A Brief History of Forestry. / In Europe, the United States and Other Countries

In Prussia, in 1773, all recipients of free wood had to do service in the cultures; in 1785, every farmer had to furnish a certain amount of cones or acorns. The method, lately adopted in Russia, came into vogue in Prussia in 1719, namely, of charging, besides the value of the wood, a toll to be paid into the planting fund (about 7% of the value). This method was also imitated elsewhere.

The use of the Waldfeldbau (combined farm and forest culture) was also inaugurated for the purpose of cheapening the cost of plantations (by v. Langen in 1744) when the great movement for reforesting wastes and openings began, the tree seed being sown with the grain either at once or after farm use for some years.

Regular annual planting budgets (of $50—$100—$200) were inaugurated in Brunswick by v. Langen in 1745; and in 1781, the Prussian forest administration had attained to entirely modern planting plans and annual planting budgets.

It was no wonder that the fear of a timber famine and the apparent hopelessness of bringing improvement into the existing forest conditions created anxiety and a desire to plant rapid growers, such as birch, willow, aspen, alder; the planting of the White Birch became so general in the beginning of the 18th century that a regular betulomania is recorded corresponding to the incipient catalpomania in the United States.

At that time, to be sure, firewood was still the main concern, and the use of these rapid growing species had some justification. But where birch was mixed in spruce plantations its baneful effects consisting in whipping off the spruce tips and injuring its neighbors were soon recognized, and much trouble was experienced in getting rid of the unwelcome addition.

The Robinia, which had been brought from America in 1638, was also one of the trees recommended in the middle of the 18th century and was much planted until Hartig pointed out that the expectations from it were entirely misplaced.

Of course no building material could be expected from these species, hence the larch, also a rapid grower, was transplanted from the Alps (1730 in Harz mountains), and its use was extended, as with us, to conditions for which it was not adapted.

It was principally a desire for novelty and perhaps for better, especially foreign things, that led to the planting of North American species in parks during the first half of the 18th century. But, although F. A. J. von Wangenheim’s very competent writings on the American forest-flora and on the laws of naturalization (1787) stimulated interest in that direction, the use of American species for forest planting was not inaugurated till nearly 100 years later, with the single exception of the White Pine (P. strobus), of which large numbers were planted.

7. Improvement of the Crop.

Thinning of stands had been practiced early in the 16th century, not for improvement of the remaining stand so much as to secure fence material, although in 1531 the observation was already recorded that thinning improved and stimulated the remaining growth.

In the 17th century, opposite views, or, at least doubts as to its usefulness were expressed in the forest orders, and sometimes thinning was even forbidden. Even in the 18th century some of the prominent foresters, Doebel and Beckman, were opposed to it, and although others favored the operation, the practice of it remained limited.

In 1761, we find the first good statement of the theory of thinnings by Berlepsch, who advised taking out the suppressed trees when the sound poles were clear of lower and middle branches; he also accentuated the financial argument of earlier returns and increased value of the remainder.

About the same time, Zanthier recommended two thinnings, namely, for conifers first in the thirtieth to fortieth year and again in the fiftieth year, for broadleaf forest first in the forty-fifth and again in the eightieth to ninetieth year.

In 1765, the financial gain from thinnings is figured by Oettelt, and the possible reduction of the rotation due to thinnings is recognized by Leubert in 1774.

Just as the thinning in polewoods arose from the need of earlier utilization, so the weeding of young growths was done for the purpose of getting material for withes to bind the grain, etc.

The removal of coppice shoots in oak plantings was practiced in Prussia in 1719, and the thinning of too dense sowings was advised by Carlowitz in 1713. Yet much later, even such an intelligent man as Oettelt inveighed against the weeding out of the birch in spruce sowings because “nature prefers variety, with which preference it is not good to interfere.”

This was in opposition to v. Langen (1745), who prescribed for the first time regular cleaning or weeding, especially the removal of the softwoods, aspen and birch, and of coppice shoots from seedling forest. It was also known that this weeding is best done “in the full sap,” in order to kill the stocks.

8. Methods of Regulating Forest Management.

Organized forest management was slower to develop than silvicultural methods. The first attempts to bring order into the progress of fellings took the form of dividing the whole area into a certain number of felling areas (12, 16, 20, 30, etc.), several ordinances dating from the middle of the 15th and 17th centuries containing prescriptions to that effect.

It is doubtful whether the numbers of these areas indicate years of rotation, in which case they could only have applied to coppice, or whether they indicate periods of return in selection forest, although the historians seem to jump to the former conclusion. The area division practiced by v. Langen in the Harz mountains (1745), who prescribed the division of larger districts into fifty to sixty, of smaller districts into twenty to thirty felling areas, also leaves it doubtful, whether the areas corresponded to an assumed rotation or to a period of return.

At first, the division was not into equal areas, for no survey existed, and its object was simply to localize the cutting and provide orderly progress. The subdivision was made in the mountain country by following the topography, valleys and ridges, while in the plain the lines opened up for purposes of the chase (to set up nets), called Schneisen or Gestelle (rides), bounding square areas called Jagen, Quadrat, Stallung, were used for the limitation of the felling areas. Most commonly, however, largely due to absence of surveys, the ordered division did not materialize, but existed only on paper.

With more exact measuring of areas, and with the conception of a rotation or longer periods of return, it was recognized that the inequality of the sites or soil qualities, especially in mountain districts, produced very unequal felling budgets. To overcome this inequality, Jacobi, in Goettingen (1741) introduced proportional felling areas, making the felling areas on poor sites permanently larger.

Similarly, v. Langen and Zanthier attempt to secure equal annual returns without slavishly holding to the geometric division, merely making sure that the total area be cut over in the predetermined rotation.

The first attempts to introduce a regulated management by making a volume division the basis is recorded from the Harz mountains in 1547. This method, based on very crude estimates although upon very fair forest description, was continued into the 18th century.

In the last half of the 18th century all these crude methods were improved, and applied on extensive areas.

In 1785, Zanthier combined area and volume division, determining the felling budget on each felling area by counting and estimating the trees and calculating how many trees could be used annually under a sustained yield management; the area division being used only as a check or means of control.

A very considerable advance was made by Oettelt, (who surveyed and regulated the Weimar forests in 1760) in the elaboration of details and establishment of proper principles for regulating the felling budget.

