Dominant Finnish assortment pricing gives prices for sawlog and pulp wood volumes. Buyers buck stems to sawlogs using secret price matrices. Agreed dimensions allow wide range of sawlog volumes. Forest owners cannot objectively compare biddings: timber trade is a lottery game. Bucking is analyzed in terms of sawlog, pulp wood, log cylinder, sawn wood, value-weighted sawn wood, and chips. Sawn wood and its value are computed from top diameter of the sawlog. Profit maximization requires buyers to buck logs producing smaller than maximal value, causing dead weight loss. Nominal assortment prices have unpredictable relation to effective stumpage price. Assortment pricing does not meet requirements of market economy. If sawmills linked to pulp mills buck smaller sawlog percentages than independent sawmills, as generally believed, they use higher price for chips in their own harvests than they pay for independent sawmills, indicating imperfect competition for chips. Sawn wood potential pricing is suggested which gives prices for sawn wood and chips coming both from sawlogs and pulp wood in reference bucking which maximizes sawn wood for given minimum and maximum log length and minimum top diameter. Simple algorithm generates feasible bucking schedules from which optimum can be selected using any objective. Pricing produces unit price for all commercial wood utilizing ratio of theoretical sawn wood and commercial volume in stand. Unit price can be compared to stem pricing and could be compared to assortment pricing if assortment pricing would produce predictable sawlog percentages. Sawn wood potential pricing is concrete, transparent, easy to compute, considers stem size and tapering, reduces trading cost and is less risky to buyers than stem pricing. It meets requirements of market economy. Readers can repeat computations using open-source software Jlp22.
References
[1]
Brignull, H. (2023). Deceptive Patters. Testimonium Ltd.
[2]
De Pellegrin-Llorente, I., Hoganson, H. M., & Windmuller-Campione, M. A. (2022). Recognizing Uncertainty in Forest Planning: A Decomposition Model for Large Landscapes. Forest Science, 68,200-211. https://doi.org/10.1093/forsci/fxab061
[3]
Grondin, F. (1998). Improvements of the Dynamic Programming Algorithm for Tree Bucking. Wood and Fiber Science, 30, 91-104.
[4]
Hekkala, J. (2023). Methods of Timber Pricing from the Perspective of the Company and the Timber Seller (in Finnish, English abstract). Master’s Thesis, University of Eastern Finland Faculty of Science and Forestry, School of Forest Sciences. http://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi:uef-20230785
[5]
Kallio, M. (2001) Interdependence of the Sawlog, Pulpwood and Sawmill Chip Markets: An Oligopsony Model with an Application to Finland. Silva Fennica, 35, Article ID: 598. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.598
[6]
Kemmerer, J., & Labelle E. R. (2021). Using Harvester Data from On-Board Computers: A Review of Key Findings, Opportunities and Challenges. European Journal of Forest Research, 140,1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-020-01313-4
[7]
Kivinen, V. P. (2001). A Genetic Algorithm Approach to Tree Bucking Optimization. Forest Science, 50,696-710. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/50.5.696
[8]
Laasasenaho, J. (1982). Taper Curve and Volume Functions for Pine, Spruce and Birch. Communicationes Instituti Forestalis Fenniae.
[9]
Lappi, J. (1986). Mixed Linear Models for Analyzing and Predicting Stem form Variation of Scots Pine. Communicationes Instituti Forestalis Fenniae.
[10]
Lappi, J. (1992). JLP a Linear Programming Package for Management Planning. Finnish Forest Research Institute.
[11]
Lappi, J., & Lempinen, R. (2014). A Linear Programming Algorithm and Software for Forest-Level Planning Problems Including Factories. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research,29, 178-184. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2014.886714
[12]
Laroze, A. (1999). A Linear Programming, Tabu Search Method for Solving Forest-Level Bucking Optimization Problems. Forest Science, 45, 108-116. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/45.1.108
[13]
Malinen, J., & Palander, T. (2004). Metrics for Distribution Similarity Applied to the Bucking to Demand Procedure. International Journal of Forest Engineering, 15, 33-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/14942119.2004.10702487
[14]
Malinen, J., Haring, M., Kilpeläinen, H., & Verkasalo, E. (2015). Comparison of Alternative Roundwood Pricing Systems—A Simulation Approach. Silva Fennica, 49,Article ID: 1293. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.1293
[15]
Malinen, J., Kilpeläinen, H., Wall, T., & Verkasalo, E. (2010). Roundwood Pricing Mechanisms and Their Performance in Scots Pine Roundwood Market. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 174. https://jukuri.luke.fi/handle/10024/536083
[16]
Mehtätalo, L., & Lappi, J. (2020). Biometry for Forestry and Environmental Data with Examples in R. Chapman and Hall/CRC. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429173462
[17]
Näsberg, M. (1985). Mathematical Programming Models for Optimal Log Bucking. Linköping Studies in Science and Technology.
[18]
Räsänen, T., Usenius, A., Heikkilä, A., Holmila, P., & Usenius, T. (2017). Tukkiröngtendata sahapuun ohjauksessa. Metsätehon Raportti 243.
[19]
Ratkowsky, D. A. (1990). Handbook of Nonlinear Regression. Marcel Decker.
[20]
Tian, N., Poudyal, N. C., Auge R. M., Hodges, D. G., & Young T. M. (2017). Meta-Analysis of Price Responsiveness of Timber Supply. Forest Products Journal,67, 152-163. https://doi.org/10.13073/FPJ-D-16-00017
[21]
Uusitalo, J. (2010). Introduction to Forest Operations and Technology. JVP Forest Systems.
[22]
Varis, R. (2018). The Sawmill Industry Handbook. Association of Finnish Sawmillmen.
[23]
Varjo, J., Henttonen, H., Lappi, J., Heikkonen, J., & Juujärvi, J. (2006). Digital Horizontal tree Measurements for Forest Inventory. Metlan työraportteja/Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 40.
