The Project Gutenberg eBook of The farm and the woodlot, by J. E. Barton

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: The farm and the woodlot

Author: J. E. Barton

Release Date: January 29, 2023 [eBook #69895]

Language: English

Produced by: Donald Cummings and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE FARM AND THE WOODLOT ***

Black locust grove in pasture on poor soil. Seed sown in plowed land, in rows four feet apart. Nine years ago cultivated one year, and since thinned twice. 197 trees on one-half acre will make 514 posts (7′-3″). Photo by U. S. Forest Service.

# The Farm and the Woodlot

By J. E. BARTON,
State Forester of Kentucky.

Published by the direction of the State Board of Forestry.

Governor James B. McCreary,
Chairman.

John W. Newman,
Commissioner of Agriculture.

Joseph H. Kastle,
Director, Kentucky Experiment Station.

Hon. Johnson N. Camden,
Versailles.

Hon. W. H. Mackoy,
Covington.

Mrs. Mason Maury,
Louisville.

[3]

## THE FARM AND THE WOODLOT

### INTRODUCTION.

Undoubtedly, one of the most important phases of the forestry work, so far as the individual States are concerned, is the question of the woodlot and its improvement. In the Eastern States—that is, those east of the Mississippi River—a very considerable portion of the forested areas within each State is in the form of woodlots which are a part of and an adjunct to the farm so that in any comprehensive forest policy for the Eastern United States a great deal of attention must be focused upon this phase of the work. This is, undoubtedly, true so far as Kentucky is concerned where, as a whole, the land is held in fee simple by the citizens of the State as farms from a few acres in size up to several thousand acres. By the majority of the owners of these farms, the value and importance of the woodlot is little understood nor has the practice of forestry as it applies to these woodlots any significance whatsoever. The object of this bulletin is to make clear just what forestry is, the relation of scientific forestry to the improvement of the woodlot and the economical part which the farm woodlot plays in the industrial and social welfare of the State. As a matter of fact, this is one of the most difficult features of the work to present properly, because it is a hard matter to make clear to the average individual just why a woodlot is an asset in connection with his property and how the improvement and care of his woodlot concerns him closely and means a proportional increase directly in the actual money value of the material on hand and indirectly in ways which do not present themselves readily unless the attention is focused on them—as for example, the value of a woodlot as a wind-break in connection with an orchard or in connection with the farm as a whole, or the value of a wooded area on an[4] easily eroded hillside as a fixative for the soil and a preventative against the deterioration of the cultivated areas below it. The effort then of this bulletin will be—first, to show how the average woodlot may be brought to a standard of productivity compatible with the complete utilization of the ground, and second, to show in detail what the direct and indirect benefits of a woodlot in connection with any farm will be under the best circumstances. In the preparation of this bulletin, free use has been made of all bulletins and publications on this subject, which the writer has been able to get hold of and acknowledgment is made to these as a whole, since it would be impracticable to make complete individual acknowledgement.

