THE STUDY OF THE LOGGING METHODS PREVAILED IN LITHUANIA AND OTHER COUNTRIES OF CENTRAL EUROPE

Dainius Steponavičius, Remigijus Zinkevičius
Department of Agricultural Machinery, Lithuanian University of Agriculture, Kaunas-Akademija, Lithuania

ABSTRACT

The study fulfilled under the frame of the project of 6^th General Program of EC showed that partially mechanized logging methods prevailed in Lithuania and other countries of Central Europe. The main problem is logging in wet leafy forests and the transportation of big diameter trunks. Forest soil protection recommendations for logging are predicted in legal documents of Austria, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary and Germany. Only in Lithuania and Germany the logging employs skid road system in the forest.

Key words: wood preparation technology, harvester, hardwood.

INTRODUCTION

Central Europe is different to Northern or Southern Europe. The conditions for the growth of trees are optimal, so the diversity of tree species is high, the soils tend to be deep and rich and the humidity allows the trees to develop high volumes [3,4,10,12,20,22,25]. But for forest operations the conditions are difficult: The need for high precision for broad-leaved trees, low impact on forest soil and extreme machine power seem to be a contradiction in itself [2,5,6,8,15,17,18,22,23].

Here we suggest that the acceptance of manual work depends on the income of people: the smaller it is the more they are willing to work manually. The European Regions can be grouped into 6 clusters by terms of unemployment and gross domestic product [7]:

• The clusters 1 and 2 are situated around the Mediterranean Sea and in Central and Eastern Europe. The income per year is less than 20 T€, manual work is attractive.

• The cluster 3 covers the rural areas of Western Europe. The income per year lies between 20 and 35 T€. Here the tendency towards mechanization is high.

• The clusters 4 to 6 are small, here we find mainly the big towns. Forestry does not play an important role and is done fully mechanically if possible.

Forest machines can cruise on forest soils without any risk only when the soil is extremely stony [5,7,8,15,16,17,20,22,24,26]. On most soils the danger that the soil looses its trafficability increases, when the moisture in the soil at the moment of traffic is high [1,9,19,20]. The risk that a specific soil looses its trafficability while wet weather conditions is high at the west coast of Great Britain, somewhere in France, in the lower areas of Germany and Poland and in the Baltic states [7].

The moisture in the forest soils depends on the difference of rainfall and losses of water (transpiration, drainage etc.) [7,11,13,25]. During the winter period the risk increases that forest soils loose their trafficability [14,21,25]. The risky regions are similar to those which have been mentioned at soil risk. But the more the climate changes from atlantic to continental conditions the higher is the chance that the soils are frozen. Therefore the risk for wet soil conditions in winter time hits mostly the west coast of Great Britain and France [7,25].

The national legislation on soil protection differs extremely over Europe. The regulations of forest certification systems (FSC, PEFC) are comparable different, too. This is why the European Union develops a strategy to protect natural soils. Here we find principles as follows [7]:

• Preventing further soil degradation and preserving its functions.

• Restoring degraded soils to a level which allows at least the current or intended functionality.

This shows that not the soil itself, but its functionality will be in the focus in future:

• If the soil is an integrated part of the biological ecosystem and habitat, the ecological functionality must be regarded and assured.

• If the soil has the function to support technical activities (for instance on skid roads), ecological functions don't have any relevance

As soon as this directive becomes national law the cruise with heavy forest machines on forest soils will no longer be allowable. Then there will be no alternative to the concept of skid roads in all European countries.

Investigation goals are to study the logging methods prevailed in various countries of Central Europe  (Austria, Czech Republic, Great Britain, Lithuania, Poland, France, Hungary and Germany) and to analyze the laws of forest soil protection.

RESEARCH OBJECT AND METHODS

Research object is timber preparation technologies in some countries of Central Europe (Austria, Czech Republic, Great Britain, Lithuania, Poland, France, Hungary and Germany).

The methods of questionnaires and comparative analysis were used. The questioning was carried out by scientists and forest experts in some countries of Central Europe:

1. Austria – K. Stampfer (BOKU-Wien); 2. Czech Republic – J. Neruda (CSR Mendel-University Brno); 3. Great Britain – P. Lloyed (Wales); 4. Lithuania – R. Zinkevičius (Lituanian University of Agriculture); 5. Poland – P. S. Mederski (Agricultural University Poznan); 6. France – E. Cuchet (AFOCEL); 7. Hungary – J. Rumpf (University of Western Hungary); 8. Germany – J. Erler (Dresden University of Technology).

