Coniferous forest, of which 68% is pine and 30% spruce, prevails in Eastern and Middle Germany, deciduous forest, of which 20% is oak, the balance principally beech, in the West and South.
Coppice and coppice with standards are mostly in private hands as well as the coniferous selection forest, the State forests being almost entirely high forest, i.e., seed forest, other than under selection method.
Methods of Improving the Crop.The credit of having first systematically formulated the practice of thinnings under the name ofDurchforstung(for the first thinning),Durchplenterung(for the later thinnings), belongs to Hartig, although the practice of such thinnings had been known and applied here and there before his time. He confined himself mainly to the removal of the undesirable species, dead and dying, suppressed and damaged trees, being especially emphatic in his advice not to interrupt the crown cover. Excepting the early weeding or improvement cuttings, these thinnings were not to begin until the fiftieth to seventieth year in the broadleaved forest, but in conifers in the twentieth to thirtieth year.
The first attempt to explain on a biological basis the process and effect of thinning was made by Späth in a special contribution (1802). Cotta, in his Silviculture, although at first agreeing with Hartig, later in his third edition (1821) changes his mind, and improves both upon the biological explanation of Späth and the practice of Hartig, pointing out that the latter came too late with his assistance, that the struggle between the individuals should be anticipated, and the thinning repeated as soon as the branches begin to die; but he also recognizes the practical difficulty of the application of this cultural measure on accountof the expense. Curiously enough, he recommends severer thinnings for fuel-wood production than for timber forests.
Pfeil accentuates the necessity of treating different sites and species differently in the practice of thinnings. Hundeshagen accentuates the financial result and the fact that the culmination of the average yield is secured earlier by frequent thinnings. Heyer formulates the “golden rule:” “Early, often, moderate,” but insists that first thinning should not be made until the cost of the operation can be covered by the sale of the material. Propositions to base the philosophy and the results of thinning on experimental grounds rather than on mere opinion were made as early as 1825 to 1828, and again from 1839 to 1846, at various meetings of forestry associations, until, in 1860, Brunswick and Saxony inaugurated the first more extensive experiments in thinnings. The two representatives of forest finance, Koenig and Pressler, pointed out, in 1842 to 1859, the great significance of thinnings in a finance management as one of the most important silvicultural operations for securing the highest yield.
In spite of the advanced development of the theory of thinning, the practice has largely lagged behind, because of the impracticability of introducing intensive management. Only lately, owing to improvement in prices and the possibility of marketing the inferior material profitably enough to justify the expenditure, has it become possible to secure more generally the advantages of the cultural effect. Within the last thirty or forty years, great activity has beendeveloped among the experiment stations in securing a true basis for the practice of thinning.
New ideas were introduced through French influence and by others independently in the latter part of the eighties, when the distinction between the final harvest crop (Fr. élite, le haut) and the nurse crop (le bas) was introduced.[4]
[4]The conception of such subdivision and the English nomenclature was independently first employed by the writer in his Report for 1887, as Chief of Forestry Division, when discussing planting plans for the prairies.
[4]The conception of such subdivision and the English nomenclature was independently first employed by the writer in his Report for 1887, as Chief of Forestry Division, when discussing planting plans for the prairies.
The physiological reasons for the practice of thinning upon experimental basis, were advanced by the botanists Goeppert and R. Hartig, and among foresters, the names of Kraft, Lorey, Haug, Borggreve, Wagener, and others are intimately connected with the very active discussion of the subject lately going on in the magazines. Thinnings have become such an important part of the income of forest administrations (25 to 40% of the total yield) that the prominence given to the subject is well justified, and a more modern conception of the advantages of thinnings and especially of severer thinnings is gaining ground.
The proposition, now much ventilated, of severe opening up near the end of the rotation, in order to secure an accelerated increment (Lichtungshiebe) is, however, much older; Hossfeld, in 1824, and Jäger in 1850, advocated this measure for financial reasons, while Koenig and Pressler anticipated the development of an individual tree management by pruning, and differentiation of final harvest and nurse crop, a method which is working itself out at the present time.
As stated before, to Hartig and Cotta belongs the credit of having applied systematically on a large scale methods of forest organization for sustained yield; Hartig having been active in Prussia since 1811, and Cotta beginning to organize the Saxon forests in the same year. The method employed by Hartig, the so-called volume allotment, had been already formulated and its foundation laid by Kregting and others (although Hartig seems to have claimed the invention). But it was reserved to Hartig to build up this method in its detail, and to formulate clearly and precisely its application, as well as to improve the practice of forest survey, calculation of increment, and the making of yield tables. His method involved a survey, a subdivision, a construction of yield tables and the formulation of working plans, in which the principle according to which the forest was to be managed during the whole rotation was laid down for each district. The rotation was determined, divided into periods, finally of twenty years, and the periodic volume yield represented by all stands was distributed through all the periods of the rotation in such a manner as to make the periodic felling budgets approximately equal; or, since the tendency to increased wood consumption was recognized, an increase of the felling budget toward the end of the rotation was considered desirable.
Cotta based his system of forest organization upon a method described by a Bavarian, Schilcher (1796); it relied primarily upon area rather than volumedivision. This method was later on (1817), called by himFlaechenfachwerk(area allotment). It divides the rotation into periods and allots areas for each periodic felling budget. But before this time, in 1804, Cotta had himself formulated a method of his own, which combined the area and volume method, the volume being the main basis and the area being merely used as a check. While Hartig dogmatically and persistently carried out his difficult scheme, Cotta was open-minded enough to improve his method of regulation, and by 1820, in hisAnweisung zur Forst-Einrichtung und -Abschaetzung, he comes to his final position of basing the sustained yield entirely on the area allotment, using the estimate of volume simply to secure an approximately uniform felling budget. He laid particular stress on orderly procedure in the subdivision and progress of the fellings. He did not prepare an elaborate working plan binding for the entire rotation, but merely prescribed the principles of the general management, and, after 1816, he confined the formulating of felling and planting plans only to the next decade.
A similar method, making a closer combination of volume and area allotment, now known as the combined allotment, in which the area forms the main basis for distributing the felling budgets, was prescribed by Klipstein in 1833. This, also, confines the working plan to the first period of the rotation and for this period alone makes a rather careful statement of the expected volume budget; a new budget is then to be determined at the beginning of the next period. This idea of confining the budget determination to acomparatively short period is now generally accepted, the future receiving only summary consideration.
