Page 6 



BETTER FRUIT 



Decenibti- 



had been done to upset the normal 

 course of events in the tree. The case 

 presented is that of a single branch, 

 or several branches, immediately sur- 

 rounded by the effects of a particular 

 type of pruning and yet neither having 

 received a stinudus from the pruning 

 itself or an intlucnce from the new 

 vegetative growth resulting from it. So 

 far as results are concerned, they may 

 be compared with those following the 

 occurrence of a frost in some region. 

 Because of elevation or location, killing 

 temperatures are not reached and vcge- 

 lalion is not injured in a paiticular 

 orchard, though neighboring orchards 

 possessing the same kind of soil, con- 

 taining the same varieties, swept by the 

 .same prevailing winds and falling with- 

 in the same general storm ai-eas may 

 have their new growth entirely de- 

 stroyed. Another particular orchard 

 receives no benefit from a rain coming 

 at a critical time, if just before reach- 

 ing the orchard the path of the storm is 

 turned in another direction by a mom- 

 entary shift in the air currents. Simi- 

 larly a particular limb is apparently 

 little benefited or injured by the prun- 

 ing shears or saw that greatly injures 

 or benefits, or even entirely removes, 

 the surrounding or neighboring limbs. 

 All have seen examples of the point tliat 

 is made here in old ti-ees of one species 

 or another that were being top-woi-keil, 

 where the to])-working was being dis- 

 tributed over a period of several years. 

 The heavy pruning that such trees re- 

 ceive, incident to the top-working pro- 

 cess, usually is not retlected to any ap- 

 preciable extent in a changed manner 

 of growth on the part of the ungrafted 

 limbs. On the contrary, the influence of 

 the heavy pruning is apparently mainly 

 limited to an area close to the point of 

 insertion of the scions. This seems to 

 be true not only for the first season, but 

 for as long as the tree remains in a par- 

 tially top-worked condition. 



Evidence From the Type of Pruning 



That Entirely Removes a Few 



Large Limbs. 



If (here is a type of pruning that lies 

 at the opposite extreme from the cutting 

 back to stubs of a number of large limbs 

 for purposes of grafting and at the 

 same time leaving one or more large 

 limbs uninjured to help temporarily to 

 maintain a balance between top and 

 root, it probably consists in the entire 

 removal of one or more comparatively 

 large limb.s, the majority of the limbs 

 being left uni)runed. This mav be con- 

 sidered a kind of bulk thinning. In a 

 way it is the converse of the bulk head- 

 ing back practiced in dehorning. Few 

 will fail to recognize it as a type of 

 pruning commonly employed by many 

 fruit gi-owers. It at least i)ossesses the 

 advantage of requiring Utile labor. At 

 first thoughl one might imagine that if 

 bulk heading hack influences only cer- 

 tain parts of the tree and not the tree as 

 a whole, certainly bulk thinning out 

 should operate in an opposite manner. 

 However, let us see whether or not it 

 doe.s. When a single large lindj is re- 

 moved from almost any part of a tree, 

 watersprouls develop to take its place! 

 and the rest of the tree top continues to 



grow much as though no pruning had 

 been given. Attention is again called 

 to the point of origin of these water- 

 sprouts. They spring, in the main, not 

 from limbs far removed from the prun- 

 ing wound, but close to where the cut 

 was made. There is an unmistakable 

 respon.se to the bulk thinning, but that 

 response is evident within a very lim- 

 ited area. The tree as a whole does not 

 show it. 



Those who have intentionally or 

 unintentionall>' permitted a leader to 

 develop for a number of years and 

 form close-centered trees and have then 

 tried to train them as open-centered or 

 va,se-.shaped trees can furnish abundant 

 evidence on the queslion under discus- 

 sion. The removal of Ihe central leader 

 from trees of Ibis kind (bulk heading 

 back or bulk thinning out, depending 

 upon the form of the tree and where 

 the cut is made), is almost always fol- 

 lowed by the production of a number 

 of watersprouls that attempt to take 

 the place of the removed leader. The 

 subsequent removal of these water- 

 sprouts is followed by the production 

 of still other watersprouls, nearly 

 always springing from points near the 

 wound left by the removal of the 

 leader. On the other hand, the un- 

 pruned branches of the tree seem to be 

 little influenced by the cutting out of 

 the leader. 



What has just been said regarding the 

 bulk pruning of old trees apparently 

 holds true for younger trees, though 

 perhaps to not quite the same degree. 

