356 THE MONTHLY BULLETIN. 



varieties of their kinds. Certainly no one wants to make two bites at 

 a cherry, strawberry, or any of the small fruits. Large size in fruit 

 is often poor economy whether on the fruitstand, in the hotel or for 

 the home, for a small or medium fruit frequently answers the same 

 purpose that a larger one would. 



Not always, but often, undue size in any variety is accompanied 

 by inferior quality. This is especially true if size has been brought 

 about by much water in which case the fruit may actually be said 

 to be bloated. The highly flavored solids of the normally grown fruit 

 are diluted or adulterated with water. So, too, extra large specimens 

 of tree or small fruits in which size is attained by high feeding or by 

 such abnormal practices as ringing, usually lack in quality. From all 

 this we must conclude that while a good large fruit vasiy be better 

 than a good small fruit, yet if in the large fruit there is a falling off 

 in quality it at once loses value. 



It is true, however, that some of the varieties of our tree fruits 

 might be increased in size to advantage and the value of many grapes 

 and small fruits Avould be much enhanced by greater size. Thus, it 

 becomes a matter of importance to know how to increase the size of 

 fruits, should we so desire. The task is not difficult. Generally 

 speaking, whatever increases tree growth gives greater size in the 

 product. To be specific, the application of nitrogenous fertilizers, plow- 

 ing under leguminous cover-crops, frequent and long continued culti- 

 vation, these acting singly or associatively will increase the size of 

 fruits. Another way by attaining greater size is by restricting the top 

 of the plant by heavy pruning, thus getting greater growth in the 

 parts that remain. Lastly, most commonly, and best means of all, 

 the size of almost all fruits can be greatly increased by judicious 

 thinning, an orchard operation so generally used that it needs no 

 further discussion here. 



The comparative value of color and quality in fruits is a subject 

 of never-ending discussion. We can all agree that both are necessary 

 in first class market fruits, but often a choice must be made between 

 the two. Which then? To my mind there should be no question 

 about the supremacy of quality over color, but consumers discriminate 

 in favor of bright colors. Thus, red apples are preferred to yellow, 

 green and russet varieties — the latter, side by side with red sorts no 

 better in quality, go begging for buyers. Fruit is bought to eat. What 

 a paradox to buy that which is hardly fit to eat because it is brilliantly 

 colored. This unjust discrimination comes about because red is more 

 attractive to the eye of most people and because of a very general 

 misconception that color is correlated with quality. Red apples have 

 thus become the fashion with consumers, and must, therefore, be pro- 

 duced by growers. Are brilliantly colored apples of better quality than 

 those of subdued hues ? 



Some say that high quality goes with high color — that is, with 

 bright reds, crimsons, or scarlets or in patterns striped with these 

 colors; others say ''handsome but poor," indicating a belief in a 

 correlation of high quality and low color. But a consideration of 

 varieties shows at once that there are no correlations between color 

 and quality. The hungry man who knows apples will say grace with 

 just as much unction over a green Newtown, a Golden Russet or a 