These methods of organization were the ones generally applied in practice, and are still with some modifications in practical use. About 1820, however, new theories were advanced which led to the formulation of methods based upon the idea of thenormal forest. The conception of a normal forest, with a normal stock, distributed in normal age classes, so as to insure a sustained yield management, was evolved, in 1788, by an obscure anonymous official in the Tax-collector’s office of Austria, designed for assessing woods managed for sustained yield. This fertile idea, which is still the basis of forest organization in Austria, and explains better than any other method the principles involved in forest organization, did not find entrance into forestry literature in all its detail until 1811 when André compared this so-calledCameraltaxewith Hartig’s method of regulation. We find, however, that, simultaneously with the Austrian invention of this method, Paulsen (1787) proposed to determine the felling budget as a relation between normal stock and normal yield, and in his yield tables (the first of the kind, 1795), he gives the proportion of increment to normal stock in percentic relation, so that the felling budget may be either expressed as a fraction of the stock or as a per cent.; in beech forests, for instance, he determines the felling budget as 3.3% on best sites, 2.5% on medium, and 1.8% on poor sites.
Probably stimulated by André’s description,Huber(1812) developed a method and formula which maybe considered the foundation of the later development by Carl Heyer (Felling budget = I +Sa - Sne).
Based upon the normal forest idea, a number of methods were elaborated which, because of their employing a mathematical formula for the determination of the felling budget, are known asformula methods; they are, indeed modified rational volume divisions.
Hundeshagen has the merit of having first clearly explained the basis of these methods, and himself developed a formula, of the correctness of which he was so convinced as to designate his method as “the rational” one. Two other formulæ were brought into the world by Koenig (1838-1851), but the credit of the most complete elaboration both of the principles of the normal forest idea and of its practical application belongs to Carl Heyer. The principles of his method are briefly: First determine upon the period of regulation during which the abnormal forest is to be brought nearer to normal conditions; the length of this period to be determined with due regard to the financial requirements or ability of the owner and to the conditions of the forest. The actual stock on hand is then determined and the total increment, based on the average increment at felling age of each stand, which will take place during this period, is added. Deducting from this total what has been calculated as the proper normal stock requisite for a sustained yield management, the balance is available for felling budgets which may be utilized in annual or periodic instalments during the period ofregulation. A working plan is provided which takes care of securing an orderly progress of fellings and proper location of age classes, to be revised every ten years.
Although this is undoubtedly the most rational method yet devised, it has remained largely unused, and is found in somewhat modified application only in Austria and Baden.
An entirely new principle in the theory of forest organization was introduced, when the aim of forest management was formulated to be the highest soil rent. According to this requirement the proper harvest time of any stand, or even of any tree, was to be determined by the so-called index per cent., that is, a calculation which determines whether a stand or a tree is still producing at a proper predetermined rate, or is declining. The advocates of this principle were especiallyPressler(professor of mathematics at Tharandt, 1840 to 1843) andG. Heyer, son of Carl Heyer, who based his method on his father’s formula, merely introducing values for volumes.Judeich, director of the Tharandt school, also developed in the sixties a method, based upon financial theory, which is to attain the highest rate per cent. on the capital invested in forest production. On the basis of survey and subdivision of working blocks composing a felling series, and with a rotation determined by financial calculations with interest accounts, he makes a periodic area division for determining the felling budget in general, and in addition employs the index per cent., as explained, for determining in each allotted stand the more exact time for its harvest.
While these men pleaded for a strict finance calculation, such as is properly applied to any business making financial results the main issue, the defenders of the old regime, which sought the object of forest management mainly in highest material or value production, advanced as their financial program the attainment of the highest forest rent as opposed to the highest soil rent. They neglected and derided the complicated interest calculations which have to take into consideration uncertain future developments, and were satisfied with producing a satisfactory balance, a surplus of income over expenses, no matter what interest rate on the capital involved in soil and forest growth that might represent.
At the present time these financial propositions are still mainly under heated discussion.
In actual practice, the various state forest administrations, with the exception of the Saxon one, continue to rely upon the older methods in regulating the management of their forest properties without reference to financial theories. This is largely due to momentum of the practical existence and application of these methods in earlier times and the difficulty and impracticability of a change. Just now, however, several of the State administrations are preparing to radically revise their working plans.
In Prussia, the instructions for working plans of 1819 formulated by Hartig were improved upon by his successor, Oberlandforstmeistervon Reuss(1836), and these instructions formed the basis of the work of forest regulation until the end of the 19th century. It is a periodic area allotment with only asummary check by volume. The working plan is only to secure a rational location and gradation of age classes; the calculations of yields and specific rules of management are lately confined to the first period and are revised every six years.
In Saxony, Cotta’s area method was systematically developed, and, as the larger part of Saxon forests is coniferous, mainly spruce, the proper location of age classes forms a special consideration for the progress of fellings. The determination of volume and increment was left to summary estimates, and the area division became entirely superior. The original idea of Cotta that orderly procedure in the management is of more importance than the actual determination and equalization of yield still pervades the Saxon practice. Since 1860, an attempt has been made to calculate the rotation and determine the felling budget on the principle of the soil rent, at least as a corrective of the annual budget, and in general to lean towards Judeich’s stand management.
In Bavaria, after various changes, a complete allotment method of area and volume had come into vogue, in 1819; but, at the present writing (1911) an entirely new and modern re-organization has been begun, in which most modern ideas and especially much freedom of movement, even to deviation from the principle of sustained yield, is allowed.
In Württemberg, where, in 1818 to 1822, a pure volume allotment had been introduced, in 1862 to 1863 the combined allotment method was begun, the felling budget being determined in a general way for the next two or three periods, and more preciselyfor the first decade, without attempting more than approximate equality.
In 1898, new instructions were issued, which abandon the allotment method and restrict the yield regulation to designating felling areas for the first period.
In Baden, where the forest organization began in 1836 upon the basis of volume allotment, a change was made in 1849 to an area allotment, simplifying to a greater extent than anywhere else the calculation of the yield; finally, Heyer’s method was adopted entirely in 1869.