### WHAT IS FORESTRY?

To the average individual, forestry as a science does not mean very much. The impression is that it has to do with the trees, but to what extent and how it deals with this question is by no means thoroughly understood. In the first place, forestry deals with trees as a community and not as an individual—that is, it deals with them in the bulk and in this respect differs from kindred sciences where the individual tree is a matter of concern. The forester is often called upon to answer questions and discuss matters with relation to shade trees or ornamental trees, but this is not a matter within his province properly, but is a matter for the landscape architect or horticulturist. Forestry primarily concerns itself with the planting and growing of trees for sale at a profit. Occasionally forestry may concern itself with the growing and raising of trees for purposes where the money value of the crop, while it may not be as evident as where the trees are placed on the market and sold, is nevertheless, a real money consideration. This is the case, where certain areas are planted for the purification and conservation of a city water supply. Here the actual worth of the forest is the value to the people of the city or community of pure drinking water. This will be the case in the Catskill Mountains where enormous expenditures are being made for supplying New York City with pure water[5] and where the purity of this water supply depends upon the maintenance of certain areas in forest growth. Forestry then, so far as it relates to the farm and woodlot, may be defined as dealing with trees as communities and the growing and marketing of these trees for a profit. It is a simple proposition, the same as raising corn. In raising corn, the ground is prepared, the seed is planted at a certain time in the spring, the necessary attention is given during the growing season and in the fall it is harvested and sold. A certain price is obtained for the grain and a certain price for the stalks, usually in the form of fodder for stock. The chief value of the corn crop depends upon the number of bushels per acre of corn (grain) that have been produced and the kind and quality of corn there is to market. The kind and quality of the corn crop depends on the selection of seed. All this is accomplished within a year’s time—the planting, the harvesting, the cultivation and the sale of the product. Forestry is exactly the same proposition. The stock is selected, the trees are planted, the necessary attention is given them during the growing period, and eventually the crop is harvested and marketed for the best price obtainable. The value of the timber crop depends on how much material you raise to the acre, the kind and quality of the product you have to market and the demand in the market for the class of material to which the timber crop is particularly adapted. The chief difference is this: that, whereas, the corn crop has been planted, harvested and marketed within one growing season, a forest crop takes a period of growing seasons before it is ready to market. The precise length of this period depends on the kind of material you are to raise, as fence posts, ties, lumber, etc.

### IMPROVEMENT OF THE WOODLOT.

What then can be done to show the man most concerned, the farmer, the importance of the improvement of his woodlot? First, an attempt will be made to set forth the matter as clearly as possible in print, which is the object of this bulletin; and the necessary steps will then be taken to furnish an ocular demonstration of the facts herein set forth by the[6] establishment of nurseries and the maintenance of model woodlots. On the big majority of farms in Kentucky, there are certain areas which are not good farm land and never will be for a variety of reasons (inferior soil, rocky soil, too steep a slope, etc.); but these lands in most cases can produce timber crops and should be producing them, since they are a commercial adjunct to the farm and bring in a revenue. As Mr. W. F. Cook, of Hickman County, says, “It is a great deal more valuable than giving the land over to weeds and wild briars.”

Ordinarily, there is little or no attention paid to the woodlot on a farm, and without attention a woodlot is in much the same condition as a corn field in which no attention was paid to the kind of corn planted, and which was not cultivated during the growing season. You commonly find in a woodlot a great variety of trees, some of a valuable species and some of more or less worthless species. You also find crooked and defective and diseased trees, and further you ordinarily do not find in any particular woodlot one-half the trees that the ground will support, which is about the worst feature of all, since here is an economic waste.

### PURPOSES OF THE WOODLOT.

When the improvement of the woodlot is seriously under consideration, one of the first propositions is to determine just what purpose the woodlot will serve in the economy of the farm. Ordinarily a woodlot will be maintained for the following reasons: 1. To furnish fence posts; 2. To furnish fuel; 3. As a shelter belt for certain areas or for the whole farm; 4. As a protection on steep up-lands against erosion; 5. As a means of regeneration of worn out land; 6. As an investment pure and simple, without regard to immediate returns; 7. For the aesthetic value. Any combination of these reasons may prevail for the maintenance of a woodlot; however, each one of them will be discussed in its turn as separate propositions.

1. Probably one of the chief reasons for maintaining the woodlot on farms in Kentucky from the purely utilitarian standpoint will be to obtain fence posts. These are a commodity[7] on the farm which cannot be dispensed with and for which the demand is staple. Concrete may and will at some future date, supersede wood as fence posts, especially in rich easily accessible agricultural regions where farming is very profitable and conducted as a business, but it will do this only slowly in remote regions, and at the present time concrete posts are not extensively used in any locality. A woodlot can then be reasonably maintained for the production of fence posts. Ordinarily the posts are largely consumed on the home farm, since they are more valuable to the producer at this point than if he should sell them; however, if there is a surplus, a market for this will not be lacking and the price obtained will more than justify the cost of the establishment of the woodlot and its maintenance up to the time of harvesting the crop. In considering the species which lend themselves most readily to the production of this class of products in Kentucky, undoubtedly, black locust (Robinia pseudacacia) sometimes locally called yellow locust, lends itself most readily to this purpose. It is indigenous to the State, grows fairly rapidly and lasts a long time in contact with the soil, three prime requisites of any species which is to be used in the growing of this class of material. Other species which may be used are catalpa (Catalpa speciosa), walnut, osage orange, chestnut and juniper (also known locally as cedar or red cedar).

