LOGGING AND WOOD-PROCESSING
RESIDUE UTILIZATION BY TIMBER
FIRMS IN A RAPIDLY-GROWING
METROPOLIS IN THE SEMIDECIDUOUS FOREST
Dr. Charles, ANTWI-BOASIAKO
Snr. Lecturer/HEAD, Dept of Wood Science & Technology
Faculty of Renewable Natural Resources
KNUST-KUMASI
SEPTEMBER, 2014.
OUTLINE

INTRODUCTION

MATERIALS AND METHODS

RESULTS

DISCUSSION

CONCLUSION

RECOMMENDATION
2
INTRODUCTION





Deforestation rate is increasing in tropical Africa
FAO (2010) estimated Ghana’s deforestation rate at
135,395 ha/year.
Between 1990 and 2005, it lost 1.9 million ha (26%) of
forest cover
A decline in size and quality of the forests with time Ghana Forest Investment Program (2012),
Extraction from forests involves wood for timber,
fuel-wood and charcoal (energy), wildlife and NonTimber Forest Product (NTFP) removal, which have
3
all reached unsustainable levels



About 20 million m3 of wood consumed for local
energy production by the close of 2010 (FAO, 2010).
Wood continuous use for fuel puts millions of
foreign currencies spent by many foreign
organizations to save the forests from degradation
to waste.
Indiscriminate tree-felling for energy to sell or use
domestically is predominant contributing factor in
destroying the forests (ghanaianchronicle.com,
2013).
4




Besides cocoa (national economy backbone), wood is
also a vital foreign exchange-earner.
Wood products contribute about 11% of Ghana's
foreign exchange, 6% GDP, employ over 100,000
workers and provide a livelihood for 2.5 million
inhabitants (Awuah-Serwah, 2010).
Most processing mills have low lumber recovery
rates (a factor of 20-40% of log input).
Wood-residue volumes lie unutilized & unmanaged
in mills of wood firms irrespective of woodprocessing source
5





Only about 55% of the volume of the raw material
(i.e., total log with bark) to sawmill is converted into
sawn-products.
Most mills in Ghana generate an average annual
wood residue of 33.3%. Recoveries of export
products are still very low (Sekyere and Okyere,
2007).
Result = Economic wastage, environmental threat
(Bowyer and Haygreen, 1982), hindrance of timber
resource sustainable management.
Wood-residues - 2 main categories (Logging & Processing):
Logging (Forest or rangeland woody debris): Harvested tree remnants - tops
,6
and branches usually uneconomic to remove left in slash piles, burnt on site or
left to rot], and

Industrial (mill) residue: Scrap wood; and Log processing
remnants - Slabs, edgings, short logs, chips, sheets, pellets and
sawdust usually used as raw materials for particle- and fiberboards, to the pulp mills and for fuel/power generation (Dost
1967; Isomaki 1969; www.recyclenow.com, 2012).

Threats: Sawdust, chips, edging and other wood residues
often accumulate at wood processing plants, deposited at
mill premises to create fire and environmental hazards, or
dumped in rivers & oceans to pollute our ecosystems,
(Bender, 1957).

Benefits - Many abound in the midst of dwindling world
forests, fluctuating climate and energy resources (Thomas,
1978) .

Logging & processing wood-residues need regular
recycling as a balance to reduce pressure on forests.
7

Internationally, wood-residue is important raw
material of 3 categories based on utilization:
(a) Energy production (e.g. fuel for kiln drying),
(b) Secondary raw material for wood-based industries (e.g. pulp
and paper), and
(c) Raw material for non-wood based industries, which include
fertilizer for mushroom-growing technology (forprod.org, 2012).
8



Aim: To assess wood-residue generation level by wood
firms, utilization alternatives & major obstacles inhibiting
current use.
Significance: Important in planning integrated wood
industries to reduce lumber wastage, redirect timber
residues into useful sectors of the industry & ensure
sustainable management of the forest resource.
Contribution: Reduction of environmental pollution &
health hazards, increase profitability in the wood industry
and identify the potential products from log remnants.
9
MATERIALS AND METHODS

