May 3, 1877. 1 



JOURNAL OP HORTIOOIiTDRB AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 



WEEKLY CALENDAR. 



FRUIT-TREE CULTURE. ! 



EXTENSION vEBScg EESTEICTION. [ 



^^^' DVOCATES of tlie extension system of frnit 

 trees — namely, trees allowed to assume their 

 natural habits, appear to ignore the fact that 

 the restrictive system, or trees conliued to a 

 given space by pruning and made to assume 

 various forms, is a necessity of culture rather j 

 than a matter of choice with a majority of 

 cultivators. What value is the extension : 

 system to the cultivator having only sufficient [ 

 ground for a few ti'ees as bushes or pyramids ? 

 Everyone has not ground for an orchard in which trees 

 may be grown in their natural form, needing little care nor 

 attention, for all that is needed is to plant and wait, with j 

 a certainty that some time fruit in quantity far exceeding 

 that from restricted trees will ensue ; but what of the qua- ! 

 lity ? None, I presume, having any idea of the quality of | 

 fruit will dispute the general injforiority of fruit produced , 

 by trees in an orchard when compared with that borne by | 

 ti-eea in highly cultivated ground. The former is usually 

 restricted to the commoner kinds, which may answer 

 general market, and at most in private gardens, culinary j 

 purposes ; it is from the restricted trees that the finest i 

 produce is had, because the trees are in positions — cli- 

 matic and cultural — more favourable for the production 

 of superior fruit. 



The orchard system if exclusively adopted would go 

 far to restrict variety and succession, and in a majority 

 of instances would impair the produce. Instance a Pear 

 or Plum tree against a wall of a cottage or farmhouse, 

 the owners of which have allowed the tree to go wild. 

 Such a tree it is true often produces large crops, but 

 it might as well, for any benefit derived from cultiva- 

 tion or warmth, be in the open as against the wall, and 

 if we take the trouble to examine we may find that the 

 kind is such as does well as a standard in an orchard. 

 Plainly such a tree did not require the shelter of the wall, 

 and it affords no evidence that extension is a necessity of 

 successful cultivation. Suppose the tree were a Pear, 

 say of Aston Town, Green Chisel, Heesel, Swan's Egg, 

 Jargonelle, or some other of the old popular kinds ; these 

 do well in orchards, and for such the warmth of the wall 

 is unnecessary, it being a well-known fact that undue 

 artificial warmth is productive of growth— sterihty rather 

 than fertility. But then, on the other hand, take Marie 

 Louise. Winter Nelis, or Bergamotte Eeperen allowed to 

 grow from a wall at will. Wliat kind of friiit will such 

 trees produce ? Not a whit better than that which trees 

 of the same kinds would produce as orchard trees, aud as 

 compared with trees restricted to the wall the fruit is not 

 worthy of mention only for its inferior quality and greater 

 quantity. 



It is clear if a Pear or a Plum tree afford as fine (which 

 I have not seen) fruit when its branches are allowed to 

 grow nnpruned from a wall as when its growth is re- 

 stricted that the place it occupies is misappropriated, but 

 it proves nothing of the greater advantage of the exten- 

 No. 840.-VOL. XXXU., Kev Sebie;, 



sion system over the restrictive. The object of growing 

 trees against walls is to secure fruit superior to what is 

 produced by trees Lu the open, or for the growth of such 

 kinds as do not succeed in the open ground. I have 

 seen in the open ground fruit of old hardy Pears fuUy 

 equal to any grown against a wall, but I have never yet 

 seen Marie Louise, Winter Nelis, Bergamotte Esperen, 

 and many more kinds of Pears so fine from unrestricted 

 orchard trees as from trees trained and cultivated against 

 a wall. Though Marie Louise bears well as a standard 

 or pyramid, aud when trained to a wood trellis one fruit 

 borne by a tree I have against a south wall is worth in 

 appearance — which goes a long way in fruit — in size and 

 quality half a dozen of the produce of the other trees, 

 Winter Nelis does not produce fruit at all as a standard 

 or pyramid, but does so finely upon a wall with an east 

 aspect. Bergamotte Esperen, one of the best late Pears, 

 gives fruit from a tree against a west wall twice the size 

 of fruit from pyramid trees. Out of fifty kinds of Pears 

 not a dozen could be mentioned affording fruit as fine 

 from standards as is borne by trees restricted to a wall. 

 Some trees, however, submit to restriction better than 

 others, of which may be mentioned Doyenne d'Ete, Jar- 

 gonelle, Beurre Giffard, Beurred'Amanlie, Wilhams's Bon 

 Chi-L'tien, White Doyenne, Flemish Beauty, Louise Bonne 

 of Jersey, Comte de Lamy, Seckle, Beurre Superfin, 

 General Todtleben, Gratioli of Jersey, Marie Louise, 

 Hacon's Incomparable, Thompson's, Beurre Diel, Passe 

 Colmar, Jules (Leon) d'Afroles (one of the most prohfic 

 November and December Pears), Knight's Monarch, Beurre 

 Bachelier, Glou Mor^eau, Beurre d'Aremberg, Josephine 

 de Malines, Winter Nelis, Zephiiiu Gregoire, Alexandre 

 Bivort, Dana's Hovey (small, but excellent), Bergamotte 

 Esperen, and Passe Crasanne. Many others are amen- 

 able to the restrictive system ; the only kinds demanding 

 extension are such which from their hardiness do not 

 require a wall. But what amateur, or many even who keep 

 gardeners, would care to allow space for a standard tree 

 giving its frnit in October when he can have half a dozen 

 trees in the same space which will afford him variety 

 and a succession of fruit from August to January ? Or 

 who would have one trained tree against a wall occupy- 

 ing as much space as is required by half a dozen covering 

 the same space in a sixth of the time? None, I think, if 

 they have tried the two systems. The advantage from 

 the first is all in favour of the restricted trees; they bear 

 throughout the whole of the space, and we obtain a result 

 in seven years from the six trees that is not shown by 

 the one tree in fourteen years. Big trees mean waste of 

 space, loss of time. 



I have trees against walls, trees against trellises in the 

 open, pyramids, young and old standards. It is not un- 

 common in such cases to compare the young trees — their 

 bearing qualities— with the full-sized standards—a com- 

 parison indeed of a dwarf with a slant, of the child with 

 the man. Comparisons are considered odious. No doubt 

 they are when facts upioot prejudice. To arrive at facts 

 by fair experiment plant standard trees and at the same 

 time plant pyramids. Treat the standard as a standard, 

 No. H82.— Vol. LVII., OtD SzBiKs. 