2. As a general proposition, it appears that the maintenance of a woodlot for the growing of fuel, so far as Kentucky is concerned, is not an important consideration. So far as my observation goes throughout the State—even in the rural districts—coal is the general fuel in use on account of the abundance of supply and is in a large number of ways cheaper and preferable to wood as a fuel. On this account the woodlot will supply only a very small amount of fuel and consideration of this matter is not important. If it does happen that a supply of fuel wood is desirable or necessary on the farm, undoubtedly, hickory and oak lend themselves most readily for this purpose. Any species of hickory grows fairly rapidly, and certain species of oak, as for instance red[8] oak, makes a reasonably rapid growth. A woodlot for this purpose would be managed as a sprout forest.

3. The removal of forests and wooded areas of Kentucky has undoubtedly resulted in certain climatic changes. These are principally to be noticed in the prevalence of high winds which formerly did not exist, and such winds have a marked effect on certain farm activities, as for instance the handling of an orchard or the handling of stock. A shelter belt, therefore, offers protection to the farm house and surrounding buildings. To be of use, the shelter belt or wind break must be in the direction of the prevailing winds. Further, since in all probability a shelter belt is of most use and is most desirable in the winter time, the component species in the shelter belt should be, to a large extent, evergreens, so that the effectiveness may be as great in winter as in summer. In connection with an orchard, a shelter belt or wind break, undoubtedly, protects against cold and destructive currents of air which injure the orchard in various ways either by injuring the blossoms of the fruit, or at a later period, by injuring the fruit, which is blown from the trees by the wind and left in bad condition for shipping.

The species then which should compose a shelter belt should, as far as possible, have these characteristics. They should grow fast to furnish the maximum amount of protection in the shortest space of time, and should have as wide a usefulness as possible. So far as the majority of instances are concerned, the shelter belt might have two objects. The production of useful material for the farm as fence posts as well as a wind break. In this case, it would be well to plant black locust in conjunction with some evergreens, as white pine or Norway spruce, hemlock or yellow pine. The number of evergreens which may be utilized for this purpose in Kentucky are limited, but the number of hardwoods which lend themselves to this purpose is very great, as for instance, the hickories, ashes, black locust, poplars, tulip poplar, osage orange and others. Beech also makes a good tree for the composition of a shelter belt.

[9]

Chestnut plantation, thirty years old. Photo by U. S. Forest Service.

[10]

4. As a protection on a steep up-lands against erosion, the chief thing is to establish a forest cover. The composition of the stand is more or less immaterial although it is always desirable that the most readily marketable species shall be used so that the woodlands in addition to performing their protective function may also supply an actual revenue. Therefore, as far as possible, the trees to be used should be the ashes, oak, chestnut, hickories, maples and other species, whose value in the lumber market is standard. The chief feature in regard to this protective woodland is that the forest cover shall remain unbroken.

5. As a means of regeneration of worn out land, especially hillsides, which are liable to erosion and do not lend themselves easily to a scientific rotation of crops, a forest cover is a very important factor since it furnishes to the soil the essential humus and, when such species as the black locust or honey locust are planted, it furnishes the nitrogenous elements to the soil, since the locusts are legumes and produce on their roots nodules of nitrifying organisms similar to those found on the roots of alfalfa, cow-peas or soy beans.

6. As a general proposition, the raising of lumber or timber by an individual is out of the question on account of the length of time which it takes to grow the better grades of this material. Ordinarily, a tree fifty years old will furnish only the poorest grades of lumber and usually only small dimension stock. Generally speaking, one hundred years is not too small a calculation for the length of rotation when lumber is the aim. In the event that any individual plants trees for the production of the lumber, such planting is done as an investment purely and simply since he can not expect to see the crop harvested within his life time. The only monetary benefit that could possibly accrue to the owner is from the material which may have to be thinned out or in the event that he should desire to sell his farm when the existence of a grove or woodland of healthy young trees would represent an actual money value to the purchaser. In case planting for this reason is made, the trees should be those which are the most valuable lumber producing species, as for instance, the oaks,[11] the ashes, hickory, sweet gum, tulip poplar, white and yellow pines, basswood and a few others.

