1876.] 



AND HORTICULTURIST. 



n» 



E. Y. Lacy, Minneapolis, Minn. 



Geo. Husman, Sedalia, Mo. 



Wm. Parry, Cinnaminson, N. J. 



J. G. Knapp, Mesilla, N. M. 



E. Moody, Lockport, N. Y. 



Franklin B. Hough, Lowville, N. Y. 



S. T. Kelsey, Horse Cove, Macon Co., N. C. 



J. J. Harrison, Painesville, O. 



Leo. Weltz, Wilmington, O. 



Thos. Meehan, Philadelphia, Pa, 



Josiah Hoopes, West Chester, Pa, 



J. W. Rosamond, Gadsden, Tenn. 



Judge Richards, Hagan, Utah. 



J. Harvey, Richmond, Va. 



Thos. B. Vanhorne, Ft. Vancouver, W. Ty. 



Jas. S. Sticknev, Wauwatosa, Wis. 



J. C. Plumb, Milton, Wis. 



Points to be investigated and reported on by this 



Committee. 



1st. Estimates of the area of woodland, in 

 square miles or acres, and average ages of the 

 trees. 



2d. Estimates of their productiveness per acre 

 in cubic feet of lumber and cords of fuel. 



3d. Lists of native trees and woody plants, with 

 local and botanic names, and their special value 

 in the arts. 



4th. Location of species, relatively to elevation 

 above the sea, to soil, etc. 



5th. Natural grouping and consociation of spe- 

 cies, etc. 



6th. Numbers, kinds and acres of artificial for- 

 ests planted, and areas protected from cattle in 

 order to encourage the natural reproduction of 

 trees. 



The Profits of Tree Planting. — In a notice 

 of Prof. C. S. Sargent's paper on timber culture 

 recently we said that we thought that the profits 

 of timber culture could in many cases be made 

 much greater than he had presented them. On 

 the whole we believe he under estimated rather 

 than exaggerated what one could make. We 

 dearly love, however, to present both sides of all 

 questions and particularly this one of tree cul- 

 ture and its profits, for, if we make an error in 

 our calculations on such subjects it is one which 

 cannot be remedied in our lives. It is a matter 

 on which it is better to be right than to be Presi- 

 dent of the United States. A correspondent of 

 the Country Gentleman from Connecticut, makes 

 the following objections to Mr. Sargent's figures, 

 and not to head off what any one may have to 

 say about the paper, we give it without com- 

 ment : 



"I observe in your last journal an article strong- 

 ly commending the late report of Professor Sar- 

 gent upon arboriculture. Referring to the table 



on p. 195, I observe that the profits on ten acres 

 in European larch are rated, for a period of fifty 

 years, at 13 per cent, per annum. Will you 

 excuse me for thinking there must be some 

 exaggeration in such an estimate ? 



"The charges for land, fencing, plants and labor 

 are perhaps fair enough ; but the credits seem to 

 me to be very ' rose-clored.' Thus, the cutting, 

 after 20 years of growth gives a thousand posts 

 to the acre, worth 20cts. each — or two posts to a 

 tree. I cannot help doubting the certainty of 

 such developments. As a case in point, I may 

 mention that I have a European larch, juat 20 

 years planted, growing in a very favorable 

 locality, where it receives wash from a hill-road, 

 and I find by actual measurement that it has 

 scant nine inches of diameter at the butt, and 

 would make at best only one merchantable 

 post. 



"At the end of 30 years, the table printed gives 

 a second thinning of about 2,000 merchantable 

 sleepers (railroad ties) to the acre. This is an 

 exceptionally good cutting for our average wood- 

 land that has had no previous thinning. At the 

 end of 50 years the table shows credit for 3,800 

 piles, worth $5 each. 



"Now, admitting that the best of exposure and 

 well adapted soil would secure such growth, 

 what is to be said of cost of cutting and cart- 

 ing? 



"The figures given represent prices on delivery, 

 but the cartage of such heavy masses of timber 

 from any of our average farmlands, would repre- 

 sent at least one-third, if not one-half of its 

 market value. It must be a very superior pile 

 tree which in our latitude, and in any ordinary 

 situation, will command more than $2 as it 

 stands in the wood. Trees contiguous to a rail- 

 way will naturally command more. In fact the 

 consideration of locality, and costs of getting to 

 market, make up so important an element in 

 the calculation, that no table with a uniform 

 scale of figures can be relied upon. 



"There are live oaks contiguous to water 

 courses in Florida which are worth $20 per tree, 

 but place them at a remove of eight or ten 

 miles, with interlying canebreaks and jungles, 

 and they would not be worth $3 per tree. 



" I do not make these remarks in any hypercrit- 

 ical spirit, but only through fear that a very 

 good cause — to wit, that of arboriculture — may 

 be injured by exaggerated statements. Is there 

 not reason to ask, in this case, further explana- 

 tions ? 



