case-specific harvesting operation problems and solutions that are obtainable through their own forest operations assessments. 8. As part of the current CRC activities, provide a sustainable model for forest harvesting and operations research, extension, education, and training capacity building in Australia. 9. As part of the current CRC activities, develop lasting networks and improved access to global expertise. Harvesting and operations R&D in Australia has a rich history of providing a wide range of valuable information to the forest industry. The staffing and funding capacity of harvesting R&D reached a virtual ending in 2005. The CRC Forestry - Harvesting and Operations Programme 3 was created in 2005 and has slowly gained momentum with staffing and research implementation. Currently there is a well thought out plan for a comprehensive harvesting, transportation, and education/training programme of research and implementation work. This research plan has been developed in conjunction with

30

Programme 3 industry, government and university partners. Individual research projects are aimed at providing a suite of new and innovative knowledge, work methods, technology and tools to reduce the cost of delivered wood and to communicate safer, more efficient, and sustainable harvesting, handling and transport methods in Australia. The harvesting R&D is being carried out not only to answer forest/plantation industry questions and provide new information, but also to grow the capacity of harvesting and operations expertise within Australia as well as to strengthen international networks with other expertise and joint research, education and communications activities. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author of this paper, Professor Loren Kellogg, greatly appreciates the discussions with the following people, and acknowledges their contributions to this paper through their perspectives on harvesting and operations research in Australia, and Programme 3 of the CRC for Forestry: Professor Gordon Duff; CEO, CRC for Forestry Mr. Mark Brown; CRC for Forestry Programme 3 Leader Mr. Darrell Clark; Chair of the Programme 3 Coordinating Committee Professor Rod Keenan; Head of The University of Melbourne, School of Forest and Ecosystem Science Associate Professor Leon Bren; The University of Melbourne, School of Forest and Ecosystem Science Dr. Bob McCormack; Former Harvesting Researcher with the CSIRO The author also acknowledges the significant contributions to Programme 3’s growing success that are demonstrated through the dedicated work of the following people currently with the program: Dr. Mauricio Acuna; CRC for Forestry Research Fellow, and The University of Tasmania Mr. Martin Strandgard; CRC for Forestry Research Fellow, and The University of Melbourne Mr. Tom Fisk; Industry Engagement Manager, CRC for Forestry, and The University of Tasmania

31

AN EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE CUT-TO-LENGTH HARVESTING

TECHNOLOGY FOR NATIVE FOREST THINNING IN AUSTRALIA

Authors details: Mauricio Acuna (main and corresponding author) Research Fellow CRC for Forestry University of Tasmania Private Bag 12 Hobart, Tasmania, 7001 Australia Mauricio.Acuna@utas.edu.au Loren Kellogg Lematta Professor of Forest Engineering Department of Forest Engineering, Resources and Management, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331 USA Loren.Kellogg@oregonstate.edu

32

ABSTRACT

This research results quantified the equipment productivity relationships between piece

size and terrain conditions for mechanized harvesting operations in native forest re-

growth thinning. In addition, the economic gains or losses of adding a feller buncher to a

cut to length (CTL) harvesting system were quantified. Study results indicate that

although the use of the feller buncher working in combination with two of processors is

more productive than the use of a single grip harvester, the high cost per ton of this

harvesting system makes its use not recommendable in harsh conditions with steep terrain

and small tree diameter. The differential in costs obtained between the two harvesting

systems (feller buncher and two processors versus one harvester) on steep and gentle

terrain was $5/ton and $2/ton, respectively, for an average tree diameter of 19 cm.

Regression models developed from the study, showed that diameter at breast height

(DBH) explained more than 85% of the variance in productivity of the machines and

therefore it represented the main driver of productivity and cost per ton of the harvesting

systems in all the scenarios studied.

Key words: Cut-to-length harvesting systems, thinning operations, productivity and costs

33

INTRODUCTION

The forest and wood products industry is an important resource and manufacturing sector

in Australia. The total forest area in Australia is 149 million hectares comprising 19

percent of the total land area. Native forest area is 147 million hectares (99 percent of

total forests). Australia has the fourth largest area in conservation reserves (23 million

hectares or 15 percent of the total Australia forest area) in the world following the USA,

Brazil and Venezuela. Hardwood and softwood timber plantations have increased to a

current total area of 1.9 million hectares. The total harvest per annum is 27 million cubic

meters with 10 million cubic meters harvested from native forests and 17 million cubic

meters from plantations.

A large portion of the wood supply from native forests in Australia is sourced by

commercial thinning stands originating from fire or earlier clear fell operations. Past

native forest re-growth thinning research in the states of New South Wales and Victoria

have described thinning technologies and studied the effects of commercial thinning on

native forests flora and fauna, fire risk, eucalypt health, hydrology and soil physical and

hydrological properties (Roberts and McCormack, 1991, Murphy 2005). There is

however a need for additional re-growth harvesting productivity and cost information as

forest managers consider moving operations into stands with smaller tree sizes and on

steeper slopes. Overseas commercial thinning studies conducted in America (Kellogg

and Bettinger 1994, Hossain and Olsen 1998, Turner and Han 2003, Kellogg and Spong

2004) and Europe (Glode 1999, Hanell et al. 2000, Spinelli et al. 2002, Nurminen et al.

34

2006) are useful but they must be put into context with the native forest conditions found

in Australia.

In Australian re-growth thinning operations, contractors typically use single-grip

harvesters and forwarders (cut-to-length system) with a major difference being the

presence or absence of a feller buncher (Beveridge 1999). When a feller buncher is used,

the harvester follows with a processing operation (delimbing, debarking and crosscutting)

prior to forwarding. The feller buncher represents a significant capital investment.

Contractors and forest managers question the tradeoffs of using or not using a feller

buncher on the productivity and cost of re-growth thinning across a range of tree sizes

being harvested and different ground slopes.

