Farm Forestry New Zealand

A survey of New Zealand farm forest owners who recently harvested

Kristopher Brown and Rien Visser, New Zealand Tree Grower August 2017.

Access, the cost of moving a number of large machines and a high capital cost create production demands that may be contrary to farm forest objectives. Previous studies have shown that a percentage of smaller woodlots will be uneconomic to harvest under current market conditions and cost structures which means a negative financial return to the land owner.

The increasing number of harvesting-related articles in Tree Grower over the past several years indicates that it is a timely issue and a top concern among farm foresters. Many farm foresters have shared their experiences with regard to financial results, the effects of logging activities on farming operations, the post-harvest condition of the harvest area, infrastructure, paddocks and fences, and environmentally sensitive areas such as streams and native vegetation. In addition, these articles provide invaluable advice for fellow farm foresters who are preparing to harvest.

This article summarises the findings from a survey of 17 farm forest owners with recent harvesting activity. The aim was to obtain an insight into the values and objectives that such land owners have placed on their woodlots and to establish good and poor harvesting practices from the perspective of the farm forester. This should help farm foresters who are planning to harvest their woodlots. A follow-up study will focus on the requirements for successful harvesting systems for farm forestry − woodlots through to small commercial forests.

Location, scale and harvest systems used

We surveyed 17 farm forest owners from Northland down to Otago who recently harvested their woodlots. Three older harvests, one occurring in 2011 and two in 2014, were included in the study, but most of the harvests were in 2015 and 2016. Land owners had woodlots ranging in size from 2.5 to 265 hectares, with a median of 30 hectares. Six of the landowners had woodlots ranging from 100 to 265 hectares. The woodlots were predominantly radiata pine.

The actual harvested areas ranged from one to 100 hectares. On average, a 10-hectare harvest took 10.5 weeks to complete, with wet-weather harvesting taking slightly longer than dry-weather harvesting. Overall, wood harvest duration was variable depending on the efficiency of the operation, ranging from 0.12 to 2.5 hectares a week. In comparison, contractors working in larger commercial plantations will harvest an average of 2.5 hectares a week.

In the survey, 14 harvests were completed with ground-based machines, two by cable yarding, and one harvest used a combination of both. On average, logging crews were relatively small, consisting of four machines and four to five crew members. This compared with larger crews working on the company forest lands with an average of 5.6 machines and 6.7 workers.

Region	Woodlot area in hectares	Harvest area in hectares	Harvest duration in weeks	Wet weather	Harvest system	Machine and crew numbers	Woodlot replanted
Canterbury	40	12.5	12	No	G	3 and 3	Yes
Gisborne	140	7.5	3	No	G	6 and 5	Yes
Otago	10	10	16	Yes	G	4 and 5	Yes
Canterbury	150	15	8	Yes	G	6 and 4	Yes
Canterbury	265	2.2	3	No	G	4 and 3	Yes
Northland	13	13	18	No	G	4 and 3	Yes
Waikato	14	7	3	Yes	G	3 and 6	No
Canterbury	8	8	12	No	G	3 and 5	Yes
Otago	16	11	6	No	G	4 and 4	Yes
Wairarapa	100	11	20	Yes	C	8 and 6	Yes
Waikato	230	1	5	No	G	4 and 4	No
Waikato	230	1	1	No	G	2 and 2	No
Bay of Plenty	250	100	50	Yes	GC	5 and 6	Yes
Bay of Plenty	5.5	2.25	-	No	G	2 and 4	Yes
Wellington	2.5	2.5	20	Yes	G	2 and 3	No
Northland	30	3	3	No	G	4 and 4	Yes
Northland	30	30	20	No	C	5 and 8	No

Values and objectives for woodlots

Participants were asked to describe the degree to which certain values or objectives were relevant for their woodlots. All agreed that commercial value was important and most agreed that their woodlots provided important aesthetic values, water quality protection, shelter for livestock and erosion control. Less often, participants indicated that their woodlots provided important values related to invasive weed management, wildlife habitat, and recreation.

A few years ago, Rodenberg and Manley surveyed 728 owners of small forests throughout New Zealand who had between 20 and 200 hectares of forest. They also found that income from timber and environmental reasons were among the top ownership objectives, while recreation was least important. Overall, these findings indicate that while all woodlots have economic value to their owners, most will have two or three additional values of equal importance.

Landowner perspectives on harvesting practices

We asked participants about their harvest experience with regard to financial, safety, environmental, and cultural results, as well as how logging activity affected normal farming operations. For poor practices, participants were asked to explain what went wrong.