7. It may be that in connection with the farm the presence of a grove of trees thereon will represent a value from the aesthetic and science standpoint where the beauty of the landscape is a matter of consideration to the owner of the land, or to any one who might desire to purchase it. In this event the kind of tree is not so important as the actual presence of trees of some kind. The general effect is the main consideration, without regard to the individual features which compose this effect.

### FOREST TAXATION.

One of the most important factors in connection with the consideration of woodlots is the matter of taxation, and this is a matter which so far as Kentucky is concerned, has had little attention. In the first place, there is no classification of land within the State for taxation purposes. It is a generally accepted theory among experts in this matter at the present time that there is only one fair method of taxation which may be applied to land maintained by the owner in forest growth and that is that there should be a tax placed on the land which shall be an annual tax, and another tax placed on the forest crop when it is harvested. In no other manner does it seem probable that reforestation of suitable areas throughout the State may be accomplished, since in the first place, on account of the character of the investment the owner of the land must be assured before hand just what his taxes on the land are to be, and in the second place the risks attendant upon the raising of a forest crop, because of the long period of years before it reaches maturity, make it essential that the crop of forest products shall be taxed at maturity when it is harvested, rather than that an annual tax shall be imposed. Certain States have already gone a long ways in this direction and Pennsylvania has recently passed three laws dealing with the matter of forest taxation and the classification of forest land which embrace the best features of recent thought on this subject. The essentials of the recent Pennsylvania laws are as follows:

[12]

1. Classification of suitable land set aside by the owner for forest purposes as auxiliary forest reserves.

2. Agreement with the State to maintain such land in forest growth and penalties for failure to carry out agreement.

3. Assessment of land classified as auxiliary forest reserves at $1.00 per acre annual tax.

4. Payment by owner of 10 per cent of the value of the forest products when harvested to the county to be distributed among the proper county funds.

5. Fixed charge on auxiliary forest reserve land of two cents per acre for schools and two cents per acre for roads.

Under these provisions it is obvious that the growing of timber on suitable areas would be reduced to a practical business basis.

Providing the tax question is sufficiently settled and definite for a period of years the regeneration of the woodlot or the establishment of one may be undertaken as a safe investment. So far as Kentucky is concerned, the present tax laws and the manner of handling the assessments in the counties are not such as to bear heavily on timbered or wooded areas. In the event that a new classification of land is made and new tax laws enacted every effort should be made to bring about such a classification of forest land and such a system of taxation as will encourage the reforestation of suitable areas and the regeneration of the present woodlands.

### REGENERATION OF THE WOODLOT.

When the question of the regeneration of the woodlot is seriously considered there are several points which stand out prominently as follows:

1. Protection.
2. Taking of stock.
3. Removal of undesirable species.
4. Selection of desirable species.
5. Method of regeneration.
6. Care and management.

[13]

1. Protection. It is essential that a woodlot shall be protected if it is to be an asset to the owner and brings him financial returns. There are two destructive agencies against which he must make special efforts, fire and stock. It may seem unnecessary to point out the various bad effects which fire and stock have on woodlands, but they are nevertheless here set forth in brief. Fire destroys timber utterly, injures it so that it is subject to insect and fungi attacks, lowers the grade of the timber, destroys or seriously injures reproduction, destroys humus and lowers the productive capacity of the soil. There is no way in which burning over a woodland improves the character of the forest. Stock have a very injurious effect on trees, especially young growth. Some stock eat up the nuts and berries and seeds which are the means of reproducing the forest. Other stock browse on the young trees which have started, destroying the young growth altogether or seriously gnawing other trees thereby leaving them badly malformed and depleted in vitality. By rubbing against small trees stock also do a great deal of harm. So stock should be rigidly excluded from the woodlot, or at least until all the trees are well developed and even then no good is accomplished. If possible, the woodlot should be well fenced. The other destructive agencies against which protection may become necessary are insects and disease. If fire and stock are excluded, the chances of insects and disease doing serious damage is materially decreased. Diseases and insects are best kept in check by keeping the wooded area clean of dead and decaying material. In case of serious insect infestation it may in some cases pay to spray the trees, but under ordinary conditions this is not practical. The common way of fighting disease and insects is to cut down and burn all affected trees.