This purpose of this study was to fill harvesting and operations knowledge gaps on re

growth thinning in Australian native forests with a cut to length system. Equipment

productivity and cost were determined for gentle sloping terrain (0-15 degrees) and steep

terrain (15-20 degrees), and determined for different tree sizes (13 – 41 centimeters)

being harvested. Harvesting equipment and system productivity and cost rates were

compared with the presence or absence of a feller buncher over a range of operating

conditions. The information reported in this study is helpful in identifying opportunities

for potential harvesting improvements and cost reductions.

35

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Study sites and silvicultural objectives

A total of four sites located in the southern border of New South Wales, Australia

(latitude/longitude: 37°29’01”S / 149°56’24”E) were used for the study (Table 1). Two

plots were laid out on sites 1 and 4, one for the first harvesting system consisting of a

single grip harvester and a forwarder, and other for the second harvesting system

consisting of a feller buncher, two processors, and a forwarder. On sites 2 and 3 only data

for the second harvesting system were gathered. Pre-inventory data collected by research

collaborators were used for determining the location of the plots. These were laid out in

locations from where data of the harvesting systems under a range of piece size

(diameter) and slope were collected. The terrain was uniform on all the study sites. There

were scattered old stems laid on the ground, and no considerable understory vegetation or

unmerchantable trees. The predominant species on the sites was Yellow Stringybark

(Eucalyptus muellerana). The other two species present in the sites were Silvertop-ash

(Eucalyptus sieberi L.A.S. Johnson) and Monkey Gum (Eucalyptus cypellocarpa L.A.S.

Johnson).

[Table 1 about here]

The principal objective of the thinning operation was to grow high quality sawlogs, over

a short period, for future harvest. This was achieved with a “thinning from below”

treatment, to reduce the number of competing stems in the stand and to concentrate

36

growth potential onto the remaining final crops. In the compartment, thinning aimed at

40-50 % retention in the standing basal area (80-250 stems/ha), with a minimum

acceptable retention of 30% (160 stems/ha). Retained stems were primarily in the

dominant and codominant classes with greatest sawlog potential. In all the plots, the

equipment operators selected trees for retention (Forests New South Wales 2007). The

average diameter at breast height (DBH) of the trees harvested during the thinning

operations was 19 cm.

Harvesting systems

A description of the two harvesting systems that were assessed and compared on steep

and gentle terrain (Sites 1 and 4) is presented in Table 2. In harvesting system 1, the

harvester was used for tree felling, delimbing, debarking, and crosscutting, whereas in

harvesting system 2, the harvesters were used for tree processing including delimbing,

debarking and crosscutting (no felling). Only information on the tree felling and

processing component of the thinning was collected during the study because the short-

wood forwarding systems were the same in both harvesting systems.

[Table 2 about here]

Harvesting with the first harvesting system was carried out in parallel swaths 15 meters

apart. The harvester worked from the top (roadside) to the bottom of each row, felling

and processing the trees laid on the right of its path and pile them on the left to the row

(as seen from the roadside). At the end of each swath, the harvester turned around and

37

traveled up slope to start a new row. Trees were felled, processed, and cut to length (4-6

meter logs) at the stump, and the operator selected the trees to be retained according to

the silviculture prescriptions established in the harvesting plan. Logs from the harvester

operation were transported by the forwarder from the stump to the roadside.

[Figure 1 about here]

[Figure 2 about here]

With the second harvesting system, the trees were felled with the feller buncher in

parallel swaths similar as the harvester in the first system. However, unlike the harvester,

the feller buncher worked from the bottom to the top (roadside) of each row, felling the

trees laid on the left of its path and piling them to the right of the row (as seen from

bottom of the row). At the end of each swath, the feller buncher turned around and

traveled down to start a new row. The operator selected the trees to be retained according

to the silviculture prescriptions established in the harvesting plan. Trees were processed

and cut to length (4-6 meter logs) at the stump by two processors that worked behind the

feller buncher. The two processors worked primarily from the bottom to the top, piling

the logs located just right to the row (as seen from the bottom of the row). Logs from the

processor operation were transported by the forwarder from the stump to the roadside. In

both systems, logging slash, debris and unmerchantable trees remained on the ground.

38

Time and motion study

Prior to data collection, all trees within each plot were painted according to their diameter

classes (2 cm each, ranging from 15 cm to 41+ cm). Sixteen combinations of colors and

symbols were used for this purpose. Over a period of two weeks, the operation of each

machine was recorded with the use of a camcorder. Complementary information, such as

operating delays, tree paint, species, branchiness and number of logs per stem, were

recorded on data collection forms. In addition, operators were provided with shift level

forms designed for recording large delays (> 15 min). The contractor was also asked to

complete an additional form, which was used to calculate hourly machine costs.

The detailed time study was carried out in the office by reviewing field operations

recorded by the camcorder. The software Timer Pro™ (Applied Computer Services Inc.

2007) with a PDA (Dell™ Axim x51) and a spreadsheet, were used for recording

equipment cycle times. Cycle times of the machines were divided into time elements that

were considered typical of the harvesting process of each machine (Table 3).

[Table 3 about here]

Variables believed to have an impact on the productivity of each piece of equipment were

recorded together with the time elements. For the harvester and the processor these

included “DBH”, “branchiness” (coded into three categories for big (>7.5 cm), medium

(5-7.5 cm), and small branches (<5 cm), “hang-ups” during felling (coded as 1 for

39

presence and 0 for absence), “logs” (number of logs per stem), and “slope”. The same

variables were included in the analysis of the feller buncher, but with the addition of a

variable describing the feller buncher operator’s work method. Treecodes were used to

indicate if the trees were picked up and felled from the right (1), front (2), or left (3) side

of the machine. During the detailed time study, small delays (smaller than 15 minutes)

were recorded and classified as mechanical, operational, and personal delays. Small

delays and long delays (coming from the shift level records) were used to determine the

utilization of the machines in each harvesting system.

