THE FARiMER'S MAGAZINE. 



lio 



ON A NEW METHOD OF PLANTING HEDGES. 



By AxDKEW Tait, Bankhouse, Penicuilc, Land Steward to the Eight Hon. Sir George Clerk, of Penicuik, Bart. 



LBremium — The Silver Medal.] 



Among the many improvements recently adopted in the 

 art of agriculture, thoroiigh-ilraiuing stands pre-embient. 

 Whether considered as a means of multiplying the food of 

 man or animals, extirpating noxious weeds, or improving 

 the quality of grasses, its value is incalculable. In addi- 

 tion to results so favourable, a considerable saving of seed 

 is secured, a greater regularity in the germination, growth, 

 and ripening of produce; and, what is of great importance, 

 stock is allowed to depasture readily upon land which for- 

 merly was obnoxious by its moist and spongy character. 

 ^( But the benefits arising from this process, when combined 

 with subsoil-trenching, are rendered both more numerous 

 and efficacious. From recent experiments it has been found 

 that, by this combiuation, a greater mass of the soil is pul- 

 verized, and a freer aeration is allowed to take jilace, which 

 is necessary to supply the plant with food indispensable to 

 its full nourishment and growth. It may also be observed, 

 that such operations modify the climate and temperature 

 of the soil, and thereby be!ter maintain the healthy con- 

 dition of the plant. 



Upon the advantages thus accruing from drainage to 

 vegetation in general, it occurred to the writer of this paper 

 that with ecpial success the same principles might be 

 adopted in the rearing of hedges. He accordingly tried the 

 experiment in a iield, the soil of which is of a tilly nature. 

 Its altitude is 700 ft^t above the level of the sea, with 

 a north-westerly exposure, and void of shelter. This he did 

 by causing a drain to be dug 4 feet deep, using l^-inch 

 pipes and collars, and the margins to be trenched 2 feet in 

 ■width on each side, and to the depth of about 20 inches. 

 A bed for the thorn-plants was then taken out, and they 

 were planted, 4 inches apart, immediately above, and in a 

 direct line with, the pipes. The field had been previously 

 thorough-drained to the depth of 4 feet, and the drains were 

 distant 9 yards from each other. The hedge-drain was 

 placed half-way between the field-drains ; and in order to 

 test the efficacy of the plan, one-half of the line of fence 

 was trenched 5 feet wide, without a drain ; and there being 

 an inequality of the surface, it was supplemented with soil 

 from another part of the field. 



In comparing the two hedges, we shall suppose No, 1 to 

 represent the portion having the drain below the plants, and 

 No, 2 the other method. 



The hedges were both planted on the 12th April, 1858, 

 and were cut over at the height of from 5 to 6 inches in 

 November following; and at the present date (October 

 22nd, 1859) the greatest length of the young shoots of No. 

 1 is 3 feet lO.J inches, with a thickness of three-eighths of 

 an inch; while that of No, 2 is 3 feet 7 inches, with a 

 thiclniess of five-sixteenths of an inch. The medium length 

 of nine measured shoots of No. 1 is 3 feet 6| inches; and 

 of No. 2, 3 feet I5 inch. Upon examination of the roots, 

 it was found that No. 1 sent these downwards to a depth of 

 24 inches, while the fibres of No. 2 inclined to run more 

 horizontally, their greatest depth being 17 inches. Imme- 

 diately above the drain the soil was quite moist, while that 

 of No. 2 was dry. The tlioma of No. 1 sent out shoots I 



from the surface of the ground to the top, where the plants 

 were cut, and No. 2 had the whole of the shoots springing 

 from near the tvp of the old stem. The under-shoots of 

 No. 1 tend to grow horizontally, while those of No. 2 take 

 a slanting direction, leaving the old stem quite exposed. 



The cost, compared with that of a hedge planted on the 

 edge of a ditch, will be found in favour of the new plan> 

 when the first cost and keeping up of the ditch are taken 

 into account, besides the saving of ground occupied by it. 

 It may be observed that this drain will stand for one of the 

 common drains of a field, and should not, therefore, be 

 charged to the hedge ; but we will assume that the fields on 

 each side of the proposed fence have been already drained, 

 and that the drain dug for the hedge is unnecessary for the 

 proper drainage of the field, in which case the whole ex- 

 pense would then fall on the fence. The cost per rod of a 

 hedge planted in this manner, reckoning pipe and collar to 

 cost, including cai'riage, 30s, per thousand, and two-year 

 bedded thorns, 123. per thousand, viz. : — 



s. d; 

 Cutting and filling drain and laying pipes . 10 

 14 pipes and collars, at 30s. per thousand . 5 

 Trenching 20 inches deep, 5 feet wide , .04 

 50 thorn-plants, at 12s. per thousand . .07 

 Planting do 2^ 



2 4^ 



Or not including cost of drain. Is. Hd,; while the old me- 

 thod of hedge and ditch will cost the following, viz. :— 



s, d. 



Cutting ditch 18 



50 thorn-plants, at 123. per thousand . .07 

 Plantino do 2i 



In summing up the advantages of this method, it may be 

 reasonably expected that the i^lant will have a more equal 

 supply of moisture. Even in a dry season, the air passing 

 up the pipe, and acting with that of the atmosphere above, 

 will cause moisture to circulate through the soil by capillary 

 attraction. The roots, by the trenching, have an increased 

 space to seek for nourishment. Moreover, a saving, as has 

 been already stated, is obtained in the drainage of the field, 

 and less ground occupied than by the old method of hedge 

 and ditch. From the equalization of temperature thus 

 produced in the soil, the plant will be more vigorous in 

 spring, and better enabled to send forth strong and healthy 

 shoots. 



The appearance of the two hedges on the 2Gtli October. 

 1860, still shows a decided superiority in favour of No, [ 

 The strength of its stems, the number and length of the 

 young shoots proceeding from these in lateral, sloping, and 

 vertical directions, together with the density of the lower 

 part of the hedge No. 1, furnish the most convincing proof 

 of its more rapid growth, when contrasted with that part of 

 the hedge designated No. 2. A few measurements just 

 taken on the spot will serve to support the above assertions, 

 although the apparent smallness of difference of these in 