In his forest description he introduces for the first time periodic age classes, usually six, but of uneven length: Young growth, below twelve years; thicket, twelve to twenty-four years; polewood, twenty-four to forty years; clear timber, forty to fifty; medium timber, fifty to seventy-five; mature timber, seventy-five years and over.

He divides the forest into proportional areas (which were marked by stones in the woods), equalizing them according to age, quality, increment, soil, exposure, so as to secure equal annual budgets; the stands were ranged into seven or eight unequal age classes and each into as many annual felling areas as there are years in the age class; if some of the age classes were absent, he extended the time for cutting in the older class until the younger had grown to the proper age and by varying the cut from good to poor sites for stands he tried to even out the budgets. The volume budget he determined by average increment measurements. This method was, however, much too far advanced and required too much mathematics to find imitators at that time.

Another method which proved also too complex for the foresters of the time was that of v. Wedell; nevertheless, by 1790, he had by it put into working order 800,000 acres in Silesia. He divided this area into districts, the districts into blocks or management classes, and used an elaborated proportional area division for determining the felling budget. He distinguished quality of stand and quality of site, and made four site classes. The volume of stock, he found by means of sample areas, to which he added the increment in order to find the total volume for harvest, when it could be determined how long with a given budget the stands would last, or what average annual felling budget could be taken before the next age-class would be mature.

In the North German plain, with very uniform conditions of soil and timber, the method of equal felling areas was the most natural and most easily applied.

Frederick the Great, who took a considerable interest in forestry matters, ordered such an area division for the State pineries in 1740, fixing upon different numbers of felling areas, but finally, in 1770, deciding on a rotation of seventy years. Lack of personnel retarded progress in this forest survey and regulation until in 1778 v. Kropff undertook the direction. Not agreeing with his master regarding the short rotation of seventy years, he arranged to have each district divided into two working blocks, and by cutting alternately in these, managed to double that rotation. His successor, Hennert, in 1788, devised a new method by introducing allotment of a number of annual felling areas to a period of the rotation when at least the periodic budget could be equalized. A value or money yield equalization of the felling budgets was also attempted.

For easier handling, the forest was divided into small compartments or Jagen and a classification of four, still uneven, periodic age classes (of different length for conifers and broadleaved forest), and three site qualities were employed. The merchantable stock was ascertained by a sample area method and the felling budget by dividing the oldest age class by the number of years it must last until the next was ready. Since no attempt was made to secure a proper age class gradation, the method failed to improve conditions for the next rotation.

Some 500,000 acres were regulated according to this plan in Prussia, probably very superficially.

In 1789, Bavaria also ordered a division into annual felling areas.

In all these methods of regulating the yield or budget, the area played the main role, the volume being only a secondary consideration.

The first elaboration of a pure volume division was made by Beckman in 1759. He estimated stock on hand by trees and guessed more or less at the increment, allowing 2.5, 2, and 1% for the different sites, and then made a year to year calculation of stock for 125 years. How the felling budget was finally determined is not known.

Two methods were simultaneously devised in Württemberg in 1783, which form the transition to the so-called allotment methods, making periodic age classes of an equal number of years and allotting either felling areas or volumes to each period of the rotation. Incapacity of the officials prevented the application of the one method, while the other, devised by Maurer, remained also only a proposition.

But, in 1788, Kregting in his Mathematical Contributions to Forestry Science teaches a pure volume allotment method with ten year age classes and nearly all the apparatus which was afterward developed by Hartig, who in the next period dominated to such a large extent the development of forestry in all its branches.

9. Improvements in Methods of Mensuration.

In scientific direction, the mathematical disciplines were the first to be developed; the natural sciences received attention much later.

A considerable amount of mathematical knowledge was required for this work of forest organization. The mathematical apparatus of the foresters even at the end of this period was rather slender, but its development went hand in hand with the development of these methods of regulation; and even elaborate mathematical formulæ for determining felling budgets were not absent.

Until nearly the middle of the 18th century, surveys of exact nature were almost unknown; only when the division into equal or proportionate felling areas became the basis for determining the felling budgets, did the necessity for such surveys present itself.

Plane table and compass were the instruments which came into use in the beginning of the 18th century. But not until the latter half of that century were extensive forest surveys and maps of various character made, especially in Prussia under Wedell, Kropff and Hennert.

The methods of measurement of wood developed still later. Until Oettelt’s time no method of precise determination of volumes was known, everything being estimated by cords or by diameter breast-high and height, or by the number of boards which a tree would make (board feet?).

The diameter was sometimes used as a price maker, the price increasing in direct proportion to the diameter increase. Oettelt calculated the volume of coniferous trees as cones, and Vierenklee, who wrote a book on mathematics for the use of foresters, calculated timbers with the top removed by using the average diameter, to which Hennert added the volume of a cone with the difference of the two diameters as a base, to make the total tree volume.

Most measurements of standing trees were, of course, made on the circumference, for, in the absence of calipers, the diameter could be directly measured only on the felled tree. Doebel had already measured the height by means of a rectangular triangle, and the first real hypsometer with movable sights was described by Jung in 1781; and a complete instrument, which could be used for measuring both height and diameter at any height, similar to some more modern ones, was constructed by Reinhold.

Determination of the real wood contents in a cord of wood and of the volume of bark by measurement was taught by Oettelt, and the method of immersion in water and measuring the displaced volume, by Hennert (1782).

In 1785, Krohne first called attention to the variation of the increment in different age classes and the need of determining the accretion for each separately.

In 1789, Trunk taught how to determine average felling age increment, and also the method of determining the change of diameter classes, which is now used by the United States Forest Service: “On good soil a tree grows one inch in three years, on medium soil in four years, on poor soil in five years.” With this knowledge, the attainment of a given diameter, or the change from one diameter or age class to the next could be calculated.

Volume tables were at Trunk’s command, and Paulsen in 1787, Kregting in 1788, mention periodic yield tables; but generally speaking “ocular taxation” or estimating was the rule, checked by experience in actual fellings, the method of the American timber looker. Generally, of course, only the log timber was estimated as with us, and only the very roughest estimating or rather guessing was in vogue until near the end of the period.

The first attempt at closer measurement was made by Beckman (1756), who surrounded the area to be measured with twine, drove a colored wooden peg into each tree, one color for each diameter class, when, knowing the original number of pegs that had been taken out, the difference gave the number of trees in each diameter class, and by multiplying the average cubic contents of a measured sample tree in each class by the number in the class its volume was found.

The method, often employed at present, of ascertaining by tally the diameter classes on strips forty to fifty paces wide, the so-called strip survey, was described by Zanthier in 1763.

