Operational short rotation woody crop plantations: Manual or mechanised harvesting?
Harvesting is the most expensive, but the least investigated process in the cultivation of short rotation woody crops (SRWC). To get a better idea of the harvesting process (in terms of its performance, productivity, cost, soil compaction, cutting height and quality as well as biomass losses), we cl...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Biomass & bioenergy 2015-01, Vol.72, p.8-18 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 18 |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 8 |
container_title | Biomass & bioenergy |
container_volume | 72 |
creator | Vanbeveren, S.P.P. Schweier, J. Berhongaray, G. Ceulemans, R. |
description | Harvesting is the most expensive, but the least investigated process in the cultivation of short rotation woody crops (SRWC). To get a better idea of the harvesting process (in terms of its performance, productivity, cost, soil compaction, cutting height and quality as well as biomass losses), we closely monitored the second harvest of a SRWC culture in Flanders (Belgium). We compared our results to the harvests of other, small European parcels. The trees at our site were harvested with both a manual and a mechanised (Stemster harvester) cut-and-store system, while the cut-and-chip system was analysed from an extensive literature survey. The production cost (to the edge of the field) at our site reached 426 (manual) and 94 (mechanised) € t−1, while the average values found in the literature are respectively 104 and 78 € t−1, versus 17 € t−1 for the cut-and-chip harvesting system. The productivity at our site reached 14 (manual) and 22 (mechanised) oven-dry tonnes per scheduled machine hour, while the average values found in the literature are respectively 15 and 23 t h−1. Based on the good performance (ha h−1) and productivity (t h−1) of the cut-and-chip system as well as its lower costs, this harvesting system is recommended for operational SRWC.
•Literature data confirm our experimental data.•The cut-and-chip harvesting of SRWC is the cheapest but not the fastest option.•The mechanised cut-and-store harvesting is recommended from an economic point of view.•The manual cut-and-store harvesting proves to be expensive and time consuming. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.11.019 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1660402897</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S096195341400525X</els_id><sourcerecordid>1660402897</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c504t-b83d5d51d713edebfb514e4e1e779d96ecb54b2a2080cbd51e70c33ffb1cfce33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkMtOwzAQRS0EEqXwCyhLNgme2HmxAYR4SUVdAGvLsSfUVRIHOy3q3-MSWLMYjXR15s7MJeQcaAIU8st1UhvbhcIkpcATgIRCdUBmUBYsTitaHZIZrXKIq4zxY3Li_ZoGkHKYkdflgE6OxvayjfzKujFydvwRoi9r9S5Szg7R0Mp-Uv1V9CL7TaCtizpUK9kbjzpaSbdFP5r-4_qUHDWy9Xj22-fk_eH-7e4pXiwfn-9uF7HKKB_jumQ60xnoAhhqrJs6A44cAYui0lWOqs54ncqUllTVAcSCKsaapgbVKGRsTi4m38HZz01YLjrjFbbhVrQbLyDPKadpWRUBzSc0fOO9w0YMznTS7QRQsU9RrMVfimKfogAQIcUweDMNYnhka9AJrwz2CrVxqEahrfnP4hurSoEq</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1660402897</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Operational short rotation woody crop plantations: Manual or mechanised harvesting?</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Vanbeveren, S.P.P. ; Schweier, J. ; Berhongaray, G. ; Ceulemans, R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Vanbeveren, S.P.P. ; Schweier, J. ; Berhongaray, G. ; Ceulemans, R.</creatorcontrib><description>Harvesting is the most expensive, but the least investigated process in the cultivation of short rotation woody crops (SRWC). To get a better idea of the harvesting process (in terms of its performance, productivity, cost, soil compaction, cutting height and quality as well as biomass losses), we closely monitored the second harvest of a SRWC culture in Flanders (Belgium). We compared our results to the harvests of other, small European parcels. The trees at our site were harvested with both a manual and a mechanised (Stemster harvester) cut-and-store system, while the cut-and-chip system was analysed from an extensive literature survey. The production cost (to the edge of the field) at our site reached 426 (manual) and 94 (mechanised) € t−1, while the average values found in the literature are respectively 104 and 78 € t−1, versus 17 € t−1 for the cut-and-chip harvesting system. The productivity at our site reached 14 (manual) and 22 (mechanised) oven-dry tonnes per scheduled machine hour, while the average values found in the literature are respectively 15 and 23 t h−1. Based on the good performance (ha h−1) and productivity (t h−1) of the cut-and-chip system as well as its lower costs, this harvesting system is recommended for operational SRWC.
