Trees, Fruits and Flowers of Minnesota Part 68

Mr. Older: Where you have an orchard ten years old, is it best to seed it down or still continue to cultivate it? In the west they have to cultivate. What is the best in this country? I know one man says it is best to keep on cultivating while it is growing, and another man says that that will kill the trees. I want to know which is the best.

Mr. Andrews: I think cultivation is the thing that ought to be done until the trees get well to bearing, anyway, and then it furnishes nitrogen to the soil to seed it down to clover. If we don't do that we are very liable to neglect that element in the soil. The better way to my mind is to cultivate for eight or ten years, and then I do think it is all right perhaps, for farmers, I mean, who will neglect the cultivation if they depend on it. That is, if they make up their minds it is better to cultivate than it is to seed down, their trees are more apt to be neglected. During the busy part of the season they won't cultivate as constantly as they ought to. If they would do that I have not much doubt but what cultivation would be all right right along, if you will furnish that nitrogen that ought to be in the soil for the protection of the crop. Clover is the easiest way to get that, and the trees will be more sure to have the benefit of that if you sow to clover and grow a crop of hay and turn it under, possibly let it be into clover two years, but turn that under and cultivate for two or three years and then put into clover again. I think that would be preferable for the farmer, for the farmer especially, than it would to undertake to either cultivate all the time or seed down all the time.

I don't believe it is a good thing to seed down where there are young trees growing and while the orchard is young. If you will plant your potatoes in that orchard between the rows and cultivate it, you will do the cultivating. I haven't got very much faith in the average farmer--I don't mean you horticulturists--but the average farmer. If he will plant trees and you advise him to cultivate them while they are young, they will be neglected after the first year or so. He may while the fever is on, he may cultivate them one year and the next year about half cultivate them, and the following years they will grow up to gra.s.s and weeds. Whereas, if he plants potatoes he gets just the right cultivation for the trees if he cultivates the ground enough to get a good crop of potatoes. Then in the fall when he digs the potatoes he loosens up the ground, and it takes up the moisture, and after the fall rains they go into winter quarters in good shape. It seems to me that is as near right as I could recommend.

Mr. Hansen: What distance apart ought those apple trees to be?

Mr. Older: Another question along that line. Suppose we concede that a young orchard ought to be cultivated until it gets eight or ten years old, then which is the best when you seed it to clover to cut the clover and throw the hay around the trees for a mulch or just take the hay away, or what?

Mr. Andrews: I think it would be better to put the hay around the trees for mulching. If the hay is used and the barnyard manure is taken to the orchard that would fill the bill pretty well.

Now, the distance apart? Grown trees really need about thirty feet apart each way. If you run the rows north and south and put them thirty feet apart, and sixteen feet or a rod apart in the row, with a view to taking out every other tree, you might have to go under bonds to take them out when they are needed to come out (laughter), or else you would leave them there until you hurt your other trees. If you would take out every other tree when they get to interfering after several years, eight or ten years, you can grow a double crop of apples in your orchard, but if you do the way you probably will do, leave them right there until they get too close, you will--

Mr. Hansen: Spoil all of them?

Mr. Andrews: Yes. Then you better put them out a little farther apart, and, as I said, two rods apart each way I don't believe is too far. Our old orchard that we put out in 1877 is just on its last legs now. At that time, you know, we didn't know anything about what varieties to plant, we didn't have as many as we have now. The old orchard only had the d.u.c.h.ess and Wealthy for standards, and half of the orchard was into crabs, because I thought at that time crabs was the only thing that would be any ways sure of staying by us. Well, those trees are about through their usefulness now, the standards. They have borne well until the last two years, generally loaded, and they were put out at that time fourteen feet apart each way, breaking joints so that they didn't come directly opposite. And when they got to be twelve or fifteen years old, it was difficult to get through there with a team or with any satisfaction, it was rubbing the limbs too much. Then the next orchard we put out on the farm was twenty-four feet by fifteen or sixteen feet in the row, the rows twenty-four feet apart. I wish they were a little farther apart, although that hasn't bothered very much about getting through between the rows, but it shows that a tree that is any ways spreading in its habit really needs about two rods each way. Are there any other questions?

Mr. Brackett: Do you think a Wealthy orchard under thorough cultivation, making a rank growth, do you think it is as hardy as an orchard seeded down, and do you think that a Wealthy orchard would blight more than other kinds?