These measurements were usually confined to sample areas, the use of such being already known in 1739. The contents of the sample area, if a special degree of accuracy was desired, were ascertained by felling the whole and measuring.

Oettelt, of mathematical fame, was the first to publish something about the determination of the age of trees by counting rings, although the practice probably antedates this account. He knew of the dependence of the ring width on the site and on the density of the stand.

It seems that long before this time the French had made the determination of yield in a more scientific manner, Réaumur reporting in 1721 to the French Academy comparative studies of the yield of coppice and of volumes of wood.

Oettelt, too, laid the foundation of forest financial calculations when he ascertained the value of a forest by determining the value of an acre of mature wood—the oldest age class—and multiplying it by half the acreage of the whole forest, suggesting the well known expression for the normal stock (I r2) soon after to be developed by an obscure Austrian tax collector.

Even the first forest finance calculations with the use of compound interest, and a comparison of the profitableness of the different methods of management, are to be recorded as made by Zanthier in 1764, bringing the beginning of forestal statics into this period.

10. Methods of Lumbering and Utilization.

At the beginning of this period, rough exploitation was still mainly in vogue, only parts of trees being used, just as in the United States now. Here and there, attempts were made toward more conservative use; for instance, at Brunswick in 1547, the use of log timber for fuel was discouraged; in Saxony, as early as 1560, the brushwood was utilized for fuel. High stumps were a usual feature in spite of the threats of punishment of the forest ordinances, as in Bavaria (1531). The axe was the only instrument used until the end of the 18th century for felling as well as cutting into lengths; not until 1775, do we find an allusion to the use of the saw, when the forest ordinance of Weimar ordered that the saw-cut should be made for three-fourths of the tree’s diameter and the axe be used to finish (!) the last quarter. Not until the 18th century was the fuel-wood split in the woods, and it was near the end of the period before it was set up in mixed cords (round and split) after the splitting had been introduced. The measurement was, until about that time, made merely in loads, the cord being of later introduction.

The value of low stumps and of the use of the saw was recognized in Austria in 1786. To show how variously and locally the need of conservative use of wood developed, we may cite the fact that in the Harz, about 1750, trees were dug with their roots as now in some of the pineries of the Mark Brandenburg, in order to utilize more of the body-wood and the root-wood. In 1757 we find stump-pulling machines described.

In measurement of standing trees the circumference at breast-height was measured with a chain, and for the body-wood when felled the mean diameter was employed.

As regards the felling time, specific advice is found in many forest ordinances which recommend mostly winter felling, stating the proper beginning and end of the season by the phases of the moon, the rule being that all white wood, for example conifers, beech and aspen should be felled on the increase or waxing of the moon; oak, at the waning; but coppice, because it is desired to secure a new growth, at the waxing moon. Prescription was also made sometimes regarding the time by which the removal of the wood from the felling area was to be finished (May to June).

Means of transportation were poor up to the end of the period; snow, as in the United States, was in the Northern country the main reliance for moving the wood. River driving, both with, and without rafts was well organized; various systems of log-slides were developed to a considerable extent; in one place even an iron pipe, 900 feet in length, is reported to have been used in such capacity.

Originally, the consumer cut his own wood, but in the middle of the 17th century special wood-choppers appear to have been employed, for, in 1650, mention is made in Saxony of men, who, under oath to secure honest service, were organized for the exploitation of the different classes of wood. A system of jobbers came into existence about this time, something like the logging bosses in the United States (Holzmeister) who were responsible for the execution of the logging job. The organization of wood-choppers went so far that, in 1718, we find in the Harz mountains mention of an Accident Insurance and Mutual Charity Association among them.

The sale of wood was at first carried on in the house; later it became customary to indicate in the forest the trees to be cut or the area from which they should be cut by the purchaser, and finally they were felled by the employes of the owner. For a long time, persisting into the 18th century, the sale was by area, and this method developed the necessity of surveying; at the same time, however, sales by the tree and by wood measure occurred, but only in the 18th century did the present method of selling wood by measure after felling come into existence. In Prussia, the buyer had to take the risk of felling, and pay, even if the tree proved to be rotten, or broke in the felling. The forest owner seems to have had the whip hand in determining the price one-sidedly, revising, i.e., increasing the toll in longer or shorter intervals. But, in 1713, we find mention of wood-auctions, or at least similar methods of getting the best prices. Finally, special market days for making sales and for designating of wood were instituted; on these days also, all offences against the forest laws were adjudged.

11. Forest Administration.

The administration of the different forest properties which the princes had aggregated in the course of time was at first a part of the general administration of the princely property. The requirements in the woods being merely to look after utilization and protection, illiterate underlings (Forstknechte) were sufficient to carry out the police functions, generally under a Forstmeister, or Oberforstmeister, who from time to time would make an inspection tour. Later on, when a more intensive forest management had come into existence, it became customary to call in experienced foresters from outside to make inspections and give advice.

A much more elaborate organization of service is, however, reported in the mining districts of the Harz mountains, in 1547, with the Director of Mines (Berghauptman) at the head, and different grades of officials under him, who were called together periodically for reports and discussions.

Until the middle of the 18th century all those employed in the forest service, at least those in the superior positions, had also duties in connection with the chase, the head official of the hunt being also the head of the forest service; and hunting had usually superior claims to forestry. The men were supposed to be masters of the two branches, i.e., to be familiar with the technique of the hunt and of forestry (Hirschgerecht and Holzgerecht). The higher positions were usually reserved to the nobility until (during the 18th century) the Cameralists came into control of the administration; and with them, under the mercantilistic teachings, the apparatus of officials also increased.

These men usually possessed wide, but not deep knowledge of matters bearing upon their charges. In Prussia, in 1740, the forest service was at least in part combined with the military service, Frederick the Great instituting the corps of riding couriers for the carrying of dispatches who were selected from the forest service, an institution which persists up to date in the corps of Feldjaeger, while the sons of foresters were enlisted in a troop known as Fussjaeger (chasseurs). A new era dates from the middle of the 18th century when the connection with the hunt, the military organization, and the preferred position of the nobility, were at least in part abrogated, and a more technical organization was attempted. The cause for this change was the increase of wood prices, which made a more technical management desirable, and also a decrease in the passion for the hunt. Still, although the forests in Bavaria were declared, in 1780 to 1790, to be of more importance than the hunt, and the two services were distinctly separated, the head of the hunt still ranked above the head of the forest service.