Data collected with the time and motion study were used to determine harvesting system

productivity and costs, as well as to develop regression models for predicting cycle times

and productivity based on simple variables, such as diameter and ground slope. The

analysis for determining productivity and cost, as well as the regression model

development followed standard methodologies used in harvesting work (Miyata and

Steinhilb 1981, Thompson 1988, Olsen et al. 1998) and statistical analysis studies

(Ramsey and Shafer 2002).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Productivity and costs

Results of the time and motion study are summarized in Table 4. Productivity is reported

in both productive machine hours (PMH) and scheduled machine hours (SMH). The

former considers only productive time (delay-free time), whereas the latter considers all

40

the time when a machine was engaged to do a specific task, including operating time and

delays (Thompson 1998). Utilization was calculated as the ratio PMH to SMH. For

determining the cost per ton, generic machine rates were calculated with ALPACA1,

based on information provided by the contractor.

[Table 4 about here]

Although the number of trees felled and processed by the harvester (harvesting system 1)

on flat terrain (site 4) was larger than on steep terrain (site 1), the machine was more

productive on steep terrain by approximately 2 tons per PMH. This is explained by the

bigger trees (average tree diameter and tonnage per tree) that were harvested on site 1.

The same pattern is observed with the feller buncher and the processors in harvesting

system 2. In both cases, there was a rise in the number of trees harvested as the terrain

slope decreased (from site 1 to 4). In spite of that, the productivity of the system was

more dependent on the average diameter and tonnage of the trees harvested. Thus, the

largest productivity with the second harvesting system was obtained on site 3, where the

average tree diameter and tonnage per tree was larger than on the other sites.

Costs obtained with the first harvesting system (harvester), ranged from $19.8/ton (site 1,

steep terrain) to $24.9/ton (site 4, gentle terrain). In the second harvesting system, the

costs per ton obtained for the feller buncher ranged from $7.2/ton (site 3, mid-slope

terrain) to $9.4/ton (site 1, steep terrain), whereas for the processor the costs ranged from

$15.0/ton (site 3, mid-slope terrain) to $20.9/ton (site 1, steep terrain). These unit costs

are explained by the productivity of each harvesting system, which in turn depends on the

1 ALPACA: Australian Logging and Cost Appraisal Model; CRC Forestry Programme 3

41

average diameter and piece size of the trees, and by the hourly cost and utilization

percentage calculated for the machines.

In terms of the cost per ton, the difference between both harvesting systems was more

pronounced on steep terrain (site 1), where the second harvesting system (feller buncher

and processors) was approximately $10.5/ton more expensive than the first harvesting

system (harvester). The same comparison in gentle terrain (site 4) gave a difference of

just $0.1/ton in favor of the first harvesting system.

Variation of cycle time elements

Results on the duration of the different time elements by machine type are presented in

Figure 3. Longest cycle times were obtained with the harvester on steep (15°-20°) and

gentle (<10°) terrain, with over 50 seconds per tree, and with the processor on steep

terrain (15°-20°), with over 40 seconds per tree on all the ground slope conditions. A

large proportion of the cycle time of these machines is explained by the magnitude of

their processing times, which in turn are associated with operator’s performance and

experience, as well as with tree diameter and piece size. This confirm the results obtained

in other studies (Spinelli et al. 2002), where processing time, and specifically delimbing,

were the most time-consuming elements of the working cycle. The mean processing time

was estimated to be 6.6 seconds per tree greater with the processor than the harvester on

steep terrain (95% confidence interval from 4.3 to 8.8) and 5.1 seconds per tree on gentle

terrain (95% confidence interval from 3.1 to 7.1). A t-test revealed statistically significant

differences between the two machines working on the two slope classes (two-sided p-

42

value = 0). Average cycle times for the feller buncher were approximately two times

shorter than the processor and approximately three times shorter than the harvester.

Longest times per tree were obtained with the work elements “Processing” (harvester and

processors) and “Felling” (feller buncher). The shortest cycle times were obtained on

favorable conditions (gentle terrain and small piece size), especially with the harvester

and the processor.

[Figure 3 about here]

Comparison of harvesting systems over a range of tree diameters

Differential of costs between harvesting systems for a range of tree diameter classes

using real data is presented in Figure 4. On both steep and gentle terrain, the second

harvesting system (feller buncher and processors) was more expensive than the first

harvesting system (harvester) throughout the tree diameter distribution. On steep terrain

(15°-20°) the difference in cost between the two systems was more than 6 $/ton,

especially with small trees (13 to 23 cm). For larger trees (35 to 41 cm), the pattern of

cost differences is not very clear. This is explained by the relatively small number of trees

present in these diameter classes.

[Figure 4 about here]

43

On gentle terrain (<10°) the difference in cost between the two harvesting systems is less

pronounced (smaller than 3 $/ton), especially with small trees (under 23 cm). In the

diameter class “13 cm”, the second harvesting system is cheaper than the first system,

which is explained by the number of trees in this class that were pushed over by the

operator during felling, with the corresponding increase in productivity and reduction of

cycle times and costs. Again, the pattern obtained in the larger trees is not very clear,

because of the relatively small number of trees present in these diameter classes. A two-

sample t-test (two-sided p-value > 0.05) confirmed that there were no statistically

significant differences between the two harvesting systems on gentle terrain (<10°).

Regression models for predicting productivity and costs

Three regressions models were developed for predicting productivity in tons per PMH

(dependent variable) as a function of the independent variables “DBH” and “Slope”. The

statistically significant models (two-sided p-value < 0.05) are presented in Table 5. While

only “DBH” was statistically significant in the model developed for the harvester, both

“DBH” and “Slope” were statistically significant in the models developed for the feller

buncher and the processors (two-sided p-value < 0.05). In terms of the magnitude of the

change, “DBH” was the main variable impacting the productivity of the feller buncher

(95% confidence interval from 2.71 to 2.80 tons per PMH). The productivity of the

processor was more sensitive to a variation of “Slope” (95% confidence interval from 1.3

to 2.3 tons per PMH).

