^« »»

?^J^;i'

^^\

- .-♦**,■

*-"r-"ff

■« o #

4.12 ^•'^I'P^-;

^l\^l<,« ^

t

^

'^^

1

' .1
■

{■ '^

I'.-^fl

^

H

. -ij

K

L^

o °

o "*5^'

■^ „'^&9i'*in<i

X

lV

I J

J

L\

1

\

^^^ll

^^^^1 h

^H^

■

1

r^

'f-'

t^i^^ff

il

ly-Li-^

^^vy

^'.V'!,

M^!.*^"

-Z^.'^''

%^J^>..

--»»«»

0 .0^

>i.'-^:

MICROFILMED 1998

Penn State University

Libraries
University Park, PA 16802-1805

USAIN STATE AND

LOCAL LITERATURE

PRESERVATION PROJECT

PENNSYLVANIA

Pattee Library

Funded by the

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT
FOR THE HUMANITIES

Reproductions may not be made

without permission from

The Pennsylvania State University Libraries

COPYRIGHT STATEMENT

The copyright law of the United States - Title 17, United
States Code - concerns the making of photocopies or
other reproductions of copyrighted material.

Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and
archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other
reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the
photocopy or other reproduction is not to be "used for any
purpose other than private study, scholarship, or
research." If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a
photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair
use," that user may be liable for copyright infringement.

This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a
copy order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order
would involve violation of the copyright law.

Master Negative

Number

CONTENTS OF REEL 96

1) Pennsylvania State Horticultural Association news, v. 8
MNS# PSt SNPaAgOge.l

2) Pennsylvania State Horticultural Association news, v. 9
MNS# PSt SNPaAg096.2

3) Pennsylvania State Horticultural Association news, v. 1 0
MNS# PSt SNPaAg096.3

4) Pennsylvania State Horticultural Association news, v. 11
MNS# PSt SNPaAg096.4

CONTENTS OF REEL 96 (CONTINUED)

5) Pennsylvania State Horticultural Association news, v. 12
MNS# PSt SNPaAg096.5

6) Pennsylvania State Horticultural Association news, v. 13
MNS# PSt SNPaAg096.6

7) Pennsylvania State Horticultural Association news, v. 14
MNS# PSt SNPaAg096.7

8) Pennsylvania State Horticultural Association news, v. 16
MNS# PSt SNPaAg096.8

CCNTENTS OF REEL 96 (CONTINUED)

9) Pennsylvania State Horticultural Association news, v. 17
MNS# PSt SNPaAg096.9

Title: Pennsylvania State Horticultural Association news, v. 8

Place of Publication: State College, Pa.

Copyright Date: 1931

Master Negative Storage Number: MNS# PSt SNPaAg096.1

iSSBOH

H

<2076226> * Form: serial 2 lnput:HHS Edit:FMD

008 ENT: 980309 TYP: d DT1: 1924 DT2: 19uu PRE: a LAN: eng

037 PSt SNPaAg095. 1 -097.5 $bPreservation Office, The Pennsylvania State

University, Pattee Library, University Park, PA 16802-1805
090 20 Microfilm D344 reel 95.1-97.5 $cmc+(service copy, print master,

archival master) $s+U1V4X1924-U14V1X1936+U16V1X1939-U22V1X1945

245 00 Pennsylvania State Horticultural Association news $bProceedings of the
State Horticultural Association of Pennsylvania for ... $cpublished by

the Association

246 39 Pennsylvania State Horticultural Association news

246 30 Proceedings of the State Horticultural Association of Pennsylvania for

260
300
362 1
500
515

533

State College, Pa. $bThe Association
V. $bill. $c23 cm.
Began in 1924

Description based on: Vol. 1, no. 4 (Mar. 1924)
Proceedings of the State Horticultural Association of Pennsylvania for
1929- also called 65th annual meeting-
Microfilm $mv.1,no.4-v.1 4,no.1, v. 16,no.1-v.22,no. 1(1 924-1 936, 1939-1 945)
$bUniversity Park, Pa. : $cPennsylvania State University $d1998 $e3
microfilm reels ; 35 mm. $f(USAIN state and local literature
preservation project. Pennsylvania) $f(Pennsylvania agricultural
literature on microfilm)

Archival master stored at National Agricultural Library, Beltsville, MD
: print master stored at remote facility

This item is temporarily out of the library during the filming process.
If you wish to be notified when it returns, please fill out a Personal
Reserve slip. The slips are available in the Rare Books Room, in the
Microforms Room, and at the Circulation Desk
650 0 Fruit-culture $xPeriodicals
650 0 Fruit-culture $zPennsylvania $xPeriodicals
710 2 State Horticultural Association of Pennsylvania
830 0 USAIN state and local literature preservation project $pPennsylvania
830 0 Pennsylvania agricultural literature on microfilm

590

590

Microfilmed By:

Challenge Industries

402 E. State St
P.O. Box 599

Ithaca NY 14851-0599

phone (607)272-8990

fax (607)277-7865

www

.htm

IMAGE EVfiLUflTION
TEST TRRGET QR-S

1.0

I.I

1.25

4.5

ilia

■IP

2.8
3.2

m

1.4

2.5

2.2

2.0

1.8

1.6

150mm

.//

>1PPUED^ IIVMGE . Inc

,^= 1653 East Main Street
^ Rochester, NY 14609 USA
:s= Phone: 716/482-0300
Fax; 716/288-5989

v..

.^^

Pennsylvania State
Horticultural Association News

VoL VIII

State College, Pa., Search, 1931 '^. 1

'■-■.>

-'' \

' \

■.^.A

Proceedings cj^.th^ ;a \
State Horticultural As«pc^tioiF 7

of Pennsylvania'
for 1931 "

•rv-r.f'

^

Seyenty-second oAnnual Meeting
Held in Harrisburg, January 21-22

)

K

Pennsylvania State
Horticultural Association News

Published by the Association
Issued Quarterly at SUte Coilese, Pa. Subscription, 50c

Entered as second class matter at the Post Office at State Coilese, Pa.

Vol. VIII State College, Pa., march, 1931 "^o. 1

Proceedings of the
State Horticultural Association

of Pennsylvania
for 1931

^

Seyenty-second oAnnual Meeting
Held in Harrisburg, January 21-22

-pi!

V'-i

.2?

*'*j1

State Horticultural oAssociation

of Pennsylvania

(C^

ifisV

^ m

OFFICERS FOR 1931

President R. T. Criswell, Chambersburg

Vice President F. G. Reiter, Mars

Secretary R. H. Sudds, State College

Treasurer C. B. Snyder, Ephrata

Executive Committee: The above officers and C. J. Tyson, Gardners;
Sheldon Funk, Boyertown; and H. F. Hershey, Hamburg.

STANDING COMMITTEES

Legislation and Representatives on Agricultural Council: C. J.

Tyson, Gardners, Ch.; H. S. Nolt, Columbia; W. W. Livingood, Robesonia.

State Farm Products Show and Exhibition: H. S. Nolt, Columbia,
Ch.; John Ruef, State College; Paul Thayer, Carlisle.

Insect Pests: T. L. Guyton, Harrisburg, Ch.; H. N. Worthley, State
College; H. E. Hodgkiss, State College.

Plant Diseases: H. W. Thurston, State College, Ch.; R. S. Kirby, State
College.

SPECIAL COMMITTEES

Game Laws: J. A. Runk, Huntingdon, Ch.; F. E. Griest, Flora Dale;
T. L. Guyton, Harrisburg.

True-To-Name Trees: F. N. Fagan, State College, Ch.; F. M. Trimble,
Harrisburg; H. G. Baugher, Aspers.

— 3 —

Proceedings of the State Horticultural
Association of Pennsylvania for 1931

PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS
J. S. RITTENHOUSE, Lorane, Pa.

Another year has rolled around and we are in the Seventy-
second Annual Meeting of the Pennsylvania State Horticultural
Association.

To some of us, the year has not been very kind, since 1930
was characterized by the most severe drought in the history of
the United States and also by a very severe industrial depression
with consequent unemployment; these two factors are affecting
fruit growers materially. There was much small-sized fruit
because of dry weather and because of labor unemployment, the
demand for apples is slow and prices are not satisfactory.

Unfortunately, too many people think of the. heavier foods,
such as meats, cereals, and potatoes, as the only food essentials,
and believe fruits to be luxuries; nothing can be more fallacious.
The apple is one of the most essential of foods. In addition to
other food elements, it is known to have at least three vitamines,
and valuable mineral salts, and also malic acid, which is an acid
needed to counteract bodily acidity.

The apple is an intestinal antiseptic. '^American Medicine''
of New York quotes from ^'The Lancet" of London, that 52
children with high fever and dysentery were for two days fed
only on ripe mashed apples, and no medicine given. In every
case, the fever had fallen within 12 to 24 hours, the diarrhea
stopped and the children looked well. I could refer to other
uses of the apple.

I feel very earnestly that if apple-growing is to survive and
prosper, the public must become acquainted with the value and
need of the apple as a food. What I have said is only a hint at
what can be said for this fruit.

The dietitians and food authorities can do much for the health
of the people and the benefit of apple growers, if they will
investigate the food value of the apple in health and in sickness
and publish brochures on that subject.

Surely someone is capable of getting up something of this
sort that will be clear and convincing and which will serve as a
guide to us when we talk of apples. We need something more
than a pamphlet to tell us how to concoct delectable dishes by
using apples. People are interested in vitamines, mineral salts
and the value of fruit acids in their food, and these are among
the telling things that need to be stressed.

— 4 —

#

I , %

A M*

SECRETARY'S REPORT

R. H. SUDDS, State College

The first thing occurring to most of you is the natural question
as to why we are not meeting in the new Show Building. This
Association could have done so but your Secretary decided
otherwise on his own responsibility; from all indications, his
decision has been amply justified. This South Office Building
auditorium is much quieter, infinitely more accessible, and the
lantern sUdes and moving pictures included in our program can
be used here. We have not sacrificed any future rights in the
new building, since these have been guaranteed in writing.

Memberships have fallen off from 905 to 805; this decrease has
taken place altogether in our affihated county societies, since the
State- wide membership has remained constant even through such
an unfavorable year. The Indiana County Horticultural Society
was the only one showing an increase. All the others fell off
somewhat.

Distinctly favorable signs during the past year are the organi-
zation and affiHation of a new society in Allegheny County with
32 charter members, and the reorganization of the former Wayne
County association. Increased activity in several other coun-
ties gives promise of establishing some more local societies.
Snyder County with 18 members has been affihated.

So far as finances are concerned, we are equally as well off
as we were last year. Every outstanding bill owed by this
association has been paid, including the cost of the programs for
this meeting, giving us nearly $150 in the treasury, including
$76.00 received by the treasurer too late for his report. This
has been accomplished by adhering to a program of rigid economy
which is one reason for again using last year's membership
buttons. This alone saves us nearly $25.00.

In the advertising section of the Proceedings, there will appear
the details for a membership contest for this calendar year.
Individual and society prizes will be offered. The proceedings
will be shghtly simplified this year without affecting its value or
essential contents in the slightest.

You will note in both the program and proceedings many
different advertisements. These are all paid for by commercial
concerns expecting to get value received from your business.
Patronize our advertisers and tell then where you saw their
advertisements. They largely carry our pubUcation costs and
are therefore entitled to your consideration. By helping our
advertisers, you help your Secretary to secure more advertising
which in turn gives you more value in the line of better pubUca-
tions for your own reward.

Members occasionally suggest another Fruits and Gardens
affiliation in order to secure that magazine at reduced rates.
Fruits and Gardens is no longer the official organ of the American
Pomological Society and as published at present, is not worth

— 5 —

your subscription.

The money saved on the Proceedings will be spent on a bigger
and better News Letter in June and September. One feature of
this will be an exchange section for members only who have a
sprayer or grader, etc. to sell, or who want to buy some orchard
machine or device. A small fee will be charged for this service.
Write the Secretary for information if interested.

The long 1930 Summer Trip through New England was well
attended. We are indebted to Dr. WilUam Crocker, the Boyce
Thompson Institute for Plant Research, Incorporated, Yonkers,
New York; Professors S. P. HoUister, Storrs, Connecticut;
W. H. Thies, Amherst, Massachusetts; and L. C. Anderson,
Hudson, New York, for guidance within their respective states
and institutions. County Agent A. L. Hacker of Allentown
deserves honorable mention for his assistance in starting us
safely on our journey. An increasingly large number of wives
and families are appearing on these tours, which make ideal
vacations.

This Association can look forward to 1931 without dismay.
We have weathered in good condition the unfavorable year of
1930 and we can confidently expect a strong gain in membership
and service during the coming year. We may closely approach
the 1000 mark with just a little help from everyone. Let's try it!

Secretary's Note: At the Harrishurg meeting, notice was given
of an increase in dues from $2.00 to $3.00 to begin on June 1, 1981 .
Since that time the proportion of membership renewals and the num-
ber of new memberships have been gratifying. Therefore, the DUES
WILL CONTINUE TO BE TWO DOLLARS.

TREASURER'S REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDING

JANUARY 20, 1931

RECEIPTS

January 21, 1930— Cash|balance on hand S 246.95

27, 1930~R. H. Sudds, Membership dues 199.00

27, 1930— Paul M. Hawkins, Membership dues .. 5.00

H. W. Dye, Membership dues 2.00

Cornwall Farms & Orchards, Member-
ship dues 2.00

February 3, 1930— Miss Eleanor C. Duncan, Member-
ship dues 2.00

February 15, 1930— R. H. Sudds, Membership and Adver-
tising 246.00

March 25, 1930— W. H. Matthews, Membership dues.... 2.00
April 9, 1930— D. M. Wertz, Refund of premium

money 12 . 75

R. H. Sudds, Membership and Adver-
tising 325.06

— 6 —

/.

I u

1^

i;;

April 15, 1930 — Interest of two $100 Apartment

Bonds 6.00

Interest of $500 Liberty Bonds 10.62

May 3, 1930— J. P. Hollabaugh, treas. for the C. H.

Musselman Co., Membership dues

and 2 extra Proceedings 4.00

May 17, 1930— D. M. Wertz 1 Refund of

Taylor Goshorn - Premium 8.50

C. W. GeesamanJ Money

R. H. Sudds, dues and advertising in

Proceedings 142.80

June 28 C. B. Snyder, refund of premium

money 4.00

R. H. Sudds, membership dues and
advertising 45.00

October 4, 1930— R. H. Sudds, Membership dues 26.00

Interest on $100 Certificate in Bank.... 4.00

October 18, 1930— Interest on $500 Liberty Bond 10.63

Interest on $100 Apartment Bonds 6.00

Nov. 25, 1930— Snyder, Fry & Rick. Receipt Books... 12.00

Snyder, Fry & Rick, Apple Posters 6.00

Snyder, Fry & Rick, Price Cards 3.00

January 10, 1931— R. H. Sudds, dues and advertising 101 .00

-$1432.31

DISBURSEMENTS

February 5, 1930 — W. S. Campfield. traveling expenses

and speaker $ 53.77

M. C. Burritt, traveling expenses and

speaker 53. 34

St. Louis Button Co., 1000 celluloid

membership buttons 22.65

February 13, 1930— Nittany Printing & PubUshing Co.,

2000 programs; 1000 envelopes 147.50

February 14, 1930 — M. C. Burritt, second voucher for

speaker 25.00

Dunmire Printing Co., 1200 catalog

envelopes 18.61

February 21, 1930— Lester Lewis Walsh, reporting and

transcribing Proceedings 185.60

February 17, 1930 — R. A. Van Meter, traveling expenses

and speaker 64. 15

March 7, 1930— Nittany Printing and Publishing Co.,

printing 14.50

May 20, 1930— Dunmire Printing Co., 1200 Annual

Proceedings 612.50

July 2, 1930— Dunmire Printing Co., June Hort.

News 12.31

Miss Mary Bowmaster, stenographic

services 45.00

October 8, 1930— Dunmire Printing Co., Printing News

Letter 19.64

December 1, 1930— Telegraph Printing Co., Posters and

imprints 2.50

January 9, 1931— Dunmire Printing Co., 1931 Programs 97.00

Cash balance in bank _ 58.24

$1432.31

— 7 —

Two Mortgage Bonds ^?55S^

One Liberty Bond vSxxH

One Bank Certificate VSSV

Cash Balance ^°- ^^

Total Assets-

Auditors

fW. W. LIVINGOOD
J. H. WEINBERGER
HERMAN HAASE

$858.24

C. B. SNYDER, Treasurer

A SUMMARY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA APPLE
DISEASE SITUATION FOR 1930

R. S. KIRBY, State College

The extremely dry season of 1930 created a very interesting
and unusual condition with regard to the diseases of the apple
orchard and their control. From a knowledge of such diseases
and the fungi that cause them, one might expect many of the
diseases to be of minor importance in such a year or to be so
easily controlled as to give the grower a false sense of security,
but an intensive and wide-spread study of the actual state of
affairs has shown that this was far from being the case. Such
a drought as was experienced in many sections necessarily acted
as a check on the development of disease-producing fungi;
nevertheless, even in regions of the most severe drought there
were sufficient periods of rainfall so that the state-wide average
of scab in unsprayed orchards was 73.9 per cent.

This indicates that proper spraying was needed because, in
spite of the drought, there was still plenty of infection to be

controlled. ,

The following analysis based on observations of the disease
situation on 207,007 apples in 394 orchards seems to show con-
clusively that timing of spraying, thoroughness and the use of
the proper materials had the same relative importance in a year
like 1930 as in any other year of which we have a record.

In order to know what diseases we are combating when spray-
ing it is necessary to know what diseases are present when no
sprays are applied. Table I shows the percentage of the different
diseases present in unsprayed orchards in 1929 and 1930.

The figures in table I show conclusively that there was a con-
siderable amount of several diseases present in the state in spite
of the drought. Scab continues to hold its place as the most
important single disease of apples within the state. The com-
parison with 1929 is of further interest since 1929 represents
one of the worst scab years of recent times. The dry season of
1930 which had a deficiency of 7.02 inches of rainfall below normal
between April and September does not show such a big difference
in the amount of disease as might be expected.

The effect of rainfall on the amount of scab is more clearly
brought out by a comparison of locaUties. For it was true that

— 8 —

r'J

1 1 1^

V

u

Table 1 —Percentage of disease present in unsprayed orchards and rainfall in

1929 and 1930

Scab — severe or unmarketable
Scab— Total
Sooty Blotch
Brook's Spot

Blotch

Black Rot

Total

Rainfall from April to September, State
average in inches.

♦Figures based on counts of 5,282 apples in 39 orchards in 1930 and on
counts of 4,976 apples in 19 orchards in 1929.

although 1930 was a drought year in most localities, some sec-
tions at least were favored with almost normal ramfall and sut-
fered heavier scab infection.

Table 11.— Relation of rainfall to the occurrence of apple diseases— 1930

COUNTY

Percentage

of normal

rainfall

Unsprayed
Orchard

April July
May Aug.
June Sept.

Bedford

Franklin

Lancaster

Bucks

Luzerne

Susquehanna

Scab

Other
Dis-
eases

Incompletely I Completely

sprayed
orchards

Scab

Other
Dis-
eases

sprayed
orchards

Scab

Other
Dis-
eases

PERCENTAGE

57.7
71.5
75.0
99.0
91.0

46.2
27.4
50 5

47.7
77.0

128.0 87.1

51.2

49.6*

37 5

40.0

95.2

99.0

0

0
41.0
60.0

0

0

12.5
6.9
8.9
24 5
13.0
25.3

0
0

.6
4.7
0
0

.25
.24

.5
1.2
16

5.8

0
0

.2
2

0
0

♦Figure taken from Cumberland County. Rainfall records taken from
principal station in County. ,

The figures in table II show that even under the most severe
drought conditions, which were at the same time the most
favorable conditions for controlling the diseases, it was dithcult
or next to impossible to get satisfactory control without applying
all the sprays.

Value of Complete Spraying

The value of applying all the sprays as recommended can
best be realized when it is known that in the 163 orchards
visited in 1930 where sprays were so applied only 1.22 per cent dis-

— 9 —

Hi

eased apples were found. This means that in the completely
sprayed orchards there was 98.78 bushels per hundred of apples
free of disease, in contrast to only 7.5 bushels per hundred of
apples free of disease in the unsprayed orchards. Thus we find
that applying all the sprays as recommended increased the
number of bushels of disease-free apples in each one hundred
bushels by 91.28 bushels. Furthermore, that of the 91.28
bushels of apples made free of disease by spraying, 58.6 bushels
per hundred would have been so badly scabbed as to be unmarket-
able if they had not been sprayed.

Value of Different Sprays in 1930

In order to determine the value of the different sprays in pre-
venting apple diseases 32,900 apples were examined in 65 orchards
where only one spray was omitted. The results of these counts
are as follows:

Table HI. — Increase in percentage of disease-free apples over completely sprayed

by omitting different sprays

Spray Omitted

Delayed Dormant.

Pre-pink

Pink

Petal Fall

Cluster Apple

Summer

Increase over

Unmarketable Scab

Percentage

4.2

3.8

0
.1
.2

0

Total Increase
Percentage

8.4
22.2

1.9

3.8
14.1

0

Note: Percentage diseased apples in completely sprayed was 1.22.

The figures in table III show that even in a dry year such as
1930 considerable loss resulted from omitting either the delayed
dormant, pre-pink or cluster apple sprays. The figures also
show that, if it had been possible to foretell the weather with
sufficient accuracy, the pink and summer sprays might have
been omitted with relatively little loss from scab on other
diseases. It should be realized that the figures in this table are
averages for the state.

The lack of continued rainy periods during the delayed dor-
mant period in most of the southern counties did not afford
the mature spores an ideal condition for being discharged and
bringing about heavy infection. In the central and northern
counties, however, the rain which fell from April 16th to 19th
did allow a heavy infection during the delayed dormant period.
In the southern counties this rain fell when the buds were in a
pre-pink stage and the four day rain resulted in the heaviest
scab infection that took place during the year in that section.

The reason for the importance of the cluster apple spray was
because in June there was 4.20 inches of rainfall which was one
tenth of an inch above normal as shown by the weather records.

— 10 —

a. I ii?

$

The omission of a spray during this period resulted in an increase
in disease of 14.1 per cent. The small difference in the amount
of disease occurring when the pink, petal fall or summer sprays
were omitted was because of the dry weather that occurred in
most sections after these sprays were applied.

