A DISCUSSION ON ECONOMIC PLANTING. 3 



a fairly sheltered situation, it is I think quite probable that 

 satisfactory results would be obtained by planting at 5 feet 

 apart. With regard to Norway spruce, I am confident that 

 good results would be obtained by planting this species at 



5 feet intervals, and I would say that the same distance apart 

 should apply to Sitka spruce, while I do not consider that 



6 feet would be too wide for Douglas fir, especially if it is 

 planted in a fairly sheltered situation. Unfortunately at to- 

 day's prices few can afford to plant either Sitka or Douglas, 

 and if there is any gentleman present who feels inclined to 

 attempt it I would simply repeat Punch's advice to those about 

 to marry — " Don't." I have lately been looking over a few 

 of the public nurserymen's catalogues, and find that the average 

 price quoted for Sitka spruce 6 inches to 12 inches high is from 

 60s. to 70s. per 1000, for Douglas fir 10 inches to 12 inches 

 high the price varies from 65s. to 75s. per 1000, and for 

 2-year 2-year Douglas the price is from 80s. to 90s. Perhaps 

 the species upon which one could economise most as regards 

 spacing is the larch. I am quite convinced that a great 

 mistake was made in the past by planting larch too densely, 

 especially when it was planted in pure crop. I firmly believe 

 that it has been the cause of more disease and loss than any 

 other condition. Under no circumstances would I plant larch 

 at less than 5 feet, and on certain soils and conditions I do not 

 think that 6 feet would be too wide. Of one thing I am 

 convinced — that with wider spacing there would be less 

 disease. 



I also think that it would make for economy if foresters as a 

 rule would plant more 2-year seedlings and 2-year i-year 

 plants than they have been in the habit of doing in the past. 

 This again might mean that some would have to modify their 

 ideas with regard to the restocking of newly-felled areas. I 

 have always believed that too much significance has been given 

 to the idea of allowing ground which has been cleared of a 

 crop to remain fallow for a given number of years. At least 

 no person can deny that it is a practice which involves a 

 very serious additional cost when planting time does come — a 

 cost which in many cases would cover far more than any 

 damage which might be caused by pine weevil as a result 

 of the ground being planted immediately after it was cleared. 

 More than that it is not always certain that a plantation is 



