Part 10

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 that they were used in all parts of Germany and, translated into meter measurement by _Behm_ (1872), are still generally in use, although new ones based upon further measurements have been furnished by _Lorey_ and _Kuntze_.

For arriving at the _volume of stands_, estimating was relied upon long into the nineteenth century, although _Hossfeld_, 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, _Kœnig_ still 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, but _Huber_ (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 by _Draudt_ and _Urich_ supplanted 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, by _Oettelt_, _Paulsen_, _Hartig_, and others, was just at the end of that century placed upon a new basis through _Späth_ (1797), who constructed the first growth curves by plotting the cubic contents of trees of different ages, and through _Seutter_ (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 first _normal_ yield tables, based on the average trees of an index stand, were published by _Huber_ (1824) and, in the same year, by _Hundeshagen_. 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 of _Baur_, _Kuntze_, _Weise_, _Lorey_, and others are now superseded by those of _Schwappach_ for pine and spruce, and of _Schuberg_ for 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 by _R. 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 was known even to _Hartig_ (1795) and _Cotta_ (1804) who published increment per cent. tables. The methods of making the measurements of increment on standing trees were especially elaborated by _Koenig_, _Karl_, _Edward_ and _Gustav Heyer_, _Schneider_ (his formula, 1853), _Jaeger_, _Borggreve_, and especially by _Pressler_ (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 of _Udo Müller_ (_Lehrbuch der Holzmesskunde_, 1899), superseding such other good ones, as those of _Baur_ (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 of _forest valuation_. Even the soil rent theory finds its basis at the very beginning (1799) in a published letter by two otherwise unknown foresters (_Bein_ and _Eyber_), 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, by _Nœrdlinger_ and _Hossfeld_ into the modern conception of expectancy values, and the now familiar discount calculations were inaugurated by them. _Cotta_ and _Hartig_ participated also in the elaboration of methods of forest valuation; Cotta writing his manual in 1804, recognizes the propriety of 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 when _Faustmann_ (1849) with much mathematical apparatus developed his formula for the soil expectancy value, and when _Pressler_ and _G. Heyer_ transferred 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, _Seutter_ had 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, and _Pfeil_, 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 even for the state a management for the highest interest on the soil capital involved, he later rejected such money management. About the same time _Hundeshagen_ clearly 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, namely _Pressler_, 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_, _Judeich_ and _Lehr_, elaborated especially the mathematical methods of the soil rent theory, _Krafft_ and _Wagener_ came to the assistance of Pressler, while _Burkhardt_, _Bose_, _Baur_, _Borggreve_, _Dankelmann_, _Fischbach_ and 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 the _natural history_ basis of forestry practice; the slower progress of the latter being caused by the greater difficulties of studying natural history and of utilizing direct observation.

In _botanical_ direction, descriptive forest botany was first developed, and several good books were published by _Walther_, _Borkhausen_, _Bechstein_, _Reum_, the latter (1814), of high value, and also by _Behlen_, _Gwinner_ and _Hartig_.

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 until _Theodor 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’s_ _Verhalten 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 first _Willkomm_ (1876), followed by _R. Hartig_.

In _zoölogy_, the early writers began with a description of the biology of game animals. Next, interest in forest insects became natural, and, in 1818, _Bechstein_ in his Encyclopædia devoted one volume (by _Scharfenberg_) 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 by _Ratzeburg_, “_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 of _Judeich 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 by _Laurop_ (1811), and others by _Bechstein_, _Pfeil_, _Kauschinger_ and recently by _Hess_ (1896), and _Fürst_ (1889).

* * * * *

_Knowledge of the soil_ was 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 as _Grebe_ (1886), _Senft_ (1888), and of _Gustav 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 by _Ebermayer_, _Schrœder_, _Weber_, _Wollny_, and by _Ramann_, whose volume on _Bodenkunde_ (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 and the systematic collecting of observed data was attempted. Most of the problems are still unsolved.

* * * * *

With the aspects of _political economy_ in 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, the foresters 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 by _R. Weber_, _Lehr_ and _Schwappach_ (“Forstpolitik,” 1894). The latest comprehensive volume on this subject comes from _Endres_ (1905).

9. _Means of Advancing Forestry Science._

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 the same 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, the _Societät der Forst- und Jagdkunde_ was 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 organ _Diana_ was 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 foresters were 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 the _Deutscher Forstverein_ (now over 2000 members). The most striking feature of this forceful means of advancing forestry is the institution of the _Forstwirtschaftsrat_ (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 the _magazine_ literature, the Cameralists dominated until the eighteenth century. The first journal edited by a forester was _Reitter’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 the _Journal des Forst-, Jagd- und Fischereiwesens_ and later (1816 to 1820) with the semi-official journal _Forst- und Jagdarchiv_. Pfeil’s _Kritische Blätter_ were 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. The _Tharandter Forstliche Jahrbücher_ were begun in 1842, and the _Mündener Forstliche Hefte_ in 1892. In 1893, the _Forstlich-naturwissenschaftliche Zeitschrift_ was established to discuss mainly the biological basis of forestry (changed in 1903 to _Naturwissenschaftliche 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, _Silva_ was 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’s _Chronik des deutschen Forstwesens_, which was continued for several years, but is now supplanted by _Jahresbericht 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.

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY.

_Zur Forstgeschichte Oesterreichs_, by BINDER VON KREIGELSTEIN, in Verhandlungen der K. K. Landwirthschaftsgesellschaft, 1836.