March  31,  1898. 
JOURNAL  OF  mUTIGULTURF  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
283 
THE  SCIENCE  AND  PRACTICE  OF  FORMINC 
FRUIT  TREES. 
Results  op  Pruning  and  Non-Pruning  after  Planting. 
The  non-pruning  of  a  tree  (p)  at  planting  is  shown  in  tig.  58.  All 
the  growths  were  left  entire  during  the  first  season.  Having  a  good  root 
S3’stem  on  the  dwarfing  stock,  and  not  of  unduly  vigorous  development 
previous!}’,  such  a  tree  will  push  most,  if  not  all,  of  the  buds  frpm  the 
extremities  of  the  shoots  to  the  base.  The  growths  will  be  strongest  at 
the  top,  weakening  to  the  base.  The  leading  growth  (/)  will  be  the  most 
vigorous,  the  short  and  weak  (g)  stubbier  or  spur-like.  Some  buds, 
however,  will  remain  dormant,  as  represented  in  Q  at  h,  and  the  shoots 
on  that  part  (r)  will  be  wood  buds  (t).  The  roots  will  correspond  with 
the  parts  above  ground — namely,  plentiful  and  fibrous  (j). 
Under  favouring  circumstances  blossom  buds  will  form  the  first  season, 
particularly  if  of  an  early  bearing  variety,  so  that  fruit  may  be  had, 
if  desired,  in  the  second  season,  as  indicated  in  the  tree  (s)  at  This 
growth  as  outlined,  while  at  its  base  also  are  smaller  buds  (s),  these 
also  pushing  and  producing  stubby  shoots  or  spurs. 
The  tree  practically,  under  these  circumstances,  is  on  a  level  with 
that  figured  at  I  (page  263,  last  week),  but  a  year  older,  meaning  a 
year  lost.  The  roots  have  also  become  similar  ;  but  those  corresponding 
with  free  growth  are  stronger,  as  shown  at  t.  The  roots  (u)  in  the 
mulching  are  adventitious  and  possess  cuticular  cells,  imbibing  nutriment 
fast  enough  without  the  aid  of  root  hairs,  and  are  relatively  smooth,  as 
shown  at  w. 
There  can  be  no  question  of  the  moderately  shortened  tree  being  the 
more  profitable,  but  why  a  freely  grown  young  tree  should  not  be  pruned 
the  first  year  I  could  never  understand.  The  non-shortening  of  short 
branches  answers  very  well,  because  the  root  power  may  be  strong  enough 
to  force  free  growths  from  them  ;  but  the  shortened  roots  of  the  tree  dug 
from  a  nursery  are  unable  to  produce  free  growths  from  the  long  strong 
branches.  It  is  for  that  reason  the  branches  are  cut  back,  and  then  free 
growth  follows,  instead  of  premature  fruiting  and  a  stunted  tree. 
Endeavour  has  been  made  to  point  out  the  advantages  nr  the  reverse 
Fig.  58.— -Results  of  Pruning  and  non-Pruning  Young  Trees  after  Planting. 
References. — P,  Unpruned  ti'ee  in  leaf  during  tlie  season  following  planting  ;  /,  long  and  strong  unsliortened  shoots  ;  g,  growths  from  weak  shoots  of  the  previous 
season.  Q,  basal  part  of  long  and  strong  shoot,  .showing  stubby  growth  ;  A,  dormant  buds.  R,  basal  part  of  two-years  branch  ;  i,  wood  buds  ; 
j,  root  formation  of  tree.  S,  tree  in  the  second  season,  showing — on  one  side  results  of  non-pruning — k,  fruit ;  I,  fibrous  root  formation  ;  m,  feeding  root 
in  mulching.  T,  point  of  rootlet  magnified,  showing  (n)  root  hairs.  Opposite  side,  the  result  of  shortening  two-years  branches  at  the  marks  under 
k  closely :  o,  extension  shoots  in  leaf ;  p,  similar  leafless,  and  marked  for  pruning  ;  g,  spurs.  U,  blo.ssom  bud  of  Apple ;  r,  wood  buds  at  base. 
V,  terminal  wood  bud ;  s,  small  wood  buds  giving  rise  to  spurs ;  (,  root  formation  corresponding  witli  strong  wood  growth  ;  u,  adventitious  rootlet 
in  mulch.  W,  rootlet  magnified. 
implies  a  stunted  tree,  though  the  roots  will  be  fibrous  (1),  some  of  them 
pushing  into  the  mulching  (m).  Such  roots,  if  carefully  lifted  and 
examined  with  a  lens,  will  be  seen  to  have  root  hairs  (n)  for  abstracting 
nutrition  and  transmitting  it  to  the  leaves  and  fruit.  The  check  of  lifting 
and  the  retention  of  all  the  growths  have  induced  this  precocious  habit  (A). 
All  sudden  checks  and  impaired  reciprocity  between  roots  and  branches 
conduce  to  what  we  are  pleased  to  call  fruitfulness,  but  in  reality  a 
struggle  for  existence  under  threatened  conditions  of  extinction. 
But  the  wise  cultivator  does  not  want  to  laden  his  trees  with  fruit  so 
early,  as  he  knows  there  cannot  be  any  real  progress  towards  a  profitable 
occupation  of  the  space  without  growth  on  a  more  liberal  scale.  To 
insure  this  the  four  long  and  strong  shoots  are  cut  back  as  indicated  by 
the  bars  below  k,  and  in  result  we  get  free  growth  from  each  cut-hack 
branch  (o)  in  leaf,  (p)  leafless,  while  there  are  spurs  at  q.  Some  of  these 
may  probably  have  a  blossom  bud  (u)  relatively  plump  and  round,  and 
always  with  small  buds  at  the  base  (r),  which  will  develop  into  either 
spurs  or  shoots  as  the  forces  of  the  tree  determine  ;  or,  the  stubby  shoots 
may  be  terminated  by  a  wood  bud  (c),  this  in  due  course  pushirg  a 
of  the  systems  most  commonly  in  vogue  in  shaping  trees  for  the  natural 
or  standard  bush  form.  Young  branches  must  be  shortened  to  produce 
more  and  stronger,  on  the  same  principle  that  a  maiden  tree,  with  its 
solitary  branch,  is  cut  back  to  form  a  bush.  When  sufficient  branches 
are  formed  to  pi-oduce  an  open  bush  or  head,  the  less  of  shortening  the 
greater  the  production  of  natural  spurs.  With  ample  space  every  branch 
then  becomes  a  cordon  to  be  roped  with  fruit  from  base  to  extremity,  and 
each  should  be  strong  enough  to  bear  its  load. — G.  Abbey. 
A  PLETHORA  OF  GARDENERS. 
Some  articles  have  recently  appeared  in  the  , Journal  relative  to  the 
present  outlook  in  the  gardener’s  career.  Without  undue  criticism  I 
should  like  to  touch  upon  some  of  the  remarks  which  have  been  made  by 
different  correspondents.  My  observations  will  be  solely  confined  to  the 
position  of  gardeners  in  private  establishments.  Thei’e  is  no  question 
