.

Agricultural Tractors
Agricultural tractors with attached winches, grapple tongues and log trailers with cranes are the key
machines for small scale forestry work in developed countries. A similar role can be foreseen in the near
future for forestry work in small scale and community forestry work in Asia as well. Choice of tractor
type and equipment for forestry adaptation will depend on type (up or downhill, log sizes etc) and
intensity of harvesting operations. Forestry work can be very demanding on tractors, thus demands on
engine capacity, gear system, tires, body and other parts are high.
Basic modifications such as window and radiator protection, screens/grills, belly pans, deflector bars
and cab protection bars, valve stem protectors and front weights will be required. When PTO-driven
attachments are used due care must be observed in covering the PTO. For some equipment the 3pointhitch is sufficient, while heavier equipment such as loaders require a firm attachment to the
tractor. One of the major problems in using the farm tractor in forestry is the orientation of the
operators cab. Almost all tractor cabs are designed exclusively for a forward facing operating position.
Many forestry implements such as grappleloader trailers, skidding and forwarding grapples, and winch
processors require the operator to face the rear of the tractor. In most cases tractor operators have to
twist their bodies or kneel on the seat in order to reach the respective levers of such attachments. If a
tractor has a less ergonomically suitable cab it is important that the operator tries to diversify the
workload to minimize the time spent in awkward working positions. Reversible seats and controls and
increased space at the rear of the cab can overcome this difficulty; some tractor manufacturers provide
these features as standard. Weight distribution ratio between front and rear axles and traction power
vary significantly between 2-wheel and 4-wheel drive tractors. Ideally a 50:50 front end to rear end
weight ratio is desirable for forestry machinery. Weight distribution of 2-wheeldrive tractors (with a
front to rear ratio of 30:70) can be improved by adding front weights to the tractor. Weight distribution
of 4-wheel drive tractors (with a front to rear ratio of 45:55) improves stability and pulling power.
Special tire chains with enforced links to prevent are also recommended slipping of wheels during
extraction particularly on sloping terrain.
The ground clearance of most farm tractors is 35-45 cm while at least 50 cm is needed in forestry
situations (mainly to prevent tractors getting hung-upon tree stumps). The drawbar is generally the
lowest point on a tractor and sometimes it is possible to modify the drawbar bracket to increase the
ground clearance marginally. Larger tires help to increase ground clearance (they do however increase
the height of centre of gravity and thus reduce the stability of the tractor). Farm tractors with four
wheels of equal size tend to be very suitable for a wide range of sites. The hydraulic pump capacity of
modern tractors with power ratings greater than 37 kW (50 hp) ranges from 40 to 100 l/min. A tractor to
be used in forest operations should have a hydraulic pump capacity of 80 to 120 l/min (grapple loaders).
A separate PTO-driven pump and hydraulic system can be installed to increase hydraulic oil flow.
Tractors which are to be coupled with implements such as winch processors that perform multiple
handling and processing functions require a rated PTO power of at least 60 kW (80 HP). Single grip
1

harvesters have very large tractor power (75 kW; 100 HP) and weight (for stability). Power requirements
for commercial chippers are even greater.

Fig 1: Agriculturel tractor with forest harvesting modifications

Three-point hitch systems allow attachments such as winches, skidders, grapples or processors. Stability
deficiencies associated with 3-point linkage has been overcome using a 4-point hitch which are most
suited to grapple-loaders, winch processors and double-drum winches. The additional application of
pressure though the lower rear holding links onto the shield of the logging winches is of great advantage
to anchor the tractor during winch pulling. It is important that forestry implements are matched to
tractors of appropriate size and power rating. For example it is not practical to mount a high capacity
implement such as a processor on a small 30 kW (40 hp) 2-wheel drive tractor since the tractor would be
unstable and the engine or the hydraulic system would be unable to power the machine. As a rule of
thumb an engine capacity of 10 KW is required per ton of load to be pulled. For steep terrain situations
a higher engine capacity would be required. As shown by White (1977) soil and surface conditions play
also a decisive role in reducing engine power to actual pulling power by up to 50%.

