Tiina Laine, Veli-Matti Saarinen. (2014). Comparative study of the Risutec Automatic Plant Container (APC) and Bracke planting devices. Silva Fennica vol. 48 no. 3 article id 1161. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.1161

Keywords: productivity; regeneration; cost-efficiency; planting cost; mechanized tree planting

Highlights: As currently designed, the prototype Risutec APC fitted with an automatic feeding system offers no significant advantage over the Bracke planting device in terms of planting productivity or quality; Cost estimates suggest that an idealized automated feeding system could increase productivity and decrease unit costs.

Abstract | Full text in HTML | Full text in PDF | Author Info

The productivity of mechanized planting could be increased by minimizing the time spent manually reloading seedling cassettes. This study compared the work-time distribution, productivity and quality of the prototype Risutec APC fitted with an automatic feeding system and the commonly-used and manually-loaded Bracke P11.a. An approach of comparative time study was employed that compared performance of two operators using both machines in four sites where slash and stumps had been removed. Operating costs were estimated and compared for these two machines and an idealized machine with automatic feeding system (referred as AUT). AUT was assumed to be similar to the Bracke planting machine with the only difference being in automatic feeding. Productivity of the Risutec APC (196 seedlings per productive work hour [pl PWh₀^–1]) was lower than that of Bracke (244 pl PWh₀^–1), making the unit cost 35.7% higher. A large portion (17.6%) of the productive work time of Risutec APC was interrupted by malfunctions, so it cannot be considered robust and reliable yet. Quality of the planting work was reasonable for both machines. The results suggest that an idealized AUT could increase planting capacity (hectares per year [ha yr^–1]) by 15.4% and lower the unit cost (Euro per seedling [€ pl^–1]) by 4.7% compared to today’s machines. The importance of an automated feeding system increases with planting efficiency because relatively more time is spent reloading seedlings. Proper automatic feeding system could offer a cost-effective solution and could enhance productivity, but the Risutec APC has yet to meet the technical and economic standards required to be competitive.

Laine, Finnish Forest Research Institute (METLA), Suonenjoki Unit, Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: tiina.laine@metla.fi
Saarinen, Finnish Forest Research Institute (METLA), Suonenjoki Unit, Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: veli-matti.saarinen@metla.fi

article id 186, category Research article

Juho Rantala, Pertti Harstela, Veli-Matti Saarinen, Leo Tervo. (2009). A techno-economic evaluation of Bracke and M-planter tree planting devices. Silva Fennica vol. 43 no. 4 article id 186. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.186

Keywords: productivity; cost-efficiency; mechanization; planting cost

Abstract | View details | Full text in PDF | Author Info

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 (E15) 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.

Rantala, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Research Unit, Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: juho.rantala@metla.fi
Harstela, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Research Unit, Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: ph@nn.fi
Saarinen, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Research Unit, Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: vms@nn.fi
Tervo, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Suonenjoki Research Unit, Juntintie 154, FI-77600 Suonenjoki, Finland E-mail: lt@nn.fi

Click this link to register to Silva Fennica.

If you are a registered user, log in to save your selected articles for later access.

Contents alert

Your selected articles

Follow @SilvaFennica