Thus it would seem that in 1930 adequate disease control
depended upon timeliness which can only be determined by a
knowledge of the stage of development of the fungus spores
and the weather. Growers must remember that normal years
will be more nearly like 1929 when all sprays were as important
as the three most important in 1930.

Timeliness is further emphasized in table IV which also shows
the importance of using the proper spraying material and doing
a thorough job of spraying.

Table IV. — Increase in percentage of diseased apples in orchards using other
than recommended time, manner^ and material over orchards

sprayed as recommended

Treatment 6 to 8 sprays applied

Percentage increase in disease
on completely sprayed

Unmarketable
Scab

Total
Disease

"MofVioH "^cti Rs recommended

4.2

24.0

Substitute materials used in one or more
sprays

4.6

6.8

Timing off — As many or more than recom-
mended number of sprays applied ....

18.4

25 3

The percentages of disease given in this table are those in excess of the
1.22 per cent disease as found in completely sprayed orchards.

The data in table IV shows that where growers applied all
their sprays at recommended times and with recommended
material but used poor spraying methods caused by worn out
spray guns, employing inexperienced help without proper super-
vision, using barrel outfits, developing inadequate pressure, and
cutting the amount of spray material in half to save cost, that
apple diseases were not properly checked as shown by the fact
that there were 24 per cent more diseased apples than where
the apples were sprayed as recommended.

The data in table IV shows also that where growers applied
all their sprays at recommended times and in recommended
manner but used substitute spray materials in one or more sprays
there was 6.8 per cent more diseased apples than where the
recommended types of lime sulphur sprays were used.

In spite of the drought in 1930 we find that as in normal years
such factors as material, manner, arid especially time of appHca-
tion are the stepping stones to successful apple disease control.

— 11 —

\i

REPORT OF INSECT PEST COMMITTEE

T. L. GUYTON, Bureau of Plant Industry, Harrisburg, Pa.

This report is the summary of the observations made in 1930
by the members of the committee and is generaHzed to cover
the entire state. The abnormal weather which persisted is the
reason for the unusual abundance of some of the major pests.

The codling moth caused a heavy loss in many orchards,
reports varying from very slight infestation to 60%. The num-
ber of overwintering worms now in the orchard is estimated to
be as high as 70% more than at this time last year. There was
some indication of a partial third brood in some of the southern
sections of the state this year.

The plum curculio seems to be an ever present pest in some
orchards. It is reported as causing considerable damage in the
southeastern section on both apple and peach, and also as doing
damage ta apple in the southwestern section. Heavy damage
showed up this year in orchards with a hght set of fruit, especially
such peach orchards as were thought to have insufficient fruit
to pay for the early poison sprays. An unusually large number
of the beetles are now in hibernation.

The Oriental fruit moth continues to be the outstanding peach
insect. The infestations varied in the fruited areas from 2 to
40% wormy peachers. For all varieties up to and including
Elberta the average in the vicinity of Harrisburg was 20%.
Later varieties were more severely damaged. The percentage
of wormy fruit is about the same as in 1929. Probably just an
average number of worms are now in hibernating quarters.

Peach tree borers are numerous in untreated orchards. With
PDB treatments so easily applied and so well understood, it
seems inexcusable for the earnest grower to allow such to exist
in his orchard.

The San Jose scale has increased at an alarming rate in some
districts, especially in the southeast. This increase can easily
be observed in some orchards, particularly on peach trees.
The heavy local infestations seem to point to faulty spray
applications and natural conditions.

The European red mite caused some damage in the southern
half of the state in the early part of the year. The numbers
decreased greatly in midsummer but there was an increase in
September and the fruit and trees were covered with eggs.

Rosy apple aphid was more abundant in some localities than
for several years. This pest was more numerous on York, and
there caused the most damage.

From the grape belt came the report that the rose chafer is on
the increase and that considerably more were present in some
vineyards than in 1929. These infestations were all local. The
grape leaf hoppers were not present in large numbers.
• Grape berry moth seems to be on the increase in the western
part of the grape belt, probably due to an increase in grape
acreage without corresponding increase in spray operations.

— 12-^

/Jt^ \ ^'

$

The canker worm continued to be a severe defoUator of
unsprayed orchards in the western half of the state, but the
infestation was not as heavy as in 1929.

As stated in the beginning, the unusual weather conditions
are blamed for a lot of things. To our minds, the two outstand-
ing dangers which confront the grower as the result of these
weather conditions are the increase of the San Jose scale and
the abundant appearance of certain fruit tree bark beetles.
These beetles usually attack trees which are low in vitaUty, and
the dry weather has brought about just such a situation.

Conclusions and Recommendations

In the apple orchard the codling moth caused considerable
damage in 1930. Thorough and timely spray applications will
control this insect.

San Jose scale is on the increase. Neglected orchards are
Hkely to be killed by this pest in a few years. Thorough spraying
is the only remedy.

The eggs of the European red mite are present in large numbers
in some orchards. Again thorough and timely spraying is the

remedy.

Certain fruit tree bark beetles are attacking trees brought
low in vitality by dry weather. Prompt removal and burning
of heavily infested trees and the stimulating of the orchard to
vigorous growth by fertilizing, pruning and the like are recom-
mended.

Curculio continues to be a major pest in some localities.
Orchard sanitation and efficient spraying will give satisfactory

control. ' '

The committee has nothing new to offer in Oriental fruit moth

control methods.

T. L. GUYTON, Chairman.

H. E. HODGKISS.

H. N. WORTHLEY.

THE CONTROL OF THE CODLING MOTH WITH

TREE BANDS

H. N. WORTHLEY, State College, Pa.

Records of the behavior of the codling moth on unsprayed
trees at the Pennsylvania State College in 1930 indicate that
of each one hundred larvae of the first brood more than fifty
pupated in the cocoons spun after leaving the fruit, so that over
half of the first brood contributed to the mid-summer emergence
of moths which gave rise to the second brood of larvae. Due
to the large mid-summer flight of moths and to favorable weather,
this second brood of larvae was more abundant than in 1929,
and attacked the fruit over a long period, from late July to late
September.

— 13 —

Where first brood spraying is timely and thorough, and where
codling moth numbers are not excessive, this damaging second
brood of worms may be kept to small numbers. However,
growers who fail to apply sufficient and timely amounts of
material in the recommended schedule, whose orchards support
a large population of hibernating larvae or are threatened by
nearby unsprayed trees, often experience heavy damage from
second brood codling moth larvae. This appears to have been
especially true of the season of 1930.

As the population of codling moth increases, spraying prac-
tises must improve if results are to be shown. For instance, if
one hundred larvae per tree are present, a fifty per cent job of
spraying will suffice to reduce the number to fifty. If, however,
there are one thousand larvae per tree, a fifty per cent job will
kill five hundred, but will leave five hundred on the tree. To
leave only fifty on the tree it will be necessary to kill nine hundred
and fifty, or, in other words, to do a ninety-five per cent job of
spraying. With this in mind, a situation can be conceived in
which maximum amounts of spray in a well-designed schedule of
applications may not suffice. In such cases supplementary
measures may be useful in curbing the epidemic.

One such supplementary control measure that has been investi-
gated at the Pennsylvania Agricultural Experiment Station is
the practice of trapping and killing the mature larvae of the
codling moth as they leave the fruit and search for suitable
places to spin their cocoons. This is accomplished by removing
all the loose bark from the trunk and larger limbs of each tree,
and substituting bands of corrugated strawboard saturated
with a material that will not repel the larvae, but which will
kill them if they spin cocoons within the band. Under the
climatic conditions prevailing in 1930, such bands proved to be
very effective; no tree injury appeared.

Four types of band were applied, each to several trees. The
bands were placed early in July, and were examined (without
disturbing) at frequent intervals, when protruding dead larvae
and pupal skins were removed and recorded. Final records
will not be available until after moth emergence next spring,
but in December two bands in each series were torn apart and
examined. The figures quoted here thus represent the data
obtained from two trees in each series. All the bands were of
single-faced corrugated strawboard, treated as follows:

Band No. 1. Beta-naphthol, 1 pound

Red Engine Oil (300 viscosity), 1.5 pints

Aluminum Stearate, 0.5 ounces
Band No. 2. Beta-naphthol, 1 pound

Red Engine Oil, 1.5 pints
Above brands prepared by the Federal Bureau of Entomology,

and double-dipped.
Band No. 3. Commercially manufactured (beta-naphthol and

oil)
Band No. 4. Untreated check.

— U —

n^

V

>:\

(■

>^

As stated in the opening paragraph, the second brood of
larvae is produced by those individuals of the first brood which
pupate after spinning their cocoons. The following table shows
what happened to this portion of the first brood under each
type of band.

Table 1.-

-Effecliveness of bands in preventing mid-summer codling moth
emergence, State College, Pa., 1930
Two bands of type

No. 1

No. 2

No. 3

No

.4

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

Total first
brood larvae
trapped

939

1583

902

368

Individuals
which
pupated

5

0.53

18

1.13

6

0.66

188

51.0

Pupae
producing
moths

1

20.0

6

33.3

4

66.6

141

77.4

Prevention
of moth
emergence

99.7

99.0

98.8

Three things are shown in Table 1. First, in spite of the
short time usually elapsing between cocooning and pupation,
all the chemically-treated bands acted rapidly enough to kill
a very large percentage of the larvae before they had time to
pupate. Second, once pupation was safely accomplished, band
No. 3 had little effect on the pupae, while in bands Nos. 2 and 1
two-thirds and three-fifths of the pupae died. Third, the com-
mercial bands were very effective in preventing moth emer-
gence, although double-dipping and the addition of alumnium
stearate showed increases in killing power.

A portion of the first brood larvae do not pupate, but remain
as larvae in their cocoons, where they are joined later by the
second brood larvae. These latter leave the fruit from August
to November. Thus to be effective against all larvae, chemically-
treated bands must maintain their kilHng power for a period of
at least four months. Table 2 shows the effectiveness of the
bands over this whole period in 1930.

All the chemically-treated bands maintained a high degree of
effectiveness throughout the season. Double-dipping and the
addition of aluminum stearate aided the persistence of toxicity,
even in a year like 1930, when lack of rainfall reduced the
weathering of the bands to a minimum. From July 1 through
October 31, 5.08 inches of rain fell at State College, compared
with a normal precipitation of 13.51 inches for this period.

— 15 —

:

i /

Table 2. — Effectiveness of hands against codling moth larvae of the first and

second broods^ State CollegCy 1930
Two bands of type

Non-pupating
larvae

No. 1

Nc

). 2

No. 3

Nc

). 4

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

Trapped by

bands

1440

2418

1382

371

Found dead in
December

1426

99.0

2366

97.8

1284

92.9

32

8.6

Control of

larvae

98.9

97.5

92 2

The foregoing figures show that less than ten percent of the
larvae in the bands will live to produce moths in the spring of
1931, and indicate a high degree of control. But What percent-
age of all the larvae present in the orchard actually found their
way into the bands? If only fifty percent, the bands must be
reckoned about forty-five percent effective, and the method of
doubtful promise. To aid in answering this question five banded
trees were examined minutely, together with the ground surface
beneath. The trees are about twenty-five years old, are in sod,
and have been carefully scraped for three years. The examina-
tion included all drop fruit, bark chips from the scraping, dead
leaves, grass, and foreign objects on the ground; the tree-trunk,
larger scaly-barked branches, and the smaller smooth-barked
branches. All remaining loose bark was removed, all cracks
examined, all crotches cleaned out, and all pruning wounds
probed. The work was done in late November, 1930, when all
larvae had spun their cocoons. The results of this examination
are given in the following table:

Table 3. — Codling moth larvae found in careful examination of five well-scraped
apple trees and the ground beneath. State College, Pa.,

November, 1930

Larvae found in

Drop fruit

Bark chips on ground

Grass, dead leaves, etc

Total on ground

Tree trunk

Heavy branches

Light branches

Total on trees

Under bands

Total — all situations

Number

50
6
1

57

32

30

1

63

3659

3779

Percent

1

32

0

15

0.02

1

50

0

84

0

.79

0.02

1

.66

96

.84

100.00

It is evident that a great majority of the larvae maturing in
fruit on the trees or on the ground went to the trunks of the

/>

16

trees in search of their natural hibernation quarters. It is also
evident that on these well-scraped trees they failed in this search,
and readily entered the bands placed there for them. Doubtless
a few larvae were missed in the examination. In addition, many
immature larvae left the orchard in picked fruit. But of all the
larvae expecting to pass the winter in the orchard, only three or
four out of every hundred escaped the bands. Ninety-six and
eight-tenths percent were trapped. On these band No. 3 exerted
92.2 percent control. This represents 89.2 percent control of
the whole population in the orchard. On this basis Band No. 2
gave 94.3 percent control, and Band No. 1 95.6 percent control.
The figures in the preceding paragraph, coupled with those
relating to mid-summer moth emergence, indicate that in a
dry season like 1930 chemically-treated bands on well-scraped
trees will act as an effective supplement to the spraying method
of codhng moth control. That banding can never be expected
to replace spraying is evident. In the first place, some moths
will drift into banded blocks from neighboring poorly-sprayed
orchards, and so partly nuUify the effects of the banding. A
second point may be illustrated as follows : Assuming the bands
to be 90 per cent effective against a population of 1000 larvae
per tree, 100 larvae will escape the bands and finally produce
moths. Half of these will be females, and should average 60
eggs apiece. The resulting 3000 larvae will produce 20 bushels
of wormy fruit unless they are killed before they penetrate the
apples.

As a supplementary measure, it is hoped that banding will
help to reduce heavy infestations of the codling moth to the
point where a normal schedule of sprays, intelUgently applied,
will keep this pest in subjection.

Question : When are bands applied?

Mr. Worthley: Just before first brood begins to come down.

Question : What is the cost of the bands?

Mr. Worthley: The bands cost about two cents per foot and
the labor of applying probably equals the cost of the bands.
The big job is removing. The time to remove bark from heavily
infested trees is now.

Question: Should there be any danger to the bark from

chemicals in the bands?

Mr. Worthley: No danger has been found so far. Although
the outer bark is discolored there is no danger from the bands.

Question: What is the best scraping tool?

Mr. Worthley: A small hoe is very good. An excellent
scraping tool is made by Carroll B. Tiffany of ConkUn, New
York. A little care is necessary to see that one does not get
through to the live bark. W-e have found very little injury
from a few sUps. The bark will come off easily if the tree is wet.

Dr. MacDaniels: We have found some injury on young

trees

Mr. Worthley: We do not recommend placing bands on

young, smooth bark trees.

— 17 —

THE RELATION OF INSECT CONTROL TO THE
ARSENIC CONTENT OF SPRAY RESIDUES

H. £. HODGKISS, State College, Pa. .

Insect control in apple orchards is entirely within the memory
of many of the older members of this Association. Most of us
who have had the opportunity to observe the more recent
improvements in spraying machinery and who have watched
the progress of investigations which ultimately solved many of
our insect problems often fail to realize the advancement in our
practices during the comparatively few years that have elapsed
since the San Jose scale threatened the apple industry of the
nation.

At the close of that period two and at the most three insecti-
cidal sprays were thought to be sufficient. Later as the destruc-
tiveness of little known insects was determined special sprays
were used in an effort to prevent their damage. Investigations
of newer pests were undertaken with seeming rapidity so that
before the first decade closed the number of sprays that were
needed to prevent insect depredations was so large that fruit
growers either could not or did not benefit by the information
then available. This situation brought about investigations of
compatabihties of insecticides with themselves and when mixed
with fungicides.

The completion of the investigations on the control of the
rosy apple aphis forged the final link in the chain of spraying
practices and using information previously obtained suggestions
were made relative to the control of insects and other orchard
pests through the use of 2 in 1 or 3 in 1 sprays. From this time
it was only a short step to the arrangement of a complete schedule
of sprays which would control insects with a minimum number
of apphcations. More recent knowledge has aided us to develop
a definite program and to arrange our spraying practices more
nearly to suit seasonal variations in insect activities. The

Table 1. — Program Results in Insect Control

1928—1930

Orchard

Percentage of clean apples

1928

1929

1930

No.

p. ct.

p. ct.

p.ct.

1

96

97

97

•

2

97

94

97.5

3

96

95

98

4

92

92

93

6

96 •

95

97.5

6

97

95.5

95

7

98

97

99

8

95

97

95

9

95

94

d8

10

97

94

97

■'■>>^

experience of 10 growers who have followed a definite program
in their orchard spraying operations is of special interest in
this respect. These men live in 7 counties and consequently the
conditions surrounding the operations differed somewhat. It is
of interest to note that six different types of spray machines were
represented in the work. The plantings are representative of
the area as regards size and management factors. The figures
in Table 1 show the percentage of insect clean apples over a
3-year period.

Results of Spraying Practices in 1930

The utilization of a definite program of insect control was very
forcibly brought to the attention of fruit growers last year. The
vagaries of insects made the selection of spraying practices by
fruit growers difficult. Many men who attempted to select their
spraying periods or to restrict the number of applications met
with serious losses. Other men having isolated plantings secured
a large degree of protection with a far less number of treatments
than their neighbors growing fruit under similar conditions.
But those men who have become accustomed to use a complete
program in their orchard operations were able to produce
apples comparatively free from insect injuries despite the
untimely seasonal conditions which resulted in very severe
insect outbreaks and more particularly of the rosy apple aphis
and the codling moth.

The Rosy Apple Aphis: Individual orchardists have often
claimed and apparently are able to show that it does not pay
for them to eliminate the rosy apple aphis. In general this con-
clusion is incorrect as may be seen by the figures in the following
table which were taken in 45 orchards in six counties representing
the conditions in the central area from the south to the north.
In these orchards nicotine was either omitted or an oil spray
substituted in the delayed dormant period.

Table 2. — Spraying Operations in Apple Orchards xvith Respect to The Rosy

Apple Aphis

Orch.

Treat-
ment

Total
Fruits

Insect Losses

■ Av. Loss

Amt.

Per Cent Values

Per Bu.

No.

No.

Bu.

P. Ct. Dollars

Cents

29
16

nicotine
none

284,447
115,300

4,864
21,099

1.71 2,432.00
18 3 10,549.00

.0085
091

— IS —

Individual orchards exhibited a much greater percentage of
deformed and abortive fruits. In a number of instances the
aphis apples amounted to from 26 to 30 per cent of the crop on
the trees. In a few orchards comparisons were obtained of the
effect of different materials appUed during the delayed dormant
period. These figures are arranged in the following chart.

— 19 —

Table 3. — The Effect of Insecticides on The Rosy Apple Aphis

\

Orch.

Treat-
ment

Total
Fruits

Insect Losses

Amt. Per Cent Values

Av. Loss
Per Bu.

No.

Bu.

Bu.

P. Ct.

Dolk.rs

Cents

1

Lime Sul.

1,500

368

24 5

184.00

.123

2

Spray. Oil

1,500

450

30.

225.00

.15

3

Nicotine out-

side tree only

400

133

33.3

67.00

.167

4

None

400

146

36.6

73.00

.183

Plum Curculio : This species is perhaps one of the most
difficult of all the apple insect pests to control. Its range of
destructiveness in Pennsylvania is interesting. During the last
five years it has not caused the same amount of damage in all
the apple growing counties. A striking illustration of the con-
dition was brought out in our annual orchard survey. This
check-up showed that the average amount of damage in the
counties comprising the western half of Pennsylvania outside of
the Pittsburgh area was .74 per cent. Beaver County averaged
14.5 per cent; Allegheny County 3.3. per cent; and Butler
County 4.9 per cent. The conditions in eastern Pennsylvania
are entirely different, where unsprayed orchards averaged as
high as 55 per cent curculio damage.

Not all apple growers apply the sprays essential for the con-
trol of this miscreant. As a result of this situation some interest-
ing comparisons of practices were obtined which are listed in
Table 4.

Table 4. — Comparisons of Spraying Practices on the Control of Plum

Curculio in Apple Orchards

Insect Losses

Orch. Treatment Total A v. Loss

Fruits Per Cent Values Per Bu.

No. Bu. P. Ct. Dollars Cents

54 Comp. program 306,691 3~3 5,148 50 ^016

3 Omit Pink 3,000 14.3 214.50 .071

2 Omit Petal F 3,500 23.5 412.50 .118

3 Omit CI. Apple 7,500 26.53 995.00 .132

3 Unsprayed 650 46.9 152.50 .234

The Apple Red Bugs: The two species of this insect hatching
several days apart can not be suppressed under average con-
ditions by a single spray. The degree of infestation in all orchards
is not the same and many orchardists have yet to realize the
destructiveness of this pest. For that reason the following
comparisons are interesting as a matter of record.

— 20 —

W

'Table 5. — Comparisons of Spraying Practices for the Control of Apple Red Bugs

Insect Losses

Orch. Treatment Total Av. Loss

Fruits Per Cent Values Per Bu.

No. Bu. P. Ct. Dollars Cents

~l 2 nicotine 40,400 1T9 383.80 ^09

1 1 nicotine 1,500 7.2 54.00 .036

3 No treatment 3,000 17.6 264.00 .088

1 Spray oil -- 1,500 15.0 112.50 .075

2 Poor equipment 3,000 7.6 114.00 .038

2 Untimely 10,500 6.1 320.50 .03

The Fruit Worms: This grouping comprises a number of
insect species that either deform the fruit by eating deeply into
the flesh or by removing a portion of the skin but not making
deep cuts. The former are commonly known as green fruit
worms, while in the latter class may be placed such forms as the
smaller leaf rollers, bud moths and case bearers. These forms by
themselves ordinarily do not cause extensive damages but col-
lectively the injuries are important. They are not always easy
to suppress as they are mostly two brooded. Unless the spring
hatching larvae are destroyed not much can be accomplished
since they also work in the Autumn just before the apples are
harvested. These forms must be given proper weight in the
annual insect control operations. For this reason it is essential
that the common experiences of orchardists with them should
be given proper consideration. The results of complete and in-
complete spraying operations shown in the next chart are com-
pared with the average amounts of injuries in unsprayed plant-
ings during 1930.

Table 6.— Comparisons of Spraying Practices for the Apple Fruit Worms

Insect Losses

Orch. Treatment Total Av. Loss

Fruits Per Cent Values Per Bu.