Fig 2: Net pulling power available at the tractor drawbar in relation to four surface conditions (
(from White, 1977)

The suitability of forestry implements for their intended use must be clearly thought through; the
requirements of the part-time operator versus the dedicated contractor will be quite different. The cost
of adapting an existing agricultural tractor for forestry use can vary depending on the intended use of
the adapted implements. Adaptations should not preclude farm use unless it becomes dedicated to
forestry. Purpose built farm-forestry tractors, particularly those manufactured in the Nordic countries
are designed for dual roles and this may be a consideration for farm-foresters when deciding to
purchase a tractor. With the attachment of suitable implements, tractors are capable of carrying out a
wide range of forestry operations from skidding and forwarding to loading and processing. The following
sections describe some of the key forestry implements for attachment to agricultural tractors.
(1) SKIDDING BAR AND PLATE
The notched skidding bar is a device which is attached to the tractors 3-point linkage and used for
skidding logs which are choked and attached on the bar. The bar is simply lifted with the links and
attached logs can be dragged behind the tractor. This is a very simple piece of equipment and with the
exception of increased front-end weights, requires very little modification to the agricultural tractor.
Heavier steel plates or butt plates are larger and allow a higher pulling point, which is more effective at
raising logs off the ground. Most wire cranes and skid winches are equipped with skidding bars.

Advantages :Low cost. Suited to a wide range of tractors.

Disadvantages: Productivity is low. Limited application in thinning since tractor needs to drive to the
log for extraction. Weight distribution of many farm tractors may present safety risks. Not suited to
more difficult or wet sites.
Fig3: Skidding bar and butt plate

(2) SKIDDING WINCH

Skidding winches use a cable and choker to pull one or more trees to a tractor. The skidding winch is
normally attached to the 3-point hitch and receives its power from the tractor PTO. Power winches are
made to suit a very wide range of tractors (22 to 75 kW; 30 to 100 hp).
Advantages: Low to medium cost. Suited to a wide range of tractors and sites. When using winches in
difficult terrain the load can be dropped and tractor can move to more favorable terrain and winch the
log from a distance.
Disadvantages: Limited application in thinnings. Skidding often produces dirty logs, which can cause
difficulties at the processing stage particularly in chipping at road side. Can contribute to both soil and
residual tree damage.

Fig 4 : Basic skidding winch for tractor attachment

Fig 5 : Agricultural tractor with logging winch in action

(3) SKIDDING AND FORWARDING GRAPPLE

Hydraulic grapples mounted on the 3-point hitch or in front can be used equally well for transporting
cut-to-length logs or full pole length timber. The operator reverses up to the logs or timber stack and
grapples the load, which can then be hydraulically lifted for transportation. Power Requirement
Tractors need good front to rear weight ratio and therefore best suited to 4-wheel drive tractors with
compensatory front weight attachments. The actual size of the tractor depends on the sizeof the
implement and the weight of the wood to be carried/skidded but minimum size requirement would be
approximately 41 kW (55 hp).
Advantages: Relatively inexpensive. Shortwood can be extracted clean. Operator does not need to
leave the cab.
Disadvantages: Requires good presentation of material and does not have the flexibility and versatility
of skidders. Needs good sites, detailed planning and site layout is required especially in thinnings.
Fig 6 : Rear mounted skidding grapple

www.lasco.at/en/log-grip-and-skid-plate
Fig 7 : Front grapple loader

www.worksaver.com/product/compactgrapple.html
(4) BACK FORK
These are low cost extraction implements mounted on the 3-point hitch to allow logs to be forwarded
from the site. Suits shortwood forwarding. Power Requirement Tractors need good front to rear weight
ratio and therefore best suited to 4-wheel drive tractors with compensatory front weight attachments.
Advantages Can be used for both forestry and agriculture. Wood held off the ground and therefore
stays clean. Low cost.
Disadvantages: Requires manual loading. Needs fairly even site to ensure load stability.
Fig 8: Tractor mounted back fork

www.lizardtractors.co.uk/acatalog/info_RMPF.html
(5) GRAPPLE LOADING CRANE
These are hydraulic cranes with a grapple, which can be used to pick up single trees, or bunches of logs
for loading or unloading a trailer. They can be mounted on the tractor itself, its 3-point hitch or on the
trailer. Power Requirement The hydraulic pump capacity requirement of 25 to 50 l/min can be easily
supplied by most tractors.
Advantages: Allows fast efficient loading and unloading of logs and eliminates manual handling. When
used with trailers larger payloads can be moved than by skidding systems. Suits shortbwood extraction.
be used for both forestry and agricultural operations. If mounted on the trailer, tractor stability is not
affected.

