Skip to Main Content
Comparisons of two methods of harvesting biomass for energyAuthor(s): W.F. Watson; B.J. Stokes; I.W. Savelle
Source: For. Prod. J. 36(4): 63-68.
Publication Series: Miscellaneous Publication
PDF: Download Publication (355 KB)
DescriptionTwo harvesting methods for utilization of understory biomass were tested against a conventional harvesting method to determine relative costs. The conventional harvesting method tested removed all pine 6 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) and larger and hardwood sawlogs as tree length logs. The two intensive harvesting methods were a one-pass and a two-pass method. In the one-pass method, all material 1 inch DBH and larger was simultaneously harvested. Pines 1 to 6 inches DBH and hardwoods 11 inches DBH and less were chipped for energy wood and all other stems were logged tree length. With the two-pass method, the energy wood (same description as in the one-pass) was harvested in a first pass through the stand, and the commercial size wood being removed as tree length logs was harvested in a second pass. The conventional harvesting system recovery averaged 52 percent of the standing biomass while the one-pass and two-pass methods recovery averaged 85 percent and 76 percent of the standing biomass, respectively. The conventional system had an average harvesting cost of $8.75 per green ton onto the log truck while the one-pass and two-pass methods had average costs onto log trucks and chip vans of $7.60 and $8.85 per green ton. Both the one-pass and two-pass methods produced energy chips into vans at a cost which was well below the value of the material as a fuel source at the mill.
- You may send email to email@example.com 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.
CitationWatson, W.F.; Stokes, B.J.; Savelle, I.W. 1986. Comparisons of two methods of harvesting biomass for energy. For. Prod. J. 36(4): 63-68.
- Feasibility of utilizing small diameter southern pine for biomass in the Virginia Coastal Plain
- Alternate biomass harvesting systems using conventional equipment
- Cut-to-length harvesting of short-rotation Eucalyptus
XML: View XML