32 Journal of Agriculture, Victoria. [10 Jan., 191V 



pruning this question, the better plan would be to cut at (c), and work 

 back gradually to ((/), with a view to developing the dormant buds below 

 that point. Fig. 7 grew to (a), and next to (6), but instead of allowing it 

 to extend from (6) upwards last year, it should have been cut back in the 

 two-year-old wood to {d). By this means the sap, that went to make 

 superfluous wood, would have been utilized to build up the fruit spurs 

 ou the three-year-old wood below [d). Probably the best cut this year 

 would be {d), or the specimen might be cut at (c), and subsequently worked 

 back as explained in connexion with Hg. 6. Fig. 8 is somewhat similar 

 to Fig. 7, except that there are no short growths on its two-year-old 

 wood. It is a good example oi the fallacy of allowing the laterals to be- 

 come too long through want of careful management and knowledge of 

 their treatment. The lettering on this specimen may be followed simi 

 larly to Fig. 7. As a lateral makes its yearly extensions, the strongest 

 and best fruit buds are usually faund to be on the two-year-old wood, near 

 the current year's growth. This happens in consequence of the fruit 

 buds in that position receiving a greater quantity of the elaborated sap, 

 from the leaves of the young wood growths on its return flow, than the 

 buds near the base of the lateral. Hence the necessity for maintaining 

 the extensions, if any, near the points where the fruit buds and spurs 

 are desired. 



Plate 57 shows four specimens of Jonathan laterals which are of a 

 good type, but they have arrived at that stage, like those in plate 56, 

 when it is necessary to shorten them back in order to obtain the best 

 fruit- bearing results from them in the future. The tree from which they 

 were taken has been kept regularly pruned, but the operator evidently 

 lacks that knowledge which would have enabled him to complete his work 

 in a scientific manner, as he allowed these laterals to remain unpruned 

 this year. Fig. 1 grew off the leader to (a), where it fruited on the ter- 

 minal bud, and extended to (6), during the second year. Then it length- 

 ened to (c), where it again fruited on the terminal bud, and also grew to 

 {d). The growth which was made from [d) upwards was cut at (e) last year, 

 and the result was the two yearling growths on top. When pruned at (f) 

 last year the correct cut \vould have been (/(). This treatment would have 

 resulted in conserving the sap for the use of the fruit spurs, marked (x), 

 which are a nice distance from the leader, and have been fruiting for the 

 last two years. Had the .person who cut at (e) last year again pruned this 

 year, he would probably have pruned to the wood buds (/and^). This 

 would still further exaggerate the evil by opening up the young sap 

 channels, and producing more wood on top at the expense of the fruit 

 spurs. It is obvious that, having been neglected on the last occasion, (/;) 

 would have been the proper cut this year. Fig. 2 fruited on a short growth 

 at (a), after which it grew to (6, c), and to the point during the next 

 succeeding three years respectively. Last year it should have been cut 

 back to (d) in the then two-year-old wood, failing which it should have 

 been pruned at that point during the last pruning season. Fig. 3 was 

 cut too short in the yearling wood at («) five years ago. It extended to (6), 

 and fruited on that point the following year, and also lengthened to (c). 

 The portion of wood above (c) is three years old. This lateral might have 

 been cut back to (d) about 10 inches long at last pruning time. Fig. 4 

 was cut back at (a) into the two-year-old wood to a fruit bud, as recom- 

 mended in the case of Figs. 1, 2, 3, and 4, plate 36. Instead of retain- 

 ing its fruitfulness, however, this bud made the yearling growth above 

 {h) in consequence of the sap pressure put on to it. Probably no further 



