1857. 



NEW ENGLAND FARMER. 



403 



For the New England Farmer. 



WHITEWASHING TREES. " 



Mr. Editor : — I must take exceptions to your 

 remarks on the subject of whitewashing trees, and 

 I base them both on theory and observation. You 

 compare the bark of a tree to the skin of an ani- 

 mal, and say that "their functions are analogous." 

 I acknowledge the analogy in one respect, they are 

 both on the outside of the individual, and that is 

 the only resembla^nce between them. There is no 

 office performed by the bark of a plant or tree 

 which corresponds with that performed by the sS.in 

 of animals ; at least, no such function has ever been 

 demonstrated to exist, and it would be very easy to 

 ascertain if it absorbed carbonic acid or gave off 

 oxygen. We read that the rootlets and leaves are 

 the essential organs of nutrition in vegetables, the 

 latter performing the same offices as the digestive or- 

 gans and skin in animals ; that water and the earthy 

 or mineral (inorganic) constituents are absorbed by 

 the roots and carried to every part of the plant ; while 

 carbon is absorbed by the leaves, which exhale wa- 

 ter in the same proportion in which it is absorbed 

 by the roots. By the agency of light, the leaves de- 

 compose the substances in the sap which contain 

 oxygen gas, that portion not required in the growth 

 of the plant is returned to the air, and the re- 

 maining elements at the same time arranged so as 

 to form peculiar organic products, as starch, liquor, 

 chlorophylle, sugar, gum, &c. This is the function 

 of the leaves especially ; and it is also performed to 

 some extent by all the green part of plants, as the 

 cellular, outer bark of herbs ; in the cactus and 

 some other plants destitute of leaves, the whole 

 function of nutrition and excretion is performed by 

 this tissue, but this is not the case with trees ; no 

 •vital or important function, whatever, is performed 

 by the bark, except that in its inner portion a layer 

 of woody and vascular tissue is deposited, chiefly 

 in the form of tough woody fibre, constituting what 

 is called the liher, or inner fibrous bark, resting di- 

 rectly on the wood. The green layer or cellular 

 envelope, (or the inner bark,) may, and doubtless 

 does perform the same function as the leaves, in 

 herbs and perhaps even in branches and twigs of a 

 year's growth; but such twigs are not whitewashed. 



You speak of "filling the pores of the bark, and 

 thus effectually preventing the action of the atmo- 

 sphere, and arresting the internal action also." 

 Now, as the only function of the bark is protection, 

 and to serve as a deposite of fibrin, no such injury 

 can possibly result from covering the outside even 

 with an impenetrable varnish. But, allowing your 

 reasons to be well founded, which I think have no 

 foundation in the laws of vegetable physiology, 

 whiteivasking would not form a coating which 

 would prevent the access of atmospheric air. In- 

 deed, lime thus applied forms no obstacle whatever 

 to the absorption or extrication of gases, (admit- 

 ting that the bark has any such function ;) indeed, 

 it absorbs carbonic acid gas in large quantities, the 

 very substance which is absorbed and digested by 

 the leaves; and if your statement in regard to the 

 functions of the bark was correct, then I should ad- 

 vise the application of whitewash as an important 

 aid in the growth and nourishment of trees. The 

 fact is, that many of our trees are covered with 

 bark far more impenetrable to the air than white- 

 wash ; indeed, sufficiently so as probably wholly to 

 exclude it, as the canoe birch (betula papyracta,) 

 and many others. 



Let me assure you, Mr. Editor, that you are 

 misinformed with regard to the fatal effects of cov- 

 ering trees with cotton cloth dipped in grafting ce- 

 ment or a coat of tar and Spanish brown — no less 

 than you are mistaken in regard to the efiects of 

 whitewash." The morbid action of the cutaneous 

 vessels," and the "torpid circulation," with the "con- 

 sequent derangement of the functions of the entire 

 system," these, depend upon it, exist only in your 

 imagination, I apprehend. The late Judge Buel, 

 of this State, one of our successful fruit-growers, 

 was partial, I believe, to whitewash for fruit trees ; 

 so is Dr. Fitch, the author of our State Report 

 on "Insects Noxious to Vegetation," and so was the 

 late Dr. Harris, of your State, a naturalist who 

 scarcely had a superior. 



In conclusion, I will state the result of an exper- 

 iment performed during the present season. I had 

 about a dozen peach trees of four years' growth, 

 which leaved out well, and seemed remarkably 

 flourishing till the last week in May ; then the 

 leaves began to turn yellow and crispy, curling up 

 as if infested by insects, and finally to die. The 

 trees were well covered with whitewash. The 

 first leaves nearly all perished and fell off, but a new 

 crop succeeded, of a deep green, healthy color, and 

 vigorous growth, and now, (July 6th,) the trees 

 look as flourishing as ever. I believe that white- 

 wash saved them, but if you can give any more ra- 

 tional explanation, I shall feel obliged. Your rec- 

 ommendation of soap-suds is good, but for one, I 

 prefer a good coat of whitewash. c. A. L. 



Peekskill, JV. Y., July 6, 1857. 



Remarks. — We have given our views, hereto- 

 fore, of whitewashmg fruit trees, and they are not 

 materially changed by the statements of our cor- 

 respondent ; indeed, we could substantiate them by 

 the writings of some of the ablest writers on vegeta- 

 ble physiology and botany, which our State affords. 

 If there were no other objection than the appear- 

 ance of a whitewashed tree, we should avoid it. — 

 We should as soon think of whitewashing a new 

 baby as a young fruit tree. 



For the I\ew England Farmer. 



DO EOOTS OR TUBERS MIX ? 



Friend Brown : — You will recollect that a 

 few weeks since, a communication appeared in your 

 paper, headed with the inquiry, "Do potatoes mix ?" 

 In reply to it, the writer used the following words : 

 "Some say they do, and others that they do not." 

 In the inquiry put, "Do turnips mix ?" the purpose 

 was to show the absurdity of the notion maintained 

 by some, that the tubers of the potato plant do 

 mix after they are planted. This I do not believe, 

 any more than that the napiform root of the tur- 

 nip mixes with its neighboring roots. 



What led me to the conclusion that your corres- 

 pondent — notwithstanding what he said of another 

 condition — believed that tubers mix in the hill, was 

 his reference to Indian corn : "Does corn grow on 

 the tassel ?" he asks. "No ! it grows below it, 

 sometimes several feet; and if corn ivill mix, — which 

 no one will deny — why do aot potatoes mix ? What 

 possible reason to suppose they do not ?" 



Potatoes are propagated both by planting tubers 