The questioning contained those questions:

1. Are there any legal regulations for forest soil protection?

2. How many national forests are certified in accordance with FSC or PEFC standards?

3. Do certified standards predict forest soil protection requirements or the rules of driving in forest clearance?

4. Is there a requirement to use skid road system when harvesting?

The frequency of application different logging methods in countries of Central Europe was investigated. In the logging methods were separate: forest cutting, haulage, work on skid road and towing.

The logging methods were grouping by transportation of wood (longwood, shortwood) and level of mechanization.

RESULTS

The actual situation of the harvesting operations in the European countries reflect the socio-economical frameworks. In the western regions of Europe advanced or automatic machine work have displaced motormanual work, if possible. The fully mechanized harvesting by harvester and forwarder – in most cases from skid roads which are cut into the stands every 20 meters – has become the standard method in coniferous stands. Mixed stands or stands with broad leaved trees as well as big formatted coniferous trees are processed motormanually and transported by simple or advanced machine work with skidders. In the eastern regions of Central Europe mainly the combination of motormanual processing and the transport operation by simple machines can be seen. advanced machine work for transport operations increases slowly, automatic machine work is very seldom. Complementary the number of animals for transport decreases. The velocity of these changes is differently slow but the tendency can be regarded in all regions.

According to the data of general forestry Lithuanian state forests are most often felled manually using the chain saws. With the decrease of labour force both the forestry and the contractors more amply use forest harvesting machinery. In 2006 403.8 thousand m³ of wood or 12.2% of the total amount were cut with the harvesters in the state forests (in 2005 it was 125.6 thousand m³ of wood or 3.8%, accordingly). In 2006 the harvesters purchased in 2005 by the forestry farms of Alytus, Kretinga and Panevėžys and those acquired in 2006 by Tauragė, Telšiai and Trakai were used in the country forests. The total amount of wood cleared with these harvesters was 185 thousand m³ of wood or 5.6% (in 2005 it was 64.7 thousand m³ of wood or 1.9%).

In accordance with the data provided by the Register of tractors, self-propelled agricultural machines and their trailers 47 harvesters were registered in Lithuania on the 1^st of May, 2008. The greatest number, i.e., 19 harvesters were registered in the leasing companies. Various close-stock companies owned 15, forestry farms – 9, state-owned enterprises – 2, the personal enterprise and the cooperative enterprise each had one harvester (Fig.1 a)). There were 19 or 40.4% of the harvesters produced by the companies "John Deere" or "Timberjack" (Fig. 1 b)). The manufacturer of 14 harvesters (29.8%) was not indicated.

The study of the timber preparation technologies showed (Table 1) that fully mechanized technologies  predominate in Western Europe meanwhile Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary most often uses partially mechanized timber preparation technologies. Horses are used only occasionally in individual countries (for example, in Germany in the forest areas that cannot be reached easily and when the distance between skid roads is greater than 40 m). According to the timber processing degree in various countries of European Community both longwood and shortwood timber preparation technologies are used.

In fully mechanized technology, when preparing the assortments the multi-operational harvester and forwarder are used. The average distance between the skid roads should then be not greater than 20 m, and the tree diameter should be less than 45 cm as the technical capabilities of the woodcutters are limited. When backup means (e.g., caterpillars on the wheeled vehicles) or special caterpillar chassis are used the harvesters and forwarders can operate even in the wet forest areas or hilly areas (where slope fall is up to 60%).

At present motor saws, forwarders or agricultural tractors with self-hoisting trailers are used in highly mechanized harvesting methods in Lithuania and other countries of Central Europe. Exception is Hungary where partially mechanized methods are still widely used.

Motor saws, cable cranes or tow tractors, and agricultural tractors with hoisting apparatus or cargo winches are most frequently used in longwood harvesting methods.

The greatest advantage of the partially mechanized harvesting methods when motor saws are used is their universality. These methods can be used in conifer, deciduous and mixed type forests. But in wet and inaccessible forest areas or hilly forests the utilization of agricultural tractors is rather limited.

The issues related with the utilization of traditional harvesting methods in various areas of forests were discussed. Summarizing the questionnaire results the following main problems were disclosed: harvesting in wet deciduous forests and transportation of big diameter longwood. Timber transportation machinery proposed for these operation purposes does not comply with the forest soil and tree protection and ergonomic requirements. The developed combined timber tow tractor with six-wheel chassis is the innovative solution. On the other hand it is very important to design the multioperational head of the deciduous tree harvester in order to make harvesting methods in deciduous tree forests more environmentally-friendly and cost-effective.

Regulations of forest soil protection when harvesting are not lawfully bound in all the investigated countries. Great Britain and France do not have such legal regulations (Table 2). For example, it is not obligatory to keep to the forest soil protection requirements in Great Britain. This can be done on a voluntary basis (ex gratia) and the contractors who meet the soil protection requirements when harvesting in wet forest areas receive material support. In this country strict soil protection requirements are met only in reservations and national parks.

