Discussion on the Papers. 187 



proper choice of location has very often been made for the orchard ? It can 

 not be said that the highest lands are always most susceptible to drouth, but 

 this is generally true in the region mentioned. The soil of the lower grounds 

 is richer, at least in partially decomposed vegetable matter, and this aids 

 greatly the retention of moisture. For other reasons one would not choose 

 for an orchard site a place relatively very low; but there is much difference 

 between flat land and low land. Certainly no one would select a slough as 

 the most suitable for orchard fruit. Too much water at other times of the 

 j^ear is as bad as too little in summer. Land that is, however, too wet, may 

 be so improved by tile draining that it may become the very best for apple 

 trees, being rich and light, with no standing water, but moist enough at all 

 times for the healthful development of orchard trees. 



The apple crop, in 1883, in Champaign and adjoining counties, was very 

 good, thousands of bushels of fine fruit being gathered ; but the difference in 

 orchards differing only in the nature of the site, and as far as could be made 

 out, in the relations concerning water, was very remarkable. Nearly all the 

 apples worth anything came from land having very little slope and which, 

 though not usually drained, would be much benefited thereby. A few or- 

 chards on the higher ridges were abundantly productive, doubtless due to 

 the peculiarities of soil and subsoil, while by far a greater number so situated 

 produced nothing fit for market. The attention of those who contemplate 

 planting trees has been forcibly drawn to the subject and the old ideas con- 

 cerning selection of site have been thoroughly overhauled. Doubtless mis- 

 takes will yet be made, and possibly now on the opposite side from those of 

 previous years. We shall do well to remember that it is the excessive dry- 

 ness of the soil in summer that is to be avoided, not necessarily the highest 

 grounds. 



DISCUSSION ON THE PAPERS. 



Mr. Peffer, of Wisconsin — I have listened with the greatest in- 

 terest to the paper just read, and it really gives more light on this 

 subject of tree growing and the destruction of trees than any paper 

 I ever heard before. We have never looked far enough. Really 

 the cause of the damage done in '81 was that it was dry the sum- 

 mer before and the warm fall started the trees again. In Novem- 

 ber the mercury fell below zero. In the spring the trees leaved out 

 nicely and in July they showed that they had been damaged in some 

 way. I could not see how my trees were damaged until I looked 

 below the surface of the ground. There the bark was separated 

 from the wood. That convinced me it was the sudden change in 

 temperature. We found the cause as soon as we looked at the 

 roots. They were mostly dead. It was the same way in '55 and '56. 



Mr. Munson, of Texas — Prof. Burrill, in reading his paper, stated 