2. Taking of Stock. The next step in the regeneration of our woodland is to find out the extent and character of the stock on hand, for we can not proceed intelligently without this knowledge. This taking of stock may be a purely ocular process or it may be a detailed estimate and description, depending on the extent of the woodland and the desires of the owner. All reproduction should be accounted for as well[14] as the older stock on hand. The taking of stock should also involve the division of species into desirable and undesirable species, by desirable species being meant such species as it is desired to encourage because of the demand for it in the local market or because of the use which may be made of it by the owner on his farm. The desirable species will usually include the fast growing species.

3. Removal of Undesirable Species and Trees. The first actual work in connection with the regeneration of the woodlot is the removal of undesirable species. When this is undertaken the local market and other markets should be carefully studied in order that, if possible, a sale may be found for the material which is removed, so that the work may pay for itself. In determining what are undesirable species there are several factors which will govern and no specific list of trees can be cited. The desire of the owner, the market for the material, rapidity of growth and other features are among the important considerations. Such trees as blue beach, horn beam, red bud, service berry and others have no rightful place in a woodlot since they take up space without furnishing any product of value, unless the wooded area is desired for its aesthetic features. In a woodlot which is maintained for fence posts and fuel it would be poor policy to retain any but those species which make good fence post material and fuel and grow rapidly. In this matter, common sense will go a long way. Also badly suppressed trees, malformed and diseased or infected individuals should be removed as far as practicable.

4. Selection of Desirable Species. In the selection of desirable species there are a large number of considerations, and the first of these is the purpose of the owner in maintaining the woodlot. For instance, if the owner desires fence posts, and fencing material, his woodlot will, in Kentucky, be confined to those species which produce such material quickly, as for example black locust, catalpa, chestnut and walnut, also it will be well to have a percentage of red cedar (juniper) in the mixture, for since red cedar grows comparatively slowly, it may be reserved to be cut as the second crop and will serve to shade the ground and prevent erosion when the faster[15] growing species have been cut and during the restocking of the area. If fuel as well as fence post material is desired, a mixture including hickory, oak and chestnut would be desirable. If ties, posts, poles or other products are an object, certain species are desirable and are easily grown. A list of trees suitable for various purposes is herewith given. No species are included in this list which will not produce marketable material repeatedly within the lifetime of a single individual. Only in unusual cases is the raising of trees for lumber recommended as a feasible or profitable venture for the individual farm owner.

Fence posts and fencing material—Black locust, catalpa, chestnut, walnut, oak, red cedar (juniper).

Fuel—Oak, hickory, maple, chestnut.

Poles—Chestnut, catalpa, red cedar.

Ties—Black locust, catalpa, chestnut, walnut, oak.

Vehicle material and handle stock—Hickory.

5. Methods of Regeneration. There are several things which must be done to secure a good forest over the area. If natural seeding is to be depended upon for reproduction, the ground must be prepared to receive the seed. Sometimes the sod will be so thick over the area that seeds get no chance to generate. In this case, the sod should be plowed up, if possible, or harrowed so that the seeds may have a suitable opportunity to start. To do well, it is necessary that the seeds and seedlings have easy access to the mineral soil. It may be that the ground is so shaded that seedlings do not receive the necessary sunlight. If this be so, sufficiently large openings should be made in the forest cover to admit the required light. It may be that natural seeding does not proceed rapidly enough and that this must be supplemented by the sowing of seed artificially. When artificial sowing is resorted to it will be found that there are several methods of sowing which recommend themselves: broadcast, sowing in prepared rows, sowing in prepared seed spots and sowing with a corn planter either in rows or spots. This last method is recommended as being usually most satisfactory and economical. Sowing with a corn planter can be resorted to only in the case[16] of small seeds. Large seeds, such as walnuts, hickory nuts, etc., must be planted by hand, but when this is done they are liable to be eaten by squirrels or other rodents, in which case it may be necessary to plant such seeds in small protected seed beds and then transplant the seedlings to the place where they are desired.