 When trees that have not yet reached 

 hearing age, or that are just coming 

 into bearing, have one of their larger 

 liml)s entirely removed in order to train 

 them to a desired shape, new shoots 

 usually start to lake the places of the 

 limbs that have been cut out. Those 

 who have had any considerable exjjeri- 

 ence in attempting to develop open- 

 centered Yellow Newtown apples or 

 Barllett or Anjou pears, or close-cen- 

 tered Mcintosh apples or Winter Nelis 

 pears, know how diflicull it is to keep 

 shoots and limbs from growing up in 

 the center in the first instance, and 

 from spreading out and even growing 

 down in the second, by simply culling 

 them out or off; and, what is of e(|ual 

 or greater importance, make the other 

 shoots and lindjs of these same trees 

 s]jread out or grow ujiright, as the case 

 may be, and thus profit by the food 

 materials thai it is desired to divert 

 from the closely pruned parts. In fact, 

 so persistent are Ihe walersprouls in 

 attempting to replace removed lind)s 

 that mixny careful growers are coming 

 to realize thai the easiest way to de- 

 velop an open-centered tree is not to 

 cut out all of Ihe growlh in the center, 

 but rather to simply sui)prcss it b.\' 

 pruning it a lillle more severely than 

 the surrounding branches that are de- 

 sired to form the main framework of 

 Ihe tree. Kven then it is to be doubled 

 if Ihe normal growlh of the remaining 

 blanches is materially changed. Simi- 

 larly, when young trees are lighth, or 

 even heavily, headed back, new slmols 

 are sent oul, but mainly froTU i)oinls 

 where some of them can easily rejihu e 

 Ihe portion removed. It is not usual for 



distant portions of the tree to show a 

 clear cut response to the pruning. 



It may be argued that when the thin- 

 ning out and heading back that are 

 usually afl'orded very young trees is 

 practiced, the tree as a whole responds 

 to the treatment — sometimes nearly 

 every bud starting to vegetate. Without 

 doubt such trees are influenced as a 

 whole by the pruning given them, but 

 it nmst be renuMubered that every part 

 of such trees is pruned; and that prob- 

 ably the tree is influenced as a whole 

 only because each part is separately and 

 distinctly influenced. 



Evidence From Spur Pruning. 



Also bearing on this same question 

 are Ihe results Ihat are obtained from 

 what ndght be termed "spur pruning." 

 As they become older, some varieties of 

 apple and pear trees are very prone to 

 develoi) large numbers of fruit spurs, 

 spurs that oflen branch and rebranch 

 until they become fruit spur clusters 

 rather than individual spurs. If more 

 or less neglected, such trees finally 

 reach the state where they make hardly 

 any new shoot growth, [jraclically their 

 entire energies being absorbed by their 

 fruit spur systems. I'sually when there 

 are such large nundjers of fruit spurs 

 but a comparatively small percentage 

 can flower and fruit in any single sea- 

 son, and the record of any single spur, 

 or even spur cluster, especially in the 

 older parts of the tree, would show 

 very irregular fruiting. .Such trees pre- 

 sent a condition in which, though there 

 is little of what we conuuonly speak of 

 as vegetative growth, nearly all of the 

 energies of the tree are really being 

 absoibed in a slow vegetative growth 

 of the spurs. The engineer would say 

 that the fiuiting machine is so large and 

 complicated that nearly all the power 

 is required to overcome friction; conse- 

 ftuently but a small portion of a full 

 load can be carried. The economist 

 would say that it is an instance of the 

 trees using up most of their income in 

 their own overhead charges. Such of 

 course is recognized as the condition 

 that many seek to remedy by dehorning 

 or by some other type of bulk pruning. 

 That bulk pruning is only a partial 

 remedy has already been pointed oul. 

 Some have seen Ihe experiment tried of 

 removing a part of the spurs from such 

 frees — a half, or Iwo-thirds, or even 

 Ihrec-fourths of them. As Ihe spurs 

 possess a very large percentage of the 

 normal growing points and bear practi- 

 cally all Ihe leaf system of a tree in 

 such a condition, if will readily be seen 

 Ihat such a thinning of spurs is really 

 Ihe e(|uivalenl of a heavy pruning, ex- 

 ce|)f perhaps in Ihe total weight of wood 

 tissue removed. Treated in this way, 

 ti-ees do not i)rodnce watersi)rouls, as 

 Ihey do when dehorning or the removal 

 of a few large branches lakes away an 

 eciuivalenl number of growing points. 

 In fad. Ihey i)roduce very few water- 

 sprouls. However, the remaining spurs 

 show ,1 much more vigorous giowth 

 ;nid the new shoot growth that develops 

 from normal laleial and lerndnal buds 

 is much longer and more vigorous. The 

 net resull is Ihaf the free is changed 

 Continued on page 28 