•Literature data confirm our experimental data.•The cut-and-chip harvesting of SRWC is the cheapest but not the fastest option.•The mechanised cut-and-store harvesting is recommended from an economic point of view.•The manual cut-and-store harvesting proves to be expensive and time consuming.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0961-9534</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-2909</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.11.019</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Harvesting efficiency ; Motor-manual harvesting ; POPFULL ; Poplar ; Wood chips</subject><ispartof>Biomass & bioenergy, 2015-01, Vol.72, p.8-18</ispartof><rights>2014 Elsevier Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c504t-b83d5d51d713edebfb514e4e1e779d96ecb54b2a2080cbd51e70c33ffb1cfce33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c504t-b83d5d51d713edebfb514e4e1e779d96ecb54b2a2080cbd51e70c33ffb1cfce33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.11.019$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,3537,27905,27906,45976</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Vanbeveren, S.P.P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schweier, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berhongaray, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ceulemans, R.</creatorcontrib><title>Operational short rotation woody crop plantations: Manual or mechanised harvesting?</title><title>Biomass & bioenergy</title><description>Harvesting is the most expensive, but the least investigated process in the cultivation of short rotation woody crops (SRWC). To get a better idea of the harvesting process (in terms of its performance, productivity, cost, soil compaction, cutting height and quality as well as biomass losses), we closely monitored the second harvest of a SRWC culture in Flanders (Belgium). We compared our results to the harvests of other, small European parcels. The trees at our site were harvested with both a manual and a mechanised (Stemster harvester) cut-and-store system, while the cut-and-chip system was analysed from an extensive literature survey. The production cost (to the edge of the field) at our site reached 426 (manual) and 94 (mechanised) € t−1, while the average values found in the literature are respectively 104 and 78 € t−1, versus 17 € t−1 for the cut-and-chip harvesting system. The productivity at our site reached 14 (manual) and 22 (mechanised) oven-dry tonnes per scheduled machine hour, while the average values found in the literature are respectively 15 and 23 t h−1. Based on the good performance (ha h−1) and productivity (t h−1) of the cut-and-chip system as well as its lower costs, this harvesting system is recommended for operational SRWC.