If planting is to be depended upon for reforesting, the nursery stock obtained should be small seedlings not over one or two years old or transplants two to three years old. If the amount of planting to be done is large, it may be wise to start seed beds close to the ground where the planting is to be done and not to depend on commercial nurseries for stock.

6. Care and Management. It will be found that the care and management of the woodlot is relatively a simple matter after the forest is well established and that the character of the stock and the amount and quality of the products will improve materially with management. There are certain systems of management which recommend themselves for woodlots such as the (1) simple coppice (2) pole wood coppice (3) coppice with standards or variations of these. The three methods here cited are briefly described.

Simple Coppice. This is a system of management wherein all the stand is cut and the restocking of the area is secured by sprouts from the old stumps. Under this system the stand should be cut at an age not to exceed twenty-five years and preferably about fifteen years, although this is usually impossible from a commercial standpoint. The cutting should be done in the late fall, winter or early spring. The stumps should be cut low, smooth and slanting so as to shed water and prevent decay. After a time under this system the sprouting capacity of the stump is greatly reduced and arrangement must be made to secure new individuals either by direct seeding or by planting.

Pole Wood Coppice. This system involves the leaving of certain trees until they reach the pole wood stage and are suitable for such products as ties, poles, etc. It is a favorite method of handling woodlots.

[17]

Pole Wood Standards. This system involves the leaving of a certain few trees until they are of large size. Such trees should usually be from the seed.

In the management of the woodland, it will be necessary to make several cuttings before the final cutting at the end of the rotation, usually one or two. A thinning may early become necessary to give the best specimens a better chance for growth. Sometimes two thinnings may be required. Often a thinning may be required to secure reproduction by opening up the forest cover and exposing the ground so that young growth may have the opportunity to get started.

In the final cutting, when all or the major part of the crop is cut, the material should be removed from the ground as rapidly as possible and the brush disposed of when practical. The disposal of brush will usually take the form of lopping the limbs from the tops and scattering them, so as to secure early decay of the waste material. Sometimes the brush may be advantageously piled and burned.

### CONCLUSION.

No attempt has been made in this bulletin to deal exhaustively with the woodlot problem. The desire has been to point the way for the improvement of the woodlots in Kentucky. Individual cases deserve specific consideration, and only the main features of the proposition have been touched upon. The State Forester will cheerfully answer by mail all questions relating to this subject so far as it is possible to do so, and will give such personal advice and direction as the time at his disposal and the circumstances warrant. A list of books, bulletins and articles treating this subject is appended for those who desire to go more deeply into the matter than is possible in a publication of this character. The illustrations are from photographs loaned by the Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture.

Akerman, A. Practical protection and improvement of the farm woodlot, illustrated. (Bailey, L. H. Cyclopedia of American Agriculture, 1907, v. 2: 330–33.)

[18]

Akerman, Alfred. Spring work in the woodlot; planting white pine seedlings. (New England Farmer, Montpelier, Vt., April 7, 1906, v. 85, No. 14: 4.)

Akerman, Alfred. Spring work in the woodlot. (New England Farmer, Montpelier, Vt., April 28, 1906, v. 85, No. 17: 6.)

Akerman, Alfred. Winter work in the woodlot. (New England Farmer, Montpelier, Vt., March 3, 1906, v. 85, No. 9: 6.)

Akerman, Alfred. Farm forestry. 22 p. Athens. Ga., 1909. (Georgia Forest Association. Publication.)

Ames, G. W. Practical forestry for farmers. (Society for Protection of New Hampshire Forests. 7th annual report, 1909, p. 42–6.)

Atkeson, T. C. The farmer’s woodlot. (West Virginia State Board of Agriculture Report, 1908, p. 97–103.)