No. Bu. P. Ct. Dollars Cents

~37 Complete 217,891 2.05 2,671.00 ^01

17 Omit last spray 58,510 4.05 1,065.00 .02

4 None 640 12 2 62.50 .06

Codling Moth. — The codling moth undoubtedly has at-
tracted more attention this year than at any time within the
last decade. This insect has always been a serious pest and in
some orchards extreme difficulties have been experienced in past
years to efifect control. The year 1930 will be outstanding, how-
ever, for the most widespread destruction that has occurred
within the memory of the oldest fruit growers.

The unusual feature of this outbreak was the apparent con-
tinuous emergence of adults in the southern area from June

— 21 —

until September as was indicated by catches in bait pails set to
be used as indicators of the flight of the moths. These were
under the direction of Mr. J. O. Pepper, Bureau of Plant Indus-
try, Chambersburg who placed at our disposal all of his records
which were used in part as indicators for timing the spray
applications. In the lower Susquehanna and Cumberland Valley
area several thousands of over wintering larvae were collected
and placed in traps to be used for ascertaining the first emergence
of adults in the Spring. Dr. S. W. Frost, in charge of our field
laboratory at Arendtsville, Adams County, aided in the collec-
tion and trapping of larvae in this area. A number of cages
were set in orchards which repre:ented typical conditions in
Adams County and adjacent areas. The observations took
much of the time of both Dr. Frost and Mr. Pepper which
ordinarily would be used for other purposes. We take this
opportunity to express our indebtedness to these gentlemen for
their wholehearted cooperation.

Our scheme for suppressing codling moth attacks aims at
reducing the numbers of the larvae of the first spring brood.
It is a matter of common consent that suppressive practices
are more certain of success if the insect population is of small
size. Where excessive numbers of individuals are maturing
constantly the value of insecticidal practices may be open to
question. It has become necessary in late years to complete
the sp aying operations as early as practicable and yet have
enough arsenic on the fruit to keep the apples free from insect
disfigurations. Several treatments ordinarily are advised.
Fewer than these often provide an insufficient amount of pro-
tection.

This condition is well illustrated by the experiences of apple
growers last year. The season was unusually disastrous to the
orchards but the codling moth found the seasonal conditions
exceptionally favorable for its development. Ordinarily there
is one complete generation and either a full second generation
or a partial one. The number of broods is dependent somewhat
on the geographical area in which the insects are located. The
hot dry summer permitted two full broods to develop in the
uplands and in the lower Susquehanna and Potomac watersheds
there was a partial third generation.

With these phenomena to contend against, the first real test
of our control practices under residue restrictions was experi-
enced. It was with a full realization of the responsibilities
involved that in early July the last arsenical application was
designated. The unknown quantity was whether or not the
growers' equipment and his usual standard of practices were
suited to meet the situation adequately. At no earlier period
had timeUness, thoroughness in application, efficient machinery,
and sufficient equipment coupled with a definite spraying pro-
gram been more needed. Fruit growers, as a rule, were eager
to do their part. And most of them did better than one could
reasonably expect.

— 22 —

i;<t:

\V

'/i

i

In any group of men some always are only too willing to take
a chance. Fruit growers who adopt such schemes do not realize
that while their losses may be small in any one year the codling
moth may be steadily building up its numbers. Whether or
not the gamble was profitable last year may be illustrated by
the comparisons of practices stated in Table 7.

Table 7. — Cojnparisons of Spraying Practices Against The Codling Moth

Insect Losses

Orch. Treatment Total Av. Loss

Fruits Per Cent Values Per Bu.

No. Bu. P. Ct. Dollars Cents

~i03 Complete 696,869 ^1.3 4,355.00 .006

94 Part 342,910 10.7 19,333.00 .053

10 Unsprayed 2,215 37.3 413.00 .186

These averages for the state wide conditions are not as con-
trasting as those found to obtain in the area of severe drought.
The limiting factor in codling moth control was the last or
July application. Orchardists who omitted this spray had losses
which were as high as 35.2 per cent of the matured fruits. Where
this treatment was used in conjunction with the earlier appUca-
cations the amount of damage was small and did not exceed 3.8
per cent. The average for the area was 1.6 per cent.

Insect Control by Proper Spraying

Insect control practices are in a process of realignment. Fruit
growers are rightly agitating for a reduction instead of an in-
crease in the number of applications. The answer to this ques-
tion is in the use of maximum amounts of materials at critical
periods and the eUmination of late summer sprays. For this
purpose the program plan of orchard insect control has been
suggested as being as close to a solution of the problem as it is
possible to attain with our present knowledge. The spraying
service was evolved in an attempt to aid the fruit grower in
this respect. In considering this we must not expect that the
ills of insect control have been remedied. Neither can we
eliminate or depreciate the older spraying schedule. This is a
fundamental thing and we use it constantly in leveling the newer
ideas of spraying practice.

The program of spraying is the outgrowth of seasonal experi-
ences co-ordinated with the best available technical information
on insect suppression. Its usability may be tested by compari-
sons of the counts made in apple orchards during the past year
under your own conditions with respect to any modifying
factors that may have occurred. The figures which represent
the spraying service are arranged in the following table

— 23 —

I'able 8. — Comparisons

of Results

of the Spraying Service

Orch.

Treatment

Total -
Fruits

Insect Losses
Per Cent Values

Av. Loss
Per Bu.

No.

Bu.

P. Ct.

Dollars

Cents

80
70

Complete

Partial.-

622,619
376,700

4.9
15.7

22,384
35,242

.025
.08

The spraying service is not given in every fruit growing
county. Many operators have desired this information but
from an administrative viewpoint it has not been possible up
to this time. We have, however, urged these men to follow
the spraying schedule and have been able at intervals to suggest
certain modifications in practice on account of seas onal changes
in insect activities. Counts were made in orchards in this
area to ascertain the results of the operations. These figures
are given in Table 9.

Table 9. — Modified Schedule Spraying

Orch.

Treatment

Total
Fruits

Insect Losses
Per Cent Values

Av, Loss
Per Bu.

No.

Bu.

P. Ct. Dollars

Cents

29
24

Complete

Partial

... 57,050
.... 75,410

5.9 1,552.00
17.9 6,326.00

.029
.09

The average insect losses per bushel of apples produced
where spraying service was given and where the modified schedule
spraying was followed do not differ materially. The records
taken in 1929 were somewhat similar. Individually and col-
lectively they give a picture of the true valuation of the program
in insect control and it appears that by selecting the best out
of the two systems we may be able to level the insect control
problems of the orchardist. We are looking forward to the time
when we can offer to every fruit grower a more suitable form of
information in Pennsylvania directly in proportion to his require-
ments.

Arsenical and Other Residues on Apples

The residue on apple fruits is a condition of our own making. It
has become one of the largest problems of the apple grower today.
We are attempting to ease the situation by limiting the amounts
of lead arsenate in the cover sprays on apple fruits. As a means
of guiding us in these suggestions we have arranged at stated
periods for analyses to be made of the arsenical content of resi-
dues on apple fruits. These were made possible through the
cooperation of the Department of Agricultural and Biological
Chemistry of the College. Dr. D. E. Haley directed these
analyses and the figures on this work were contributed by him.

The amounts of arsenic on apples for public sale are limited
by law to .01 grain to each pound of apples for export fruit.

— 24 —

,-fi;.

\>'

The domestic tolerance during 1930 was .015 grain per pound

""^ sSes of apples collected in 1926 and analyzed for total
arsenic content indicated that during a season of heavy ramfall
a ?ather large amount of lead arsenate could be applied per tree
Without danger of approaching the export to erance. That year
The maximum of arsenic found in any one lot was .0059 gra n
ner TunTof apples. Here an excess of spray was applied early
Tn August. The samples from trees having an average coverage
of poilon spray did not exceed .0026 grain per pound of apples
Ths year on account of the minimum rainfall during the
summer months there was an opportunity to ascertain the
arsenical residue content of apples under very dry conditions

The insect control program has been arranged with the intent
to obtain a maximum control of the several insect species during
the early growing season. It is aimed to eliminate the mid-
summer arlenical spray applications in the regions where fruit
is grown for export. In other counties where, normally, rains
are abundant the midsummer applications of an arsemcal spray
often times may be advisable.

This plan was operated first in 1926 which happened to be a
year of excess rainfall in Pennsylvania The same systern of
aople spraying recommendations was followed in 1930. There
was a mi^mum rainfall in May but the situation was somewhat
MexiSZ June although early in July weather mdications
poSd to a rather extended dry period This later developed
Fnto a drought which, according to the US. Weather Bureau
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was the most severe of any that
had occurred during the preceding 43 years.

The last regular spray application was recommended for the
period between July% and 15. A later informatory letter was
released in certain counties where the previous treatnaent had
been generally omitted. Under normal conditions of rainfall
and insect development this period has ended between July
20 and August 1. Precipitation during July and August was
subnormal for which reason it was considered advisable to
collect^pple samples and analyze the residues for total ar.semc
content.

Arsenic Content of the Spray Residues

Samples consisting of 24 apples each, were selected in the
orchards and these samples represented maximum amounts o^
residues on the app es on the trees. A total of 100 orchards in
;Tcountis contributed samples for the 'analyses A square of
heavy paper was placed around each apple and the fruit care-
fully removed from the branch. Each sample was packed in a
cardboard carton and sent to the laboratory. All frmts were
collected from the lower branches, where the maximum amounts
of visible residue were found on the fruit before it was handled^
A second collection was made from some orchards after the
fruits had been prepared for marketing.

— 25 —

f :

> \

I

Records of the Analysed

The different samples were weighed before treatment for the
removal of arsenic, and the arsenic trioxide, AS2O3 calculated
per pound of fruit.

All determinations were made under the same conditions as
to length of time, temperature, acidity, amount and surface
area of the zinc employed. The results obtained are given in
Table 10

Table 10. — Records of the Arsenical Analyses

Lot and No.

Date of

So. of Cover

Amounts of AS2O3 per

of bamples

Collection

Sprays

lb. of apples

1 52

Sept. 2— Oct. 10

5

.000—005

2 16

Sept. 3— Sept. 29

5

.006—008

3 9

Sept. 4— Oct. 10

5

.009—0095

4 11

Sept. 3— Oct. 10

5

.01 —.0105

6 5

Sept. 3— Sept. 24

5

.001—0115

6 2

Sept. 12— Sept. 25

5

.012—0125

7 2

Sept. 24— Oct. 8

5

.013—0135

8 1

Oct. 8

5

.014

9 1

Sept. 25

5

.015

10 1

Sept. 3

5

.02

These collections represented typical conditions throughout
Pennsylvania. There were 77 samples which were below the
domestic and world tolerance. Eleven samples equalled or just
exceeded the world tolerance. Eleven others equalled or were
less than the domestic tolerance. One sample exceeded the
domestic tolerance.

Some variations in the analyses were on account of local
rams during September although the samples showing the maxi-
mum amounts of arsenic were from orchards where the spray
coverage of the fruits was rather heavy. In these cases there
were no washing rains from the time that the spray was applied
until after the samples were taken.

Relation of Arsenic Content to Minimum Rainfall and

Codling Moth Control

The more extensive commercial apple growing counties were
the most afifected by the dry conditions. In Adams County
the precipitation during July and August amounted to 109
inches; the Chambersburg precipitation during July and August
was 1.53 inches. The totals of the normals for these counties
m those months is 8.44 and 7.52 inches respectively. In Sep-
tember there was an increase in amounts of rain which was for
Adams County, 2.53 inches; and for Franklin County, 1.19
inches. These rains were in a large degree drenching showers
of somewhat short duration.

— 26 —

^i

'y>

^>

Apple samples were taken from 14 orchards in this region
where the spraying operations are ordinarily uniform in character
and where the complete schedule was followed. These repre-
sented typical conditions in each of the fruit growing sections
of the area. The amounts of insect control were high and
codling moth infestation at harvest averaged 1.7 per cent, l^or
purposes of comparison 13 other orchards were examined where
the July application was omitted. In these plantings the
average losses from codling moth amounted to as much as Zl.b
per cent Three samples were taken in Adams County on
September 3. The arsenic in the residue of each lot amounted
to 006 grains per pound of apples. Another lot collected on
this date showed .0115 grains of arsenic per pound of apples.
The remaining samples were taken on either September 16 or
September 24. Comparative figures arc given in I able 11.

Table W.—The Relation of Arsenic Content to Thm of Spray Applications

and to Rainfall

Rainfall
No. July 7— to

County Lot No. of Cover Date of date of
Samples Sprays Last Spray sampling

Amts. AS2O3

per lb. of

apples

Adams

1

2

5

July 7-

-15

2.04

.000— .005

m

2

4

5

u

u

u

2.72

.006— .008

u

3

2

5

u

u

u

2.72

.01 —.0105

«

4

2

5

u

u

u

2.72

.011—0116

Franklin

1

4

5

u

u

u

1.09

.000— .005

u

2

1

5

u

u

u

1.09

.009—0095

u

3

1

5

u

u

u

1.09

.01 .0105

u

4

2

5

u

u

u

1 09

.011—0115

u

5

1

5

u

u

u

1.09

.013—0135

Amounts of Arsenic After Handling Fruit

Samples of apples were collected from trees in three orchards
and from the p^ck after handUng. One lot from the College
orchard was handled in the ordinary manner In comparison
with a sample collected as previously stated this lot showed a
reduction of .003 grain per pound of apples. On two lots ot
apples that were passed over brushes in commercial packing
sheds the differences were less. In these instances the reduction
in arsenic content was either total or .001 grain per pound ot
apples

It appears that apple growers, generally, do not need to fear
that excessive quantities of arsenic will be found in residues on
apples after harvest if a complete program for insect contro
is adopted. It is reasonable to expect a minimum of arsenica
residue on fruits in most seasons. The removal of dirt, factory
wastes, or other residues is an economic factor that must DC
decided by the orchardist himself.

— 27 —

i »

ii

4

REPORT OF THE FRUIT TREE IDENTIFICATION

COMMITTEE

Your committee appointed to study the problem of the identi-
fication of fruit trees in the nursery row held their fifth annual
field study on July 30-31, 1930, visiting fruit tree nurseries in
Adams, York and Lancaster Counties. A good representation
of nurserymen were present and the committee feels that Penn-
sylvania fruit tree growers are making an honest effort to pro-
duce true-to-name varieties. The apple studies have been so
successful that the nurserymen have fairly well mastered the
problem and now ask the committee to begin work with them
on the identification of stone fruits.

Your committee has arranged with Professor Upshall of the
Ontario Experiment Station, Vineland, Canada, to meet with
our 1931 school and give us his experiences of the identification
of stone fruit trees in the nursery row.

F. N. FAGAN, Chairman,
H. G. BAUGHER,
F. M. TRIMBLE.

RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY HORTICULTURAL

ASSOCIATION

1. The Pennsylvania State Horticultural Association endorses
the plan to increase apple consumption by national advertising
and publicity as outlined by Apples for Health, Inc.

We favor the plan of cooperation on the part of the container
manufacturers in collecting the fund for the apple campaign and
we hereby state that we recommend that our members purchase
containers only from those container manufacturers who lend
their full cooperation to the national apple campaign in the
gathering of the apple advertising fund.

We understand that the proposed plan for the coming year
is to add the small amount of }4 cent to the cost of each basket
(H cent per barrel), which amount is to be included in the price
of the apple container. We believe this amount is so small that
every progressive grower will gladly approve and yet the total
will be large enough to assure excellent results for the apple
industry.

We understand that a list of all container manufacturers who
have signed an agreement to put this plan into effect will be
furnished to the growers so that they can buy their containers
from these manufacturers who are cooperating in the plan to
put the apple growers on a permanently prosperous basis.

2. Whereas the accommodation rendered by the Agricultural
Department for the use of the meeting room, and also the
services of D. M. James and T. L. Guyton are very much
appreciated.

— 28 —

«i

Therefore, be it resolved that this association wishes to thank
the Agricultural Department and these gentlemen for their
services.

3 Whereas farmers and fruit growers are heavily burdened by
the payment of tax on gasoline used for tractors, and gasoline
engines; Be it resolved that this Association go on record as
favoring exemption from tax, all gasoline to be used for purposes
other than motor vehicles commonly traveling the highways ot
the State. And further be it resolved that in favoring a fair
tax on gasoline for motor vehicles, we strongly urge that such
tax be collected at the source from manufacturers or distributors
and not from retailers.

H. S. NOLT, Chairman,
^G. A. GOODLING
T. H. JEFFERSON.

SOME PROBLEMS CONNECTED WITH THE

INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF

STATIONARY SPRAY PLANTS

Wm. ABILDGAARD, John Bean Mfg. Co., Lansing, Michigan

No doubt, most of you growers have at some time or other
given some thought to stationary spraying in your own orchard
and the first question you would naturally ask is— what will it
cost me and what is there to be gained?

First, we will take up the matter of cost which we can dispose
of very quickly. For the plant alone, consisting of pump, motor
and tanks the prices would range about as follows:—

10 to 20 acres $800.00

20 to 50 acres $900.00

50 to 100 acres $1300.00

A fair, average price on pipe and fittings, including the labor
of installing, would be from $25.00 to $30.00 per acre. This will
naturally vary some. Large acreages may run higher per acre
because of the necessity of larger main lines, while smaller acre-
ages would run less per acre. Knowing your own conditions
and your present system of spraying you can make your com-
parisons as to what your investment would be in portable
equipment as compared to stationary.

Next, will be the question of what is to be gained and this
point cannot be disposed of so quickly. I have received many
figures from growers on costs of stationary spraying as compared
to portable spraying. Every comparison I have ever received
has shown at least some httle saving with the stationary system
and in some cases the savings claimed by the growers have been
tremendous, in fact, so great that we might wonder why anyone
would ever consider using a portable sprayer again, i have
tried to follow up and make as careful as possible an investiga-

— 29 —

i

JaPiJ'- 1

n

I: !

I

tion of the extremely large savings claimed by some growers and
in most cases have found that this tremendous saving was shown
because the growers went from an old type portable spray
machine to up-to-date, well equipped stationary plants and
naturally with that comparison the stationary proposition would
look mighty good.

However, the information I believe you people want is a
comparison between the latest and most up-to-date portable
sprayer and the latest and most up-to-date stationary system.
I have had a number of opportunities to obtain exactly that
information and I find there is still considerable variation in the
experience of some of our very best posted men, who have kept,
what I believe to be, very accurate cost figures. The reports
they have given me range from little or no actual saving in cost
to as high as 40% in favor of the stationary system.

Just a few days ago I was in Vincennes, Indiana and had a
very interesting visit with one of the largest and most successful
apple growers in that section. This man has 225 acres of apples,
most of the trees being 12 years old or older. Two years ago
he purchased a portable sprayer with 400 gallon tank and 30
gallon per minute pump which he is operating from the power
takeoff drive of a 10-20 tractor. In the spring of 1930 he pur-
chased a stationary plant and piped 75 acres.

As he was buying stationary equipment for the balance of his
orchard I was naturally anxious to know what his experience
had been, as I felt he had given both types of spraying equipment
a fair trial, because he has several convenient filling stations in
his orchard for the portable machines and has never had to
travel more than a quarter of a mile to refill his machine. Ac-
cording to the records he has kept he did not believe he was
making but very little, if any, saving in the cost of his spraying,
interest on investment, labor and depreciation of equipment all
taken into consideration, but one yearns experience had proven
to him that his men could and did do a better job of spraying
with the stationary system.

He found that considerably more spraying material was used
with the stationary system. There are two reasons for this.
One is that with the portable machine most of the spraying was
done from top of the sprayer, while with the stationary system
the men on the ground found it necessary quite often to open
the guns wide open to reach the tops of the trees and this natur-
ally would take more spray material. Another reason was that
sometimes when spraying large trees the tractor operator would
have the machine moving a little too fast and instead of slowing
up or stopping — parts of the trees were sometimes sadly neg-
lected.

The reason he was going to stationary equipment exclusively
was because, first, his men unquestionably did a better job and
the other important factor was that he was always able to go
out and spray when the weather permitted, regardless of soil
conditions, which sometimes made it impossible for him to operate

— 30 —

Kt.

APHIS and RED- BUG

BY

FUMES AND CvONTAa

"Black Leaf 40'^ kills Aphis, Red-Bug, Leaf-Hopper, etc.,
not only by direct contact (wetting), but in extra measure
bv the Nicotine fumes which are set free in the spraying
niixture when *'Black Leaf 40" is applied in combination witli
Lime-Sulphur, Bordeaux Mixture, Casein spreaders, etc. This
"extra measure" of protection afforded by "Black Leaf 40
you cannot obtain from the non-volatile insecticides.

Experiment Stations recommend that "Black Leaf 40,"
Lime-Hulphur solution, and Lead Arsenate be applied at the
delayed dormant stage to control Rosy Aphis and to protect
against Scale and early worms.

Kills Poultry Lice

Just "Paint" the Boosts

A can of "Black Leaf 40," a small
paint brush, and a little time for ap-
plying "Black Leaf 40" to the roosts
as illustrated are all that are re-
quired to delouse an entire flock.

Tobacco By-Products and Chemical Corp.

LOXnSVILLE, KY.

Patronize Our Advertisers

— 31 —

his portable machine. I believe the fact that the men will
generally do a much better job of spraying and the fact that
there is so much less chance of delay is well worth the investment.

The question of what to buy in the way of plant equipment
should not be hard to decide as there are several well known and
very satisfactory makes of pumps, electric motors or engines
to choose from. Naturally electricity is to be preferred, if
available.

A few years ago there was a tendency on the part of the buyer
of stationary sprayers for large acreages to prefer one pump
large enough to supply the entire acreage but the last couple
of years there has been a very noticeable swing to smaller units
and more of them, because of the higher efficiency, as well as
dependabihty of the smaller units. The trend in spray pump
manufacture seems to be toward smaller cylinders and more
of them and better materials of lighter weight. This trend, of
course, has been very noticeable in the manufacture of auto-
motive engines.

The question of what kind of pipe to use very often comes up.
Ordinary steel pipe is very satisfactory and we have never found
is necessary to use special, heavy pipe. Galvanized, black and
copper alloy pipes have all been used and it is difficult for me
to say which is the most economical in the long run. However,
it has always been my opinion that the galvanized pipe is worth
the extra cost.

The question of size of pipe is one that I cannot very well
answer without knowing more about your conditions and I
recommend that when considering the purchase of a stationary
sprayer that you write for that information to one of the sprayer
manufacturers, as I believe they all have men in their employ
who have had sufficient experience with stationary systems to
lay out your orchard for you on a blue print, giving you the
exact location of all pipe lines, the size and where gate valves,
also hose valves, should be located for the most economical
operation, as well as lowest first cost. I am quite sure you will
find all of the spraying machinery manufacturers very glad to
give you that assistance without cost.

