1851 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
141 
when thus given plenty of space, will attain more than 
double the growth acquired with ordinary cultivation. 
There is another matter of economy which will be ob¬ 
vious as soon as named,—that is, placing the kitchen 
garden as near to the stable as practicable, so that there 
will be no temptation to omit the copious application of 
manure at the right moment. 
Suckers from Fruit Trees. 
There is a general impression that suckers of fruit 
trees are less valuable for stocks than seedlings—possess¬ 
ing, it is alleged, less vitality, and exhibiting a stronger 
tendency to the reproduction of suckers. My experi¬ 
ence on this point has been neither very long nor exten- 
tensive, but as far as it goes, I doubt both of the above 
assertions. 
The plum, cherry, quince, gooseberry and currant, 
eminently, and the apple and pear, to tome extent, seem 
designed to continue themselves in this mode, as well as 
to reproduce themselves from seed. The same thing is 
true of a great many other fruits and flowers, whether 
produced by woody stems or herbaceous plants. As a 
philosopher, I would hesitate hastily to question such an 
arrangement of nature, as unwise, since it is so eminently 
cheap and useful. We have now in this. Oneida county, 
the Bleecker plum, (the Lombard of Downing,) by the 
thousand, not one of which, so far as I know, was pro¬ 
pagated either by bud or graft. And yet this tree is as 
thrifty and hardy as a burdock in an old barn-yard. The 
same remark may be made substantially, of other kinds 
of plums. That a seedling possesses a higher degree of 
vitality than a bud, graft, or sucker, is perhaps philoso¬ 
phically true, especially when the latter is from an old 
tree; but when taken from a young tree, the difference 
may be so slight, as practically to be neglected. 
Again, the assertion that a sucker exhibits a superin¬ 
duced tendency to the reproduction of suckers, is in ac¬ 
cordance neither with science nor facts. A seedling 
tree—root and stem—is one homogeneous system. The 
original stem, standing centrally upon its roots, and a 
sucker, standing, it may be, four feet distant from the 
same tree, and based on one of its extended horizontal 
roots, can hardly be supposed to differ in constitutional 
tendencies. The parent tree has sent up this sucker, 
and thus manifested its inherent tendency; will the suck¬ 
er be likely to do either less or more? But let us inves¬ 
tigate the main allegation above alluded to—that suckers 
exhibit less vitality than seedlings. A standard seedling 
tree, is found from examination in the autumn, to exhi¬ 
bit at the collar, below it, or upon some extended root, 
a small bud or buds. In the succeeding spring these 
buds throw up shoots of vigorous growth, dependent, 
for the time being, on the parent tree. In the latter 
part of the same season, but sometimes not until the 
succeeding one, such a sucker forms a collar, just be¬ 
neath the surface of the earth, from which it throws out 
in regular order, an abundance of horizontal roots. 
Soon after this, the tap-root that connects with the pa¬ 
rent tree, and which, for the time, had been its sole ra¬ 
dical dependance, becomes nearly obliterated. You have 
now, at the end of the first or second year, a perfect 
tree, whose sucker origin cannot be inferred from any¬ 
thing in its appearance. Its origin in a little bud, on the 
healthful root of a young tree, may have combined as 
much vitality as would be involved in its origin from a 
seed borne by the top of the tree,—certainly as much as 
would be found in a bud or graft from the same tree. In 
this case you have the advantage, moreover, if the tree 
were a valuable variety, of its propagation upon its own 
roots. There may be cases in which a tree, valuable for 
its fruit, has always exhibited a feeble or imperfect root. 
In such cases the variety should be extended by buds 
and grafts set upon healthful stocks. There is another 
consideration. A tree, even when well situated in re¬ 
gard to climate, soil and position, will usually exhibit 
greater hardiness, and more abiding health of root, than 
of stem. Mechanical accidents, insects, and the influ¬ 
ence of unfavorable seasons—one or all, may seriously 
damage the stem, while the root remains in comparative 
health. In this case, the renewal of the tree by head¬ 
ing back, or by propagating it from sprouts already ex¬ 
isting, is a matter of obvious propriety. It is, I think, 
a statement of Loudon, in his Encyclopedia of Garden¬ 
ing, that the English nurserymen, who cultivate hard¬ 
wood trees, frequently head back young trees, once and 
even twice, before they get a stem that is healthful and 
vigorous. Indeed, nature herself, often does this, 
throwing up a stout side shoot or sucker, to supercede 
the parent tree, where disease or accident had injured it. 
It may be farther observed, that many trees, propa¬ 
gated by buds and grafts, exhibit imperfect adaptations 
to the new stock. Here the union is never quite per¬ 
fect and healthful. Now this difficulty is avoided by the 
propagation of such trees by suckers. Nay, farther, a 
difference of season of maturity, or chemical character 
of circulation, frequently exists between the stock and 
the budded or grafted top, so that the fruit is defoli¬ 
ated before it is ripened, in consequence of the earlier 
maturity of the stock; or its fruit injured by the astrin¬ 
gent character of the sap of the same stock. It were clearly 
better to use natural suckers of a good variety, than to 
propagate it on such stocks. In conclusion—I infer 
that it is safer to follow nature in all cases, where she 
prompts strongly to the continuance of a variety by 
suckers j and that, therefore, there is no objection to 
the use of suckers, as stocks for buds and grafts, simply 
on the ground that they are suckers; and that, though 
in particular cases, suckers may exhibit less of vitality 
and shapeliness than seedlings, their general utility is not 
affected by that origin. The method so much resorted 
to in Europe, of propagation by layering , is analagous to 
propagation by suckers, though obviously a less natural, 
shapely, and healthful mode. 
Suckers, if removed before they form collars and ho¬ 
rizontal roots, are almost in the state of cuttings, and 
will often die, or dwindle for two or three years, before 
they recover and grow rapidly. Hence they should not 
be removed until well supplied with horizontal roots. 
Suckers, too, that spring up in a well cultivated soil, 
will make much better trees than those which spring up 
in neglected positions. Suckers sometimes come up in 
close bundles. It is then always best to thin them out 
to two or three, since otherwise, they cannot root well, 
or, if they do, cannot be separated safely. C. E. G 
Utica, Jan. 27, 1851. 
