Rocky Ford enterprise., 1900-01-25
c,e.. Root rraa,as Methods.

From Farmers' Review: For sew
eral years a method Pf root pruning
much at variance with commonly ac-
ecptcd methods has been strongly ad-
vocatcd In certain quarters. Not all
tests. however. have resulted favor
ably. OF twenty-five apple trees planted
at the Nebraska station In the spring
OF 1896 only ten were living at the end
Of September In the same year. and
very few OF these showed any salts
factory growth or vigor. or the check
trees. some having the roots cut back
only about onc-half and the other un-
trimmed. not one died. From tests
made at the Missouri station with the
apple II was concluded that "the In
Jury caused by too loose root pruning
Is one that trees do not outsrow II
they do not diet outright.
The heroic pruning advised by our
Southern neighbor seems TO be un-
adapted to our conditions. The NOR
tality among our trees Is too great.
From the results OF all the trials
thus far reported II Is evident that this
practice OF close root pruning neither
merits unqualified approval nor de-
serves sweeping condemnation. As
might have been expected. species vary
greatly in their ability to endure Sc
we're root pruning. Among cultivated
trees probably those which experience
the Least Ill effects are the peach and
pear. The critics Of this method have
attributed much OF Its success to con-
ditions OF soil and climate. On this
Atp he 10 nnSnfiSfnC-
tory. Stringfellow. the most ardent
advocate OF the method. working at
Galveston with the favoring conditions
Of n warm. porous soil and high an
nual rainfall. has obtained remarkable
results from close root pruning; but
the Georgia and Alabama stations have
also obtained satisfactory results un-
der the adverse conditions OF drouth
and poor, hard soil. These results
certainly contradict the statements OF
certain critics that the method Is sue
cessful only under favorable soil and
meteorological conditions. Again.
nearly all OF these successes were
achieved in the Middle and Southern
states. The outcome under equally un-
favorable conditions In the North
might be different: in fact, at present
the evidence points in that direction.
Much field work is still necessary to
determine the limits Of applicability
Of this method.
The method consists in cutting back
a transplanted tree to practically no
root at all, or at most to mere STUB,
shortening the top proportionately.
The tree thus becomes to all intents
and purposes cutting. There is moth
ing essentially new" about this
method. Interest in 1t attaches to the
proposition that its possibilities in
practice have not been fully under
stood. The advantages claimed for
this method are that 1t gives better
tree with n root system consisting OF
several strong roots which penetrate
into the moist depths Of the soil and
securely anchor the tree instead OF
spreading out near the surface. More
over. with the root pruned to a club.
It is no longer necessary to dig large
holes in transplanting. A mere dibble
hole is sufficient.
The method has been quite extern
siyely tested both North and South.
Tests were made at the Maryland sta
ton on large scale. About 1000
trees of various kinds were planted.
At the end OF the first season peach
trees the roots of which were un-
pruned had made a greater, but not so
even, growth than those that were
pruned. Root-pruned pear trees made
n better growth in all respects than
runpruned trees. In the case of apple
trees there was little If any difference
between root-pruned and unprunei
frees. Root-pruned plums outgrew un-
pruned. The Mahaleb cherry, red
rsssr and California privet did well