FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF LIGHT AND MEDIUM TRUCKS IN TIMBER TRANSPORT IN RURAL PROPERTIES

Schettino, Stanley; Minette, Luciano José; Schettino, Carolina Freitas; Reboleto, Isabela Dias

doi:10.1590/1806-90882018000600008

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Articles • Rev. Árvore 42 (6) • 2018 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-90882018000600008 copy

FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF LIGHT AND MEDIUM TRUCKS IN TIMBER TRANSPORT IN RURAL PROPERTIES

ANÁLISE DA VIABILIDADE DE UTILIZAÇÃO DE CAMINHÕES LEVES E MÉDIOS NO TRANSPORTE DE MADEIRA EM PROPRIEDADES RURAIS

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Aiming to analyze the economic-financial feasibility of the use of light and medium trucks in the transport of the timber produced by small farmers within the process of forest production, two types of light trucks and two of medium trucks were evaluated in 14 rural properties in the State of Espírito Santo. Considering the transport cycles, distances, productivity of the forests, acquisition values, load capacity and fuel consumption of each truck, in addition to the cost of opening roads, nonlinear regression equations were adjusted to estimate the timber transport cost in the different scenarios evaluated. Transport costs were included in the cash flow of the forest production process, and the internal rate of return and net present value for all combinations were evaluated. The results configured the light truck in the 6x2 version as the most economically viable alternative for timber transport, with 125 km being the maximum feasible distance in forests with productivity up to 250 m³/ha. In forests with productivity above 300 m³/ha, the medium truck in the 6x2 version proved to be the most viable economic alternative in distances over 150 km. The light and medium trucks in the 4x2 version did not prove to be the best economic alternative in any of the evaluated situations. It is concluded that light trucks are an economically viable alternative for timber transport, in order to ensure the profitability and sustainability of the forestry business in small rural properties.

Keywords:
Cost management; Forest logistics; Transport vehicles

Table 1 Specifications of the trucks used to evaluate the timber transport costs in small rural properties.

Truck	Type	Configuration	Strength (CV) ^1/ 1/ Data of manufacturers, discounting the net weight.	Diesel Consumption (Km/l) ^1/ 1/ Data of manufacturers, discounting the net weight.	Load Capacity (t) ^1/ 1/ Data of manufacturers, discounting the net weight.	Average Speed (Km/h) ^2/ 2/ Considering the complete cycle (one-way journey loaded and return empty), obtained from the study of times and movements.	Aquisition Value (R$) ^3/ 3/ New trucks, FIPE - Institute of Economic Research Foundation Table base (FIPE, 2017).
C1	Light	4 x 2	160	5.5	6.15	50.0	140,200.00
C2	Light	6 x 2	189	5.0	7.95	45.0	150,828.00
C3	Medium	4 x 2	185	4.0	7.40	45.0	158,569.00
C4	Medium	6 x 2	238	2.5	12.85	45.0	190,710.00

Table 2 Formation and harvesting costs of eucalyptus forests in the study area, as well as data used in the financial analyzes.

Items	Values
Implementation cost	R$ 1,395.00/ha
Maintainance cost -year 1	R$ 789.00/ha
Maintainance cost -years 2 to 6	R$ 275.00/ha
Administrative expenses-years 1 to 7	R$ 43.00/ha
Protection and insurance -years 1 to 7	R$ 138.00/ha
Cost of regrowth conduction -year 8	R$ 837.00/ha
Maintainance cost -year 9	R$ 474.00/ha
Maintainance cost -years 10 to 14	R$ 165.00/ha
Administrative expenses -years 8 to 14	R$ 43.00/ha
Protection and insurance -years 8 to 14	R$ 138.00/ha
Interest rate	8% a.a.
Harvesting cost^1/ 1/ Average values practiced in the study region.	R$ 16.00/m³
Loading cost^1/ 1/ Average values practiced in the study region.	R$ 3.50/m³
Cost of opening roads for C1 and C2 trucks	R$ 183.78/ha
Cost of opening roads for C3 e C4 trucks	R$ 826.68/ha
Price of the timber delivered at the yard	R$ 100.00/m³

Table 3 Equations adjusted for the determination of the timber transport cost (Y, in R$/ha), considering the transport distance (D, in km) and the volumetry of forests (V, in m3/ha), for the different types of truck evaluated.

