Norwich bulletin., 1916-06-01
FOR PEACH FERTILIZERS.
Hints on What to Do to Better Pro
 duction This Year.

Nitrogen seems to be the one ele- ment which will furnish to peach or chards the greatest amount of food and do the most good. The horticul- tural adviser has been recomm ending to peach growers in all parts of the alone as a fertilizer bliS year in the peach orchardh. To back up this
 statement the following conclusions are taken from bulletin 150 of the West Virginia experiment station. They certainly are very conclusive and it is hoped that the peach grow CTS in Hampden county will follow these recommendations. The material should be applied now and again just
 before the fruit begins to mature dur
 ing the middle of the summer.
 1. Because of the small amount
 of published data bearing upon peach
 orllard fertilization it is deemed ad- visable to publish this preliminary re-
 port covering four years work.
 2. Several experiment stations have attempted to determine the needs of the peach by analysis of it's tissue. These show that the peach is a heavier feeder than other fruits and that it uses large amounts of nj l trogen and potash and very small
 amounts of pnosphorous.
 3. In the last quarter-centur sev- eraI plat experiments have been at
 tempted, but accidents were so nu-
 merous that the results can be con- l sidered merely as suggestive. In most cases the best results were secured i through the aplication of some form 1 of nitrogen.
 4. Early work in West Virginia i gave better results from the use of l complete fertilizers than from incom- plete fertilizers. Of the several sim 1 gle elements of plant food used, nitro l gen gave the best results. Potash diminished development and in some
 cases killed the trees, while phospho- | ric acid in no way influenced either l vigor or productiveness.
 l 5. The yearly growth of the trees l treated with nitrate Of soda has
 been double that of plats receiving nc
 6. At the end of the second year the bearing surface of the nitrogen l fertilized trees was 1-2 times thai of the non- -nitrogen-fed block At the end of the fourth year the difference
 was much greater.
 | T. The leaves of the nitrogen blocks were healthier than the others, larger in size, about 2 1-2 times as nuner-
 ous,, and made up nearly four times greater area per tree
 8. The nitrogen plats have set ar
 average of 76 per cent fruit buds eaot ,I year against 50 per cent in the non
 nitrogen plats.
 T g. The yield of fruit was very near l " 0OUOlSQ Dy CnO u5S OA AAASAO6CAs 10. Nitrogen delayed maturity sev
 eral days.
 Il. The fruit was not as highl.
 colored in the nitrogen blocks as il the others The high color of tn
 non nitrogen rows was not due to tn influence of potash or any other fer tilizer but rather to the extra sunshin
 that reackaed it through the sparse am , sickly foliage.
 12. The average gross income pc acre per year from all the nitroge plats was $468.85 and from the non 2 i nitrogen plats was plats was $275.43. 13 The influence of lime could nc :. be definitely determined and must b 3 regarded as largely negative althoug : the production was somewhat in ? creased.
 st A. An experiment on young tree I at Cherry Run on the same kind ( Y soil was carried on in a manner simi Q | lar to the Sleepy Creek test. Fl 15 No apprecialble influence ( D any fertilizer could be detected tt n first year, due probably to the ina:bili ,, ty of the young trees to take up an : assimilate large quantities of plaI e food.
 e 16. After the first year nitroge !. | produced a strong growth of woe