300 Report of the Horticultural Department of the 



average yield of marketable fruit per tree and the percentage of 

 it which graded No. i or No. 2, as the case may be: 



Table II. — Fruits Thinned to Four Inches Apart; Inferior and 

 Defective Fruits Removed. 



YIELD OF barrel FRUIT PER TREE, 1896. 



With this method Baldwins gave 26 per ct. less fruit fit for bar- 

 reling, but 22 per ct. more of it graded No. i than did the fruit 

 from the unthinned Baldwins. The unthinned trees gave about 

 three times as many culls as did the thinned trees. That is to 

 say, although the unthinned trees carried over a fourth more 

 fruit, they actually yielded one and one-quarter bushels less No. i 

 fruit per tree than did the thinned trees. With the thinned 

 Greenings even a larger proportion of the barrel fruit graded 

 No. I. They yielded only one bushel more per tree of No. i and 

 No. 2 combined, but two and one-third bushels more No. i fruit 

 than did the unthinned Greenings. These Greenings were so 

 heavily loaded that it was necessary to prop the branches in 1895. 

 In 1896 they set only a fairly good crop and did not need thin- 

 ning nearly so much as did the Baldwins, which were overbur- 

 dened with fruit. The consequence was that in 1896 the Green- 

 ing fruit was very fine and especially so where it had been 

 thinned. 



With all three methods thinning the apples in 1896 gave fruit 

 of quality which was distinctly superior to that of the unthinned 

 fruit. Mr. Wilson estimated that the thinned fruit would bring 

 from 10 per ct. to 15 per ct. more in market than the same grade 

 of corresponding unthinned fruit. The superiority was seen not 

 only in the improvement in each grade, but in the proportionately 



