59 



Suppose that sleepetSi eaoh containing 2 cubic feet and costing One rupee to saw 

 and deliver, sell for R3 eaoh. In order to ascertain the price realised per cubic foot 

 in the rough) it will be necessary to know the average number of sleepers yielded by and 

 the average cubic contents of an exploitable tree. Suppose the average diameter of the 

 trees felled was 1^ feet, and that it was found that eaoh tree felled contained 80 cubic 

 feet and yielded 2u sleepers, the price realised per tree would be 20 x 2 = R40, and 

 the price per cubic foot standing would be fi^= 8 annas. The loss in the conversion of 

 these trees is 80 — 40 or 50 per cent. It should be ascertained whether this loss would 

 not be less and the price realized consequently higher if larger trees were felled. Thus, 

 suppose it was found that 2 feet trees coutaining 120 cubic feet yielded 40 sleepers, 

 the net price realised per standing trees would be 40 X 2 = B80, or per cubic foot 

 fi-5^5 ^ 11 annas. The loss on conversion is 120 — 80=40 cubic feet, or 33 per cent., 

 as compared with 50 per cent, when Ig foot trees were felled. 



A higher revenue is not realised hy felling large trees 

 unless the net price of the latter per cubic foot is higher. 

 The price per tree standing would of course be higher even 

 if the price per cubic foot did not rise. But this must not 

 be mistaken for a higher revenue ; for on the same area 

 more small trees than large can be grown. The larger trees 

 might bring in double as much per tree as the smaller ; but 

 there might be double as many of the smaller stems. The 

 quantity of material produced per annum would be the 

 same. 



In fixing the dimensions of the exploitable tree the number of stems to be felled 

 is decided upon ; and it might be thought that, because the lower the age of felling the 

 more trees can be felled, the adoption of a lower age would be better. Thus, suppose 

 a forest of 1,600 acres in which the exploitable size is fixed at 18 inches in diameter 

 corresponding to an age of 100 years ; that the annual yield is, say, 1,184 trees ; and 

 that it is proposed to raise the exploitable size to 2 feet diameter. We will assume 

 that the average production of the soil per acre is 63 cubic feet a year, and that the 

 tree of 2 feet contains 135 cubic feet, as compared with 85 cubic feet in the IJ feet 

 tree. The number of trees that could be felled annually would be -^is x 1,600 = 747. 

 It might be argued that it would be better to fell 1,184 trees a year than only 747. 

 This depends on the purpose for which the trees are required and on the price realized. 

 Thus, if, owing to the better wood or less loss in conversion, the net price realized 

 per cubic foot for trees of the larger size were 4 annas, as compared with 3 aniias_for 

 the smaller trees, each of the larger trees would be worth fi34, as compared with E16 

 for the smaller ; and the annual revenues would be R25,398 or R18,944. 



Indian forestrv is not ripe for elaborate calculations and most be satisfied _ with 

 fellin.r when the revenue will be highest or the produce the most useful : otherwise it 

 would also be necessary to consider the greater capital involved in producing the larger 

 sized timber in view to taking account of the rate of interest on that capital. 



The correct calculation of the exploitable size is of the 

 greatest importance and demands a good deal of careful 

 local enquiry and comparison as to selling rates, etc. In 

 European countries, where forestry in all its branches has 

 long been practised and where the wood trade is fully deve- 

 loped and established, the most profitable size is well known 

 for each class of produce and each kind of treatment ; but 

 this is not the case in India. 