You will naturally want to use as small a pipe line as practical,
keeping in mind the fact that the smaller the pipe line the greater
the loss in pressure due to friction. You must also keep in
mind the fact that to eliminate any chance of spray materials
settling or going out of solution a velocity of 2}^ feet per second
should be maintained.

This past year due to the drought quite a few growers helped
their orchards wonderfully by irrigating the trees with their
spraying system and this brings up another angle. ^" laterals
have generally been recommended, unless extremely large discs
were used in the gun or in cases where the lateral was very long.

These recommendations were always made with the idea of
only one man working at a time on each lateral. By using larger

— 32-^

laterals it would be possible to do a great deal more in the way
of irrigation, but of course, the cost of the piping system would
be very much increased. If you should decide to use your system
for irrigation purposes also by using 1" or 1}4'' laterals it would
be advisable to use two or three men at a time on each lateral
in order to keep the velocity up to the proper point.

The question of whether the dead end or return system should
be used has ceased to be a question, the dead end having proven
to be more practical, more efficient and less costly.

The question of where the pipe lines shall be laid is a question
sometimes hard to decide and depends very much on your con-
ditions. Underground is, of course, the nicest in many ways.
There is more labor connected with putting the pipe under-
ground but once there it is out of the way and should give very
little trouble if properly drained in freezing weather.

If your land lays so that drainage is fairly easy the under-
ground system is generally preferred. On the other hand, if
you do not have good drainage the overhead system, with the
pipe lines suspended from the major branches of the trees, will
be found satisfactory in the older orchards.

Laying the pipe lines on top of the ground is often done, but
there is of course, the objection to having these pipe lines in the
way in case of cultivation, mowing or when transporting the
fruit from the orchard.

THE REMOVAL OF DIRT AND SPRAY RESIDUE

FROM FRUIT

Wm. ABILDGAARD, John Bean Mfg. Co., Lansing, Michigan

There are many advantages to the cleaning of apples before
they go to market that have not been discussed in the Eastern
States and which, in the opinion of many, are very important.
So far as the removal of arsenical spray residue is concerned, if
your fruit carries more arsenic than the government tolerance
allows, it will be necessary for you to remove it. If you have a
very small amount of excess residue, you may be able to remove
a sufficient quantity of it to meet the tolerance by wiping, but
if not, then washing is necessary. As the domestic tolerance has
been gradually lowered each year some of the Eastern fruit
sections, in order to avoid cleaning their fruit, have been trying
to eliminate one or two of the later sprays. In many cases the
result has been a very heavy infestation of coddling moth with
losses several times the cost of cleaning equipment. This was
especially true in some of the midwestern fruit sections in 1930.

The most important part of your apple growing business is
the profit to be made from your investment and labors and this
is the point I want to emphasize in my talk. Your pruning y
spraying, fertilizing and packing operations are very important,
hut after all, the sales operation is the most important operation of
all. The amount you receive for your fruit is the main thing that
spells profit or loss. Let's compare your problems with those of

— 33 —

the packers of other food products and with the manufacturer
of automobiles. You must produce the best quality product you
can and then sell it at a legitimate profit, which is exactly what
other food producers and all manufacturers are attempting to do.
After they have finished their product they generally consider
that only a small part of their work has been done and that their
greatest problem is that of selling at a price that will give them
a legitimate profit.

You are as much entitled to a reasonable profit on your prod-
ucts and as anxious to receive that profit as anyone else. One
of the first and most important steps is advertising. In other
words, creating a desire for what you have to sell by telling the
world why the article you have to offer is better than any other.
It is a well known fact that you must create a desire before you
can make a sale. You have heard considerable about an apple
advertising campaign. It seems to be very slow in coming, but
is surely must come soon if you growers are going to realize the
profits you are entitled to.

An important step in creating a desire is appearance or "eye
appeal.^' An automobile manufacturer finishes his cars with
the finest of paints and varnishes obtainable, in colors which he
believes will appeal most to the buyer. Any automobile sales-
man will tell you that there are more sales made by the color or
outward appearance of an automobile than by the cleverest
sales talk on the mechanical features. The first thing an auto-
mobile dealer does, upon receiving new cars from the factory, is
to wash and polish them thoroughly, yet it does not make them
any better. You would insist on the car you purchased being
perfectly clean even though you knew it might be plastered with
mud before you got it home. This is only human nature and it
applies much more to the food you are going to eat than it does
to a piece of machinery.

You have noticed the attractive labels on all canned goods.
Those beautiful colors and beautiful pictures on the cans help
to create desire. Candy has always been put up in a most beau-
tiful package. Compare the old method of selling butter with
the present one. You remember how butter used to be brought
in from the farm and sold in bulk to the grocery store, who
passed it out in the same way to the consumer. Then oleo-
margerine came along, put out by large manufacturers, packed in
attractive, sanitary, waxed cartons, immediately taking a tre-
mendous amount of business from the dairy people. Advertising
and attractive, sanitary packages have saved the dairy people
from a great loss of business.

Surely you cannot hope to create a desire for apples unless the
apples at least look clean and creating a desire for apples is the
biggest problem the apple grower is facing today. Apples must
compete with grapefruit, oranges and other fruits. There is no
question but what the average apple has far more natural beauty
than any other fruit grown and yet, it is undoubtedly turned
over to the merchant in by far the poorest condition so far as

— 34--

. «i

\\

A Spray Noted for Ease of Use

Hundreds of successful growers have proved that Pyrox
is not only easier and safer to use than messy home-made
bordeaux mixtures — but is also cheaper in the long run.
Pyrox-protectod potatoes pay extra cash from extra yields
of better quality.

"I raise large acreages of corn, potatoes, wheat and hay
so I must make all my labor count. That is one reason why
I like Pyrox — because of its ease of preparation and applica-
tion as compared with home-made bordeaux," wrote Mr. H.
C. Rineard of York, Pennsylvania.

Mr. Rineard continued, "This is my second year using
Pyrox and I certainly find that it controls insects and di-
sease on my potatoes, and also improves the quality. I have
been getting an increase of 100 bushels per acre, and an
average of 15 to 20 cents per bushel better for my Pyrox-
sprayed potatoes than the prevailing shipping price.''

Pyrox is a combined insecticide and fungicide, the re-
sult of thirty years' experience. Scientifically prepared to
kill insect pests, control blights and other diseases and to
stimulate plant growth. Pyrox is quick and easy to use.
There is no need to fuss with bluestone the night before.
Five minutes after you decide to spray, your spray material
is ready. All you need is water and Pyrox. Pyrox does not
clog the nozzles. It sprays in a fine mist and has the best
of sticking and covering properties.

If you have not used Pyrox, try it this year. It is ob-
tainable in all sizes from one pound jars to three hundred
pound barrels. If you do not know the Pyrox dealer nearest
you, we shall be glad to tell you his name.

Bowker Ch<

ic

owKer v.nemicai \.ompany

BOWKEB CHEMICAL BUIIJ)ING
419 Fourth Avenue New York, N. Y.

©oes rain wash it off? Try it and see!

Patronize Our Advertisers

^35 —

II

looks are concerned. Citrus fruits for years have been washed
and artifically colored before being placed on the market and
the citrus grower would not think of sending his product to
market without first dressing it up in its finest clothes.

When and if the apple advertising campaign gets under way
the pictures shown on the billboards and in the magazine adver-
tisements will be of beautiful, clean looking apples. They must
be to create that desire and when the desire has been created
the prospective customer goes into the grocery or fruit store
looking for the kind of apples seen in the advertisements. If
that kind of an apple can be purchased the purchase will be
made, otherwise it is quite likely that the desire will change from
apples to oranges or some other fruit before leaving the store.

You have all read a great deal in the papers about the unem-
ployed apple selling campaign that has been going on in prac-
tically all of the larger cities. It has been a wonderful thing to
help the consumption of apples and to hold up the price, but
have you noticed that almost all of the apples sold on the streets by
the unemployed were Northivestern boxed apples y simply because
they ^^looked better?^* They were cleaned and polished and the
salesmen on the streets were smart enough to know that the
appearance of their fruit was the thing that would make the
sale for them and not any salesmanship on their part.

I have often heard Mcintosh growers of the New England
States say that it was very important that the bloom of the
Mcintosh should not be removed when the apples were on dis-
play. However, this last fall a large grower, owning a roadside
market tried a little experiment. He placed a number of baskets
of polished Mcintosh on his sales floor along with an equal
number of unpolished baskets; not one of the baskets of un-
polished fruit was sold until after all of the polished fruit had
been taken.

I know of a case in Maryland where the best offer a grower
could get on a large part of his fruit was $4.50 per barrel. He
washed those apples, removing the dirt and leaf hopper specs,
which enabled him to put them in the first grade. They were
then exported and sold for $5.75 per barrel, f.o.b. the shipping
point — a difference of $1.25 per barrel.

A very good example of the results of cleaning apples was
called to our attention recently in California. In an orchard
quite badly infested with mealy bug, the apples were so covered
with residue from this bug and with road dust sticking to the
mealy bug residue that the grower was unable to get an offer
for his apples. After washing these apples they came out per-
fectly clean and he disposed of them very easily at 25 cents
more per bushel than he had originally intended to ask. His
cost of washing was less than 2 cents per bushel.

In many of the Eastern States the growers are bothered con-
siderably with aphids when there is an excessive amount of
moisture. In dry years, as the two years past, they are bothered
with leaf hopper, while in a normal year they are likely to have

— 36 —

^ii

both. The leaf hopper leaves a very ugly looking spec, while
the aphids leave honey dew. These deposits generally cause
first grade fruit to be thrown into the second or third grade.
Washing will remove these deposits and save the fruit for first
grade.

Washing is now the standard practice for the removal of spray
residue, insect residue and dirt. Dry cleaning in some cases
will do a fairly satisfactory job, but washing has been found
much more effective. The washing process is not nearly so
complicated as many would think. If running water is available
the problem is comparatively simple. The washer is simply
placed ahead of the grader and the fruit passes automatically
from the washer on to the receiving end of the grader.

The dryers are an important part of the washing equipment
as they put the fruit in condition so that the sorters and packers
can handle it without discomfort. Efficient dryers have been
very difficult to devise, but there are two common types now
in use, both of which are very satisfactory. The one depends
on a very strong blast of air actually blowing the drops of water
from the fruit, while the other uses absorbent towels to remove
the surplus rinse water. The towels are dried by running through
a wringer.

It has been brought to our attention that efficient drying is
more necessary in the Eastern States than in the West. Apples
containing excessive moisture may also contain scab spores and
if so are very likely to show an additional amount of scab after
storing.

In conclusion it appears to me that the cleaning of fruit before
packing will very rapidly become the accepted practice in the
East, the same as in the Northwest. We beheve this will put
the Eastern fruit industry on a more profitable basis and in a
better position to compete, not only with Western apples, but
other classes of fruit and foods.

THE PART WHICH FRUIT PLAYS IN THE

AMERICAN DIETARY

MARY I. BARBER, Director of Home Economics, Kellogg Company,

Battle Creek, Michigan

Today apples are receiving the greatest amount of publicity
that they have had since the apple campaign was opened in the
Garden of Eden some few years ago. We have one decided
advantage over the original project — there are many more
people to whom to advertise than when Adam and Eve walked
the earth. We must remember, though, that there are also
more apples and as long as apples are produced in abundance
it is to the interest of the apple growers to stimulate the con-
sumption of this fruit as well as the consumption of other fruits
cultivated in this state.

Manufacturers know that one of the best ways of getting a
product before the public is through displays. A few weeks ago

— 37 —

in New York City 1 found apple displays on all four corners
of every street I passed and now this idea seems to have spread
to many parts of the country. A cartoon in a recent magazine
shows apple venders outside and empty chairs inside a doctor's
office and bears the caption '*An apple a day, keeps the patients
away/'

Is this increased consumption of apples a health asset? Of
what value is this fruit in the American Dietary? That we may
all have the same basis for judging, let us review the usual
classification of foods.

All foods may be listed under one of three headings— Fuel
Foods, Building Foods, or Regulating Foods.

1. Fuel Foods are those which provide the body with heat
and energy. There is litle danger of not having enough
foods from this group, provided the family income is
adequate.

2. Building Foods are those which keep the body in repair
and which build the new tissues of the growing child.

3. Regulating Foods are those which keep the body
machinery in good running order. They are the foods
which contain laxative material, minerals, and vita-
mins. This is the group most often neglected in meal
planning. Special care should be taken to include one,
or more, of them in every meal.

Today we will discuss only the regulating group because this
is where fruit belongs. ''Regulating foods contain fiber, minerals
and vitamins,' ' probably the three most talked of components
of food materials. Fiber is necessary for keeping the intestinal
tract functioning normally. It is claimed that American menus
are all too apt to lack the coarser foods. For this reason many
physicians prescribe whole grain cereals, bran and fruit to be
added to the usual meat, bread and potato diet. Fruits have a
high percentage of water which also aids in regulating body
processes.

Fruits and vegetables both contain minerals so essential for
development of teeth, bones, blood and tissues. Although fruits
contain acid this acid, in the process of absorption, is changed
to alkali which is invaluable in building up the alkaline reserve
of the blood. Apples are one of the foods most efficient in
reducing the acidity of the body. A normal relation between
acids and alkalies must be maintained. This is one more reason
for combining fruit and cereals — one is alkaline and the other
acid so they complement each other in this way as well as in
flavor and texture.

Fruits are easily digested. Much of their fuel value is in the
form of sugars (glucose and levulose) which are ready for imme-
diate absorption. The color, odor and flavor of fruits combine
to stimulate the appetite and the flow of digestive juices so
digestion is carried on under the most favorable conditions.

Some fruits are particularly rich in vitamins. Apples contain
at least three of these vital elements. Grapes and cherries are

— 88 —

^A

i^

READING BONE FERTILIZER

QUALITY

SATISFACTION

SERVICE

HIGH GRADE FERTILIZERS
READING PLANT FOOD

(For Lawns and Gardens)

READING MEAT MEAL

DOW SPRAYS FOR THE
ORCHARD

(Dry Linio Sulphur, Arsenate of
Lead, and Paradichlorobenzene)

{This Trade Mar\ Means Quality)

Ask Your Dealer for
READING BONE FERTILIZER

We will mail a 5-11). pkg. of Reading Plant Food to any address

upon receipt of $1.00

READING BONE FERTILIZER CO.

READING, PENNSYLVANIA

At the next Harrisbiirg Meeting, TEN DOLLARS in
gold will be given to the grower member securing
the largest number of new members in 1931. TEN
DOLLARS credit Avill be given to the affiliated coun-
ty society reporting in 1931 the largest percentage
increase over their 1930 membership. In case of ties,
prizes Avill be duplicated. Dues will remain $2.00.

R. H. SUDDS, Secretary,

State Horticultural Association.

Patronize Our Advertisers

39 —

good sources of vitamins. Nearly every thing true of the food
value of fruits is also true of vegetables. They too are rich in
fiber, minerals and vitamins

Many of you remember when the apple barrel was a fixture
in every home but other fruit, out of season, was a rare luxury.
Rapid systems of transportation and sound information regard-
ing packing, storing and shipping have brought a large variety
of fruits within our reach at all seasons. Fifteen or twenty
years ago it was impossible to find fresh fruits in small town
markets during the winter. Today it is unusual not to have a
selection of at least two or three kinds, and in the large cities,
all sorts of fruits can be purchased at any time of the year.

The consumption of fruit has materially increased and you are
interested in having it increase even more. Fruit now appears
on a great number of breakfast tables but it is surprising to
find out on how many it is conspicuous by its absence. There
are a number of attractive fruit and cereal combinations such as
baked apple with bran; apple sauce or stewed apples with Pep
Bran Flakes; fresh or canned berries with Corn Flakes; canned
peaches with Whole Wheat Biscuits.

Naturally I mention the Kellogg Cereals because our company
is interested in furthering the use of both fruits and cereals.
Your products and ours are closely related — both come from
the farm, they are often served together, each can help the sale
of the other. Many of you are familiar with the cooperation
between the Kellogg Company and the Honey Producers. This
has been of mutual benefit. There is every reason why fruit
growers and cereal manufacturers should work together. The
very small beginning which the Kellogg Company has made
is in the form of two leaflets — Fruits and Cereals and Fruit in
Every Meal. What else can we do? Meetings such as this
are the places to discuss ways and means of getting together.
The Kellogg Company will be glad to write and furnish you with
fruit and vegetable receipts, health pamphlets and charts for
distribution. Send us your ideas, your favorite ways of using
fruit. Our Home P^conomics Department has five women
available for lecture-demonstration work. They are at your
service. Our aims are the same — let us pull together and ex-
change ideas for it is in this way that we shall attain success.

MY TWO STATIONARY SPRAY PLANTS

H. W. SKINNER, Chambersburg

Last year I was on the program to give an outline of my
stationary spraying plant. I was unable to be here as I was in
the hospital, although I dictated a paper which was printed in
the proceedings. I can not elaborate very much on what I said
then, as I discussed the installation, methods of spraying, pipe
distribution, size of pipe, etc.

The developments in spraying plants, have not changed very
materially since the first installations; they are not very different

— 40 —

from the regulation portable sprayers in general use. The only
practical difference is the spray material is pumped through the
orchard instead of being hauled.

Pipe Distribution.— Various arrangements of pipe distribu-
tion have been used— as the dead end system and the return
system, square method or long method of spraying with pipe
overhead, laid on top of the ground or put down in ditches;
most of these problems are largely a matter of location, the kind
of soil and topography of the individual orchard.

A great many things should be gone over and considered
carefully before work is started; the plans should be well worked

out. Ill

Location of Plant.— This is important. The plant should
be located adjacent to your water supply. The general lay ot
your property will determine this.

Size of Pipe.— This should be checked carefully. Pipe should
be of sufficient size to take care of the capacity of your pump and
also to eUminate friction as much as possible. On the other hand
too large pipe can be used, because it takes too much material
to fill the Une, which is wasted in the dead end system, (the
system we use.) And because the velocity of the material
flowing through the pipe Une is reduced to such an extent that
the agitation is not kept up. Three-quarter-inch pipe for
laterals has been satisfactory for us, with larger distributing
Unes graduating down from one and one-half inch to one inch.

Water Supply.— It is important to have an adequate and
accessible water supply. This is all important with any kmd
of sprayer, but is especially so in this method, because the amount
used in a day is five or six times more than with the portable

outfits.

Cost— The cost of a stationary spraying plant is not pro-
hibitive. It would be hard to give comparative figures between
them and portable sprayers. New black iron pipe with valves
will average fifteen to twenty dollars an acre. The plant equip-
ment should not cost more than the price of a good portable
outfit. These prices can be run up very considerably if you go
into alloy pipe and expensive construction and equipment in

the plant.

Spraying Cost.— The cost of spraying is reduced very materi-
ally On a forty acre block of twenty year old trees, which we
piped first, it requires one day's spraying as against six days
when we used the portable sprayer. Seventy hours of labor
against two hundred and forty hours. The gasoline consumption
is reduced from two hundred and fifty gallons to twenty gallons.
With six apphcations a year the saving m labor is over one
thousand hours. The gasoline saving is from twelve to hfteen
hundred gallons in this one block.

Spraying Plan.— We spray fourteen trees at each hook-up^
using one hundred and forty feet of three-eighth inch hose,
which one man can handle easily. We use six or eight leads.

— 41 —

riMELiNEss.— This is the feature that appeals to me most.
You can spray much more quickly and on days following rains
when the soil conditions would not permit the use of portable
outfits.

I could go into more detail as to drainage, pressure, kind of
pumps, power, tanks, valves and many others, but Mr. Abild-
gaard will discuss all of these at this time.

Question : Do you use gate valves?

Mr. Skinner: They are satisfactory but one must be careful
for they freeze and this makes them hard to handle.

Question: What sprays do you use?

Mr. Skinner: The regulation sprays.

Question: What is your longest pipe length?

Mr. Skinner: About a half mile.

Question; How many gallons per day per man?

Mr. Skinner: That depends upon the size of the tree. In the
large apple trees we put out as much with six men as with eight
in the small planting. Our average is 10,000 gallons per day.
I have been depending upon a well for water and we had some
water trouble this past year. We could not do all of our spraying
last year. I have laid a pipe Une to a nearby creek and we
expect to pump our spray water from this creek to a storage
cistern.

Question : Do you have trouble spraying against winds?
Mr. Skinner: Less trouble than with portable rigs.
Question: Do you do a whole tree at once?
Mr. Skinner: Yes.
Question: What gun do you use?

Mr. Skinner: The Friend gun. The Boyce gun is a fine gun
but it will not reach the tops of high trees.

Question: Is it more economical to use a gun with one
opening?

Mr. Skinner: We like the Friend gun and find it quite
economical.

Question : What system do you use?

Mr. Skinner: Our winds come from the northwest and the
spraying depends upon the wind. In most sprays we go into
the middle and spray the inside first and then the outside. This
keeps the sprayer from getting wet.

Question: Have you used any three-eighth inch hose?
Mr. Skinner: No.

Mr. Rozelle: I have used the three-eighth inch hose and
louna it satisfactory.

THE IMPORTANCE OF ORGANIC MATTER IN THE
ORCHARD DURING A DRY SEASON

F. N. FAGAN, State College, Pa.
Many members of this Association will recall the work of the

favf P-' I'n^n^i^n^^^ ""^ OTchsiTd fertihty. Dr. Stewart pub-
hshed in 1910 Bulletin 100, The Pennsylvania State College

— 42 —

^*i

SCIENTIFIC SPRAY OILS!

DENDROL DORMANT SPRAY OIL

THE OENTTINE MISCIBLE OIIi

I Lower in cost per gallon of diluted spray material.

