HIO 
i jitC RURAL NEW-YORKER 
shoots, and the difficulty of seeing dearly what is to 
be done makes it impracticable to do the work after 
the buds have developed very far, or at any time in 
the later growing season. In the Fall the leaves are 
gone, but there is some danger of Winter injury to 
the wounds, and of sunscald in the denuded branches. 
So the best time is in early Spring, when these 
troubles are not present, and it will pay to wait for 
that season. Young trees in which pruning has been 
neglected may be as much in need of dishorning as 
old veterans. Fig. 332 shows a two-year Rome 
Beauty top on a six-year-old stock. The top was 
RIGHT AND WRONG PLACE TO CUT TREE Fig. 334. 
entirely neglected after a remarkably good “set" of 
the scions had been secured. It not only needs a 
good thinning, hut half at least of that eight-foot top 
should be removed and the growth thrown into the 
best of the laterals in order to spread out the head. 
This will be dishorning as truly as if the same shape 
and conditions were found in a tree forty years old. 
Washington Agricultural College, w. G. brierley. 
FERTILIZER EXPERIMENT WITH NOVA 
SCOTIA APPLES. 
Here is a report on eight years’ results from 10 
Ben Davis fertilized and 10 Ben Davis not fertilized: 
Row 5 Fertilized 
1004—28.2.“ bbls. 
1905— 10.00 bbls. 
1906— 19.2p bbls. 
1907— 35.15 bbls. 
Total 92.65 bbls. 
First 4 yrs. 
1908— 31.15 bbls. 
1909— 43.40 bbls. 
1910— 16.80 bbls. 
1911— 70.45 bbls. 
Row 6 Not Fertilized 
33.75 bbls. 
9.50 bbls. 
25.00 bbls. 
35.50 bbls. 
103.75 bbls. 
38.05 bbls. 
39.00 bbls. 
23.65 bbls. 
58.25 bbls. 
Total 161.80 bbls. 
Second 4 yrs. 
158.95 bbls. 
I take it that at the start Row 6 was a naturally 
better row of trees in the ratio of 103.75 to 92.65. The 
result for the second .period of Row 5 (fertilized) 
should be 142 barrels, but instead we get almost 20 
barrels more, namely, 161.80 barrels. This increase is 
equal to one-half of a barrel per tree per year, or on 
an acre having 50 trees would, be 25 barrels each year 
increase due to fertilizing. In 1910 17 barrels fertil¬ 
ized packed No. 1 3 2 /$ barrels, No. 2 5 barrels, No. 3 
6 barrels, 2 /s barrel refuse; 23)4 barrels unfertilized 
packed No. 1 3)4 barrels, No. 2 7)4 barrels, No. 3 9^4 
barrels, 2 /z refuse. That is, ratio for 1910 was as fol¬ 
lows : 
Fertilized 
No. 1—23.86 bbls. % 
No. 2—32.60 bbls. % 
No. 3—39.12 bbls. % 
Refuse— 4.30 bbls. % 
Unfertilized 
16.59 bbls. % 
34.36 bbls. % 
45.78 bbls. % 
3.1 2 bbls. % 
99.88 bbls. 
99.85 bbls. 
In 1911 they packed up 
No. 1, 23j4 No. 2. 12^4 No. 
rels unfertilized, 22)4 No. 1 
evaporator. The ratio of 
therefore: 
Fertilized 
No. 1—37.83 bbls. % 
No. 2—36.27 bbls. % 
No. 3—19.89 bbls. % 
Evaporator— 5.46 bbls. % 
99.45 bbls. 
71 barrels fertilized. 24)4 
3, 3)4 evaporator; 59 bar- 
., 18 No. 2, no No. 3, 16)4 
packed fruit for 1911 is, 
Unfertilized 
39.50 bbls. % 
31.68 bbls. % 
0.00 bbls. % 
28.60 bbls. % 
99.78 bbls. 
