1907. 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
APPLE CULTURE IN WESTERN NEW YORK. 
CULTIVATION OR MULCH ? 
An Important Experiment. 
Before we tell why those trees in the mulched orchard 
were so much better than the others let us analyze that 
expense account. Some one asks what it cost to culti¬ 
vate the five acres. I have the following statement for* 
both sides. 
COST OF SOD ORCHARD. 
Pruning and hauling brush.$15.33 
So ravine, material and rent. 73.84 
Fertilizer and labor . 8.37 
Mowing grass . 3.67 $101.21 
Picking and handling 190% bbls. apples... .$51.50 
Picking and delivering 260% bbls. culls.... 13.02 $ 64.07 
$165 28 
COST OF TILLAGE ORCHARD. 
Pruning and hauling brush.$18.31 
Spraying, etc. 73.84 
Fertilizer and labor . 8.37 
Cultivating and clover seed. 46.63 $147.15 
Picking and handling 313% bbls. apples_$84.01 
Picking and delivering culls . 16.99 $101.00 
Pjscit JiedHcis may think it unfortunate that the 
stone walls were left near the orchard, since they will, 
without doubt, give the sod orchard a better record 
than it otherwise could earn. 1 think it adds to the 
value of the experiment by starting a new line for 
investigation. There can be no question whatever, 
judging from the records of this orchard, that thor¬ 
ough culture is the most reasonable method for west¬ 
ern New York growers. If this soil is typical of most 
of the fruit lands a man running the business in a 
commercial way could not afford to be satisfied with 
such results as this sod orchard shows. Nor could he 
afford to build stone walls around his trees in order 
to make them as productive as those in that orchard 
corner. On the other hand, there are in other parts 
of the country many rocky hills where beautiful fruit 
can be grown by “rock mulching.” Very likely, too, 
there are a few localities even in western New York 
where mulching would give better results. Such soils 
would be steep rolling lands, or where the water table 
lies close to the surface. We are, none of us, trying 
to bolster up any pet hobby or prejudice, but after the 
truth. I said, in a joking way, that those trees along 
the stone wall were the only ones which had “ideal 
mulch” as compared with “ideal culture,” yet it was 
hard to answer Prof. Hedrick’s question: “What can 
you suggest to make that sod orchard better without 
plowing it?” That is a good subject for the next 
chapter. h. w. c. 
ICE HAD TOO MUCH SURFACE EXPOSURE 
I have a silo 18x18 feet, boarded and battened on the out¬ 
side and lined on the inside tight. The girths are eight inches. 
There is a hollow space eight inches; two ventilators on the 
roof. The silo is open from top to bottom, two and a half 
feet wide, into the barn. Last Winter I packed ice closely, 
three tiers, 20x22 inch cakes, covered and filled on all sides 
with plenty of sawdust. It did not keep well. Will some 
of the cold water packers tell me where the failure lies? 
New York. l. s. k. 
We understand from this statement that the ice¬ 
house contained but three layers of ice blocks, covering 
the entire bottom excepting the space left around the 
outside for sawdust. He makes no statement relative 
to the bottom of the silo upon which the ice was laid. 
If the ice was laid directly upon the bottom, and espe¬ 
cially if the drainage was such that water could ac¬ 
cumulate under the ice upon the ground or bottom, the 
ice would have wasted very rapidly from the bottom, 
no matter how well it was covered with sawdust over 
the top and on the sides. If correct, the packed ice would 
have a bottom area on the ground, supposing his blocks 
to be 22 inches square, of nine blocks each way, or 
81 blocks resting on the ground. Likewise there would 
be a corresponding number of blocks in contact with 
the sawdust on the surface, and he would have but a 
single layer of blocks between the bottom and surface 
layers, as represented in Fig. 439. It is thus apparent 
that, for the amount of ice stored, a very large pro¬ 
portion of the whole number of blocks in the icehouse 
have one side exposed to the outside and bottom, where 
the heat is entering the ice. If he had stacked the 
calces in one corner, six blocks each way as represented 
in the drawing, only 36 blocks would be resting on the 
ground and 36 exposed to the sawdust on the top. Be¬ 
tween these two layers he could have stacked five 
others, thus building nearly a solid cube, and containing 
only nine blocks more than was actually put into the 
silo, supposing his bloeks to be 20 inches thick and 22 
inches square, as I understand they were. -In the draw¬ 
871 
ing I nave represented the blocks of ice as cubes, so 
that it doees not quite illustrate the case as stated, but 
the principle is the same, the cube presenting much less 
outside surface in proportion to its contents than the 
form in which the ice was actually packed, and for 
this reason a relatively larger loss would be sustained. 
