Trees, Fruits and Flowers of Minnesota, 1916. Various

Читать онлайн книгу.

Trees, Fruits and Flowers of Minnesota, 1916 - Various


Скачать книгу

       Table of Contents

      This paper is purposely given a broad title so that it may cover any questions which come under the head of orcharding. Many of you who have been pestered with an "Orchard Survey Blank" can easily guess what subjects are to be taken up. Thanks to many of the members of this society and other fruit growers for their hearty co-operation, a large amount of data has been collected from fifty-three counties, representing most of the districts within the state. As would be expected certain counties have contributed much more information than others, probably owing to their greater interest in orcharding. For example: Thirty-one replies have already been received from Hennepin County, seven from Goodhue, six from Renville, five each from Houston, Meeker and Rice, four each from Chippewa, Dakota, Mower, Polk and Wabasha, three each from Blue Earth, Nicollet, Ottertail, Pine, Ramsey, Steele, Washington and Watonwan and one or two each from the remaining counties. Perhaps if the right parties had been reached the low-standing counties would have a higher ranking.

      The best way to present the data is an enigma. If all the information was given at one time we would need a whole day instead of fifteen minutes. Of course much of the material is a repetition, and a general summary will cover the main facts in most cases. Nevertheless it is not feasible to take up all of the subject matter in this short period, and therefore the first two topics on the survey blank have been selected, namely, orchard sites and protective agencies. At a later date, if you are sufficiently interested in dry facts other subjects, as soils, dynamiting, orchard management, stock of fruit trees, methods of planting and pruning, varieties for various localities, etc., will be taken up. Some of the subjects, like sites and soils, will be treated as state problems, while others must be considered as sectional.

      Minnesota, as you all know, contains many different climatic conditions, and consequently its orchard practices and recommendations must vary accordingly. To meet this problem the writer, in consultation with Prof. Cady, divided the state into six sections, namely, the southeastern, east central, northeastern, northwestern, west central and southwestern. Many counties are, of course, in an intermediate position and might be thrown into either of the adjoining sections, but an arbitrary line must be drawn somewhere. Freeborn, Waseca, Rice, Goodhue and all the counties east of them are placed in the southeastern section. Nicollet, LeSueur, Sibley, McLeod, Wright, Isanti and the counties to the east are included in the central east, and Pine, Mille Lacs, Morrison and the counties to the north and east are placed in the northeastern section. Beltrami, Hubbard, Ottertail and the counties to the west are placed in northwestern section; Traverse, Douglas, Todd, Stearns, Meeker, Renville, Yellow Medicine and the enclosed counties in the west central, and the remainder to the south and west are in the southwestern section. Thus, when the various sections are mentioned, you will know what part of the state is being referred to.

      Site of Orchard. By site of orchard we refer to its location, that is, whether it is on rolling, level or hilly ground, and the direction of its slope, provided it has one. From past experience it is believed that an orchard situated on a north slope is ideally located for Minnesota conditions, as its blossoming period is retarded and consequently the liability of injury from late frosts decreased. But all people who want orchards do not possess such a slope, so they set out their orchards on the most convenient location. A few growers have orchards sloping in all directions, and their opinion on the influence of slope on hardiness and retardation of the blooming period should be valuable. It is of interest to note that, out of 108 reporting on the levelness of the orchard ground, only twelve had level ground, two level to nearly level, one level to decidedly rolling, twenty-nine nearly level, seven nearly level to slightly rolling, three nearly level to medium rolling, twenty-nine slightly rolling, four slightly rolling to medium rolling, eighteen rolling and three decidedly rolling. A glance at the figures shows that the majority of orchards are on nearly level to slightly rolling land. In addition to the numbers given thirteen reported a slight slope, one a slight slope to a medium slope, two a slight to a steep slope, sixteen a medium slope, one a medium to a steep slope, and five a steep slope—the emphasis being laid on the moderate rising ground. No grower reported an orchard location entirely at the base of a slope, but six reported orchards extending from the base to the top of the slope, two from the base to midway of the slope, twenty-five at midway of the slope, seven from midway to the top and twenty-two at the top of a slope—the high ground evidently being preferred for orchard sites. As a general rule, as would naturally be expected, those who reported their orchards on the top of the slope usually reported their ground as either high or medium. Of ninety-six reports on the elevation of the orchards only four reported low land, and two of these were on top of a slope, two low and medium, one low and high, forty-six medium, fourteen medium and high, and twenty-seven high—the medium taking the lead. These figures have been given of the state as a whole, but when the sections are considered the southeastern and the west central take the lead in the highest percentage of high ground in comparison with the lower ground; the southeastern and east central, for the greatest amount of rolling land; and the southwestern, for the most level or nearly level land.

      Down the long row. View in well cared for orchard of J. M. Barclay, Madison Lake. Down the long row. View in well cared for orchard of J. M. Barclay, Madison Lake.

      As for the effect of direction of slope on hardiness, there were many varied opinions. Thirty stated without question that the direction had an effect, thirty-one stated that it had no effect, and seventy-two admitted that they did not know. Of those answering in the affirmative only seven had two or more distinctly different slopes, while fifteen of the negatives had two or more slopes for comparison. Nine of those who stated they didn't know had two or more slopes upon which to base their judgment. In summing up the direction of sites preferred, seventy-seven recommended a northerly slope, nine had no preference, one preferred southeast, one west, one west and east, two east, one north and east, one northeast or east, and sixty-four expressed no opinion. Two growers stated that the north slope prevented early bloom and thereby lessened liability to injury from late frosts, two growers stated that northern slopes decreased the loss of moisture, and one stated that the northeast slope gives the largest fruit and the west the best colored.

      As a brief summary of the reports on orchard sites, it may be stated that high ground, rolling or sloping to the north, is preferred by the majority of growers who filled out these orchard survey blanks.

      Protective Agencies. Under this heading comes windbreaks of all kinds, whether hills, natural timber or planted trees, and bodies of water which ameliorate the climate. Out of fifty-four replies from the central east section, sixteen reported that their orchards were favorably affected by lakes, the benefit coming in most cases from the prevention of early and late frosts. One grower attributed the cooling of the air during the summer as a benefit and two stated that the bodies of water furnished moisture. Two growers in the southeast section received favorable influences from the Mississippi River, and one in the southwestern and two in the west central sections thought they received beneficial effects from lakes. According to this data, orchards in the east central section, owing largely to the influence of Lake Minnetonka, are greatly benefited by the presence of water.

      Windbreaks are a very important factor in successful orcharding in Minnesota, even though one party in the southeast section and three parties in the central east noted no beneficial effects. According to reports from the central west and southwest sections they are of great benefit and in some cases indispensable to apple growing. As would be expected by any one who is acquainted with Minnesota, the planted windbreaks are a more important factor in the prairie country than in the natural wooded and hilly regions. In the southeast section, five orchards were reported as protected by bluffs and hills, three by both hills and natural woods, two by natural woods, two by both natural and planted woods, and twenty-one by planted woods; in the central east section, one by a hill and a planted windbreak, one by a town, fifteen by natural timber, two by natural and planted timber, and nineteen by planted windbreaks; in the northeast section, two by natural and four by planted windbreaks; in the northwest section, three by natural and two by planted windbreaks; in the west central section, one by a hill and natural timber, five by natural timber, two by natural timber and planted


Скачать книгу