Biomass and Moenergy.Vol. 9, Nos 1-5, pp.153460.

1995
EkvhsciaKsL.4d
0961-9534(9!qooom-9 RiIltCdiOGR!UBritdIl
0961-9534/95 $9.50 + 0.00

HARVESTING SMALL TREES AND FOREST RESIDUES

J-F GINGRAS

Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada

580 Boul. St-Jean,Pointe-Claire,Quebec H9R 359

ABSTRACT

This report summarises the progress achieved under the auspices of the Activity “Harvesting small trees
and forest residues” during 1992 - 1994. The work performed included literature reviews to assess
potentially recoverable material as a function of harvesting system, analysis of factors affecting
chipping quality and productivity, a comparison of firewood processing technologies, small tree and
residue harvesting method reviews, a description of some prototype combination machines for
recovering roundwood and forest biomass and an update on multiple-tree handling harvester head
development in the Nordic countries.

KEYWORDS

Harvesting, residues, forest biomass, firewood, multiple-tree handling

INTRODUCTION

The Activity “Harvesting Small Trees and Forest Residues” was formed to cover the technology
for harvesting small or unmerchantable stems, as well as logging residues, for energy purposes.
Five countries participated: Canada, Finland, Norway, the U.K. and Sweden.

The objectives were to monitor the development of systems for harvesting small trees and forest
residues (as a single product for energy) in conventional forestry, including considerations of
transport, system evaluations, economics and environmental implications, through:

?? the development of guidelines for establishing potentially recoverable material as a function

of harvesting processes
?? compiling and disseminating information on machines and systems appropriate for harvesting
small trees and residues
?? the identification and evaluation of new methods or concepts for harvesting small trees

Stokes’ provided a synopsis of the status of harvesting small trees and forest residues in the
eight countries that participated in the Activity during the period 1989 - 1991. Notably, two
harvesting system databases were created, one for North America and one for Scandinavia.
Similarly, transportation system databases were compiled for North America and Scandinavia.

153
154 J.-F. GINGRAS

The 1992- 1994 work program continued to build on the knowledge acquired during the previous
three-year agreement by conducting exploratory literature reviews to estimate the potential
forest biomass recovery as a function of the harvesting system and stand conditions. There were
also new directions explored, notably in the area of firewood processing, harvesting early
thinnings, in-stand chipping cost and chip quality, and the potential of harvester heads capable
of handling multiple trees to enhance the economic viability of harvesting stands of small trees.

RECOVERABLE FOREST BIOMASS AS A FUNCTION OF HARVESTING

SYSTEM AND STAND CONDITIONS

The potential recovery of biomass material from forest operations was estimated by conducting
two literature reviews, one for North American conditions and the other for publications from
Europe.

McCallum2 described the available literature from North America that dealt with potentially and
technically available residue material and small trees when using different harvesting systems.
The review confirmed that little new work has been published in North America on harvesting
energy materials from the forest since the mid-1980s. The general level of interest in recovering
small trees and residues for energy is low, with the exception of a few areas where a good
bioenergy market has become established.

In Canada, for example, large quantities of mill waste are still unused and available, which
reduces the viability of recovering logging debris or unmerchantable stands for energy purposes.
The most attractive source of forest biomass in eastern Canada appears to be roadside delimber
residues, which can occupy between 2 and 11% of the productive forest land area. In the U.S.,
there are large surpluses of biomass in the Pacific Northwest region and in the south, whereas a
strong market for biomass fuels (biofuels) in the Northeast and in California has generated
interest in the recovery of forest biomass. The most economically attractive forest residues in the
U.S. are sortyard debris on the west coast, roadside delimber residues in the east and chain flail
delimber-debarker residues in the south.

In a follow-up report, McCallum3 studied the current bioenergy harvest and utilisation levels in
Atlantic Canada more specifically. In spite of low crude oil prices, the use of biomels is at or
near record levels in that part of the country. Most of the biomels are mill residues, and there are
fairly small amounts of forest biomass recovered for energy. However, should biofuel demand
increase as a result of proposed new energy plants, then there would likely be an increase in the
demand for harvesting unmerchantable trees and forest residues for energy purposes. The use of
chain flail delimber-debarkers, particularly in Nova Scotia, offers some future potential for
economically recovering concentrated harvesting residues at roadside locations.

Verkasalo4,5 described the potential and technically available quantities of small trees and forest
residue material as a function of harvesting system and forest type for Europe. The evaluation
covered Nordic systems and conditions. Nordic conditions were simulated using existing data
for southern Finland. The harvesting systems of interest for small trees included whole-tree,
tree-section and shortwood cutting methods with subsequent forwarding (or skidding).