Disadvantages High cost. Comments The position of loaders on tractors should be considered. A longer
loader reach is required if the loader is mounted on the tractor but a shorter trailer drawbar may be
used giving a tighter turning ability. Loaders mounted on the trailer drawbar may need stabilising legs,
which are susceptible to damage when moving off. Loaders on the tractor (3-point linkage) have
flexibility for use in non-forestry operations.
Fig 9 : Grapple loading crane in combination with wood chipper

www.farmi ex.php?option=com_tuotekatalogi&view

(7) WIRE-CRANE LOADER

The wire crane comprises a PTO powered winch with a high A-frame and stabilizer legs. Wire cranes are
commonly used with a forestry trailer for winching, loading and forwarding wood. The operator walks
up to each bundle, puts a wire around it and follows the bundle as it is winched back to the tractor. It is
suited to nearly all tractor sizes.
Advantages: Suitable for thinnings with widely spaced racks. Shortwood can be extracted clean. Wirecrane loaders are the least expensive mechanical loading system available. They are the ideal implement
for start up operations and if financial resources are limited, since no additional loading equipment is
required.
Disadvantages: Operator safety is a consideration. Substantial wood handling and walking is required.
Productivity tends to be lower than for grapple loaders. Requires well trained operators.

Fig 10: Sketch of wire crane loader for attachment to farm tractors

(7) LOG TRAILER

There is a wide range of log trailers available for agricultural tractors from non-driven units to more
sophisticated power driven trailers. Most popular tractor drawn models may have a pay loads ranging
from 3 to 8 m3 with 5 ton models being most common. 3-5 ton trailers are suitable for lower powered
tractors (< 37 kW;< 50 hp) and part-time usage.
Forestry trailers are of skeletal construction in order to maximize payload capacity. The smallest capacity
trailers may have only 2 wheels but usually most forest models have a 4-wheel bogie construction.
Most agricultural tractors can be used with forestry trailers. Such combinations start with agricultural
tractors of about 30 HP and 3.5 ton trailers as shown in Fig .
Advantages: High load capacity to remove large volumes at once. Shortwood can be extracted clean.
Can be used in agricultural applications.
9

Disadvantages: Detailed planning and site layout is required especially in thinnings. Can be expensive
particularly for more sophisticated ones.
Fig11 : Agricultural tractor with 3.5 ton log trailer and grapple crane

www .com%25257Cuserbilder%25257C513
The following illustration shows a typical combination of a farm tractor with logging winch for skidding
and forwarding to first landing and the subsequent transport of logs with tractor trailer combinations on
forest roads to second landings.
Fig 12: Typical skidding and forwarding operations with farm tractors ( from Akay2005)

10

(8) Tractor based harvesters and processors

The technically most advanced farm tractor forestry implement is the harvester/processor either as
front or rear attachment ( Johansson, J.1996). The difference between a harvester and a processor in
forestry terms is that a harvester fells, de-limbs and cross cuts trees into products while a processor
takes previously felled trees and de-limbs and cross cuts them. There are two categories of processor:
grapple and wire. The first uses a grapple loader to bring the tree to the processor, while the wire
processor uses a winch. These systems are only briefly mentioned here, since the costs for both tractor
with engine capacity well over 100 KW (over 80 000 $US) and respective attachments (over 25 000 $US)
are beyond the small scale range covered in this guidebook.
Fig 13: Farm tractor with fron mounted harvester

www. Naarva-boom-kit-S23-agricultural-tractor-logging.jpg

Performance studies for agricultural tractors in forestry operations

Cordero W and Howard a (1995) studied the cost structure between traditional log extraction by oxen
and tractors. As shown in Fig most of the systems costs in oxen logging is labour with 83% labour costs
in tractor based systems is reduced to 20 %. It is important to understand this relationship in view of the
increasing labour shortage in many rural regions and in view of competition with agricultural income
opportunities. In many situations however animal logging is not in place or has vanished ( e.g elephant
or buffalo logging in Southeast Asia) and it is doubtful that introduction or re-introduction is the
recommended pathway. It appears to more advantageous to follow agricultural mechanization and
concentrate of farm tractors in forest harvesting systems.

