30 



BULLETIN 481. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



has been estimated that in parts of Minnesota woodlots as small as 

 5 acres will increase farm values by $500, and this is probably a 

 conservative estimate for the country as a whole. 



As a producing crop the woodlot is valuable mainly as a " poor- 

 land crop," yielding a higher income than other crops from soil too 

 steep, stony, swampy, or ik worn out " for successful cultivation. 

 In pioneering; regions much good, tillable soil besides must often 

 remain for years uncultivated, owing to lack of means to improve it. 

 It is a mistake to clear such land in advance of the farmer's ability 

 to put it into crops, unless very good prices are offered for the timber. 

 Even when profitable sales are made, part of the w T oodlot can be 

 left and improved by the taking out of only a designated portion of 

 the trees. When high prices for wood become general, little addi- 

 tional incentive will be needed to preserve and improve the woodlots. 



In thinly settled regions and in some of the States as a whole 

 woodlot products yield a very considerable part of the total farm 

 income. In New Hampshire and Vermont, for example, woodlot 

 products are the second most important farm crop; in Maine, South 

 Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas, they are the 

 third. Where farming is in a pioneering stage, the sale of wood is 

 xery often the determining factor which enables the farmer to tide 

 over the first years during which he has not enough land in cultiva- 

 tion to support him. How the woodlot income compared in 1909 

 with the total farm income in different regions in each State is showm 

 in Table 9. The relative importance of w 7 oodlot products as a source 

 of income is well brought out in the case of Minnesota, for example, 

 where it was progressively greater from Division I, with 1 per 

 cent of the total farm income, to Division VI, where it formed nearly 

 4."> per cent. 



Table 9. — Woodlot income in per cent of total income, 1910. 



[Based on averages of census returns from 450 counties chosen at random from the woodlot divisions in 



each State.) 





Proportion of total farm income, 1910. 



State or State group. 



Division 

 I. 



Division 

 II. 



Division 

 III. 



Division 

 IV. 



Division 

 V. 



Division 

 VI. 



Total. 





Per cent. 

 1.3 



Per cent. 

 3.2 

 1.5 

 3.6 

 2.8 

 3.7 

 3.9 

 2.3 



Per cent. 

 5.6 

 10.8 

 7.4 

 5.0 

 6.6 

 4.6 

 3.9 



Per cent. 



9.1 

 14.4 

 12.4 



6.5 

 17.2 



7.3 



6.7 



Percent. 

 11.0 



Per cent. 

 19.1 



Per cent. 

 5.2 





12.5 



M iddle Atlantic 



1.6 



1.0 

 1.7 



20.5 

 7.3 



35.0 

 9.3 



11.7 





4.6 



North Central 





2.5 





44.8 

 18.4 



5.2 



South Atlantic 



6.4 



South Central 



1.8 



5.3 









New England: 







13.6 



13.0 

 22.1 

 16.1 



S. 3 







13.1 













22.1 



Vermont 







11.6 

 10.7 

 1.7 

 8.9 







12.9 













10.1 







1.5 



13.9 

 13.5 







7.8 



Connecticut 









9.7 