44

[Table 5 about here]

Variation of productivity

Figure 5 presents values of productivity (tons per PMH) versus tree diameter (piece size)

for the harvester (harvesting system 1), obtained from the regression model. A model

with similar independent variables was developed in a previous study (Kellogg and

Bettinger 1994) to predict the productivity of a single-grip harvester operating in a

marked and an unmarked thinning in western Oregon, USA. The results indicate that a

rise in productivity of about 2.5 times is obtained when moving from diameter class “13

cm” to diameter class “27 cm” and a rise of about 5.5 times when moving from the same

small diameter class to the biggest diameter class (“41 cm”). There is no apparent impact

of slope since the variable is not statistically significant (two-sided p-value < 0.05) in the

model.

[Figure 5 about here]

The productivity pattern displayed for tree diameters with the harvester are smaller in

comparison with those obtained with the feller buncher and the two processors. However,

when comparing the productivity of the harvester with only one processor, their

productivity patterns are very similar.

45

Values of productivity (obtained with the regression models) versus tree diameter and

ground slope for the feller buncher and the processors (harvesting system 2) are presented

in Figure 6.

[Figure 6 about here]

The pronounced rise in productivity is the result of the ability of the feller buncher to

maintain a consistent rate of felling regardless of tree size and hence the benefits of

increasing tree volume are not attenuated. For example, on steep terrain (15°-20°), the

number of trees felled by the feller buncher decreased from about 177 to 112 (32%

reduction) when moving from the diameter class “13 cm” to “41 cm”, whereas the

volume per tree increases from 0.06 to 0.67 tons for the same diameter range.

Conversely, in the cases of the harvester and the processors, the productivity of the

machines is impacted by their inability to maintain a consistent falling or processing rate

as tree size increases, which attenuates the impact of increasing volume with diameter.

For example, on average, the number of trees felled and processed by the harvester

decreases from about 75 to 40 (46% reduction) when moving from the diameter class “13

cm” to “41 cm”.

When using the results obtained with the above regression models to compare the

harvesting systems for the average diameter (19 cm), the mean productivity was

estimated to be approximately 14 tons per PMH (95% confidence interval from 12.5 to

15.7) and 15 tons per PMH (95% confidence interval from 13.2 to 16.8) greater from the

feller buncher and processors than from the harvester working alone, regardless of

46

ground slope. A t-test revealed that these differences were statistically significant (two-

sided p-value = 0).

Variation of costs

Figure 7 shows the impact of piece size and slope on the unit cost ($/ton) of both

harvesting systems. The costs were calculated with the productivity values obtained from

the regression models (Figures 5 and 6), and with the hourly machine costs ($/SMH).

Over all slope classes, the first harvesting system (feller buncher and processors) was

more expensive that the harvester working alone regardless of tree diameter (piece size).

The difference varies between less than $2/ton with the largest piece size, where slope

has less impact, to between $4/ton and $14/ton with the smaller piece sizes where the

impact of slope is more pronounced. The differential of unit costs between the two

harvesting systems on steep (15°-20°) and gentle (<10°) terrain is presented in Figure 8.

From these results, it is evident the effect that slope and especially small diameter trees

has on the productivity and cost of the harvesting systems, especially for the second

harvesting system (feller buncher and processors). These results are confirmed in a

previous trial (Holtzascher and Lanford 1997), where the effect on costs and productivity

of cut-to-length systems used in thinning in Alabama, USA was studied.

[Figure 7 about here]

[Figure 8 about here]

47

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A study into the productivity and cost effectiveness of alternative harvesting systems in

regrowth thinning operations in Australia was conducted. The study provided valuable

information on the cost efficiencies of alternative harvesting systems working on

different slopes and in forests with different tree sizes.

The results obtained shows that on steep terrain (15°-20° degrees), the harvesting system

consisting of a feller buncher and two processors is 14-15 tons/PMH more productive but

$5/ton more expensive than the harvesting system consisting of a single-grip harvester,

for an average tree diameter of 19 cm. Economic analysis of the harvesting systems

indicates that the use of a feller buncher and two processors is more cost effective in

favorable conditions (gentle terrain and tree diameter over 21 cm), although still more

expensive than the harvester. For an average tree diameter of 19 cm and 10 degrees of

slope, the feller buncher and two processors was only $2/ton more expensive than the

harvesting system consisting of a single-grip harvester. Part of the cost differential

between the two systems is explained by the performance of the two processors, which

were unable to boost their productivity with the use of the feller buncher. Higher capital

costs associated with this harvesting system as compared to that of the harvester alone

and the low utilization of the processors also help explain the difference in costs.

According to the statistical analysis of the independent variables of interest, “DBH” was

the productivity driver with a major impact on costs. This variable explained more than

48

85% of the variance in productivity of the harvester and feller buncher, and more than

65% of the variance in productivity of the processors. The asymptotic curve of costs per

ton highlights the effect on productivity of trees with small diameters, especially when

they are smaller than 21 cm. This is important aspect of re-growth thinning.

Although statistically significant (two-sided p-value < 0.05) in the regression models, the

variable “Slope” contributed less than 5% of the variance in productivity of the feller

buncher and the processors. The same variable was non significant with the harvester,

and therefore the model developed to predict its productivity included just “DBH” as the

single independent variable.

Among the work elements that were studied for the feller buncher, “Felling” and

“Positioning” were the most time-consuming activities, accounting together for more

than 60% of the total cycle time in all the plots under study. Feeling time was affected

primarily by hang-ups when trees with big crowns and branches were harvested, and to

some extent, by the work methods used by the operator to fell and lay down the trees.

Likewise, “Processing” was the mot time-consuming activity for the harvester and the

processors. On average, these activities accounted for more than 42% and 70% of the

cycle time, respectively.