11

Fig 14 : Percentage cost distribution in oxen and tractor based log extraction from Cordero W. and
Howard A (1995)

Spinelli (2005) studied the effect of average piece size and large extraction distances of up to 1400 m,
which may be typical for many situations in our target regions. The study involved for 6 tractor models
ranging from 48 kw( ) to 116 kw ( HP ) in three high forest and 3 coppice forest situations in Italy.
Piece size ranged from 0.1 to 1.5 m3 /piece and had an influence of around 100 % in each distance
situation. Distance affected extraction performance and dropped by 75% for small pieces by 40% for big
pieces. The relationship is extremely important and is reflected in basically all studies with tractors.
Implements to bundle smaller size material into bigger loads are decisive to address the volume
(weight) per piece ratio. Similar results for farm tractors were found in a study by zturk (2011) in
mountainous regions in Northern Turkey.
Fig 15 : Extraction productivity as a function of skidding distance and piece size . Note: the curves
were calculated for a 70kw tractor, a two men crew and a winching distance of 15 m. (From Spinelli
2005)

12

Le Doux and Huyler ( 1992) carried out a comparative study between small agricultural tractors with
winch and boom loader attachments over 400 m extraction distance. Productivity of the systems varied
by a factor of up to 100 %. Similar results were found for comparable machines by Huyler a.o.(1984) in
similar work. It is interesting to note that the small size specialized forest ant extractor with only 12 HP
had comparably high performance in log extraction.
Table 1: Performance of small agricultural tractors in log extraction trials in small sized boradleaved
stands (from Le Doux and Huyler 1992)
Tractor

Winch/Loading type

Massey Ferguson
184-4
Same Minitaurus
Holder A60

Farmi JL-456
Farmi JL 30
IGLAND double
drum 3000
Farmi JL 25
Knuckleboom
loader

Pasquali 993
Forest ant

HP

Stems/turn

Volume
/turn
(m3)
1.31

Volume
Production/hr
Without delays
(m3)
4.78

Volume
Production/hr
With delays
(m3)
3.76

60

3.78

60
48

3.96
5.67

1.85
1.38

4.05
6.70

2.89
5.58

30
12

3.94
7.10

0.65
1.0

3.66
5.03

2.46
3.40

Hoffman R.E et al (1982) studied the differences between rear mounted cable winch and grapple
attachments in 55HP HOLDER Mini tractor. Over short distances (30m) the grapple based system had a
35% higher productivity which gradually decreased to 20% due in long distance (150m) to the increased
travel time in the extraction cycle. If logs are pre-bundled at intermediate landings the advantage of the
grapple system is particularly striking as shown by Akay (2005)
Table 2: Comparison of cable and grapple skidding cycle times and production rates for the Holder
A55F tractor in relation to extraction distance ( from Hoffman 1982)

