The ranch. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1902-1914, 1906-07-15

in the spring OF 1913 that now nave
much fruit on the new growth. We
have been obliged to pull off most OF
the apples on these year-old sprouts
They made tremendous growth dur
ing the first year but still they are not
able to bear up under the load of fruit
on them. No other variety worked on
the tops of ten-year-old trees has sci
anything like so much fruit as | found
on these Rome Beauty tops. The
Jonathan worked on the Ben Davis
and Missouri Pippin have quite few
apples on them but are nothing like as
full as the trees top-worked to the
Rome Beauty. Why this? The only
answer l can give is that we have nc
other good apple that is as early a
bearer as the Rome Beauty. 1t is a
point of decided advantage in any
apple if it is an early and heavy
bearer This can be said of both the
Ben Davis and the Missouri Pippin
but they both are SO low in quality
that this good point in their favor is
more than overcome. But the Rome
Beauty, while not an apple of the
highest quality, is nevertheless a
good apple, is large in size and sells
well. On account of this variety being
an early, and an enormous bearer it is
a profitable apple to raise and with
which to top-work the Improbable var
ieties. The apple that bears the biggest
crop is not the most profitable apple
neither is the apple that sells the
highest But the apple that sells fairly
we'll and bears enormously is the
money getter.
The Jonathan is an early and con
slant bearer. The tree is not vigOr
GUS grower but when this apple is
top-worked on some vigorous grower
it bears more and larger fruit than
when it is planted from the nursery
as a Jonathan The Yellow NewtOwn
is slow in coming into bearing. Three
years ago we tOp-wOrked some trees
to Newtowns and now this summer
they are just beginning to bear. One
of the most discerning apple growers
in the Yakima valley says that the
Yellow Newtown will not pay, al
though it sells higher than any other
variety that he grows, with the pos
sible exception of the Esopus.
Some discussion has taken place
with reference to the value of the
honey bee (apis mellifera) in the pol
linating of our orchard fruits. The de-
cided weight of opinion is that this
insect is more useful than any other
and perhaps than all others. The idea
formerly obtained that the wind car
1ied the pollen from one tree to an
other. Careful experiments show that
this is done only to a limited extent
We are dependent upon insects for
cross-fertilization to greater extent
than all other causes combined. Other
insects besides the honey bee assist
in this work Britton, of Connecticut
has shown that the common "sweet
bee" is very useful in this work. In
Connecticut, where he made his OBJ
servatiOns, honey bees were not kept
to any extent, hence, were not in evil
dence but to a limited extent in this
work of pollinating. The "sweet bee'
(halictus SparsuS) was more abundant
than any other insects. So it seems
that our fruit will be fortified even
in the absence of the honey bee but
not so thoroughly as where this in
sect abOunds. The lesson from these
Investigations is that the fruit grow
er should keep bees. Some careful
experimentors claim it will pay apple
growers to keep bees if they never get
pound of honey. But it will not
take much of any ones time to attend
to a dozen or more colonies of bees
and the work will be profitable Hor
ticulture and bees should go hand in
hand together.
Recently | read an article in one OF
our exchanges, in which | find the