THE NATIONAL NURSERYMAN 
799 
VARIETY 
OBITUARY 
While we are on the variety question, it 
is perhaps worth while to call attention to 
the passing of some now properly recog¬ 
nized worthless varieties which, at one 
time, occupied a large place in the horti¬ 
cultural world. For instance, take that attractive and 
unique old fraud, Prunus simoni, hailing originally from 
somewhere in the Orient, coming to us by way of France, 
and the Pacific Coast, heralded as a phenomenon in the 
pomological world, and certainly presenting a striking 
appearance, both in character of tree quality and appear¬ 
ance of fruit, but in the test of years failing most miserably. 
It is true that we see fruit of this variety still adorning the 
stalls of the Italian vendor, and challenging attention by 
their peculiar tomato-like appearance; but no longer are 
they found in the trade lists of the East. A variant, or 
hybrid, whichever one may like to call it, has come and gone 
from the fruit lists of the deciduous regions of the Northeast . 
Another set of fruits which had their day, and perhaps 
served the advertising purpose of the promoters, were the 
so-called hardy Russian apricots. A number of varieties 
were introduced with unpronounceable Russian names, 
“Nicholases” and “Skobeloffs” and the like, suggestive of 
ability to stand the rigors of northern regions, and were 
sold at fancy prices for a few years; but they, too, have 
gone the way of the worthless and unadapted. And such is 
the story of hasty introductions promoted from the exclus¬ 
ive standpoint of financial gain. 
PROFIT IN 
NEW YORK 
APPLE 
GROWING 
The interest in and knowledge of the 
fundamentals of successful apple growing 
in New York State by an eminent college 
executive is indicated by the following 
interesting statement presented .by Presi¬ 
dent J. G. Schurman of Cornell University 
at the meeting of the New York State Fruit Growers in 
Rochester, January, 1910. 
Capital is not attracted to any enterprise unless remuner¬ 
ative, but in the case of fruit growing, the people are not 
aware how profitable the enterprise really is or may be made. 
A study of the income from 178 New York farms has been 
made by the Experiment Station at Cornell, these not the 
smaller or average farms, but averaging a capitalization of 
$11,000, and the investigation shows that there are good 
chances for making money in agriculture in New York. 
But the most striking thing in this investigation is the 
showing made by the fruit farms, a per cent of 19.8 having 
been realized on investments in fruit farms as against an 
average of all farms (including fruit farms) of 11.1 per cent. 
The farmer’s salary or labor income on these 178 farms 
averaged $981, while the labor income on the fruit farms 
alone averaged $2,209. Eleven fruit growers of the group 
cleared above $2,500 each annually, while only one dairy¬ 
man and no general farmer did this. 
A noteworthy showing of expenses and returns on a fruit 
farm of nine acres has been made by a recent graduate of 
the College of Agriculture at Cornell, which represents his 
first year of work after graduation on his home farm. 
EXPENSE OF CARE 
Area of 9 acres, mostly Baldwins, 34 years old. 
Pruning. $20.00 
Spraying twice, labor and team. 30.20 
Spray materials. 22.00 
Plowing. 15.33 
Tillage, 5 times. 17.50 
Drawing and spreading 100 loads manure. 17.50 
Harvesting, picking, packing and picking drops. 196.50 
Hauling... 10 .OO 
Barrels. 305.00 
Total expense. $ 634.03 
Yield. 900 bbl. 
Gross income . $2,400.39 
Net income . 1,766.36 
Net, per acre. 196.26 
Valued at $200 per acre, this orchard returned 100 per 
cent, on the investment, or, considering 6 per cent, a fair 
return 011 any investment, then this farm was worth $3,271 
per acre. 
ROOT KNOT 
The Experiment Station orchard is not yet old enough to 
furnish us with definite data for publication. The orchard 
was set in the spring of 1902 and as yet the trees have not 
matured a crop of fruit. We have, however, not been able 
to notice any difference in the blooming ability of the sound 
and root knot trees. Those affected with Root Knot are, 
however, distinctly smaller than the others. I have done no 
work on the Biology or the Communicability of the Root 
Knot trouble since 1904. 
Yours truly, 
Mountain Grove, Mo. F. W. Faurot. 
HOW SOIL LOSES WATER 
The capillary water of the soil is removed in two ways: First* 
by the action of plant roots, and second, by means of evaporation. 
As the capillary water from a soil is evaporated, the surface tension 
of the water tends to approximate the soil particles until by the time 
all of the capillary water is removed the soil particles have been 
brought within cohesive range of each other. This causes the soil to 
shrink in volume, and the soil particles being now brought within 
close enough relationship with each other that the power of cohesion 
may act between them, water readily passed from one soil grain to 
another. This has been incorrectly called capillarity. 
It is not because capillary tubes are formed in a crusted soil that 
water is lost by capillarity, but because the soil grains during the 
drying process have been so closely approximated to each other that 
the dry soil grain steals the water from the moist ones below and 
carries it in a stream from one soil particle to another until it finally 
reaches the uppermost one, when it is carried off into the air by 
evaporation. If a soil that has been subjected to the drying and 
contracting process be stirred with any implement the soil particles 
will be separated so far apart that they will lie beyond cohesive 
range of each other. In a soil so treated it is next to impossible for 
water to travel from one soil grain to another and thus the efficacy of 
the dust mulch. In this case the water rises by capillarity from the 
moist soil below until it comes into contact with the dry, loose and 
separated particles of the mulch, where it is diverted from its up¬ 
ward course. 
Dr. H. H. Stoner, 
Dry Farming Congress. 