Ayres, P. W. The care of the woodlot. (Society for the protection of New Hampshire Forests. Fourth annual report, 1905–6, p. 50–1.)

Baker, H. P. The farm woodlot in Pennsylvania. (Forest Leaves, Philadelphia, Pa., Oct. 1908, v. 11: 163–7.)

Baker, J. Fred. The Michigan woodlot. 14 p., illustrated. East Lansing, Mich., 1912. (Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station. Circular 17.)

Balderson, R. W. The farm woodlot. (Forest Leaves, Philadelphia, Pa., April 1905, v. 10: 25.)

Besley, F. W. Woodlot forestry for Maryland farmers. 7 p. Baltimore, Md. (Maryland State Board of Forestry leaflet No. 5.)

Bogue, E. E. The farm woodlot. (Garfield, C. W. The Michigan forestry commission and its work, 1905, p. 10–14.)

Bogue, E. E. Woodlot thinning, illustrated. (Forestry and Irrigation, Aug. 1906, v. 12: 385–8.)

Bradfield, W. Standing timber in woodlots. (National Conservation Commission. Report, 1909, p. 181–7.)

Bryner, H. E. The improvement of farm woodlots. (Forest Leaves, Philadelphia, Pa., June 1910, v. 12, No. 9: 133–5.)

[19]

Campbell, M. E. The farm woodlot. (Michigan Forestry Commission. Report, 1905–6, p. 87–90.)

The care of the woodlot. (School World, Farmington, Me., Sept. 1908, p. 21–4.)

The care of the farmers’ woodlot. (Michigan State Board of Agriculture. Farmers’ Institutes, 1903–4, p. 80–6.)

Clark, Judson F. Defects in the woodlot and how they may be remedied. (Ontario Agricultural Experiment Union. Twenty-sixth annual report, 1904, p. 63–8.)

Clark, J. F. The farmers’ woodlot, illustrated. (Ontario Forestry Bureau. Annual report, 1904, p. 51–8.)

Clark, J. F. The propagation of trees by farmers. (Ontario Bureau of Forestry. Annual report, 1904, p. 334–50.)

Clark, J. F. Woodlot forestry. (Michigan Forestry Commission. Report, 1903–4, p. 47–56.)

Coulter, Stanley. Suggestions for the improvement of Indiana woodlots, illustrated. (Indiana State Board of Forestry. Twelfth annual report, 1912, p. 85–106.)

Coulter, Stanley. Woodlot conditions and possibilities. (Indiana State Board of Forestry. Ninth and tenth annual report, 1909: 37–46; 1910: 126–35.)

Davis, C. A. Woodlot studies. 16 p. Ann Arbor, Mich., 1906.

Defebaugh, J. E. Relation of the lumber tariff to the value of farmers’ woodlots. (American Lumberman, Chicago, Feb. 27, 1909, No. 1762: 39–40.)

Every farmer his own forester. (Craftsman, June 1912, v. 22: 348–50.)

Farm forestry. (Forest Fish and Game, N. Y., June 1909, v. 3, No. 1: 1–22.)

Farmer and the forest. (Independent, N. Y., July 16, 1908, v. 65: 165–7.)

Faville, E. E., and Reeves, E. The farmer and the woodlot. (Iowa Park and Forestry Association. Proceedings, 1904, p. 25–30.)

Ferguson, J. A. The importance of the farm woodlot. (Pennsylvania State College, May 1911, v. 4, No. 1: 18–21.)

Ferguson, Meade. The forest and the farmer. (Southern Planter, Richmond, March 1913, v. 74: 315–21.)

[20]

Fernow, B. E. Farm woodlot, illustrated. (Bailey, L. H. Cyclopedia of American Agriculture, 1907, v. 2: 313–23.)

Fisher, R. T. Forestry for Southern New England woodlots. (Forestry and Irrigation, Washington, D. C., March 1903, v. 9, No. 3: 120–1.)

Foster, J. H. Improving the farm woodlot. 1 p. Durham, N. H., 1912. (New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station. Press bulletin 11.)