In Prussia, the professional men became early independent and influential, and by 1770, an organization had been perfected which excelled in thoroughness and simplicity. The salaries of the foresters consisted originally mainly in a free house, use of land and pasture rights, their uniform, and incidental emoluments, such as a toll for the designation of timber etc. Later, when everywhere else a regular money management had been introduced, the absence of a cash income and general poverty forced the foresters to steal and extort; and the bad reputation established in the last part of the 18th century, as well as the bad practice, persisted until the 19th century. The lower grades in the service were exceedingly ignorant, and their social position, consequently, very low. Their main business was, indeed, simple, and consisted in the booking of the cut, issuing permits for the removal and the sale of wood, and looking after police functions in the woods. Yet, by 1781, we find regular planting plans submitted in the Prussian administration, and, in 1787, felling plans are on record.

The administration of justice against offenders in the forests was until the end of the 18th century in charge of the head foresters, and only then was transferred to law officers. Theft of wood, as in olden days, was considered as a smaller offense than other thefts, except if it was cut wood. In the beginning of the period, the judge had wide latitude as to amount of the fine to be imposed, but in the 17th century more precise fines were fixed, and in the 18th century, a revision of the fines brought them into proportion with the value of the stolen wood; a choice of punishments by fines, imprisonment or labor in the woods was then also instituted.

12. Forestry Education.

The course of education for the foresters until the middle of the 18th century was a simple one and mainly directed to learning the manipulations of the chase, training of dogs, tending of horses, setting of nets, shooting, etc. Two or three years’ life with a practical hunter were followed by journeying and working for different employers, woodlore being picked up by the way from those that knew.

When in the 18th century the need for better woods knowledge became pressing, the few really good forest managers were sought out by the young men who wished to secure this knowledge. In this way, a number of so-called “master-schools” came into existence, each depending on one man. Such a school was that of v. Zanthier in Wernigerode, later transferred to Ilsenburg, started in 1763 and ending with his death in 1778. Theoretical teaching and opportunity for practical demonstration here was such that even students from the Berlin school and men in actual employment attended the courses.

The two great masters and fathers of modern forestry, Hartig and Cotta, each instituted such master-schools, the former in 1789, and the latter in 1785. Cotta’s school was afterwards transferred to Tharandt and became a State institution.

The interest of the State in forestry education found first expression in Prussia in a course of lectures in botany, later also in forest economy, given to the forest officials by Gleditsch, professor of botany at the University of Berlin (1770), to which was added a practicum at Tegel under Burgsdorf, who finally became the head of this mixed State school, and continued in this position until at his death, in 1802, the school was discontinued.

In imitation of this move by Prussia, a military planting school was instituted by Württemberg at Solitude in 1770. The most noteworthy feature of this school, which under various changes lasted less than 25 years, was the course of lectures by Stahl, mentioned before.

Besides this higher school, a lower grade school was started in 1783, but its career was even briefer, not more than ten years.

Bavaria organized a forest school at Munich in 1790 with a four years’ course, and at least three years’ study at this school was required of those seeking employment in the State service; but without having ever flourished, this school, too, collapsed by 1803.

13. Forestry Literature.

The oldest forestry literature of this period is contained in the many forest ordinances, which allow us to judge from their prescriptions as to the conditions of the practice in the woods and as to the gradual accumulation of empiric knowledge. Of a forestry science one could hardly speak until an attempt had been made to organize the knowledge thus empirically acquired into a systematic presentation, and this was not done until the middle or last half of the 18th century.

The first attempts at a literary presentation of the empiric knowledge are found in the encyclopædic volumes of the so-called “Hausväter” (household fathers—domestic economists), who treated in a most diffuse manner of agriculture in all its aspects, including silviculture.

A number of these tomes appeared during the 17th century; the best and most influential being published at the very beginning of that century (1595-1609), written by a preacher from Silesia, Johann Colerus, and entitled Oeconomia ruralis et domestica, worin das ampt aller braven Hausväter und Hausmütter begriffen.

Colerus relied upon home experience and not, as Petrus de Crescentiis in his earlier work, Praedium rusticum (translated from the French, in 1592), had done, upon the scholastic expositions of the Italians. He was rewarded by the popularity of his work which went through thirteen editions and became very widely known.

Somewhat earlier, a jurist, Noë Meurer, wrote a book on forest law and hunting (second edition, 1576), which on this field remained long an authority, and gives insight into the condition of forest use at the time.

But the first independent work on forestry, divorced from the hunt and farming, did not appear until 1713, Sylvicultura œconomica, written by the Saxon director of mines, Hans Carl v. Carlowitz.

This book, while containing quaint and amusing ideas, gives many correct rules for silvicultural methods, especially as regards planting and sowing, but the subject of forest management or organization is entirely neglected.

At about the same time (1710) a forest official, v. Göchhausen, published Notabilia venatoris, which, however, contained little more than a description of the species of trees and methods of their utilization.

About the middle of the 18th century great activity began in the literary field. This was carried on by two distinct classes of writers, namely, the empiricists and the cameralists. The former—the holzgerechte Jäger—were the “practical” men of the woods who proved in many directions most unpractical, and exhibited in their writings, outside of the record of their limited experience, the crassest ignorance. The cameralists were educated in law and political economy and, while lacking practical contact with the woodswork, tried to sift and systematize the knowledge of the empiricists, and to secure for it a tangible basis.

Some five or six of the empiricists deserve notice as writers; the first and most noted of them was Doebel (Heinrich Wilhelm) whose book, Jägerpraktica (hunters’ practice), published in 1746, remained an authority until modern times for the part referring to the chase. The author was pre-eminently a hunter, who worked in various capacities in Saxony, a self-taught man with very little knowledge of natural history. Being familiar mainly with broadleaf forest he condemned planting and thinning, but described quite well for his time the methods of survey, subdivision, estimating and measuring, and the methods of selection forest and coppice with standards. His ignorance is characterized by his reference to the “sulphurous and nitric elements of the soil” as cause of spontaneous forest fires.

Opinionated and one-sided, like many so-called practical men, he came into polemic controversies with other practitioners, not less opinionated, among them J. G. Beckmann, who worked in another part of Saxony, where, having to deal with coniferous woods, he had gathered different experiences from those of Doebel. Although he was himself poorly educated, especially in natural sciences, he complained of the ignorance of the foresters, and in his book (Anweisung zu einer pfleglichen Forstwirthschaft, 1759), used for the first time the word Forstwissenschaft (forest science), and insisted upon the necessity of studying nature.

