Table 1. Characteristics of the Finnish planting machine businesses during the 2013 planting season.
Parameter Unit a) N Average Min. Max. SD
Age of owner of the business yr 20 47.1 32 63 9.1
Foundation of the business yr 20 29.3 3 52 15.4
Providing mechanized planting services yr 22 6.2 1 21 6.0
Number of machines owned pcs 20 9.3 3 22 5.3
Number of excavators owned pcs 20 3.0 0 8 2.0
Share of annual revenue due to planting % 22 18.7 3 90 19.1
Number of clients pcs 22 1.7 1 3 0.8
a) pcs = pieces; yr = year
1

Fig. 1. Distribution of mechanized planting businesses (n=22) in 2013. Copyright Karttakeskus Ltd, L11040/14.

Table 2. The extent of Finnish mechanized planting operations during the 2013 planting season.
Parameter Unit a) N Average Min. Max. SD
Planting season w 29 19.8 13.1 24.9 3.19
Stoppage w 29 1.2 0 8 1.97
Other work during planting season w 29 0.8 0 8 1.93
Planting season excluding stoppages w 29 18.6 11.1 24.8 3.60
Other work outside the planting season m 29 2.9 0 8 1.92
Planted area ha 31 85.9 25.0 177.0 39.9
Planted seedlings pcs 31 151 242 45 000 320 000 69 979.7
a) ha = hectares; m = months; pcs = pieces; w = number of weeks
2

Fig. 2. Number of realized hectares planted by machine in 2013 compared to the target and potential area for 2014. Target is the realistic amount of planting work for 2014 and potential is a theoretical maximum that could be planted. At the time of the interview, some respondents could not evaluate the target for planting work in 2014.

3

Fig. 3. Impact and importance of 12 factors affecting the productivity and cost-efficiency of mechanized planting as well as how these 12 factors were realized in 2013. Evaluations were made on a five-level Likert scale (importance: 1 = unimportant, 2 = of little importance, 3 = moderately important, 4 = important, 5 = very important, and realization: 1 = very poor, 2 = poor, 3 = fair, 4 = good, 5 = very good).

4

Fig. 4. Response of respondents (n=20) to nine statements concerning the future of mechanized planting in Finland. Responses were made on a five-level Likert scale (importance: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).

Table 3. Comparison of the Finnish mechanized tree-planting industry in 2003 (Vartiamäki 2003) and 2013.
Parameter Unita) 2003 2013 Difference to 2003 (%)
Number of planting devices pcs 16 31 93.8
Number of businesses pcs 14 22 57.1
Planting machines per business pcs 1.14 1.41 23.7
Number of planting devices pcs 16 31 93.8
    Bracke   10 18 80.0
    Lännen   4 0 -
    Ecoplanter   2 0 -
    M-Planter   0 11 -
    Risutec   0 2 -
Amount of work ha 1420 2663 87.5
Planted seedlings million pcs 2.5 4.7 88.0
Relocation distance km 25b) 22.2 –11.2
Working range km 100 62 –38
a) ha = hectares; km = kilometers; pcs = pieces
b) 20–30 km in literature