It appears then that the schematic allotment methods found the most general application in the earlier time of the period, being favored probably on account of their simplicity in application. The improvement in their present application over the original methods as designed by Hartig and Cotta, is that now they require no volume calculation for any long future, but are satisfied with making a sufficiently accurate calculation and provision for the proper felling budget for the present.
About the middle of the 18th century the recognition of the importance of forestry led to a severance of the forest and hunting interests, and it became the practice to place the direction of the former into the hands of some more or less competent man—a state forester—usually under the fiscal branch or treasury department of the general administration. Fully organized forest administrations, in the modern sense, however, could hardly be said to have existed beforethe end of the Napoleonic wars (1815) which had undoubtedly retarded the peaceful development of this as well as of other reforms.
The present organization of the large Prussian forest department in its present form dates from 1820, when Hartig instituted the division into provincial administrations, and differentiated them into directive, inspection and executive services. The direction of the provincial management was placed in the hands of an Oberforstmeister, with the assistance of a number of Forstmeister, who acted mainly as inspectors, each having his inspection district consisting of a number of ranges. The ranges (100,000 to 125,000 acres) were placed in charge of Oberförster or Revierförster, who with the assistance of several underforesters (Förster) conducted the practical work. At first only indifferently educated, these latter were allowed little latitude, but with improvement in their education they became by degrees more and more independent agents.
This tri-partite system of directing, inspecting and executive officers, after various changes in titles and functions, finally became practically established in all the larger German states; in some rather lately, as for instance, in Bavaria, not until 1885, and in Württemberg in 1887.
With this more stable organization, the character and the status of the personnel changed greatly: the prior right of the nobility to the higher positions, which had lasted in some States until 1848, and the practice of making connection with military service a basis for appointment were abolished, and, insteadof Cameralists, educated foresters came everywhere to the head of affairs. The lower service, which had been recruited from hunters and lackeys, and which was noted for its low social, moral and pecuniary status, was improved in all directions. The change from incidentals in the way of fees, and natural instead of money emolument for the lower grade foresters, (which had been the rule, and still play a role even to date), to definite salaries, and the salutary change of methods in transacting business, which Hartig introduced, became general. With the development and improvement of forestry schools, the requirement of a higher technical education for positions in State service could be enforced. Yet only within the last twenty-five or thirty years, has the ranking position of forest officers been made adequate and equalized with that of other public officials of equal responsibility, and still later have their salaries been made adequate to modern requirement.
The central administration now lies in the hands of technical men (Oberlandforstmeister) with a council of technical deputies (Landforstmeister) all of whom have passed through all the stages of employment from that of district managers up. This central office or “division of forestry” is either attached to the department of agriculture, or to that of finance, and has entire charge of the questions of personnel, direction of forest schools, of the forest policy of the administration, and the approval of all working plans, acting in all things pertaining to the forest service as a court of last resort. The working plans are made and revised by special commissioners in each case,or, as in Saxony, under the direction of a special bureau, with the assistance of the district manager. Upon the basis of the general working plan prepared by these commissions, an annual plan is elaborated by the district managers with consultation and approval of the provincial and central administration. These plans contain a detailed statement of all the work to be done through the year, the cost of each item, and the receipts expected from each source. This annual working plan requires approval by the provincial administration, which is constituted as a deliberative council, consisting of a number of Forstmeister with an Oberforstmeister as presiding officer. The titles of these officers, to be sure, and the details of procedure vary somewhat in different states, but the system as a whole is more or less alike.
The district manager or Oberförster, now often calledForstmeister, has grown in importance and freedom of position, although his district has grown smaller (mostly not over 25,000 acres), and, being one of the best educated men in the country district, he usually holds the highest social position, although his emoluments are still moderate. He holds many offices of an honorary character, as for instance that of justice of the peace, and the position of states’ attorney or public prosecutor in all cases of infraction of the forest laws. These forest laws are still largely local,i.e., State laws, although the criminal code of the empire has somewhat unified practice.
Curiously enough, wood on the stump is still not considered property in the same sense as other things, so far as theft is concerned; the stealing of growingtimber is not even called theft, the word used in the laws beingFrevel(tort), and, like other infractions against forest laws, it is punished by a money fine, more or less in proportion to the value of the stolen material or the damage suffered. This money fine may be transmuted into imprisonment or forest labor, but corporal punishment, which still prevailed in the first decades of the century, has been abolished. Wood stealing was very general and rampant during the beginning of the century, but improvement in the condition of the country population and in the number and personnel of the forest officers since 1850 has now reduced it to a minimum.
Formerly, and until 1848, the administrators and even the forest owners acted at the same time as prosecutor, judge and executioner, and only in 1879, was this condition everywhere and entirely changed, and infractions against forest laws adjudged by regular courts of law, holding meetings at stated times for the prosecution of such infractions.
Nevertheless, the court proceedings in forest matters still vary from the usual court practice, providing a simpler, cheaper and more ready disposal of testimony and witnesses, and quicker retribution, which is largely rendered possible through having every forest officer under oath as a sheriff, and his statement, and perhaps the confiscated tools employed in the theft, being accepted asprima facieevidence of the infraction.
The social position of the underforesters and the forest protective service has also been improved until all charges of incompetency and immorality,which were not undeserved even until past the middle of the nineteenth century, have become reversed; the forest service being morally on as high a plane as all the departments of German administrations.
During the first half of the century the old conception ofForsthoheit—superior right of the princes to supervise and interfere with private property—changed into the more modern conception of the police function of the state, and, by 1850, after the revolutionary period, the seignorage of the princes had passed away. The issue of forest ordinances (the last in 1840) was replaced by the enactment of forest laws which, since the establishment of representative government, has become a function of legislatures.
The tendency to restrict the exercise of private property rights had been assailed by the theories ofLaissez faireand the teachings of Adam Smith, and, as a consequence, all the restrictive mandates of the older forest ordinances had been weakened and had more of less fallen into disuse. Especially the attempts to influence prices and markets had nearly if not entirely vanished during the first decade. Only for the state forest, it was still thought desirable to predetermine wood prices, or at least keep rates low, because wood was a necessary material for the industries. This theory prevailed until, perhaps under the lead of Hundeshagen (seeabove), the propriety of securing the highest soil rent was recognized as the proper aim, when the practice of selling wood at auction in order to secure the best prices became the rule.