•Literature data confirm our experimental data.•The cut-and-chip harvesting of SRWC is the cheapest but not the fastest option.•The mechanised cut-and-store harvesting is recommended from an economic point of view.•The manual cut-and-store harvesting proves to be expensive and time consuming.</description><subject>Harvesting efficiency</subject><subject>Motor-manual harvesting</subject><subject>POPFULL</subject><subject>Poplar</subject><subject>Wood chips</subject><issn>0961-9534</issn><issn>1873-2909</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkMtOwzAQRS0EEqXwCyhLNgme2HmxAYR4SUVdAGvLsSfUVRIHOy3q3-MSWLMYjXR15s7MJeQcaAIU8st1UhvbhcIkpcATgIRCdUBmUBYsTitaHZIZrXKIq4zxY3Li_ZoGkHKYkdflgE6OxvayjfzKujFydvwRoi9r9S5Szg7R0Mp-Uv1V9CL7TaCtizpUK9kbjzpaSbdFP5r-4_qUHDWy9Xj22-fk_eH-7e4pXiwfn-9uF7HKKB_jumQ60xnoAhhqrJs6A44cAYui0lWOqs54ncqUllTVAcSCKsaapgbVKGRsTi4m38HZz01YLjrjFbbhVrQbLyDPKadpWRUBzSc0fOO9w0YMznTS7QRQsU9RrMVfimKfogAQIcUweDMNYnhka9AJrwz2CrVxqEahrfnP4hurSoEq</recordid><startdate>201501</startdate><enddate>201501</enddate><creator>Vanbeveren, S.P.P.</creator><creator>Schweier, J.</creator><creator>Berhongaray, G.</creator><creator>Ceulemans, R.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201501</creationdate><title>Operational short rotation woody crop plantations: Manual or mechanised harvesting?</title><author>Vanbeveren, S.P.P. ; Schweier, J. ; Berhongaray, G. ; Ceulemans, R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c504t-b83d5d51d713edebfb514e4e1e779d96ecb54b2a2080cbd51e70c33ffb1cfce33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Harvesting efficiency</topic><topic>Motor-manual harvesting</topic><topic>POPFULL</topic><topic>Poplar</topic><topic>Wood chips</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Vanbeveren, S.P.P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schweier, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berhongaray, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ceulemans, R.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Biomass & bioenergy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Vanbeveren, S.P.P.</au><au>Schweier, J.</au><au>Berhongaray, G.</au><au>Ceulemans, R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Operational short rotation woody crop plantations: Manual or mechanised harvesting?</atitle><jtitle>Biomass & bioenergy</jtitle><date>2015-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>72</volume><spage>8</spage><epage>18</epage><pages>8-18</pages><issn>0961-9534</issn><eissn>1873-2909</eissn><abstract>Harvesting is the most expensive, but the least investigated process in the cultivation of short rotation woody crops (SRWC). To get a better idea of the harvesting process (in terms of its performance, productivity, cost, soil compaction, cutting height and quality as well as biomass losses), we closely monitored the second harvest of a SRWC culture in Flanders (Belgium). We compared our results to the harvests of other, small European parcels. The trees at our site were harvested with both a manual and a mechanised (Stemster harvester) cut-and-store system, while the cut-and-chip system was analysed from an extensive literature survey. The production cost (to the edge of the field) at our site reached 426 (manual) and 94 (mechanised) € t−1, while the average values found in the literature are respectively 104 and 78 € t−1, versus 17 € t−1 for the cut-and-chip harvesting system. The productivity at our site reached 14 (manual) and 22 (mechanised) oven-dry tonnes per scheduled machine hour, while the average values found in the literature are respectively 15 and 23 t h−1. Based on the good performance (ha h−1) and productivity (t h−1) of the cut-and-chip system as well as its lower costs, this harvesting system is recommended for operational SRWC.
•Literature data confirm our experimental data.•The cut-and-chip harvesting of SRWC is the cheapest but not the fastest option.•The mechanised cut-and-store harvesting is recommended from an economic point of view.•The manual cut-and-store harvesting proves to be expensive and time consuming.</abstract><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.11.019</doi><tpages>11</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0961-9534 |
ispartof | Biomass & bioenergy, 2015-01, Vol.72, p.8-18 |
issn | 0961-9534 1873-2909 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1660402897 |
source | Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Harvesting efficiency Motor-manual harvesting POPFULL Poplar Wood chips |
title | Operational short rotation woody crop plantations: Manual or mechanised harvesting? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-19T02%3A42%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Operational%20short%20rotation%20woody%20crop%20plantations:%20Manual%20or%20mechanised%20harvesting?&rft.jtitle=Biomass%20&%20bioenergy&rft.au=Vanbeveren,%20S.P.P.&rft.date=2015-01&rft.volume=72&rft.spage=8&rft.epage=18&rft.pages=8-18&rft.issn=0961-9534&rft.eissn=1873-2909&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.11.019&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1660402897%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1660402897&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S096195341400525X&rfr_iscdi=true |