bala 4 Tel Yo Sy ~hi ark yaa ar tea Ria he Ay yh yh \. 87 eo“ Oe -- tht NA ns ANNE FN ZEST RES NNR yh, hit balan ty ‘, aN . Ny eas uns MYL Ny , 4 a ( vi t , ach UNRUH NAN TMi SCout ya Ran eto ap Ni er) INS nt, ANN Mahish ot ata 4 ata Sew ty RSH Len Ai NHS ANUNWHN STO AAS aieen ry ' ihe aia patel telat afd ttt NM " NAG TN ' ‘ i ‘ ¢ eat i ' 4 ’ 1 f ' a i ah; oy iy Sh 4 yyy a n ratelvatelitatyes plea tats hey ete vite te pate ie) teat RHA NARA Petite aa Ae Aen nA Hate A Ae MH AeA f Add 7 Aiba lah Vote y d A Ae PT ay Ke yy 7 y ¥, re ke hy Hes y i ryt r fe PRC NAR OIL LPP Ahh eae feel CAA AM AAD A Le yy ree f ron , oy, vipat faite iy tyes r , f ter i O 5 rei ; LARA H RM RAV RE ; lye Pyle ely TAG Pty tty itis OG Re Py Ary A Dat aneeeahy eee 4 : " ne, AV a yy te Whey HAMAS Pere ern HERA RAVE ety aiTeeyre ate f At AMAR IASA ALAA eet) H S Ry eee eae pa Bi RVR RAH SAN Te oT tei ate alee eG ate ‘fete en a Se Wiehen MALEK i Wee y f “ 4 GE ay) ie EA y ies AAs in es Ma SPS hy} os sri Ly Wari Le pay er Hye EN retah tga AAPL Nae An ea ALBERT R. MANN LIBRARY New YorRK STATE COLLEGES OF AGRICULTURE AND HOME ECONOMICS AT CORNELL UNIVERSITY ge 90 Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924003409335 A SURVEY ‘F0/ SOME COMMERCIAL APPLE ORCHARDS IN VIRGINIA. Minor Thesis. Submitted to Professor John Craig, Professor of Horticulture, as a report of work done on first minor subject for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Cornell University. By A. W. Drinkard, Jr., B. S., M. S. ce Cornell University July, 1912. — Cols CONTENTS Page 1. Introductory statements 1-7 (1) Object of the survey 1 (2) Distribution of orchards 2 (3) Acreage 6 (4) Size of orchards. 6 2e The question of varieties 8-46 (1) Names and synonymns 8 (2) Varieties in the bearing orchards 12 (3) Varieties in young orchards 19 (4) Varieties for future planting 26 (5) Comparative tabular summary of varieties 30 (6) How many varieties should the grower plant 33 (7) Fewer varieties being planted 85 (8) General adaptation of varieties 36 (9) Secale resistance 40 (10) Susceptibility to scale 42 (11) Disease resistance 43 (12) Susceptibility to disease 44 3. Soils and varieties adapted to them 47-73 (1) Literature on soils and soil surveys 48 (2) Soils of the Piedmont region 50 a. Cecil series 50 (a) Cecil clay 51 (b) Cecil loam 52 (c) Cecil sandy loam 53 (ad) Cecil clay loam 55 (e) Cecil stony loam 56 b. Penn series 56 (a) Penn loam 56 (b) Penn clay 57 (c) Penn stony loam 58 (3) Miscellaneous Piedmont soils 58 (a) Loudoun sandy loam 58 (b) Iredell Clay loam 59 (4) Soils of the mountains 59 a. Porters series 60 (a) Porters sand 60 (b) Porters sandy loam 61 (c) Porters black loam 62 (ad) Porters clay loam 63 (e) Porters clay 64 b. Dekalb series Dekalb stony loam Dekalb sandy loam (5) Soils of the Valley region Hagerstown series (a) (b) (6) General remarks 6n the adaptation of Hagerstown Hagerstown Hagerstown Hagerstown Hagerstown Hagerstown stony loam stony clay sandy loam loan clay loam clay varieties to soil type Planting plans for orchards (1) Plans for old orchards a. Table of distances b. Fillers (2) Plans for young orchards a. Fable of distances b. Fillers Fop-working and propagation (1) Top-grafting (2) Varieties which should be top-grafted (3) Selection of cions Spraying (1 ) Dormant or winter application (2) Summer spraying (3) Experience with spray solutions Orchard cultivation and management (1) Old or bearing orchards a. Sod b. Sod mulch ec. Tillage, intermittent (2) Young orchards = ae Sod b. Sod mulch c. Fillage,- clean, partial, intermittent (3) Catch-crops (4) Cover-crops - clean, partial, 65 65 66 66 67 67 68 68 69 70 7A. 72 74 75 76 77 73 78 79 81 81 82 83 85 85 87 88 90 90 90 G1 92 94 95 95 96 97 102 8. 9. 10. Marketing (1) Where the fruit is sold (2) Markets and varieties (3) How the fruit is sold (4) Packing General Considerations (1) An apple-orchard "boom" (2) Natural drawbacks, insects, diseases, frost (3) Economic difficulties a. Labor b. Marketing c. Transportation (4) Remarks from the growers Appendix 106 106 107 108 109 Lit lil 111 112 112 113 114 114 217 A SURVEY OF SOME COMMERCIAL APPLE ORCHARDS IN VIRGINIA. This survey represents a part of my graduate work on a minor subject in the Department of Horticulture. Professor John Craig suggested the problem, outlined the scope of the investigation and kindly supervised and criti- cised the work during its progress, and I wish to acknow- ledge the benefit I have derived from his helpful sug- gestions. This is the first survey that has been attempted to ascertain the conditions in the Virginia apple orchards. Such investigations have been conducted elsewhere far more thoroughly than this survey. Under Professor Craig's dir- ection, the leading fruit-growing counties of New York State have been surveyed and the results of the investi- gations published in Cornell Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletins 226, 229, 262 and 307. There are several reasons why a survey of the apple orchards