The survey was conducted through:
1. Questionnaire administration,
2. Personal Observation,
3. Informal discussions and Interviews - Wood firms in
Kumasi Metropolis with 50% of Ghana’s Timber
Industry mostly located at the Kaase Industrial Area
(Owusu Attah, 1987).
4. Visit to the Ghana Timber Millers Organization
(GTMO) for up-to-date data about the active Wood
Processing Firms categorized as Small, Medium and
Large scale Mills
10




Firm Categories: Large and Small scale firms for the
purpose of this study - Based on log capacity processed,
staff strength, machinery and technology employed.
Large firms - Logs and Lumber Limited (LLL), A.G.
Timbers Ltd., Hanmax Veneer & Plywood Ltd., Logs
Court Co. Limited, Ashanti Curl & Lumber Co. Ltd.,
Bibiani Logging & Lumber Co. Ltd., Fabi Timbers Ltd.,
Specialized Timber Products Ltd., JMO Timber &
Sawmillers Ltd., Kumi & Company Ltd., Fares Timber
Processing Ltd., Logwood Industries Ltd., Maxwell
Owusu Timbers Ltd., Modern Wood Technology Ltd and
Naja David Veneer & Plywood Ltd.
Small firms: Transport Wood Workers Union, Cluster of
mills at Sokoban Wood Village and Anloga Junction (as
evidence site for the effects of non-management of wood
residue).
Others: Ehwiaa Wood Carving Industry and other
artefact sites.
11



Firms randomly selected (Nkyi, 2009); Purposive
Sampling used to administer questionnaires from Ehwiaa
Wood Carving Industry and other wood-residue users
(carpenters, charcoal producers and food vendors),
Personnel in charge of Environmental Protection Units
and Timber Resource Sustainability.
80 respondents engaged: 20 each from the Small Scale
Wood Processing Firms, Large Firms, wood carvers, and
other users.
Study Areas: Residue types, quantity, management
and efficiency for manufacturing of wood products.
12


Primary data - obtained directly from wood firms,
and Secondary data - from articles, books and
journals from libraries and electronic websites;
these served as the baseline from which
recommendations were drawn.
Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) and
Microsoft Excel were used to analyze data, which
were presented in Figures and Tables.
13
RESULTS
A. Log Processing Mill Types and sources of raw
material
a. Type of mills utilized by firms
 The Log Processing firms utilize three (3) types of mills:
Ply, Saw- and Veneer-mills. Ten out of the 20 large firms
studied (50%) use sawmills, 6 (30%) use ply-mills but
only 4 (20%) have access to veneer-mills. For the small
firms, 13 out of 20 (65%) use sawmills, seven (7) or 35%
use ply-mill, but none (0%) uses veneer-mill (Fig. 4.1).

Few mills attach Moulding Section to their sawmills.
14
Fig. 1: Types of log processing mills by wood firms.
15
b. Raw materials for firms
 Twelve out of 20 of the large firms (60%) obtain wood
from contractors and 8 (40%) from unregistered forest
loggers (e.g. bush workers).
16
Fig. 2: Raw material source for processing by wood firms.
Forms of raw materials for small firms
obtained from large firms

About 67% of their residues were Large firms,
30% constituted materials unutilized by the large
firms, while 3% could not disclose their types
(Fig. 3).
17
Fig. 3: Form of raw material for small firms obtained
from large firms
18
c. Source of Raw materials for Wood Carvers
Very few wood carvers (1%) obtain raw materials from the large firms, majority (68%)
buy from middlemen (e.g. unregistered forest loggers) and 25% directly from the forests
(Fig. 4).
Fig. 4: Sources of raw materials for wood
carvers
19
d. Source of Raw Materials for other Wood Users
(Carpenters, Charcoal Producers and Bakers)