The regulations regarding export and import between the different States, which had been enacted under the mercantilistic teachings of the last century (seepage 52), and the many tariffs which impeded a free exchange of commodities, lasted for a long while into the 19th century, and were not all abolished until 1865, when under the lead of Prussia, the North German Federation instituted theZollverein(Tariff alliance) which abolished not only all tariffs between the States of the Federation, but also tariffs on wood products against the outside world. Import duties were, however, again established in 1879, and the policy of protecting the established organized forest management against competition by importations from exploiting countries has been again and again recognized as proper in the revision of tariff rates and railroad freight rates on the government railroads.
During the first decades of the century, the supply question was uppermost, and although such men as Pfeil (1816) laughed at the idea of a wood famine, there was good reason, prior to the development of railroads, of coal fields, of iron and steel manufactures, etc., for discussing with apprehension the area and condition of supply and the extent of the consumption. Nevertheless, the attitude of the state toward private property was much more influenced by the economic theories then prevalent, which taught the ideas of private liberty to which the French Revolution had given such forcible expression.
With the change of municipal communities from mere associations with common material interest intounits or parts of political or state machines, also independence in the management of their property was secured, and many of the old restrictions which had circumscribed this right fell away. Curiously enough, during the French domination under Napoleon, the new masters, forgetting the spirit of the revolutionary period, introduced the prescriptions of the old French ordinance of 1669 which restricted the use of communal property to the extent of excluding the owners entirely from the management of their property, and placed it under government officers. After the French withdrew, this method, of course, collapsed, although it probably had an influence on the final shaping of forest policies in these respects. Altogether, there was such variety of historic development in the different parts of Germany that it is not to be wondered at that one finds a great variety of policies still prevailing not only in different States but in different localities of the same State.
At the present time three different principles in the relations of the state to the corporation forests may be recognized, namely, entire freedom, excepting so far as general police laws apply, which is the case with most of the corporation forests in Prussia (law of 1876); special supervision of the technical management under approved officials with proper education, which is the case in Saxony, most of Bavaria, the Prussian provinces of Westphalia, Rhineland and Saxony, and in some of the smaller states; or lastly, the absolute administration by the state, which prevails in Baden, parts of Bavaria, provinces Hesse-Nassau, and Hanover. The tendency, however, inmodern times appears to be toward a more strict interpretation of the obligation of the state to prevent mismanagement of the communal property.
Private forest property, which during the preceding century had been largely under restrictions, first under the application of the hunting right, and then under the fear of a wood famine, became in the first decades of the century under the influences already mentioned, almost entirely free, all former policies being reversed; indeed Prussia, in 1811, issued an edict insuring absolutely unrestricted rights to forest owners, permitting partition and conversion of forest properties, and even denying in such cases the right of interference on the part of possessors of rights of user.
This policy of freedom was also applied, although less radically, in Bavaria, except as to smaller owners. The result was, to a large extent, the increase of exploitation and forest devastation, creating wastes and setting shifting sand and sanddunes in motion. The reaction, which set in against this unrestricted use of forest property, resulted in Prussia not in renewal of restrictive measures, but in the enactment of promotive ones. The law of 1875 sought improvement by encouraging small owners to unite their properties under one management; but the expectations which were founded on this ameliorative policy seem so far not to have been realized.
This promotive policy has especially since 1899 found expression in the institution in many provinces of information bureaus, which give technical advice, make working plans, secure plant material and give other assistance to woodland owners.
A new relation, however, of a conservative character arose by the establishment of the entail, i.e., a contract made by the head of the family with the government under which the latter assumes the obligation of forever preventing the heirs from disposing of, diminishing, or mismanaging their property. As a result of this arrangement, many of the larger private forest properties are forced to a conservative management, not as a direct influence of the law, but as a matter of agreement. The condition of state supervision of private and communal forest property at present prevailing is expressed in the following statement of divisions by property classes of forest areas of Germany, which shows that at least 63.9% are under conservative management:
Until the beginning of the present century, the protective function of the forest had played no role in the arguments for state interference, but just about the beginning of the century cries were heard from France that, owing to the reckless devastation of the Vosges and Jura Alps by cutting, by fires and over-grazing, brooks had become torrents, and the valleys were inundated and covered by the debris and silt ofthe torrents. A new aspect of the results of forest devastation began to be recognized, which found excellent expression in a memoir byMoreau de Jonnès(Brussels, 1825), on the question “What changes does denudation effect on the physical condition of the country.” This being translated into German by Wiedenmann, was widely spread, being interestingly written, although not well founded on facts of natural history and physical laws. Nevertheless, sufficient experience as regards the effect of denudation in mountainous countries had also accumulated in southwest Germany and in the Austrian Alps, and the necessity of protective legislation was recognized. This necessity first found practical expression in the Bavarian law of 1852, in Prussia in 1875, and in Württemberg in 1879. But a really proper basis for formulating a policy or argument for protective legislation outside of the mountainous country is still absent, although for a number of years attempts have been made to secure such basis.
[5]The necessarily brief statements which are made under this heading presuppose knowledge of the technical details to which they refer. In this short history it was possible only to sketch rapidly the development of the science in terms familiar to the professional man.
[5]The necessarily brief statements which are made under this heading presuppose knowledge of the technical details to which they refer. In this short history it was possible only to sketch rapidly the development of the science in terms familiar to the professional man.
The habit of writing encyclopædic volumes, which the Cameralists and learned hunters had inaugurated in the preceding century, continued into the new one, and we findHartig,Cotta,PfeilandHundeshageneach writing such encyclopædias.Carl Heyerbegan one in separate volumes, but completed only two of them. Even an encyclopædic work in monographs by severalauthors was undertaken as early as 1819 byJ. M. Bechstein, who with his successors brought out fourteen volumes, covering the ground pretty fully. While in the earlier stages the meager amount of knowledge made it possible to compress the whole into small compass, the more modern encyclopædias ofLorey,FürstandDombrowskiarose from the opposite consideration, namely, the need of giving a comprehensive survey of the large mass of accumulated knowledge.
