562 
August 8 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
Mr. Garrett is not after a permanent meadow, as we 
understand it. As he says, three good crops of grass 
end the meadow and it must be plowed again—the 
humus which it has accumulated in the soil going 
to feed other crops. Mr. Clark on the other hand 
wants a permanent meadow, one that will respond to 
high feeding for a dozen years or more. It is quite 
easy to see that Clark’s thorough preparation may be 
better suited for the permanent meadow. Another 
difference must be considered in the plan of feeding 
these crops. Mr. Garrett feeds one crop on another. 
That is, the clover sod as it rots feeds the grass and it 
is a part of his plan not to let any of the humus be 
wasted. Mr. Clark is quite willing to let this humus 
be burned up by thorough culture provided he can at 
the same time kill out the weeds and foul grass. An 
essential part of his system is the use of large dress¬ 
ings of high-grade fertilizers which more than take 
the place of the plant food in the buried sod. I.d't 
us suppose that Mr. Garrett had used on the 10 acres 
as much fertilizer as Mr. Clark uses! Who doubts 
that the grass on that piece would not have equaled 
or exceeded that on an equal area of the plowed land? 
It might not have paid him to use this fertilizer, but 
the point is that nitrogen in the form of chemicals 
will quite take the place of that in humus. His clover 
isod contained far more nitrogen than the average 
meadow sod turned over for reseeding. 
As to depth of grass roots our observation shows 
that they go deeper on the cut soil where the vege¬ 
table matter is spread than in the plowed land where 
the sod is turned over in a bunch and packed down. 
This decaying sod attracts the roots and holds them, 
for the moisture is there. In the fine cut soil the 
roots appear to go deeper after moisture and are, 
therefore, we think, more enduring. Mr. Garrett’s 
plan of grass culture may be compared to a farmer 
turning stock into a rich clover pasture and leaving 
them there for the season. Mr. Clark’s plan is more 
like stall-feeding a fattening animal. 
We lack the space needed to discuss this matter 
fully this week. The discussion will be continued, 
and we shall he glad to have experienced farmers tell 
us whether they turn the soil over or turn it up, and 
wh.v. _ 
A GOOD EARLY PEACH. 
We received July 2 some peaches from Joseph H. 
Black, Son & Co.. Hightstown, N. J., that were of un¬ 
usually good quality for the season. Messrs. Black 
write that it is a seedling of Mamie Ross. It ripens 
with or before Sneed, and is of far better quality, re¬ 
sisting rot better than any other early variety on 
their grounds. Figs. 211 shows one of the specimens 
received in natural size. It is pale greenish in color 
flushed with red; stone a moderate cling, juicy and 
agreeable in flavor. It seems to be firm enough to 
make a good shipper._ 
THE SCIENCE OF BUNCHING HAY. 
An all-day ride on the cars and a drive through 
parts of Tompkins, Steuben. Tioga and Chemung 
counties, has convinced me that few men properly 
bunch their hay as a protection against rain. Prop¬ 
erly to put up hay in bunches of 75 to 150 pounds in 
weight is as much of a science as to be able to stack 
hay properly. A lack of skill and knowledge in put¬ 
ting up hay marks a difference between skilled and 
unskilled labor, between profit and a partial or total 
loss of the crop. It is not the purpose of the writer 
to tell when hay should be bunched, for it is assumed 
that haymakers are familiar with that part of the 
labor. It is rather with the how and why that 1 con¬ 
cern myself. When hay is to be drawn from the 
windrows it is often advantageous to rake small rows; 
however, when it is desired to put up the hay one 
cannot have the windrows too large, because the 
larger the windrow the less labor in handling with 
the fork, and the larger and more stable the bunch 
can be built. 
When the hay, partially cured, is raked in long, 
even and heavy windrow's, let us proceed with that 
most important operation—bunching. First note the 
commoner errors. The bunches may be too small, too 
flat, no foundation, no top, and no judgment used in 
the kind of hay used on the top, or the manner in 
which the hay should be placed in order to shed rain. 