of Virginia is desirable. (1) The fruit growers in any given locality desire to know how the fruit growers in other localities are conducting the business. There is no line of agricultural work in which the experience of the "other fellow" is more helpful than in the growing of apples. A knowledge of current practices is highly essential to success. (2) Persons who are interested in entering the orchard business desire to have all available information concerning that business in the locality where they would invest their capital. A survey such as this one brings together facts which this class of persons is seek- ing. (3) Persons and institutions desiring to advance the horticultural interests of the State can the better accomplish this end when they have at hand accurate data bearing on orchard conditions. The Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station frequently has requests for information concerning the adaptation of varieties, and current orchard practices in the State, and I believe this survey will mat- erially assist in answering many of these questions. this survey is by no means as extensive as might be desired. I hope that it is but the beginning of a more detailed survey which will enable us ultimately to know the average cost in this State of producing a barrel of apples, and the average profit that may be expected from it. In April, 1911, I addressed five hundred circular letters to fruit-growers in Virginia. The cordial attention which the fruit growers gave my letters was very gratifying to me. The growers were kind enough to answer at length the series of questions which I submitted to them, and I wish to acknowledge at this time my obligation for the courtesy. I hope that at some future time the information prought together in this report may be available to the fruit growers of the state. The answers which I received furnish the basis for this paper. Nearly three hundred re- plies were received, of which two hundred and fifty-three gave information that could be utilized in this paper. Distribution of the Orchards Reported on in This Survey. It is difficult to state in definite terms the distribution of the orchards reported on in this survey, for one county may lie partly in one region of the State and partly in another. When classified according to the geographical regions of the state we find the orchards fall- ing into the following groups: The Piedmont and Blue Ridge regions embrane about 50% The Valley region embraces about 45% The Middle Virginia region embraces about 4% The Appalachian region embraces about 1% Distribution of Orchards. - Distribution by counties of the orchards reported in this survey is shown below. Both the counties and the number of orchards reported from these counties are given. County Number of Orchards Augusta 34 Albemarle 33 Rappahannock 22 Frederick 20 Nelson 18 Roanoke 13 Rockingham 11 Shenandoah ll Loudoun ll Bedford Franklin Botetourt Wy the Clarke Warren Patrick Montgomery 0. Rockbridge ~ Faull, ~ Fauquier Amherst Pulaski Orange Page Smyth Alleghany Campbell Halifax Buckingham Spottsylvania Caroline Fairfax Henrico surry Prince William Culpeper Total Number 253 BRE RP RRR eR RP RP RP PF NVNVnNNnnarhhaaawe~yoo The same date is shown in Fig. 1. This illustration is copied from Alweod's publication on the fruit soils of Virginia, which will be cited later. This map shows the reader at one glance the location of the fruit growing regions of the State. Sakis a ons hes Ser eh aaa ltteer ai, scones ie S.-i. - oa. ae Diagrammatic REPRESENTATION OF PHYsicat DIVISIONS OF VIRGINIA in Recarion To Frurr Cocrune < =e —r« Md} ESN recone S| au mone QW esc —Fr pared by — HORTICULTURAL OL PARTMENT VA AGR. EXP STATION —'839— Fig. #1. Map of Virginia showing the physical divisions of the state. (After Alwood). The bold type figures are mine and show the location by counties of the orchards which comprise this survey. Fig. 1 shows that replies to my letters came from thirty-five counties. It may be pointed out, however, that 71 per cent of all the replies came from the first ten counties on the list. The larger number of replies came from those counties in which the apple industry has been longest established, and best developed. Acreage.- In order that a survey of this kind may have value as an index by which the actual conditions may be judged, it is necessary that the survey extend over a considerable area. It would be desirable to have data on a still greater area than that which is represented in this report. Yet the area reported is large enough to furnish reliable information. Two hundred and forty-four fruit growers stated the extent of their orchards. The aggregate acreage of all these orchards, including both young and old, amounts to 12,419 acres. Size of Orchards. - The orchards vary greatly in size, ranging from two acres to five hundred acres; however there are few orchards around either of these outlying ex- tremes. Fig. 2 shows the distribution of the orchards ac- cording