Importance ranking	Your woodlot provides important	Strongly agree	Agree	Not applicable	Disagree	Strongly disagree
1	Commercial value	75%	25%	0%	0%	0%
2	Aesthetic values	44%	44%	12%	0%	0%
3	Water quality protection	44%	37%	19%	0%	0%
4	Shelter for livestock	25%	56%	13%	6%	0%
5	Erosion control functions	50%	25%	19%	6%	0%
6	Wildlife habitat	13%	56%	25%	6%	0%
7	Invasive weed management	37%	25%	25%	13%	0%
8	Recreational opportunities	13%	44%	31%	12%	0%

Financial

While most agreed that they received sound financial advice before harvesting, just 59 per cent were satisfied with value recovery from their woodlots and 64 per cent were satisfied with the overall financial result from harvesting. Factors which led to dissatisfaction with value recovery included confusion about the tonnage delivered to the buyer, merchantable logs left on the hill, stem breakage during harvesting and the amount of logging residues left behind. One land owner noted that logs that could have gone to export were sent to chip at a much lower value.

In one case, poor harvest planning meant that the yarder struggled to bring large trees to the landing. As a result, stems had to be cut on the hill to help extraction and the land owner believed that this reduced value recovery. In another case, at least a quarter of the value due under contract to the forest owner was not accounted for, or paid for. In addition, wet and wintry logging conditions meant merchantable logs being left on the hill for two harvest sites.

Participants who were not satisfied with the overall financial results gave reasons including −

• Unforeseen deductions such as port scaling fees
• Lack of transparency regarding harvest recovery, costs and returns
• Perceived low nett returns
• Long transport distance to the market
• High costs associated with harvesting, log transport, and logging equipment transport.

One land owner felt that his overall financial return was compromised partly because the harvest manager seemed to be looking after the logging contractor’s interests.

Safety

A total of 64 per cent of participants agreed that they received sound safety advice before harvesting. Forest owners harvesting in 2011 and 2014 suggested that if they were harvesting today, safety would have featured more heavily in pre-harvest discussions.

Overall, 70 per cent of land owners felt that the logging crew worked safely. Two participants felt they were not in a position to assess the operation’s safety as they were not usually on site. For the three who disagreed, safety concerns included the harvesting crew’s long working hours while under duress from the crew foreman, and motor-manual processing too close to heavy machinery on the skid site. Another forest owner was concerned about a forestry worker who was standing on a stack of logs while using a chainsaw to process them.

Disruption of farming operations

A total of 65 per cent of participants agreed that normal farming operations were not disrupted as a result of harvesting, although one stated that this was due to planning and proactive management. Examples of farming disruption included sharing access roads and tracks with logging trucks and machinery, taking down fences and adjusting grazing schedules to reduce harvesting effects on livestock.

In one case, harvesting was noisy enough to disrupt cows and their regular milking schedule, so stock had to be moved away from the harvest area. One owner indicated that the destruction of fences and delays in harvest completion disrupted grazing and delayed restoration of fencing and pasture. Survey results indicated that, in most cases, any fences left in the way of forest harvesting would be damaged.

Landowner perspectives related to financial, safety and environmental results	Strongly agree	Agree	Not applicable	Disagree	Strongly disagree
Financial
I received sound financial advice before harvesting	41%	41%	12%	6%	0%
I am satisfied with the way the value was recovered from my woodlot	53%	6%	0%	41%	0%
Overall, I am satisfied with the financial result	35%	29%	0%	35%	0%
Safety
I received sound safety advice before harvesting	29%	35%	12%	18%	6%
Overall, the logging crew worked safely	23%	47%	12%	12%	6%
Interaction with farming
The harvest operation did not disturb normal farming operations	6%	59%	18%	18%	0%
Harvest operations did not damage fences or other farm property	6%	35%	12%	47%	0%
Environmental
I received sound environmental advice before harvesting	12%	41%	29%	18%	0%
Overall, environmental values were protected during harvesting	6%	70%	12%	12%	0%
Specifically, the level of soil disturbance was acceptable	12%	70%	0%	18%	0%
I am satisfied with the distribution of logging residue	12%	59%	0%	18%	12%
I am satisfied with the post-harvest condition of access roads and associated stream crossings	12%	59%	12%	12%	6%
Fuel, oil, trash and slash were cleaned up	12%	70%	0%	18%	0%

Environmental

Just over half, 53 per cent, of participants agreed that they received sound environmental advice before harvesting. Five landowners answered that this was not applicable because of a perceived low risk to water quality − low rainfall, rocky soils or a harvest area well-removed from water.

However, 76 per cent of participants felt that environmental values were protected during the harvest. Two of these participants expressed concern about the potential water quality effects of temporary log crossings in wet gullies and bladed skid trails on hillslopes. Two were not satisfied, with one concerned about damage to native forests.

For soil disturbance from harvesting operations, 82 per cent found the level of disturbance was acceptable. However, one of these participants expressed some concern about ruts. Three found that the level of soil disturbance during harvesting was unacceptable, noting severe rutting of log truck roads and skid trails. Another noted that the use of an excavator’s dozer blade as an anchor on steep banks resulted in excessive soil disturbance. In all three cases of dissatisfaction, the harvests were conducted during the winter months under wet conditions.

