Page 8 



BETTER FRUIT 



October 



many methods, all of which have their 

 supporters; only a few will be taken 

 up. It is now five years since the 

 Oregon Experiment Station tried the 

 first experiment on what may be 

 called early summer pruning and first 

 recommended it for limited trial 

 pending its success. Personally, I be- 

 lieve this idea can be recommended 

 with confidence for use on young vig- 

 orous trees and those just coming into 

 bearing. Briefly, the method is as fol- 

 lows: When the new growth has at- 

 tained a length several inches more 

 than the branch would be left after a 

 winter pruning of it at the end of the 

 season, cut it back into wood which is 

 firm and on which the leaves are as 

 far apart as they would be at full ma- 

 turity. Usually this means the re- 

 moval of several inches to a foot or 

 even more of growth. Generally such 

 a pruning will come from the fore part 

 of June to the fore part of July, de- 

 pending on locality. The effect of 

 such cutting back varies according to 

 variety and vegetative vigor of the 

 tree. To be successful it is expected 

 that two or three buds on each branch 

 will break and form shoots from six 

 to possible some thirty inches long by 

 fall, while below these there will prob- 

 ably be several shorter shoots or spurs 

 pushed out. In other words, instead 



of having one very long shoot by fall, 

 it will be in much the same condition 

 so far as branching is concerned, as it 

 would have been the year following. 

 This early summer pruning then is 

 similar to and takes the place of a 

 winter pruning. In a sense two years 

 have been combined into one. Of 

 course such a statement is compara- 

 tive, the result is not exactly the same. 



During the winter following such a 

 pruning, the secondary shoots which 

 have pushed out should be headed 

 back, if long, to the desired length, 

 and a liberal thinning given, while if 

 but a few inches of secondary growth 

 have been the result, either do not 

 prune at all except for thinning out 

 or merely tip back the terminals. This 

 tipping back is unnecessary in the case 

 of varieties which normally break sev- 

 eral buds but should not be neglected 

 with those, such as Spitzenburg, Ort- 

 ley, and Spy, which tend to break at 

 the terminals only and produce long, 

 slender, willowy shoots. It may prove 

 advisable to do such second tipping in 

 the fall just as length growth is ceas- 

 ing, but on this point data are now 

 lacking. 



What are the results of such prun- 

 ing? There are advantages and disad- 

 vantages, the former seemingly over- 

 balancing the latter. In the first place, 



as just pointed out, virtually two years 

 so far as form building is concerned, 

 are combined into one; excessive 

 heavy winter pruning is avoided; it is 

 possible to correct, to a very large de- 

 gree, the willowy spreading habit of 

 many trees; the shorter stock branches 

 resist the effect of the wind to greater 

 advantage, there is no production of 

 "crow nests" which often result from 

 pinching; and of greatest importance, 

 there is a more advantageous placing 

 and probably an increase of fruit 

 buds. This latter result is brought 

 about in two ways. First there may be 

 and often is a development of fruit 

 buds on the lower part of the pruned 

 shoot during the summer that the 

 pruning is done, and even more likely 

 so during the summer following when 

 this part of the shoot functions as if it 

 were a year older than it actually is. 

 And second, in the case of many of 

 those varieties that tend to produce 

 axillary buds far out toward the ter- 

 minus and which would be removed, 

 therefore, by the ordinary winter 

 pruning, may be retained since they 

 may have been induced to develop be- 

 low the summer cut or develop as 

 axillaries and terminals on the sec- 

 ondary shoots, the shorter of which 

 require no winter pruning. 



The method is also successful with 

 pears. I have in mind a number of 

 young pear trees on which virtually 

 the only immediate response from 

 such a summer pruning was the push- 

 ing out of the axillary buds a short 

 way and then producing fruit buds, 

 and a number of older pear trees, 

 which the owner tells me still show a 

 beneficial effect in fruit production 

 from such an experimental pruning 

 given several years ago. The method 

 is recommended also for use on trees 

 that have been top worked, and are 

 making a vigorous growth. For by it 

 considerable time may be saved in 

 shaping the new top and again bring- 

 ing it into bearing. 



The disadvantages urged against it 

 are that the secondary branches are 

 apt to be weak and form a poor angle 

 or crotch, that the tree becomes too 

 dense and twiggy, and that the pro- 

 cess is devitalizing. No one or all of 

 these suggestions is sufficiently seri- 

 ous to discourage the recommenda- 

 tion of early summer pruning, as a 

 general practice. It is true that on 

 some varieties the crotches the first 

 year are not so desirable as are those 

 resulting from winter pruning, but 

 this effect disappears in a year or two 

 and neither crotch nor branch can be 

 distinguished from any other except 

 that there are more fruit buds or spurs 

 present. The question of density is 

 easily regulated by thinning out either 

 during the summer or winter and in 

 this connection attention is again di- 

 rected to the relative merits of head- 

 ing back and thinning out. It cer- 

 tainly remains to be proven that the 

 system as recommended is devitaliz- 

 ing. It is true that excessive summer 

 pruning can be made a detrimental 

 practice, but there are many and sun- 