to size. The average size of all these orchards is approximately fifty acres. It might be stated that several very large orchards are reported, which tend to make the average acreage high. Thirty-two of these orshards contain as much as one hundred acres each, Fig. 2. Diagram to show the distribution of orchards according to size. Figures on the base line show the size of the orchards, grouped into classes, with a class range of 20 acres. The figures on the vertical line show the number of orchards which fall in any particular class. THE QUESTION OF VARIETIES. One of the difficult questions which every fruit- grower has to meet is that of choosing the right varieties for his orchard. In my circular letter to the growers, I asked three questions about varieties. It is desirable to know what are the leading varieties in both the old or bear ing orchards, and also the leading varieties in the young orchards which have not yet reached the bearing stage. Data on these two points will enable us to see the trend of the plantings, and show from the growers' point of view the relative value of the different varieties for commercial orchards. Then, in order to get the growers' latest judg- ment, a question was asked relative to future plantings. Since the same variety is reported under different names by different growers, it will be worth while to take up the question of nomenclature at this point. A List of Varieties Mentioned in This Survey. Many varieties have several names. Authorities in pomolog- ical nomenclature recognize only one name for a variety, and the other names by which it may be recognized in differ- ent localities become synonyms. For many reasons the growers should designate a variety by its correct name; this matter is important when apples are entered for competitive exhib- itions and it should be guarded also when marking apples for market. In the list which follows, I have placed in the first column the names of varieties reported by the growers; in the second column just opposite the first, I have written the correct names of the varieties. ‘This nomenclature is taken from the following authorities: Ragan, W. H., Nomenclature of The Apple. U. S. Depart- ment of Agriculture, Bureau of Plant Industry, Bulletin No. 56. (1905) Beach, S. A., et uls., The Apples of New York. 2 vols. (1905). In a few cases I was unable to find refer- ence to the variety mentioned by the growers; and in such cases the second column has been left blank. Throughout this paper the varieties will be referred to by their cor- rect names. Name Given by the Growers Correct Name. America America American Beauty American Beauty Albemarle Pippin Albemarle Arkansas islack Arkansas Black Baldwin Baldwin Baltzley Baltzley Belmont Belmont Ben Davis Ben Davis Black Ben Davis Black Ben Davis Bonum Bonum Buckingham Buckingham Cannon Cannon Cannon Pearmain Gannon Pearmain Champion Collins Commerce Commerce Delaware Red Winter Delaware Red Delicious Delicious Domini Domine Duchess of Oldenburg Oldenburg Early Harvest Banlw Raina Rarly Harvest Karly Ripe 10 Esopus Spitzenburg Fallawater Fall Cheese Fall Pippin Lawyer Gano Genetian Gibbs Late Gilbert Gloria Mundi Golden Gate Golden Pippin Golden Russet Gravenstein Grimes Golden Ingram Jonathan Justice Kennards Choice Kentucky Red King David Lady Lankford Lawver Liveland Raspberry Loudon Pippin Lewry Lowry Seedling Maidens Blush Mammoth Black fwig Mcafe McIntosh Missouri Pippin Mother j Nansemond Beauty Nere Newtown Pippin Northern Spy Northwestern Greening Ortley Paradise Paradise Winter Sweet Piedmont Pippin Pilot Queen Ralls Jenette Rebel Esopus _ Fallawater Fall Cheese Fall Pippin (is probably Lawver) Gano Ralls Gibbs Gilbert Gloria Mundi Golden Gate Golden Pippin Golden Russet Gravenstein Grimes Ingram Jonathan Justice Kinnaird Kentucky Red King David Lady Lankford Lawver Livland Raspberry Loudoun Lowrie Lowrie Maiden Blush Arkansas McAfee McIntosh Missouri Mother Nansemond Nere Yellow Newtown Northern Spy Northwestern Greening Ortley Paradise Winter Paradise Piedmont Pilot Queen Ralls Rebel 11 Red Astrachan Red Streak Rhode Island Greening Robinson Rome Beauty Roxbury Russet Royal Limbertwig Russian Rambo Salome Senator Shockley Shockley Lady Silver King Silver Pippin Smiths Cider Smokehouse Sour Bough South Carolina Sumer Springdale Stark Stayman Winesap Summer Pippin Summer Queen Summer Rambo Tolman Sweet Tompkins County King Tweekesbury Winter Blush Vandivere Vere Via Vine Virginia Beauty Wagener Wealthy Winter Cheese Winesap Winter Smokehouse Wolf River Yellow Belleflower Yellow Transparent Red Astrachan Redstreak Rhede Island Robinson Rome Roxbury Royal Limbertwig (is probably Rambour Reinette) Salome Oliver Shockley (is probably Shockley) Silver Pippin Smith Smokehouse Sour Bough Springdale Stark Stayman Winesap Summer Pippin Sumer Queen Summer Rambo Tolman Tompkins King Vandevere Via Vine Virginia Beauty Wagener Wealthy Winter Cheese Winesap Smokehouse Wolf River Yellow Bellflower Yellow Transparent