13

Bamboo harvesting with Farm Tractor and winch attachment

RECOFTC carried out fuel load recuction/ harvesting trials on bamboo (Bambusa membranaceus, local
name Mai sang) during the dry season 2013/14 in Bokeo province Northern Laos (Salakka, 2014). These
trials aimed at clarifying extraction costs for bamboo poles with and without branches to roadside
where mobile chipping into biomass chips was to follow. The trials aimed at the feasibility of biomass
fuel chip supply for power generation. Besides the KUBOTA 35 HP with 3 to JUWEL logging winch Iron
horse and the locally crawler converted form a Yanmar rice harvester hand sulkies , motor winches
were used in the comparative trials, being the first of its kind on record. There are no other records on
such trials ever conducted before.
The tractor was used for both winching/skidding bamboo while assisting the extraction process during
felling of whole bamboo clumps of about 15 to 25 culms including dead material. Due to the large size
of the bamboo bundles rough de-limbing had to be applied to reduce volume. The extraction distance
was 100 meters,. The winch wire was 60 meters long, so it was necessary to move the tractor 1-2 times
and re-winch. Besides re-winching, forwarding was tested in the way that after winching, bundles were
removed by dragging them behind the tractor while driving, but due to the heavy weight of bundle,
front wheels rose up from the ground. This method would be faster, but it will require an additional
weight pack on the front of the tractor.
Winching and de-limbing phases were studied separately due to the long distance (100 meters) between
felling and de-limbing sites. Productivity was 0.490 t/h (before de-limbing/stacking), when bundles were
extracted 100 meters, productivity for one person therefore was 0.245 t/h. Average cycle time was 43.5
minutes and from this, 52.15% was spent for waiting, basically this is the time chainsaw operator used
for felling work. Extraction volume was 0.355 t. The winch productivity over the 100 meters, in case that
waiting time is subtracted was 1 024 t/h. Productivity with rough de-limbing was 1 772 t/h and in the
next phase - stacking reached the performance level of 0.890 t/h. The average cycle time was 40.6
minutes. Combined productivity of de-limbing and stacking leads to overall productivity of 0.590 t/h.
In case that two operators would work simultaneously, total productivity could be improved if one
person would be in charge of both, chainsaw and winch work, while another would be in charge of delimbing and stacking. Presuming that 52.15% waiting time for winch operator can be eliminated by
adding chainsaw work to him and improving extraction speed by gaining the tractor driving speed, these
changes would improve one persons productivity significantly. Total productivity per person could be
~0.450 t/h. This productivity rate repeated 8 hours would give the result of 3.6 t/day. If overall
productivity of rough de-limbing and stacking can be sustained in the level of 0.590 t/h, it would
approximately require ~6 hour to de-limb and stack 3.6 tons. This result is equal with 1.8 t/day/pers or
0.225 t/h/pers. Given the extremely small weight/piece ratio of 11 kg fresh weight these preliminary
result is very encouraging for further work on bamboo.

14

Fig 16 : Extraction of bamboo by Juwel 3 to winch and Kubota 35 HP Farm tractor

Recommendations:
Agricultural tractors in the range of up to 50 + HP are the ideal solution to start the introduction of small
scale forest harvesting technologies in most situation in Southeast Asia. The price range of such tractors
is below 20 000 $US at least in used reasonable condition. Their engine capacity is sufficient to attach a
wide range of harvesting implements which offer skidding and forwarding solutions in both downhill and
up hill operations. Studies from various counties show that total extraction distances of even 500 m are
still realistic in forwarding operations with winch skidding bars or grapple tongues without log trailers.
Due to the possibility to use the tractors in agricultural work as well, they can reach a very high total
annual operational time , which is a key factor in reducing hourly system cost.

15

Literature :
Acar H.H. (1997) Investigation of extraction with forest tractors on mountainousareas. Turk J Agric
For21(3):299306
Akay, A.E.(2005) Using Farm Tractors in Small-Scale Forest Harvesting Operations Department of Forest
Engineering, Faculty of Forestry, Kahramanmaras, Turkey. Journal of Applied Sciences Research 1(2):
196-199
alkan, E. (2012) Productivity and cost analysis of manual felling and skidding in Oriental spruce
(Picea orientalis L.) forests. Ann. For. Res. 55(2): 297-308
Cordero, W and Howard, A. (1995 ) Use of oxen in logging operations in rural areas of Costa Rica
Proceedings S3.05 symposiumIUFRO world congress 1995 p 5-12
FAO (1986) Wood extraction with oxen and agricultural tractors FAO forestry paper 49 91 p
Forestry commission UK (2001) Compact tractor skidder Information Note ODW 8.07. 3p.
Forskningsstiftelsen Skogsarbeten (1983) Swedish forestry techniques with possible applications in
the third world. Stockholm. 342 p.
Gallis, C. and Spyroglou G. ( 2012) Productivity linear regression models of tree-length harvestin
gsystem in natural aleppo pine ( pinus halepensis) forests in the chalkidiki area of greece Croatian
Journal forest engineering 33 (115-123)
Ghaffariyan M.R., Naghdi R., Ghajar I. and Nikooy, M. (2012) Time prediction models and cost
evaluation of cut-to-length (CTL) harvesting method in a mountainous forest. Small-scale
For.doi:10.1007/s11842-012-9204-4
Gilanipoor, N., Najafi, A. and Heshmat Alvaezin S.M. (2012) Productivity and cost of farm tractor
skidding. J For Sci 58(1):2126
Gullberg,T.and Johansson,J. (1992) Farm tractor based single grip harvesters. University of Agricultural
Sciences, Department of Forest Extension, Garpenberg. Small Scale Forestry 2, 9-14.
Heinimann R (1999) Ground-based harvesting technologies for steep slopes. Department of Forest
Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Hoffman R.E et al (1982) Evaliuation of the holder A55F logging tractor alabama agricultural experiment
station Bull 539 33p
Huyler N.K., Koten, D.E. Lea, R.V. and Quadro A.P. (1984) Productivity and cost of three small fuelwood
skidders Journal of Forestry 1984 671-674