In Germany the requirements to protect forest soil qualities are anticipated in the Federal Law of Soil Protection, in Lithuania in Forest Law and Forest Felling Norms and Rules. In Poland the requirements for forest soil protection are predicted in Forestry Principles, in Austria in Timber Harvesting Rules, and in Hungary in Forest Law and Regulations of Environment and Nature Protection.

Survey results show that not all the forest of the investigated countries has been certified in accordance with FSC or PEFC standards. For example, the percentage of the forests certified according to PEFC standard in different countries are as follows: 98% in Austria, 63% in Germany, and only 29.4% in France. In Lithuania and Poland all state forests are certified in accordance with FSC standard, but in Hungary only 10.6% of forests are certified in accordance with this standard.

Soil protection instructions and traffic rules in harvested forest areas are determined in certification standards of Austria, Lithuania, Poland and Germany. For example, in Austria timber harvesting is restricted by the requirement to protect the remaining trees and forest soil. Only clean and green biological oils can be used for lubrication of motor saw chains. The use of such oils in other types of forest machinery is preferable. Chemical plant protection methods can be used only when necessary and they are strictly stated. Priority should be given to biological, mechanical and physical protection methods. In Germany skid roads should be technically passable and the German forest work and technical centre (KWF) has stated the criteria for the estimation of the machinery use ensuring the forest soil protection.

Only in Lithuania and Germany skid road system is used in harvesting methods. Harvesting machinery is not allowed to leave the skid roads in the countries. To freely drive in forest harvesting areas in Poland is also forbidden, but it is not obligatory to use skid road system. In Austria the laws do not define machinery operation in forest harvesting areas but skid road can be abandoned only in dry forest areas or when the soil is frozen. In Great Britain forest machinery can freely moved in the harvesting areas, but this is accomplished only in dry and sand soils. In France forest machinery can also freely move in the harvesting areas, but the areas where machinery should not operate are marked. Only machine operators decide whether to keep to these requirements. In Hungary forest machinery can freely move in all the harvesting area that is dry, covered with snow or when the soil is frozen and where the whole area will be prepared for tree planting after smooth harvesting.

CONCLUSIONS

Fully mechanized technologies dominate in Western Europe. In Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary commonly usable partially mechanized technologies of wood preparation. According to the degree of wood processing in different European countries there are usable caulescent as well as assortment wood preparation technologies.

In the laws of Austria, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary and Germany there are unlooked-for guidelines of forest soil protection while wood preparation. Only in Lithuania and Germany wood preparation is operating according the haul system. In Austria, Great Britain, France and Hungary it is allowable to drive wood preparation machines in all stall.

REFERENCES

1. Bacher M., 1999. Literaturstudie Bestandesschäden [Literature Review about Damage of Tree Stands]. FVA Baden-Württemberg, Abteilung Arbeitwirtschaft und Forstbenutzung, Versuchsbericht 6, 13 [in German].

2. Becker G., 1997. Naturverträgliche und rationelle Rohholzbereitstellung [Environment Protective and Rational Timber Preparation]. DLG Verlag Frankfurt (Main), Schriftenreihe des Dachverbandes der wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaften der Agrar-, Forst-, Ernährungs-, Veterinär- und Umweltforschung e. V., Band 27, 76–84 [in German].

3. Boes Th., 2002. Mit der richtigen Holzerntekombination zum Erforlg [To Reach Aim with Suitable Timber Preparation Machinery]. AFZ der Wald 17, 890–892 [in German].

4. Bort U., Mahler G., Pfeil Chr., 1993. Mechanisierte Holzernte [Mechanized Timber Preparation]. Forsttechnische Informationen 11, 121–124 [in German].

5. Duszyński Ł., Walczyk J., 2009. Utilization of the MHT-182HVT mountain harvester and its effect on the forest soil and stand, EJPAU 12(2), #13.

6. Dvořák J., Karnet P., 2007. Preliminary technical time standards for harvesters working in premature and mature stands. EJPAU 10(1), #01.

7. Erler J. 2007. Development of ecologically compatible, highly productive methods of timber harvesting for Central European forestry. EU-forstINNO, CRAFT-Co-operative research projects, Scientific Part, 24.

8. Feller S., Weixler H., Hamberger J., 1999. Neusson 11002 HV-Raupenharvester der Kompaktklasse [Caterpillar Harvester Neusson 11002 HV]. Forst und Technik 6, 10–13 [in German].

