70 



THE LANCASTER FARMER. 



[May, 



understood, because it is not supposed that 

 any particular locality could escape, when the 

 severity of the cold was so great and long 

 continued, as was the case last winter. It is 

 not my purpose in this paper to advance any 

 theory in explanation of the facts above 

 stated, for though I have some crude notions 

 on the subject, I prefer, in a paper of this 

 kind, to confine myself entirely to the state- 

 ment of facts. 



Having noticed early in the season that while 

 the fruit buds of some varieties were almost 

 entirely killed and others only partially, and 

 some had almost entirely escaped injury, and 

 having about seventy-five varieties under 

 cultivation, I determined to observe, particu- 

 larly, which were most hurt, and which with- 

 stood best the trying ordeal. For this pur- 

 pose, I carefully noted in a book kept for the 

 purpose, how each variety came out, and I 

 am thus able to lay before the society some 

 facts in regard to the relative hardiueiss of 

 most of the leading varieties under cultivation 

 in this region, which may be of great value, 

 particularly in localities where peaches are 

 very liable to be injured by cold. 



In the following list, which for convenience, 



I arranged in alphabetical order, the relative 



hardiness of the different varieties is given in 



a scale ranging from 1 to 100, the highest 



number representing a very full crop: 



Amelia 90 Late Admirable 80 



Alexander 50 Late Rareripe 15 



Atlanta 40 Mary's Choice 5 



Beer's Late 1; Mountain Rose 15 



Beer's Smock 60'Nanticoke 100 



Bernard's Early Yellow iNewing^ton Free 15 



Alberge 100 Old Mixon 20 



Bilyen's Late October.. 90 Orange Cling 90 



Bilyen's Late Comet. ..100 Piquet's Late 10 



Brandywine 5 Price's Late 100 



Brigg's Red May 50 President 100 



Chinese Clin? 1 Prince of Wales 100 



Coolidge's Favorite loPrincess of Wales 20 



Crawford's Early 2 Reeves' Favorite 15 



Crawford's Late 20 Richmond 2 



Crockett's Late SOlRuding's Late Red qO 



David Hill 50;Salway M 



Early Beatrice 50!Smock 80 



Early Louise 75'Snovv 90 



Early Rivers 75 Shipley's Late Red. 10 



Early Fillotson .50 Stump the World 40 



Early York 40 Steadley 20 



Foster ISiSusquehanna 1 



Freemason .50. Temple's Wliite 25 



Geary's Holder lOThurber 90 



Golden Eagle 100 Troth's Early 90 



Hence's Golden Rare- Transom's Free 1 



ripe 2 Tuckahoe Late 50 



Hale'sEarly 90 Van Buren's Golden 



Harker's Seedling 75| Dwarf 2 



Jarrett's Late White... 15; Ward's Late 50 



Keyport White 50 Wilkiu'sl 26 



Kitrell's Favorite 25 Yellow Alberge 50 



LeGrauge 15[Yellow St. John 25 



Leatherbury's Late 100' 



I should state here that there was no differ- 

 ence worth noticing as to the exposure. Some 

 trees were, of course, more exposed to the 

 cold winds, and some were on higher ground 

 than others, but where the same varieties were 

 in different exposures and different altitudes, 

 there was no noticeable difference, except that 

 old trees did much the best. All had about 

 the same treatment as to cultivation, manur- 

 ing, &c. 



1 do not propose to say more at present on 

 the question of varieties, except that of all the 

 early kinds I have tried, none are worth hav- 

 ing. They all thrive, bear abundantly and 

 look very promising up to the time of ripen- 

 ing, when every one rots, just before they are 

 fit to pick. If there is one variety earlier 

 than Mountain Rose worth anything, I have 

 not been fortunate enough to get it, though I 



have tried many. My object in this paper 

 more than anything else, is, to bring befora 

 this Society some questiuns connected with 

 peach growing that appear to me to be very 

 important, and on which light is very much 

 needed, and one of these is, the subject of the 

 uuiversal rotting of all the early varieties. I 

 wish to ask, first, is there a good variety 

 earlier than Mountain Rose or Early York 

 that don't all rot before ripening? Second, 

 does anyone know the reason why, or can 

 anybody throw any light on the question, why 

 all the early varieties rot, when later ones in 

 the same ground and same kind of weather, 

 do not? 



I have also a few questions concerning yel- 

 lows that I consider very imporfant. It is 

 claimed now by experts, that the cause of yel- 

 lows is a .specific fungoid affection, which is in 

 someway communicated from one tree to an- 

 other and when once the poison finds its way 

 into any part of the tree it spreads itself by 

 the circulation of the sap or otherwise until 

 the whole tree is affected, and in time de- 

 stroyed. And when this infection has once 

 entered a tree there is no remedy but its re- 

 moval to prevent further spread of the disease. 

 Admitting this much to be settled, there yet 

 remains much more to be learned in connec- 

 tion with this all important question. Mr. 