York Imperial or Johnsons Fine Winter York Stripe York York Stripe 12 Varieties found in Bearing Orchards. - "Name the leading varieties of apples in your bearing orchard in the order of their commercial importance, giving the approximate number of each." Two hundred and twelve bearing orchards were reported, and in the aggregate they contain over a quarter of a million trees. The fruit-growers named the varieties in what they considered the order of their com- mercial importance. Table I briefly summarizes their an- swers. A word may be said in explanation of this table. In the first column under the caption “Variety", the variet- ies are listed in the order of their importance as shown by the number of orchards in which they are found. The second column states that the rank is. The third column gives the number of growers who have this variety in their orchards, and the fourth column states the per cent of orchards in which this variety is found. The total number of trees reported of this variety stands in the fifth column. And the per cent which this variety constitutes ef the total number of trees reported in the old orchards stands in the sixth column. Then the rank which the growers gave the variety is shown; the number of growers who fave the var- iety any stated rank stands beneath the ordinal which heads the column representing that rank. For example, York ranks 13 first according to the number of orchards in which it is grown; it is found in one hundred and sixty-five (out of a total of two hundred and twelve) bearing orchards, which is 77.83 per cent of the bearing orchards; there were 86,343 trees of this variety reported, which is 34.38 per cent of all the trees of all varieties in the old orchards; seventy-seven growers placed this variety first in rank, forty placed it second, thirty-four placed it third, five placed it fourth, seven placed it fifth, one placed it sixth, and one grower placed this variety eighth in com- mercial importance. In like manner the reader may run through the entire table and find the rank of any given variety. Missing Page 15 The item "Miscellaneous" inserted at the end of the column headed "Variety" in Table 1, includes a large number of varieties which were mentioned by one or two fruit grow- ers respectively. Since these varieties were reported by so few growers, their relative ranks would have little signifi- cance, and therefore they were not listed in the above table. These varieties were reported in small numbers ranging from ten to two hundred and fifty. Every variety mentioned in the bearing orchards and not included in the above table will be listed below: Virginia Beauty Summer Queen Golden Pippin Yellow Bellflower Red Astrachan Mother Ralls Early Harvest King David Piedmont Vandivere Silver Pippin American Beauty Smokehouse Loudoun Lawver Vere Silver King Gibbs Nero Tompkins King Salome Tweeksbury Winter Blush McAfee Delaware Red Commerce Collins Baltzley Arkansas Black Gloria Mundi Summer Pippin Vine Tolman Roxbury Wagener Lowrie Ralls Esopus Via Robinson Pilot Weal thy Golden Gate Yellow Newtown Buckingham Oldenburg Fall Pippin Kentucky Red Lady Ortley Oliver Lawver Altogether eighty-three varieties were reported in old orchards. 16 t Discussion of Table 1. - Several striking facts are brought out in this table. York easily ranks first as re- gards both the number of orchards in which it is found and the number of trees planted; this variety constitutes one- third of all the trees reported in the old orchards. York is the great cosmopolitan apple in Virginia; it is found in all the fruit-growing sections of the State. So far as my information goes it does well in all sections, though it is pre-eminent in the Valley region. Its popularity with the growers is indicated by the fact that 46 per cent of the growers who have this variety gave it first rank, and very few growers considered it lower than third in commercial value. The fact that York is adapted to all sections of the State enables this variety to hold first place over varieties, which are unquestionably superior to York in quality. Winesap is an easy second, This variety is found in 63.20 per cent of the old orchards and comprises 19.93 per cent of the total number of trees in the old orchards. Winesap is more or less limited in its adaptation. It is especially suf&cessful in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge regions of the State and in these regions it ranks second only to Albemarle. Winesap usually succeeds wherever Albemarle does; and its range is much greater than that of Albemarle. 