He may be credited with having really advanced forest organization by devising the first good volume division method, and silviculture by advocating the method of clearing followed by sowing.

The first practical forester with a university education was J. J. Büchting, who worked in the Harz mountains. His main interest lay in the direction of survey, division and orderly utilization. He did not, however, make any striking advance, except that he gave equal standing to both planting and sowing.

The two most eminent practitioners of the period, however, active during the middle of the century, were Johann Georg von Langen and his pupil, Hans Dietrich von Zanthier, both of noble family, and better educated than most of their contemporaries, and both engaged in the organization and management of Harz mountain forests, namely, those of the Duke of Brunswick and of the Count of Stolberg-Wernigerode.

The former, without occupying himself directly with literary work, laid down in his expert reports and in his working plans many instructions which form the basis for orderly management and silviculture far ahead of the times. Zanthier, writing considerably (especially Kurzer systematischer Grundriss der praktischen Forstwissenschaft, 1764), is also notable as the founder of the first forestry school (at Wernigerode), 1763.

Another of this class of better educated practitioners, and co-worker with the former two, was von Lassberg, who in 1764-1777 organized the Saxon forests.

An interesting incident in the life of the last three men is their journey to Denmark and Norway, whither they were called to organize the management of the forests connected with the mines.

Another prominent forest manager of the last half of the century, whose literary work is to be found only in various excellent official instructions, among which is one for the teaching of foresters, was the head of the Hessian forest service, a nobleman, v. Berlepsch.

Of the cameralists who helped to make forestry literature, six or seven deserve mention. These, men of education and polyhistors, were either at the head of affairs, or else professors at universities, where they included forestry as one of the branches of political economy.

The credit of the first really systematic presentation of forestry principles and rules, as developed at the time, belongs to Wilhelm Gottfried von Moser, a pupil of von Langen, who served in various principalities, and finally with the Prince of Taxis. In his Principles of Forest Economy, published in 1757, which for the first time brought out the economic importance of the subject, he discusses in two volumes divided into nine chapters the different branches of forestry.

A mining engineer, J. A. Cramer, came next with a very notable book, “Anleitung zum Forstwesen” (1766), which, although not as comprehensive as Moser’s, treats the subject of silviculture very well.

Equal in arrogance and opinionated self-satisfaction to any of the empiricists with whom he frequently crossed swords, was the Brunswick councillor, von Brocke, who, as an amateur, practising forestry on his own estate, developed the characteristic trait of the empiricists, namely, a profound belief in his own infallibility. He produced, besides many polemic writings, in which he charged the whole class of foresters with ignorance, laziness and dishonesty, a magnum opus in four volumes, entitled “True bases of the physical and experimental general science of forestry,” which is an olla podrida of small value.

Less original, but more fair and well informed, a typical representative of the cameralists, was J. F. Stahl, finally head of the forest administration of Württemberg, and at the same time lecturer on mathematics, natural history and forestry at the forest school of Solitude (Stuttgart). Although an amateur in the field of forestry, he was a good teacher and left many valuable and wise prescriptions evolved during his administration.

He compiled in four volumes a dictionary of forest, fish and game practice (Onomatologia forestalis-piscatoria-venatoria, 1772-1781) and founded the first forestry journal.

Since 1770, forestry courses had been given for the cameralists at most of the German universities, and many of the professors prepared textbooks for the purpose. At least three of these professors deserve mention, Beckman, Jung and Trunk.

The first, J. Beckman, professor of political economy at Göttingen, one of the most noted cameralists, was author of a work in forty-five volumes on the Principles of German Agriculture (1769), in which he devotes sixty-one pages to forestry, giving a complete system of forestry, with extracts from all known forestry writings.

J. H. Jung, who gave a special course on forestry at the Kameralschule of Lautern, published a textbook in 1781 in which forest botany was well treated.

J. J. Trunk, who was Oberforstmeister in Austria, as well as professor at Freiburg, was the most prominent of the three, and wrote a comprehensive work full of practical sense (Neues vollständiges Forstlehrbuch oder systematische Grundsätze des Forstrechtes, der Forstpolizei und Forstökonomie, nebst Anhang von ausländischen Holzarten, von Torf und Steinkohlen, 1789).

While at first the ephemeral writings, especially the polemic ones of the empiricists, found room in literary and cameralistic magazines, the need of a professional journal first found expression in 1763, in Stahl’s Allgemeines ökonomisches Forstmagazin, which ran into twelve volumes, and contains many articles important to the history of forestry, and is especially rich in its references to foreign literature.

Two continuations of the magazine under different editorships were of less value. But von Moser’s Forstarchiv, running from 1788 to 1807 with its thirty volumes, is an authority and a historical source of the first rank.

A very characteristic literature of the last half of the 18th century consisted in forest calendars in which advice as to monthly and seasonal procedures in the forest were given, Beckman and Zanthier being among the authors.

III. Development in the Nineteenth Century.

The last hundred years or so has seen in Germany the development of fully established forest policies and the complete organization of stable forest administrations, based upon thorough and careful recognition of the principles of forest management and intensive application of silvicultural methods.

1. Changes in Property Conditions.

The change in forest treatment from that prevailing during the previous period was mainly due to the change in property conditions, and especially to the establishment of state forests. This change was largely the result of the revolutionary movements at the beginning of the new century which brought about changes in state organizations. In Prussia, the princely forest property had been declared state domain in 1713, but elsewhere, the public domain had been considered the property of the princes in their capacity as head of the country, as domanium, outside of their personal private property (Chatullgüter). The income from this domanium was in part liable to be applied to the expenses of the court and of the administration of the realm, to some extent alleviating the burdens of taxation. This property arose from a variety of relations which have been discussed at length in the foregoing chapters. It was derived mainly from feudal properties, fiefs of vassalage and fiefs of official position, secularized church property and other forfeited property, division of mark forests, and from allodial possessions of the family. Gradually, by agreement with the landed estates, it was understood that this property could not be disposed of or dissipated by the prince, and was inherited by the eldest son together with the princely dignity, being an attribute of his position in the state. In the reconstruction period of 1806 to 1815, during and after the Napoleonic wars, many of the small princes lost their seigniorage (Landeshoheit ipso jure), and with the loss of the princely dignity, the obligation of carrying the expense of court and administration naturally falling away, these properties became in most cases purely individual property of the former princes.

