0 70 
T.'HfcC RURAL NEW-YORKER 
FERTILIZATION OF APPLE ORCHARDS. 
Part II. 
The comparison and results shown and described 
in this article compose but a single characteristic 
example of the Ohio Station's fertilizer test plots 
located in southeastern Ohio, under the care of the 
writer. In the same orchard at Torch Hill there are 
11 alternating fertilized and unfertilized plots upon 
which various elements and combinations of elements 
of chemical plant food have been used. Similar 
experiments are being conducted at Fleming, New 
Matamoras and Lowell—all with similar and splendid 
results. Taking into consideration all of these various 
and widely separated test orchards, we at present have 
a two years’ average gain per tree of $3.06 wherever 
nitrate of soda was used alone or in combination 
with the other elements, at a cost not to exceed 24 
cents per tree even where a complete mixture was 
used. The cost of the nitrate of soda alone has been 
about 15 cents per tree per year. 
Now, as to the use of nitrate of soda alone and 
its results. The particular comparison of plots which 
has been presented above might suggest that it was 
the special combination of nitrate of soda and acid 
phosphate that produced such a striking increase in 
yield. This evidently is not the case. Nitrate of soda 
alone has, so far, in every test, given practically the 
same results as where it is used in combination with 
acid phosphate and potash under the same soil con¬ 
ditions. The addition or withholding of acid phos¬ 
phate or potash has made no apparent difference thus 
far. This is sufficient to indicate that it is nitrogen 
more than any other element of plant food that is 
seriously lacking in the thin, humus-deficient hill soils 
of southern Ohio, so far as apple production is con¬ 
cerned. What is true of this section might not be 
true in other places where soil conditions are different. 
However, the writer does not wish to have this article 
construed as a recommendation of the use of nitrate 
of soda alone in apple orchard fertilization. On the 
other hand we believe it best to use a complete fer¬ 
tilizer; for the time may soon come when the addition 
of phosphorus and potassium will be needed to obtain 
best results. Such a course should be chosen as will 
tend to build up the soil in all the essential elements 
of plant food, the cost not being much greater than 
when nitrate is applied alone. And especially should 
such a course be chosen as will provide for the restor¬ 
ation of organic or vegetabe matter in or upon the soil 
of the orchard area—the accumulation of hurtius- 
forming material. This can be done by mulching, or 
by encouraging, by extra fertilization between the 
tree rows, an increased growth of vegetation in the 
orchard area to be cut twice per year and permitted 
to lie where it falls when cut. Cultivation and the 
growing of cover crops are excellent orchard prac¬ 
tices where the level or comparatively level nature of 
the orchard land will admit of such practice without 
loss of soil and fertility by washing. But there is 
little use of talking of such methods on the steeper 
southern Ohio hills. Besides it is not necessary to 
cultivate in order to grow fine fruit and lots of it, 
under southern Ohio conditions. We are obliged 
to thin our apples very vigorously on the sod-mulch 
or grass-mulch plots in order to restrict production 
to that point which will enable our trees to bring 
their crops to maturity without breaking. How much 
more fruit should a cultivated orchard be expected 
to bring to perfection? 
Tankage used instead of nitrate of soda, as a source 
of nitrogen, is splendid where the orchard is cut-, 
tivated, with cover crops, but tankage is too slow 
in its action when used as a top-dressing on the sod- 
mulch or grass-mulch orchards. We have no means 
of knowing, at the outset, just how much fertilizer 
of the different kinds should be applied per tree. We 
began on the extremely poor soils and trees of medium 
size, with five and five and 2pounds each of nitrate 
of soda, acid phosphate and muriate of potash, 
whether these were used alone or in combination. I 
am inclined to think that we have used more nitrate 
than is necessary. In general orchard practice we 
have varied the quantities according to the size and 
age of the trees, keeping in mind the rule of about 
five, five and 2^ for the average-sized 15 or 20-year- 
old tree. 
Our Station’s orchard fertilizer test plots have been 
very interesting indeed, under conditions existing in 
southeastern Ohio. The alternating rows of dark 
green and pale, yellowish green, where nitrate has 
been applied in comparison with no fertilizer or phos¬ 
phorus and potassium; and, later, the difference be¬ 
tween the nitrated trees weighted to the ground with 
great loads of beautiful apples, in comparison with 
the upright, almost fruitless branches of the un¬ 
fertilized rows, have attracted much attention 
throughout southern Ohio. F. H. bai.lou. 
“THE DUST SPRAY.” 
On page 126 appears an article which seems to en¬ 
dorse the using of a dry material as an insecticide, instead 
of the liquid form, now so widely and so successfully 
applied by the means of the spraying machines. If an 
equally efficacious substitute has been found that can be 
Jiore easily and cheaply applied, it would seem to be 
the duty of The It. N.-Y. to enlighten its many interested 
readers on the fact. stackhocse & son. 
Sussex County, N. .7. 
