BETTER FRUIT 



AN ILLUSTRATED I\L\GAZIN'E PUBLISHED MONTHLY IN THE INTEREST OE MODERN. PROGRESSIVE FRUIT GROWING AND MARKETING 



Consideration of the "Bulk" Pruning Question 



By V. R. Gardner, Professor of Pomology, Oregon Agricultural College, Corvallis 



ANYONE who h;is had occasion to 

 make a somewhat carcl'ul survey 

 of literature pertaining to prun- 

 ing fruittrees realizes the iinprohahiiity, 

 if not almost the impossihility, of ad- 

 vancing an entii'cly new idea on the 

 subject. It has been discussed so often 

 that something has been said on almost 

 every phase of the ([uestion. Further- 

 more, the literature on pruning shows 

 that there is hardly any practice fol- 

 lowed, or any theory held, about which 

 there are not opposite views. It may 

 almost be said that the literature of 

 pruning is very largely a record of 

 oi)inions formed, of views held, rather 

 than a record of facts ascertained and 

 principles established. Wiat is needed 

 in a dinicult field like that of pruning 

 is, first, the collection of a large body 

 of facts — facts that are presented just 

 as Ihey are found, uncolored by any 

 opinions or theories regarding their ex- 

 planation. Once in possession of such 

 a large body of facts, it should be pos- 

 sible carefully to analyze and interpret 

 them. Perhaps it is too much to expect 

 Ihat we may learn all that they have 

 to teach, but certainly there should be 

 a few lessons that we can draw from 

 them. Fortunately we are not entirely 

 without data legarding certain i)runing 

 operations. The dillicully has been Ihat 

 in too many cases the amount avail- 

 able has been too small to warrant 

 the conclusions that have been reached. 

 Sometimes, too, a large amount of evi- 

 dence has led to erroneous conclusions 

 because considered from unfortunate 

 points of view, or because closely re- 

 lateil facts have not been taken into 

 consideration. Viewpoint is often as 

 important lo a correct inter])retalion of 

 evidence as is the accunudalion of addi- 

 tional data that bear on the (piestion. 



11 is not the intention in this ai'ticle to 

 present a lai'ge body of new data. Time 

 is not available for a detailed presenta- 

 tion of all the evidence, nor is it neces- 

 sary in this instance. The illustrations 

 cited are simply representative of exam- 

 pies that v^ithoul doubt the reader has 

 seen duplicated in many orchards in 

 many parts of the countrx-. In other 

 words, the full body of facts here called 

 in evidence includes the observations 

 and experiences of many fmiit growers 

 and investigaloi's. The object of the 

 article is rather to suggest a point of 

 view for a consideration of (his evi- 

 dence. It is not claimed that il is a new 

 point of view, but il is one that without 

 doubt is given too little consideration 

 by those directing, or engaged in, prun- 

 ing oui- orchard trees. 



Pruning Considered As an Operation 

 Affecting the Tree As a Whole. 