I suspect, judging from the statement made by L. 
S. K., that there was no insulation from the ground, 
and if so this would explain a large part of the loss. 
Brush or thin poles or 2 x 4’s laid on the bottom and 
covered with a layer of straw or hay would have 
insulated the ice from the bottom, provided drainage, 
and in this way very greatly reduced the melting at the 
bottom. Of course if L. S. K. had packed six layers 
of ice instead of three he would then have had much 
more ice in proportion to surface exposed than he did 
have, and the relative loss by melting would have been 
very much less, the loss on the bottom being the 
same and that on the top the same for the three layers 
as for the six, and the loss on the sides relatively the 
same for the two cases. f. h. king. 
THE TRUTH ABOUT FARM LIFE. 
Permit me to express my approval of your attitude 
as regards the ambition of city-bred people to enjoy 
the easy life that the farmers all live. This city has 
recently been suffering from a small financial hurricane 
and many are feeling quite badly over the situation, 
and longing for the care-free life of the country. As 
I heard a man say the other day, “The 
farmer is the lucky man at these times; 
cellar and barn full of eatables, can lie in 
bed till seven o’clock and loaf 
around all day, or go hunting, and 
nothing to worry about.” Very 
nice, is it not? If it were true! 
And yet that is very nearly what a great 
many people who have been fed on the 
Plarwood and similar brands of (mis)in¬ 
formation suppose farm life to be. These 
writers never mention such items as a 
late Spring or an early frost, that makes 
a corn crop a minus quantity, a Win¬ 
ter or a succession . of Winters, 
that convert orchards that have had 10 
or 20 years’ labor into piles of brush¬ 
wood. They never heard of a season 
when no rain fell on the potatoes from 
the time they came out of the ground 
until they should have been ready to dig. 
Insects and blights only add to the pro¬ 
ductiveness of their fields and orchards, 
and it is no wonder that people who 
only hear of the rare good fortunes that 
sometimes strike an occasional lucky man, 
should desire to share in the easeful life. 
It is, doubtless, an unpleasant task to 
discourage the dreams that look so bright 
to people sick of the struggle and dirt of 
the city, but it is true kindness to show 
them the truth, rather than to let them 
find it out by hard experience. Country 
life deserves all the good things that have 
been said of it, and to the people used to it and fitted 
for it city life has no attractions, but the country is 
not heaven, and to many who have attempted it with 
an equipment of only wishes and wants instead of the 
large stock of industry, determination, knowledge and 
capital that it requires, the country gets to mean a place 
of torment and slavery. 
As an antidote to the virus of the sensational farm 
story-teller, I would suggest that The R. N.-Y. collect 
and print the real experiences of some of its readers 
who have been through the process of changing from 
a city to country life, and I wish it might be possible 
to get the stories of some of the people who have not 
made a success of it. It is a trait of mankind to dis¬ 
like to tell of its failures, but other people can learn 
more from our mistakes than from our successes. 
Among The R. N.-Y.’s large family there must be a 
number who could do their city friends no better 
service than to let them know just what trials they 
may have to endure in changing from city to farm. 
In any event I hope you will continue to use your in¬ 
fluence to prevent ill-adapted persons from making a 
change that will most probably result in the acquire¬ 
ment of a large slice of disappointment. 
Rhode Island. _ h. w. heaton. 
In Brazil there Is a tax otn bill board advertising varying 
with the size. That would be a good way to get rid of the 
hideous signs that stare us in the face in this country. 
