48 MAINS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. I912. 



A comparison of Tables 15 and 16 indicates a very good bloom 

 in 1910 for all trees except the sod plot. Of this bloom, con- 

 sidering the relatively small percent of fruits that are formed 

 in proportion to the number of blossoms on any tree, it may be 

 said that the fruit set (Table 16) for that year was fairly good 

 in the first three plots. In fact plot B promised at fruit setting 

 time to equal, if not exceed, A in proportionate yield. Table 

 17, however, shows the contrary to be true. Of all four plots, 

 the one that received cultivation and available plant food early 

 in the season was the only one in which the trees could not 

 only set fruit, but could to a reasonable degree carry, develop 

 and mature it. In the uncultivated plots the dropping of the 

 fruits at an early date after setting accounts largely for the 

 discrepancy between set and yield. The food reserve was not 

 sufficient to carry the fruit through the season. The trees under 

 cultivation were sufficiently stimulated to action to perform the 

 necessary functions for fruit development. 



The bloom of 191 1 was far below that of the preceding year 

 in abundance (Table 15). Likewise the fruit set was greatly 

 reduced in all plots, except the cultivated one, where it was 

 slightly better. Bearing in mind, however, that plot A yielded 

 in 1910 almost three-fourths of the entire crop from this 

 orchard, it might reasonably have been expected that B, C and 

 D would increase their proportional yields and that A's yield 

 might prove proportionally smaller than in 1910. Nevertheless, 

 Table ly shows a total yield almost double that of the preceding 

 year, for four-fifths of which A is again responsible. Of the 

 three uncultivated plots, D made a fair percentage gain in yield 

 over the preceding year and B suffered loss, but C was the only 

 uncultivated plot to show a high percentage increase in its 

 contribution to the total yield of 1911, compared with the 

 proportion it formed of the 1910 crop. The percentage gain, 

 moreover, must be considered in relation to the size of the crops 

 in the two years. 



Table 18 shows the relative yield per tree with respective gain 

 or loss in barrels. This is based on the total number of trees 

 per plot. Table 19 shows similar data, omitting in every case 

 the trees that failed to bear fruit; i. e., the data in this table 

 show the comparative yield per bearing tree. Both of these 

 tables show that the normal yield of fruit, even from the culti- 



