DIVISION OF HORTICULTURE 



325 



SESSIONAL PAPER No. 16 



There are, however, some instances where it appears that heavier thinning beyond 

 a certain stage does not increase the size, as in the Ben Davis plots, where plot 1, 

 with 12-28 per cent apples removed, gives larger apples than plots 3, 4 and 6 where 

 22-67, 36 and 23-78 per cent respectively were removed- 



This is probably accounted for by the fact that a favourable variation in plot 1 

 gave apples which would have been larger in any case. 



The other plots which were thinned produced apples, the size of which was 

 governed by the amount of apples thinned from the trees. 



In Stark, plot 4, with 30-95 per cent apples removed, produced the largest apples, 

 showing an increase of 25 per cent in size over the check plot. 



The size here, however, does not seem to show any relation to the amount of 

 apples, but the fact that in the case of every thinned plot there is an increase in size 

 over the check plot, shows that there is an increase in size from thinning in this 

 variety. 



Showing the results of Grading in the Different Plots in this Experiment. 



Ben Davis. 



Apples removed, percent.. 



No. 1, per cent 



No. 2, per cent 



Nos. 1 and 2, combined per 



cent 



No. 3, per cent 



Culls, per cent 



Stark. 



Apples removed, per cent. 



No. 1, per cent 



No. 2, per cent .... . 

 Nos. 1 and 2, combined, per 



cent 



No. 3, per cent 



Culls, per cent 



Greening. 



Apples removed, per cent. 



No. 1, per cent 



No. 2, per cent . . ., 



Nos. 1 and 2, combined, per 



cent 



No. 3, per cent .... 



Culls, per cent 



Plot 1. 



General 

 thinning. 



Plot 2. 



Thinning to 

 8 in. 



12-28 

 49 15 

 4165 



9080 



8-34 



•86 



25 33 

 80 95 

 10 32 



9127 



7 67 

 1-06 



18-75 

 70-66 

 10 81 



8147 



17 21 



1-32 



38 

 55 

 35 



90 

 9 



70 

 00 

 44 



44 

 30 

 26 



36 14 

 79 25 

 11-32 



90-57 

 943 

 000 



32-20 

 74-26 

 12-07 



86 33 



12-75 



•92 



Plot 3. 



One apple to 

 spur. 



22-67 

 50 43 

 41-18 



9161 



808 



•31 



18-45 

 76 58 

 12 53 



89 11 

 8-88 

 200 



19 78 



82-80 



801 



90-81 

 751 

 168 



Plot 4. 



Thinned to 

 6 in. 



3600 

 49 22 

 37-80 



87 02 



12 60 



•38 



30 95 



80-63 



6 9S 



87-61 

 1163 



•77 



20 00 

 68-52 

 19 38 



87-91 



11-80 



29 



Plot 5. 



Unthinned 

 check. 



00 00 

 31-22 

 40 00 



7122 



27 12 



1 66 



00 00 

 51-88 

 2300 



74 88 



22 18 



2 94 



00 00 



64-51 



897 



73 48 

 24 01 



251 



Plot 6. 



Thinned to 

 4 in. 



23 78 

 44-42 

 40 71 



85 11 



13 80 



110 



It can readily be seen from this table that, in every case, thinning has had the 

 result of increasing the per cent of No. l's, increasing the per cent of combined 

 No. 1 and No. 2 fruit, and greatly decreasing the per cent of No. 3's and culls. 



In Ben Davis, there is an increase on an average of over 18 per cent in No. 1 

 fruit, and in plot 2, thinned to eight inches, an increase of nearly 24 per cent. In 

 No. 3's in this variety there is a decrease on an average of approximately 17 per 

 cent, and plot 3, with the lowest per cent of this grade, gives a decrease of 19-04 

 per cent. 