Mr. Andrews: If the ground is rich and under thorough cultivation it does tend to cause fire blight. I haven't followed it on anything but young orchards. When they have commenced to bear then we have generally seeded down and turned in the hogs, and we have rather neglected the cultivation after that. I do think that if we had cultivated a little more often it would have been better.

Mr. Older: What do you consider the best to seed down with, clover or alfalfa?

Mr. Andrews: I have never tried alfalfa. I don't see why it wouldn't be all right, if you don't try to keep it too long. It would furnish the nitrogen all right.

Mr. Older: Which kind of seeding down would you prefer, what kind of clover? Would you want the Alsike clover or sweet clover for an apple orchard?

Mr. Andrews: I haven't tried anything but the medium clover. The sweet clover I think would be rather a rank grower.

Mr. Older: If you are going to mow it, why not mow the sweet clover same as the other?

Mr. Andrews: That would be all right. If you were going to use it for mulching, I think it would be the thing, because it would be better for mulching than for feeding.

Mr. Ludlow: I would like to give a little experience in putting in alfalfa in an orchard. We got the seed, the Grimm alfalfa, I think, is the name of it, and I got a good stand. We got seed from it the first year, and I sowed more, but there seemed to be something about the alfalfa that would draw the pocket-gophers from two miles around. The second year I think I had nineteen of my thriftiest apple tree roots all eaten off. I didn't know there was one in the field because there were no mounds at all. In the spring I found where they were at work, and I catch on an average of twenty pocket-gophers out of that mound every year. Talk about cultivating, the pocket-gophers will cultivate it, and the alfalfa is pretty much all eaten out and it has come into bluegra.s.s.

Mr. Harrison: That question as to alfalfa; the experience is always that the roots go too deep so it hurts the apple trees. Red clover seems to be the clover that is favored by most people.

Mr. Andrews: Mr. Ludlow spoke of the pocket-gopher favoring alfalfa. We have a patch of alfalfa right near the apple trees. I don't remember that I have noticed any pocket-gophers work in that piece at all. On the opposite side of the road, where it is clover and timothy, why, they work there tremendously. I know Brother Ludlow was telling us a little while ago at dinner about pocket-gophers working on his place, and I wouldn't wonder if he is blessed with an extra colony of them there.

Mr. Ludlow: I try to catch them all out every year. I catch out on an average about eighteen to twenty every fall, so as to catch them before they increase early in the spring. It seems as though they came from a distance. I know one came into my garden this year. I didn't know there was a gopher within a mile, and in one night he made four mounds in the middle of my strawberry bed.

Mrs. Glenzke: Did you ever try poisoning them?

Mr. Ludlow: No, I never did. I am most successful in catching them in a trap.

Mr. Brackett: Have you got any pocket-gophers that do not make mounds?

Do you understand that?

Mr. Ludlow: No, sir, I don't understand that, but when they came in and killed the nineteen trees in the fall I hadn't seen a mound there. In the spring I found where they were at work, and then I went after them.

City "Foresters" and Munic.i.p.al Forests.

PROF. E. G. CHENEY, UNIVERSITY FARM, ST. PAUL.

Several cities in the state have appointed "city foresters." This is a step in the right direction, if it is a precursor to the establishment of munic.i.p.al forests for these men to manage; otherwise it is a misnomer and can only be misleading to the people. The city governments, in an endeavor to create a complete park organization, have so far adopted this t.i.tle from European practice without much regard to the duties of the officer. A forester handles trees in ma.s.s formations,--sometimes for timber production, sometimes for the protection of water-sheds, sometimes for aesthetic effect or park purposes,--but always in the ma.s.s.

The handling of shade trees such as we have in our city streets is the work of an arborist. The planting of large ornamental trees, the pruning of the individual for formal effect, the filling of cavities and the bracing of weak parts, are no part of a forester's work; nor do they necessarily fall within his knowledge. An expert should undoubtedly be in charge of the work, but an expert arborist, not a forester. The t.i.tle is, therefore, when combined with the present duties, unfortunate, because it gives the people--still struggling with a hazy conception of forestry--a wrong idea of the true character of the real forester's work.

Two very obvious ways of avoiding the difficulty present themselves,--either to change the t.i.tle or to change the duties. The former would probably be much easier of accomplishment, but the latter is without question the course which the city ought to pursue. Since the cities have adopted the t.i.tle of "city forester," and so obtained a more complete park organization on paper, why not make the improvement real by adopting the rest of the European practice and creating city forests for these new officers to handle? That would indeed be a real improvement, and one without which any city park system is lamentably lame.

