Head to head

Cut-to-length versus full-tree harvesting

Which production system should the fleet be built around?

9 criteria compared

A buyer should understand the production system before choosing individual machines. Choosing a machine first and then discovering which system it belongs to is how fleets become unbalanced.

Cut-to-length concentrates the work into two machines. Full-tree spreads it across four or more, each doing one job very quickly.

Framing

Why this comparison recurs

This is the decision every other harvesting equipment choice follows from, and it is made once. Changing systems later means changing most of the fleet.

Cut-to-length concentrates the work: a harvester processes at the stump, a forwarder carries sorted logs to roadside. Two machines, high complexity in each, and a direct relationship between machine availability and production.

Full-tree distributes it: a feller buncher cuts and bunches, skidders extract, a processor converts stems to logs at the landing, a loader loads. More machines, lower complexity in each, higher peak throughput — and an interdependent chain where capital sits idle whenever one stage stops.

What each is for

These are not two points on one scale

Most of the confusion in this comparison comes from reading them as better and worse versions of the same thing. They are built for different work.

Cut-to-length processes at the stump

One machine fells, delimbs, measures and bucks in a single cycle, and the products leave the coupe already sorted. Residue stays distributed through the stand, where it serves as brash mats. The system's strength is precision and soil protection; its exposure is that the harvester is a single point on which the whole crew depends.

Best at

Uniform, well-formed stems
Mills requiring several sorted assortments
Terrain where landings are difficult to establish
Stands facing further thinnings or another rotation

Full-tree processes at the landing

Felling, extraction and processing are separated into different machines, which lets each be sized independently and concentrates the difficult processing in one place with a machine dedicated to it. Residue accumulates at the landing — an advantage where a biomass outlet exists, a problem where none does.

Best at

Large or irregular stems
Sites with a workable landing and truck access
Whole stems or a single assortment
Operations with a biomass outlet for concentrated residue

Side by side

The comparison

Criterion	Cut-to-length (CTL)	Full-tree / tree-length
Core machines	Harvester + forwarder	Feller buncher + skidder + processor + loader
Where processing happens	At the stump	At the landing
Machine count on site	Fewer	More
Log contamination	Lower	Higher
Production data	Accurate, machine-recorded	Measured at the landing
Thinning capability	Good	Limited
Peak throughput	Moderate	Very high
Failure exposure	Severe — harvester stops, production stops	Distributed, if buffers exist
Capital concentration	Two expensive machines	Four or more machines in a chain

The decision

Which one, and when

Choose cut-to-length (ctl) when

Assortment control and low contamination are worth money to your mills
Thinning is part of the work programme
Soil disturbance must be limited
Accurate production and operator data has commercial value in your contracts

More detail →

Choose full-tree / tree-length when

Maximum throughput on clearfell is the dominant requirement
The landing has room and capacity for processing and loading
Buffer inventory between stages can absorb a single machine failure
Timber and terrain suit high-speed felling and bunching

More detail →

The decision rule

CTL reduces machine count but concentrates risk. Full-tree raises peak production but creates an interdependent chain where one failure can idle a large amount of capital.

Either way, the system produces only as much as its slowest critical stage.

The money

How the two differ on cost, specifically

Capability comparisons are easy to find. This is where the commercial difference actually sits.

Factor	Cut-to-length (CTL)	Full-tree / tree-length
Machine count on site	Two	Four or more
Capital concentration	Two expensive machines	Spread across the chain
Failure exposure	Severe — harvester stops, production stops	Distributed, if buffers exist
Wood contamination	Low	Higher
Production data quality	Machine-recorded, StanForD	Measured at the landing
Thinning capability	Good	Limited
Peak throughput	Moderate	Very high

What would change the answer

The variables that move this decision

Read across the row your own situation matches. Where most rows point the same way, the decision is straightforward; where they split, the comparison is genuinely close and the economics below should settle it.