49

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank the following people and institutions for their support in carrying out

this research project:

- East Fibre Exports Pty Ltd (SEFE) staff, especially Peter Mitchell, Peter

Rutherford and Erika Hansen

- Forestry New South Wales

- Logging contractor Stephen Pope and crew

- Tom Fisk, CRC Forestry, for his assistance in the field work and comments on the

manuscripts

50

LITERATURE CITED

Nicholson, E. 1999. Current and possible future role of more intensive management of

regrowth forest in NSW. In: Proceedings of the National Workshop “Management of

regrowth forest for wood production Australia”. Eds. M.J. Connell, R.J. Raison, and A.G.

Brown. 18-20th May 1999, Orbost, Victoria, Australia. CSIRO Forestry and Forest

Products.

Beveridge, M. 1999. Harvesting contractors: Investing in the future. In: Proceedings of

the National Workshop “Management of regrowth forest for wood production Australia”.

Eds. M.J.Connell, R.J. Raison, and A.G. Brown. 18-20th May 1999, Orbost, Victoria,

Australia. CSIRO Forestry and Forest Products.

Kerruish, C.M. 1978. Harvesting. In: Eucalyptus for wood production. Eds. W.E. Hillis

and A.G. Brown. CSIRO, Australia.

Connell, M.J. 2003. Log presentation: log damage arising from mechanical harvesting or

processing. Forest and Wood Products Research & development Corporation. Australian

Government. 62 p.

Quill, D. 2007. Harvesting plantation hardwood sawlogs. In: Plantation eucalypts for

high-value timber. Eds. A.G. Brown and C.L. Beadle. 9-12 October 2007, Moorabbin,

Melbourne.

Lambert, J. 2006. Growth in blue gum forest harvesting and haulage requirements in the

Green Triangle 2007-2020. Consultant report. CRC for Forestry, Harvesting and

Operations Programme. Hobart, Australia. 119 p.

51

Kellogg L.D. and P. Bettinger. 1994. Thinning productivity and cost for a mechanized

cut-to-length system in the Northwest Pacific Coast Region of the USA. J. of For. Eng.

5(2): 43-54.

Kellogg, L.D. and B.D Spong. 2004. Cut-to-length thinning production and costs:

Experience from the Willamette Young Stand Project. Research Contribution 47, Forest

Research Laboratory, Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Hossain, M.M. and E.D. Olsen. 1998. Comparison of Commercial thinning production

and costs between silvicultural treatments, multiple sites, and logging systems in Central

Oregon. In: Proceedings of the 1998 Annual Council of Forest Engineering (COFE)

meeting, Portland, Oregon. 14 p.

Turner, D.R. and H.-S. Han. 2003. Productivity of a small cut-to-length harvester in

northern Idaho, USA. In: Proceedings of the 2003 Annual Council of Forest Engineering

(COFE) meeting. Bar Harbor, Maine, 5 p.

Spinelli, R., P.M. Owende, and S.M. Ward. 2002. Productivity and cost of CTL

harvesting of Eucalyptus globulus stands using excavator-based harvesters. For. Prod. J.

52(1):67-77.

Glode, D. 1999. Single- and double-grip harvesters – Productive measurements in final

cutting of shelterwood. J. of For. Eng. 10(2):63-74.

Hanell, B., T. Nordfjell, and L. Eliasson. 2000. Productivity and costs in shelterwood

harvesting. Scand. J. For. Res 15:561-569.

Nurminen, T., H. Korpunen, and J.Uusitalo. 2006. Time consumption análisis of the

mechanized cut-to-length harvesting system. Silva Fennica 40(2):335-363.

52

Landford. B.L. and B.J. Stokes. 1996. Comparison of two thinning systems. Part 2.

Productivity and costs. For. Prod. J. 46(11/12):47-53.

Holtzascher, M.A. and B.L. Lanford. 1997. Tree diameter effects on cost and

productivity of cut-to-length systems. For. Prod. J. 47(3):25-30.

Hartsough, B.R., X. Zhang, and R.D. Fight. 2001. Harvesting cost model for small trees

in natural stands in the interior Northwest. For. Prod. J. 51(4):54-61.

Hartsough, B.R, and D.J. Cooper. 1999. Cut-to-length harvesting of short-rotation

Eucalyptus. For. Prod. J. 49(10):69-75.

Forests New South Wales. 2007. Harvesting plan of Compartment 168. Southern Region

– Eden. Nadgee S.F. No. 125. 17 p.

Applied Computer Services, Inc. 2007. Timer pro version Professional. Englewood, CO,

USA.

Olsen, E.D., M.M. Hossain, and M.E. Miller. 1998. Statistical comparison of methods

used in harvesting work studies. Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State University.

Research Contribution 23. 41 p.

Thompson, M.A. 1988. An analysis of methods used to report machine performance.

Paper presented at the 1998 International Winter Meeting of the American Society of

Agricultural Engineers (ASAE). Chicago, IL, USA. 56 p.

Miyata, E.S., and H.S. Steinhilb. 1981. Logging system cost analysis: comparison of

methods used. USDA Forest Service Research Paper NC-208. North Central Forest

Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota.

53

Ramsey, F.L., and Shafer, D.W. 2002. The statistical Sleuth: A course in methods of data

analysis. Duxbury Press. Second Edition. 742 p.

Table 1. Pre-treatment description of the harvest units.

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4

Area (ha)

Site stocking (trees)

Stocking (trees/ha)

Mean DBH (cm)

Mean basal area (m2/ha)

Ground slope (degrees)

Harvest system studied

1.80

1290

717

21.5

26.0

15-20

1 and 2

0.83

592

713

23.2

30.2

15-20

2

0.79

563

713

22.9

29.4

10-15

2

1.55

781

504

21.3

18.0

0-10

1 and 2

54

Table 2. Harvesting systems used in the study.

Harvesting system 1:

Harvester (Figure 1): Timberjack 608S, steel-tracked (21.3 tons and 245 HP), with a 7.6

meter articulated boom, and equipped with a Waratah head of 56 cm.

Forwarder: John Deer 1710D, of 18 ton load capacity and 215 HP, with a 8.5 meter

articulated boom.

