June, 1933] Pollination and Fruit Setting in the Apple 33 



Using two pollenizers, the following plan is suggested : 



Plan E 

 Row 



IX 1 2 X 1 2 X — Permanent row 



2 XXXXXX — Semi-permanent 



3XXXXXXX —Permanent 



4 12X12X — Semi-permanent 



5XXXXXXX Etc. 



6 XXXXXX 



7 X 1 2 X 1 2 X 



8 XXXXXX 

 9XXXXXXX 



10 1 2 X 1 2 X 



IIXXXXXXX 



12 XXXXXX 



13 X 1 2 X 1 2 X 

 Etc. 



By this scheme if either the permanents or the semi-permanents are con- 

 sidered separately, the distribution of pollenizers in each is similar to that 

 in Plan D. When the semi-permanent trees are finally removed, the distri- 

 bution of pollenizers will then be identical with Plan D. 



Naturally many other arrangements of pollenizers are possible, but the 

 plans described are practical where the goal is high and uniform tree yield 

 with a minimum amount of pollenizers. They also emphasize the value of 

 the use of more than one poUenizer. 



W^here it is known that the chances for good pollination are exceptionally 

 favorable, one pollenizer in a block of 16 trees may be sufficient, but ordi- 

 narily such distribution is risky. 



With the orchard layout determined for interplanting pollenizers, the 

 next problem is the choice of suitable pollenizers. 



In Table VII are presented the results obtained in experiments concern- 

 ing the success of various pollenizers for important varieties of apples. The 

 data are the result of repeated trials at the New Hampshire and at other 

 eastern experiment stations. 



Data are omitted regarding tests which have not yet been thoroughly sub- 

 stantiated. 



General experience with Baldwin and Wealthy indicates that under New 

 Hampshire conditions these sorts nearly always set satisfactory crops with 

 their own pollen. In other sections of the country this has not seemed to be 

 true, hence these varieties and the Cortland are listed as doubtful. The 