Nearly every large city has some large park within in limits kept in a more or less natural condition as a recreation ground for its people, thus recognizing its influence for health and social betterment. How much it would increase this influence if there were a considerable tract of forest within easy reach of the city! How much better approach it would make to the city than the unsightly waste places so often encountered! How much better setting it would make for the suburban residence sections!

Such a munic.i.p.al forest is not a Utopian dream, but a practical thing well within the reach of almost any city. The law pa.s.sed by the last legislature makes it possible for a city to purchase land for such a purpose either within or without the city limits. The activities of the present park boards show that money can be obtained to carry out such plans. The establishment of the forests would be less expensive than is generally imagined. The amount of money expended on the Gateway Park in Minneapolis would buy hundreds of acres of city land within fifteen miles of the city. With the aid of a munic.i.p.al nursery, such as every park system should have, this land could be planted up at a total expense, for stock and labor, of six to eight dollars per acre. The cost of maintenance would be limited to the patrol of the tract to prevent fire and trespa.s.s. Of course, there might be no money revenue from the forest for many years, but in a comparatively short time it would begin to fulfill its purpose as a park, and once the timber is mature, there would be a continuous net annual income of from five to ten dollars per acre. Suppose that the city had 10,000 acres of such forest paying a net annual revenue--in addition to its full services as a park--of from $50,000 to $100,000 toward the maintenance of the other city parks, and it must be remembered that for every dollar of net revenue the forest would pay an additional dollar or more in wages to swell the coffers of the city;--certainly that would be something very much better than anything that the city has at present.

St. Paul, with the bottom lands and cliffs on either side of the river between Hastings and Minneapolis, could make a beautiful and profitable park of what now threatens to develop into a monumental waste. Duluth could make a forest which would be unsurpa.s.sed in beauty and usefulness by any in the world out of the brushy, unoccupied, rock-bound hills as far west as Thompson. Mankato has a glorious chance for the same work along the Minnesota valley. Virginia and Hibbing could do nothing better than make such use of the rocky, mine-scarred hills in their vicinity.

And so opportunity might be cited for almost any city in the state. For the munic.i.p.al forest need not be confined to the big cities. In fact, in some respects the smaller city has an advantage over the larger place.

Suitable land can usually be obtained near the city at a much more reasonable price and the revenue obtained bear a much larger ratio to the total expenses of the town. There are some small towns in Germany where the entire running expenses are paid by the revenues of the town forest, and one or two where the forest not only pays all of the taxes but also pays a cash pension to a number of the older inhabitants.

Certainly our towns, looking forward to an endless and progressive existence, cannot afford to neglect this opportunity to develop a useful park, to provide a source of cheap wood and lumber for future generations and a substantial revenue for the city.

Expert advice need not be employed until the size and revenue of the forest warrants it, for the State Forest Service stands ready to help--by the selection of land, the formulation of plans, and consultation--any city that is wise enough to take advantage of this law.

The "city forester" can then be a forester indeed, and one of the good points of the European city government will have been adopted in fact as well as in name.

The Salome Apple.

H. W. HARRISON, ROCHESTER, MINN. SO. MINN. HORT. SOCIETY.

The Salome apple is named after one of the faithful Bible characters, Salome, who was a.s.sociated with Martha and Mary while our Savior was on earth and was also a witness of his crucifixion. Thus the name alone commands respect. It was originated in eastern Canada, and it was introduced here some twenty-five years ago by the Princeton Nursery Company of Illinois and has proven to be very hardy on different soils and locations. It is grown in the southern tier of counties of Minnesota and as far north as New Ulm.

Like all good things it has had a hard fight to overcome its opponents.

At the time it was introduced here there were Ben Davis and other tender varieties delivered in its place in certain localities. These not being hardy of course gave the Salome a black eye. Nevertheless it is an apple that should be grown extensively because of its hardiness, its clean appearance and upright growth, spreading just enough to admit air and light.

Its fruit will keep in ordinary cellars until May or June. It is medium in size and color, red streaked with green and yellow. Flesh is yellow and sub acid. Like all winter varieties it is slow to come in bearing but yielding heavily when it does bear, whenever other varieties do. Let us not lose sight of this excellent fruit in our desire to produce something new and original.

How May the State University and the Horticultural Society Best Co-Operate?