1905.] 



PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 38. 



1G7 



than was feared at the time the j^ear's experiments were out- 

 lined. It was decided to lay off the orchard where this 

 experiment was to be made into four blocks, to be given 

 difterent kinds of treatment, as follows ; (1) the first block 

 was to be left entirely Avithout pruning ; (2) the second 

 block was to be pruned in midsummer, after the trees had 

 started ; (3) the third bk)ck was to be cut back, from two- 

 thirds to three-fourths of the previous year's growth being 

 removed ; (4) the fourth block was to be headed back near 

 to the trunks, only tlie stubs of the main branches being left. 

 A certain percentage of these trees died during the year 

 of 1004. 

 table : — 



Stdlist ic((l Smmn ary 



The general result can be seen in the following 



It will be seen that the trees cut back to the trunks (" de- 

 horned ") suflered the worst ; those severely cut back lost 

 a larger percentage than those unpruned. A careful exam- 

 ination of the orchard itself makes it seem that the difference 

 between blocks 2 and 3 in this respect is considerably ex- 

 aggerated by the statistics. Some of the deaths in block 

 3 were apparently due to other causes, and should not be 

 charged up against the pruning. Moreover, the growth 

 made by the headed-in trees which lived was decidedly bet- 

 ter than that made by the unpruned trees. The judgment 

 of all those who saw the orcliard and examined it carefully 

 during the latter part of the summer of 1904 was that the 

 trees moderately cut back showed the best growth and were 

 in the best condition. 



It at least seems clear that the trees seriously weakened 

 by freezing should not be cut back close to the main 

 trunks. 