The dry masses of stems, tops, branches and unmerchantable trees of the most important species
in the first thinnings, later thinnings and final cutting of normal mature and underproductive
stands were investigated. The impact of tree size was also considered in the analysis. The data
were analysed for both single trees and unit areas harvested. The technically possible recovery
 Harvestingsmall trees and forest residues 155
was evaluated by using the results from studies on biomass losses during cutting, hauling,
comminution and long-distance transport.

The residue harvesting systems comprised those used after manual and mechanised cutting (with
one-grip or two-grip harvesters). The true quantities of residues after harvesting roundwood
were evaluated similarly to those for small tree harvesting systems. The distribution and
accumulation of the residues were evaluated for different harvesting systems, and both the
biomass losses during the various phases of harvesting and transport and the technically possible
recovery were reviewed.

Beyond the estimates of residues produced from traditional roundwood operations, Swartstrom6
described how small-scale technology could be integrated with full-scale operations to extract
the energy material in the Swedish context. The basic hypothesis proposed was that appropriate-
scale technology should be matched to the different dimensions and assortments of products that
you harvest from a stand. This means that you can use small and inexpensive machines to
harvest and process small trees or residues for energy, and large, expensive machines to harvest
and process large trees for timber, pulpwood.

Calculations were conducted for various machine systems in different stands and situations. In
certain stand types, the results showed that the net revenue of the operation depended as much
on the harvesting system and the assortments produced as on the dimensions of the trees. One
simulated stand harvest, producing timber and pulpwood with a conventional system such as a
one-grip harvester, generated a net revenue of 948 SEK per hour. In a second scenario, the
harvester recovered the merchantable material, then a chipping system consisting of a chipper
and bin mounted on a farm tractor recovered the small trees and the harvesting residues for
energy purposes. The revenue from this second scenario was calculated to be 2004 SEK per hour
using the model, a significant gain over the other scenario.

Increasingly, there is interest in modifying existing harvesting practices with single-grip

harvesters to facilitate the removal of high-quality residues for bioenergy. Wigren’ described the
whole chain of operations, from collection of residues to storage and transportation, including
modifications to the single-grip harvester’s work methods, with the objective of delivering an
enhanced biomass fuel from logging operations in Sweden.

The main recommendations from Wigren’s study were that harvesters should pile residues along
the strip roads instead of directly in front of the machine. This reduces contamination of the
wood with dirt, promotes drying and prevents ground moisture from entering the residues.
Obviously, some productivity reductions will be incurred, but these are fairly low in most
situations (2 to 9%). At roadside, protecting piles of residues with reinforced paperboard can
prevent excessive moisture uptake, and storing wood in unchipped form reduces the potential for
biological deterioration. Overall, it is desirable to keep moisture content low in chip piles for
better combustion and reduced biological degradation.

TECHNOLOGIES FOR HARVESTING SMALL TREES AND FOREST RESIDUES

Technologies for harvesting small trees and forest residues were described in earlier studies
supported by this Activity, notably by the creation of harvesting system databases for North
America’ and for Scandinavia.’

Hankin and Swartstr6m’” summarised investigations carried out in the U.K. and Sweden, on the
topics of productivity and quality when producing wood chips for energy purposes.
156 J.-F. GINGRAS

The first part of their project covered the literature on the relationship between certain wood and
machine parameters and chip quality, in particular the “fines” fraction. The investigations
showed how the quality of chips varies when various machine and wood parameters are
changed. Some of the parameters studied included the number of knives in the chipper, the
speed of the chipper, whether or not the wood was frozen, etc. The main findings were that to
minimise the production of fines, knives must be kept sharp and should be chamfered, wood
fibre must kept above its moisture saturation point, and chipper speed should be reduced to 440
rpm.

The second part of the report described the two most recent projects conducted in the U.K.,
aimed at improving the rates of comminution so as to reduce the costs of chip production.
Several operational trials were performed to assess the performance of a range of comminution
machinery available in the U.K. The results of the trials were analysed to determine production
costs. The results are divided into three sections.

The first section details the previous research work performed in the U.K. on residue harvesting
operations, and applies the results of that research to the modification of two Scandinavian
chippers so as to make them more suitable for U.K. operating conditions. An agricultural tub
grinder not previously available for testing in the U.K. was also evaluated in a series of
harvesting trials.

The second section concerns the two on-site residue harvesting trials, while the third section
deals with five trials of landing-based chipping systems. In each section, the results are analysed
and discussed in terms of the outputs and the effects on the economics of the operation. The
suitability of each machine to the operation is also discussed along with the relative merits of the
harvesting systems.