16

Huyler NK and Le douxCB ( 1991) A comparison of small tractors for thinning cantral hardwoods in
proceedings 8th cantral hardwood forest conference 1991 USDA University park PA Gen Tech Rep NE 148
p 92-104
Johansson, J. (1996) Case studies on farm tractor s as base machines for single-grip thinnings harvester
heads. Swedish University of Agric. Sci. Dep. Operational Efficiency, Garpenberg, Sweden. Forestry
69(3):229-244
Johansson, J (1997) Small tree harvesting with a farm tractor and crane attached to the front. J For
Eng8(1):2133
Le doux C.B. and Huyler, N.K. ( 1992 ) Cycle time equations for five small tractors operating in low
volume small diameter hardwood stands. USDA Northern forest Exp station Res paper NE 664 6p
Melemez. K., Tunay M., Emir T (2014) A Comparison of Productivity in Five Small-Scale Harvesting
SystemsSmall-scale Forestry March 2014, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 35-45
Nova Scotia Natural Rresources (2006) Woodlot management home study course Module 12 Small
Scale Harvesting Equipment Manual HSC 2006- 66p
zturk T. (2011) Productivity of New Holland Farm tractor at beech stands in mountainous areas in the
Black Sea region. Istanbul University, Faculty of Forestry, Department of Forest Construction and
Transportation, Turkey. Orestry Ideas Vol. 16 (1): 39
Ryyninen,S. (1994) Farm Tractor Harvester in First Thinning of Pine. Work Efficiency Institute, Helsinki.
TyStehoseuranjulkaisuja 338.68pp. (In Finnish with English summary)
Spinelli. R.. and. Magagnotti N. (2012) Wood Extraction with Farm Tractor and Sulky: Estimating
Productivity, Cost and Energy Consumption Small-scale Forestry (2012) 11:7385
Turk.Y. and. Gumus S. (2010) Log skidding with farm tractors. FORMEC 2010 Forest Engineering:
Meeting the Needs of the Society and the Environment July 11 14, 2010, Padova Italy 6p.
White, R. (1977) matching tractor horsepower and farm implement size. Farming know how Michigan
stae university Extension bull. E 1152 SF 11
Young E. (1993) Commercial thinning extraction trials. Extractor Mini forwarder &Farm tractor with
boogie trailer. For. Prod. & Dev. Div. Newfoundland Forest Service. Internal Rep. 9, 5p.

17

Appendix:

1. Machine Cost Calculation

Manufacturer:

Model:

HP:

Purchase price :

$ _________________

Total price of transportation to site:

$ _________________

Total:

$ _________________

(P)

INITIAL INVESTMENT

(S)

Salvage Value (__% of P)

(N)

Estimated Life: ____ years

(SH)

Scheduled operating time: ___ hrs/yr

(U)

Utilization: ___ %

(H)

Productive time ____ hrs/yr

(AVI)

Average value of yearly investment

AVI = [((P-S)(N+1))/2N]+S

$_______
$_______

$_______/yr

I. Fixed Cost:
Depreciation= (P-S)/N

$_______/yr

Interest (__ %), Insurance (__ %), Taxes (__ %)

Total __ % x ($__/yr)

$_______/yr

(1) Fixed cost per year

$_______

(2) Fixed cost per H (1H)

$_______

II. Operating Cost: (based on productive time)

Maintenance and repair (__% x ((P-S)/(N x H))

$_______

Fuel (____ L x $____/L)

$_______

Oil & lubricants

$_______

Tires (1.15 x (tire cost)/tire life in hrs.)

$_______

(3) Operating Cost per H

$_______

III. Machine Cost per H (without labor) (2+3)

$_______

IV. Labor Cost ($___/hr U)

$_______

V. Machine Cost per productive hr. with labor (III + IV)

$_______

18

.,

19