HIGH HEADING 



57 



ing roots of large trees are not there to any extent, but are out 

 some little distance from the trunk. 



2: The second argument for a high head is that there is less 

 breakage from snow. This is a sound argument and in those 

 sections where deep snows are liable to occur and drift over the 

 trees the heads ought to be higher. 



3. The third argument for the high head is that there are 

 less culls than with the low head, because in the latter, the lower 

 branches are so close to the 

 ground that they do not get 

 enough light and air to pro- 

 duce fine fruit. There may 

 be some truth in this, but it 

 has never seemed to the writer 

 that it was a very serious mat- 

 ter. The fruit on the lower 

 branches of any tree is not so 

 good as that from the higher 

 branches, and there has not 

 seemed to be a very great 

 difference between that from 

 low headed and that from 

 high headed trees. 



4. An argument which has 

 been advanced in New Eng- 

 land, and perhaps it may be 

 used elsewhere, is that trees 

 ought to be headed high in 

 order to escape the deer. It 

 seems singular that such an argument should even be suggested 

 seriously but it has been quite frequently offered where States are 

 cursed with laws which protect the deer at the expense of the 

 farmers. Damage from deer is a very live question with the 

 writer, for he has seen over two thousand fruit trees, principally 

 apple, either killed outright or so badly damaged that they had 

 to be replaced. But deer damage is an argument for changing 

 representatives in the Legislature and not for heading the fruit 

 trees higher. 



FIG. 23. An extreme case of high heading. 

 Most work in the orchard costs more with 

 such trees than with low headed trees. 