The final section draws conclusions from the results of the studies as to suitable systems for on-
site chipping and landing-based chipping operations.

Residential firewood is often neglected as major contributor to the bioenergy consumptio;

statistics, with the result that little scientific work has been conducted in this area. SwartstrGm
analysed various combinations of methods and technologies studied by the Swedish University
of Agricultural Sciences in Garpenberg and at NISK in As, Norway, for harvesting and
processing firewood on a small scale. Several configurations of machines for producing
firewood that had been described in the literature were compiled. Technical descriptions,
schematic representations and productivity information were provided for each machine.

The report described eight different operating principles, including hydraulic guillotines,
hydraulic pressure bars, circular saws, etc. The study examined the safety of the working
environment and proposed solutions to minimise the risks. The productivity studies showed that
there were large productivity differences among the various design concepts, although feeding
the firewood processor was a major factor that affected productivity; however, this issue was
often related to organisational logistics rather than to technical problems.

Partial cutting of stands with small trees and early thinnings are other important contributors of
potential forest biomass for fuel, yet harvesting costs remain high with these treatments.
Removal of forest fuel in small-stem thinnings can be justified economically by accounting for
the elimination of an early cleaning treatment as well as the increased efficiency of the
subsequent thinning because of the higher average stem volume. One way to develop an entirely
mechanised system can be to mount effective multi-tree felling heads on modern harvesters. The
 Harvesting small trees and forest residues 157
removal then consists of whole, undelimbed trees. A weak link in the system is forwarding,
which accounts for up to three-fourths of the total cost.12

A study at SkogForsk has shown that the potential exists for developing innovations with both
the harvester and the forwarder. For example, two devices have been constructed to increase the
payload of the forwarder. The first consisted of four 1.5m-long grab arms mounted on top of
the stacking device. This allowed for a high load, and maintained some degree of load
compaction, which resulted in a payload increase of about 80%. The second device was a light,
unpropelled trailer attached to the rear of the forwarder. The trailer was pulled in hydraulically
in order to facilitate loading and unloading. It was also easy to dismount so that the forwarder
could also work in a traditional pulpwood system.

Combination machines that both fell and forward the trees are another possibility. This system
can be achieved by changing the forwarder’s grapple to a felling grapple head. This allows for
relatively quick conversions to a normal forwarder configuration if, for example, fuelwood
demand becomes low during certain periods. This option is currently being pursued in Finland.13

TECHNICAL INNOVATIONS IN SMALL-TREE AND RESIDUE HARVESTING

SYSTEMS

Persson and Brunbergi2 reported on a system that consists of an in-woods chipper combined
with a single-grip harvester and an ordinary forwarder. The objective of this project was to
assess the performance and viability of this concept for recovery of energy materials in first
thinnings. The report described the technical features and the performance of the in-woods
chipper mounted on a forwarder chassis. The machine featured an infeed, a chipping unit, a
conveyor and a self-dumping chip bin. The prototype chipper has a funnel-shaped infeed that
can be turned 900 to either side of the strip road. It is currently designed to work behind a
harvester that processes commercial products to one side of the trail and energy material to the
other.

Productivity during the study varied between 2.1 and 3.2 m3/productive hour in the chip
production system. With current biofuel prices, the chip system managed to increased the net
revenue in both a mixed wood and a pure hardwood stand. In the mixed wood stand, the chip
system showed a greater revenue increase because of the high capacity of the chipper and the
higher basic density and heating value of mixed hardwood chips compared with pure spruce
chips.

The forwarder-mounted chipper could be developed into a combination machine that works
alone to remove the wood fuel. Using a multiple-tree felling head, the capacity of the felling
possibly could match that of the chipper. The total machine capacity would depend on how
quickly the operator could fell, bunch, and feed the stems into the chipper.

Recent efforts in Scandinavia have been devoted toward the development of a viable harvester
head capable of handling multiple trees.14-16 This approach would be particularly attractive for
small trees, for which harvesting costs are the highest. Several equipment manufacturers have
either prototypes or concepts for such a head, including FMG (Finland), Silvatec (Denmark) and
FMT (Norway).

Recognising the relevance of multi-tree harvesting to the bioenergy market the current
development status of multiple-tree handling in Finland, Denmark and Norway was reviewed.
.w9-1,5-K
158 J.-F. GINGRAS
Dale and Sorhageni’ presented modifications made by NISK and FMT to an FMT 45 harvester
head to enable it to process two trees at a time, yet still achieve good delimbing quality. The
main changes included the addition of extra knives and modifications to the hydraulic
connections to allow variable pressure with the various knife sets.