Since 1820, monographic writings, however, became more and more the practice. Among the volumes which treat certain branches of forestry monographically, the works of the masters of silviculture,Cotta,HartigandHeyer, based on their experiences in west and middle Germany, and ofPfeil, referring more particularly to North German conditions, were followed by the South German writers,Gwinner(1834), andStumpf(1849). In 1855,H. Burkhardtintroduced in his classicSäen und Pflanzena new method of treatment, namely, by species, and after 1850, when the development of general silviculture had been accomplished, such treatment by species became frequent. Of more modern works on general silviculture elaborating the attempts at reform of old practices those ofGayer(1880),Wagener(1884),Borggreve(1885),Ney(1885), all writing in the same decade, are to be especially mentioned. In this connection should be also noticedFürst’svaluable collective work on nursery practice (Pflanzenzucht im Walde, 1882).
At present the magazine literature furnishes ample opportunity to discuss the development of methods inall directions. The text books at present appearing seem to be justified by or intended mainly for the needs of the teacher and rarely for the practitioner. Such a text book is that byWeise. But the latest contributions to silvicultural literature byWagner(1907), andMayr(1909) are works of a new order, utilizing broader ecological knowledge.
Other branches than silviculture were similarly first treated in comprehensive volumes and then in monographic writings on special subjects of the branch. The literature onforest utilizationcovering the whole field, was enriched especially byPfeil,Koenig,Gayer, andFürst. The first investigation into the physical and technical properties of wood was conducted byG. L. Hartighimself, followed byTheodor Hartig, and the subject has been most broadly treated byH. Noerdlinger(1860). In later years,Schwappach’sinvestigations deserve special mention.
The question of means oftransportationgradually became also a subject capable of monographic treatment and a series of books came out on locating and building forest roads.Braunissued such a book in 1855 for the plains country, andKaiser(1873) for the mountains, alsoMühlhausen(1876), who had been commissioned to locate a perfect road system over the demonstration forest at the forest academy of Muenden. Only within the last quarter of the century were railroads introduced into the economy of forest management. The first comprehensive book on the subject of logging railroads was issued byFoerster(1885), and a later one byRunnebaum.Stoetzer(1903) furnished in his compact style thelatest discussion on the subject of roads and railroads.
A very comprehensive literature on the value offorest litterwas brought into existence by the established usage of small farmers of supplying their lack of straw for bedding and manure by substituting the litter raked from the forest. Hartig and Hundeshagen were active in the discussion of this subject as well as almost every other forester, the discussion being, however, mainly based on opinions. But, after 1860, the subject became so important both to the poor farming population and to the forest, which was being robbed of its natural fertilizer, that a more definite basis for regulating its use was established by analysis and by experiments at the experimental stations.
With the inauguration of the various methods of forest organization described before, there naturally went hand in hand the development ofmethods of measurement. Better forest surveys developed rapidly, the transit generally replacing the compass and plane table. At this period the necessity for books teaching the important methods of land survey was met byBaur(1858) and byKrafft(1865). This subject does no longer occupy a place in forestry literature, the knowledge of it being taken for granted.
On the other hand the subject offorest mensurationwhich formerly was generally treated in connection with forest organization has developed into a branch by itself, and has been very considerably developed in its methods and instruments, making a tolerably accurate measurement of forest growth possible,although many unsolved problems are still under investigation. Still, late into the century it was customary to measure only circumferences of trees, by means of a chain or band, although an instrument for measuring diameters is mentioned by Cotta, in 1804, and by Hartig, in 1808.SchœnerandRichterare in 1813 mentioned as inventors of the first “universal forest measure” or caliper. The improvement of calipers to their modern efficiency has been carried on since 1840 byCarlandGustav Heyerand by many others until now self-recording calipers by (Reuss,Wimmenauer, etc.) have become practical instruments. For measuring theheightsof trees,Hossfeldhad already a satisfactory instrument in 1800; a very large number of improvements in great variety followed, withFaustmann’smirror hypsometer probably in the lead. As a special development for measuring diameters at varying heightsPressler’sinstrument should be mentioned, and a very complicated but extremely accurate one constructed byBreymann.
Various formulas for the computation of the contents of felled trees had already been developed byOetteltand others in the eighteenth century and a formula byHuber, using the average area multiplied by length was definitely introduced in the Prussian practice in 1817. The names ofSmalian,Hossfeld,Presslerand others are connected with improvements in these directions.
The idea ofform factorsand their use was first developed byHuber, who made three tree classes according to the length of crowns, measured the diameters six feet above ground, and used reductionfactors of .75, .66, .50 for the three classes. But the first formula for determining form factors is credited toHossfeld(1812).HundeshagenandKoenigalso occupied themselves with elaborating form factors.Smalian(1837) introduced the conception of thenormalor true form factor relating it to the area at one-twentieth of the height. An entirely new idea has lately been introduced bySchiffel, an Austrian German, under the name of form quotient, placing two measured diameters in relation.
Volume tablesgiving the volumes of trees of varying diameters and height were already in use to some extent in the 18th century;Cottagives such for beech in 1804, and, in 1817, furnished a new set of so-called normal tables which were, however, based upon the assumption of a conical form of the tree.Koenigperfected volume tables by introducing further classification into five growth classes (1813), published volume tables for beech and other species, and, in 1840, published volume tables not for single trees but for entire stands per acre classified by species, height and density; using the so-called space number which he had developed in 1835 to denote the density. It is interesting to note that these tables, which he calledAllgemeine Waldschætzungstafeln, were made for the Imperial Russian Society for the Advancement of Forestry.
In 1840 and succeeding years, the Bavarian government issued a comprehensive series of measurements and a large number of form factors, which were used in constructing volume tables; these were found to be so well made and so generally applicable thatthey were used in all parts of Germany and, translated into meter measurement byBehm(1872), are still generally in use, although new ones based upon further measurements have been furnished byLoreyandKuntze.