9. Forbrig A., Bohlander F., Hauck B., 2000. Beurteilung der Verfahren [Estimation of Technologies]. In: KWF (Hrsg.): Forstwirtschaft im Einklang von Mensch, Natur, Technik. Tagungsführer zur 13. KWF-Tagung 2000, 156–161 [in German].

10. Forbrig A., 2001. Konzeption und Anwendung eines Informationsystems über Forstmaschinen auf der Grundlage von Maschinenbuchführung, Leistungsnachweisen und technischen Daten [Information Systems of Forest Harvesters Including the Account Record, Efficiency and Technical Data, Concept and Usage]. KWF-Bericht 29, 213 [in German].

11. Gabriel O., 1996. Billig und pfleglich [Cheaply and Sparingly]. Forst und Technik 6, 4–6 [in German].

12. Glöde D., 1999. Single and Double Grip Harvesters Productive Measurements in Final Cutting of Shelterwood. Journal of Forest Engineering 10, 2, 63–74.

13. Guglhör W., 1994. Durchforstung von Buchenbeständen mit einem Kranvollernter [Thinning of Beech Stands Using the Harvester]. AFZ der Wald 13, 695–698 [in German].

14. Johansson J., 2001. Excavators and Backhoe Loaders as Base Machines in Forest Operations. Proceedings from the Third Meeting of EU-Concerted Action, Pisa/Italy, 19.09.–22.09.2000, Research Note 11, 201–207.

15. Höfle H.-H., 1995. Die Forsttechnik im Kontext neuer Herausforderungen und Möglichkeiten [Forest Harvesters in the Context of New Challenges and Possibilities]. Holz-Zentralblatt 111, 1724–1725 [in German].

16. Höfle H.-H., 2002. Zum Stand und zu den Tendenzen der Forsttechnik [About the State and Tendencies of Forest Machinery]. Holz-Zentralblatt 77, 939 [in German].

17. Horn R., Vossbrink J., Peth S., Becker S., 2007. Impact of modern forest vehicles on soil physical properties. Forest Ecology and Management. 248, 1-2, 56–63.

18. Kormanek M., Walczykova M., 2006. Characteristic of vertical deformation of some forest soils. EJPAU 9(4), #35.

19. Kremer J., Matthiess D., Wolf B., Ohrner G., Uhl E., 2003. Bodenstrukturveränderungen und Wurzelverletzungen [Changes of Soil Structure and Root Damage]. AFZ Der Wald 17, 847–850 [in German].

20. Mederski P.S., Bembenek M., Jakubowski M., Zinkevičius R. 2008. Length accuracy of aspen logs harvested with CTL 40 HW harvester head designed for broadleaved species. Human and nature safety, Proceedings of the international scientific conference, Part 2, 241–243.

21. Morat J., Forbrig A., Graupner J., 1998. Holzernteverfahren: vergleichende Erhebung und Beurteilung der Holzernteverfahren in der BRD [Preparation Technologies: Comparative Research and Estimation in Germany]. KWF-Bericht 25, 109 [in German].

22. Pausch R., 2002. Ein System-Ansatz zur Untersuchung von Zusammenhängen zwischen Waldstruktur, Arbeitsvolumina und Kosten der technischen und biologischen Produktion in Forstrevieren ost- und nordbayrischer Mittelgebirge [System Substantiation to Investigate the Relationship between Forest Structure, Work Scope, Technical and Biological Production Expenditure in East and North Bavaria Forests]. Dissertation, Wissenschaftszentrum und Umwelt der Technischen Universität München, 225 [in German].

23. Schöttle R., Pfeil Chr., Kapahnke, F., 1998. Einsatz von Starkholz-Raupenharvestern in naturverjüngten Altholzbeständen [Usage of Powerful Caterpillar Harvesters in Naturally Planted Forests]. AFZ der Wald, 19, 981–984 [in German].

24. Sionneau J., Cuchet E., 2001. Mechanisation of thinnings in hardwood, the French experience. IUFRO Meeting, Quebec, 8.

25. Stampfer K., 2000. Trägerplattformen – Natur kennt keine Räder [Supporting Platform – Nature Does not Know any Wheels]. Österreichische Forstzeitung 1, 4–5 [in German].

26. Thees O., Frutig F., 1998. Mechanisierung der Holzernte in Hanglagen mit Hilfe der Vollerntertechnik [Mechanization of Timber Preparation in Hilly Terrain Using Harvesters]. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwesen 11, 909–920 [in German].

Accepted for print: 26.01.2010

Responses to this article, comments are invited and should be submitted within three months of the publication of the article. If accepted for publication, they will be published in the chapter headed 'Discussions' and hyperlinked to the article.