The development of a multiple-tree harvester head in Denmark was described by Kofman.‘*

The productivity of multiple-tree handling with conventional Gremo and Silvatec harvester
heads was compared with that of a modified Silvatec head designed to facilitate multi-stem
processing. The Silvatec head was modified by adding an extra stabilising cylinder, by
lengthening the delimbing knives by 10 cm, by widening the feed rollers and by allowing
variable pressure on the delimbing knives so as to facilitate feeding and delimbing. Although the
conventional harvesters could process multiple-stems, delimbing quality was lower and their
productivities were not significantly increased. With the modified head, the number of trees
processed per cycle varied between 1.04 and 1.27 in five studies conducted by the Danish Forest
and Landscape Research Institute. These results were less than anticipated, which was attributed
mainly to the high branchiness of some of the test stands and the large tree size in some others.

Kofman’* also described a prototype feller-delimber-forwarder, which is intended to fell,

crudely delimb and forward long tree sections to roadside for later chipping. The machine is
currently being tested and no productivity or operational efficiency results are yet available.

Lilleberg13 presented a multiple-tree harvester head, the FMG 756 prototype. The head’s main
differences from conventional harvester heads are the addition of two feeding rollers (four in
total), the addition of two long delimbing arms and improved vertical stability. In tests
conducted by Metsteho, 70 to 95% of the trees harvested in early thinnings and 40-60% of the
trees in final harvests in northern Finland were handled with a multiple-tree technique.

A prototype combination harvester-forwarder was also described.i3 This combination machine

will harvest and process stems using a multiple-tree handling technique, then load the bundles
on the forwarder bunk, where a compacting device will compress the load to increase payload
capacity. The prototype is currently being tested in Finland.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author would like to acknowledge the contribution of all country representatives and other
work program participants during the 1992-1994 agreement. Their efforts enabled significant
progress toward reaching the goals set out for Activity 3 through numerous technical exchanges
in the form of meetings, reports and letters.

REFERENCES

1. B.J. Stokes, Harvesting small trees and forest residues. Biomass and Bioenergy 2(1-
6):131-147. 1992.
2. B. McCallum, Recovery of small trees and forest residue material for energy. in Hudson,
J.B.; Gingras, J.-F.; Twaddle, A. (Editors) IEA/BA Task IX; Activity 2: Integrated
Harvesting Systems; Activity 3: Harvesting Small Trees and Residues; Activity 6:
Transport and Handling. Proceedings of an IEA workshop held in New-Brunswick,
Canada, May 16-25, 1993. Aberdeen University, Aberdeen, Scotland. Forestry Research
Paper 1994:l. p. 35-48. 1994.
 Harvestingsmall trees and forest residues 159
3. B. McCahm, A review of small tree and forest energy residue harvesting in Atlantic
Canada. in Gingras, J.-F. (Editor) Harvesting Small Trees and Forest Residues, and
Update on Multiple-Tree Handling. Proceedings from an IEA Task IX Activity 3 seminar
held in Norway, June 5-10, 1994. For. Eng. Res. Inst. Can. (FERIC), Pointe-Claire, Que.
Internal Report IR-1995-01-02. p. 50-61. 1995.
4. E. Verkasalo, Recovery of small tree biomass as a function of harvesting system and
forest type--Nordic approach. in Hudson, J.B.; Gingras, J.-F.; Twaddle, A. (Editors)
IEA/BA Task IX; Activity 2: Integrated Harvesting Systems; Activity 3: Harvesting
Small Trees and Residues; Activity 6: Transport and Handling. Proceedings of an IEA
workshop held in New Brunswick, Canada, May 16-25, 1993. Aberdeen University,
Aberdeen, Scotland. Forestry Research Paper 1994: 1. p. 20-34. 1994.
5. E. Verkasalo, Recovery of slash as a function of harvesting system and forest type--
Nordic approach. in Gingras, J.-F. (Editor) Harvesting Small Trees and Forest Residues,
and Update on Multiple-Tree Handling. Proceedings from an IEA Task IX Activity 3
seminar held in Norway, June 5-10, 1994. For. Eng. Res. Inst. Can. (FERIC), Pointe-
Claire, Que. Internal Report IR-1995-01-02. p. 3-14. 1995.
6. J. Swartstrom, Calculations for harvesting fuelwood with small-scale technology
integrated with large-scale, or two-step harvesting. in Gingras, J.-F. (Editor) Harvesting
Small Trees and Forest Residues, and Update on Multiple-Tree Handling. Proceedings
from an IEA Task IX Activity 3 seminar held in Norway, June 5-10, 1994. For. Eng.
Res. Inst. Can. (FERIC), Pointe-Claire, Que. Internal Report IR-1995-01-02. p. 73-78.
1995.
7. C. Wigren, Systems to improve and preserve the quality of forest residues. in Hudson,
J.B.; Gingras, J.-F.; Twaddle, A. (Editors) IEA/BA Task IX; Activity 2: Integrated
Harvesting Systems; Activity 3: Harvesting Small Trees and Residues; Activity 6:
Transport and Handling. Proceedings of an IEA workshop held in New Brunswick,
Canada, May 16-25, 1993. Aberdeen University, Aberdeen, Scotland. Forestry Research
Paper 1994:l. p. 49-55. 1994.
8. B.R. Hartsough, Stokes, B.J., A database of non-integrated North American methods for
harvesting small trees and residues for energy. Final Report, IEA/BA Task VI Activity 3.
USDA Forest Service, South. For. Exp. Station, Auburn, AL. 22 p. 1990.
9. I. Molbak and P. Kofman, Scandinavian chipping techniques - computer database. Final
Report, IEA/BA Task VI Activity 3. USDA Forest Service, South. For. Exp. Station,
Auburn, AL. 199 1.
10. C. Hankin and J. Swartstriim, Machine and wood parameters influence on chip quality
and productivity. in Gingras, J.-F. (Editor) Harvesting Small Trees and Forest Residues,
and Update on Multiple-Tree Handling. Proceedings from an IEA Task IX Activity 3
seminar held in Norway, June 5-10, 1994. For. Eng. Res. Inst. Can. (FERIC), Pointe-
Claire, Que. Internal Report IR-1995-01-02. p. 15-49. 1995.
11. J. Swartstrom, Firewood processing and handling. in Gingras, J.-F. (Editor) Harvesting
Small Trees and Forest Residues, and Update on Multiple-Tree Handling. Proceedings
from an IEA Task IX Activity 3 seminar held in Norway, June 5-10, 1994. For. Eng.
Res. Inst. Can. (FERIC), Pointe-Claire, Que. Internal Report IR-1995-01-02. p. 63-72
1995.
12. J. Persson and B. Brunberg, Removal of wood fuel during early thinnings. in Hudson,
J.B.; Gingras, J.-F.; Twaddle, A. (Editors) IENBA Task IX; Activity 2: Integrated
Harvesting Systems; Activity 3: Harvesting Small Trees and Residues; Activity 6:
Transport and Handling. Proceedings of an IEA workshop held in New Brunswick,
Canada, May 16-25, 1993. Aberdeen University, Aberdeen, Scotland. Forestry Research
Paper 1994:l. p. 56-64. 1994.
160 J.-F. GINGRAS