Truck	Equations	R²	CV%	R_yw²	r ^1/ 1/ Pearson correlation between the variables timber transport cost and transport distance.	r ^2/ 2/ Pearson correlation between the variables timber transport cost and forest productivity.
C1	$Y = \exp (1.999 + D^{0.259} + V^{0.251})$	0.986	57.11	99.65	0.825^* * significant at 5% and 1% probability, by the "t" test with n-2 degrees of freedom.	0.508^* * significant at 5% and 1% probability, by the "t" test with n-2 degrees of freedom.
C2	$Y = \exp (1.919 + D^{0.258} + V^{0.250})$	0.988	57.07	99.72	0.824^* * significant at 5% and 1% probability, by the "t" test with n-2 degrees of freedom.	0.509^* * significant at 5% and 1% probability, by the "t" test with n-2 degrees of freedom.
C3	$Y = \exp (2.355 + D^{0.254} + V^{0.246})$	0.989	54.54	99.74	0.827^* * significant at 5% and 1% probability, by the "t" test with n-2 degrees of freedom.	0.509^* * significant at 5% and 1% probability, by the "t" test with n-2 degrees of freedom.
C4	$Y = \exp (2.204 + D^{0.249} + V^{0.244})$	0.989	52.98	98.91	0.826^* * significant at 5% and 1% probability, by the "t" test with n-2 degrees of freedom.	0.515^* * significant at 5% and 1% probability, by the "t" test with n-2 degrees of freedom.

Table 4 Timber transport cost (R$/ha) considering different truck types (TT), forest productivity (FP) and transport distances estimated by the adjusted equations, including costs of opening roads and loading.

FP (m³/ha)	T T	Transport Distance (km)
	25	50	75	100	125	150
150	C1	3,149	4,571	5,965	7,380	8,835	10,339
	C2	2,958	4,271	5,557	6,864	8,207	9,595
	C3	4,486	6,199	7,850	9,506	11,191	12,916
	C4	3,864	5,175	6,417	7,648	8,889	10,148
200	C1	4,072	5,924	7,737	9,579	11,473	13,429
	C2	3,824	5,533	7,207	8,907	10,655	12,461
	C3	5,558	7,761	9,884	12,013	14,180	16,399
	C4	4,472	6,420	8,011	9,587	11,175	12,787
250	C1	5,034	7,336	9,590	11,881	14,235	16,667
	C2	4,725	6,850	8,931	11,045	13,218	15,464
	C3	6,664	9,376	11,988	14,609	17,276	20,008
	C4	5,645	7,702	9,652	11,584	13,531	15,509
300	C1	6,037	8,813	11,531	14,293	17,132	20,065
	C2	5,664	8,226	10,736	13,286	15,906	18,614
	C3	7,808	1,050	14,172	17,305	20,494	23,758
	C4	6,574	9,024	11,347	13,649	15,969	18,324

Table 5 Economic indicators for each combination of forest productivity (FP) and transport distances, considering the different truck types (TT) evaluated.

FP	T T	Transport Distance (km)
(m³/ha)		25		50		75		100		125		150
		IRR	NPV	IRR	NPV	IRR	NPV	IRR	NPV	IRR	NPV	IRR	NPV
		(%)	(R$/ha)	(%)	(R$/ha)	(%)	(R$/ha)	(%)	(R$/ha)	(%)	(R$/ha)	(%)	(R$/ha)
150	C1	16.2	2,674	129	1,474	9.1	298	4.3	-896	-2.1	-2,124	-12.8	-3,393
	C2	16.6	2,835	13.6	1,727	10.3	642	6.2	-461	0.9	-1,594	-6.7	-2,765
	C3	13.0	1,501	8.2	52	2.1	-1,345	-6.9	-2,745	-31.0	-4,171	-54.9	-5,630
	C4	14.5	2,025	11.2	915	7.5	-137	3.0	-1,179	-3.1	-2,230	-12.7	-3,297
200	C1	22.4	5,418	19.1	3,863	15.5	2,340	10.8	792	4.8	-799	-4.1	-2,442
	C2	22.8	5,627	19.8	4,191	16.5	2,785	12.6	1,357	7.6	-112	0.8	-1,629
	C3	19.7	4,120	15.2	2,264	9.7	476	2.3	-1,318	-10.7	-3,143	-47.5	-5,013
	C4	21.2	4,804	18.0	3,389	14.6	2,048	10.6	718	5.5	-621	-1.5	-1,981
250	C1	27.2	8,133	23.9	6,206	20.1	4,319	15.5	2,402	9.5	431	1.0	-1,604
	C2	27.7	8,391	24.6	6,613	21.3	4,871	17.3	3,101	12.3	1,282	5.7	-597
	C3	24.9	6,714	20.4	4,437	15.1	2,243	8.2	43	-2.7	-2, 197	-41.8	-4,490
	C4	26.4	7,565	23.3	5,836	19.9	4,197	16.0	2,573	11.3	936	5.0	-726
300	C1	31.2	10,816	27.8	8,500	23.9	6,231	19.2	3,927	13.1	1,557	4.4	-890
	C2	31.7	11,127	28.6	8,989	25.1	6,895	21.0	4,767	15.9	2,580	9.2	321
	C3	29.1	9,278	24.6	6,564	19.3	3,950	12.5	1,327	2.2	-1,342	-37.6	-4,075
	C4	30.6	10,306	27.5	8,252	24.1	6,305	20.3	4,375	15.6	2,431	9.7	457

Sociedade de Investigações Florestais Universidade Federal de Viçosa, CEP: 36570-900 - Viçosa - Minas Gerais - Brazil, Tel: (55 31) 3612-3959 - Viçosa - MG - Brazil
E-mail: rarvore@sif.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] *Corresponding author.