Foster, J. H. Suggestions for cutting waste pine lots. 1 p. Durham, N. H. (New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station. Press bulletin 22.)

Fyles, Thos. W. The farmer’s woodlot. (Ontario Entomological Society. Thirty-ninth annual report, 1908, p. 138–45.)

Gaskill, Alfred. Let’s not overlook the woodlots. (Forestry Quarterly, Washington, D. C., March 1913, v. 11: 58–61.)

Gifford, John. The forest in relation to the farm, illustrated. (New Jersey State Board of Agriculture, twenty-third annual report, 1895, p. 170–178.)

Gifford, John. Forestry for the farm. (Connecticut Board of Agriculture. Thirty-sixth annual report, 1902, p. 85–95.)

Goetz, C. H. Need of farm woodlots in the Central States. (Forest Leaves, April 1911, v. 13, No. 2: 21–3.)

Goetz, C. H. Practical work on the woodlot. (Forest Leaves, Philadelphia, Pa., Feb. 1912, v. 13: 107–8.)

Graves, Henry Solon and Fisher, R. T. The woodlot. 89 p. pl. Washington, D. C., 1903. (United States Agricultural Department of Forest Service. Bulletin 42.)

Haines, A. S. A study of the chestnut woodlot. (9 Forest Leaves, Philadelphia, Pa., Aug. 1901, v. 8, No. 10: 150–1.)

Hawes, A. F. The farmers’ woodlot. (Vermont State Forester. Annual report, first, 1908–9, p. 166–72.)

Hazard, James O. An example of woodlot forestry. 23 p. pl. Trenton, N. J., 1912.

House, H. D. Improvement of the woodlot. 14 p., illustrated. Columbia, S. C., 1907. (South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station. Bulletin 129.)

[21]

Hutt, W. N. Management of the farmers’ woodlot, illustrated. (Cornell Countryman, 1907, v. 4, No. 5: 128–34.)

The importance of the farm woodlot. (Pennsylvania State Farmer, Pennsylvania State College, May 1910, v. 333, No. 4: 82–85.)

Jackson, E. R. Forestry and the farmer. (University of Virginia. Alumni Bulletin. Aug. 1911, ser. 3, v. 4, No. 4: 417–25.)

Kellogg, R. S. Farm forestry in Michigan, illustrated. (Michigan State Board of Agriculture of Michigan Farmers’ Institutes, 1907–8, p. 61–70.)

Knechtel, A. Making a woodlot from seed. 7 p. Albany, N. Y., 1907.

Meller, C. L. The prairie farmer’s tree problem, illustrated. (Country Gentleman, Dec. 14, 1912, v. 77, No. 50: 3–32.)

Miller, F. G. The farm woodlot in Michigan. (Forestry and Irrigation, Washington, D. C., April 1903, v. 9, No. 4: 187–9.)

Mulford, Walter. The improvement of the woodlot. 24 p., illustrated. Ithaca, N. Y., 1912. (Cornell Reading Courses, v. 1, No. 12; Farm Forestry Series, No. 1.)

Payne, W. F. Value to a farm of a woodlot, illustrated. (Canadian Forestry Journal, Ottawa, March, April 1912, v. 8: 51–53.)

Price, O. W. First principles of woodlot management, illustrated. (Farming, Toronto, Oct. 1906, v. 2: 93–4.)

Records, P. C. The value of a woodlot. (Northwoods, St. Paul, April 1913, v. 2: 7–14.)

Record, Samuel James. What is the woodlot worth? illustrated. (Country Gentleman, Philadelphia, Pa., Sept. 7, 1912, p. 5–8.)

Reynolds, L. C. Protect the farm woodlot. (New York Tribune Farmer, July 16, 1908, p. 9.)

Schwartz, G. F. Productive possibilities, common deficiencies and how to improve the woodlot, illustrated. (In United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Bulletin 44, p. 21–7.)

Transcriber’s Notes:

Punctuation and spelling inaccuracies were silently corrected.

Archaic and variable spelling has been preserved.

Variations in hyphenation and compound words have been preserved.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE FARM AND THE WOODLOT ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

> This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.