Vol. LXXI. No. 4151. 
NEW YORK, MAY 18, 1912. 
WEEKLY, $1.00 PER YEAR 
“WHY” AND “HOW” OF THE 
LOW-HEADED APPLE TREE. 
Practice in Commercial Orchards. 
Part I. 
The man who is growing an apple or¬ 
chard usually considers every phase of 
the work beforehand and tries to work 
along some general plan. One of the 
points he has to decide at an early date 
is the question of the heading of the 
trees. Shall it be high or low? What 
are the reasons that will lead him to 
choose one or the other? Is it a mat¬ 
ter of personal opinion, or is the low 
head really better? 
First of all, let us see what is meant 
by “low head” or “high head.” The 
high head is usually conceded to be all 
that its name implies. It is at least 
three, four or five feet to the lowest 
branch, and often is still higher, the 
main scaffold of the tree being above 
this and the smaller members of the 
head still higher and allowed to stretch 
up into the air, comparatively few ever 
coming near the ground. Such a tree 
would have the average high head, and 
a man could easily stand beneath it; 
often a team can be driven under with¬ 
out danger to the branches. I have not 
exaggerated. In my boyhood days in 
New England I have often failed in the 
cherished ambition to sample the fruit 
of every tree because I was unable to 
“shin” up to the first branch, and I had 
to be content with the bruised specimens 
1 could get by a stone or stick thrown 
up into the top. 
The low head is, of course, lower 
down. The lower branches are close 
to the ground—not so low that the 
tree has no main trunk, but, on the 
average, start out on the trunk a foot 
from the ground. Like the high-headed 
tree, the rest of the scaffold and the 
smaller members of the top are formed 
above this general level. The low head 
has an immediate advantage in height 
of upwards of two feet in the scaffold 
of the tree, making it an easier propo¬ 
sition to encourage lateral spreading 
and discourage the upward tendency. 
Such a tree form may be as natural as 
the high head. I well remember a Rox- 
bury Russet which grew at my home in 
New Hampshire which had this ten¬ 
dency well defined. It kept well under 
20 feet in height while making a spread 
of over 30 feet laterally. In general, 
then, a low-headed tree is symmetrical, 
spreading, rounded—perhaps just like 
the high-headed tree—but it is within 
reach. Fig. 226 shows this sort of a 
head, although not ideally symmetrical. 
The heavy crop that this 10-year-old 
bears has not laid the branches on the 
ground. Only the tips are touching, 
and with the removal of the crop the 
branches will nearly all raise them¬ 
selves enough to allow the free passage 
DISHORNING THE OLD HIGH HEADS. Fig. 224. 
FIVE YEAR SET SPITZENBURG—HEADED TO 18 INCHES. Fig. 225. 
A LOW HEAD JUST BEFORE PICKING. Fig. 226. 
of an up-to-date extension orchard 
harrow. 
With the development of the modern 
orchard the most practical men soon 
saw that the low-headed tree, whether 
grown naturally, by accident, or design, 
had many advantages over the high¬ 
headed tree. In general the practical 
grower saw that in many ways it was a 
money-saver, and that it could be grown 
just as easily as the high-headed tree. 
The trees that were being headed were 
then started low, not always producing 
a low-headed tree, but generally doing 
so and proving their advantages in their 
later growth. With these trees as living 
examples of what could be done, and 
actually showing the desirable features 
claimed, more and more growers began 
to adopt the low-headed type, especially 
so in the highly specialized commercial 
plantings in the West. Fig. 225 shows 
a five-year-old section in a large or¬ 
chard at Medford, Oregon, in which the 
attempt is being made to develop ideal 
low-headed trees, and most of the trees 
are well started in that direction. This 
tendency towards the low-headed tree is 
general throughout the West at present, 
due chiefly to the actual living examples 
and the campaign carried on at meet¬ 
ings of fruit growers and at farmers’ 
institutes. Occasionally growers are not 
in favor of the low head, and rightly so, 
for it is not always the best type of 
head. 
In general, there are several well- 
marked practical reasons for the low 
head. First in the handling of the tree 
itself. If there is need of pruning the 
work can be done more easily and more 
conveniently, and hence more cheaply, 
where the top is not high in the air. 
Then with the spraying the work is 
more easily done if the tree is low, a 
better and more thorough job can be 
done, and there is not the need of an 
unwieldy and unsteady high tower on 
the spray rig that costs more money to 
build or buy, and costs more in time to 
take through the orchard. Also, the 
spray rods need not be so long, so ex¬ 
pense and weary arms are less. In the 
work of trimming, the low-headed trees 
can be gone over because they are within 
easy reach, whereas the high-headed 
tree presents a difficult problem, and al¬ 
though the grower may realize the 
benefits derived from thinning the fruit, 
he has to abandon the work on account 
of expense. Again in the picking work, 
if the fruit is within reach the picking 
is .much easier than if the work has to 
be done at a considerable height. The 
tree shown in Fig. 226 presents an easy 
problem for the picking crew, as at least 
half of the fruit can be reached from 
the ground. This means direct saving 
financially, as fewer ladders are needed 
and those that are necessary are not so 
expensive because they are shorter. 
Every foot added to the length of a 