17 The figures in Table 1 show that 34 per cent of the growers who have Winesap in their old orchards place it first in rank and 35 per cent give it second phace. This seems to be due to the fact that Winesap and Albemarle are frequently grown in the same orchard on account of the similarity of their environmental requirements and a majority of the growers seem to prefer Albemarle to Winesap. Winesap is held in high esteem by the growers because of its high quality and attractive appearance. Ben Davis stands third as regards the number of or- chards in which it is found, though this variety takes fourth place when it comes to the total number of trees planted. While this variety is very general in its adaption to soil and locality, yet it is not nearly so important a factor in the old orchards of the State as is commonly supposed. From Table 1, it will be seen that Ben Davis comprises 12.56 per cent of the total number of trees in the old or- chards. There are approgimately three Yorks to one Ben Davis in the bearing orchards which are reported in this paper. Of all the growers who have Ben Davis in their or- chards, 16 per cent give it first rank; 31 per cent give it second and 22 per cent place this variety third with respect to its commercial value. Albemarle ranks fourth as regards the number of or- 18 chards in which it is found and holds third place in the total number of trees planted. The limitation of this var- iety to a certain type of soil is frequently mentioned by the fruit growers and this point is discussed under another topic. But where Albemarle can be grown it is held in high esteem and is very popular with the fruit-growers. The growers give this variety high rank; 51 per cent of the growers who have Albemarle in their old orchards, consider it first in commercial importance. Speaking in relative terms, Albemarle ranks higher than any other variety found in the old orchards. It is interesting to note that this variety makes up 15.70 per cent of the total number of trees reported in the old orchards. Perhaps it is not profitable to go further into the details of Table 1. The reader can glance through the array of facts which are set forth and draw his own conclusions from them. There is a remarkably large number of varieties reported in the bearing orchards. All told, there are eighty- - three varieties, several of which I have not been able to find mentioned in pomologival literature. However, it may be seen that the main bulk of the plantings in the bearing commercial orchards is composed of just a few varieties. Some of the old orchards which are now still in bearing, date from that period when commercial apple-growing in Virginia 19 was in the experimental stage. Then the fruit-grower had no way to find out the varieties which were suited to his locality; he did not have the benefit of the “other fellow's" experience, and he was compelled to try out many sorts - if not to his own profit, certainly to the advantage of the apple industry in the State. Later on in the discussion, we shall see that the total number of varieties mentioned in the young orchards has decreased by 36 per cent. Varieties In Young Orchards. - Under this topic the following question was asked: "Name the varieties in your young orchards(not yet bearing) in the order of their com- mercial importance, giving the approximate number of each." The young orchards will range in age from one to seven or eight years. One hundred and seventy-four of the fruit growers who replied to my letter have young orchards. The total number of trees reported in the young orfhards is 260,124. This number slightly exceeds the aggregate of trees reported in the old orchards. Doubtless the acreage of the young orchards is considerably in excess of that of the old orchards, owing to the fact that trees in the young orchards are generally planted farther apart than trees in the old orchards. A summary of the answers to the above question is given in fable 2. The explanation of this table is exactly 20 the same as in case of Table 1, and therefore it need not be repeated here. Missing Page The varieties listed below were reported in one or- chard each, respectively. As a rule they were reported in small numbers ranging from ten to two hundred and twenty- five. The numbers are included in Table 2 in the iten, "Miscellaneous Varieties." These varieties were not in- serted individually in the table because their relative rank has no great significance owing to the fact that they are found in so few orchards. Cannon Livland Raspberry Missouri Kinnaird Smi th Harly Ripe Summer Rambo South Carolina Summer Mother Wolf River Nansmond Lawver Springdale Ralls Gravenstein America Oliver Buckingham Gilbert Paradise Sour Bough Ingram Justice Altogether, fifty-three varieties were reported in the young orchards in this survey. Discussion of Table 2. - This table presents an interesting array of facts. York stands at the head of the list of varieties in young orchards both as regards the number of orchards in which it is found and also the total num- ber of trees. York is found in 55.75 per cent of the young orchards reported in this survey; and this variety comprises 29.30 per cent of the total number of trees in these orchards. York also maintains its popularity in the young orchards; of the 97 growers who have this variety in their orchards, 54 per cent give it first rank over all other varieties. 