Not, however, until the revolutionary movements of 1848 and even later, was this divorce of the state idea from that of the person of the prince everywhere accomplished, nor was it carried through without many bickerings and quarrels between the princes and the representatives of the people, who claimed this domanium for the state. In the larger states, all this domanial property was finally declared state lands, while in the smaller principalities a partition of the land between the princes and the state took place, or else a relation was established by which a part of the revenue resulting from the state lands was secured to the princes.

An increase of the State’s property came also during the first decade of the century through the abolishment of cloisters and secularization of church property generally, the lands of both Protestant and Catholic church institutions being taken by the State.

Curiously enough, at the same time that the idea of state forest was being realized, the changes in economic thought which brought the principle of individualism to the fore gave rise to a movement to sell the state properties. This movement was inspired by French doctrines, whose influence was at the time very strong, by the teachings of Adam Smith who held that the state is not fit to conduct business, and by the hope that in private ownership an improvement in forest conditions would be more readily realized. These ideas by themselves would, probably, not have led to the adoption of a policy of sale if it had not been for the need for cash which, as a result of the French wars, was felt everywhere during the first years of the decade. The sale of this property seemed to provide a ready means for States to secure funds.

In Prussia, after the collapse of 1806, this measure was widely discussed, and eventually, in 1810 to 1813, repeatedly instructions for the sale of state forest property were issued. There were to be excluded from such sales only large complexes of forest, those on the sea coast, sand dunes and river fronts, where the protection of the forest cover was needed, and those which it was desirable to maintain for the use of important industrial establishments. Only the accession of Hartig (1811), as chief of the forest administration which was a branch of the Treasury department, prevented the execution of this dismemberment. It was due to him that the difference in character between farm and forest property began to be recognized. Although, after 1820, sales of forest property took place, they were never a fiscal measure, but were made either for the purpose of rounding off existing state forest property or paying off servitudes, or else in order to turn over agricultural soil to farm use. At present everywhere in Germany state properties are on the increase.

The property conditions of the communal forests naturally changed also with the political changes of the 19th century, when existing communities were made part of the large political machine and changed from economic and social to modern political municipalities. The ownership conditions, however, were not simplified, but as before, remained extremely varied.

Of the Mark forest but a very small portion remains to-day. The majority of it had been finally divided among the Märker in the first decade of the century, and the few remaining parts became independent of the political organization and now exist merely in the form of appurtenances to certain farm property known as Genossenwald (association forests). In addition to the variety of communal ownerships existing in the preceding period, some new communal properties originated from the granting of land in the settlement and dissolution of servitudes, whereby an undivided property (Interessentenwald) in which sometimes even the state retains an interest, came into existence.

The municipal property of the cities had become either the property of the entire community or of that part which constituted the real citizenship, or at least of a certain class of citizens of the municipality.

The incumbrances which had grown up with regard to forest property under the name of servitudes and which so much retarded the development of better forest management continued into this period, and although through the influences of the French revolution a desire had been stimulated to get rid of all curtailments of property, some have persisted to this day. Indeed, for a time an increase of these servitudes took place, due to the carelessness of forest officials in keeping unjustified use of the forest in check, when ancient usage of these rights of user was claimed and new servitudes were established.

In Bavaria, it became at last necessary (1852) to positively forbid the further establishment of new servitudes or rights of user. Laws having in view the dissolution or buying out of these rights were issued in Bavaria in 1805, and in Prussia in 1821, giving the right to forest owners whose properties were so encumbered, to call for a division of interests; but as at first the only way to settlement was by exchange for definite parcels of forest property, the progress in the abolishment of these rights was slow, until money exchange was permitted (as in Saxony, 1832). At the present time, the state forest administrations have mostly got rid of these servitudes, or at least have progressed so far in their regulation that they are now rarely impediments to forest management. These peaceable adjustments of the rights of user constitute the last act of freeing property socially and economically.

2. Forest Conditions.

In spite of the sporadic efforts which had been made to bring about the recuperation of forest areas during the 18th century, the conditions of the forest at the beginning of the new century were most pitiable; the division of the Mark, by which the peasants became individual owners, profited little, and led to devastation rather than to improving the condition of the property. In addition, export trade in wood had become brisk, and the financial depression, a result of the French wars, led to increased exploitations, which, with the improvement in means of transportation, progressed to the more distant forest areas, and enlarged the waste area. Especially in the more densely populated parts of the country, the deforested area widened, and large wastes with poor young growth increased in all directions, in the same manner as now in the United States. The alarmists had good cause for renewing their cries, and, around the year 1800, a considerable literature sprung up on the subject of the threatened timber famine.

It is interesting to note that at that time the Catalpa played a role, at least on paper, as it does in our own day, being recommended as the only means of staving off the timber famine. A renewed betulomania spread widely over the country. In North Germany especially, great efforts were made to replant the denuded areas and to change the coppice areas, fit only for firewood, to coniferous species, pine, etc., by which eventually a great change in the forest type from the original mixed forest to the pure forest was effected.

3. Personnel.

The great change which led to improved conditions, during the first half of the century, was pre-eminently due to the knowledge and intelligence of a group of men, six in number, competent foresters, who combined the high grade education of the Cameralists with the practitioners’ knowledge: Hartig, Cotta, Hundeshagen, Koenig, Pfeil and Heyer. These men built, to be sure, on the shoulders of their precursors of the century in which they were born, but, being placed in authoritative positions, found better opportunities for putting their teachings into practice.

The first two mentioned were older than the rest, and are usually described as the “fathers of modern forestry.” Born about a year apart, both educated at universities, they excelled in both scientific and practical directions.

Georg Ludwig Hartig (1764-1837), studied at the University of Giessen and, after having served in various functions in various parts of Southern Germany, became, in 1811, head of the Prussian forest administration. He was equally eminent as a practical man and organizer, as a writer, and as a teacher. In literary direction his work lay not so much in developing new ideas as in formulating clearly the known ones, as evidenced in his celebrated “General Rules” in silviculture.

Not less than thirty separate publications attest his assiduity. Among them stands pre-eminent “Anweisung zur Holzzucht für Foerster” (1791; 8th edition, 1818). As a teacher he began his work by establishing a masterschool (1789-1791) at Hungen, transferred to Stuttgart in 1807; and afterwards, as head of the Prussian forest administration, he lectured at the University of Berlin, continuing his lectures there, even after the forestry school at Eberswalde had been established, until his death.

