Comparison of Productivity and Cost between Two Integrated Harvesting Systems in South Korea
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Integrated Harvesting System
2.3. Survey Method
2.4. Analysis Method
2.4.1. Operation Cost
2.4.2. Analysis of the Cost Benefits of the Whole-Tree Integrated Harvesting System
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Productivity and Costs of the Integrated Harvesting Systems
3.1.1. Cut-to-Length (Ground-Based) Harvesting System
3.1.2. Whole-Tree (Cable) Harvesting System
3.1.3. Operation Element Cost for Each Integrated Harvesting System
3.2. Analysis of the Cost Benefits of Integrated Harvesting System
3.2.1. Cost Reduction of Whole-Tree Harvesting Systems
3.2.2. Appropriate Machine Utilization Rate for the Introduction of Whole-Tree Integrated Harvesting Systems
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Jeong, S.I. Analysis Study on College Students Perceptions on the Direction of Policy Response to Climate Change. Ph.D. Thesis, Hoseo University, A-san, Korea, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Kang, H.K. A Study on the Feasibility Analysis for Energy Utilization of Forest Biomass. Master’s Thesis, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Environmental Protection Agency. Administrator Pruitt Promotes Environmental Stewardship with Forestry Leaders and Students in Georgia. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/administrator-pruitt-promotes-environmental-stewardship-forestry-leaders-and-students (accessed on 10 July 2018).
- Ministry of Government Legislation. New energy and renewable energy development·use·supply promotion law, enforcement decree Article18–4(1). In Ratio of New and Renewable Energy Duty Supply by Year; Ministry of Government Legislation: Sejong, Korea, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Korea Forest Service. Wood Utilization Survey Report; Korea Forest Service: Daejeon, Korea, 2018; p. 43. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy. Management Instructions of Renewable Energy Portfolio and Fuel Standard; Notice Article(2019-41); Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy: Sejong, Korea, 2019.
- Cho, M.J. Forest Biomass Supply Chain Management for Regional Self-Sufficient Thermal Energy Utilization. Ph.D. Thesis, Kangwon National University, Chun-cheon, Korea, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Korea Forest Service. Statistical Yearbook of Forestry; Korea Forest Service: Daejeon, Korea, 2018; pp. 42–43. [Google Scholar]
- Central Regional Office of Korea Forest Service. Study on Whole Tree Production of Pilot Project; Central Regional Office of Korea Forest Service: Daejeon, Korea, 2010; p. 4. [Google Scholar]
- Han, H.S.; Lee, H.W.; Johnson, L.R. Economic feasibility of an integrated harvesting system for small-diameter trees in Southwest Idaho. For. Prod. J. 2004, 54, 21–27. [Google Scholar]
- Pan, F.; Han, H.S.; Johnson, L.R.; Elliot, W.J. Production and cost of harvesting, processing, and transporting small-diameter (≤5 inches) trees for energy. For. Prod. J. 2008, 58, 47–53. [Google Scholar]
- Bolding, M.C.; Kellogg, L.D.; Davis, C.T. Productivity and costs of an integrated mechanical forest fuel reduction operation in southwest Oregon. For. Prod. J. 2009, 59, 35–46. [Google Scholar]
- Baker, S.A.; Westbrook, M.D.; Greene, W.D. Evaluation of integrated harvesting systems in pine stands of the southern United States. Biomass Bioenergy 2010, 34, 720–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harrill, H.; Han, H.S. Productivity and cost of integrated harvesting of wood chips and sawlogs in stand conversion operations. Int. J. For. Res. 2012, 2012, 893079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walsh, D.; Strandgard, M. Productivity and cost of harvesting a stem wood biomass product from integrated cut-to-length harvest operations in Australian Pinus radiata plantations. Biomass Bioenergy 2014, 66, 93–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Puttock, G.D. Estimating cost for integrated harvesting and related forest management activities. Biomass Bioenergy 1995, 8, 73–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartsough, B.R.; Drews, E.S.; Mcneel, J.F.; Durston, T.A.; Stokes, B.J. Comparison of mechanized systems for thinning Ponderosa pine and mixed conifer stands. For. Prod. J. 1997, 47, 59–68. [Google Scholar]