2. Definitely established in commercial practice during

the past four years. o.. . -r. • ^^■^^

3. Tested and approved by various State Experimental

Stations. , . o. t i^

4 Gives exceptionally good control of San Jose scale,—
using only 2 gallons in 98 gallons of water

5 Easy to prepare— mixes quickly with even hard water.
6" Great spreading quality, insuring thorough coverage

with least amount of spray.
7. Most agreeable to use— no harm to men, horses or

machinery. . ^ _ . ^^^

8 I^sed in orchards and nurseries to control various spe-
■ cies of scale, aphids, leaf roller, red mite, tree hopper.

VERDOL SUMMER SPRAY OIL

1 Officially recommended last year to Illinois apple grow-
' ers by Spray Committee of Illinois State Horticultural

2. Used by orchardists and nurserymen during the past
three years with splendid results.

3. Conti-ols codling moth as well as arsenate of lead as a

second brood spray. ,. -, ^ j ^«;^oi

4 Tests have shown that use of Verdol reduces arsenical
* residue to Domestic tolerance of .015 and even Foreign

tolerance of .01. . i:+:^,,

5 Mak(^s washing of fruit unnecessary m most localities.
b'. Reduees worm sting injury and helps control aphids,

scale, red mite, leaf hopper.
7. Giv(>s fruit a better finish.
8 Used by increasing number of nurserymen for control

of summer scale, insects and red spider on evergreens.

DENDROL nnd VERDOL arc the romli of several years of inten-
sive and exhaustive research ('onductea with the cooperation of the
Crop Protection Institute.

Oo.nph'te information is given in DENDROL and VERDOL book-
lets. Send for your free copy.

MOORE & MUNGER

33 RECTOE STEEBT NEW YOKK CITY

=^

Patronize Our Advertisers

— 43 —

Agricultural Experiment Station, on the subject, 'The Fertiliza-
tion of Apple Orchards.'' In 1907 he estabhshed throughout
the State eleven fertilizer tests in bearing orchards, which many
of you will recall visiting some of these blocks on the occasions
of the summer tours of the State Horticultural Association.
These were the Tyson Brothers' Orchards in Adams County,
D. M. Wertz, Franklin County, the S. B. Brown Orchards in
Bedford County, the Ledy Orchard in Frankhn County, the
Sleek Orchard in Bedford County, Fassett Orchard in Wyoming
County, the Strode Orchard in Chester County, the St. Paul's
Orphanage Home Orchard in Mercer County, the J. B. Johnston
Orchard in Lawrence County and the Mynard Orchard in
Bedford County. In these various experimental blocks, ferti-
lizers were applied in different combinations of nitrogen, phos-
phoric acid and potash, and alone under both cultivation and
sod treatments. There were some twelve varieties under con-
sideration with a total of a little over 2,000 trees. In 1908, 23
years ago, a fertilizer and cultural method test orchard was
planted at the Experiment Station.

P>om the eleven orchards in a ten-year period Dr. Stewart
gathered a mass of data which was incorporated into Bulletins
100, 106, 121, and 153 of The Pennsylvania State College
Agricultural Experiment Station. Besides these reports numerous
papers were given before this Association and incorporated in
the various annual reports of the Experiment Station between
1910 and 1917.

Note some of the outstanding facts brought out by these
fertiUzer tests: The use of nitrate of soda early in the tests
showed that tree growth and yield were benefitted in nearly all
of the experiments. Where nitrate was combined with phos-
phorus the results were equally as good. In but one case did
nitrogen and potash seem to show any appreciable returns above
the use of nitrate alone. In all cases the complete fertihzer
composed of nitrogen, phosphorus and potash, showed equally
as good results as with nitrogen alone. During the period that
this work was being conducted, the general use of nitrate of
soda as a fertilizer gradually became a universal practice through-
out the orchard section of Pennsylvania and for a number of
years the use of nitrate alone has been the common practice
and recommendation. During the ten-year period from 1907
to 1917, such a practice in sod orchards as well as in cultivated
orchards, seemed to show that the fertiUzer problem was fairly
well solved and that successful orchards could be maintained

^?J^ fi^T^^^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^ nitrate of soda. In some of the
old blocks which have been continued and also in the Experi-
ment Station orchard, a reaction to this last treatment had been
observed In other words, if we inspect the results of a 23-year
period of a sod orchard fertiUzed with nitrate, we may find that
the records of the latter half of such a period do not corre-
spond with the results obtained in the first half. A situation
has developed which shows that it is possible to develop such a

— 44 —

strong sod after a period of fertilization that it is impossible to
feed fertilizer through the sod to the tree roots. In other words,
the grass turf, if it is blue grass, may become such a heavy feeder
that the fertiUzers applied are utilized by this blue grass sod and
practically none of it reaches the tree roots. The records in the
Experiment Station orchard on sod land as well as in two blocks
in Franklin County, show that this is the case.

Let us think for a minute of general farm practices rather than
orchard practices. For many years, farmers have preferred
plowing down a piece of grass land for corn planting. 1 hey
may not have manured this sod during their rotation of crops
but nevertheless in their rotation, the farmers have found it
to their advantage to follow the sod with corn. There are very
few farmers who do not appreciate the fact that rainfall governs
their production of corn. They have found that sod land aids
in insuring moisture for the corn crop in a better way than any
other plan of seeding in their particular system of crop rotation.
When the Experiment Station workers saw that nitrogen
fertilizer was not causing tree growth or yield, blue grass sods
were turned in the orchard, cultivated for a very short while
in the spring, and seeded to cover crops. A tremendous cover
crop growth resulted from such treatment and wheat is compared
with the cover crop growth on a part of the orchard receiving
clean cultivation and unfertilized cover crops for 23 years,
one needs not emphasize by words the importance of the presence
of a large amount of soil organic material in securing plant growth,
especially when it is realized that the rainfall this past year was
the smallest ever recorded during the 23-year period. Ihe
summer of 1930 was the driest summer that these blocks have
ever experienced and the 1929 growing season was the second
driest period. With the experience of these two dry seasons
and the observations of the Experiment Station workers during
the past seven years that certain blocks in the orchard were
decUning, soil moisture determinations have been used as an
index to tree performance. In that part of the orchard where
sod and straw mulch were plowed down with a resultant heavy
cover crop, in 1929 this soil contained in May a httle over
200 tons of water per acre. In the cultivation with unfertilized
cover crops part of the orchard, there was a little over 150
tons per acre in May, making a difference between the two
treatments of 70 tons of water per acre in favor of the soil well
filled with organic material during the past 22 years. 13otn
blocks lost moisture as the season advanced, but it was prac-
tically the first of August before the soil with more organic
matter dropped to the same moisture content as that under
cultivation. It is also natural to suppose that with such a
heavy growth of material on the old sod block considerable
water would be removed from the soil, which actually occurred
in August and September. The 1924 cover crops ii\the <5u|ti-
vated parts of the orchard, which were very poor due to the
lack of rainfall, could not remove as much moisture from the

— 45 —

soil, because the resultant cover had not even obtained a foot-
hold which would permit it to utilize any large amount of water
out of the soil. The surface evaporation from the soil itself
did not equal the water removed by the cover crop growth on
the old sod mulch block.

It is interesting to note that the amount of cover per square
yard on the cultivated part of the orchard was only 331 grams
while the cover crop growth on the old sod part was 990 grams
per square yard. These two figures alone are food for a great
deal of thought; if the soil condition in one block can produce
practically three times the growth in the same season as that
of another block, we can assume that the life-giving necessities
in the soil were more abundant in that part of the orchard
giving the largest cover crop. In another part of the orchard, a
block has been continuously in alfalfa save for one season every
four to six years when the alfalfa has been reseeded. The
moisture records for this block are interesting. Bear in mind
that this alfalfa block has never received fertilizer but alfalfa
has made the soil ideal for blue grass and blue grass has, during
the past 23 years, become so pronounced in this block that we
have been compelled to plow it and reseed as before noted.
With this plowing only one season of cultivation has occurred
every four to six years, and then only for a few weeks, until
the seedbed was in proper shape for replanting to alfalfa. The
moisture in the middle of June, 1929 in this block is even higher
than that of the old sod block when the June determinations
were made.

This alfalfa block started off in June with 110 tons more
water per acre than did the clean cultivation in the non-legume
cover crop block which had received phosphorus and potash;
during the past 22 years in the same clean cultivated block
where nitrogen and phosphorus had been applied for the 22
years, the June difference between it and the alfalfa was only
75 tons. The resultant covers per square yard of the last two
blocks at the end of the season again tells a story of the Hfe-
giving elements in the soil. For there is a cover crop growth
differential between the two blocks directly associated with the
soil moisture in June amounting to 330 grams of cover per
square yard, in favor of the nitrogen and phosphoric block.

Directly associated with this moisture and organic content of
the soil is the determination of nitrate nitrogen present during
June when the determinations were made. In the old sod
block we find 24.23 parts per million of nitrogen against 1.55
parts per million in the cultivation and cover crop part where
no fertilizer has ever been applied. In the alfalfa block there
were present 13.74 parts per milHon of nitrogen, while in the
cultivated parts where nitrogen and phosphorus have been
applied for 22 years, there were 8.22 parts per million and where
phosphorus and potash had been applied there were 6.72 parts
per million. With the great difference between the amounts of
nitrogen present in the clean cultivation cover crop no fertilizer

— 46 —

GRASSELLI Spray
and Dust Materials

are certified as to quality and uniformity
and are preferred by many of the leading

growers.

I Also in lit*
Cdtisfor

Gdrdens

GRASSELLI GRADE

Arsenate of Lead Powder
Calcium Arsenate Powder
Bordeaux Mixture Powder
Lime Sulphur Solution
Dry Lime Sulphur
Oil Emulsion

Monohydrated Copper Sulphate
Casein Spreader
Sulphate of Nicotine

DUTOX — Our Non-arsenical In-
secticide.

The Grasselli Chemical Company

Incorporated

Founded 1839

629 Euclid Avenue 3500 Gray's Perry Bd.
Cleveland, Ohio Philadelphia, Pa.

307 Fifth Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pa.

y

sFA^ GRASSELLI Grade

/ ( -I Standard ^}lcld'Hh)h for 9 2'^cors

,/< . >-.

PRO

Patronize Our Advertisers

— 47

'!(

and the clean cultivation cover crop, where phosphorus and
potash have been applied for 22 years, we are lead to believe
that the extra cover crop produced by the phosphorus and potash
is responsible for the 5.17 parts per miUion nitrogen difference.

The studies of the experimental orchard at State College and
of the old outlying fertilizer blocks conducted for a period of 20
years by the late Dr. Stewart indicate that the limiting factor
in orchard culture is not necessarily chemical fertilizer, hut
probably a combination of fertilizers, cultivation, and organic
material.

From 1908 to 1920 we seeded cover crops in late August.
Since 1920, cover crop seeding dates have been slowly pushed
forward, resulting in 1929 in a June 1 seeding. The Experiment
Station workers did not reaUze in 1929 when deciding to seed
cover crops June 1, that the months of June, July, August and
September would be the dryest months in any growing season
during the 22 years of the orchard. In all the experiments at
State College the seedings were made in late May and early
June in 1929. By the middle of the month the cover crops were
making good growth. By mid-August we had fairly good stands
of cover crop throughout the orchard, especially where nitrogen,
nitrogen and phosphate or nitrogen phosphate and potash had
been used. Even in a peach orchard where there were no soil
culture experiments, a cover crop had been seeded the first three
days of June, and by mid-summer a fine stand of mixed millet
was growing and had reached a height of about 14 inches.

Having advanced this cover crop seeding date to June 1, we
were somewhat concerned as to the effect this cover crop would
have upon the tree growth and size of fruit, especially since the
extremely dry weather had continued from mid-June until mid-
August. Much to our surprise there were no visible ill effects
even in the peaches (which had to be thinned) indicating that
the early seeding of cover had not had a bad effect upon the
size of fruit. The apple orchard did not produce a full crop of
fruit in the fall of 1929 because of spring frosts in that year
occurring after peaches had set their fruit, and just when apples
were in the pink, full bloom and petal fall stages. It is a miracle
that we had any apples, for ice was formed on three different
mornings during the period just mentioned. Even though the
trees in the fall of 1929 did not have a heavy crop, well-cared-for
Stayman picked an average of 53^ bushels per tree and the size
of the fruit was large enough; Baldwin and York were even
larger than the average commercial size. We were surprised to
see an unusually large number of fruit buds in the spring of
1930. These fruit buds set the heaviest crop of fruit the orchard
had ever produced. We must bear in mind that the 1930 season
was a duplicate of the 1929 season as far as lack of moisture was
concerned; in fact, the total rainfall was less. The year 1930
closed with a shortage of 14 inches of rainfall with the months of
July, August, Stptember and October the dryest summer
months for 23 years. During the summer of 1930 thinning was

— 48 —

V'>

necessary throughout the orchard at State College. We have
little complaint to offer regarding the size of the fruit which
developed on the well-cared-for blocks of the experiment. The
blocks that had received during the past 23 years legume cover
crops; complete fertilizer; nitrogen and phosphorus, or where
manure or sod rotation had been used, the size of the individual
fruits were commercially marketable and the per centage of
apples under two and a half inches were no greater than a grower
would expect when his trees were as heavily loaded as the
experiment orchard trees were in 1930. It is true that three
inch apples were not present in a high percentage but the pack
of two and half and two and three-quarter inch apples was
commercially satisfactory on Stayman, York and Baldwins in
an orchard that had had two of the dryest years on record and
that had received no cultivation during the past two growing
seasons after the first day of June. These results are not trace-
able to just one or two years' care but are due to 23 years of care
with proper soil, fertilizer, and cover crop treatment.

Three pictures presented are very significant. They tell the
story of 22 years of care. In the spring of 1929 these Stayman
trees all showed considerable bloom. In fact enough bloom to
make one feel that a satisfactory commercial crop would be set.
Picture No. 1 was taken between two rows of Stayman, planted
in 1908, which had had a system of clean cultivation no cover
crop, no fertilizer until and including 1919. At that time the
trees showed that they had stopped growing; the soil was hard
and grew almost no weed growth in the summer of '17, '18, and
'19 after cultivation had stopped. From 1920 to 1929 a sod
was developed on this piece of ground but not what one would
call a good sod. In addition to the development of this sod, all
but one row (3 Stayman) received either five or ten pounds of
nitrate of soda per tree. The trees in Picture No. 2 are Stayman
planted in 1908 which have received clean cultivation, non-
legume cover crops and no fertilizer. Trees pictured in Picture
No. 3 have received cultivation, legume cover crop and no
fertiUzer. In the blocks pictured in Nos. 2 and 3, the cover
crops up until the last seven years were seeded in late August.
Seeding dates have been earlier during the past seven years.
In the fall of 1929 the 15 Stayman trees pictured in No. 1 har-
vested a total of one-half bushel of apples. The trees pictured
in No. 2 harvested 23^ bushels per tree. The trees pictured in
No. 3 harvested 53/^ bushels per tree. The differences in the
yields of these Stayman are not the differences of one or two
years' care but are the differences that have accumulated during
the life of these trees.

We will compare the yields of these Stayman during their
first 16 years of growth. The Stayman in Picture No. 1 in 16
years had produced 16 bushels of apples while those in Picture
No. 3 had produced 22 bushels per tree, and those in Picture No.
2 had produced 17 bushels. During the last seven years those
in Picture No. 1 had produced 26 bushels. Those in No. 3,

— 49 —

70 bushels. Those in No. 2, 53 bushels. While the difference
in yield in the first 16 years is not so marked the trees as they
grow older are showing decided variations in yield traceable to
soil management entirely.

Throughout the entire orchard wherever the soil treatment has
been supplemented with legume cover crops, or with nitrogen as
a fertilizer in combination with phosphorus and potash, or
phosphorus alone, the yield records in the first 16 years were
not so markedly different ; as years go on, mainly the last seven
years, a rather decided improvement of yield has occurred m
these blocks. However, in series 332 and 333 it is evident that
the system of cover cropping has not been equal to maintaining
the soil humus except probably in the legume block

Our conclusions at the Experiment Station drawn from 23
years of records are:

Ist.—Clean cultivation throughout the summer months and
fall seeding of non legume cover crops without fertilizer probably
will not maintain sufficient organic material to keep the soil as
a satisfactory media for tree growth during the productive
orchard life.

2nd.— The dry years of 1929 and 1930 have shown that heavier
stands of cover, legume or non-legume, can be produced in
orchards without detriment to the trees by seeding the orchards
to cover crops at least by June 1.

3rd. — It is perfectly possible to develop by the use of nitrate
in a sod orchard where blue grass is the predominating grass a
turf so vigorous as to make it impossible for plant food to reach
the tree roots. When such conditions do exist, if such sods are
broken by plowing or discing and a short period of cultivation
given during one season, that the organic material in such a soil
is greatly increased. Short sod rotations are one way of keeping
a liberal supply of organic material in the soil.

4th. — During the early years of orchards under cultivation
it is important that cover crops be seeded early enough each
year to secure heavy stands of material which can be incor-
porated into the soil the following year. By June 1 seedings,
a minimum of cultivation is given which is just about enough to
fit the seed bed after plowing; such practice is economical for
cultivations cost money. June 1 seedings make it possible to
grow some of the cheaper legumes such as sweet clover or crimson
clover along with millets, sorghum, sudan grass or even corn
broadcast. Where such mixtures are seeded June 1, enough
growth is secured with sweet clover and crimson clover to
insure nearly always its wintering successfully, giving a green
cover to plow down each spring. It is our judgment that with
the clover it is perfectly possible for the plowing to be delayed
until the clover growth has reached a height of 12 to 16 inches.
Such a system will likely keep up the soil organic matter supply,
if the system is followed from the time of setting the orchard.

— 50 —

MODERN
MACHINERY

Is the KEY to

Greater Prosperity

Hydraulic Cider Press
No. O.

Reduce costs, increase profits, produce more and
of higher quality— M<)dern Machinery will greatly
aid every Horticulturist.

Farquhar Hydraulic Cider Presses are easily in-
stalled, require little power and built to meet the
needs for custom pressing, the individual orchardist
and for roadside marketing. We are prepared to
furnish full line of Cider Press supplies and equip-
ment including Hammermill Pulpers, Rotary Cider
Strainers, Applebutter Cookers, etc.

SPRAYERS

Iron ikge

Spra y e r s are

built for every

^use — Single and

_ Double Action

No. 370 Combined FItId and Orchard Power Sprayer T^^^^|^^^ Spray-
ers, Power Sprayers, Combined Field and Orchard
Sprayers— equipped to meet the needs of the most
exacting.

We also build Potato Planters, Weeders, Fertil-
izer Distributors for high and low analysis fertilizers,
Markers, row makers, 5 and 7-tooth cultivators, corn,
pea and bean planters. Transplanters, Potato Dig-
gers, Grain Drills, *^ Non-Wrap'^ Manure Spreaders,

etc.

Ask for illustrated Bulletins describing the ma-
chinery in which you are now or will soon be
interested.

A. B. FARQUHAR CO., Limited

Box 113

yORK, PA.

Patronize Our Advertisers

— 51 —

5th.— That a system of fertilization for the benefit of the
cover crop is just as important as a system of fertilization for the
benefit of the tree, and there are few covers grown but what will
respond to phosphoric fertilizers on Pennsylvania soils; m many
cases a complete nitrogen-phosphorus-potash fertilizer may be
needed for the cover.

THE MASSACHUSETTS DEER LAWS

CHAS. H. GOULD, Haydenville, Massachusetts

In order to fully understand the significance of the present
Massachusetts deer laws it is necessary to have some familiarity
with the old laws and their administration. While there are
several sections to the deer laws of Massachusetts, the most
important one is that dealing with the appraisal of damage
done by deer to crops, and it is this phase of the subject I am

to discuss.

Perhaps the best way to acquaint you with the short comings
of our previous statute would be explain some of its difficulties,
for we had a great deal of trouble in Massachusetts in getting
adequate appraisals under the old system, as I shall try to point

out.

In the first place, the decision as to the extent of damage
was left with one man, the chairman of the selectmen. We have
no quarrel with our selectmen as public officials, but when they
begin to act as appraisers for deer claims we run into difficulties.
The selectmen do not like to do the work; they are tardy in
getting it done. Furthermore, they do not know how to go about
it, as they will frankly admit, and their personal likes and dis-
Hkes concerning the damaged party are likely to exert more
influence on their decisions than is really proper. The glaring
fault here is that the grower is at the mercy of one man as to
whether the damage done is in excess of twenty dollars.

Our new law provides that if the owner declares the amount
to exceed twenty dollars, he shall notify the Director of the
Division of Fisheries and Game, not the selectman.

In the second place, the chairman of the selectmen was em-
powered to select two disinterested parties, who with himself
should appraise the damage. Herein lies one of the greatest
difficulties. This selectman, if broad minded, might send to the
Agricultural College for some appraisors, or he might call in
some recognized fruit growers; on the other hand he might call
in the other two selectmen or any one else to pass upon the
damage the orchardist or gardener had sustained. And here
again you will note that the orchardist whose trees have been
damaged is not allowed to name his own representative to the
board of appraisers but must put up with the men chosen by
the chairman. This method has been quite unsatisfactory; it
usually resulted in the appraisal being made by unskilled, un-
interested parties, whose work was not thorough, whose knowl-

— 52 —

w

edge of crop production and plant life was often negligible, and
whose decisions were often influenced by the desire to get home,
rather than take the time for careful work. This method has
without doubt resulted in appraisals unfair both to the state
and the claimant.

Our new law provides that the owner of the damaged crops
shall select his own appraisor; that the state shall appoint one,
and that the third shall be appointed by the Trustees for County
Aid to Agriculture in each county.

Thus we have in each county a board of appraisors, two-
thirds of which is constant in membership. The state appoints
a game warden, and the county trustees appoint an able horti-
culturist. These two men work on all claims. They have been
instructed in an appraisal school before taking the field, and
each appraisal made adds to their knowledge and experience.
The state and agriculture are thus always represented and the
owner is fully protected by being permitted to name his own
agent to the board. These men work under a uniform system
of appraisal which is designed to take the guess work and incom-
petency out of appraisals and protect the interest of both the
claimant and the state. I shall discuss this system later on,
but before we study this method, let me approach it from
another angle.

Massachusetts has for some time been committed to the
poUcy of paying for damage done to crops by wild deer. Under
the old law after a claim was passed by the county commissioners,
as noted above, the bill was sent to the state auditor and paid
by the Commonwealth.

In 1919 Massachusetts revised its constitution, adopted the
budget system and classified all the state's business into 19
different departments, each administered by a commissioner, and
these were subdivided into divisions, each of which is presided
over by a director. One of these departments is the Department
of Conservation, containing the Division of Fisheries and Game.
Now, until 1927 this division did not figure in the settlement
of deer claims, and the amount of money paid each year for
claims was a floating item in the budget: In 1927 the Commis-
sioner of Administration and Finance decided that this item
must be nailed down somewhere, so he nailed it on the Division
of Fisheries and Game, and secured the amendment of the game
laws to that effect. This explains the presence of the Game
Commission in our appraisal work, and helps explain the com-
pUcations that arose with the above mentioned change.

