The Apple in Oregon: Part I. 119 



and a crop is producetl from the soil, thus helping to pay tlie expenses of tillage 

 for the i)eri<>d during which the standards are growing wood. Others of our 

 leading orchardists contend tliat better results follow the growing of herbaceous 

 crops, as potatoes, beets, tomatoes, and even corn. The tendency of most people 

 to leave trees, when planted as fillers, until they encroach upon the space and food 

 supply of the regular plantation, leads one to accept the latter view as being the 

 better for the average planter to follow. There is a greater probability that 

 annual crops would be discontinued before their culture would in any way detract 

 from the care and food supply required by the permanent plantation. 



Some of the thriftiest, cleanest, best-cared-for small young orchards in this 

 State are to be found at May I'ark, a suburb of I..a (Jrande. Figs. 7a. 7b, 8a, and 

 8b show the character of the secondary crops grown in this section — corn, toma- 

 toes, potatoes, melons, beets, carrots, strawberries, and others of the like. There 

 are no cases of double planting with these later orchards, though some of the 

 earlier plantations at a nearby orchard section were put out upon this plan. In 

 this district thirty feet is considered ample space for an apple tree. As grown 

 here, the tree is headed low (See Fig. 15), branches are shortened in, the grow- 

 ing season is one of normal length, or even a little short, and tlie resting period 

 somewhat severe ; hence the vegetative vigor of the tree is somewhat reduced, and 

 thus the trees of the varieties grown find quite space enough in thirty feet. 



Plan, of Phinthif/ — There are two general styles of orchard plantings, the 

 hexagonal and the square. Fig. 12 represents a plat planted on the hexagonal plan. 

 The rows are twenty-eight and one-half feet apart three ways, while the trees are 

 thirty-three feet apart. Fig. 13 represents a plat planted on the square plan. The 

 rows are thirty-two feet apart at right angles. Even at the closer distance in this 

 latter plan there are less trees to the acre. With rows farther apart, there would 

 be about the same relative difference between the numbers of trees per acre on 

 the separate plans. 



Fig. 12. 52 trees. 33 feet apart. 



