New York Agricultural Experiment Station. 311 



2. does thinning affect the size of the fruit? 



Baldwin fruit in 1896 under the first method averaged much 

 better in size where it was thinned. Of the total fruit fit for 

 barreling it showed 70.3 per ct. No. i, as compared with 60.5 

 per ct. of No. i where unthinned, and the No. 2 grade showed 

 29.7 per ct. of thinned fruit as compared with 39.5 per ct. un- 

 thinned. There were about three times as many culls of 

 unthinned as of thinned fruit. Besides this it should be noticed 

 that each grade of thinned fruit averaged larger than the corre- 

 sponding grade of unthinned fruit. (See pp. 297, 298.) In 1898 

 the thinned Baldwin fruit averaged much larger than the un- 

 thinned. The unthinned fruit showed 100 per ct. more culls and 

 50 per ct. more drops than the thinned. Of the total thinned 

 fruit fit for barreling 85 per ct. graded No. i and but 15 per ct. 

 No. 2, while with the unthinned fruit 76.9 per ct. graded No. i 

 and 23.1 per ct. No. 2. The thinned fruit also averaged larger 

 in each grade than the unthinned did. (See pp. 298, 299.) 



With the second method in 1896 22 per ct. more of the barrel 

 fruit graded No. i with the thinned Baldwin than with the un- 

 thinned (p. 300). In 1898 the thinned fruit averaged medium 

 size, the unthinned small to medium size. Of the total thinmed 

 fruit which was fit for barreling 71.7 per ct. graded No. i, while 

 of that which was not thinned only 64.2 per ct, graded No. i 



(P- 303)- 



In 1899 the thinned fruit which was fit for barreling graded 

 'j'^ per ct. No. i, while the corresponding unthinned fruit graded 

 but 58.9 per ct. No. i (p. 305). 



Greenings under test with the second method were only fairly 

 well loaded in 1896, consequently even the unthinned fruit was 

 fine. Of the thinned fruit which was fit for barreling 88 per ct. 

 graded No. i, while of the corresponding unthinned fruit only 

 78.5 per ct. graded No. i (p. 300). The thinned fruit also aver- 

 aged larger in each grade than did the unthinned fruit. In 1897 

 the Greenings did not mature a good crop and the size of the 

 fruit was but little improved by thinning. T-he thinned fruit 

 showed only about 5 per ct. more in grade No. i than the un- 

 thinned fruit did. Again in 1898 the Greenings bore but a mod- 