The 20 trees were planted about 1886. in the fifth 
and sixth rows of a two to 2% acre orchard on very 
mean, flat, sandy clay soil, with hardpan bottom about 
18 inches and under gravelly sand, which is very dry 
six feet down in Summer. Before I got them they 
had very medium attention, potatoes and buckwheat 
crops being taken off and stable manure not too lav¬ 
ishly used. In 1903 they got at rate of 20 tons per acre 
manure, and 400 pounds fertilizer (potato) all over 
orchard. In 1904 they had a very light dose of manure 
and a cover crop of Red clover. In 1905 no fertilizer 
and no cultivation, and a fine crop of clover hay was 
removed. In 1906 cultivation was resumed and Row 
5 (fertilized) got 100 pounds of good potato manure 
on its 10 trees. Cover crop was Crimson clover. In 
1907 cultivation, no fertilizer, fifth row one bag potato 
fertilizer; cover crop Hairy vetch. In 1908 I started 
to give slag to Row 5 and gave the 10 trees 225 
pounds low-grade slag; cover crop was buckwheat and 
Summer vetch. In 1909 I gave all the orchard save 
the sixth row a good grade of slag at rate of 1,200 
pounds per acre, cover crop buckwheat; 1910 all save 
the sixth row got 1,200 pounds per acre good acid 
phosphate. So the special lack of fertilizing for Row 
6 really starts in 1905. I am unlucky in having only 
the two years, 1910 and 1911, to draw on for the rela¬ 
tive quality of the fruit. In 1909 I was much struck 
by the fine appearance of the fertilized fruit and ar¬ 
ranged to have it and the unfertilized packed sep¬ 
arately. In our packing house the returns got mixed, 
and so I cannot say anything definite. The season for 
1910 was the year of small crops, due to frost, and 
the fruit on neither of those rows was thinned by 
hand. In 1911 the fruit was thinned in beginning of 
August, and I really thought half of the set was taken 
off. However, there were far too many left to grow 
to any size in such a dry season; 350 barrels per acre 
on poor land is rather a hard proposition even for a 
Ben Davis. One thing in the trees' favor, both fer¬ 
tilized and unfertilized, was that for the last three 
years 1 had done hardly any pruning, and was so 
disgusted at picking time in 1909 that last Spring I 
personally shortened in many of the branches and 
almost all the suckers in both lots of trees. We use a 
cord wood sled rack to haul the brush, and the two 
rows gave about 2)4 cords of brush pretty well packed 
down. Reasons -perhaps why the fertilized fruit was 
poorer in pack might be, first, the fertilized row had 
to mature seven barrels against six per tree on the un¬ 
fertilized ; second, the lime and phosphate acid acting 
in a dry year might have ripened the tree without 
swelling the fruit to its proper size. Lastly, and what 
I believe is the cause, the fertilizer has made the 
trees in Row 5 appreciably larger than those of Row 
6, and though the set of apples was no greater per 
cubic foot, yet the water supply was too scanty for 
finishing the fruit. Rows 1-4 are mostly King, Wag- 
ener and Spy; Rows 7, 8, 9 are Ben Davis, Spy and 
Canada Red, so I can hardly sec that fertilizing of 
blossoms had anything to do with results. My gen¬ 
eral pack last year was somewhat about 65 per cent 
No. 1, 20 per cent No. 2 and 12 per cent No. 3, not 
what I expected in early Summer, but better than the 
Ben Davis test by far. joiin buciianan. 
Nova Scotia. 
WATER AS A FACTOR IN AGRICULTURE 0 . 
The Influence of Water on Crop Production. 
Part I. 
There is probably no one factor or group of factors 
which exerts a greater direct influence on crop pro¬ 
duction than does the one of water supply. It is this 
factor that makes the desert a dreary waste and the 
humid region a region of lowing herds and waving 
grain. It is the application of water by means of irri¬ 
gation which transforms the desert to a garden; and 
JUNE-JULY RAINFALL AND CORN YIELD. Fig. 335. 
it is the presence of too much which makes the marsh 
a region of waste and often of pestilence. Every 
farmer is perfectly aware, perhaps painfully so, that 
most of the variation in crops is due to the seasonal 
variation in rainfall. The Department of Agriculture 
has done some work on this question, using for pur¬ 
poses of comparison the corn crop in the “corn belt.’’ 
The curves in Fig. 335. which is adapted from a chart 
in the 1903 Year Book, show some of the results of 
this study. It will be noticed that in general in years 
of abundant rainfall in* June and July the crop is also 
abundant. Prof. F. H. King, in his book, “The Soil,” 
reports as follows: “In our experiments (plenty of 
water being supplied) where we have attempted to 
measure the water used in the production of a ton of 
dry matter, our smallest yield has been at the rate 
of four tons, and our largest at the rate of 17 tons, 
July 27, 
with an average for 22 cases of over seven tons o-f 
dry matter per acre." These yields are enormous. 
If, then, the presence of a proper supply of water 
leads to such large yields, it behooves us to put forth 
our best efforts to attain that condition. It is the 
purpose of this series of articles to discuss the opti¬ 
mum or best moisture condition and the means of 
most nearly approaching it. 