 Rutter says, and I believe all other practical 

 writers on the subject say, remove at once, 

 root and branch, and some say the diseased 

 treeshould be immediately burned. Now, what 

 I want to get at is, is this really necessary? 

 even if it were practicable. To remove a 

 tree immediately root and branch, is a very 

 easy thing to recommend, but to put in prac- 

 tice next to impossible. The roots of a peach 

 tree 10 or 12 years old, in rich and well culti- 

 vated soil, will be found to have run 50 and 

 perhaps 100 feet or more, and their total eradi- 

 cation would require besides an immense 

 amount of labor, the destruction of all the 

 other crops and trees within a circle of 50 to 

 100 feet in diameter. I have peach trees 8 

 inches in diameter, some of the roots of which 

 I have no doubt run for 100 feet, and most of 

 them must be more than a foot beneath the 

 surface, as the ground is-coustautly ploughed 

 about that depth. The total eradication of 

 one of these trees would involve the destruc- 

 tion of perhaps a quarter of an acre of straw- 

 berries or some other crop, besides a dozen or 

 more pear, or other peach trees. Some time 

 these trees will get the yellows. Por accord- 

 ing to my experience none escape, it being 

 only a question of time. It is needless to say 

 that I do not "totally eradicate" such trees. 

 I do not attempt to remove the roots, because 

 to do this thoroughly, wiould cost in labor and 

 destruction of other crops, where at least five 

 per cent, of the trees have to be removed 

 every year, more than the whole peach crop 

 woMld be worth. I am aware that it is the 

 practice, perhaps in most of the peach grow- 

 ing regions and particularly in very light 

 soils, to remove old and diseased trees by 

 drawing them out with a strong team, perhaps 

 a yoke or two of oxen. But in that case I 

 imagine only a small portion of the roots are 

 removed. I am sure it would take at least a 

 dozen yoke of oxen to pull out some of my 

 trees and then the greater part of the roots 

 would be left in the ground. To cut down and 



remove even a large peach tree is a very simple 

 thing to do and costs but little time and labor. 

 But taking out by the roots, or, as Mr. Rutter 

 says,totally eradicating root, body and branch, 

 and that perliaps at the busiest season of the 

 year, is what I imagine no one ever gets done. 

 Now the question I want to get at is, is this 

 really necessary? And tliis brings me to the 

 other great question in which all other ques- 

 tions connected with peach yellows are in- 

 volved. How is the disease communicated 

 from tree to tree? Is it by actual contact 

 alone, by being conveyed by the knife or saw 

 in pruning; by contact of the roots, or as 

 some have supposed by bees flying from tree to 

 tree and carrying the pollen from diseased 

 trees to the flowers on a healthy one and im- 

 pregnating that with the poison. Or does it 

 spread by sporadic infection or any way other 

 than by contact? And then again if the dis- 

 ease can be spread otherwise than by actual 

 contact, it is very important to know at what 

 season of the year are trees liable to be infect ■ 

 ed. Is it at all times, or only when the trees 

 are growing or in leaf. This is raportant, be- 

 cause if a tree that is not in leaf cannot re- 

 ceive or impart the disease by actual contact, 

 it is difficult to understand what harm a dead 

 stump of a tree could do by remaining a few 

 years, until it rots and gets out of the way of 

 itself, which it soon does. If, as Mr. Rutter 

 says, the disease is communicated by contact 

 of the roots, the mere grubbing out, or even 

 drawing out with oxen, only removes a small 

 portion of the roots of an old tree. And then 

 again another question of great importance 

 presents itself. How long after a tree has 

 been cut down, or grubbed out, or drawn out 

 with oxen, if you please, will the roots that 

 remain in the ground, retain the disease so 

 as to communicate it to another tree. I pro- 

 fess to know very little about Fungi, but it 

 seems contrary to all that I have heard on 

 the subject, to suppose that a Fungus which 

 would thrive in living wood or bark would 

 also live and thrive in dead or decayed wood. 

 I have dwelt perhaps longer than I ought, 

 upon what may seem to most persons a mat- 

 ter of little importance, but it is because I 

 have found it to be a matter of great practical 

 import, so much so, that if I really believed 

 it necessary to do what Mr. Rutter says must 

 be done, I would at once abandon peach cul- 

 ture. Though 1 have never pretended to 

 understand the yellows, and certainly have no 

 theory abowt it, I cannot forbear saying here, 

 that I have some doubts about the roots 

 being affected to any great extent, because 

 while all peach trees get the yellows, sooner 

 or later a tree with peach roots, the body and 

 limbs of which are plum, will never take it. 

 I have often thought it would be an interest- 

 ing experiment to try how far the peach and 

 plum might be grown together in one tree, 

 without being liable to this disease ; suppose 

 the plum is worked on the peach several feet 

 above the ground, or suppose a peach tree, 

 say three years old, and free from disease, 

 has all its branches worked with plum and no 

 peach bnds allowed to grow, so as to have, as 

 near as possible, a peach tree with plum 

 leaves. Would sucli a tree be liable to the 

 yellows ? If not, it would go to show that 

 the infection is only received through the 

 medium of the foliage or blossoms. Or else 



