L. F. Allen, of Buffalo, regarded Western New York as the finest apple-growing region in the United States - -extending from Syracuse to Niagara River - and excepting the region about the eastern end of Lake Erie. This fruit, it was true, grew finely in various parts of the West, but the specimens lacked the high, fine, piquant flavor of the fruit here. As they grew larger, their flavor was diluted.

H. E. Hooker cited the character of the soil in Monroe County (about Rochester), as showing the influence of different soils - light at the north, heavier at the south - but he regarded the nature of the subsoil as much more important than that of the soil itself; if there was a good natural drainage, so that the water could descend freely, and not remain stagnant, trees would grow much better than on the finest and most favorable soil without such drainage - and that he could not therefore recommend a sandy or a heavy soil, as being best, until he knew the subsoil; and he cited several cases to prove the truth of this position, and where excellent management without this requisite had resulted in partial failure. P. Barry corroborated these remarks, so far as the importance of a dry subsoil is concerned, but he decidedly preferred a good strong loam to a lighter soil. He did not think apples so local in their character and adaptation as some regarded them. He had seen the Newtown Pippin and Esopus Spitzenburgh in Illinois, in great perfection, and a large cultivator there had assured him that if he were to plant a market orchard there he would select two-thirds Newtown Pippin. L. F. Allen agreed with others on the importance of drainage, but he would greatly prefer natural drainage as immeasurably superior to any artificial tile or other drainage; he would never in any case plant an orchard on soils naturally wet, with any amount of artificial drainage that could be given it. [A member present asked him, "What shall I do with my own heavy wet soil; I have come here on purpose to learn what I can do with it?" He replied, "Swop it away, and get better."]

H. E. Hooker had planted an orchard on a well-drained piece of land by ditching, but had never had good fruit from it; on land with natural drainage he had grown specimens of the finest quality. He did not think that the heavy, wet soils of the southern part of Monroe County, could be properly prepared for a successful orchard at a cost of a thousand dollars per acre. He alluded to successful marketing; small orchards for home use might do for a while on artificially drained lands, but never reliably on a large scale. T. C. Maxwell, of Geneva, entertained an entirely different view; he knew tile-drains at Geneva that had been in successful operation nineteen years without any defect or derangement; he had dug up old trees and found almost the whole of the roots above eighteen inches, and this whole amount might be easily rendered dry by tile-draining. P. Barry, in allusion to the side-hill drained by H. E. Hooker, and where his orchard had failed, alluded to the fact that springy side-hills are the most difficult of ail kinds of land to render dry by drainage, and he feared this, after all, had not been drained at all effectually.

This remark was again objected to by T. C. Maxwell, who had been entirely successful in draining a springy side-hill by the regular system of tile-ditches, placed at regular intervals, which conducted the water down hill by its shortest and most direct way, thus carrying off all the water of the springs. H. E. Hooker stated, in answer to a question, that on account of the irregular nature of his side-hill land, he was not able to give it a regular system of drainage; and, on those parts which did not seem to require it, the subsoil was so hard that the roots could not penetrate. He thought a deep soil important. C. S. Cole, of Speneerport, said that all artificial under-drainage was very valuable, and he would have an orchard on his land even if it was wet by the best drainage he could give it; yet, nevertheless, with tile-trains on an unfavorable land, only eighteen feet apart, his fruit was much inferior to that from trees grown on a good pervious soil with natural drainage. Dr. Bristol, of Dansville, mentioned the case of an orchard of his on land on Cayuga Lake, where the soil was favorable, and where they had always flourished till two years since he bought them, and then they immediately died, not because he had become their owner, but because from the extreme wetness of the past two years the roots had been flooded, the water rising much nearer to them than ever before.

If, therefore, a naturally good soil, but too wet, could be sufficiently artificially drained, it would be all that is necessary; the only question was that of cost, in placing the drains near enough together. L. F. Allen admitted the practicability, or rather possibility, of draining wet lands for orchards, but that the expense for commercial orcharding would render it very unprofitable. He thought there was not one-tenth of the land of Western New York that was just right - some of this, however, extended over large tracts; and he would recommend orchardists to select such tracts. Other regions would, however, answer a good purpose. L. B. Langworthy thought that one soil was about as good as another, but drainage of great importance.