Harvesting system 2:

Feller buncher (Figure 2): Valmet 445 EXL, steel-tracked (27.2 tons and 260 HP), with

a 6.5 meter articulated boom, and equipped with a Rosin CF750 head (chain saw) with a

maximum opening of 1.1 meters and 2.25 tons.

Processors: two machines with the same characteristics of the harvester used in

harvesting system 1.

Forwarder: same as the one used in harvesting system 1.

55

Table 3. Description of time elements by machine type.

Harvester (HV) Feller buncher (FB) Processor (PR)

Time elements

- Moving

- Clearing

- Moving LBT

- Positioning

- Felling

- Processing

- Traveling

Time elements

- Moving

- Clearing

- Moving LBT

- Positioning

- Felling

- Bunching

- Traveling

Time elements

- Moving

- Clearing

- Moving LBT

- Positioning

- Processing

- Traveling

Moving (HV, FB, PR): Begins when the harvester starts to move and ends when the

machine stops moving to perform some other activity.

Clearing (HV, FB, PR): Clearing undergrowth and processing unmerchantable trees.

Moving LBT (HV, FB, PR): Removing logs, branches and tops.

Positioning (HV, FB, PR): Begins when the boom starts to swing towards a tree and ends

when the machine head is resting on a tree and the felling cut begins.

Felling (FB, HV): Begins when the felling cut starts and ends when the tree touches the

ground (FB) or when the feeding rollers start to turn on the stem (HV).

Processing (HV, PR): Begins when the feeding rollers start to run and ends when the last

bucking cut is made and the last log is dropped onto the pile.

Bunching (FB): Begins when the tree touches the ground and ends when the tree is

dropped onto the pile.

Traveling (HV, FB, PR): Traveling from one row (swath) to the next one.

56

Table 4. Productivity and costs by harvesting system.

Harvesting system 1 Harvesting system 2

Site 1 Site 4 Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4

Area (ha)

Average DBH (cm)

Trees harvested

Slope (degrees)

0.76

21.1

390

15-20

0.87

18.0

341

0-10

1.04

18.3

530

15-20

1.16

20.7

431

15-20

1.10

20.9

388

10-15

0.68

18.6

264

0-10

Machine type* HV HV FB PR FB PR FB PR FB PR

Trees/PMH

Tons/tree

Tons/PMH

Utilization (%)

Tons/SMH

$/SMH

62.0

0.17

10.5

81.0

8.5

168.0

68.0

0.12

8.2

81.0

6.6

168.0

169.0

0.13

21.9

85.0

18.6

171.0

158.0

0.13

20.5

79.0

16.2

164.0

155.0

0.16

24.8

85.0

21.1

171.0

140.0

0.16

22.4

79.0

17.7

164.0

168.0

0.17

28.5

85.0

24.2

171.0

166.0

0.17

28.2

79.0

22.3

164.0

185.0

0.13

24.0

85.0

20.4

171.0

180.0

0.13

23.4

79.0

18.5

164.0

$/ton 19.8 24.9 9.4 20.9 7.9 18.8 7.2 15.0 8.4 16.4

$/ton (system) 19.8 24.9 30.3 26.7 22.2 24.8

* HV=harvester, FB=feller buncher, PR=processors

57

Table 5. Multiple regression models for the productivity of machines

Harvester

Productivity (tons/PMH) = -5.93 + 0.80 DBH (cm)

r2 = 0.87, 682 observations

Feller buncher

Productivity (tons/PMH) = -26.44 + 2.76 DBH (cm) – 0.10 Slope (degrees)

r2 = 0.89, 1,474 observations

Processors

Productivity (tons/PMH) = -1.84 + 1.64 DBH (cm) – 0.36 Slope (degrees)

r2 = 0.66, 1,499 observations

58

Figure 1. Harvester “Timberjack” 608S.

59

Figure 2. Feller buncher “Valmet” 445 EXL.

60

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

HV (15°-20°) HV (<10°) FB (15°-20°) FB (15°-20°) FB (10°-15°) FB (<10°) PR (15°-20°) PR (15°-20°) PR (10°-15°) PR (<10°)

Machine (ground slope)

Tim

e pe

r tre

e (s

econ

ds)

Clearing Moving Traveling Moving logs, tops, branches Positioning Felling Processing Bunching

Figure 3. Contribution of time elements to cycle time by machine type and ground slope.

61

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41

DBH (cm)

Cos

t diff

eren

tial (

$/to

n)

Steep terrain (15°-20°) Gentle terrain (<10°)

Figure 4. Cost differential (cost of harvesting system 2 minus cost of harvesting system

1) on steep (15°-20°) and gentle (<10°) terrain calculated with the actual data.

62

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41

DBH (cm)

Prod

uctiv

ity (t

ons/

PMH

)

Harvester (15°-20°) Harvester (<10°)

Figure 5. Productivity of the harvester for a range of tree diameters on steep (15°-20°)

and gentle (<10°) terrain.

63

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41

DBH (cm)

Prod

uctiv

ity (t

ons/

PMH

)

Feller buncher (15°-20°) Feller buncher (10°-15°) Feller buncher (<10°)Processors (15°-20°) Processors (10°-15°) Processors (<10°)

Figure 6. Productivity of the feller buncher and processors for the range of tree diameters

and ground slopes evaluated in the study.

64

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41

DBH (cm)

Uni

t cos

t ($/

ton)

Harvester Feller/processors (15°-20°) Feller/processors (10°-15°) Feller/processors (<10°)

Figure 7. Unit costs of the harvesting systems (harvester and feller buncher /processors)

for the range of tree diameters and ground slopes evaluated in the study.

65

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41

DBH (cm)

Cos

t diff

eren

tial (

$/to

n)

Steep terrain (15°-20°) Gentle terrain (<10°)

Figure 8. Cost differential (cost of harvesting system 2 minus cost of harvesting system

1) steep (15°-20°) and gentle (<10°) terrain calculated with data from the regression

analysis.

66

Australia CRC for Forestry Harvesting and Operations

Research ----What is it out to achieve?