Carpenters (86%) obtain raw materials from small firms,
11% from large firms, minority (3%) from the forest and none
(0%) from carvers.
Several bakers also obtain wood from carvers (49%), 40%
from small firms and as low as 2% from large firms.
Many charcoal producers (54%) obtain wood from forest,
19% from large firms but none (0%) from carvers.
Food vendors largely obtain their wood from carvers (43%),
40% from small firms and 4% from large firms (Fig. 5). In
summary, a raw material supply web was established for
20
wood users in the study area (Fig. 6a).
Fig. 5. Source of raw materials for other Wood
Users
21
Primary Source of raw material (The forest)
Fig. 6a. Raw material
acquisition web
Timber contractors
Large scale firms
Unregistered Bush Workers
Small scale firms
Individuals
Wood carvers
Other wood users
22
Fig. 6b: Sources of raw materials for wood
carvers
23
B. Types of Wood Products Manufactured By Wood
Firms
 Majority of the products for large firms is lumber (28%),
whilst minority (6%) comprises sliced veneer (Fig. 7a).
However, small firms mostly produce boards (44%) and
plywood (22%) with 4% being minor accessories (Fig. 7b).
24
Fig. 7a: Types of wood products manufactured
by large wood firms
25
Fig. 7b: Types of wood products manufactured
by small firms.
26
C. Types, Relative Quantities and Current Uses of
Generated Wood-Residues
 All firms generate sawdust/chips, short logs, edgings, bark
and offcuts.



The large firms produce about 27.45% sawdust/chip, 9.80%
short logs, 17.65% edgings, 15.69% bark and 15.69%
offcuts.
The small firms generate the residues in these respective
amounts: 57.14, 28.57, 5.71, 5.71and 2.86% (Fig. 8a).
Thus, the large firms produce more sawdust/chips and
shorter logs than the small firms. They also produce
veneer wastes (13.73%), unlike the small firms.
27
Fig. 8a: Types and quantities of wood residues
generated by Wood firms
28

Thus, the large firms produce more sawdust/chips and
shorter logs than the small firms. They also produce veneer
wastes (13.73%), unlike the small firms.
29
Fig. 8b: Assorted Wood-Residue Piles
Fig. 8b: Sawdust Pile [Left]; Bark Residue [Right] (Source:
Ashton and Cassidy, 2007)
30
Current Use of Wood-Residues Generated by
firms



The large firms usually discharge 21.21% of their
residues from site usually through burning, 24.24%
is discarded or thrown away, 24.24% is given freely
to people and 30.30% sold to available markets.
Those with kiln-driers use unrecorded large
quantities for energy generation.
On the contrary, the small firms burn about 66.67%
of their residues on site, 12.82% is discarded, 15.38%
given out freely and 5.13% sold with none (0%) for
heat generation (Fig. 9).
31
Fig. 9: Current use of wood residues generated by
wood firms
32
D. Placement of Value on and Alternative Uses for
Generated Wood-Residues
 About 90% of the large firms place much value on their
residues as having potential value but 10% describe them
as “wastes”.


However, 86% of the small firms place value on woodresidues they obtain mostly from the large firms but 14%
does not (Fig. 10).
Perceptions of the firms on best alternatives for their woodresidue utilization suggested mainly particle boards (48%)
but 6% mentioned other minor uses such as sawdust/chips,
for poultry/livestock bedding/litter and enriching the
soil (Fig. 11).
33
Fig. 10: Firms’ perception on placing value on
residues generated
34
Fig. 11: Firms’ perception about the best alternative use
of wood-residues
35
E. Obstacles that hinder Efficient Utilization of WoodResidue
 Factors impeding efficient wood-residue utilization by the
firms were of three major categories: Ignorance,
Inadequate technology and financial problems.