The first question which confronts us, then, is. What 
is the optimum moisture condition? That it must be 
very high is easy to see when we consider the amount 
of water transpired by a plant in producing a given 
amount of dry matter. Hellriegel found, in Prussia, 
that the amounts of water given to the air, almost 
wholly through plants, were as follows: Barley, 310 
pounds per pound dry matter produced; Summer rye, 
353 pounds; oats, 376 pounds; Summer wheat, 338 
pounds; horse beans, 282 pounds; peas, 273 pounds; 
Red clover, 310 pounds; and buckwheat, 363 pounds. 
This gives an average of 325 tons of water per ton of 
rvo 3" e" 9" 
mulch mulch mulch mulch 
MO 3" e" 9" 
MULCH MULCH MULCH MULCH 
2 ZD 
J: 
$ “ 
I «: 
< 
Qr 
o 
lu 
0.0 
_ 
1 
1 
i 
I 
_ 
I 
~ 
' 
_ 
’ 
_ 
1 
! 
_ . _ 
_ 
_ 
1 
j 
' - 
-j 
_ 
1 
— 
_ 
— 
— 
— 
-i 
-; 
- : 
— 
— 
— 
~1 
— 
— 
— 
— 
— 
— 
■i "W 
_ 
_ 
1 
I 
_ 
_ 
_ 
_ 
_ 
_ 
. ] 
_ 
_ 
S:. 
—1 
— 1 
— 
-! 
— 
- 1 
—! 
id 
— 
— 
— 
— 
1 — 1—1 
■ 
V 
-I 
— 
_ 
— 
— 
— 
— 
— 
_ 
_ 
, 
ZZI 
— 
- - 
— 
— 1 
— 
— 
— 
myr — 
—j 
June: 10 to July 1. —21 bays 
1 Sept. ! to OctJ.-s? pays 1 
SOIL MULCHES AND EVAPORATION. Fig. 336. 
dry matter produced. Careful experiments carried on 
in Wisconsin with dent corn, flint corn, Red clover, 
barley, oats, field peas and potatoes gave an average 
of 398.8 tons of water used per ton of dry matter pro¬ 
duced. Now, the production of a really good crop 
of corn requires from 10 to 15 inches of available 
water. If this larger amount (15 inches) could be 
supplied, large crops so far as water contributes 
to them would he certain. 
Coupled with the enormous demands of a large 
crop for water is the limited ability of soils to retain 
and deliver it to the crop. According to King, “We 
have no productive lands which, under field conditions, 
can retain as much as 30 pounds of water to the 100 
pounds of soil, unless they lie close to or below the 
water table. ... It will be safe to say that those 
lands which can retain, in the upper five feet of soil, 
as much as 20 inches of water are very rare indeed. 
Then, were there no loss by surface evaporation nor 
by percolation 'downward, not more than 10 inches 
out of the supposed 20 inches of the stored water 
could be counted as available to a crop growing on 
the ground ^vhere large yields are expected; and it 
has been said that for lands to do their best, their 
water content should be steadily held up to from 40 
to 50 per cent, of saturation, and Hellriegel says 50 
to 60 per cent.” Here we have concisely stated both 
the maximum amount which we can expect our best 
soils to make available to plants under most condi¬ 
tions, and also what is the best moisture condition for 
the best crops. A smaller per cent, of saturation leads 
directly to a decrease in yield; while a greater satura¬ 
tion leads to the exclusion of the air and the souring 
of the soil, with the consequent lower yield. It is, 
of course, desirable to have a certain amount of vari¬ 
ation in the per cent, of saturation, as such variation 
promotes the aeration of the soil; but if we could 
have ideal conditions as to moisture supply, we would 
keep it somewhere between 40 and 60 per cent, of 
saturation. 
Thus far we have considered the influence of water 
in determining the size of crops and also what is the 
best moisture condition for large yields. We have 
found that crops are very largely dependent in size of 
yield on the amount of water at their disposal; that 
the water used by plants is enormous and that the 
best moisture condition of the soil for the growth 
of most crops is a very large (40 to 60) per cent of 
saturation, much larger, in fact, than we ever have 
continuously in ordinary field conditions. It becomes, 
then, of paramount importance to use all the means at 
our disposal to approach this ideal. Next week we 
shall take up the question of how we can nearest ap¬ 
proach this ideal condition. h. e. mern. 
Indiana. 
Hebe is the theory of mulching. A bunch of big weeds 
growing vigorously beside a tree rob it of moisture. These 
same weeds cut off and put on top of the ground no longer 
rob but save water. 
Let us tell it again. An old meadow is the worst place 
for strawberries—too many white grubs. It may take 
three years of thorough culture to get rid of the grubs. 
A drove of active pigs will do it in one season. 