Claims for damage began to pour into the Director's office;
payment of claims was held up and delayed. to the exasperation
of claimants; the division, with no knowledge of the orchard or
garden business, could not understand how deer could make
possible such large claims ; attempts were made by game wardens
to check up on claims, a system which necessitated long and
costly trips about the state ; a system of filing claims was adopted
that was slow and decidedly not to the point; claimants and

— 63 —

local appraisers were beginning to be looked upon with suspicion
hostility and distruct, especially if the amount of the claim was

Bewilderment as to procedure, and fear of the drain such
claims would make on division funds for the (legislature pro-
vided no increase in funds to take care of the extra charge on
the division), brought about an almost ^^P/^t'^.^^^^^^^'f^":;,^ f^^^
division began to devise ways and means of shifting the respon-
sibility, such as handing this work over to the department of
agricuHure, or else requiring claims to be paid from funds raised
by general taxation, instead of from the division budget.

This last idea raises a nice question of poUcy that is Ukely
to arise in any state where payment of claims is up ^or discus-
sion. Shall the damage done my orchard by ^^1^ ^eer be pai^^^
for by taxing the citizen at large, or shall it be paid for from the
license fees of the hunters for whose pleasure deer are protected
fifty weeks in the year? In our state the latter view prevails
both in agricultural circles and in the Commission of admims-
tration and finance, but needless to say not in the division of
fisheries and game.

It was at this juncture that the Massachusetts Fruit Growers
Association became thoroughly disgusted with the situation, and
authorized its legislative committee to change the deer laws in
such a way as to overcome, as far as possible, the dithcuities
described above. That committee immediately went into con-
sultation with fish and game officials. Both parties learned a
great deal about each other's point of view.

We learned from the division that it thought many claims
were fraudulent, that claims were put in annually regardless ot
damage; that orchards were purposely set in deer runs in order
to collect damages; that appraisal expenses were too high; that
there was no good way of checking claims; that there was little
or no conception of what it really meant to an orchardist or
gardner to have his crops ripped out by deer; that the division
had no training or knowledge that would enable it to properly
judge a claim; that it feared a heavy drain on its funds.

The division learned from us something of the time and money
necessary to produce an orchard; that if a market gardener s
first planting of beets was destroyed by deer his chance at the
early market is gone; that fences and hunting and artificial
methods of scaring deer are not effective in preventing damage ;
that there were agencies in the state that could help it in an
advisory way that it did not realize existed; that if fraudulent
claims were made, organizations such as ours did not counten-
ance them and that there were ways to prevent such, and that
competent appraisals could be made. In short it became ap-
parent that what both parties needed was a system of appraising
claims that was fair both to the state and the claimant. It
became evident that any satisfactory law deaUng with appraisals
should guarantee:

— 54 —

^^i^

Established 1905

/Kdams County Nursery
and rruit farms

H. G. BAUOHER, Proprietor

ASPERS, (Adams County) PENNA.

APPLE

Special Attention to Growing of

-FRUIT TREES-
CURRANTS

PEACH

GRAPES

CHERRY

GOOSEBERRIES

PEAR

NUT TREES

APRICOT

SHADE TREES

QUINCE

ASPARAGUS

PLUM
BLACKBERRY

BARBERRY

(Red and Green leaved)

RASPBERRY

CATALPA BUNOII

Free catalogue mailed on request

Patronize Our Advertisers

— 55 —

1. The claimant a competent, intelligent and fair appraisal.

2. The state protection against fraudulent and padded claims.

3. Quick action on all claims before evidence of damage is lost
or destroyed.

4. The state a minimum expense of appraisal.

5. The appraisors an adequate compensation for service ren-
dered.

6. The claimant prompt payment of claims.

The resulting legislation seems to meet the above require-
ments fairly well, and though it does not meet with the approval
of the fruit growers association in all respects, it is a distmct
advance over the old law.

I have already mentioned how the appraisors are now chosen,
and the question you now have in mind is, how do these men
work to produce the desired results? ^x t? -4.

A special form was created by the Massachusetts i^ruit
Growers' Association after the most careful consideration and
research. It was adopted by the association, which m turn
secured its adoption by the division of fish and game and the
county trustees, as a standard form for use in the field.

I do not claim it cannot be improved upon, but it has worked
very well and seems to be producing results. When explained
to claimants and their representatives I find it is understood
and welcomed as a reasonable basis for determining extent and
amount of damage. It defines a method of procedure which
heretofore was entirely lacking; it compels a thorough job for
the final answer cannot be reached until the whole block has
been examined; it is signed by all three appraisors under the
penalty of perjury, except in case of a disagreement, when the
dissenting appraisor must file a separate report supporting his
contentions.

A clam thus appraised represents a pretty careful piece of
work. Copies of these cla ms are filed with the claimant, the
division of fisheries and game and with the trustees for county
aid to agriculture.

Also, a farmer may kill a deer injuring or even possibly about
to injure any of his plants or crops. He may pursue such a deer
as far as the state line if he desires, provided he secures permis-
sion to cross other people's property on the way.

Question : What is done with the carcass?

Mr. Gould: If fit for food, it is eaten.

Question: What is the deer population of Massachusetts?

Mr. Gould: I cannot tell you but there were 2768 killed in

1929.

Question: About how much damage is done each year?

Mr. Gould: From $5000 to $15000.

Question: Do you have any fences for deer in Massachusetts?

Mr. Gould: A number of orchards in our State have been
fenced, but they do not do any good.

— 56 —

Mr Murray: Our Pennsylvania deer laws should be changed
so Yhat a man may shoot a deer on his property even though it

has been posted.

Mr Ritnk- Mr Murray has been misinformed concerning
thf deer laws A man may shoot deer if it is destroymg his
nroperty regardless of its being posted. However if the land
?s posted, hf cannot use the deer himseH but must turn it over
to the local game warden.

SOME PROBLEMS OF NEW ENGLAND

FRUIT GROWING

CHAS. H. GOULD, Haydenville, Massachusetts

New England fruit growing is not a uniform proposition by any
mean! Each state, 'because ^^ differences i^s^^^^^^^^
TTofinn transDortation and marketing facilities, Has a.mcuiueb
i its owrtoTonten^ with. Add all these together and one has
a formidable list of so-called problems. .

I shall picture as best I can the orchard business in New
England ffom the standpoint of production. There are about
^QOO 000 bearing and 2,000,000 non bearing apple trees m New
Ingknd accSg to the United States ^^-^^^f^^^^
Maine has the greatest number of trees , over 2,000,000 ana
Massachusetts has over 1,000000.. About one fourth ^^^
trees in New England are non bearing. In Massachusetts ^5 /o
and ii Connecticut 32% of the trees are non bearing^

The number of bearing trees in New England reached a peak
of over 11 000 000 in 1900 and in 1925 it has shrunk to less than
6 00^000 I have seen this statement used to prove that New
ISSd'apple growing is on the decline. Much^f^ «ie d^^^^^^^^
represents the disappearance of many small arm orchards,
abandoned farms are partly responsible.

Durinir the 30 years prior to 1925, commercial orcharding in
New Enlland has^teadily increased. About three and a ha f
Son tfees were planted^^^^^^^

S ' don^^eeTrQlSTnt 1I2O. 8% of the commercia
plantings are not in bearing and over 51% are under 15 years

"STMassachusetts alone there are 1,969,128 apple trees .n
commercial orchards. The average of these trees i^ 17 years^
Th^re are thousands of tres from 30 to 50 years of age but the
Ireat numberof recently planted trees reduces the average to

'^Ibout^yToOO of these trees are filler trees, 95% of which are
under'lS years of age. These are u-^y ™;f^ between the
12th and 15th year, so approximately 5000 trees a year wiu ue
cut down by 1940.

— 57 —

m

i

The trend in New England is decidedly towards larger apple
orchards. This is especially true in Massachusetts, Vermont
and Connecticut.

In Massachusetts there are about 4000 orchardists managing
the nearly 2,000,000 trees I have referred to. About 3,200 of
them raise apples as a side line to some other agricultural enter-
prise, and the remaining 800 are specialists with large orchards,
raising nothing but apples.

These 4000 orchardists produced an estimated crop in 1930
of over three million barrels; the five year average (1924-29)
was 273,000 barrels. This is the largest commercial crop we
have produced in Massachusetts. A crop of this size marks
the beginning of what I consider one of the major problems
confronting New England orchardists, namely, the profitable
marketing of the increasing crops we expect to harvest in New
England, under normal conditions during the next ten years.

Existing plantings indicate an increase in the apple crop of
Massachusetts by 1940, ranging from 240% for Mcintosh down
to 13% for Wealthy. Were this increase to come suddenly, or
without preparation, it might be impossible to market the crop
to advantage.

Baldwins constitute 40% of the apple trees in Massachusetts.
Over 50,000 Baldwins were set between 1920 and 1925. Nearly
one-half of the Baldwin trees are under 15 years of age, and it
is reasonable to expect 50% increases of Baldwins by 1940.

Mcintosh is second in importance. 25% of the tree popula-
tion is Mcintosh and of the 240,000 off Mcintosh trees about
half are not yet in bearing. With their gradual coming into
bearing a large increase in Mcintosh can be expected.

Therefore, it seems as though the marketing of annually
increasing crops will be one of the largest problems confronting
the New England growers. Outside markets must be developed,
market requirements studied and met, fruit must be graded and
packed to meet these requirements.

At present practically all of the Vermont crop is sold in New
York. Western Massachusetts ships to New York and abroad,
as well as supplying local markets in the Connecticut Valley.
Apples from eastern Massachusetts pour into Boston where
they are joined by those from New Hampshire and Maine.
Southeastern Massachusetts and Rhode Island push apples into
Providence; Connecticut fulfills local demands and overflows
into New York. It is increasingly evident that local demand
does not and will not absorb the local production, and in my
mind New England orchardists are face to face with the job of
producing and packing the best possible grade of Baldwins and
Mcintosh, our two leading varieties, which cannot be grown
to perfection anywhere except in New England, to deliver to
New York. Pennsylvania and Ohio markets are showing them-
selves receptive to good packs of these varieties.

This brings me to another problem confronting New England
orchardists, and that is the ever-present problem of producing

— 58 —

YOU CAN CONTROL

MANY PESTS

with One Spray at Less Cost

with

An Ortho Spray

jLEENU

Leading Fruit Growers in Pennsylvania now use
meenup Spray Oil in dormant or delayed dormant
period to control San Jose Scale, Red Mite, Leaf
Roller, Pear Psylla, Aphis, and many other insects.
Kleenup will mix with Lime Sulphur Solution or
Bordeaux.

V^Tfy

iiijik

vy

WRITE FOE 1931 SPEAY BTTIiETIN

California Spray Chemical Co.

NEW YORK CITY, N. Y.
Over Quarter-century Experience making Orchard Sprays

Patroni-^e Our Advertisers

— 59 —

I

l^h

the best fruit possible. This, as you know, is directly associated
with pest control. It is significant that the Experiment Station
and growers have been conducting specific investigations in
recent years on such items as scab control, apple maggot control,
curculio control, and a careful study of the causes of cull apples.
We have turned our investigatiors loose on these subjects and
they certainly have produced some real results that need only
to be translated into practice.

Curculio, scab, colding moth and maggot in the order named
constitute the greatest stumbling block in the production of
clean fruit in Massachusetts, and it is needless to explain further
why this combination presents a problem. A careful check-up
of clean fruit and pest damage in check orchards showed that
on the average only 21.11% clean Baldwins were produced,
and 57.27% clean Mcintosh were produced on account of
damage done by these pests. The ten best orchards in the check-
up showed 53% clean for Baldwin and 84% clean for Mcintosh,
indicating that improvement can be made, as well as indicating
what a real job it is to produce good Mcintosh and particularly
good Baldwins.

A few words to indicate what steps are being taken by our
men to overcome these pest troubles may be of interest.

I feel that the larger growers are paying more attention to
timing sprays with regard to weather conditions and pest
development. Knowledge of approaching rain period is essential
to the control of apple scab. The sulphur either in dust or
liquid form must be on the foliage before it rains if germination
of the spores is to be prevented. Many growers are receiving
daUy Government weather maps and a few have installed their
own weather forecasting instruments, to use in connection with
the weather maps as a more accurate aid in predicting local
weather conditions.

They are also timing their sprays according to insect and
disease development instead of following the conventional spray
calendars and also because there is a great difference in season
of pest development within a few miles of any given location
due to elevation. Orchardists are paying more attention to
conditions on their own plantations.

Procedure of this sort requires an intimate acquaintance with
the various insect pests. It demands an ability to identify the
different pests themselves in their various stages of develop-
ment; it demands an ability to recognize the type of damage
done by them to fruit and tree. It requires a knowledge of
control measures which cannot be obtained without close study
in the field, the laboratory and the library. I am strongly of
the opinion that until we orchardists have made the mental
effort to master these details, we cannot make the best use of
the efficient mechanical aids to pest control we have today.
It is surprising how many growers in our State cannot identify
a red mite or a curculio, or a tent worm, and equally surprising
are the results obtained in clean fruit production by the men

— 60 —

tti

'^;

who do know how to handle this scientific end of the busmess
as well as the mechanical. If the production of clean fruit is a
problem, I would label the mastery of such details as 1 have
mentioned above, as the first step to take in solving the puzzle.
We have also learned that spraying is not the whole story
in the control of some pests such as curcuUo and maggot. Lo
get the right angle on the control of these pests, spraying must
be completed with sanitation measures, such as picking up and
destroying drops, cutting down old trees in out of the way places,
and cleaning up the pest holes on your neighbors land, i
should not be surprised to seet a State-wide campaign waged
against neglected trees and orchards which produce nothing but
cull apples and A grade pests.

Pollination.— The problem of pollinating Mcintosh has
lately become a vexing problem in Massachusetts. J^ or the
past few years Mcintosh crops have been light, m spite ot the
fact that a full bloom was present each year. The most dis-
concerting phase of this problem is its inconsistency.

The poor set of Mcintosh we have been experiencing has been
charged up to many causes. Poor weather, lack of bees sell
sterility, weak trees, lack of cross pollinators have all had their
share of the blame. In all probability no single one of these
factors is entirely to blame, but to lay one's finger on the combi-
nation that has caused the trouble is not too easy.

The first diagnosis is to blame the self sterility of Mcintosh
and assume that large blocks of solid Mcintosh without cross
pollinators are responsible for poor set. This theory looks fine
until one step up into Vermont and sees block after block ot
soUd Mcintosh bearing good crops. The next move is to lay
poor set to lack of bees, a theory which holds till one gets out
of his yard and finds a neighbor with a good crop who has made
no special effort to increase or even provide for a supply ot bees.
This is another mvstery we turned our investigators loo-e on,
and if I remember^ correctly, they were unable to lay the cause
of poor set to any one single factor.

It seems fairly certain, though, that if one has strong growing
trees, bright warm weather, and plenty of bees, that even a sohd
block of supposedly self-sterile Mcintosh will set a good crop.

But regardless of the variety question, the pollination problem
in Massachusetts centers around the lack of bees. Honey bees
are scarce. The State is no a honey producing area and the
bee population has been dwindUng, while the tree population
has been increasing. Wild species cannot be depended upon.

There are several avenues of approach to the matter of secur-
ing bees for polUnation:

In the first place, the orchardist may encourage an apiary
himself. This does not meet with favor because there is too
much detailed work involved at a time when equally detailed
work in the orchard is needed, and also because most orchardists
have little use for bees in an intimate way.

— 61 —

I

A second method is for a group of growers in a community to
employ a bee man to manage an apiary for the production ot
bees for pollination purposes. This system does not seem to be
grow ng fn favor partly because of the reluctance of the grower
toTvelt in bees and partly because of the difficulty in securing
a good bee man to supervise the job. , . , ^, .

A third method, which is being followed, is for the grower to
rent a sufficient number of colonies from a beekeeper who is
raising bees with a view to satisfying the demand. There are
some beekeepers now looking for this kind of business. The
large grower in Massachusetts now takes pains to locate his
yearly supply of bees just the same as he plans for his fertihzer

and spray materials. ,

Reduced to a few words, the answer to our pollination prob-
lem consists of providing an ample supply of bees to do the
maximum amount of work in the minimum amount of favorable
weather, and to further provide for the best results by the use
of bouquets, or better yet, by judicious interplanting or grafting
in of suitable cross pollinators.

ADJUSTING ORCHARD PRACTICES TO MEET
MARKET REQUIREMENTS

E. C. AUCHTER, United States Department of Agriculture

In order to meet market requirements it is necessary that we
determine within limits what the market requirements are
In recent years the market demands fruit of good size and
quaUty. This immediately raises the question of, what is

quality?

If we ask the physiological chemist, he will begin to tell
us of the percentage of sugars and other ingredients which go
to make up the solid part of the f ruit^and he talks of qualities
in terms of those sugars. If you talk to some other people,
they will say color; and in connection with color, it is rather
interesting to relate an experience that one of our prominent
state horticulturists had not very long ago. He got together
twelve varieties of apples, pared them and sliced them, and
then he had a group of members of the State Horticultural
Society taste a slice of this one and a slice of this one, and so on,
and rate those by number, whether they thought No. 8 was
best or No. 6 was best or No. 3 was best. The surprising part
of that was that Ben Davis got just as many first places as
Mcintosh.

In other words, it looks as if possibly quality is something
like beauty— skin deep. However, the market says that they
want size, color and quality, and they want them cheap. Isn t
that about what the buyers say? Then it is our problem to
produce that kind of fruit for them that we can make money on.

Are you growers getting a high percentage of high quality
fruit? I asked some of the growers a question. I saw some

— 62 —

«

SHIP IN

Wooden Barrels

Ideal Containers for Packing Orchard Products.
Insure Protection in Packing, Transit and Storage.

THE ASSOCIATED

COOPERAGE INDUSTRIES

OF AMEBIOA

St. Louis

Missouri

-'A

BUGS or BLIGHT

Oo Down When a

PEERLESS DUST GUN

is Properly Loaded

It wiU reach them anywhere from the ground to twenty feet
in the air. Flies, worms, eggs or beetles are all aUKe

to the
PEBRUBSS— it gets them.
Ask your neighbor about it. .
Write for circular and teU us where you saw this

PEERLESS DUST GUN CO.

BlOO St. Clair Avenue OUBVELAND, OHIO

Patronize Out Advertisers

— 63 —

)

i \

very highly colored fruit out here, very nice looking, and I said,
^'Is that a fair sample of the fruit you grow here?''
^^Oh, yes,'' they said, **that is the way we grow iV
I suppose you are famiUar with the bulletin which was pub-
Ushed at the Michigan Station by Mr. Gaston and other mem-
bers of the Horticultural Department. It was entitled. Why a
Cull Apple is a Cull." Mr. Gaston visited certain cooperatives
and other packing houses and found how different varieties
graded out that went through the packing house. Their figures
ran something like this:

Baldwin —

Only 38 per cent packed out
A grade, 37.6 per cent B grade,
and 24.4 per cent culls.

Northern Spy —

42 per cent A grade,
32 per cent B grade,
26 per cent culls,

and so on down the Une, you can go until you get to the Mcintosh.
That surprised me, too, because Mcintosh apparently packed
out 76 per cent A grade. That is one we no mally think is
rather hard to get. It was 18 per cent B grade and 6 per cent

cull. . . ,

But if we averaged all these varieties, 56 per cent of the apples
going through these packing houses are A grade. That is all.
So only about half the apples that they are growing are up to

A grade.

Fortunately they also determined why many of these fruits
went into B grade and cull grade, and they found something

like this*

When they came to examine the B grade apples to see why
they were B grade, 41 per cent of hose apples were there because
they were under sized; 24 per cent were there because of limb
rubs, mechanical bruises; and 15 per cent were there because
of handling bruises, carelessness in picking, dropping into pails,
dumping out into grading tables, letting drop in the package
and general rough handling.

I don't mean to quote these figures to show that Michigan
is growing any poorer grade fruit than any other state. As a
matter of fact, the figures from certain other states, if I would
quote them, look a little worse than these figures. It is, however,
a serious problem that all fruit growers must meet if they are
going to compete with the greatly increased total production
in the United States. The challenge is up to all to produce a
higher percentage of high quality fruit.

The next hard part about this is that we have to approach
if possible an annual production of fruit. We not only want
larger crops per tree, but we want more nearly annual crops
year in and year out, if we are going to stay in the fruit business.
The problem is that much harder.

— 64—-

^fi

Observations in many states over the country— and I have
just had the privilege of visiting nearly every fruit section in
the country during the past year— show pretty clearly there is
a close association between good tree growth and an approach
to annual bearing of high quality fruit. That is, if you attempt
to correlate factors here and there throughout the country you
will be impressed with the fact that the man who is getting the
best yields and the best quality fruit is that man who is getting
the best growth of trees. In other words, growth that is good
is correlated with better crops. , t u u •

I mean by growth, good growth of terminals. In the bearing
orchard get not two or three inches of terminal growth but
twelve or fourteen inches. I mean good growth of fruit spurs.
I mean good growth of trunks and main limbs— all those factors.
What are some of the things that get those good growth con-
ditions? It seems to me that the three outstanding factors are
water, carbohydrates and mineral nutrients, and of the mineral
nutrients I would emphasize nitrogen.

Now let's discuss very briefly this subject of carbohydrates
and where it fits in. We all know that carbon dioxide from the
air enters a leaf and is there mixed with some of this water,
and we get the first carbon compound started, which builds up
eventually into carbohydrates (starches and sugars). I some-
times wish we had to pay for carbon dioxide that is up here in
the air. I think if we did, we would appreciate more than ever
the importance of keeping a healthy foliage on the trees. In
other words, regardless of the amount of water, regardless of
the amount of nitrogen that comes in down here, our trees are
not going to grow and are not going to have fruit bud formation
and desirable crops unless we have carbohydrates to mix with
these materials, and they are formed by the leaves.

The thing which makes increase in trunk circumference,
increase in main limb, increase in fruit spur length, terminal
growth, fruit bud formation, size of apples— all those things we
have to credit to carbohydrates They must be present either
as a direct aid in building tree growth or in combining with
mineral nutrients which come up through the roots to develop
other various organic compounds, proteins, fats, and so on,
which eventually make up the organism we call an apple tree
that we are trying to adjust to bear regular and good crops.
So carbohydrates are very important.

