Il8 AGRICULTURE OF MAINE. 



will they be pruned in such a way as to prevent crowding as 

 long as possible. Both of these points we intend to look out 

 for. We have used what is called the "filler system." That is, 

 our permanent trees are set about 33 or 40 ft. apart, but are in- 

 terplanted both ways so as to bring the trees down to 16 1-2 

 or 20 ft. apart. For these fillers we are using such early bear- 

 ing varieties as Wealthy, \A'agener and Duchess of Oldenburg 

 and for our permanent trees such sorts as Baldwin, Hubbard- 

 ston, Greening and Gravenstein. We intend to practice repres- 

 sive pruning, to head the trees in every year so that they will 

 not begin to crowd for as long a period as possible. It ought 

 to be possible to delay this crowding until they are fifteen years 

 old at the very least. But when they do begin to crowd we are 

 going to cut out the fillers and have the entire land for the per- 

 manent trees. And right here is where the difficulty usually 

 comes in. Most men zi'ill not cut out their fillers in time. I 

 hope and believe that we ivill. It ought not to be any more 

 difficult than pruning. When we prune, we cut away part of the 

 tree for the good of the rest of the tree. And when we remove 

 fillers we cut out some of the trees entirely, for the good of 

 those that remain. We may have to tell the foreman to cut the 

 fillers and then go away ourselves and stay away till the job is 

 done, but one way or another I expect to see those fillers come 

 out before they have damaged the permanent trees. 



The whole question of fillers narrows down to this: If a man 

 can use fillers and bring them into bearing early enough so that 

 they will be more profitable than growing an annual crop be- 

 tween the trees, and if he will then cut out the fillers, as sug- 

 gested, it is a profitable scheme. But if he fails in either of 

 these particulars then the plan is a failure. Some people ob- 

 ject to the filler scheme because, they say. the tree has to be cut 

 out just in its prime. But this has absolutely nothing to do with 

 the question further than being responsible for most of the 'fail- 

 ures of the scheme. If the trees have been the most profitable 

 thing you could have in the land while there, they have done 

 their whole duty and have vindicated your judgment in setting 

 them out. And the fact that if they were somewhere else they 

 might continue to be profitable, while an interesting fact, has 

 nothing more to do with the question at issue than the price of 

 gas. 