13. R. Lilleberg, Multiple-tree handling in Finland. in Gingras, J.-F. (Editor) Harvesting

Small Trees and Forest Residues, and Update on Multiple-Tree Handling. Proceedings
from an IEA Task IX Activity 3 seminar held in Norway, June 5-10, 1994. For. Eng.
Res. Inst. Can. (FERIC), Pointe-Claire, Que. Internal Report IR-1995-01-02. p. 96-97
1995.
14 B. Brunberg, B. Norden and G. Svenson, Multiple-stem handling with one-grip
harvesters can reduce costs. Forskningstifielsen Skogsarbeten, Kista, Sweden. Resultat
18.4 p. 1989.
15. R. Lilleberg, A multi-tree harvester FMG 990/56H in first thinning of pine. Metsteho
Katsaus 8/1994.Helsinki, Finland. 6 p. 1990.
16. R. Sluss, Multiple-tree handling: the future for early thinnings. Danish Inst. For. Tech.,
Fredericksberg, Denmark. Res. Rep. No. 8. 34 p. 1991.
17. Odale and 0. Sorhagen, Handling of multiple-trees in early thinnings. in Gingras, J.-F.
(Editor) Harvesting Small Trees and Forest Residues, and Update on Multiple-Tree
Handling. Proceedings from an IEA Task IX Activity 3 seminar held in Norway, June 5-
10, 1994. For. Eng. Res. Inst. Can. (FERIC), Pointe-Claire, Que. Internal Report IR-
1995-01-02. pp. 85-88. 1995.
18. P. Kofman, Multiple-tree handling in Denmark. in Gingras, J.-F. (Editor) Harvesting
Small Trees and Forest Residues, and Update on Multiple-Tree Handling. Proceedings
from an IEA Task IX Activity 3 seminar held in Norway, June 5-l 0, 1994. For. Eng.
Res. Inst. Can. (FERIC), Pointe-Claire, Que. Internal Report IR-1995-01-02. p. 89-95.
1995.