Part 2
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 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 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.
=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.)
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.)
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.)
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.)
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:
――Text in bold is enclosed by equals signs (=bold=).
――Punctuation and spelling inaccuracies were silently corrected.
――Archaic and variable spelling has been preserved.
――Variations in hyphenation and compound words have been preserved.