jand were planted at a cost of about £2 
per acre, and the expense of looking after 
ihe plantation has been very small, To- 
day, after 17 years of growth, the timber 
is being sold at prices that yield from 
£100 to £200 per acre net profit. 
WHY NOT HERE AND NOW ? 
If all this can be done in Germany 
und America and Australia, there is 
certainly no reason why it cannot be 
done in New Zealand. And, as a matter 
of fact, practical experbende in his 
country has already shown that tree- 
planting can be made a highly profitable 
venture within a relatively short space 
of time. In our official forestry hand- 
book, “Tree Culture in New Zealand,” 
the late Mr. H, J, Matthews cites the 
ease of a larch plantation started in 
Canterbury in 1887 on poor, dry soil. 
The land was worth £2 an acre, and 
the total cost of trees, fencing, and 
plantation was £12 an aere, Very little 
attention was given to the trees during 
their growth, and £1 per acre would 
more than cover this form of expendi- 
ture, The total cost to the proprietor 
Was, therefore. £15 per acre. After 
li years’ growth, the total value of the 
timber in the plantation was estimated 
by Mr. Matthews at £270 per acre. 
“Deducting the initial cost of £12, 
there remains a credit balance of £258 
as a return for 17 years’ growth, and 
the land is in better condition now 
(through the humus formed by the 
annual fall of leaves) than it was at 
the start.” By way of contrast, Mr. 
Matthews notes that portions of the 
adjoining land are let for grazing at 
2/ per acre a vear—that is, 34/ in 17 
years, “No other crop,” says Mr. Mat- 
thews, “whether grain-erowing, mixed 
farming, stock raising, fruit or vege- 
table growing, can compare with the 
above results, while at the same time 
not only has the soil been retained in 
a fertile condition, but it has been 
vastly improved in its productive capa- 
bilities? 
Taking all this into account, we may 
reasonably infer that in this country, 
27 
‘ 
endowed as it is with a mild and equable 
climate and a bountiful rainfall, even the 
waste land that will not grow anything 
else might be turned to highly profitable 
use by tree-planting. There is an im- 
mense amount of land of varying charac- 
ter in these two islands, from the rocky 
slopes of the Southern Alps and the 
gravel flats of the Canterbury plains 
to the pumice lands of the centre and 
the gum lands of the northern half of 
this island, that could certainly be uti- 
lised for afforestation purposes without 
interfering with the progress of settle- 
ment or encroaching upon the areas 
required for our other staple industries. 
Even to private enterprise, the pecuniary 
prospects offered here by afforestation 
should be alluring enough; and as we 
have seen, no long time need be ex- 
pected to elapse before the returns 
begin to come in, As a final word of 
encouragement to the settler or the 
farmer hesitating whether to plant trees 
or not, I may quote from “Tree Cul- 
ture in New Zealand” again:—“*To most 
farmers the raising of a crop of trees 
from seed or from seedling-trees seems 
a long and hopeless undertaking. The 
period required for a tree to attain 
profitable size under favourable condi- 
tions is, however, much shorter than is 
eenerally supposed. In from 10 to 15 
years from the time of planting, all the 
fuel and fencing material necessary for 
farm use can be had for the cutting, 
without in any way interfering with, 
but, on the contrary, being an actual 
benefit to, the remaining trees.” 
THE DUTY OF THE STATE. 
But it must now be sufliciently obvi- 
ous that from the national point of 
view, the work of Reforestation, or 
Afforestation, is of such vast and far- 
reaching importance that it ought not 
to be left to private enterprise - alone. 
As Professor Schlich has recently point- 
ed out in a letter to the “Times,” deal- 
ing with the report of the British Affor- 
estation Commission, “practical polities 
clearly indicate that the State, corpora- 
tions, and private proprietors, must co- 