He may be considered as having established on a firm basis the forest administration of Prussia; and many of the things he instituted still prevail. In organizing the service, he introduced fixed salaries, he relieved the foresters from financial responsibilities, transferring all handling of money to a separate set of officials, whereby the temptation to fraudulent practice of graft was removed, and he issued instructions for the different grades of foresters; and every part of this work was all his own. In regulating the forest area of the state he developed the volume allotment method, which, however, proved too cumbersome to be readily applied to large areas. Toward the end of his life, his work was not entirely successful, and he lost prestige in his later years.

Heinrich von Cotta (1763-1844) studied at the University of Jena, and afterwards practiced in Thuringia, where he established a master school at Zillbach (1795). In 1811, he was called to Saxony, as director of forest surveys, whither he also transferred his school, at Tharandt, which in 1816 was made a state institution and is still flourishing. In that year he was made the director of the Bureau of Forest Management. Like Hartig, he was eminent in the three directions of practical, literary, and educational work, but he excelled Hartig in originality, developing new principles and thought. Being a good plant-physiologist and observer of nature, he developed new ideas in silviculture, especially with reference to methods of thinning, and his “Anweisung zum Waldbau,” written in the simplest, clearest and most forceful manner, forms a classic worthy of study to this day. In the field of forest management he became the inventor of the area allotment method and the originator of the highly developed Saxon forest management. As a teacher he excelled in clearness, exposition, wealth of ideas and geniality.

Of an entirely different stamp was the third of the great masters, Johann Christian Hundeshagen (1783-1834), who having studied in Heidelberg, became after some years of practice, professor of forestry at Tuebingen, in 1817, and at Giessen, 1825. He was a representative of the theoretical or philosophical side of forestry, being highly cultivated and imbued with the spirit of science. His bent was to systematize the knowledge in existence and extend it by means of exact experiments. In forest organization, he invented the well known formula method or “rational method” of regulating felling budgets and became also one of the founders of Forest Statics (1826) which he called “the doctrine of measuring forestal forces,” being thus the forerunner of modern scientific forestry.

The fourth of the group, Gottlob König (1776-1849), was a practitioner without a university education, who had enjoyed the teaching and influence of Cotta whom he succeeded in Eisenach as the head of the ducal forest administration. He also founded here a private forest school, which, in 1830, became a state institution, and is still in existence. König became noted by his contributions to the scientific, especially the mathematical side of forestry, developing forest mensuration and statics. In this latter branch he was the forerunner of Pressler and of the modern school of finance. In his “Anleitung zur Holztaxation” (1813) he gives a complete account of forest mensuration and in the part devoted to forest valuation he develops the first soil rent formula and the methods of determining the cost value of stands. His “Forest Mathematics” (1835) in which he introduces factors of form and many other new ideas was an original contribution to science.

Very different in character from these four leaders was the aggressive, sharp-witted Friedrich Wilhelm Leopold Pfeil (1783-1859), who, without a university education, and in spite of his poor knowledge of mathematics and natural history, advanced himself by native wit and genius. After a brief period of employment in private service, in the province of Silesia, he accepted the position of professor of forestry at the Berlin University, in 1821, in connection with Hartig, with whom, however, he was at sword’s point. It was at his instigation, with the assistance of von Humboldt, that the school was transferred, in 1830, to Eberswalde, Pfeil becoming its director.

While Hartig was a generalizer, Pfeil was an individualizer, free from dogma, and most suggestive; a free lance and a fighter. Critical in the extreme and prolific in his literary work, he domineered the forestry literature of the day by means of his Kritische Blaetter, a journal of much import and merit.

The youngest of the group, Karl Heyer (1797-1856), a thoroughly educated man, combined the professorial position in the University of Giessen (1835) with practical management of a forest district, but in 1834 abandoned the latter in order to devote himself entirely to literary work. He was one of the clearest and most systematic expounders, and both his Waldbau (silviculture, 1854) and his Waldertragsregelung (forest organization, 1841) are classics. The last, fifth edition of the Waldbau, appearing in 1906 in two volumes, has been brought up to date by Professor Hess. He devised one of the most rational methods of forest organization, and, imbued with the necessity of basing forest management on exact scientific inquiry, instead of on empiricism alone, he formulated instructions for forest static investigations, a subject which his son, Gustav Heyer, elaborated into a science.

4. Progress in Silviculture.

Natural regeneration continued to be the favorite method well into this period, and, for a long time, selection forest and coppice were all that was known in practice until Hartig and Cotta forced recognition of the shelterwood system.

The only way in which a transition from the generally practiced, unregulated selection forest to an intensive management was possible, with the ignorant personnel of underforesters, was to formulate into an easily intelligible prescription the necessary rules, allowing the least play to individual judgment. This was done by Hartig when he formulated his eight “General Rules” (1808) which coincided also closely with the teachings of Cotta. Since these rules represent in brief and most definitely the status of silvicultural knowledge on natural regeneration at the time, it may be desirable to translate them verbatim.

(1) “Every forest tree which is expected to propagate itself by natural regeneration must be old enough to bear good seed.

(2) “Every district or stand which is to be replaced by a thoroughly perfect stand by means of natural regeneration, must be brought into such position (density) that the soil may everywhere receive sufficient seeding.

(3) “Each compartment must be kept in such condition (density) that it cannot, before the seeding takes place, grow up to grass and weeds.

(4) “With species whose seed loses its power of germination through frost, as is the case with the oak and beech, the compartments must be given such a position (density) that the foliage which after the fall of seed covers and protects the same cannot be carried away by wind.

(5) “All stands must be given such density that the germinating plants in the same, as long as they are still tender, find sufficient protection from their mother trees against heat of the sun and against cold.

(6) “So soon as the young stand resulting from natural regeneration does not any longer require this motherly protection, it must gradually, through the careful removal of the mother trees, be accustomed to the weather, and finally must be entirely brought into the open position.

(7) “All the young growths, whether secured by natural or artificial seeding, must be freed from the accompanying less useful species and from weeds, if these in spite of all precaution threaten the better kinds.

(8) “From every young forest until it is full grown, the suppressed wood must be removed from time to time, so that the trees which are ahead or dominate may grow the better; the upper perfect crown cover, however, must not be interrupted until it is the intention to grow a new forest again in the place of the old one.”

Since these rules are applicable only in beech forests, much mischief and misconception resulted from their generalization; pure, even-aged high forests became the ideal, and the mixed forest, which was originally the most widespread condition, vanished to a large extent. This was especially unfortunate in Northern and Northeastern pine forests.