The season for spraying the apple trees being at 
hand, I do in my orchards about the same as I did 
last year, namely, where the land is level and a good' 
supply of pond water convenient I use the liquid 
process, but instead of Bordeaux mixture I now apply 
BRACING POST AT ANGLE. Fto. 222. 
altogether the lime-sulphur solution, which costs me 
delivered in our lots about 13 cents per gallon. I 
use of this solution four gallons to 100 gallons of 
water, and add six pounds of the arsenate of lead 
paste, which costs me delivered about 7Y cents per 
pound. On all the land that is more or less hilly and 
where a supply of water is not handy I make all 
applications in the dust form. To make up 100 
pounds of this so-called dust spray I use this season 
about 70 pounds hydrated lime, 30 pounds flowers of 
sulphur, and add five pounds of Paris green. The 
lime and sulphur is for fungus troubles and the Paris 
green for insects. The three ingredients should be 
thoroughly mixed to be most effective. I use for this 
purpose a whisky barrel which is suspended on an 
iron pivot directly over a receiving box that holds 
about 300 pounds. The iron rod or pivot I run right 
through the center of the barrel, as that makes a 
more substantial job than simply to fasten it on the 
outside of the two heads. One crank fastened on the 
right side is sufficient to do the turning. On the side 
of the barrel, where the bung is, I cut. out a trap 
door about 12 inches square, which is on hinges, with 
a tight fastening that will prevent any material from 
coming out during the revolving or mixing process. 
The three different ingredients are put in the barrel 
TYING DOWN FENCE AT FOOT OF HILL. Fig. 224. 
through this trap door, and after being well mixed 
dumped into the receiving box, and from there trans¬ 
ferred into boxes or barrels for use in the orchards. 
I buy my flowers of sulphur in New York City, and 
a barrel holds 155 pounds; it costs me a fraction less 
than 3$4 cents delivered. I would not advise buying 
any flowers of sulphur weighing more than 155 pounds 
to the barrel. The kind I am getting is ground very 
fine and mixes well with the hydrated lime and Paris 
green. The same formula I give for apples can also 
be used on peaches to prevent brown rot, but instead 
of using five pounds of Paris green I recommend 2Y 
pounds of dry powdered arsenate of lead. It is 
May 17, 
dangerous to use Paris green on peaches, as it is 
liable to burn the foliage. 1 buy the dry arsenate of 
lead in 200-pound barrels and it costs me 15Y cents 
in Milwaukee. 
Now a word about which method is the best—the 
liquid or the dust. In my orchards last year I could 
discover little difference when the applications had' 
been equally well made, except that I happened to 
have the best apples where I used the dust exclusively. 
As 1 mentioned in a former letter, very much of the 
success in dust spray depends on adopting it at the 
rigfit time. I prefer to apply it early in the morning 
and late in the afternoon, or any time when there is 
some dew or dampness on the foliage and in the air: 
it sticks better. I like the dust spray because it is so 
easily applied and at considerably less cost than the 
liquid, and while many of the professional spray men 
differ with me, I feel convinced from what experience 
I have had that the dust, when properly made and 
applied, gives fully as satisfactory results as the wet 
or liquid spray. louis erb. 
Missouri. 
WHEN ARE SMALL BUILDINGS REAL 
ESTATE? 
Give me the New York law in regard to buildings 
located oil leased or mortgaged property. For instance, 
if my property is mortgaged, or I lease a place, if I wish 
to erect a shed or small barn or any building, if I set 
and fasten it to post of any kind I own the building, d» 
I not? As long as I do not put it on a stationary foun¬ 
dation I have a right to move or sell it at any tiirfe, 1 
believe. Does the law particularly mention about the sill 
being nailed to the post? R. 
Long Island. 
This brings up the question of fixtures. That is, 
whether the property becomes realty and remains as 
part of the land, or is personalty and may be taken 
away by the person departing. There is no statute 
law in New York in regard to fixtures. The law in 
practically all of the States respecting fixtures is based 
on the old English common law, as modified by our 
own court decisions. It is virtually the same regard¬ 
ing either leased or mortgaged premises, and these 
will be treated together. There are three general 
criteria used to distinguish whether a certain piece 
of property is removable or not, as follows: 
1. What was the intent with which it was affixed 
or used in connection with the land? 
2. The nature of its affixing to the land. 
3. The parties between whom the question of owner¬ 
ship arises and their relations to each other. 
The first of these is most important; that is, what 
is the presumable intent of the person who affixed 
the property to the land? Did he mean to improve 
the realty to that extent? If so, it belongs to the 
freehold. Or did he only intend to use the property 
during his stay, in which event he would take it with 
him? The best way to show intent is by a writing 
betwedki the parties as to which form they shall con¬ 
sider the property, and as between them this controls. 
Then the nature of its affixing to the land. It is 
generally considered part of the realty if it cannot be 
removed without injury to the freehold or without 
leaving the freehold in worse condition than when it 
was taken away. The weight and size of the fixture 
has a bearing on the case. If it is easily removed, 
it is generally considered a chattel. 
Now we come to the parties. If the property is 
annexed to the freehold by the owner it is presumed 
he puts them there to increase the value of the free¬ 
hold and they become part of it, while if these are 
placed on the premises by one whose stay is but for 
a short time he is not presumed to be anxious to 
place things on the freehold which he cannot take 
away. 
Coming to the question in hand: It is the usual 
understanding that a building erected by one person 
on another’s land, is to be treated as a fixture and a 
part of the realty. But if it be so erected, upon an 
understanding or agreement that it may be removed 
at any time, it is then no part of the realty, but per¬ 
sonal property, especially where it is only slightly 
affixed to the freehold. If this building is small and 
easily taken away, and is not built on a solid founda¬ 
tion, and the lease is for but a short time, presumably 
it may be taken away at the expiration of the lease. 
But the safest way would be to get the land owner’s 
consent in writing, and if a transfer of the property 
is made before the lease expires see that the new 
owner is notified of the right of the lessee to remove 
the building. 
In an English case it was decided that a wooden 
barn erected by a tenant, and resting on, but not 
fastened by mortar or otherwise to, the caps or blocks 
of stone called stavels, or staddles, fixed into the 
ground or let into brickwork, which barn could be 
removed without injury to the freehold, was held to 
be a chattel. 
