THE MONTHLY BULLETIN, 359 



Climate, in the three phases just discussed, light, heat and moisture, 

 greatly modifies the bloom on fruits. The bloom of fruit does not 

 differ from that of poppies, of Avhieh the poet says "You seize the 

 flower, the bloom is shed. ' ' Nevertheless, it greatly adds to the beauty 

 of the product if present in any considerable amount and modifies 

 the color favorably despite the absurd practice of rubbing off the 

 bloom practiced by many in exhibiting. Bloom is a valuable asset to 

 fruit and should be increased and preserved. 



Nothing is more certain than that the character of the soil influences 

 the color of fruit. Every fruit grower with any considerable number 

 of trees of one variety must have noticed that the fruit on some trees 

 is better colored than that from other trees. Not infreqiiently most 

 striking differences can be found in orchards located but a few miles 

 apart. Yet what it is in soils that influences color is not well under- 

 stood. From the evidence now at hand, it seems that color effects 

 must be due to physical conditions as soil-heat, aeration and drainage, 

 all of which would help in causing the crop to mature early and 

 thoroughly. With the single exception of nitrogen, none of the baker's 

 dozen of elements made use of by plants under ordinary conditions 

 exercise a decided influence on the color of fruits. The belief is current 

 that orchard products are poorly colored on acid soils and that adding 

 lime will cause them to take on brighter hues, but there seems to be 

 no experimental confirmation of such effects of acid and alkali soils. 

 A half-dozen fertilizer experiments with fruits might be cited to show 

 that fertilizers do not favorably affect the colors of this fruit. 



In particular, the popular generalization that "potash paints fruits," 

 common in the press and reiterated on every pfige of fertilizer adver- 

 tising literature, finds no verification in fertilizer experiments with 

 fruits. There is a great abundance of observational evidence to show 

 that nitrogen, especially Avhen applied in stable manure and nitrog- 

 enous cover-pots turned over, cause a lessening of intensity in color. 

 If the position be well taken that color comes vnth maturity and the 

 death of cells, it would be expected that nitrogen would decrease 

 color, since its use generally promotes and prolongs growth and delays 

 maturity of apples. 



This leads to the statement that usually whatever increases the 

 growth of fruits is antagonistic to high coloring. Nothing more 

 strikingly illustrates this than the difference in color and size of fruits 

 grown on tilled and sodded land. As everj^ one know^s, fruits grown 

 in sod are smaller, more highly colored and mature earlier than those 

 grown on tilled land. Were it not for the fact that sod culture greatly 

 lowers the productiveness of an orchard, this means of increasing 

 color might be recommended. So, too, fruits grown on diseased, girdled, 

 injured or very old trees are usually smaller and more highly colored 

 than that from normal plants. Fruit is almost always better colored 

 on trees in which the growth is short, stout and firm and on which the 

 leaves are neither conspicuously abundant or overly luxuriant. 



A sailor drinking beer from one hand and whiskey from the other 

 was asked why he thus mixed his drinks. His reply was that if he 

 drank only whiskey, he became drunk too soon ; if only beer, he became 

 full too soon. But when he took a drink of one and then of the other, 

 he got just the right proportions of fullness and drunkenness. It seems 