To obviate these costly errors the following principles 
must be carefully carried out: The same general rules 
that apply to stacking apply to bunching. A good 
bottom is indispensable. A small amount of hay 
should be gathered, and then the edges turned toward 
the center, the workman making a quick trip around 
as he turns the hay in. In case enough hay has not 
been secured to make a small conical bottom a foot 
or more high and two feet wide more hay should be 
used, according to the size of the bunch. Now, if the 
mower is a five-foot cut and the rake takes a swath 
10 feet in width the resulting windrow w’ill be com¬ 
posed of two halves loosely fastened together, eacli 
half five feet long. Next, take half a windrow, turn 
in the edges until it is twice as long as it is wide, then 
lay this across the foundation, finish by compressing 
the hay with the hands two or three feet apart and 
resting on the extremities of the long forkful. Then 
follow this operation until the bunch is nearly com¬ 
pleted. For the top a small flat forkful of as fine hay 
as can be obtained should be used. Lastly, walk 
around the bunch, raking it down with the fork until 
all the loose hay is removed, and the majority of the 
hay on the outside hangs down. When this last is 
gathered it may be placed on top. 
Now, for a few don’ts in bunching. Don’t omit a 
good foundation, or it will be impossible to make it 
waterproof. Don’t fail to press the sides over the 
conical bottom and keep the bunch conical, or it can¬ 
not shed rain. Don’t be alarmed if it acts “teetery,” 
because unless it is too much so it will soon settle 
and be firm. Lastly, the why and wherefore. Hay 
put up in this shape will be highest in the middle and 
each spear will slope from the center. Rain falling 
on the top and sides cannot penetrate far, because 
the blades of grass having a downward tilt carry off 
the water. Perhaps some one may object that this 
way takes too much time. In reply it may be said 
that if one wishes merely to bunch it up for the sake 
of drawing it easier this method will not pay, but 
when the weather is lowery, it certainly does pay, as 
it has been the means of saving hay that had been in 
the rain for 20 days, and not a spear moldy or rotten. 
Ithaca, N. Y. _ o. c. s. 
PROPAGATING FROM BEARING TREES 
OR NURSERY. 
Nurserymen Continue Their Discussion. 
About all we can say is that we do not know, and 
think everything connected with the matter of bud 
ding either nursery or orchard trees, is largely a mat- 
NEW EARLY PEACH. BLACK’S SEEDLING. Pig. 211. 
ter of theory, although it seems to us that there 
can be no question but what buds taken from bearing 
trees of known excellence, would be much more apt to 
produce at least a larger proportion of trees that are 
all right, than trees cut haphazard from nursery rows. 
Ohio. THE STORRS & IIARBISON CO. 
I was somewhat interested in the discussion that 
took place at the nurserymen’s convention on the sub¬ 
ject of trees worked with buds from nursery rows. 
This question I have heard agitated for the past 40 
years, but during all this time in our country here I 
have noticed young trees bear and load themselves 
with fruit, but did not seem to know whether they 
sprung from nursery rows or bearing trees. I have 
always tried to renew my stock every few years. Some¬ 
times I run three or four years without renewing 
many of the varieties, but I am satisfied that a larger 
portion of the peach trees grown in market orchards 
are grown by men that have no records. They sim¬ 
ply keep up their stock from year to year by budding; 
but as above stated, I am yet to hear of a peach or¬ 
chard that failed to bear good fruit with the proper at¬ 
tention. At the same time I believe it is best to renew 
nursery stock every two or three years—not longer 
than five anyway, as there is some danger of getting 
it mixed in the nursery if not renewed occasionally. 
North Carolina. j. van tanhley. 
So far as I know this question has not been decided 
by actual trial. Experiments have commenced but 
have not yet had time to be worked out. Reasoning 
from analogy and considering that every bud on every 
tree is an individual, it seems to me that the conclu¬ 
sion is a reasonable one that we may expect much 
better results from planting trees grown from the 
wood of selected bearing trees of known excellence. 
The breeder of animals selects and looks well to the 
individuals as well as to the breed. Every orchardist 
knows that certain trees are more fruitful than oth¬ 
ers, even of the .same variety and under apparently 
the same conditions. Why there should not be indi¬ 
viduality among trees as well as among animals and 
men I have never heard answered. I do not think 
there is an answer. c. l. watrous. 
Iowa. 
Why Nursery Buds Are Best. 