Variable	Points to cut-to-length (ctl)	Points to full-tree / tree-length
Stem size and form	Uniform, well-formed	Large or irregular
Landing availability	Difficult to establish or reach	Workable landing with truck access
Product sorting required by the mill	Several assortments, cut to length	Whole stems or a single assortment
Terrain and soil sensitivity	Steep, soft, or facing further rotations	Firm clearfell ground
Biomass outlet for residue	No — residue useful as brash mats	Yes — concentrated at the landing

Three situations

What we would actually recommend

Not a balanced summary — a recommendation for each case, with the reasoning.

Plantation programme including thinning, with mills that penalise contamination

Choose: Cut-to-length

Thinning capability and assortment control are CTL strengths, and the production data supports payment reconciliation. The concentration risk is manageable where dealer support is close.

High-volume clearfell with landing space and a tolerance for contamination

Choose: Full-tree

Peak throughput is materially higher when each machine does one task quickly, and buffer inventory between stages absorbs individual failures.

A contractor entering harvesting with limited capital and uncertain volume

Choose: Neither, initially — an excavator with a processor head

Both systems assume utilisation that an entering contractor has not yet proven. A processor head on an owned excavator gives processing capability without committing to either chain.

Reading the sheet

Published figures that mislead on this particular choice

Each of these is accurate. Each of them answers a different question from the one a buyer is asking when they compare these two.

What is published	What it actually tells you
Harvester head maximum cut	The delimbing opening and the published optimum diameter range bound routine work. A head that cuts to 700 mm may be designed to be most productive well below that.
Feller buncher cutting capacity	In plantation clearfell the day is filled by stems far below the maximum. Accumulation per cycle and travel between trees predict production; maximum diameter does not.
Forwarder load space	Dense hardwood reaches the payload limit before a softwood-sized load space is full. Specifying volume for hardwood buys structure you cannot legally carry.
Quoted system production	Usually the capability of the fastest stage. The chain delivers at the rate of its slowest, and that is frequently truck supply rather than any machine in the quote.

What goes wrong

Mistakes specific to this decision

How to settle it

The order to work through, for your own case

Each step narrows what the next has to establish. Worked in order, most buyers find the decision resolves before the last one.

Start from the mill's product specification

What is bought, in what lengths, sorted how, and to what quality. This narrows the system before any machine is considered, and it is not negotiable by the contractor.

Assess stems and terrain honestly

Uniform, well-formed stems and difficult landing access favour processing at the stump. Large or irregular stems with a workable landing favour processing there.

Check what residue is worth to you

Cut-to-length distributes it through the coupe as brash mats; full-tree concentrates it at the landing where a chipper can reach it. If there is a biomass outlet, that difference has a dollar value.

Ask which system the work you can win already uses

The most practical constraint of all. Estates run systems, and a contractor equipped for the other one is quoting against a mismatch.

Often overlooked

The option that is not on this page

Subcontract into the system the estate already runs

A contractor entering a region where estates run one system does not have to buy a complete crew to work in it. Supplying a single machine into an established chain — commonly a forwarder or a skidder — puts one asset at risk instead of several, leaves the chain balance as somebody else's problem, and builds the relationship and the production record that a full crew would later be financed against.

Common questions

Frequently asked questions

Which system is more profitable?

Neither inherently. CTL earns more where mills pay for clean, well-sorted wood and where thinning is part of the programme. Full-tree earns more where peak throughput on clearfell is the requirement and the landing can absorb it. The profitable system is the one matched to your contracts and terrain.

Can I run both systems?

Larger contractors do, but it means maintaining two fleets, two sets of parts and two operator skill sets. For most businesses the utilisation penalty of splitting across both outweighs the flexibility gained.

Which suits Australian plantations better?

Both operate here. CTL dominates where assortment control, low contamination and thinning matter, which describes much of the softwood plantation task. Full-tree appears where clearfell volume and landing space favour it. Terrain, mill requirements and the thinning programme decide it, not geography.

What happens if my harvester breaks down in CTL?

Production stops. There is no parallel machine and no buffer, which is the defining risk of the system. It is why availability — bought through dealer support, local parts holding and maintenance discipline — is worth more in CTL than an equivalent gain in theoretical production.

Detail