For arriving at thevolume of stands, estimating was relied upon long into the nineteenth century, althoughHossfeld, in 1812, introduced measuring, and the use of the formula AHF, in which A was the measured total cross-section area of the stand, H and F the height and form factors, the latter being at that time still estimated. He first made form classes for the same heights, but, in 1823, simplified the method by assuming an average form factor for the whole stand. Even in 1830,Kœnigstill estimated the form factor, although he introduced the measurement of the cross-section area and determined the height indirectly as an average of measurements of several height classes, butHuber(1824) knew how to measure both the average height and form factor by means of an arithmetic sample tree. This method found entrance into the practice and held sway until about 1860, when the well-known improvements byDraudtandUrichsupplanted it. These last mentioned methods have become generally used in the practice, while other methods, like R. Hartig’s and Pressler’s, have remained mainly theoretical.
The study of the increment and the making of yield tables which had been inaugurated toward the end of the last century, byOettelt,Paulsen,Hartig, and others, was just at the end of that century placed upon a new basis throughSpäth(1797), who constructedthe first growth curves by plotting the cubic contents of trees of different ages, and throughSeutter(1799) by introducing stem analysis, on which he based his yield tables.
On the shoulders of these,Hossfeld(1823) built, when he conceived the idea of using sample plots for continued observation of the progress of increment, and he also taught the method of interpolation with limited measurements, laying the basis for quite elaborate formulæ. But the firstnormalyield tables, based on the average trees of an index stand, were published byHuber(1824) and, in the same year, byHundeshagen. From that time on, yield tables were constructed by many others, but only since the Experiment stations undertook to direct their construction is the hope justified of securing this most invaluable tool of forest management in reliable and sufficiently detailed form. Even the newest tables are, however, still deficient, especially in the direction of detailed information regarding the division into assortments. The yield tables ofBaur,Kuntze,Weise,Lorey, and others are now superseded by those ofSchwappachfor pine and spruce, and ofSchubergfor fir.
As a result of the many yield tables which gradually accumulated, the laws of growth in general became more and more cleared up and finally permitted their formulation as undertaken byR. Weber(Forsteinrichtung, 1891).
The idea of using the percentic relations for stating the increment, and of estimating the future growth upon the basis of past performance for single trees wasknown even toHartig(1795) andCotta(1804) who published increment per cent. tables. The methods of making the measurements of increment on standing trees were especially elaborated byKoenig,Karl,EdwardandGustav Heyer,Schneider(his formula, 1853),Jaeger,Borggreve, and especially byPressler(1860) who opened new points of view and increased the means of studying increment by causing the construction of the well-known increment borer, and in other ways.
The most modern text-book which treats fully of all modern methods of forest mensuration giving also their history is that ofUdo Müller(Lehrbuch der Holzmesskunde, 1899), superseding such other good ones, as those ofBaur(1860-1882),Kuntze(1873),Schwappach(short handbook, last edition 1903).
The many sales of forest property which took place at the beginning of this period naturally stimulated the elaboration of methods offorest valuation. Even the soil rent theory finds its basis at the very beginning (1799) in a published letter by two otherwise unknown foresters (BeinandEyber), who proposed to determine the value of a forest by discounting the value of the net yield with a limited compound interest calculation to the 120th year. This idea was elaborated, in 1805, byNœrdlingerandHossfeldinto the modern conception of expectancy values, and the now familiar discount calculations were inaugurated by them.CottaandHartigparticipated also in the elaboration of methods of forest valuation; Cotta writing his manual in 1804, recognizes the proprietyof compound interest calculations, while Hartig, 1812, still uses only simple interest, and exhibits in his book as well as in his instructions for practice in the Prussian state forests rather mixed notions on the subject.
Altogether, even in the earlier part of the period, there arose considerable difference of opinion and warm discussions, in which all the prominent foresters took part, as to the use of interest rates and methods of calculation. But this warfare broke into a red hot flame whenFaustmann(1849) with much mathematical apparatus developed his formula for the soil expectancy value, and whenPresslerandG. Heyertransferred the discussion into statical fields, making the question of the financial rotation the issue. Then the advocates of the soil rent and of the forest rent theories ranged themselves in opposite camps. This war of opinions, although abated in fervor, still continues, and the issue is by no means settled.
The discussion of what should be considered the proper felling age or rotation naturally occupied the minds of foresters from early times; a maximum volume production being originally the main aim. As early as 1799,Seutterhad recognized the fact that the culmination of volume production had been obtained when the average accretion had culminated.Hartig, in 1808, made the distinction of a physical, an economic and a mercantilistic, i.e., financial felling age, andPfeil, considerably ahead of his time, is the first to call (1820) for a rotation based on maximum soil rent. As, however, he had so often done, he changed his mind, and while he first advocated evenfor the state a management for the highest interest on the soil capital involved, he later rejected such money management. About the same timeHundeshagenclearly pointed out the propriety and proper method of basing the rotation on profit calculations, but it was reserved for a man not a forester to stir up the modern strife for the proper financial basis, namelyPressler, a professor of mathematics at Tharandt, who became a sharp critic of existing forest management, and developed to the extreme the net yield theories.
It was then that the danger of a shortening of the existing rotations, due to the apparent truth that long rotations were unprofitable, called for a division into the two camps alluded to;G. Heyer,JudeichandLehr, elaborated especially the mathematical methods of the soil rent theory,KrafftandWagenercame to the assistance of Pressler, whileBurkhardt,Bose,Baur,Borggreve,Dankelmann,Fischbachand others, pleaded for a different policy for the state at least, namely, the forest rent with the established rotations.
As in the previous period, the mathematical subjects, namely, forest measurement and forest valuation, were more systematically developed than thenatural historybasis of forestry practice; the slower progress of the latter being caused by the greater difficulties of studying natural history and of utilizing direct observation.
Inbotanicaldirection, descriptive forest botany was first developed, and several good books were published byWalther,Borkhausen,Bechstein,Reum, the latter(1814), of high value, and also byBehlen,GwinnerandHartig.
In the direction of plant physiology,Cotta, early and creditably, attempted (1806) to explain the movement and function of sap, but remained unnoticed.Mayer’s(1805-1808) essay on the influence of the natural forces on the growth and nutrition of trees, contains interesting physiological explanations for advanced silvicultural practice. But these sporadic attempts to secure a biological basis were soon forgotten. Not untilTheodor Hartig(1848) published his Anatomy and Physiology of Woody Plants was the necessity for exact investigation of forest biology as a basis for silvicultural practice fully recognized. With the development of general biological botany or ecology, a new era for silviculture seems to have arrived. Perhaps in this connection there should be mentioned as one of the earlier important contributions of much moment,G. Heyer’sVerhalten der Bäume gegen Licht und Schatten(1856) in which the theory of influence of light and shade on forest development was elaborated.