22 This variety is most popular in the young orchards of the Valley region, yet there are extensive plantings of it in the Piedmont region. York is a heavy bearer and a good seller, and therefore the growers find it one of their most profitable varieties. Stayman holds second place in the list of varieties found in the young orchards as regards both the number of orchards in which it is planted and also the number of trees planted. Stayman is found in 48.85 per cent of the young orchards reported in this survey and comprises 15 per cent of the total number of trees in these orchards. This var- iety is becoming very important in the Valley region, where it now ranks second only to York. The rapid increase in the popularity of this variety is shown by the fact that its rank has advanced from seventh place in the bearing or- chards to second place in the young orchards. The large size, high quality, good flavor and attractive appearance of the fruit especially commend it to both the producer and consumer. It is now found in nearly one-half of the young orchards. Winesap holds third place in the young orchards as regards both the number of orchards in which it is found and the per cent of the total number of trees. It is found in 37.93 per cent of the young orchards and comprise 13.09 23 per cent of the total number of trees in these orchards. It will be noticed that Winesap has decreased considerably in distribution and number of trees planted. This may poss- ibly be explained by the fact that Winesap has both soil and climatic limitations. In the Valley region some growers say that Winesap has a tendency to grow too small; but others find it very successful in this region. In the mountain regions at elevations greater than 1500 feet this variety does not seem to do well. In the high plateau section of the upper Valley (Montgomery, Pulaski, Wythe, and Smyth counties) the growers say that Winesap does poorly. How- ever, in the Piedmont region of the State and on the east- ern slopes of the Blue Ridge up to an elevation of 1500 feet Winesap is very successful and is considered second only to Albemarle. Winesap is very frequently planted side by side with Albemarle; the former has a much wider range of adaptation than the latter. Grimes takes fourth place in the young orchards. Grimes is really a fall apple, or possibly might be classi- fied as an early winter apple in this State, and its promi- nence in the young orchards calls our attention to two points: (1) Fall apples may take an important place in our commercial orchards, and (2) they may be grown profitably as is Shownby the successful plantings of this variety in 24 many sections of the State.” Arkansas holds fifth place in both the bearing or- chards and the young orchards; yet it should be noted that this variety has increased both in the per cent of orchards in which it is found and the per cent which it comprises of the total number of trees planted. This variety is mention- ed favorably by growers in many sections of the State. Delicious, along with Black Ben Davis and King David are comparatively new varieties which have been planted in small quantities by a number of growers. These varieties have been extensively advertised during recent years, and many growers are giving them a trial. They are varieties of promise, especially is this true of Delicious. If Delic- ious succeeds in this State as it has in some of the western states, and proves to be suited to our environment, it will become an important variety in Virginia orchards within the next decade. We saw that Albemarle ranked fourth in the bearing orchards; it now holds seventh place in the young orchards. * Note. - The same statements will, in a measure, apply to summer varieties. In this connection the reader is referred to Gould, H. P., Summer Apples in the Middle Atlantic States, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Plant Industry, Bullt. 44. In this bulletin, Professor Gould discusses at length summer varieties and their adaptation to various reg- ions in the middle Atlantic states, giving considerable at- tention to the fruit-growing sections of Virginia. 25 But here, as in the bearing orchards, Albemarle is supreme in that limited region to which it is adapted. ‘The esteem in which the growers hold this variety is shown by the fact that 61 per cent of the growers who have this variety in their orchards give it first rank over all others. Relative- ly speaking, this is the highest rank given to any variety in the young orchards. The area in Virginia over which ap- ple orchards are distributed is constantly increasing. Albemarle is peculiarly adapted to a limited area, commonly known as "pippin land". It follows therefore, that the per cent of orchards in which it occurs, and the per cent of the total number of trees of this variety planted will decrease. We saw that Ben Davis was third in rank in the bear- ing orchards and now we see that it holds eighth place in the young orchards. Plantingsof this variety have decreased markedly. Those who advocate the growing of this variety point out its good qualities as heavy bearer, attractive in _appearance and a good seller especially when offered on the southern markets. Attention should be directed to Rome as a variety which is coming into prominence in sections of the State, particularly Loudoun and Clarke counties. It will be notic- ed also that swnmer and fall varieties are coming more into prominence in the young orchards. 