AFFORESTATION

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 12 October 1926, Page 3

AFFORESTATION

COST OF PLANTATIONS (By K. Maxwell, Opunake.) Hhilsl "'window-dressing" is permissible il is unfortunate if the dressing iloes not reasonably reprosenl the stock or, in other words, il is distinctly undesirable thai the goods should fall very fur short of the sample. Now in the report of 1925 (here are three widely separated paragraphs—pages 6, 21 and 27 referring | 0 "Thinning"—-and, considering what these references depict. the results are extraordinary, as will be seen.

Page 6—" Profitable disposal of thinnings from large areas of State plantation formed years ago at 4ft spacing has been successfully tackled in a small scale, mainly at Roforua, where marketable intermediate yields in the shape of saw limber, mine props, poles and cordwood, obtained from thinned area of H 8 acres prove the success of a large scale thinning operation is assured." In page 21 mention is made that the yield was profitably disposed of, and later that 435 acres larch and 65 acres of pine had been thinned up to date in the Rutorua district and small areas in lli«> south. On page 27 mention is made that there is practically no sale for material lit for firewood only, and that thinning is undoubtedly urgently reipiired at Whakarewarewa and Waiotapu plantations. Again on page 29 of the 1926 report it is staled the 203 acres of nineteen-year-old Corsican pine, were underscrubbed preparatory to thinning, 80 acres were thinned to 900 trees per acre, and that a total of 863 acres had been thinned.

Now for the results: Up to 1920 there appear to have been receipts to the extent, of £2935 19s 4d for timber, but in that year's report it is shown that £4684 9s 2d had been expended in disposing of the material—£46B4 to get £2935 ! However, one may suppose that il is because of so remarkable a result I hat since that date not one single entry appears as to such costs either in the summary or statement of accounts. II would be very interesting to know what the costs for the last six years aniounl to.

The total to date that is shown as receipts for timber is £3975 4s 6d, winch is still much behind paying the costs up ii) 1920, and which, from all that can he gathered from the accounts, may he unlv a fraction of the cost tip to date.

Against, the statement, in 1925 report, that "profitable disposal of thinnings," etc.. that vear shows receipts fen- such as £149 10s 7d. and for this last year the magnificent sum of £ll4 13s' 2d. What the net loss, instead of "profitable disposal." may be is hard to say in the absence of any information as to iosls. £ll4 for timber for the year on nearly £1.000,000 capital outlay'.' KKTISII OK CHEAP LAM)

These figures prove most conclusively bow absolutely unsound is the fetish of cheap land, otherwise afforestation of remote areas. Had these plantations been located near centres of population they would not, only not have suffered the great injury they have from lack of proper thinning, but would have been returning before this time hundreds of thousands of pounds for small wood and intermediate crops. Reverting to the costs of afforestation, the 1925 report has on page 5 (16) a statement and a claim, both of which are peculiar and beyond the mark as "■window dressing." The claim is that notwithstanding "that labour costs at present are 21 per cent, higher than in 1910-14. the total planting costs have been reduced 70 per cent., foriduring (lie two years 1923-4 and 1924-5 17,864 acres were formed at a total cost of £38,969, or of £2 os 7d per acre, compared with the formation in the four pre-war years, 1910-11 to 1913-14, cA praclieallv half this acreage (8.595)' for £62.392 or £7 5s 2d per acre.'"

Now there ;ire several extraordinary feature's in this claim, in all of which very misleading impressions rue conveyed. First, why are two years only Uiken for the later period and compared with four of the earlier? The new regime had been running for seven years: why not take lour erf them? Jt would seem a likelv explanation that lor the two years. 1*921-22 and 1922-23, preceding the two chosen the costs were considerably more than double, and therefore, if included, the comparison—such comparison as it, is—would have, been much less favourable, in fact not worth pulling in the '"window." Next: Neither the acreage nor the total costs given in the paragraph agree with any of the figures in the summary or statement of accounts. The acreage for the two years was, according to tho summary. 13.327 (not' 17.864). and the costs £79.145 9s 4d (not £38,969), and on these figures the per acreage cost, would be £4 6s 4d, not £2 3s 7d. but, these figures even are very far from the, real costs of afforestation for the two years.

The total cost, after deducting amounts realised for sale of trees, seeds and Limber, was £86,6T)12s 4d ; the, per acreage cost £4 14s 6d. and the per 1000 trees cost £7 0s 9d.

AN EXTRAORDINARY FEATURE

Now comes the most extraordinary feature cf the claim, for leaving out the question of whether tho gross cost of afforestation should be taken or the actual planting cost in the field, and also the still great variance in the latter figures, the comparison is really no comparison; only a seeming one, for there is the peculiar neglect to state that only 076 trees per acre were planted in 1923-4 and 1924-5, whilst 2693 per acre were planted over the four pre-war years!

When the proper comparison is made, that is per 1000 trees, it displays'a position epiite the reverse from that claimed, whether you take the figures given in the paragraph or ilie true figures matters not a great deal. Assuming the figures given in the paragraph as correct, then taking the proportion of 676 trees against 2693, the £2 3s 7d per acre claimed should be multiplied practically four times, making £8 12s for the latter period against £7 5s 2d given lor the pre war period. But if the correct ligurcg are taken, afforestation cost in 1923-4 and 1924-5 £7 Os Id, against a pre-war cost of about £3 12s per 1000 trees, If four years instead of two were taken in the last period as against die four pre-war years the results of the comparison would be very much more against the claim put forward, as the acreage cost for the four ve.iirs 1921 2 to 1924-5 is £6 19s lid and the cost per 1000 Ires £8 lis 2d, against £3 12s per 1000 for the pre-war period. So we fiiKi" The claim that costs had been reduced 70 per cent, is not only 'beyond the mark" but- thai the cost pei 1 1000 trees has been increased on the best showing over 100 per cent. From the point of view of the produc-

!i»nt L>f limber, <ho ideal forestry, (or Innately easily reusable in this country, is the production of high-grade timber at profit to the grower and low cost to the consume)-, and not the spreading over so many thousand acres of land in remote situations with sparse plantation 'which can only produce low-grade timber, at he£vy loss to' the grower nr then ;ctl. excessive cost'lk>- the consumer. ; 'La. t.he light, of Uio'jtbovo'aad many 'other aspects of State afforestation, it is quite easy to understand why the Stale forest Service is so anxious to control and direct all public and private forestry enterprises, but the put tine; forward of a claim I hat the Service is the most fitted to render profitable service and prevent mismanagement is asking much—-very much—of our credulity, or is il a rather obscure joke?