Skip to Main Content
U.S. Forest Service
Caring for the land and serving people

United States Department of Agriculture

Home > Search > Publication Information

  1. Share via EmailShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on Twitter
    Dislike this pubLike this pub
    Author(s): Nathaniel Anderson; Woodam Chung; Dan LoefflerJohn Greg Jones
    Date: 2012
    Source: Forest Products Journal. 62(3): 222-233.
    Publication Series: Scientific Journal (JRNL)
    Station: Rocky Mountain Research Station
    PDF: View PDF  (423.29 KB)

    Description

    Forest operations generate large quantities of forest biomass residues that can be used for production of bioenergy and bioproducts. However, a significant portion of recoverable residues are inaccessible to large chip vans, making use financially infeasible. New production systems must be developed to increase productivity and reduce costs to facilitate use of these materials. We present a comparison of two alternative systems to produce biomass fuel (i.e., "hog fuel") from forest residues that are inaccessible to chip vans: (1) forwarding residues in fifth-wheel end-dump trailers to a concentration yard, where they can be stored and then ground directly into chip vans, and (2) grinding residues on the treatment unit and forwarding the hog fuel in high-sided dump trucks to a concentration yard, where it can be stored and then reloaded into chip vans using a frontend loader. To quantify the productivity and costs of these systems, work study data were collected for both systems on the same treatment unit in northern Idaho in July 2009. With standard machine rate calculations, the observed costs from roadside to loaded chip van were $23.62 per bone dry ton (BDT) for slash forwarding and $24.52 BDT 1 for in-woods grinding. Results indicate that for harvest units with conditions similar to the test area, slash forwarding is most appropriate for sites with dispersed residues and long-distance in-woods grinder mobilization. For sites with densely piled roadside residues, in-wood grinding is likely to be a more productive and less costly option for residue recovery.

    Publication Notes

    • You may send email to rmrspubrequest@fs.fed.us to request a hard copy of this publication.
    • (Please specify exactly which publication you are requesting and your mailing address.)
    • We recommend that you also print this page and attach it to the printout of the article, to retain the full citation information.
    • This article was written and prepared by U.S. Government employees on official time, and is therefore in the public domain.

    Citation

    Anderson, Nathaniel; Chung, Woodam; Loeffler, Dan; Jones, John Greg. 2012. A productivity and cost comparison of two systems for producing biomass fuel from roadside forest treatment residues. Forest Products Journal. 62(3): 222-233.

    Keywords

    forest biomass residues, biomass fuel

    Related Search


    XML: View XML
Show More
Show Fewer
Jump to Top of Page
https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/42808