26 FYurther details of Table 2 need not be entered into in this discussion. The reader can draw his own conclusions from the data presented. Varieties for Future Planting. - It is important to know what varieties the growers now consider best for plant- ing in their respective localities. In order to obtain op- inions from the growers on this point,- the following quest- ion was asked: “What varieties of apples would you plant if you were to extend your orchard? State reason for making this choice." From the nature of the case, the safest information on var- ieties best suited for future planting can be obtained from the growers, many of whom have been in the orchard business for a long time, and have had experience with many varieties. They have had opportunity to observe the behavior of variet- ies.and they can estimate very accurately the commercial value of a variety for their respective localities. there were two hundred and thirty-one answers to this question. Table 3 gives a concise summary of these answers. This table is made in the same way as those which precede it, and it needs, therefore, no further explanation. This data should be specially valuable to those who contemplate plant- ing apple trees. Missing Page 28 the varieties listed below were mentioned by only one grower each. They were not included in Table 3 since nothing can be said as to their relative rank from the stand- point of the grower. Mother Golden Gate American Beauty Cannon Summer Rambo Rambour Reinette Rebel Esopus Pilot Golden Russet McIntosh Stark Belmont Redstreak ¥allawater Kinnaird Royal Limbertwig Rhode Island Oliver Smith Smokehouse Queen Shockley Early Ripe Livland Raspberry Maiden Blush Winter Cheese Altogether fifty-one varieties are mentioned as being desirable for future planting. Discussion of Table 3. - One of the most striking features of this table is the large number of varieties which would be given a prominent place in future plantings. There are at least ten varieties which would be planted rather extensively. This data seems to indicate that a number of varieties are giving satisfaction in different parts of the State. Attention should be called to the reas- ons which the growers gave for selecting the varieties ment- ioned in fable 3. York again easily ranks first. Of the one hundred and twenty-seven growers who would plant this variety, 54 29 per cent gave it first rank in economic importance. Very few growers place it lower than third in rank. A majority of the growers in the Valley region gave York preference over other varieties. The reasons stated for making this choice are as follows: York is a good bearer; its fruit is of good shipping and keeping quality, and it is a good sell- er. Several growers stated that York is not a good variety to hold in cold-storage because its skin is tender and has a tendency to blister when taken out of cold-storage. We found that Stayman Winesap had jumped to second place in the young orchards; it retains this position in the varieties for future planting. Staymen Winesap would be planted extensively in both the Valley and Piedmont regions. The growers favor this variety because it is large in size, high in quality and very attractive in appearance. Winesap holds third place among the varieties for future planting; 45.45 per cent of the growers would plant this variety, and of the number who would plant it, 50 per cent give it first rank in economic importance. The growers would plant this variety on account of its high quality. It is also a ready seller and is held in high esteem on the markets. There is a tendency for the fruits to grow too small unless the variety is planted in an environment to which it is adapted. 30 Arkansas would be planted extensively in the future orchards. This variety has several points which recommend it to the growers. It is of good size and good quality, and it is a showy apple. Some growers have complained that it is a shy bearer, but this objection is not shared by many of the growers. : Grimes is the most prominent apple of the fall or early winter class. Its peculiarly rich flavor and ready sale on the market recommend it to the growers. Albemarle holds sixth plave, due to the fact that it is adapted to a limited region. But in its own region it is held in the highest esteem. This is shown by the fact that 56 per cent of the men who would plant this var- iety give it first rank in egonomic importance, which is the highest individual rating of any variety suggested for future plantings. It