- Strandgard, M.; Mitchell, R.; Wiedemann, J. Comparison of productivity, cost and chip quality of four balanced harvest systems operating in a Eucalyptus globulus plantation in Western Australia. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2019, 40, 39–48. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, J.A. Productivity and Cost Analysis of Whole-Tree Harvesting System Using Swing-Yarder. Master’s Thesis, Kangwon National University, ChunCheon, Korea, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, M.K.; Park, S.J. An analysis of the operational cost in the whole-tree and cut-to-Length logging operation system. J. Korean For. Soc. 2013, 102, 229–238. [Google Scholar]
- Han, W.S.; Han, H.S.; Kim, N.H.; Cha, D.S.; Cho, K.H.; Min, D.H.; Kwon, K.C. Comparison of harvesting productivity and cost of cable yarding systems. J. Korean For. Soc. 2014, 103, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Cho, K.H.; Cho, M.J.; Han, H.S.; Han, S.K.; Cha, D.S. Harvesting cost of tree-length thinning in a Larix leptolepis stands. J. Korean For. Soc. 2015, 104, 221–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, M.J.; Cho, K.H.; Jeong, E.J.; Choi, B.K.; Han, S.K.; Cha, D.S. Harvesting cost and productive of tree-length thinning in a pinus densiflora stand using the tower yarder (HAM300). J. For. Environ. Sci. 2016, 32, 189–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeong, E.J.; Cho, K.H.; Cho, M.J.; Choi, B.K.; Cha, D.S. Productivity and cost of tree-length harvesting using cable yarding system in a Larch (Larix leptolepis) clear-cutting stand. J. For. Sci. 2017, 33, 147–153. [Google Scholar]
- Cho, M.J.; Cho, K.H.; Choi, B.K.; Cha, D.S. Yarding productivity of tree-length harvesting using a small cable-yarder in steep slope, South Korea. For. Sci. Technol. 2018, 14, 132–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.G.; Choi, Y.S.; Ju, Y.M.; Lee, S.Y.; Nam, Y.S.; Cho, L.H.; Kim, J.M.; Oh, K.C.; Cho, M.J.; Lee, E.J.; et al. A study on the productivity and cost analysis of the timber and logging residue in CTL system of excavator yarding for using the woody resources. New Renene 2016, 12, 51–58. [Google Scholar]
- Korea Forest Service. Forestry Terminology Dictionary. Available online: http://www.forest.go.kr/kfsweb/kfi/kfs/mwd/selectMtstWordDictionaryList.do?mn=NKFS_04_07_01 (accessed on 25 April 2019).
- Lee, E.J.; Han, S.K.; Im, S.J. Performance analysis of log extraction by a small shovel operation in steep forests of South Korea. Forests 2019, 10, 585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, M.K.; Park, S.J. An analysis of the operational time and productivity in whole-tree and cut-to-length logging operation system. J. Korean For. Soc. 2012, 101, 344–355. [Google Scholar]
- National Institute of Forest Science. Wood properties of the useful tree species grown in Korea. Natl. Inst. For. Sci. 2008, 29, 348–368. [Google Scholar]
- Woo, B.M.; Koh, D.H.; Kim, J.S.; Oh, K.C.; Kwon, T.H.; Ma, H.S.; Kim, J.W.; Lee, H.H.; Kim, N.C. Forest Engineering; Gwangilmunhwasa: Seoul, Korea, 1997; pp. 332–334. [Google Scholar]
- Choi, Y.S.; Cho, M.J.; Mun, H.S.; Kim, D.H.; Cha, D.S.; Han, S.K.; Oh, J.H. Analysis on yarding productivity and cost of tower-yarder based on excavator using radio-controlled double clamp carriage. J. Korean For. Soc. 2018, 107, 266–277. [Google Scholar]
- Korea Forest Service. Forestry Mechanization Promotion; Korea Forest Service: Daejeon, Korea, 2012; p. 24. [Google Scholar]
- Construction Association of Korea. Report on the Actual Condition of Construction Industry Wage in the Second Half of 2015; Construction Association of Korea: Seoul, Korea, 2015; p. 17. [Google Scholar]
Items | Integrated Harvesting System | |
---|---|---|
Cut-to-Length | Whole-Tree | |
Ground-Based | Cable | |
area (ha) | 2.3 | 1.2 |
silvicultural system | clear cut | |
forest type | mixed forest | |
species | Pinus rigida, Pinus densiflora, Quercus mongolica, etc. | |
average slope (%) | 48.2 | 43.4 |
DBH a (cm) | 22/10∼48 b | 24/8∼45 b |
height (m) | 14/10∼21 b | 14/8∼23 b |
stand stock (m3/ha) | 131.1 | 127.5 |
P. rigida | P. densiflora | Q. variabilis | Q. mongolica | Q. acutissima | Average | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Specific gravity | 0.71 | 0.7 | 1.08 | 1.09 | 1.05 | 0.93 |
Cost Factor | Unit | Machine | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chain Saw | Excavator with Grapple | Forwarder | Processor | Small Swing Yarder | |||||
Excavator | Head | Excavator | Tower Yarder | ||||||
purchase price | (P) | $ | 818.18 | 49,090.91 | 100,000 | 90,909.09 | 100,000 | 49,090.91 | 65,181.82 |
endurance period | (N) | years | 1 | 7 | 10 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 7 |
