Cheraw gazette. [volume] (Cheraw, S.C.) 1835-1838, 1836-11-22
From the Western Farmer.
on TRANSPLANTiNI.

for his poSlcritv. Hence the damage OF
Introducing improper practices founded upon
unSound principles, in planting.
Having observed in your November
number of the Western Farmer. some
"Notes on Transplanting;" copied from the
New York Farmer. recommending the
planning out orrees without looping oil any
part Of the top or branches-and apPre.
hending that the reasoning in favor of that
practice is incorrect, and might mislcad,
to their injury, the confiding and inexpc
r:cuced, | beg leave to offer few obscr-
vations on the subject,
The author ofthose "Notcs," it appears
to me. reasons badly, when ne draws an
argument in favor of his new theory. from
the fact the greater success in planting
Young tree with its limbs and roo,s entire"
than 'the larger one with the system Of de-
capitation practscd upon it." He infers
that the difference arises from the amputa-
,ion ofthe branchcs-whercas 1t proceeds
from the greater loss Of the roofs, in digging
up the larger, than the young tree. In
removing young plant. it is quite prac-
ricable to re;ain much larger proportion Of
the cytremities of the small ibrous roots,
adaptcd 10 the introsusception of the plant,
than of large tree. There can be no
doub. that the roots are more essentially the
life sustaining members Of plants than the
branchcs-,herefore when a tree (smaIl or
prca.) is removed, the chance Of its living
depends more upon retaining due proper
ton of its most essential members.
TIE soundneSs Of theories may some
times be tested by pushing the principles on
which they rest to their extremes. Let us
sec whether The theory here cortroverted
can stand this test-Plant young tree with
is branches and roo:s entire. twill live
Gut otra branch. it will live-cut off scv-
eral, it will still livc-nay, cut otfthc whole,
leaving only the stem. and it will not only
survive, as a thousand instances have proved
bu, being sustained by the ROOFS, it will put
out new branches and will flourish.
Plant another tree will its branches and
roofs entirc-lry the same process of am
putation on the roots, and ere YOU reach
the last rco., the branches will wither, and
the tree will decline and die.
An argument in favor ofthe new theory
is attempted to be founded on supposed
analogy between vegetable and animal life.
but (savs its author). would any person
in his senses think Of cutting oti'a child's
arm because it had the misfortune 10 lose
its foo'?" Certainly the author of the
Notes. in this question. loses sight entirely
of the supposed analogy. The food Of an
animal is not constituted an organ 10 receive
through its pores nolTishment for the
sustenance OF the body. as the roots are
of a tree. The stomach of an animal
is this organ. Now, let us suppose the
stomach to be wounded or impaired, so
as not TO be able TO perform adequately
the functions of receiving, preparing, and
furnishing the body due portion Of food.
What is tie consequence Why, by an
nvariable law Of nature, the bulk ofsub-
stance 10 be supported, must be reduced,
the body and limbs fall away and dwindle,
sometimes almost to skeleton. But when
the stomach RECEIVERS is tone, and performs
properly its functions, then the body and
limbs begin to recover, and finally assume
their wonted size and fullness. So when
the roots of a tree have been reduced or lm-
paired, to degree which leaves them IN
capable of supplying adequate nourlshmcnt
for the whole tree, body and limbs. the same
law of nature ordains, that portion OF the
substance to be supported, must be reduced
the limbs wither, dry, and decay; and
who ever yet saw a dry dead twIg restored
so us 10 rege,a,e!
As then, in the cases supposed, art Is an
capable of reducing the bulk of the animal,
but nature is competent both 20 reduce and
rcstorc-as art is capable Of reducing The
bulk of the Tree, leaving only as much as
can be supported by the appendant root
and as reduction of the bulk 10 be support
cd. is indicated in both cases when the sus-
tanning organs are impaired, it would seem
that the analogy is cIear y IN favor Of trm-
ming off portion of the limbs, so us 10
leave the top of the tree proporloned to the
remaining root.
But furlher-is not this new theory en-
tircly at war with the system of pruning
done for the double purpose of preserving
the tree, and improving the fruit, system
which has stool! the test of ages, and has
the sanction of ofexperience-lhe best guide
to young agriculurists.
But facts arc the best arguments in these
matters; about thirty years ago. l trans
planted pear tree into my garden. IL was
seven inches through, dug up IN December;
in freezing weather. To save 1t trimmed
off most ol;he top. so much as TO admit Oh
its being carried into a cellar, to preserve IL
for ;hc night from the iIos'. Next day II
WIS carried z r;;!r and planted. Us N"' i