About 30.77% of the large firms attributed their obstacles
to ignorance, 46.15% to inadequate technology and 23.08%
to financial problems. The small firms recorded 42.86,
35.71 and 21.43% respectively (Fig. 12).
36
Fig. 12: Obstacles that hinder Efficient Utilization37
of Residue
F. Idea by Firms on Conservation of Forests and
Timber Resources
Many of the large firms (67%) sufficiently knew about
timber and forest resource conservation, 24% had
insufficient knowledge and few (9%) had no knowledge.
For small firms, 11% had sufficient knowledge but several
of them (66%) had no information at all (Fig. 13).
38
39
Fig. 13: Knowledge of wood firms about forest
conservation


Fig. 14: Knowledge about the relationship between woodresidue utilization and forest conservation was in this
decreasing order for the various respondents: Large firms >
Small firms > Wood Carvers > Other Users (e.g.
carpenters, charcoal producers, bakers and food vendors).
About 55% of the large firms know that forest conservation
depends on efficient wood-residue utilization; few (19%)
thought otherwise but 26% could not establish any
relationship between them.
40
Fig. 14: Firms’ perception of the relationship between wood
residue utilization and forest conservation
41
b. Environmental Impacts of Generated Residues
 Most of the firms (about 90%) expressed that they
experience environmental impacts such as environmental
pollution (e.g. choking of gutters and water bodies by
heaps of wood remnants) but 10% expressed otherwise
(Fig. 4.15).
42
Fig. 15: Environmental impact of wood-residues generated
by wood firms
DISCUSSION
Sources of raw material and types of mills used by
wood processing firms


Wood is in much demand for its quality; represents the
world’s 2nd largest flow of products; involves long and
complicated processes of transporting, processing and
manufacturing (Raggers et al., 2006).
Wood keeps reducing in quantity and quality (Abeney, 2003),
43




Difficulty in obtaining logs for conversion into primary up
to tertiary products. Several firms do not obtain wood
directly from the forests.
Firms have developed strategies to link up with other
sources (e.g. timber contractors, unregistered forest
loggers and other individuals) for their log supply.
THE WEB: Large firms obtain most from timber
contractors; Small firms obtain part of supply from large
firms mostly in the form of residues.
Timber species commonly used include wawa, ceiba,
odum, sapele, ofram; & also sese, mahogany,
candollie, utile and onyina.
44

Ghanaian mills use ply-, saw- and veneer-mills
(Owusu Attah, 1974; Attah, 2011).
Our study ranks them as:
1. Sawmills dominate for all firms (57.5%),
2. Plymills (32.5%),
3. Veneer mills - least patronized (10%) by large
firms BUT NOT small firms.



Sawmills commonest to use - Most affordable,
easiest to work with and produce easily-purchased
products.
Few firms use only plymills; sometimes alongside
45
sawmills. Occasionally, sawmills with mouldings.




Wood products from the large firms: Lumber (28%),
boards (25%), plywood (22%), furniture (19%), sliced
veneer (6%).
Small firms: Produce more boards (44%); Others are:
plywood (22%), furniture (14%), cabinet (11%),
lumber (5%) and processed minor accessories (4%).
) Nigerian Forest Industry also dominated by
sawmills, production of furniture, panels and other
wood-based products (Abimbola and Ifeyinwa, 2012).
Performance of Wood Industry Sectors - Depends
on: Machine or equipment type, their specialization,
which affect production of their wood merchandise.
46



Some firms employ crude hand tools and equipment.
Small firms manufacture smaller and simpler wood
products than the large firms with NO VENEER
PRODUCTION.
Thus, Small Scale Furniture Producers fall below
technological efficiency level in terms of production or
manufacturing (RMDC, 1991; 2003; 2009)
47





Types, Relative Quantities and Current Uses of
Wood-residues Generated by Wood Firms
Isomaki (1969) - Only 55% of entire log volume is
converted into sawn products; the rest is left as residues.
Besides logging remnants at felling centres, all
processing firms produce various wood-residues in
varying quantities: Sawdust/chips, short logs, edgings,
bark, offcuts and veneer wastes (by the large firms).
Generation of quantities of energy-rich biomass residues
depends on the mill type, technological level and lumber
quality (Gavrilescu, 2008).
Ceiba and wawa, much processed wood mostly for
48
export, produce more residues than other timber types
worked on by the processing firms.