economic life | (H) | h | 1392 | 9744 | 13,920 | 9744 | 11,136 | 9744 | 14,000 |
annual operating time a | (J) | h/year | 1392 | 1392 | 1392 | 1392 | 1392 | 1392 | 1392 |
fuel consumption | (c) | L/h | 0.8 | 8.1 | 6.9 | 22 | - | 16 | - |
fuel price | (p) | $/L | 1.4 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 | - | 1.2 | - |
repair and maintenance | (r) | % | 80 | 80 | 90 | 80 | 90 | 80 | 70 |
coefficient of lubricant | (l) | % | 50 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 |
interest rate | (i) | %/year | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
machine cost | |||||||||
depreciation | P/H or P/(N·H) | $/h | 0.59 | 3.51 | 7.18 | 6.49 | 8.98 | 3.51 | 6.69 |
interest | 0.5·P·i·0.01/J | $/h | 0.03 | 1.23 | 3.59 | 2.27 | 3.59 | 1.76 | 2.34 |
repair and maintenance | P/H·r or P·r/(N·H) | $/h | 0.47 | 2.81 | 6.47 | 5.19 | 8.08 | 2.81 | 4.68 |
fuel price | c·p·(1+l) | $/h | 1.46 | 13.87 | 11.73 | 37.52 | - | 13.87 | - |
other costs (Insurance, storage fee etc.) | - | $/h | 0.09 | 0.49 | 1.08 | 0.97 | 1.35 | 0.49 | 1 |
sub total | $/h | 2.64 | 22.43 | 30.04 | 52.46 | 22 | 22.43 | 14.72 | |
labor cost b (50% inclusion incidental expense) | $/h | 29.23 | 22.14 | 22.14 | 22.14 | - | 40.1 | - | |
total machine cost | $/h | 31.87 | 44.57 | 52.18 | 74.60 | 22 | 62.53 | 14.72 | |
96.60 | 77.25 |
System | Felling and Bucking (Chain Saw) | Yarding (Excavator with Grapple) | Forwarding a (Excavator with Grapple + Forwarder) | Total | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cut-to- length | logs | productivity (green weight ton (Gwt)/day·man) | 20.8 | 58.2 | 93.6 | - |
cost ($/Gwt) | 14.3 | 6.5 | 4.1 | 24.9 | ||
machine utilization rate (%) | 54.4 | 85.7 | 87.1 | - | ||
Logging residues | productivity (Gwt/day·man) | - | 42.4 | 43.2 | - | |
cost ($/Gwt) | - | 8.4 | 9 | 17.4 | ||
machine utilization rate (%) | - | 85.7 | 97 | - |
System | Felling (Chain Saw) | Yarding (Small Swing Yarder) | Bucking Processor) | Forwarding a (Excavator with Grapple + Forwarder) | Total | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Whole- tree (cable) | logs | productivity (Gwt/day·man) | 95.2 | 24.8 | 103.2 | 93.6 | - |
cost ($/Gwt) | 3.1 | 12.5 | 4.8 | 4.1 | 24.5 | ||
machine utilization rate (%) | 56.9 | 80.4 | 95.3 | 87.1 | - | ||
Logging residues | productivity (Gwt/day·man) | - | - | - | 43.2 | - | |
cost ($/Gwt) | - | - | - | 9 | 9 | ||
machine utilization rate (%) | - | - | - | 97 | - |
System | Cut-to-Length (Ground-Based) | Whole-Tree (Cable) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Forest Biomass | Cost ($/Gwt) | Standard | Cost ($/Gwt) | Cost Reduction ($/Gwt) | |
logs | 24.9 | - | 24.5 | 0.4 | |
logging residues | 17.4 | - | 9 | 8.4 | |
total | 42.3 | - | 33.5 | 8.8 |
System | Felling (Chain Saw) | Yarding (Small Swing Yarder) | Bucking (Excavator with Grapple + Chain Saw) | Forwarding (Forwarder) | Total | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Study | |||||||
Kim and Park (2012) | WT | 2.7 | 23.4 | 24.3 | 26.2 | 76.6 | |
Kim and Park (2012) + this study | WT | felling (chain saw) | yarding (small swing yarder) | bucking (processor) | forwarding (forwarder) | 57.1 | |
2.7 | 23.4 | 4.8 | 26.2 | ||||
Kim and Park (2012) | CTL | felling and bucking (chain saw) | yarding for logs (excavator with grapple) | yarding for residues (excavator with grapple) | set up of skidding trail (excavator with grapple) | forwarding (forwarder) | 61.8 |
13 | 9.7 | 8.9 | 3.9 | 26.2 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Cho, M.-J.; Choi, Y.-S.; Paik, S.-H.; Mun, H.-S.; Cha, D.-S.; Han, S.-K.; Oh, J.-H. Comparison of Productivity and Cost between Two Integrated Harvesting Systems in South Korea. Forests 2019, 10, 763. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10090763
Cho M-J, Choi Y-S, Paik S-H, Mun H-S, Cha D-S, Han S-K, Oh J-H. Comparison of Productivity and Cost between Two Integrated Harvesting Systems in South Korea. Forests. 2019; 10(9):763. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10090763
Chicago/Turabian StyleCho, Min-Jae, Yun-Sung Choi, Seung-Ho Paik, Ho-Seong Mun, Du-Song Cha, Sang-Kyun Han, and Jae-Heun Oh. 2019. "Comparison of Productivity and Cost between Two Integrated Harvesting Systems in South Korea" Forests 10, no. 9: 763. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10090763
APA StyleCho, M.-J., Choi, Y.-S., Paik, S.-H., Mun, H.-S., Cha, D.-S., Han, S.-K., & Oh, J.-H. (2019). Comparison of Productivity and Cost between Two Integrated Harvesting Systems in South Korea. Forests, 10(9), 763. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10090763