PRUNING PEACH TREES. 287 



Let us take, for instance, a single spur or siioot of last year's growth and, in 

 Downing's language, " ow/t/ shorten in:" the limb being one foot long, and 

 located on the outside or surface of the head. 



Now cut off half of it, and we have a stub six inches long. On bearing 

 trees to which only this theory applies there is little likelihood of any wood, 

 growth starting from this stub more than three inches from its base, and any 

 fruit setting beyond this new wood growth might as well be picked off at once. 

 Around the base of this stub new growth will start in several directions, at a 

 safe estimate say not less than an average of three shoots from each stub. 



Now it is easy to calculate for a series of years, as the number of shoots will 

 increase by a geometrical ratio of three, while the distance of separation at 

 their base will not exceed one inch, and the result of any one year's growth 

 will not extend the *' hase of operations " more than three inches in any given 

 direction. 



The first year will give three limbs with a single limb at the base. The 

 second year nine limbs witli a base not exceeding six inches in diameter. The 

 third year twenty-seven limbs with a base not exceeding twelve inches in 

 diameter. The fourth year eighty-one limbs with a base not exceeding 

 eighteen inches in diameter. 



These limbs, growing of course upward or outward, would, at a distance of 

 nine inches from the original base, approximate within a distance not exceed- 

 ing three inches of each other, converging rapidly from this line inward where 

 alone the bearing wood for the present year is located. 



Suppose, at the beginning of this experiment, the first stubs were nine 

 inches apart, the overlapping would double the diversity, to say nothing of 

 the present year's growth which, even without leaves, would hardly find space 

 to creep through this network of branches. 



It would not do to talk of peaches twelve inches in circumference to be 

 grown in this mass of limbs and foliage. 



Of course no tree could bear such crowding; but when the experiment has 

 been carried to the verge of possibility, what will be the effect ? Instead of 

 "healthy young wood, and darh green foliage,'^ described by Downing, will be 

 seen a multitude of spindling, smothered branches, with a sort of half life, 

 pining for the air and sunlight of heaven, to be stricken, in their feebleness, 

 by the first blast of winter; and present the following year an array of dead 

 brush sufficient to discourage even a fruit grower. 



To those who would follow strictly this ''shortening in " practice, there is 

 no escape from these evils, except by persistent thinning of the young wood 

 during the growing season, which, in an orchard of any considerable size, 

 would involve a hopeless amount of labor. 



Will it paij to go over an orchard of large bearing trees cutting off half of 

 every young shoot when this only brings us into an unfortunate dilemma: in 

 one direction lies mildew, decayed fruit, feeble growth and wood; in the other 

 endless labor and diminished profits, if not bankruptcy ? 



Questions of economy, always important, become of the very first consequence 

 when the average sales are reduced to a point near the cost of production. 



We must study cheaper methods wherever they can be made as effective. 



We hope no one will construe tliese remarks to favor neglect of any essential 

 provisions for the production of the very best qualities of tree and fruit. On 

 the contrary, we would direct every energy to the development of quality, 

 quantity being always subordinate. But we would study cheapness in the 



