92 



THE CANADIAN HORTICULTURIST 



April, 1913 



gallons mixture to control codling moth, 

 apple scab, curculio, etc. Our methods 

 of spraying were described in the last 

 issue of The Canadian Hroticulturist.) 



The results obtained in 191 1 were in 

 striking contrast to the small and indiff- 

 erent crops yielded in unsprayed and un- 

 cared for orchards of the same locality. 

 The quality of the fruit was exception- 

 ally high — -the percentage of number 

 one's Ix'ing raised from thirty to sixty 

 per cent, in 1908, 1909, and 1910, prior 

 to our having charge, to eighty-two to 

 eighty-.seven decimal six per cent, in 

 191 1. Further, ninety-eight per cent, 

 of 9II the apples packed in these or- 

 chards was absolutely free from any in- 

 sect pest or fungus disease. 



Mr. McConnell's orchard at Colborne 

 gave a net profit per acre of two hundred 

 and twelve dollars and eighteen cents ; 

 Mr. Noble's at Port Hope, fifty-seven 

 dollars and eighty-three cents; and Mr. 

 Nicholl's at Welcome, one hundred and 

 ninety-five dollars and twelve cents ; 

 while Mr. Stanley's at Bowmanville 

 shows a net loss of twelve dollars and 

 sixteen cents. The latter can be ac- 

 counted for by the fact that the orchard 

 was situated on a clay knoll with a 

 gravelly subsoil. The year 191 1 being 

 exceptionally dry, the fruit suffered very 

 severely from lack of moisture and cul- 

 tivation, which was not very thoroughly 

 done. Further, it was an off-year for 

 this orchard, particularly the Baldwins 

 and King's, which constituted two-fifths 

 of the trees. 



The orchards were again pruned — 

 more severely this time — in 1912. Some 

 very tall trees were cut back, or "de- 

 horned," to use a popular expression, 

 some five to twelve feet. The cuts were 

 painted as before with white lead and 

 raw linseed oil. 



The orchards received a coating of ten 

 tons of barnyard manure per acre, and 

 the orchard at Colborne was again treat- 

 ed to the same application of potash and 

 phosphate. The green crop was plough- 

 ed down early in the spring and the 

 orchards kept well cultivated up to the 

 middle of June, when another cover crop 

 of clover, hairy vetch, and buckwheat 

 was sown at practically the same rate 

 per acre as in the year previous. The 

 orchards were sprayed three times very 

 systematically and thoroughly — using 

 the same materials as the year before, 

 and spraying at the same time. 



Despite the poor year, as far as price 

 is concerned, the returns per acre might 

 be considered good. Mr. McConnell's 

 orchard gave a net profit of one hundred 

 and eight dollars sixty-three cents per 

 acre, less than half of the net returns 

 of igii, yet the number of barrels was 

 increased slightly. Mr. Noble's orchard 

 gave forty-eight dollars fifty-six rents 

 net profit per acre, and the number of 

 barrels was increased from one hundred 



and thity-one in igii to one hundred and 

 sixty-seven in 191 2. Mr. Nicholl's or- 

 chard gave ninety-four dollars eleven 

 cents, less than one-half of the net pro- 

 fit made in 191 1. Mr. Gibson's orchard 

 resulted in a net loss this year, the ex- 

 planation of which is given below. These 

 orchards were steadily going backward 

 prior to our having charge. Owing to 

 the aphis attacking the fruit during the 

 past season, the j>ercentage of number 

 one's was not quite so high, varying 

 from seventy-five per cent, to eighty-six 

 decimal eight per cent. Calculating 

 from our figures, we find that it will cost 

 the grower on the average about sixty 

 dollars to care for his orchard per acre 

 per year. This includes pruning, spray- 

 ing, manuring, cultivation, and cover 

 crop, but of course does not include rent 

 nor interest on investment. According 

 to our figures, the average net return 

 per acre for the three paying orchards, 

 under two years' treatment, was one 

 hundred and nineteen dollars ninety 

 cents. 

 "The old neglected orchard pays." 



Further Facts on Fertilizers 



(Continued from page 90) 

 loss per acre, one dollar fifty-one cents ; 

 in twos, loss one dollar eighty-five 

 cents ; in three or more, loss five dollars 

 twenty-one cents. 