Loren KelloggSenior Research Fellow

CRC ForestryHarvesting and Operations

Acknowledgements

CRC for Forestry:• Professor Gordon Duff, CEO• Mark Brown, Programme 3 Leader• Darrell Clark, Chair Programme 3 Coordinating Committee

The University of Melbourne, Forest and Ecosystem Science• Professor Rod Keenan, Head of School • Associate Professor Leon Bren

Dr. Bob McCormack, Former Harvesting Researcher, CSIRO

CRC Forestry; Programme 3 Harvesting and OperationsDr. Mauricio Acuna, Martin Strandgard, John Wiedemann,Tom Fisk

67

Topics

• Australia’s Forest Industry• A Look Back at Australia’s Harvesting R&D • CRCs in Australia • CRC for Forestry ---- and what it is out to

achieve• CRC Forestry Harvesting and Operations

Research --- and what it is out to achieve• Perspectives on Long-Term Harvesting R&D

in Australia

Australia’s Forests

• Native Forests: 147 million ha.

• Plantation Forests: 1.9 million ha.

• ConservationReserves: 21.5 millionha (13%)

68

Australia’s Plantation Area, 1994 to 2006

• 1.9 million Ha. (2007)

• 55% softwood45% hardwoods

• 92% of plantations privately owned

• 33% of plantations in Mgt. Investment Schemes

Plantations by Jurisdiction(2006)

Hardwood Plantations Softwood Plantations

Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australiahave +60% of Plantations

69

Australia’s Forest and Wood Products Industry

• $18 billion turnover p.a. (2005/06)

• 1% forestry contribution to GDP

• Direct employment >83,000 workers

• 27 M M3 annual harvest• 66% from plantations

• Pine 15 M M3• Eucalypt 2 M M3

• <1% from native forests• 10 M M3

A Look Back at Australia’s Harvesting R & D (1955-2005)

Era 1: 1955- 1974Timber Supply Economics Branch (Government)

25 – 30 staff Logging in native forests, plantations; sawmilling R&D

Era 2:1974-19841976 CSIRO Harvesting Research

15 - 20 staff R&D aimed at improving productivity and performance

Era 3: 1984 – 1991Joint CSIRO and Industry Task Force

10 staffSilviculture of high yielding regrowth Eucalypt forests

Era 4: 1991 – 2000Joint CSIRO, Australia Logging Council, & Universities

5 staffSpecific R & D projects linked to funding sources

Era 5: 2000- 2005CSIRO Forestry; 1 – 3 staff

70

8 September 2008

Mechanized High Pruner

Windsor RW 30 Timberjack TJ30

HarvesterData Logger

Photos from Bob McCormack)

8 September 2008GPS BasedData Logger

Chemical Injection Hammer

Mechanized Thinning

Clearing SawNon Commercial Thinning

Photos from Bob McCormack 71

Australia’s CooperativeResearch Centers

• Started in 1991to realize greater benefits from R & D• Key economic development areas• Delivering results in a timely manner• Linking research with implementation

• Economic, environmental and socially sustainable development

• Commonwealth Government provides cash support of ~ $1 for $4 invested by industry, universities, and research organizations

• Each CRC set-up for a 7 year period • Currently 64 CRC’s in Australia

CRC for Forestry

• Established in 1991…..currently in 3rd funding round

• 29 partners • Head office in Hobart, Tasmania • Run by an independent Board of Directors• Forestry programme focuses on innovation,

value-adding and competitive advantage, maintaining biodiversity, landscape and community values

72

8 September 2008

CRC Forestry Funding

Cash Contributions Government

32%

In-Kind Contributions

55%

Cash Contributions Industry

8%

Cash Contributions Universities

5%

Primary Goals of the CRC for ForestryWhat is it out to achieve?

Foster Research to:• Maintain and improve security of access to land and

resources• Social license to operate• Investment confidence in new forestry ventures• Contributing positively to pressing environmental and social

issues• Increase yield and reduce cost of wood production• Increase value of wood products• Reduce costs of delivered wood products• Increase capacity for innovation and continuous

improvements, build lasting knowledge networks, and improve industry access to global expertise

73

CRC for Forestry Programme Areas

1. Managing and Monitoring for Growth and Health

2. High Value Wood Resources3. Harvesting and Operations4. Trees in the Landscape

CRC Forestry Programme 3Harvesting and Operations

Development Background:• Established in 3rd round of CRC Forestry funding (2005)• Started from no capacity• Developed a strategically planned program with

stakeholders• The Research Team:

• Programme Leader/Research Fellow• Three Research Fellows• Two Postgraduate students • Scholarship funding for additional postgraduate students• Two In-Kind University Supported Researchers• Research Programme Advisor • Two international research visitors

74

8 September 2008

Cash Contributions Industry

18%

Cash Contributions Universities

10%

In - Kind Contributions

22%

Cash Contributions Government

50%

CRC Forestry Programme 3 Harvesting and Operations

Harvesting and OperationsWhat are we out to achieve?

Research Objectives:• Provide solutions that allow the Australian forest

industry to:• Reduce operating costs• Reduce the energy and green house gas emissions intensity

of operations• Increase the value recovered from operations• Improve the safety and wellbeing of the workforce

75

Harvesting and OperationsWhat are we out to achieve?

