Grape; Growing. g 
practice, probably, to leave a frame-work of old arms and prune 
the one-year-old canes back to spurs carrying four dr five buds. 
The number of canes left will have to be governed by the age of 
the vine and its apparent thrift. To be able to prune the vine in¬ 
telligently the grower must have observed closely its behavior the 
previous season. If the new growth is weak and the fruit small it 
would indicate that the number of spurs left should be reduced. If 
the new growth is rank and the bunches large and poorly colored 
it is safe to leave more fruiting wood. 
We have mentioned that buds near the base of the canes do 
not produce as well as those farther out. This is true of most 
varieties at least. The bunches are generally small and there are 
not so many of them on the shoot. The follo\t^ing table, taken 
from Bulletin 77, of the Tennessee Experiment Station, gives the 
average weight of fruit borne on shoots from the first twelve buds 
on the one-year-old canes. The first part of the table gives the 
average yields for single buds and the last part the average yields 
for groups of three buds: 
Average: oe Fruit per Bud on Main Cane 
BUDS—FROM BASE 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
oz. 
oz. 
oz. 
oz 
oz. 
oz. 
oz. 
oz. 
oz. 
oz. 
oz. 
oz. 
Concord . 
2.33 
4.41 
5.38 
6.30 
5.90 
6.40 
5.63 
4.37 
4.43 
4.85 
2.90 
4.29 
Niagara. 
.44 
1.70 
4.03 
3.04 
4.05 
5.75 
7.34 
7.70 
4.96 
7.40 
7.20 
4.45 
Deleware. 
.69 ■ 
1.52 
2.48 
2.80 
2.94 
2.32 
2.73 
3.27 
2.56 
2.66 
2.61 
2.56 
Brighton. 
2.15 
3.37 
4.28 
5.23 
7.91 
7.69 
11.14 
11.13 
8.56 
12.04 
6.78 
6.84 
Concord . 
Average 
4.04 
Average 
6.20 
Average 
4.81 
Average 
4.01 
Niagara. 
< ( 
2.06 
1 4 
4.28 
1 4 
6.67 
4 
6.35 
Deleware. 
11 
1.56 
4 
2.69 
4 4 
2.85 
4 
2.61 
Brighton. 
• < 
3.27 
4 
6.94 
4 4 
10.27 
4 
8.55 
For All. 
1 4 
2.73 
< 4 
5.03 
4 4 
6.15 
4 
5.38 
It will be seen that up to a certain point the buds more removed 
from the base of the cane are the heavier producers. This table 
is compiled from data secured in one season and the author admits 
that a series of records taken during successive seasons may change 
it somewhat, yet it is surely worthy of being quoted. While the 
table gives the results of a test with four varieties of native grapes, 
it is safe to say that other varieties, native as well as vinifera,, 
would show a similar variation. This, then, is an argument in 
favor of longer pruning. 
It is easy to prune and train native grapes that require no pro- 