A reaction against Hartig’s generalization began about 1830, under the lead of Pfeil. He had at first agreed with Hartig, and then with equal narrowness advocated for many years a clear cutting system with artificial reforestation. Finally, however, he was not afraid to acknowledge that his early generalizations in this respect were a mistake, and that different conditions required different treatment.

In the development of the shelterwood system there was at first, under the lead of Hartig, a tendency to open up rather sharply, taking out about three-fourths of the existing stand, but gradually he became convinced that this was too much, and finally reduced the first removal to only about one-third of the stand. This was the origin of his nickname of Dunkelman. In spite of the fact that it was claimed that Cotta took the opposite view (for which he was called Lichtman), he, too, grew to favor a dark position, and, as he progressed, leaned more and more towards more careful opening up. Hartig originally recognized only three different fellings: the cutting for seed; the cutting for light; and the removal cutting. By and by, a second cut was made during the seed year, and the number of fellings to secure gradual removal were increased, so that, by 1801, this system seems to have been pretty nearly perfected to its modern conditions. The best exposition of this Femelschlagbetrieb (shelterwood system), as then developed, is to be found in Karl Heyer’s Handbook, 1854.

The method was unfortunately extended by Burgsdorf (1787) to the Northern pineries with a seventy year period of rotation. Within ten years, however, he recognized its inappropriateness, and modified it by instructions to leave only six to twelve seed trees per acre. His successor, Kropff, reduced the number of seed trees to four or five, which were to be removed within two or three years. In spite of the development of this more rational method, the practitioners under Hartig’s approval, held mainly to a dark position even for pine, much in the manner of a selection forest, which produced a poor growth of oppressed seedlings, retarding for a long time the development of the pineries.

In spruce or fir, either a pure selection forest or a strip system was employed. Attempts at a shelterwood system were made, but experience with the wind danger soon taught the lesson that this was not a proper method with shallow-rooted species. Even Hartig preferred for spruce clearing and planting, and this is still the most favored method with that species. For the deep-rooted and shade-enduring fir the shelterwood method with a long regeneration period was thoroughly established in the Black Forest, and in Württemberg by 1818.

Natural regeneration being the main method of reproduction until the beginning of the 19th century, artificial means, as is evident from the forest ordinances of Prussia and Bavaria (1812 and 1814), were usually applied only to repair fail-places, or to plant up wastes. In this artificial reforestation, with the exception of the planting of oak in pastures, sowing was almost entirely resorted to because it could be done cheaper and easier, but as the sowings were mostly made on unprepared soil and with very large amounts of seed (30 to 60 pounds per acre, now only 7 to 10 pounds), the results were not satisfactory, either because the seed did not find favorable conditions for germinating, or when germinated the stand was too dense.

Planting, if done at all, was done only with wildlings dug from the woods, and usually, following the practice of the planting of oak in pastures, with saplings: the plant material was too large for success. Nurseries, except for oak, were not known, even to Cotta in 1817; and Heyer, having to plant up several thousand acres, still relied on wildlings, two to three years old, which he took up with a ball of earth by means of his “hole spade,” a circular spade re-invented by him and much praised by others. Hartig, in 1833, still advised the use of four to five year old pine wildlings, root-pruned, but, eventually, having met with poor success, for which he was much discredited, came to the conclusion that un-pruned two-year-old plants were preferable.

The credit of having radically changed these practices belongs to Pfeil, who, entirely reversing his position, advocated for pine forest a system of clearing followed by sowing, or by planting of wildlings with a ball of earth. Then, suggesting that possibly planting without this precaution could be attempted, and pointing out the necessity of securing a satisfactory root system, he recommended, about 1830, the use of one-year-old seedlings grown in carefully prepared seed beds. While for securing these, he relied upon the simple preparation of the soil by spading, Biermans added the use of a fertilizer in the shape of the ashes of burned sod. The method of growing pine seedlings and planting them when one to three years old was further developed by Butlar (1845), who introduced the practice of dense sowing in the seed beds. He also invented an ingenious planting iron or dibble, a half cone of iron, which was thrown by the planter with great precision, first to make a hole and then to close it. This was improved by the addition of a long handle into the superior, well-known and much used Wartenberg planting dibble. At the same time (1840), Manteuffel devised the method known by his name of planting in mounds, which is especially applicable on wet soils.

It was not until 1840 that transplanting of yearling pines with naked roots became general. The widespread application of this latter system resulted in abandoning to a large extent mixed growth, and led to the establishment of pure pine forests, introducing thereby most intensively all the dangers incident to a clearing system and pure forest which are avoided by the mixed forest, namely, insects, frost and drought.

A practice of planting spruce in bunches, originally twelve to twenty plants in a bunch, had been in existence since 1780. This practice increased until 1850, and is still in use in the Harz mountains and in eastern Prussia, although the bunches have been reduced so as to contain only from three to five plants, the object of the bunching being to make sure that one or the other of the plants should live. Much discussion as to the merits of this method took place between the old masters, Cotta favoring the small bunches upon the basis of a successful plantation of his own, Hartig and Pfeil opposing it, but finally weakening. Since 1850, however, the practice of setting out single plants has become more general.

A reaction from the indiscriminate application of the shelterwood method to the hardwoods and of the clearing method to the pine set in during the last quarter of the 19th century under the lead of Burkhardt and Gayer. These advocated return to mixed forest and to natural regeneration with long periods, approaching a selection forest. Gayer especially, professor of silviculture at Munich, became the foremost apostle of this school. Yet even to this day, the principles of silvicultural treatment under the many different conditions remain unsettled. On the whole however, with the financial question assiduously brought forward, the clearing system has made most progress, and the selection system has nearly vanished, being replaced by the group method and the shelterwood system.

A number of special forms of silvicultural management applicable under special conditions have been locally developed, without, however, gaining much ground and being mainly of historical value. Among these may be mentioned Seebach’s Modified Beech Forest, which consists in opening up a beech stand so as to secure regeneration, merely to form a soil cover, leaving enough of the old stand on the ground to close up in thirty or forty years. By this treatment the large increment due to open position is secured without endangering the soil. Similarly the Storied or Two-aged High forest, was applied to the management of oak forest in mixture with beech. In a few localities also, on limited areas, a combination of forest and farming (Waldfeldbau) has been continued and elaborated, besides the more general use of coppice and coppice with standards.

According to the statistics for 1900 the following distribution of the acreage under different silvicultural methods prevailed throughout the empire: