19:-. 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
«3» 
THE “WHY” AND “HOW” OF THE LOW¬ 
HEADED APPLE TREE. 
Part II. 
There are, however, some conditions in regions 
where apples are grown that will affect the desirabil¬ 
ity of the low-headed tree one way or the other. For 
instance, in a locality where the air is generally 
humid, and where the sun doesn’t get in its good work 
continually through the day, it may be advisable to 
head the trees higher and allow the chance for free 
air circulation beneath- and around the tree, and not 
give any chance for the humid air to become partly 
confined beneath the tree, as fungus troubles would 
flourish there. I never would want to grow a tree as 
seen in Fig. 226 in a locality such as the Puget Sound 
district of this State or at the opposite side of the 
country in Nova Scotia. If I did I know that I would 
have a profitless fight against scab, canker, and a host 
of other pests. On the other hand, if the region is 
similar to that shown in Fig. 225, the tree can be 
headed as low as individual inclination may warrant 
without any trouble from these fungus enemies. In 
that district and in many others the air is always 
dry during the developing and ripening of the fruit. 
Again, in regions of high altitude or severe winds the 
low head is practically a necessity. Also, the low¬ 
headed tree can be easily handled in an easily worked 
soil because the modern extension tools run beneath 
the head easily and will maintain good soil condition. 
On a heavy soil, one that is particular in its re¬ 
quirements and is often in need of vigorous treatment 
to maintain good soil condition, the high head may 
be better in order that heavier tillage tools can be 
worked in close to the tree. 
As to objections to the low head, of course some 
will be well sustained as pointed out above. Certain 
conditions of climate or soil may make the low head 
undesirable. Another objection is that a symmetrical 
low-headed tree cannot easily be grown on a steep 
sidehill. The branches on the upper side may come 
so low that cultivation close in to the tree is prac¬ 
tically impossible. The higher head or even an un- 
symmetrical head may have its place under such con¬ 
ditions. Just as one type of machine is not adopted 
to every country or climate or soil or slope, so one 
generally desirable single type of tree may not be 
adapted to some climate or soil or slope. Another 
objection is that if the tree is headed low the branches 
cannot be prevented from sprawling on the ground. 
This is partly due to poor training of the tree, or may 
be due to an inherent character of a variety. In many 
places the Jonathan has a more slender, willowy habit 
and if headed very low it does get on the ground. 
Such a habit of growth needs a higher head. But the 
Spitzenburg (Esopus) or the Rome Beauty, varieties 
that push up and have to be trained to grow spread¬ 
ing, can be headed as low as the grower 
desires. Another objection raised 
against the low head is that trees so 
started require special tools like exten¬ 
sion cultivators and the like, and such 
tools add to the expense of the orchard. 
Now the modern commercial orchard 
needs special machinery to keep it as 
a good orchard should be kept. We 
buy spraying outfits and say the ex¬ 
pense is justified by the saving or rather 
by the added returns. In a like manner 
the expense of the special harrow or 
cultivator is justified or balanced by 
the saving in equipment. For the low¬ 
headed tree we need only half the num¬ 
ber of ladders or ladders of half the 
height, or spray rods and towers less 
in length, and height, and the general 
operations mentioned before—pruning, 
spraying, thinning, picking—are all done 
more easily and quickly at a less cost. 
So in a well-handled low-headed 
orchard the expense of the needed 
special machinery is saved every year 
in some other convenience. 
Now, does the low-headed tree have 
any peculiar advantage either East or 
West? I think I have shown that it isn’t so much 
the name of the district as the nature of the district. 
Wherever the low-headed tree can be properly grown 
it shows all its advantages to the benefit of the 
grower. As far as I have been able to determine, 
the Eastern tree generally will grow larger than the 
Western tree, but that is the only difference as far 
as the tree is concerned. 
Now comes the question, has the low-headed tree 
"made good"? Grant me the privilege of my New 
England rearing to answer the question with two 
others. If the low-headed tree has not “made good,” 
why are so many of our young orchards all over the 
country being started in this way? If it has not 
“made good,” why are so many of the older high¬ 
headed trees being “dishorned" to rebuild the head 
lower? Fig. 224 shows that this is done on the older 
Western orchards just as it is done in the East. 
Now for the question, how is the low-headed tree 
formed? I have said that some trees naturally will 
tend to form a low head. Sometimes they will do 
it without ever having been pruned, but we cannot 
run the risk of forming a poor head so it is best to 
give such pruning as will develop the desired head. 
PUREBRED KARAKULE LAMB. Fig. 242. 
Some varieties always have the upright habit of 
growth and others have the spreading habit. But 
leaving this point for a moment let us see what sort 
of stock we shall get to begin with. Weak stock is 
no good. We cull all weak animals, as we say they 
don’t repay us for our trouble. Now the weak tree 
is about the same, although the comparison betw’een 
the animal and the plant is not always safe on ac¬ 
count of their different nature. A weak tree may 
recover, but it is much easier to start with a good one. 
The question of starting with the one-year nursery 
tree or the two-year tree always starts an argument. 
The general reasons for not wanting a two-year 
nursery tree are that it may be a weakling, and thal 
the head has been formed on the wholesale and 
probably crowded so that it cannot develop as it 
ought to in order to make a good tree. The general 
reasons for wanting the one-year tree are that we 
usually can get strong trees, and the top can be 
developed “at home” with individual care; that is, 
although the one-year tree looks small, we can more 
generally get the shape we want by growing it as we 
can under our own care than we can get a good shape 
in the two-year tree that may not have a good head 
at all when we get it from the nursery, or may be 
three or four feet high when we want the head at two 
feet or less. Again, the one-year stock packs better, 
ships better, with less bruising, and as a given num¬ 
ber weigh less and take up less room they are handled 
more cheaply by express or freight. I have no 
quarrel with the two-year nursery tree in itself, for I 
have seen many particular districts where the stronger 
roots of the two-year tree seems to argue for its use 
—except that the top grown in the nursery may be 
anything but desirable. If the one-ycar trees were to 
be set out at home, not too closely, and the tops de¬ 
veloped for one year, while the orchard soil is being 
prepared for the trees, there would be no complaint 
against the two-year tree, for its top would be “home 
grown.” But in general the one-year tree gives much 
better satisfaction for immediate planting. 
Now as to the pruning: The one-year tree, usually 
a mere whip, needs but one cut. If left to develop, 
as it would naturally without pruning, altogether too 
many branches would start from the good buds. To 
remove the upper ones lessens the competition among 
the branches—say to 10 instead of 20—and we can cut 
to form those 10 low and make the tree low-headed 
at the beginning. That is, if we cut the whip with 
judgment as to its vigor and variety anywhere from 
18 to 30 inches from the ground, the head is sure to 
be low and we can form the scaffold of the low head 
from the 10 branches or shoots. Now some of these 
shoots—let us say three or four—will make a weaker 
growth. Shall we leave them for Nature to prune, 
or shall we make a clean, neat job of it and cut them 
off? If we trim them out when they are still watery 
in June or July we have again lessened competition 
among the branches and the remaining six or seven 
will profit by their room. ' If they are not weak it 
may be well to leave them in a year or so in some 
cases and let them help to develop a strong, healthy 
root system, but even so it does not pay to let them 
crowd the ones we want for the main branches. 
If we leave all the shoots to grow we will have a 
tree like Fig. 240. This particular tree formed 10 
branches. Two of them were too low and gave the 
tree an unbalanced character, so they were removed 
(sec Fig. 241). Perhaps some of the remaining eight 
were weak and will later need to be removed, but the 
owner wished them to remain for one year to help 
strengthen the root, so in the pruned tree there are 
eight branches left. Now if all of these branches 
are undisturbed, as our friends who believe in no 
pruning would advocate, there will be a multitude of 
branches the next season, all taking strength from the 
tree, and many of them being useless. On one of the 
branches of this I counted 37 good buds, and if 
even half of these should grow the next season, I 
think our friends who do not prune would be at a 
loss to know what to do with the 18 small branches, 
or would go away and let Nature attend to it. Nature 
would take some out all right, but by the expensive 
process of killing them out by fungus troubles or 
starving them in the shade for want of the food that 
light would give. I think that all who really look 
into the question fairly and squarely 
will agree that the simple cutting off of 
the upper two feet of the three-foot 
growth of that upright shoot leaves only 
10 to 14 possibilities for new shoots, 
and as they develop we can again “weed 
out” in June or July the weak ones and 
those that want to grow where they will 
be of no value. That will still leave 
plenty to form the top, and they will be 
stronger and plumper for the greater 
freedom. A man growing pumpkins for 
the fairs will clip back the tips of his 
vines and let only one or two pumpkins 
set on each plant. He is usually satis¬ 
fied that they are larger than they would 
have been if they had had to face the 
competition of three or four others. 
Now it is the same with the young 
apple tree—the branches or shoots that 
are left will be larger than they would 
have been if they had bad to compete 
with their valueless neighbors. Remem¬ 
ber that the tree is not like the lamb 
or the calf. The animal is a complete 
whole, and to injure any part injures 
the whole. The plant is a group of com¬ 
peting branches or a group of indi¬ 
viduals, and to remove one part simply gives the 
others a better chance to grow. The branches that 
are left are sure to be stronger, and it is strength 
that we want in the main branches of the young tree. 
So we shorten all the shoots back according to their 
position and needs (Fig. 241). If the shoot is not 
very strong we clip it way back so that competition 
among its new growth of shoots is reduced enough to 
give the required strength. If the shoot is already 
strong we clip more for the desired form in the tree 
and then wait to see what the tree does with all its 
chances and eliminate again the weak and undesirable 
offerings. w. g. brierley. 
S 
KARAKULE EWE AND YOUNG LAMB. Fig 243. 