Among those who placed the study of pathology of forest trees on a scientific basis should be mentioned firstWillkomm(1876), followed byR. Hartig.
Inzoölogy, the early writers began with a description of the biology of game animals. Next, interest in forest insects became natural, and, in 1818,Bechsteinin his Encyclopædia devoted one volume (byScharfenberg) to the natural history of obnoxious forest insects. Toward the middle of the century, with the planting of large areas with single species,insect pests increased, hence the interest in the life histories of the pests grew and gave rise to the celebrated work byRatzeburg, “Die Waldbverderber und Ihre Feinde” (1841). A number of similar hand-books on insects and on other zoölogical subjects followed; the latest, a most complete work on insects, being still based on Ratzeburg’s work, is that ofJudeich and Nitzsche, in two volumes (1895). Of course, the general works on forest protection always included chapters on forest entomology. The first of these text-books on forest protection was published byLaurop(1811), and others byBechstein,Pfeil,Kauschingerand recently byHess(1896), andFürst(1889).
Knowledge of the soilwas but poorly developed in the encyclopædic works of the earlier part of the period.
Not till Liebig’s epochmaking investigations was a scientific basis secured for the subject. Then became possible the improvements in the contents of such works asGrebe(1886),Senft(1888), and ofGustav Heyer, whose volume (Lehrbuch der Forstlichen Bodenkunde und Klimatologie, 1856), well records the state of knowledge at that time. But only since then has this field been worked with more scientific thoroughness byEbermayer,Schrœder,Weber,Wollny, and byRamann, whose volume onBodenkunde(1893) may be still considered the standard of the present day (newest edition, 1910).
The question of the climatic significance of forests is one which first became recognized as capable of solution by scientific means when the movement for forest experiment stations began to take shape andthe systematic collecting of observed data was attempted. Most of the problems are still unsolved.
With the aspects ofpolitical economyin reference to forest policy the foresters had occupied themselves but little, leaving the shaping of public opinion to the Cameralists, whose influence lasted long into the century. These produced a good deal of literature in the early years of the century when the question of retaining or selling state forests was under discussion, and, under the influence of the teachings of Adam Smith, their opinion was mostly favorably to sale. Only gradually was the propriety of state forests recognized by them, till finally the leading economists, Rau, Roscher and Wagner, took a decided stand in favor of this view.
The foresters naturally were for retention of the existing State properties, but one-sided mercantilistic views regarding their administration persisted with them till modern times.
Wedekind, as early as 1821, advocated the theory which is now becoming a practice, that the state should not only retain, but increase its present forest property by purchase of all absolute forest soil for the purpose of reforestation. The erratic and radical Pfeil alone was found with the Cameralists on the opposite side in 1816, but, by 1834, he had entirely gone over to the side of the advocates of state forest, declaring anyone who opposed them fit for the lunatic asylum.
Division of opinions existed also regarding the supervision by the state of private and communal forests. The political economists were inclined to reduce, theforesters to increase supervision, excepting again Pfeil in his earlier writings: he modified his views later by recognizing supervision as a necessary evil. Cotta, who was inclined to favor free use of forest property sought to meet the objections to such free use by increasing the state property.
The main incentive urged by the earlier advocates of state supervision was the fear of a timber famine. This argument vanished, however, with the development of railroads, and was then supplanted by the argument of the protective functions of the forest, a classification into supply forests and protective forests suggesting differences of treatment. Nevertheless, the belief that absolute freedom of property rights in the forest is not in harmony with good political economy—a belief correct because of the long time element involved—still largely prevails. The difficulty, however, of supervising private ownership, and the advantages of state ownership find definite expression in the policy which Prussia especially is now following, in acquiring gradually the mismanaged private woodlands and impoverished farm areas for reforestation, making annual appropriations to this end. Many other states also are beginning to see the propriety of this movement.
On the whole the systematic study of the economics of forestry has been rather neglected by foresters, although the subject was discussed by early writers,Meyer,Laurop,Pfeil, and in modern times byR. Weber,LehrandSchwappach(“Forstpolitik,” 1894). The latest comprehensive volume on this subject comes fromEndres(1905).
During the century, the means of increasing knowledge in forestry matters have grown in all directions; schools, associations, journals and prolific literature attesting the complete establishment of the profession and practice.
The master schools which began to take shape at the end of the last century, and a number of which were found in the beginning of the century as private institutions, were usually either of short duration or were changed into state institutions: they became either “middle schools” for the lower service, or else academies. For the higher education, the chairs of forestry at the universities continued to do service, as at Heidelberg, Giessen, Leipzig, Berlin, etc., but, as these were mostly occupied by Cameralists (although Hartig in 1811 filled a chair at Berlin), and were intended for the benefit of such rather than of professional foresters, the education of the latter was somewhat neglected. Most of the existing institutions had their beginnings in private schools. Both these and the state schools passed through many changes. The first high class forest academy was established at Berlin directly by the State, in 1821, in connection with the university. Here, Pfeil was the only professor of forestry subjects, the other subjects being taught by other university professors. The fact that in the absence of railroads a demonstration forest was not easily accessible, and perhaps the friction between Pfeil and Hartig brought about a transfer to Neustadt-Eberswalde, in 1830, with two professors till 1851,when a third professor was added (now 16 with 8 assistants!). At the same time the lectures at Berlin were continued by Hartig, until 1837.
In Saxony, Cotta’s private school became a state institution in 1816, the forest academy of Tharandt, with six teachers (now 13), and later, in 1830, an agricultural school was added to it.