In my opinion, buds and scions procured from nur¬ 
sery rows are better than those cut from bearing trees, 
provided that you know, absolutely, that your trees 
in the nursery rows are true to name. If you get your 
buds from nursery rows and grow a block of trees 
from them, isn’t it reasonable to suppose that they 
are true to name, provided, of course, the nursery¬ 
man exercised the proper caution and judgment in 
staking his blocks and recording the same in his of 
fice? And there is no question but that buds grown 
from nursery rows have this advantage over those 
from bearing trees, in that the chances of introduc¬ 
ing insect pests into your nursery are 90 per cent 
greater when you go into your orchard and procure 
buds from bearing trees, than it is when you get them 
from nursery rows, because you are getting buds off 
nursery trees of the same year’s growth. In addition 
to this, the nurseryman cleans up his block every two 
years, while the orchard is exposed to pests of all 
kinds, from year to year. 
There is another advantage to nurserymen in cut¬ 
ting their buds from nursery rows instead of the or¬ 
chard, in getting them to correspond in size to the 
seedling stocks into which you bud—which is not al 
ways the case when you bud from stocks cut from 
bearing trees, as the sticks from bearing trees are 
usually larger than the seedling stocks into which 
you bud. In addition to this, the inexperienced bud- 
der might put in a good many fruit buds instead of 
leaf buds. The only argument that I can see for cut¬ 
ting from bearing trees in the orchard, is to insure 
your varieties being true to name. But when you 
analyze this proposition, it resolves itself into this 
simple fact: I cut my buds from hearing trees and 
bud my nursery blocks; I sell that, nursery block to 
a planter, or plant it in an orchard myself; instead of 
cutting buds out of those rows for my next year's 
work, 1 go to the orchard again for buds; later on, 
when the trees I sold or planted myself, become bear¬ 
ing trees I go back to them and cut my buds—some¬ 
thing I would not do when they were in my nurseries, 
in rows. It all hinges on the fact of knowing exactly 
what you have in your orchard or nursery rows to cui 
from; and it is just as easy to keep them pure in the 
nursery rows as in the orchard. j. c. h.ai.e. 
Tennessee. 
Mother Block” Suggested. 
In view of our present knowledge of the well-known 
law of nature, that the tendency is for like to produce 
like, it appears to us to be an almost undebatable 
question that bearing trees are best. It has been the 
policy for the past seven years in our nurseries to use 
buds and grafts from healthful bearing orchard trees 
whenever possible to do so, and in this, the great fruit 
belt of Michigan, it is usually possible. The writer 
was present at the discussion on this matter at the 
nuserymen’s convention, and remembers that Mr. 
Sweet and others were inclined to consider this 
method of propagation impracticable, and, in the 
strict sense, I am also inclined to agree with them, 
but am glad of this opportunity of suggesting to you 
a way to make it practicable. Mr. Sweet demurred, 
both because of the great difficulty of securing a suffi¬ 
cient amount of suitable budding and grafting wood 
from bearing orchard trees with which to bud com¬ 
mercial blocks of the leading varieties, and also the 
fact that the buds from this kind of wood were more 
apt to be a failure, thus making poor and unsatisfac¬ 
tory stands in the nursery row. My suggestion as a 
remedy for this is that every nurseryman wishing to 
follow out this improved method of propagation could 
inaugurate what might be termed "mother blocks.” 
For instance, in the case of peaches; select, say, an 
acre or more of suitable land. Plant the pits, and bud 
this plot with the commercial varieties that are in 
the greatest demand, using great care in cutting th" 
buds from bearing orchard trees, and grow this block 
expressly for the purpose of securing the greatest 
amount of budding wood possible for use in the next 
year’s budding. This method would not, of course, 
strictly speaking, give you budding wood for the com¬ 
mercial blocks from bearing trees, but it would be but 
one generation removed, which certainly is a large 
improvement over cutting from the old nursery rows 
year after year for from 15 to 25 years, as has been 
done in many of the older nurseries in old varieties. 
I am thoroughly convinced that it is far better to cut 
buds and scions from healthy, bearing orchard trees, 
using special care in cutting these buds from such 
trees as exhibit the best and most typical specimens 
of fruit, thus insuring the stock to be true to name, 
as well as imparting to it the beet of hereditary in¬ 
fluences, than to cut the huds year after year from the 
old nursery rows for a long period of time, thus per¬ 
petuating any mistakes which may have been made 
by carelessness or otherwise, as well as causing a gen¬ 
eral deterioration of the bearing habits of the stock 
thus produced. harry l. bird. 
Michigan. 
