104 STATE POMOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 



find that they have made a sad mistake. I refer more especially to the kind of 

 material used on different soils. 



While I would recommend -some which are generally used, I would in nowise 

 adopt all of them on all kinds of land alike. In practice for a term of years it 

 has heen found that pine or hemlock saw-dust is a positive injury to the soil, 

 but more especially if it is of a sandy or a light porous nature. The trees may 

 dcrive a benelit for the time being, in the use of saw-dust by the retention of 

 moisture, but after successive and heavy applications it will be found to be a 

 positive injury to the life and strength of the soil. If the soil is light and por- 

 ous, and the saw-dust has been applied in sufficient quantities to become fully 

 incorporated into the soil, it will most certainly be an injury by rendering it too 

 dry. 



Xow this may seem like a contradiction of terms, but can only be explained 

 by citing the fact, that while one or two applications on the top of the ground 

 is allowed to remain undisturbed it proves beneficial in keeping the ground 

 moist, but on the contrary, when frequent applications have been made and 

 worked into the soil by the plow and harrow, it will become a positive injury as 

 an absorbent of moisture. Hard wood saw-dust is not so bad, and occasional 

 applications are beneficial to most soils, but more particularly to heavy clay. 

 Yet if too much is put on, it will be productive of sourness and generate fungi, 

 which will render the roots unhealthy and injure the fruit. 



Tne same objections apply to tan-bark as to saw-dust, and when either of 

 these materials are used it would be better to pass them through the stables as 

 an absorbent. 



After considering the benefits of mulching and showing some of the objections 

 under certain situations, the questiou to be decided is : Can we safely rely upon 

 any system of mulching during the lifetime of a fruit tree, as the best mode of 

 cultivation, insuring sound, healthy trees and the most perfect fruit? If only 

 the growth of the trees were to be considered I should answer yes, but when the 

 question of perfect fruit is to be taken into the account I must say no, for the 

 following reasons : 



First, After the system of mulching has been adopted for a few years, as a 

 means of cultivation it can not be safely changed for any other. I mean where 

 the mulch has been put on from year to year and left on summer and winter 

 in a sufficient amount to keep the grass and weeds from growing. 



Second, If we undertake to plow such an orchard Ave find the main roots 

 which are the chief support of the tree, and productive of fruit, must be broken, 

 for they invariably lie on the surface of the natural ground, and just under the 

 heavy mulch. This renders good cultivation with plow and harrow ruinous. If 

 we strip this mulch off entirely we shall bo obliged to replace it with some kind 

 of top dressing, or soil itself, otherwise the roots will be ruined by the excessive 

 heat of summer or the frosts of winter. 



AVe can not make a forestry of a fruit orchard, however much we may 

 theorize about imitating nature, and nature's mulch, for we will find that a 

 mulch of decayed leaves so valuable to a dense forest of shade is one thing, and 

 that of a fruit producing orchard, exposed to a broiling sun and drying wind is 

 quite another. These are some of the objections to the mulching theory, but a 

 still greater object ion is that it affords the most complete refuge for all manner 

 of insects and vermin that creep and crawl. 



If I wished to make a perfectly safe hiding place where the codling moth, 

 curculio, and legions of the insect tribe could dwell in perfect peace and destroy 