In Bavaria, a private school was begun in 1807 at Aschaffenburg. It was made a state institution, divided into a higher and lower school, in 1819, but was closed in 1832 on account of interior troubles and inefficiency. It was re-opened and re-organized in 1844 with four teachers, and was intended to prepare for the lower grades of the service. Meanwhile the lectures at the University of Munich, supplementing this lower school, were to serve for the education of the higher grades. A reorganization took place in 1878, when a special faculty for forestry was established at Munich, with Gustav Heyer as head professor. This was done after much discussion, which is still going on throughout the empire, as to the question whether education in forestry was best obtained at a university or at a special academy. The present tendency is toward the former solution of the question since railroad development has removed the main objection, namely, the difficulty of reaching a demonstration forest. Nevertheless, Prussia retains its two forest academies Eberswalde and Münden (since 1868) for the education of its forest officials, the other state academies being at Tharandt and Eisenach, while chairs of forestry are found at the universities of Tübingen (since 1817), Giessen(since 1831), and Munich, and for Baden at the polytechnicum in Karlsruhe (1832). For the lower grades of forest officials there are also schools established by the various governments (3 in Prussia, 5 in Bavaria).
In 1910, the school at Aschaffenburg was discontinued and the entire education of foresters for Bavaria left to the University.
Although as early as 1820, Hundeshagen had insisted upon the necessity of exact investigation to form a basis for improved forest management and especially for forest statics, and, although, in 1848, Carl Heyer elaborated the first instruction for such investigations which he expected to carry on with the aid of practitioners, the apathy of the latter and the troublesome times prior to 1850 retarded this powerful means of advancing forestry. During the decade from 1860 to 1870, however, the movement for the formation of experiment stations took shape, the first set being instituted in Saxony, 1862, by establishing nine stations for the purpose of securing forest meteorological data; the next in Prussia, in 1865, to solve the problems of the removal of litter; and in Bavaria (1866), also for the study of forest meteorology (Ebermayer), and of the problem of thinnings. But not until Baur, 1868, had pointed out more elaborately the necessity of systematic investigations, and a plan for such had been elaborated by a committee instituted by the German Foresters Association was a system of experimentation as organized in modern times secured (1872). The various states established independently such experiment stations, but at thesame time a voluntary association of these stations was formed for the purpose of co-ordinating and planning the work to be done.
Forestry associations instituted merely for the purpose of propaganda, were apparently not organized. The first association of professional foresters appears to have been formed as the result of Bechstein’s conception, who proposed in connection with his school (1795 at Gotha, 1800 at Dreissigacker) the formation of an academy of noted foresters. As a result, theSocietät der Forst- und Jagdkundewas formed, in which all the noted foresters joined with much enthusiasm, and, in 1801, a membership of 81 regular and 61 honorary members was attained. At the same time the official organDianawas founded (1797), in which the essays of the members were to be printed; after having passed four censors. Two sessions were to be held annually. This much too elaborate plan for the then rather undeveloped education and deficient means of transportation defeated to some extent the great object. By 1812, it was thought necessary to divide the academy at least into a northern and southern section, and for the latter an additional journal, edited by Laurop, was instituted. The interest, however, decreased continually, and by 1843, at Bechstein’s death, the academy was abandoned.
At the same time, there had sprung up a number of local associations in the modern sense. The first, in 1820, composed of the foresters and agriculturists of Nassau; the next, in 1839, of the foresters of Baden, and, by 1860, nine such local societies of foresterswere in existence, and they have since increased rapidly until now some thirty may be counted. The desire to bring these local associations into relation to each other led to the first Forestry Congress in 1837 (Congress der Land und Forstwirthe), meeting at Dresden. At that time, and in the congresses following, the agriculturists played a leading part, so that, in 1839, the South German foresters separated, and peripatetic congresses were held every one or two years. In 1869, a general organization was determined upon, and, in 1872, the first general German Congress of Foresters met, holding yearly meetings thereafter. A rival association having been organized in 1897, two years later an amalgamation of the two was effected in theDeutscher Forstverein(now over 2000 members). The most striking feature of this forceful means of advancing forestry is the institution of theForstwirtschaftsrat(1890), a permanent committee of about 50 members, which is to look after the political and economic interests of forestry, forming a semi-official national council.
There also exists an international association of forest experiment stations.
In themagazineliterature, the Cameralists dominated until the eighteenth century. The first journal edited by a forester wasReitter’s“Journal für Forst- und Jagdwesen” which ran from 1790 to 1797. During the first part of the century many others were started, especially after 1820, usually failing soon for lack of support. Hartig himself participated in this literature with five volumes (until 1807) of theJournaldes Forst-, Jagd- und Fischereiwesensand later (1816 to 1820) with the semi-official journalForst- und Jagdarchiv. Pfeil’sKritische Blätterwere continued by him from 1823 to 1859, when Nördlinger had the editorship till 1870. An irregular publication of much note was Burkhardt’s “Aus dem Walde” (1865-1881).
Some of the journals founded in earlier times have continued, with changes in title and editorships, to the present day. Of these, it is proper to mention as the oldest, “Allgemeine Forst- und Jagdzeitung”, founded by v. Behlen, 1825, later conducted by G. Heyer; “Forstwissenschaftliches Centralblatt” (1828); “Zeitschrift für Forst- und Jagdwesen” founded in 1869 by Dankelmann; “Forstliche Blätter” founded 1861 by Grunert, continued by Borggreve until 1890. TheTharandter Forstliche Jahrbücherwere begun in 1842, and theMündener Forstliche Heftein 1892. In 1893, theForstlich-naturwissenschaftliche Zeitschriftwas established to discuss mainly the biological basis of forestry (changed in 1903 toNaturwissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für Land- und Forstwesen).
For the lower grades there has been published, since 1872,Zeitschrift der deutschen Forstbeamten. Several lumber trade journals also discuss forestry matters. A weekly journal,Silvawas begun in 1908.
To assist in keeping track of the historic and scientific development of the art, an annual summary of magazine literature is being published. The first effort in this direction was made in 1876 by Bernhardt’sChronik des deutschen Forstwesens, which was continued for several years, but is now supplanted byJahresbericht über die Leistungen und Fortschritte der Forstwirthschaft(since 1880).
Besides this more scientific magazine literature, “Pocket Books” and “Calendars” have been published from early times, the regular annual appearance of the latter, giving detailed statistics, personalia, tables useful in the practice, etc., dates from 1851.
With the accomplishment of the unity of the empire in 1871, with the establishment of the Experiment Stations and their association in 1872, and with the organization of the Society of German Foresters, which dates from the same year, a new and most active era in the development of forestry science may be recognized, the tendency of which is to lift the art out of the shackles of empiricism, and place it on a more scientific basis.