Some very interesting work has been done at Washington at
the Government Experimental Station, and also m the State of
Washington last year, which indicates very clearly the value ot
leaf area from the standpoint of getting size and color in apples.
Very briefly, it runs something like this: With ten leaves per
apple— taking a large limb on the tree and girdling it here so the
carbohydrates can't move down, so you hold them above the
ring, then by either removing leaves or apples (whichever is
necessary) so you will have left ten leaves per apple, and another
group of apples with twenty leaves per apple, another with

— 65 —

thirty leaves per apple and another with fifty leaves per apple,
you will find something Hke this. Those apples with only ten
leaves are very small. If you pack them in boxes they will run
something like 200 or more apples to the box. The apples with
20 leaves come up pretty well around 150 per box. The group
with thirty leaves per apple make around 110 to 113 apples
per box. And if you get up to fifty leaves per apple, only about
eighty-eight apples are needed to fill a box. In other words,
the amount of leaf area that each apple on the tree can draw
upon is a vital factor in developing size of apples. The sugar
content of these apples also increased with the increase in leaf
area per apple. Apples with ten leaves had an average of
9.8% sugar, apples with twenty leaves an average of 11.2%
sugar, apples with thirty leaves an average of 11.5% sugar,
apples with fifty leaves an average of 13.2% sugar. The color
of the fruit was improved with an increase in leaf area. Thus
apples with ten leaves had an average of 23% of their surface
colored with solid red. Apples with twenty leaves had 26%
of their surface colo ed. With thirty leaves the apples were
42% colored, and with fifty leaves 51% colored. It can thus
be seen that the size, color and quality of the fruit is greatly
improved if they are supplied by a sufficient healthy leaf area.

Next is water. I wonder if we have ever realized how eally
important water is in the production of apples. Let's digress
just a minute and see where water does fit in. To begin with,
all these materials down here in the soil must be dissolved before
they are taken in, before they are absorbed by the roots. All
right, water is important; it dissolves these mineral nutrients.

After the water dissolves these materials, in order for them to
get into the roots, there must be a medium through which they
pass. If it was perfectly dry, the diffusion of these materials
into the roots would be relatively slow and small, so water is a
medium through which these m neral nutrients diffuse into the
roots.

After we get water in, it comes up on through the tree, and
it finally gets up here into the leaves and there this water com-
bines with the carbon dioxide and makes the first start of carbo-
hydrates. Therefore, water is very important to make this first
start of carbohydrates.

After that the carbohydrates begin to move back down through
the tree, down through our main limbs, up into the spurs, into
the fruit buds, into the apples. Water is necessary for that
transportation.

With a yield of five bushels per tree and forty trees per acre,
we obtain 200 bushels. And a bushel at 50 pounds, to make it
easy figuring, is 10,000 pounds of fruit coming off per acre.
Apples are about 85 per cent water. There is about 8500 pounds
of water.

Then some of the plant physiologists have figured out the
amount of water transpired from a middle sized tree with normal
leaf area throughout the year and figured out this: It takes

— 66 —

-t(^t

WHAT

HAPPENED

WHEN THE

SPRAY RIG

BROKE

Following if a few of th« complete
lin* of BEX Spray materials:

REX Lime and Sulphur Solution

REX Dry Lime Sulphur

REX Oil Emulsion

REX Bordo Mixture

REX 85-15 Sulphur-Lead Mixture

REX 90-10 Sulphur-Lead iDust Mix
ture

REX Copper Dusts

REX Sul-Powder (substitute for
self-boiled Lime Sulphur)

REX Calcium Arsenate

40% Nicotine Sulphate

Sulphur

THE rig was full of material
— ready to spray — some-
thing happened, — did they
drain the tank? Read the
letter:

"I hired an outfit to do my spraying
this year; a man in our town bought
a sprayer for that purpose, and is
kept quite busy. While in our or-
chard he broke down with a tank
full of material. He said to me: 'We
will have to empty the tank as the
lead will settle and clog the pipes.'
I told him not to worry, but just go
ahead as this was different lead. He
was greatly surprised to find that we
had no trouble with settling in the
tank."

TWO WORDS TELL THE STOBY

"Different Lead." That in two words
tells the story ofNuREXFORM.
Different because it does not settle.
Different because it does not wash
or blow off. Different because it
covers completely. Different because
it gives better control. Different be-
cause it does not clog screens or noz-
zles.

SEND FOR CIROXTLARS

You really cannot afford to go into
another spraying season without at
least investigating NuREXFORM
and other Rex Spray materials. Send
for circulars. Address

THE TOLEDO REX SPRAT CO.
Toledo, Ohio

Nu^EXFORM

IMPROVED ^ DRY ARSENATE OF LEAD

Patronize Our Advertisers

— 67

from fifteen to twenty tons of water per year for one middle-aged
bearing apple tree, producing a pretty good crop. From fifteen
to twenty tons of water transpired through the leaves and is
carried on through.

I think those points probably are sufficient to warrant this
statement here that I believe water is an important factor in
tree growing. Maintaining the organic matter content of the
soil will greatly improve its physical condition and water holding
capacity. Especial attention should be given to increasing the
organic matter of all orchard soils.

Finally, nitrogen, and suffice it to say that in many fruit
sections throughout this country, where they have gotten a
response from adding fertilizers, in general, it has been from
some form of quickly available nitrogen. Only here and there
have phosphorus and potassium been directly beneficial to tree
growth, although they have been beneficial to cover crop growth
or sod if you have a permanent sod. But generally speaking,
wherever mineral nutrients are needed, nitrogen is the one which
has resulted in increased growth and increased yields. There-
fore, all three, water, carbohydrates, and nitrogen are pretty
important.

As fruit growers, we are interested in these subjects — pruning,
soil management, fertilization, spraying and thinning, and of
course a great many more. I can go on down the line with
pollination, proper varieties, proper size, and all those things.
But these are the practices we have to contend with in the bear-
ing orchards.

Under soil management we have two main group — sod mulch
versus clean cultivation and cover crops. We have variations
of these groups, but they are the two main ones. Which one
will we use? The thing to use is the one that will get the growth
of the tree and the fruit produced. If you can get it by leaving
them in sod and adding enough fertilization, enough additional
nitrogen, and maybe some phosphorus to get a good heavy
growth of sod, so that it can be cut and left as a mulch, and if
under those conditions the e is sufficient water and nitrogen to
make as good tree growth as that secured from a system of clean
cultivation and cover crops that is all right. Leave it in sod.
But if you can't do it,^ — if you are in light soils where sod is
often detrimental, — generally speaking over this country, where
you can't get a good bulk of organic matter — the chances are
you will want to plow such soils and get in cover crops from a
nitrogen and water standpoint. Those are the two things we
are after, and whatever we have to do to get them, let's do it.

Under fertilization, it is only a matter of adding more nitrogen
or less nitrogen. If you grow cover crops or a sod mulch, you
have to add some fertilizer to grow that particular grass.

That brings us to thinning. Where does thinning come into
the scheme? We thin fruit in order to get good size and color.
How does thinning give us good size and color? We decrease
the number of apples per tree and we have more water per apple

— 68 —

^#

left naturally, but the more thinning that we have, in my esti-
mation, the more carbohydrates per apple we have left.

Proper pruning of old trees will be of great value in increasing
the size and color of fruit. In general the pruning should consist
of a large number of small cuts equally distributed throughout
the tree. It must be remembered that the influence of the
pruning is mostly in the immediate vicinity of the cut. As a
result, if the pruning is distributed equally throughout the tree
all parts of the tree will receive a certain amount of stimulation.
This pruning together with good fertilization and soil manage-
ment should result in more water and nitrogen for each of the
fruits as well as an increased leaf area per fruit. As a result,
the individual fruits should be larger and better colored. By
the detailed pruning sunlight will, of course, be better distri-
buted throughout the tree. Thorough spraying should be done
in order to keep a healthy, vigorous leaf area.

In summarizing then — If it is important to produce fruit of
good size and color, it is necessary that we perform all orchard
practices to the best of our knowledge. This means that we
should give thorough and careful study to the proper selection
of soil and site, having in mind both air and water drainage
at the time of planting the orchard. We should also make pro-
vision for the proper cross-pollination of the different varieties.
The trees should be pruned during the first couple of years in
such a way that the main branches will have from six to ten
inches of space between them if possible. This should allow for
a freer movement of water and mineral nutrients and carbohy-
drates between the leaves and roots than if the branches came
out all together at one place on the trunk. Careful attention
should be given to the new varieties of fruits which are being
planted and especially to the red bud sports where they exist.
The best methods of soil management, pruning, thinning, spray-
ing and fertilization should be used. By this means excellent
tree growth and healthy foliage should be produced, and the
best conditions for the conservation of moisture and the pro-
duction of nitrogen and carbohydrate foods should exist. Under
such conditions a nearer approach to the annual production of
fruit of good size and high quality should result.

HORTICULTURAL OBSERVATIONS IN ENGLAND

J. H. KARNS, Ghambersburg, Pa.

I shall try to tell you something about the exporting of apples
to Europe, particularly to the English markets. The outstanding
thing about this business is the rough handling the apples
receive. When they are received on cars in Jersey City, the
barrels are put on two-wheeled carts and moved to the dock.
From here the barrels are hoisted in a rope sling by the ship and
lowered none too gently into the hold of the vessel where they
are stored in what is a rather warm temperature at first. When

— 69 —

they arrive in Liverpool they are again hoisted from the hold
and dropped to the dock where they are again loaded on cars
to be taken to the warehouse. Here distributors work on them
and make them ready for selling. This handUng is an argument
for the use of barrels for export for even though baskets may be
of the tub sort, they are nearly always broken. The European
market is turning away from baskets; they prefer to buy in

barrels.

The auction company now gets two barrels for samples out
of each load and hauls these to the auction room. Here they are
auctioned off. The purchaser is given an order from the auction
company and he goes to the warehouse for his apples. Again
the apples are loaded on trucks and sometimes ride from 50
to 100 miles in steam trucks much like a railroad train except
that they do not run on a track. Some are sold to wholesalers
who take them to various retail markets.

I went up to Covent Garden which is the largest market in
London. This is probably the most unique market in the world.
The streets are lined with push carts and all manner of produce
is offered for sale. Instead of the purchaser coming in and getting
his purchase, the material is carried to his cart outside by porters
who have to be tipped. This great market place was established
by the Duke of Bedford.

The City of London has many curb markets. Many of the
buildings are set back from the street to make way for these
markets. Produce from all parts of the world are sold here.
I can see no more economical way to get produce into the hands
of the customer than that used in London.

England is encouraging the importation of fruits from her
colonies and apples are arriving from Australia in greater num-
bers. This makes us look to our business in order to compete
with these new sources. South Arfica also contributes a lot
to the food supply of the British Isles. Vegetables are imported
from the Canary Islands. The peculiar thing about the markets
in London is that the people demand small uniform fruits and
vegetables, artistically packed. Small tomatoes, blood red, and
of the most uniform size are seen, — these are packed in cotton
while green and arrive in London in a ripe condition. Potatoes,
cucumbers, apples and all other fruits and vegetables are most
attractively packed for the market. These wicker baskets are
owned by the wholesaler and are charged for at the time of the
purchase. Certain days are set aside at which time the baskets
are returned and the deposit refunded.

I feel sure that we in America can learn a lot in economy in
marketing from the study of London markets. The British
Isles must import practically all of its foodstuff to feed the
millions of people. For this reason free trade has always been
practiced.

To compete with the British colonies who are exporting food
to the mother country, we must pack our apples and other
produce in such a way that it can be shipped and still withstand

— 70 —

^^iJ^

IT PAYS TO SPRAY

AND

The Better The Spray — The Better It Pays

It pays to use:

High Standard Arsenate of Ijead,

High Standard Lime Sulphur Solution,

High Standard 40% Nicotine Sulphate,

High Standard Spray Oil,

High Standard Calcium Arsenate,

High Standard 20% Bordo,

Oalso, The Perfect Potato and Truck Spray,

Pantox, The Triple Purpose Spray,

Sulpho Arsenate Dusts — ^Various Analysis,

Copper Dusts — ^Various Analysis,

Jersey Dry Mix,

Dry I«ime Sulphur.

Write for our descriptive catalog and prices before

placing your order.

Standard Chemical Works, Inc.

Offices: Beading, Pennsylvania
Factories: Womelsdorf, Pa. — ^Baltimore, Md. — ^Annville, Pa.

When Experts Say

Use Casein

Spread

//

reader

—That Means Kayso

When the experts and horticultural editors recommend
"casein spreader," "casein lime" or just "spreader," it is time
to think of KAYSO, the spray spreader and adhesive.

KAYSO makes the spray go farther.

KAYSO insures an even, all-over coverage that will not
wash off at the first rain or heavy dew.

KAYSO keeps the spray materials in suspension, so the
first and last of every spray is the same.

KAYSO is the perfect emulsion for every oil and spray.

KAYSO makes every spray more effective.
For more complete information write your local dealer, or

Golden State Sales Corporation

175 FRANKLIN STREET, NEW YORK CITY
EDWIN C. TYSON, Flora Dale, Pennsylvania, Distributor

Patronize Our Advertisers

— 71 —

the rough handUng which it must undergo before it reaches the
consumer. Only the barrel pack can be exported safely and I
feel that our growers need some instruction in the proper packing
of these barrels if they are to ship successfully.

CHERRY GROWING

FOSTER GROUP, Gardners, Pa.

In 1914 we planted 1050 Montmorency sour cherry trees, 20
feet apart. After three years of cropping the land between rows
we sowed it to crimson clover. We allowed this clover to
reseed then cut it down. This practice we followed for three
years The mice seemed to like this practice so well that we
were compelled to adopt clean cultivation. We are now following
this method with satisfactory results.

The trees began bearing at about five years and have been doing
very nicely ever since. As a fertilizer we are using four pounds
of nitrate of soda per tree plus barnyard manure. So far the
results have been satisfactory.

The first few years very little spraying was needed as we had
no leaf spot. W^hen the leaf spot first appeared we found more
spraying necessary. This we did or tried to do, only to learn our
lesson as well with leaf spot as apple scab. We learned that
instead of spraying we were only doing the job half. After we
learned to control the spot fairly well, we went to dusting in
the years 1926 and 1927. We dusted seven times each year.
In our experience with dust for cherries we found but one thing
favorable and that was that we had very few leaves left to bother
with in picking time.

I wish to state here that the northwest side of our orchard was
the first place that leaf spot appeared. This was on the highest
ground. We later learned that our source of infection was a few
old sweet cherry trees a short distance from our orchard.

We have adopted the following spraying schedule: First
spray just before the blossom buds open; second spray when
the petals are about off; third when shucks are three parts off;
fourth about ten days later; fifth when cherries are pinking;
sixth as soon as crop is harvested. We use lime sulphur, one
to forty in all the applications, using arsenate of lead in second,
third and fifth sprays.

We prune lightly every year, opening the centers of the trees.
This gives us a more uniform ripening.

We make two pickings, using eight quart buckets for the
picking. We pay our help by the bucket instead of by weight
as this saves time and labor.

Question: What price do you receive for your cherries?

Mr. Group: Six cents per pound.

— 72 —

^*i

THE PRODUCTION AND MARKETING OF QUALITY
FRUIT IN THE HARD COAL DISTRICT

ANDREW ABRACZINSKAS, Catawissa, Pa.

About the only thing left for me to say is to bear out some
of the things Mr. Funk has said regarding the pubUc's taste in
fruit. It has been my experience that telUng the truth about the
worth of a product has no effect on the buyer who is taken with
the color or attractiveness of the product.

For instance, my boys truck our produce into all of the hard
coal towns in our vicinity. In Mahanoy City we lost a very good
customer some time ago, because of her desire to purchase an
apple which looked good to her but which she did not like after
she had bought it. My boys stopped at this lady's house with
some Ben Davis apples on the truck. She said she wanted some
of these apples but the boys tried to persuade her to take some-
thing else as they felt she would not Uke the Ben Davis. How-
ever, she insisted that the wanted them. The next time the
boys came around she refused to buy any more apples because
she felt she had been cheated in the quality of the Ben Davis.
We tried to make it right with her by giving her either more
apples or her money back. However, she refused and we lost
a good customer.

In our orchards we spray from four corners. I myself go over the
trees to see there are no limbs missed. After the delayed dor-
mant we spray each week. When it comes to spraying in open
blossom we keep the poison out,— there should be a law for-
bidding fruit growers to put poison in a blossom spray. We aim
to trim our trees hard and we get good size in fruit. Our trees
are almost 100 percent clean from scab in about 70 acres.

I find the cause for water core to be overfeeding and over-
pruning. Baldwin spot appears mostly on overgrown apples.
Overgrown apples will always break down.

Question: What has been your experience with Early Mcin-
tosh?

Mr. Abraczinskas: I find they grow in bunches like Yellow
Transparent. This is one objection. Another is color and size.
I find in my section that Cortland is much Uke Ben Davis in
color and size, but the shape is off. About 30% of Cortland in
my section are misshapen.

GAP WAY PRODUCTS— THEIR PRODUCTION

AND MARKETING

WILLIAM M. GLEBE, Delaware Water Gap, Pa.

When I come before a group of growers like this, I feel rather
small, for I am only a small grower. I do feel, however, that
I have had some experience and that I have some business
principles which are good to observe regardless of whether
that business is large or small.

— 73 —

i

I was a city boy but had been brought up with a sympathetic
feeUng toward nature. When my health failed after many years
in the drug business, I chose gardening and fruit growing as a
means of expressing my love for nature. When I went to Dela-
ware Water Gap, I bought a small place with some fruit trees.
I believed there Would be a market there for scientifically grown
products.

The first thing I did was to impress upon my employees the
importance of playing absolutely square with the customer.
The first time a man misrepresented a product, he was fired;
that is still carried out to the letter. In the Pocono region, we
have 75,000 to 100,000 people each summer from all parts of
the country and these are people who know graded fruit and
vegetables. I have endeavored over the six years of my business
there to get our other local fruit and vegetable growers to see
this side of the work. A few have still not been won over.

When I took the place I was very near a nervous collapse.
I knew nothing about growing fruit or vegetables so I started in
to visit the growers' meetings to see what I could find out.
Then I decided to take up my proposition with the managers of
the large hotels,— I put the matter before them and asked for a
chance to supply them with fresh fruit and vegetables of the
first quality. I set a price on products. For instance, I asked
him if he would take all the lima beans graded to four in a pod
at one price. All those pods with two, three or five beans to a
pod were to be sold at a lower price. He told me to bring up my
products. From that I have built up a satisfactory market for
graded fruits and vegetables.

I find it very hard to persuade the older vegetable and fruit
growers to grade their products. But I do find great possibilities
in the younger generation whose desire seems to be to givfe the
very best possible products without in any way misrepresenting
their poorer grades to the customer.

THE BEHAVIOR OF CERTAIN VARIETIES OF PEACHES
AND APPLES IN BERKS COUNTY

SHELDON FUNK, Boyertown, Pa.

These remarks apply to my experience in Berks County,
for I want you to bear in mind that my ideas and those of other
growers may be entirely different, since when it comes to a
discussion of varieties, there is a difference of opinion. If we
could take up the discussion in five or six years from now we
would find some other changes; we do not think the same of
varieties after five or six years.

Two varieties in particular in which I have been disappointed
are Summer Rambo and Smokehouse. We have had some trouble ;
what it is I cannot tell, — it seems to be a physiological break-
down. The largest apples look as though they had small pox,
always at the blossom end. After they have been in storage a

— 74 —

^HXlni

%.'

The Place to Buy Your

Spray Material

s

«i

«i

Nineteen years in the Insecticide business. We Manu-
facture and distribute a complete line, as follows:—

*Hy Grade" Lime Sulphur Solution

*Hy Grade" New Process OU — 90% Paraffine OU 10%
Special Soap (no water) Recommended by XJ. S.
Government

Nicotine Sulphate, 40% and 50% Nicotine. We special-
ize in this material. Special price

Paradichlorobenzene (Peach Borer destroyer)

Sulphur (aU grades)

Arsenate of Lead

Calcium Arsenate

Bordeaux Mixture

Casein Spreader

Copper Sulphate (Blue Stone) all grades

Lime, high Calcium, especially fine for spraying pur-
poses, approved

0x0 Bordeaux

Koppers' Flotation Sulphur, for Summer Spray

SULPHUR AND COPPER DUSTS
(all standard formulas)

Largest Manufacturers of "HY-GRADE LIME - SULPHUR
SOLUTION and NEW PROCESS OIL SPRAY and SUL-
PHUR GRINDERS in the middle East.

Large distributors of NITRATE OF SODA, carlots direct to
growers from Eastern Ports, less than carlots from either
of our Plants.

Before purchasing elsewhere, get our prices

Hagerstown Spray Southern Chemical
Material Co. Company

Hagerstown Sulphur Works
Hagerstown, Md.

Winchester, Va.

Patronize Our Advertisers

— 75

II

lit:

II

I

short time, we find them unmarketable. Last year we had
this trouble in a wet season; this year in a dry season: last year
I thought Brooks spot had something to do with it, but this
year it was the same as last year. I shall have to sell those two
varieties as fast as they are picked, for I can not tell whether
or not I will again have the same trouble.

I will not plant Winter Banana. They are beautiful looking
but our market men say they cannot sell them, — one man says
he cannot get as much for them as for Gano. The market
demands a red apple and I am through planting yellow apples;
I do not believe any one can afford to grow yellow apples, at
least not more than one or two trees.

We have been hearing a lot about two or three new varieties.
The first is Cortland. While I have not fruited this sufficiently
to tell much about it, it does not look so good. Pearly Mcintosh
looks hke a fair quahty apple; it might be as good as Red Astra-
chan. I do not expect to plant more Early Mcintosh. It tastes
all right but probably will not sell. It ripens about the same as
Duchess. The third variety is Golden Delicious. I had a few
apples, all small because of dry weather. One thing about
Golden Delicious is that too many of us have been picking too
green, — Golden DeUcious will stick to the tree. I prefer cold
storage for this apple and like it better than any other yellow
apple.

You will note that our nurserymen have not been paying as
much attention to new varieties as to bud sports. They have
been for red bud sports and I beheve that is the way we are
going to get our new varieties. If we can make Delicious or
Rome redder, that is the thing to do.