Wyoming experiments in preserving pine fence posts show 
that when the posts were dipped in crude petroleum and 
burned off so that the char comes above the ground when 
posts are set they will keep indefinitely. 
This is one idea of a Long Island schoolboy’s Thanks¬ 
giving : In Sander’s Sixth Reader the sketch of John Wilson 
closes with “under the title of Christopher North.” This 
was read by a pupil. The teacher remarked: ‘‘This isn’t 
correet, it should read ‘under the pseudonym of Chrlstoph*r 
North.’ I don’t know why such a mistake was made.” Th» 
boy said : “I guess they wanted to be nice to ths kids.” 
r 
$248.15 
Thus it cost a little more to prune the cultivated 
orchard, as there was mere wood to come out. The 
spraying was more expensive than usual—just one- 
fourth greater, since this year there were four spray¬ 
ings instead of three. We are often asked what it 
costs to spray an acre of orchard. Here are the figures 
for 10 acres —$147.68 for four sprayings, or about $3.70 
per acre for each. 
But what about this bill for fertilizer? 
On a strip through both orchards pot¬ 
ash was used to see what effect it would 
have on size, color or quality. There 
seemed to be no effect apparent to the eye. 
It will be seen that the cost of mowing 
the grass in the mulched orchard was 
$3.64. Against this should be put $46.63 
as the cost of culture. Of course no one 
can expect to produce salable fruit unless 
they prune and spray. The actual differ¬ 
ence in cost between mowing and culti¬ 
vating is $42.96, while the difference in 
net returns for the apples was $418.29! 
I hese arc hard figures to get around, 
and if the reader could see these trees he 
would be even more impressed than by 
the figures. It is also true that this is a 
very favorable year for the mulched or¬ 
chard, since all apples are high in price. 
In some seasons the smaller apples in 
the sod orchard could not have been sold 
as firsts, but would have gone to the 
cider mill or evaporator. I must also 
admit that had it not been for the trees 
in the sod orchard, which I have men¬ 
tioned as green and thrifty, the cultivated 
orchard would have doubled the other in 
profit. On the other hand, Prof. Hed¬ 
rick will probably admit that if all the 
sod orchard had been as good as those 
few trees there would not have been 
much difference between the two. 
But what made these trees so good? 
One of the most striking things in the orchard was 
the first row of sod next to the cultivated part. On 
most of these trees the side nearest to the tilled ground 
was green and healthy, with fair-sized apples. On 
the other side the color shaded off into a yellowish 
tinge. I should say that the wood growth on the side 
near the cultivated ground averaged at least three 
inches longer than the other, and that there was at 
least twice the yield of apples. The best trees in the 
sod orchard were at the side and end, away from the 
cultivated side. The cause for this excellent growth 
and appearance was evidently a stone wall. Along this 
wall the trees were good, and what apples there were 
excellent. I noticed that most of these trees were not 
all covered with good fruit as the cultivated trees were, 
but that each tree seemed to have its crop loaded heav¬ 
ily upon two or three branches, which extended toward 
the stone wall. At one end where the wall formed a 
corner were several of the best trees in the entire 
orchard, showing that there was something about the 
wall that had. made these trees what they were. On 
.my own farm in New Jersey there are nearly three 
miles of stone wall, and I have for some years noticed 
the behavior of trees which grow near them. Apple 
and cherry do remarkably well in such situations, pear 
not so well, and peach poorest of all, though now and 
then we find some old seedling peach in a fence corner 
that is tough and vigorous. My stone wall trees look 
just like those in the corner of this sod orchard, and 
they bear annual crops of good fruit. I have put piles 
of stones around young trees, and thus obtained good 
growth. Without making accurate experiments I have 
assumed that the soil around these stones and walls 
was moister and cooler, and thus better suited to the 
apple tree. Prof. Hedrick’s experiments show that the 
soil in the cultivated orchard was considerably warmer 
than that under the mulch, and he attributes part of the 
gain in the cultivated orchard to this fact. 
A JERSEY BEN DAVIS APPLE. Fig. 440. 
See Ruralisms, Page 874. 