is unnecessary to mention other varieties. Fable 3 shows how the growers feel regarding the relative value of varieties for future plantings. Comparison of Varieties. - In order that the reader may get at a glance the relative rank of varieties, I have made in Table 4 a comparison between ten leading varieties in bearing orchards, young and prospective orchards. This table gives a bird's-eye view of the status of varieties in 31 the commercial orchards. It shows the trend of plantings and it is a fairly safe index to the adaptation of varieties to the State. It gives the growers' opinion based upon their experience with varieties. The table is made up from the preceding tables with the addition under "Young Orchards" and "Prospective Orchards" of columns which show whether there has been an increase or decrease in plantings over the old orchards. Missing Page 33 Discussion of Table 4. - York holds first place all along the line as regards both the number of orchards in which it is found and the per cent of trees which it comprises of the total plantings. Winesap has shifted from second place in the old orchards to third place in both the young and pro- spective orchards. Ben Bavis has changed from third place in the bearing orchards to eighth place in the young orchards and ninth place in the prospective orchards. Another re- markable shift of position is noted in the case of Stayman Winesap. As regards the number of orchards in which it is grown, this variety was seventh in the old orchards, but it has jumped to second place in both the young and prospective orchards. And the increase in the percent which this var- iety constitutes of the total number of trees is also very noticeable. Delicious and Black Ben Davis had low rank in the bearing orchards, but have come to positions of import- ance in the young and prospective orchards. How Many Varieties should the Grower Plant? - This is often a difficult point to settle. There seems to be a tendency for those who are beginning the orchard business to plant too many varieties. In order to get the opinion of growers on this point the following question was asked: "How many varieties do you think it profitable to grow?" One hundred and eighty growers answered this question 34 directly. The average of their answers is four. Some said "the fewer the better", "not many", "few", etc. The answers on the whole show clearly that the successful growers realize the importance of not planting too many varieties. The grow- ers who have large orchards usually want enough trees of each variety to enable them to market that variety in car-load lots, rather than to be forced to ship in mixed car-load Sraatle, ? lots. Therefore the larger one's orchard the greater may be the number of varieties planted. Again, different varieties sometimes require differ- ent methods of treatment; especially does this apply to the operations of spraying. fherefore, it sometimes becomes difficult to handle an orchard to the best advantage when the varieties are very much mixed. There is an important advantage to be derived from mixed planting which should not be overlooked in this con- nection. It is a recognized fact that vertain varieties under certain conditions will not set fruit when planted alone in large blocks. Some varieties are self-sterile, that is, the pistil of the flower will not become fertiliz- ed by pollen from this flower or other flowers of this var- iety. The causes which influence self-sterility are not understood. aprsnet aggre ean eg By etre he Were they planted with or without fillers? If with fillers, state distance of permanent trees... late distance: of aller. sored slg ieee ae gone ae, Name varieties [whether apples or peaches] used as fillers... 9. On what system is your young orchard PAM te Gites ete ey How far apart are the ttees 9... Aue a neem SOLS. See pe If on filler system, distance of permanent trees... cece oo eee MNCS OE SUG 0) rs ea se acer SE feeecm ONT clays aPSG INSU need bsleeemcnnd See Varieties [whether apple or peaches] used as fillers? 10. Are any of your trees top grafted ?. 00... smmAein Sezai Lee one ay 14. Describe briefly your system of cultivation, a> Fort your old orchard) 24222 24 “4 -S2seheeieeeecse ces d. Do you sow a cover crop when the last cultivation for the season is made ?......-.-...0.-- e. What cover crop is best ? 15. Marketing, a. What is your apple market ?.......-...-- ee ; c. Do you sell your fruit at the orchard in lump to buyers, or do you sell through commission merchants, or do you sell direct to some fruit dealer? d. Have you packed any apples in boxes, if so with what success ?..--.--------- 2 eee Signed: byseiess « eaceate POStO MC ead hess slde, os phere: eyceesencand Use aa NB Salou a es Wate: senercianenceenenrasee i ~Counity.cce.s% Rati Me 4, na) iy Soi SENSE ies nia Oar aahry chy heh byt WY atin) aan Sig AUNT Nth PAN NGS, nae HH } Bit if i Wreraly otis Rial Sey eae i ny spe Trae ae Feed ve “Git, eee) any on Hi Ue, WO) enya Ae < Seas fe: e Lo