Wood-residues produced in all processing stages:
Debarking, dis-membering, edging, trimming and planing.
Factors for residues generation & Quantity: Mill type,
machinery efficiency, saw (kerf) and operators’ technical
know-how.
Expectedly, Large mills with more sophisticated machines
generated less quantities, especially in the form of
sawdust/chips, than the small firms.
49



Many log residue benefits: Could be derived, especially
when the world’s energy source is dwindling and our climate
fluctuating (Alistair, 2003).
Several large firms with kiln-driers (e.g. LLL, Modern
Wood Technology and Naja David Plywood Ltd.) use
unrecorded quantities of their wood-residues for
energy generation and drying of their wood products.
This would contribute to solving national energy problems,
as Social Responsibility Agreement (SRA) when their power
generation is extended to local communities, AND save
nations substantial amounts of foreign exchange (Owusu,
1987) .
50

Incineration with energy recovery ensures hygienic
disposal, volume reduction and thermal energy recovery
through steam or superheated water for general heating
purposes and power-generation (Gavrilescu, 2008) .
SOURCES OF WOOD-RESIDUES:
 Carvers: Obtain few short logs from large firms but
LARGELY from unregistered forest loggers and
individuals to manufacture drums, stools and several other
artefacts.

Carpenters: Interested mainly in boards, and sometimes
offcuts from firms to produce door frames, tables, chairs,
packages, coffins, cupboards, chop boxes, car body parts,
shoe stands or racks, benches, culvert boxes (for bridge 51
construction) and room dividers.



Other Users - Chop bar operators, yam sellers and
bakers buy mixture of offcuts, slabs, trimmings and
edgings from small scale mills, carpenters and wood
carvers.
Charcoal production: Wood-residues contribute to the
raw material base for local charcoal production.
This interest is not shown in Virginia State because of
scarcity of red wood species, as wood firms are supplied
with white wood species (Alderman et al., 1998).
52
Not every timber residue is suitable for the kiln or
other forms of energy production.
 It is not common to obtain much redwood for charcoal
production (Owusu, 1987).

53




Suitable Alternatives for Efficient Utilization of WoodResidue
Manufacture of products - chips, planer shavings and coarse
residues for paper and paper-based products, wood composites,
sold for fuelwood or generate power at facility/plant (Alderman
et al., 1998; Huhtinen, 2000).
However, Knowledge about alternative technological uses of
wood-residues is very low and beyond the capacities of the local
firms.
Only best alternatives for few firms identified were manufacture
of particle- and fiber-boards and power generation from woodresidue.
Tree bark is also primarily ground and processed for landscape
uses, and sawdust/chips for agricultural purposes to ensure
richness and increase soil fertility - in traditional countries 54
(Owusu, 1987).




For high technology, wood-residues are briquetted by
conversion into a dense, compact and consolidated unit
under high temperature and pressure (Oojittichai, 2009).
Briquette is the preferred fuel by Ghanaian bakers, brick
and tile factories but product not in the market (Sekyere
and Okyere, 2007).
Activated charcoal could also be produced at extreme
temperatures.
Coarser residues (chips and sawdust) used to produce
various products - pulp for paper and cardboard,
engineered products such as oriented standard board,
55
medium density fibreboard and other fibre uses (Davidson,
1999).




