Febraary 20 ]8D''. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
145 
O N page 62 of the issue of the Journal of Horticulture of the 
22nd ult., a Blantyre correspondent refers to packages for 
■fruit, and observes that “ Willows might occupy many acres of 
what is at present uncropped grounl, and the making of hampers 
would give employment to many unable to perform other work.” 
lit is not oh the question of hamper or basket making that I am 
■about to enlarge, but will merely say that closely and strongly 
made round hampers are very suitable for and largely employed in 
the transit of fruit of variou? kinds for the London markets. 
They are known in the trade as sieves. A bushel sieve, similar to 
the one illustrated on page 115 of the essay I wrote for the 
Fruiterers’ Company, is 17f inches in diameter at the top, 17 inches 
at the bottom, 11 j inches deep, and holds ten and a half imperial 
gallons. The sieves or hampers are lined with paper, usually of a 
Muish tint, for contrast with the fruit, the ends of the paper being 
long enough for turning down and covering it. With a little fern 
or hay on the top, if not without, these packages can be stacked on 
the strong rims of each other without the contents being injured. 
They are similarly packed for returning empty, and when conveyed 
lay road are piled up as straight as loads of hay are in the country, 
but a good deal higher, and made secure with ropes. Many sales¬ 
men supply these sieves to growers for sending their fruit to 
market, and the most uniform and best samples invariably meet 
with a ready sale. But woe to the man who “ works in ” trash 
below a covering of “ toppers,” for his character as a “ dodger ” 
flies like bad news, and his wares are shunned accordingly. 
“ W. T.,” the correspondent alluded to, who is apt in contri¬ 
buting suggestive hints, says Willows might occupy many acres of 
uncropped ground, by which he possibly means ground that is not 
well adapted for growing food produce. The proposition is quite 
true, and much swampy or naturally wet land is so occupied, paying 
the owners or tenants much better than leaving it in a wild or 
uncropped state. But my object is to show that on certain soils 
the best of Apples and the best of Osiers can be grown together 
without either acting in the least injuriously on the other ; indeed, 
it is not beyond the bounds of probability that the Osiers benefit 
the Apples rather than otherwise. 
The combined Apple and Osier culture that I have had the 
pleasure of inspecting is conducted well and profitably a mile or two 
from Southwell in Nottinghamshire. The soil is strong, approach¬ 
ing clay, and for a number of years was of slight value to the 
owner. Several acres were purchased at a low price about fifteen 
years ago, and placed under the dual occupation of what, on paper, 
must appear a little incongruous—Apples and Osiers. Strong 
retentive soil is generally condemned for Apple culture, while 
Osiers and quagmires appear a natural association ; but in the 
extensive plantation in question it would be difficult for the most 
experienced observer to determine whether the growth of the 
Apple trees or the Osiers is the more satisfactory. The best 
evidence that both have answered is found in the fact that the 
fee simple value of the land has much more than quadrupled 
during the period named ; indeed, so satisfactory has been the 
result that a large extent of adjoining land has been similarly 
planted, or altogether, I think, about 40 acres. 
The favourite Apple for the purpose is Bramley’s Seedling 
on the English Crab stock—not on sj-called Crab stocks raised 
■ d :i . - - 
No. .504.—VoL. XX., Tried Series. 
from the pips of cider Apples. The trees are in the best of 
health, free from canker and other ailment, and combine sturdi¬ 
ness with vigour and productiveness. Some rows of other varieties 
were planted in the first instance, but the appearance of the trees 
shows in an uninistakeable manner the superiority of the fo'’mer, 
and the later plantation is either all ‘‘ Bramleys,” or all that could 
be had, with an outside row of Damsons. 
I do not remember a more remarkable sight than sitting in a 
“ trap ” and looking over the hedge across the established planta¬ 
tion. The Apple trees were planted 30 feet apart—standards on 
G-feet stems—but none of them was visible, but only the heads of 
the trees, 12 to 15 feet in diameter, just above what was like a 
waving sea of green—the Osiers. These were quite 6 feet high, and 
not a blank nor faulty place to be seen. Moreover they appeared to 
grow practically as well close up to the stems of the trees as 
between the rows. There might in places be a suspicion of thin¬ 
ness immediately under the trees, but there was perhaps as much of 
fancy as fact in the idea ; and what was conclusive was the broad 
and important lesson conveyed, that the Osiers did not deprive the 
Apples of nutriment, nor the Apples the Osiers. On the contrary, 
it is almost certain that the latter benefited the former, and this in 
two or three respects. First by abstracting moisture which other¬ 
wise might have been in excess for the Apples. Secondly, by the 
myriads of leaves falling annually from the forest of stems, forming 
a stratum of humus on the clayey soil—exactly what such soil 
needs. And thirdly, by sheltering the trunks of the Apples, which, 
in consequence, seem to swell more “ kindly ” than under full ex¬ 
posure. They bear the gloss of health that may be compared with 
the coat of a sleek animal. 
The return to the land in the fall of leaves is evidently full 
compensation for whatever may be abstracted from the Apples by 
the Osiers. In all likelihood these soft pliable annual shoots take little 
out of the soil besides water, and leave the bulk of the phosphates, 
potash, and other mineral ingredients behind for the fruit trees. 
Be that as it may, these have obviously what they need, and nothing 
is added artificially. Trees in better health and bearing condition 
cannot well be imagined, and it is not conceivable that they could 
possibly be better if no Osiers had been grown among them, and 
it is generally believed would not be so good. The under crop 
costs next to nothing to grow, never fails, pays a good rent for the 
land, with a substantial margin of profit on that crop alone, apart 
from the Apples. And what about these ? 
I have not inquired about those particular trees, but I have 
seen trees that were planted in good soil fifteen years ago, which 
have produced £2 worth of fruit each as their last gathered crop, 
and am credibly informed of others of even greater value ; but I 
have seen sufficient without detailing supplied information for 
satisfying myself of the great value of this Nottinghamshire 
Apple as an orchard standard. It may possibly be too robust for 
bush culture, but the effects of dwarfing stocks in arresting its 
natural vigour remains to be proved, for until recently its introducer, 
Mr. Merryweather, has only worked it on the Crab. But there are 
bushes and bushes, and I suspect a big bush of Bramley bearing 
15 to 20 pecks of fruit quite a possibility, and such bushes would 
suit me very well, as I have no faith in stunted pigmies for useful¬ 
ness. There is plenty of room above ground for the branches to 
extend, and I like to see them laden with fruit higher than a man 
can reach rather than having to stoop down to gather it. 
However, as a standard Apple Bramley’s Seedling has proved its 
great value. Ten yards apart is close enough for planting in good 
soil. The trees have then room to develop under the influence of 
light and air, and thus become the most fruitful, while the crops 
can be gathered with facility. The fruit is large, colours fairly 
well, and is of the first quality when cooked, possessing some of the 
sprightliness of Dumelow’s Seedling with the sweetness of the 
Blenheim Pippin. 
The mention of the last-named Apple reminds me of much 
•y . . • r 
I No. 21C0.—VOL. LXXXII., Old Sebibs. 