While 70 per cent of participants were satisfied with the post-harvest condition of roads and associated stream crossings, 18 per cent were not. Problems included a washed-out access track due to a culvert being blocked with woody debris, and rutting of logging roads due to wet weather logging. Where problems occurred, they were associated with harvesting during the autumn and winter months. Two harvests were stopped prematurely, with wintry conditions a contributing factor.

Logging residue and site clean-up

While 11 participants were satisfied with the post-harvest distribution of logging residue, six were not. One wanted harvesting residues to be distributed across the cutover for nutrient retention. Others lamented about the volume of off-cuts on the skids that would go to waste. Another was frustrated with the number of unprocessed logs and overall quantity of waste from ‘lazy log making’.

A total of 82 per cent of participants were satisfied with the clean-up of fuel, oil, rubbish, and slash while 18 per cent of participants were not happy about cans, wire rope and other rubbish left behind after the harvest. None of the participants surveyed indicated that they had any sites of cultural or historical significance in their harvest areas. All answered ‘Not applicable’ to this question.

Open discussion with farm forest owners

Participants were asked, ‘If you could change anything related to the harvest operation, what would it be?’ The top response was that they would not change anything, indicating that about a third of those surveyed were very satisfied with their harvest experience.

Four participants indicated that they would shop around more thoroughly for logging contractors or timber marketing professionals the next time. Six indicated that they would improve their pre-harvest planning with regard to log price quotes, harvest feasibility, planning for directional felling and interruptions to farming activities. One said, ‘Make sure you have a contract which is relevant to the arrangements with your contractors and use the process of negotiating the contract to clarify expectations and obligations of all parties’.

One participant wanted to be involved more directly during the harvest to solve major problems as they arose. Another indicated that they would monitor the performance of the harvest manager and logging crew more closely next time. In terms of post-harvest lessons learned, responses included insisting on good site clean-up, maintaining access for site management and weed control, and using waste wood and slash.

Advice to those planning harvesting

We also asked participants, ‘What main piece of advice would you give to a fellow farm forest owner preparing to harvest?’ Top responses were to choose your logging contractor carefully, plan ahead five participants, and understand all of the costs involved with harvesting your woodlot.

Others provided the following advice −

• Use the NZFFA network for advice about harvesting
• Talk to an integrated forest management company
• Get a log price quote
• Outline harvesting requirements in a contract
• Consolidate your harvest with a neighbour when possible
• Be prepared for increased traffic on the farm
• Get roads and skid sites in well before the harvest
• Make loggers care about protecting the farm during harvesting
• Be more involved with the logging operation
• Monitor the performance of the harvest manager and logging crew’
• Have some way of tracking payments owed to you as logging moves forward.

Planting again

Finally, we asked participants, ‘Based on your experience to date, would you encourage other farmers to plant woodlots?’ A total of 80 per cent of the landowners surveyed indicated that they would encourage farmers to plant woodlots. In fact, 12 of the 17 harvest areas from this survey were replanted in forestry. In addition, several participants cited the benefits of woodlots for livestock shelter, erosion control, improved grass growth, offsetting livestock greenhouse gas emissions, aesthetic values, wildlife habitat and land use diversification

Again, this demonstrates that many farm forest owners expect their woodlots to provide other functions in addition to commercial value. For example, while one said that he simply likes trees and building with wood, another emphasised the importance of planting trees only in locations suitable for harvest operations.

Conversely, 20 per cent of the land owners surveyed said they would not encourage farmers to plant woodlots. Participants justified their responses with the following reasons −

• Low economic return
• A perceived devaluing of farmland by planting trees
• A poor experience with the logging contractor
• Long cartage distance and therefore transport cost
• Carbon credit bureaucracy
• An undue regional council or district council influence on land use decisions and forest harvesting on the farm.

Conclusions

Commercial value was the most highly ranked woodlot objective. However, values associated with aesthetics, water quality protection, erosion control and livestock shelter were recognised by 75 per cent or more participants. There were many factors involved with whether or not a land owner had a positive harvesting experience financially, and about two-thirds were satisfied

A good understanding about the economic feasibility of harvesting − all costs associated with harvesting, infrastructure and log transport − and the likelihood that a positive result can be achieved is necessary during the planning stage. Many participants emphasised the importance of pre-harvest planning, with some advocating for a harvesting feasibility assessment at the time of tree planting.

Dissatisfaction with the overall financial result was mostly linked with perceived poor wood value recovery. In addition, operating in wet weather was a factor behind a number of complaints, so it appears prudent to avoid harvesting in such conditions when possible.

This project was funded and supported by the Neil Barr Foundation.

Kristopher Brown is a Post-doctoral Fellow at the School of Forestry, University of Canterbury (kristopher.brown@canterbury.ac.nz). Rien Visser is Associate Professor and Director of Studies (Forest Engineering).