In the bulletin mentioned are many 

 other crops, some showing loss, some a 

 gain ; some showing increase, but not 

 enough to prove of profit, and some 

 profitable. What the farmer or fruit 

 grower wants to know is, Does it pay? 

 From the above facts and the quotations 

 given, it can easily be seen that my con- 

 tention at first is well sustained, that 

 the problem is still baffling. 



Mr. Innes' article is too "wordy" to 

 do much harm. He takes one hundred 

 and seventy-six lines of space and two 

 diagrams to say that slaughterhouse 

 products are less soluble than the mix- 

 ture of pure chemicals, as if that had 

 anything to do with the question. His 

 article looks as though paid for by the 

 word by some packing house. I don't 

 say it is, but it looks like it. His de 

 finition of plant food is laughable, he 

 says, "Plant food may be defined as 

 manure," that definition should be tack- 

 ed up in the barn as the limit for puer- 

 ility. But what is manure? 



If fertilizers are so uncertain, then 

 what is the farmer to do to keep up the 

 productivity of the soil? By cultiva- 

 tion and culfivation, by draining, by 

 green crops, by using stable manure, 

 spread very thinly, a gi\en amount of 

 such manure is worth double as much 

 when spread evenly and thinly. And 

 lastly, by using clean chemical fertili- 

 zers experimentally at first and after- 

 wards more extensively when the far- 

 mer knows the individual requirements 



of his fields and how the crops respond. 

 Kven then he ought to figure out whe- 

 ther it will pay. Fertilizers have proved 

 Ijencficial here and there and occasion- 

 ally profitable. 



The slaughterhouse fertilizer I would 

 not use at all, and for three reasous — 

 first, they are vile smelling and nasty ; 

 second, they contain much that is of no 

 value at all ; third, the chemicals they 

 do contain that are supposed to influ- 

 ence plant growth can be more cheaply 

 bought and handled when obtained pure, 

 .^s they are ready mixed, the farmer is 

 deprived of testing experimentally the 

 ingredients separately. 



Let me give two instances of the use 

 of such material in this locality last sea- 

 son. One man bought sixty-two dollars 

 fifty cents' worth, and said he could 

 not see as it had done any good at all. 

 Another bought fifty dollars' worth and 

 applied it in strips as a test, and as a 

 result said he might as well have thrown 

 his money into the lake. The names of 

 these men could be given if necessary. 



Mr. Emslie states that my reference 

 to oxygen acting as a catalyser is am- 

 biguous. Not at all, if one knows the 

 meaning of catalysis, and I explained it 

 by reference to other substances. His 

 reference to the formaldehyde theory is 

 out of place, because it does not belong 

 to the fertilizer problem at all, and it is 

 particularly out of place because it 

 never was much of a theory, and was 

 abandoned about fifteen or twenty years 

 ago by plant physiologists (see Pierce's 

 Plant Physiology, p. 61). If a man 

 drags in irrelevant matter he should see 

 that it is sound. 



The action of chemical fertilizers is 

 found now to be largely one of cataly- 

 sis, and not "plant food." Such ma- 

 terial may increase productivity without 

 entering the plant. Such substances as 

 carbon black, ferric hydrate, toluene, 

 and even such inert substances as sand, 

 have actually promoted growth without, 

 of course, entering the plant. This gives 

 a new meaning to the use of fertilizers. 

 Mr. Innes's article might easily have 

 been written tw-enty years ago for all 

 it shows of modern research on soils. 



.■\s to Mr. Emslie's denial of giving 

 a definition of "plant food," let the 

 reader see this journal, December, 

 column two, line thirty-seven ; and to his 

 denial of using the wc-d "hash," see 

 line thirty-six. I call his bluff. 



In conclusion, let me say that I should 

 tie foremost to recommend fertilizers if 

 I could do so with certainty of profit. 

 If the farmer finds a fertilizer of any kind 

 that proves profitable, by all means let 

 him use it. 



In my quotations, I refrained from 

 giving results of my own researches 

 and also from giving results in Ger- 

 many or France. Those that I gave 

 can all easily be verified. 