 In pruning practice and in the con- 

 sideration of pruning probleuLs, outside 

 of those dealing with the healing of 

 wounds, most people look upon pruning 

 as something directly affecting the tree 

 as a whole. We speak of pruning this 

 tree heavily and that one lightly; of 

 heading back one and thinning out an- 

 other; of winter pruning in one instance 

 and summer pruning in another. We 

 say that a certain tree that has been 

 neglected for a number of years re- 

 ([uires a heavy pruning to bring it back 

 to a vigorous productive condition. Such 

 a statement is made regardless of the 

 fact that while possibly certain parts 

 of the tree should be pruned heavily, 

 certain other parts should be pruned 

 lightly, if at all. Taking it for granted 

 that heavy pruning is synonymous with 

 large cuts and much brush left on the 

 ground, we proceed to do rather heroic 

 work. If a tree thus pruned fails to 

 attain quickly the vigorous productive 

 condition we have in mind as an ideal, 

 we wonder why the result has not been 

 satisfactory, especially when general 

 o])inion seemed to be that heavy prun- 

 ing was required. On the other hand, 

 when it is decided that another tree 

 i-equires only a light pruning, we pro- 

 ceed to take out only a very few 

 branches, and consider it fortunate that 

 so little work is required. If such a 

 pruning is attended by some of the re- 

 sults usually accompanying a heavy 

 pruning again we wonder why. These 

 statements, which will be recognized as 

 based upon very general experience, 

 serve to illustrate the fact that |)runing 

 is looked upon as a kind of l)ulk iirob- 

 lem — as something which is decided 

 upon for the tree as a whole, done to 

 the tree as a whole, and to which the 

 tree as a whole responds. It is some of 

 tlie negative evidence on this question 

 with which this article is mainly con- 

 cerned. 



Evidence From the Results Following 

 "Dehorning." 

 Everyone who has had much experi- 

 ence in pruning fruit trees, and many 

 who have been simply casual observers, 

 have seen trees that have been more or 

 less severely cut back or "deliorned," as 

 it is called when the cutting back has 

 been very heavy. In fact, this is the 

 kind of pruning with whicli some peo- 

 ple ai'e best ac(|uainted. The type of 

 growth that almost invariably follows 

 such pruning is well known. If the 

 dehorning has been done in winter or 

 early spring, numerous couii)aratively 

 upright shoots will be i)roduced during 

 the following summer. The usual prac- 



tice is to thin out these shoots and head 

 back those that are left, the idea being 

 to develop as quickly as possible new 

 fruiting branches. Thus is the tree re- 

 invigorated — "rejuvenated." So well is 

 this procedure undeistood that we re- 

 gard as practically settled the questions 

 as to when and how to rejuvenate our 

 trees. We assume that the tree as a 

 whole responds to the treatment given, 

 and there the matter rests. But does 

 the tree as a whole respond? And is 

 the whole matter to be thus summarily 

 dismissed? Even a cursory examina- 

 tion of a tree that has been recently 

 dehorned shows that only a part of the 

 tree has responded. Because it happens 

 to be the part upon which we have, 

 tlirough habit, come to focus our atten- 

 tion makes it none the less a part, 

 and not the whole tree. Undisturbed 

 branches in the lower part of the de- 

 horned tree usually continue to grow in 

 the ordinary way. As a rule their spurs 

 bear flowers and fruit no more regu- 

 larly and yield a product of no better 

 grade than before. Their older spurs 

 and smaller fruiting branches are 

 nearly as prone as ever to become 

 gradually weaker and die. Apparently 

 neither as whole branches nor in their 

 separate parts have these branches in 

 the lower part of the tree been acceler- 

 ated or retai'ded in growth. The chances 

 are that they have not even produced 

 watersijrouts, such as have developed 

 so abundantly on the dehorned branches 

 above them. In other words, there is 

 an important portion of the tree, often 

 its most important i)ortion, that has 

 apparently not been affected by the de- 

 horning, either for better or for worse. 

 Though the tree as a whole has been 

 I)runed heavily, a large part of the tree 

 has not felt the inlluence of the pruning. 

 Dehorning has not rejuvenated the 

 whole ti-ee; if has resulted merely in 

 the production of new wood to replace 

 a portion of the old fop. 



Evidence From Results Following 

 Partial "Dehorning." 



l^ven moi-e striking evidence on this 

 ((ueslion of the distance to which the 

 inlluence of pruning extends is fur- 

 nished b,\ trees Ihat have i)een parlialh 

 dehorned, i.e., have had a portion of 

 their branches cut back very severely 

 and other branches of equal size and 

 Ihat reached to an ecpial height left 

 unlouclicd. In sucli instances what we 

 have come to regard as the character- 

 istic results of dehorning usually arc 

 limited ahnosi entirelv lo the branches 

 thai have been cut back. These branches 

 give rise to watersprouts in abundance, 

 but the unpruned branch continues to 

 grow and function as though nothing 