Implementation Objectives:• Implement solutions with CRC Forestry Programme 3

partners that result in one or more of the following benefits:• 10% or greater reduction in operating cost• 10% or greater reduction in energy intensity of operations• 5% or greater increase in value recovery

Secondary Objective:• Build an increased capacity in Australia for forest

harvesting and operations research

Harvesting and OperationsSix Research Areas

1. Harvesting technology and equipment2. Harvesting systems, planning and

procedures3. Value recovery and waste reduction4. Workforce management and training5. Transportation technology and equipment6. Transportation systems, planning and

logistics

76

1. Harvesting Technology and Equipment

� Evaluation of the accuracy of harvester heads for value recovery optimization with Pine, and Eucalyptus

� Implementation of onboarddata-capture technology for improved resource management and machine productivity

• Compare the efficiency of different harvester heads, and improved debarking technology for eucalyptus

Source: John Deere (2007) Harvester brochure. www.deere.com

[Research by Martin Strandgard]

2. Harvesting Systems, Planning and Procedures

� Evaluation of alternative harvesting systems for native forest regrowth thinning

� Optimization of plantation inter-rotation planning� Evaluation of harvesting systems as they relate to

piece size and other variables• Quantify the productivity and costs of alternative

harvesting systems

77

Native Forest ReGrowth ThinningNew South Wales

Questions:• Native forest regrowth

thinning will occur on steeper terrain and smaller trees

• What are the productivity and cost impacts?

• How do alternative harvesting systems compare?

• What are the niche areas for different harvest systems?

• Where/how can productivity be increased?

Vs.

System 2

System 1

[Photos from Mauricio Acuna]

Research Methodology

[Photos from Mauricio Acuna] 78

Examples of Research Results

Cost vs. DBH & Slope –Feller buncher & Processor

Harvester

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

50.00

13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41

DBH (cm)

CO

ST ($

/ to

nne)

FB - P1 (20) FB - P2 (20) FB - P3 (15) FB - P4 (10) PR - P1 (20)PR - P2 (20) PR - P3 (15) PR - P4 (10)

Feller buncher

Processor

60.9

42.2

32.9

23.220.2

18.016.2

14.7

27.2

12.914.215.817.820.4

23.9

29.0

53.5

37.2

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29

DBH (cm)

CO

ST ($

/ TO

NN

E)

FB/PR - P1 (base) FB/PR - P1 (10% productividad + 5% utilization)

Sensitivity analysis (increase of productivity & utilization)

[Research Results from Mauricio Acuna]

Extending Research Results

Australian Logging

Productivity

and

Cost Appraisal Model

(ALPACA)

79

Native Forest ReGrowth ThinningTasmania

Mgt. Issues /Questions:•A sustainable production of high quality sawlogs is targeted for native re-growth forests•High incidence of stem decay from natural sources•What is the “best approach” for selecting and harvesting stem decayed trees during thinning?

•Equipment operator training manuals & in-field assistance•Pre-harvest tree marking vs. operator selection

[Research by Mauricio Acuna]

Mechanized Harvesting System AlternativesWestern Australia

Management Questions:• Productivity and cost

differences?• In-field chipping vs. transporting

logs and chipping at mill• Snigging whole trees vs.

forwarding• Whole tree forwarding vs.

short-wood forwarding • Chain flail with chipper at

roadside vs. processing in field with chipper at roadside

• Impacts of operating in ideal vs. less than ideal plantations for each harvest system

[Research by John Wiedemann & Mauricio Acuna] 80

3. Value Recovery and Waste Reduction

� Evaluation of existing and developing markets for forest operations biomass utilization

• Evaluation of ground-based LIDAR for improved pre-harvest inventory modeling and planning

• Evaluation of technology for improved merchandizing

• Evaluation of sub-optimal recovery of products

• Operational impact of multiple product extraction

• Handling small sized biomass[Research by Mauricio Acuna]

4. Workforce Management and Training

• Harvest Planning & EquipmentManagement Workshops

• Promoting the adoption of new technology and work methods with the forestry workforce

• Affecting change with contractors while maintaining an independent business relationship

• Other Related Activities• New Masters Forest Operations

Course• Australia forest equipment

survey81

5. Transportation Technology and Equipment

• Evaluation of existing fleets for payload efficiency and identify opportunities for efficiency gains

• Testing and implementation of new hybrid technology

• Optimizedperformance-baseddesigned trucks for forestry transportation in Australia

[Research by Mark Brown]

6. Transportation Systems, Planning and Logistics

� Develop optimized logistics planning, scheduling, management methods, and tools for forestry transportation

� Develop a framework for the documentation of carbon emissions from forest transportation, and management savings through an energy trading scheme

Mill AMill A

Mill BMill B

Mill CMill CTruck 1

LoadedEmpty

[Research by Mauricio Acuna] 82

ConclusionsPerspectives on Long-Term Harvesting R&D in Australia

1. Provide tangible outcomes from a collection of research projects� Improve existing operations

2. Provide effective implementation of research information with the contracting work force

3. Improve the industry and contractor knowledge base for their own forest operations assessments and improvements

ConclusionsPerspectives on Long-Term Harvesting R&D in Australia

4. Strengthen the linkages along the supply chain between harvesting with other disciplines/industries

5. Provide a sustainable model for forest harvesting and operations research, extension, education, and training capacity building in Australia

6. Develop lasting networks and improved access to global expertise

83

Thank you

Professor Loren KelloggSenior Research FellowCRC Forestry Harvesting and Operations

andLematta Professor of Forest EngineeringCollege of Forestry Oregon State University

Harvesting R&D:How/why does it work and what are the challenges?

84

What are the challenges?

There is a seriously shrinking forest engineering capacity around the world

#

##

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

How/why does Harvesting R & D work?

1. It works when technology/information transfer are main objectives of the research program.

85

How/why does Harvesting R & D work?

2. It works when harvesting R&D provides useful information for improving existing operations.

How/why does Harvesting R & D work?

3. Using a wide range of people with different backgrounds and expertise can get the research and technology transfer done.

Example CRC Forestry Programme 3 Postgraduate Research Projects

1. Optimized logistic planning and management for forestry transportationAcademic background: Engineering, Computer Science, Supply Chain Management

2. Promoting the acceptance and adoption of new technology and work methods within the forestry workforceAcademic background: Sociology, Psychology

86

How/why does Harvesting R &D work?

4. It works when forest engineering is included in forest resource management issues/research.

Forest Fuels Reduction and Bioenergy

Selective Harvesting for Biodiversity or Aesthetics

Meeting Harvesting R & D challenges by thinking outside of the box

87