Instead of burning sawdust to produce carcinogenic
compounds from smoke to influence our climate, it can be
used in the manufacture of gypsum commodities to
decrease weight, increase sound and heat insulation
qualities, make them porous and soft to be nailed or sawn.
Such products are used for interior partitions, floor
insulation, wallboards and roofing materials.
Plasters also use sawdust as fillers to make them lighter
and more porous than normal.
Sawmill residues and construction industry by-products
also include various forms of lumber tailings.
56


Sawdust and wood shavings are used in carbonization or
pyrolysis to produce pyrolitic oil, char (powdered
charcoal), methanol and combustible gases, sugar and
plastics (Harkin, 1969; Hegan, 1985).
In the U.S., wood residue is used as wood wool cement for
wall construction.
57
Obstacles to Efficient Wood-Residue Utilization


Many Constraints to firms in developing countries abound. Most
influential include:
Financial,
Inadequate technology, and
Ignorance.
A. Financially, ALL suffer cash-flow problems (Appiah,
1990); investments in the forestry sector are hard to attract
(Gustav, 2007).


Poor loan repayment records in sector makes banks
reluctant to assist the firms financially.
This has affected the required technology and skilled
personnel by restraining them to utilize their heaped 58
residues without contributing to the improvement of the
industry.
B. Inadequate Technology




Provision of standard processing equipment for production of
recycled wood-residues into products that would meet
International standards is needed (G.W. Consultants, 1994).
Use of hand/unpowered tools or basic equipment (e.g. hammer)
currently employed by most small firms (e.g. furniture
manufacturing industries including carpenters who lack
several amenities) is completely out of place in the modern
wood processing industry and could be hardly employed to
utilize their generated wood-residues effectively.
Most small firms are just more interested in quick profit rather
than quality control and expansion (NACETEM, 2010).
Unsurprisingly, firms engaged in the current investigation
attributed one of their major obstacles to inadequate
technology.
59





Inadequate skilled manpower is a serious challenge for
production of quality wood products (Dada, 2011).
Most firm personnel Lack pre-requisite technology for the job
and there is no opportunity for them to build their capacities.
RMDC (2004) outlined that the paucity of skilled manpower is
prevalent in the industry since technical schools for capacity
building are very few.
C. Ignorance: While the main obstacle for the large firms was
inadequate technology and/or lack of skilled personnel, the small
firms additionally showed a greater level of ignorance regarding
wood-residue alternative uses.
Only few firms know about forest and timber resource
conservation and wood-residue recyclability as a balance to
reduce the frequent pressures on forests.
60
CONCLUSION



Relationship exists between unsustainable extraction and
inefficient processing on forest management.
Several firms produce quality products with little
environmental impact but have residue management
problems due to inadequate technology.
Other residues include discarded consumer wooden
produce and remnants from other or non-primary mill
manufacturers, such as discarded wooden furniture,
cabinets, pallets and containers, and scrap lumber.
61



These result in wastage, economic loss (the industry does
not make its full potential of its economic contribution)
and pose environmental threat (Bowyer and Haygreen, 1982;
Sekyere and Okyere, 2007), and hinders sustainable
management of our forest resources.
Residue minimization and utilization at the source of
production have economic implications, prepare
companies for future cost rises, legislative requirements
and contribute to improved environmental performance,
which meet consumer and shareholder expectations
(Bromhead, 2003).
Primary and secondary processing residues are viable
bio-based resources in demand and very desirable for
energy and other bio-based products. Their utilization
can make economic and environmental sense in many
situations (Ashton and Cassidy, 2007) .
62
RECOMMENDATION

Wood-residue generation should be minimized; where they cannot be,
their alternative uses must be explored (Bromhead, 2003).

Stakeholders need education on wood-residue utilization and
management.




GOs, NGOs and processing firms ought to plan integrated
programmes to redirect biomass residues to other processing units to
ensure sustainable management of the timber resource.
Establishment of recycle plants with purposes of economic,
environmental and conservative achievements is similarly necessary.
A necessary step in developing profitable markets for residue wood is
to quantify the amounts available by source and type of material,
analyze current production patterns, and identify the potential for
alternative value-added options.
Understanding these factors is critical to maximizing the economic63
value of these resources internationally (Nzokou et al., 2011), .
THANK YOU
64