A techno-economic evaluation of Bracke and M-planter tree planting devices

Abstract

Techno-economically reasonable mechanization of tree planting has proved to be a difficult task in the Nordic working conditions. Although planting machines and combinations of base machine and planting device have been developed since the 1970s, mechanized planting has not been cost-competitive to manual planting. The aim of this study was to find out work time distributions, productivities, costs and effects of different work difficulty factors on productivities and costs of the state-of-the-art Nordic planting devices, Swedish Bracke and Finnish M-Planter, and to compare the devices with each other. The theory of comparative time studies was the base for the experimental design of this study. In the average working conditions, productivity (E 15 ) of M-Planter (236 seedlings/hour) was 36.0% higher than that of Bracke (174 seedlings/hour). Here, M-Planter performed planting work 23.4% cheaper than Bracke. However, the difference depended greatly on the working conditions; the more stones or stumps the smaller the difference, and the more slash the bigger the difference.

Mechanized Tree Planting in Sweden and Finland: Current State and Key Factors for Future Growth

“…Cost-efficiency is hampered by low productivity, which originates from operator inexperience, among other reasons [12]. The choice of worksites also strongly influences productivity, and it has been reported that the presence of stones, slash, and stumps decreases the planting machines' productivity [13][14][15][16][17]. The size and spatial distribution of worksites also affects cost-competitiveness [18].…”

A survey of the Finnish mechanized tree-planting industry in 2013 and its success factors

“…CSFs also include site stoniness and expertise of planting machine operator because these factors had the greatest gap between realization and importance, i.e., respondents considered them important but their performance in 2013 was poor. Site stoniness has been reported to significantly decrease the productivity of planting work whereas collecting slash has a lower effect on productivity (Rantala et al 2009;Rantala and Laine 2010). Thus, worksite selection is an important factor.…”

“…A second recommendation would be that a careful appraisal of worksite suitability for mechanized planting is important because stoniness, stumps and slash debris significantly diminish productivity (Saarinen 2006;Rantala et al 2009;Rantala and Laine 2010;Laine and Rantala 2013;Ersson 2014). Also, by avoiding small worksites and optimizing the number of and distance between machine relocations, mechanized planting can become more efficient (Rantala et al 2009;Hallongren et al 2014).…”

“…Also, by avoiding small worksites and optimizing the number of and distance between machine relocations, mechanized planting can become more efficient (Rantala et al 2009;Hallongren et al 2014). Lastly, the popularity of mechanized planting will benefit from more marketing, particularly targeting NIP forest owners and forestry professionals.…”

“…Most planting devices are attached to excavator booms and the operator determines planting points individually. Seedlings are fed from one or two seedling cassettes which are manually refilled as required from a seedling storage rack attached to the excavator (Rantala et al 2009;Ersson 2010;Rantala and Laine 2010).…”