In the Delicious sports, we have Starking and Richared. I
have not fruited Richared but have a few Starking; Richared
looks very much better than Starking as far as growth is con-
cerned. As for Stayman and Staymared, I believe that if we
handle Stayman correctly, we can get pretty nearly as much
color as desirable. We sometimes treat a dozen varieties alike
and forget they are different. Stayman has to be handled better
because it demands that the tree be kept in better condition
in order to get satisfactory color. Normally, we have plenty of
color. If we can get something that will color up earlier than
Stayman, it will be a good thing.

Then we have from Rome, Dark Red Rome and Gallia Beauty.
Gallia Beauty will run a little larger than Dark Red Rome but
the latter Red Rome is darker in color. Most of us have a few
Red Stark ; those who are not growing it should try it out — I
would not like to get along without it. At present, this variety
cannot be filled by any other in my section.

Another apple not grown enough in Pennsylvania is Senator
or Oliver. I believe it deserves a place in our orchards. It is
something like York in that it grows a heavy crop every other
year. It is a beautiful red.

— 76 —

m

When we come to talk of peaches, it is remarkable that with
all the peach varieties we have today, from a commercial stand-
point there is only one outstanding peach. After you have said
Elberta you are nearly done. What shall be done with Georgia
Belle, Carman and Hiley? J. H. Hale is going down hill fast.
I find that our market discriminates against Hale. I do not
care for Hale, because it will not grow as well nor stand up as
well as the new varieties put out by New Jersey. I have grown
Cumberland for several years; it is a very good white peach
ripening before Carman, a free stone, runs quite large, a good
cropper with very good color and quite hardy in bud and just
as good in quality as Georgia Belle. Pioneer is much Uke Cum-
berland but not as good. EcUpse is a splendid yellow peach.
It is a seedling of Georgia Belle, looks like Slappey but is better.
It is fine for the home market.

I know nothing about Golden Jubilee. South Haven should
be used more in Pennsylvania. It comes in along with Hiley
and Belle. It looks like Hale but is better, has fine quality,
good grower and sells well but will not hold up long because of
lack of color. It is a good peach; large size and hardy in bud
The Wilma peach will not color up as early as Elberta, and
because of its late season, we cannot put the proper finish on it.
It is a question in my mind as to whether I will ever get a variety
as good or better than Elberta. We should have a sport which
will come in after Elberta and look like Elberta. In most Hale
plantings in Pennsylvania, you will find a peach that is not Hale
and is not Elberta. It is rounder than Hale and longer than
Elberta. It is a good peach and ripens just a little later.

About 75 to 90 percent of the so-called Shippers Late Red are
Hale. Red Bird is a good peach to sell but I do not say any-
thing about it for eating.

Question: What is the similarity between Hale and Shippers

Late Red?

Mr. Funk: When about half grown you will find it takes on
some of the quahties of the Hale. Shippers Late Red is some-
what longer, Uke an Elberta, but it has a little different color,—
a darker green. When ripe, the Shippers Late Red looks like a
very big Elberta. It ripens just a few days after Elberta.

Question: What is the best white peach in canning season?

Mr. Funk: If you have a demand for white peaches grow
Georgia Belle. If an earlier peach is desired, grow Cumberland.

LESSONS TO BE LEARNED FROM FRUIT GROWING
PRACTICES IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST

J. R. MAGNESS, Bureau of Plant Industry, U. S. D. A.

It is not my purpose in this discussion to attempt to advise
the Pennsylvania apple grower relative to his practices based
on the practices which are successful in the Pacific Northwest.
Climatic conditions, soil conditions, and particularly the con-
ditions of water supply, are so different that many of the prac-

— 77 —

i

tices successful in one district would not work equally well in
another. It is the purpose rather to point out some of the
outstanding features of apple production in the Pacific North-
west, and particularly in the State of Washington, for your
information.

It is desirable first of all to have a general idea of the con-
ditions under which fruit is grown in that section. The apple
districts of the Wenatchee and Yakima valleys have been
developed on reclaimed desert land. These districts are just
east of the Cascade range of mountains which crosses the states
of Oregon and Washington from north to south near the centers
of the states. Prevailing winds are westerly. West of the
Cascade Mountains rainfall is relatively heavy, while east of
the mountains it is very Hght, averaging approximately seven
inches per year in the fruit districts. Such rainfall as there is is
largely Umited to the winter months; consequently the orchards
are almost completely dependent upon irrigation water, which
is obtained primarily from the streams coming down out of the
mountains. These constitute a very dependable water supply
for most of the districts.

Before discussing orchard practices in detail it is desirable to
obtain a picture of the economic conditions under which these
orchardists are working. A splendid analysis of the economics
of apple growing in Washington has recently been completed
by Mr. Neil Johnson, formerly of the Washington Experiment
Station. The figures contained in this discussion are taken from
that analysis.

A survey of the conditions of 80 average apple orchards in the
Wenatchee district shows a total investment for land, buildings,
and equipment of approximately $1566.05 per acre. The interest
on the land investment of $1263.35 at six per cent is approxi-
mately $75.80 per acre per year. Interest, depreciation and
repairs on equipment, including power, fuel, etc., totals $57.48
per acre per year, while interest and depreciation on the buildings
totals $15.33, and on the irrigation system $7.28. The land and
water taxes on these 80 orchards average $32.50 per acre. These
include the taxes on the land and the cost of water delivered to
the orchard, but do not include cost of distributing and applying
the water. Insurance and miscellaneous overhead expense totals
$1.56 per acre per year.

Thus, the total fixed cost per acre, including interest on the land,
averages $190.19 annually. This amount does not vary in the
least with the amount of crop grown, but is a fixed annual cost
per acre for what might be considered generally ^'overhead
expenses. ^^

The total cultural materials used per season average $31.63
per acre. Of this total approximately $22.00 is spent for spray
materials and $9.00 for fertilizers.

The cultural labor cost, or the labor for carrying the orchard
up to harvest time averages $104.88 per acre. The labor was
divided as follows:

— 78 —

//

A Bushel Basket for Every Purpose'^

EXPORT TUB BUSHEL BASKETS
BENT BOTTOM BUSHEL BASKETS
B-Z-PAK (Loose Bottom) BUSHEL BASKETS
BOUND BOTTOM BUSHEL BASKETS
BENT BOTTOM V2 BUSHEL BASKETS

32 Qt. Hampers 16 Qt. Peach Baskets

48 Qt. Hampers 12 Qt. Climax Baskets

Hand Made and Machine-Made % Baskets

PEACH AND TOMATO ORATES
LETTUCE CRATES

CAULIFLOWER CRATES
CABBAGE CRATES

ASPARAGUS CRATES
BERRY CRATES

A COMPLETE LINE OF COBBUOATED CAPS,
LINERS AND PACKING EQUIPMENT

'^l

Jersey Package Co., Inc.

Main Office
BRIDGETON, N. J.

Phone 473

Patronize Our Advertisers

— 79 —

v^.

'!■■

Pruning and brush disposal $26.11

Cultivating 2.57

Irrigation and ditching 18.99

Spraying 13.62

Thinning - 31.36

Miscellaneous 12.23

The interest on operating expenses up to harvest averaged
$5.81 per acre. These material and labor costs also vary only
sUghtly with the amount of fruit produced per acre. With a
short crop the cost of spray materials and fertilizers will be
approximately the same as with a heavy crop, as will also the
labor cost for pruning, cultivating, irrigating, and spraying.
With a Ught set the cost of thinning will be appreciably reduced.
In general, however, the labor and materials per acre will cost
about as much with a light crop as with a heavy crop.

Thus, the total average cost of growing an acre of apples up to
harvest, including 6 per cent on the investment, was $331.43
in the Wenatchee district. Without interest on the investment
this total is $255.63. These costs vary only slightly with the
size of the crop on the tree.

The total harvesting and packing cost, which is largely based
on the amount of fruit, rather than on the acre basis, is approxi-
mately 55 cents per box. This includes materials and labor for
picking, hauling, cleaning, and packing, and interest on the
harvesting costs.

With these high production costs of more than $300 per acre
per year up to harvest, it is at once apparent that the cost per
packed box will be very high, unless yields are correspondingly
high. The average yields from these same orchards in 1926 was
495 boxes, in 1927 was 464 boxes, and in 1928 was 645 boxes.
Thus the three-year average was 535 boxes per acre, and the
average cost per box up to harvest time was 61.9 cents, this
figure including 6 per cent interest on investment, as well as
depreciation and all material and labor costs. Adding to this
the 55 cents per box harvesting and packing costs makes a grand
total for a packed box of $1.17.

This survey covers three years, 1926, 1927, and 1928. Two of
these years, as you will recall, namely, 1926 and 1928, were years
of large apple production and relatively low prices. The crop
of 1927, on the other hand, was short and prices were relatively
high. During 1926 on an average these 80 orchards lost approxi-
mately $89.00 per acre. In 1927 the average net profit, after
interest and all expenses had been paid, was $240.00 per acre,
while in 1928 the average net profit above interest and all
expense was $38.00 per acre. Thus on the basis of a three-year
average these orchards paid approximately $64.00 per acre
per year above interest and labor costs.

It is at once apparent that the only reason these orchards were
able to show a profitj with their high fixed production costSy
was because of the very high yields they were securing. With a
able to show a profit, with their high fixed production costs,

— 80 —

was because of the very high yields they were securing. With a
yield of more than 500 packed boxes per acre, the cost per box
was not excessive, even though the production costs per acre
were high. Production per acre has been tending to increase in
the orchards of Washington during recent years, rather than to
decrease. This has been due, at least in considerable part, to a
better understanding of certain orchard problems and more
intelligent orchard management.

It is particularly interesting to note the production per tree
by varieties in the orchards of the Wenatchee district covered in
this survey. Of the important commercial varieties Rome
Beauty leads, with an average of 9.9 packed boxes per tree,
followed in order by Delicious with 9.1 boxes, Jonathan, 8.6
boxes, Winesap, 8.5 boxes, Stayman Winesap, 8.3 boxes, and
Yellow Newton 7.0 boxes. All of these leading varieties bear
regularly in the well managed orchards. The high average
yields are obtained by uniform moderate production per tree,
rather than by extremely heavy production on certain trees in
certain years.
Orchard Con itions Associated with Uniform Production

All of the c .'chards having good production records have a
growth condition which to many eastern orchardists would seem
excessive I know of no highly productive orchards in the
Pacific Northwest where the average growth of the main termi-
nals is less than 10 to 15 inches per year. This vigorous growth
condition in the main branches is associated with similarly
strong growth throughout the spur system of the tree. This
strong growth results in an extensive leaf system, since the
number and size of leaves depend largely upon the amount of
growth the tree makes.

The question will at once be asked, ^^How are such growth
conditions maintained?'^ In the first place, the orchards receive
a minimum of cultivation y although practically all receive a
discing once a year. Alfalfa is planted in most of the orchards.
This alfalfa is allowed to grow through the season, becoming
well matted down by harvest time, so it does not seriously
interfere with harvest operations. Generally it is allowed to
lie on the ground over winter and is disced in the spring
prior to the start of growth of the trees. This spring discing has
a two-fold effect. In the first place it incorporates the organic
matter into the soil where it is probably more available to the
tree roots than if left on top. In the second place, and probably
more important, it checks the growth of the alfalfa and very
largely eliminates competition between the cover crop and the
tree, particularly of nitrogen, during the period when the tree
is starting into growth. The elimination of competition at this
time probably results in better growth in the tree and a better
set of fruit and a greater total of foliage.

Not only is a large foliage system developed in these trees,
but, due to the irrigation practice, sufficient moisture is available
in most of the orchards to keep the foliage functioning at the

— 81 —

It

II

■ t

maximum rate, throughout the season. As was pomted out m the
preceding paper, by E. C. Auchter when the water supply be-
comes depleted the pores, or stomata, of the leaves through which
the carbon dioxide enters, remain closed through most of the day,
and this is reflected in a slowing down in the growth rate of the
fruit, due to decreased leaf function. Control of the water supply
and the availability of sufficient moisture through the season to
keep the leaves functioning at the maximum are undoubtedly
very important factors in the uniformity of production which is

obtained. . . .,

So far as fertiUzation is concerned, the program is very similar
to that in most eastern districts. Nitrogen is the outstanding
form of fertiUzer applied. In addition to the nitrogen supplied
by the legume cover crop, several pounds per tree of some form
of nitrogen fertiUzer is usually applied. These applications are
generally made in the late fall so that they will be carried into
the soil by winter rains. Some growers give an additional light
application of nitrogenous fertilizer in mid-summer, applying
it in the irrigation ditches. Soils of the Pacific Northwest are
naturally low in nitrogen, while most of them are relatively
high in potash and phosphorus. Under these conditions nitrogen
has been outstanding in its benefits.

Equally important with the growth conditions in the tree in
obtaining uniformity of production and size and quaUty in the
fruit produced is the firuit thinning practice in western orchards.
The commercial orchards in Washington are generally thinned
far more heavily than are the eastern orchards. As also noted
from the cost summary, western orchardists spend an average
of more than $30.00 per acre per year for thinning. This
reduces the amount of fruit carried by the tree to the point
where there is sufficient leaf area to grow large sized, high quality
fruit. In thinning operations all the fruits that are marred or
blemished in any way are removed from the tree, so that a good
thinning program very greatly reduces the number of cull or low
grade apples. In addition, under western conditions, the con-
sistent thinning program is undoubtedly an extremely important
factor in securing regularity of production. Orchards which
carry an extremely heavy crop of fruit through one season almost
invariably have a light crop the following season in the west as
in the east. Coupled with the extremely vigorous growth con-
ditions in the trees, thinning apparently is a very important
factor in maintaining uniformity of production.

Many other factors in fruit production under Pacific North-
west conditions could be mentioned. For example, the spray
program. Stationary spray plants are used almost exclusively.
Due to the dry conditions fungus diseases are a relatively minor
factor, but the fight against insects, particularly codUng moth,
is a very hard one. Red spider and aphis are also very serious
some seasons. The industry in the west, as in the east, is con-
stantly facing new problems. At the present time, however,
the orchardist who has good varieties, including at least 50 per

— 82 —

Bean Quality Is Not
Questioned

▼

For years Bean equipment has been the standard by
which all similar machines have been judged. Growers ex-
pect to get the best when they buy from Bean because it has
always been the best and has an earned reputation for low-
est cost results.

Bean is in a better position this year to take care of
your requirements. Besides a complete line of spraying and
dusting equipment for both orchards and crops they now
offer complete fruit washing equipment, sorting and grading
machines and fruit wipers.

This tells the grower that he can depend upon the same
high class product and treatment on his other equipment as
he has been getting from Bean on his spraying and dusting
machines.

We believe you will be interested in having the latest
literature on all of these items. It wiU be gladly sent to
you upon request without obligation, just mention this maga-
zine when you inquire.

John Bean Manufacturins Co.

Division Food Machinery Corporation

LANSINO, MICH. SAN JOSE, CAUF.

J

Patronize Our Advertisers

^83 —

M'

li

»i

cent of his acreage in Delicious and Winesap, who has good soil
and dependable water supply, and who uses the best production
methods apparently has a business enterprise which is on a sound
economic basis.

PRUNING APPLE TREES IN NEW YORK STATE

L. H. McDANIELS, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York

It is with some misgivings that I talk with a group of Pennsyl-
vania fruit growers on the subject of pruning. This is in part
because in spite of many years of experimental and practical
work we know relatively Uttle about pruning, and in part because
it is always risky to try to apply the results of experience gained
in one region to the practice of another locality. However, in
looking over the orchards of this state I find that trees grow in
about the same way that they grow in New York, that they
break down with overloads, get thick and bushy and tall with
age as they do elsewhere. It is probable, therefore, that what
is said may have some bearing on practice in your orchards.

Extensive experiments in the pruning of apple trees have been
going on at the New York State Experiment Station at Cornell
University for about 20 years. They were begun by Professor
W. H. Chandler at a time when the accepted practice throughout
New York State and generally throughout the East was heavy
pruning on trees of all ages. These early experiments which
dealt with trees 10 years of age and under showed very clearly
that even moderate pruning while the tree was young would in
most cases markedly reduce the yield of these trees and delay
the time when they would come into profitable bearing. The
yield on the little pruned trees up to the time of 10 years of age
was on the average about twice that of those which were pruned
sufficiently to give them a modertately open head or a modified
leader. These little pruned trees in the station orchard at ten
years of age in one year yielded as much and in many cases more
than the average total yield of trees 14 to 19 years of age over
a period of 3 years in Western New York. The results of Chan-
dler^s work have in general been confirmed by experimental
work in a number of states and I think it may be regarded as a
sound principle that heavy pruning while the tree is young will
delay profitable bearing and reduce early yields.

Since the publication of Chandler's work, another ten year's
data and experience have been accumulated in the same orchard
with the same trees and with trees of different ages planted
since. These have shown that although the principle stated
above is sound, there are other considerations which must be
taken into account in pruning the young tree to the best advan-
tage with relation to its later development. These deal first
of all with the formation of the framework or scaffold branches
of the young tree as it affects its ability to hold a crop without
breaking, and secondly with the ease of management in picking

— 84 —

M

and pruning practice as the trees get older. There are thus two
conflicting ideas — one that to prune the young tree will delay
profitable bearing and the other that at least some pruning of
the young tree is necessary.

It is my purpose to outline rather briefly the recommended
pruning practices that we of the experiment station at Cornell
endorse at the present time. In view of our experience and that
which is available from other stations, I realize full well that
these ideas may be modified somewhat in the future. However,
I believe the practices, particularly as they relate to young
trees, are fundamentally sound and are based on sufficient
experience to be valuable.

At the time of setting the young tree it is pruned to restore
the balance of root and top which has been destroyed in the
process of digging and storing the trees at the nursery. In the
process of digging the trees, many of the roots are cut away
so that it is a sound practice to reduce the top to compensate
for the roots thus removed. When 2-year trees are planted the
most vigorous upper branch may be chosen as the leader and
either one or two laterals selected from the other branches.
These two laterals should arise from the trunk on the side
opposite from the leader and preferably should be spaced 6 or
8 inches apart along the trunk. If, as is frequently the case,
there are not two suitably spaced laterals on the nursery tree
it is better to leave only one lateral. Other laterals may be
chosen higher up on the trunk as the tree grows. The question
as to whether or not the branches so left should be headed back
is one upon which there is difference of opinion. Professor
Oskamp at the Cornell station, however, has carried on experi-
ments to give information on this point. After setting several
hundred trees each year for five years in succession his work
indicates that although under good conditions of growth most
trees however pruned at planting will live and can eventually
be pruned to form a suitable framework, the most satisfactory
practice is to head the branches of the nursery tree about one-
third or one-fourth. The leader in this case should always be
left longer. This treatment applies to trees which have been dug
in the fall in the ordinary way and stored in cellars so that
practically all of the fiberous roots are useless. If trees are dug
in the spring and moved only a short distance heading is not so
necessary.

After trees are once set, for the next 8-12 years depending on
the variety, or until the tree attains sufficient size to produce a
crop of 5-6 bushels it is to the growers advantage to grow as
large a tree as possible. During this time the roots are con-
tinually extending into new soil and the top into space. Under
these circumstances the tree is able to use all available food
material in making new growth. It is not generally realized by
orchardists that only a very small percentage of the bulk of a
tree comes from the soil. If growing apple tree is analyzed it
would be found that about 50% of it is water. Of the solid

— 86 —

t

material left only about one or two percent comes directly from
the soil. This with the exception of nitrogen is represented by
the ash which is left when the tree is burned. All of the rest of
the material is made up from the sugars and starches that are
manufactured in the leaves. During this period of rapid growth,
therefore, it is of the greatest importance to maintain as large
a leaf surface as possible. Under these conditions every bit of
pruning that is done tends to reduce the leaf surface and hence
makes the tree smaller than it otherwise would have been had
it not been pruned. However, as stated earlier, during these
first years that the tree is in the orchard it is necessary to start
a strong framework of main branches. It is advisable, there-
fore, to prune the tree bearing in mind, however, that as httle
as possible should be cut off.

In this early pruning it is essential to have in mind the princi-
ples involved in building a strong framework. Aniong the
important considerations are first, that crotches made up of
branches of equal size are fundamentally weak. This is a fact
than can be experimentally demonstrated without ditncuity.
Second, crotches in which the branches make narrow angles
with the trunk are weak for the reason that in a narrow angle
the woody material is not built up with sufficient rapidity to
prevent the bark on the trunk and the side branch from coming
together. Third, more than two side branches coming off the
leader at the same level are a distinct disadvantage m that by
the rapid growth of these the leader may be cut off from the
source of water and nutrients coming from the roots. To state
it in another way, in pruning young tree, the grower should avoid
equal crotches, avoid narrow angles between the trunk and main
branches and allow only two, preferably only one branch to
come off the leader at the same level. Any side branches on the
main branches within 18 inches of the trunk are likely to cause
trouble and should be removed as soon as they appear.

To accomplish these ends, the grower may be justified in
pruning rather severely following the second, third, and fourth
growing seasons. By this time the tree should have a well
defined leader and two or three other side branches at different
levels distributed around the trunk. With a tree m this con-
dition it is often possible to keep a relative balance between the
different branches with little pruning. In fact, with the excep-
tion of the removal of water sprouts little or no pruning should
be necessary until the tree attains sufficient size to bear a crop
of several bushels. Naturally the grower must not altogether
neglect his trees during these years. On the other hand it is
neither necessary or desirable to cut out small twigs and branches
that cross and interfere in the center of the tree. These small
branches are the first to bear fruit and with trees under ten
years of age are usually not shaded out sufficiently to render
them weak and unfruitful. All too often the grower will seriously
cut down his early yields by thinning out his trees at this early
bearing stage. This is particularly true with a variety hke

— 86 —

R. W. DOEBLER

CLETRAC DISTRIBUTOR

m

Agent for

Contractors Equipment

TURBOTVILLE, PENNA.

Patronize Our Advertisers

— 87 —

!l ii

£

ilii

ll'ii

f

I

IM

the Northern Spy which has an upright growth habit. This
variety does not fruit until the spurs become 4 or 5 years old.
Before bearing any fruit the appearance of the tree may be
decidedly thick, so much so, in fact, that the grower is tempted
to give it a good thinning out. Pruning under such circumstances
removes the only twigs and branches that could possibly bear
fruit at that age and hence the yields are greatly reduced.
Throughout western New York the Northern Spy variety has
been very late in coming into bearing and has given light yields
during its early years in the orchard. This may of course be in
part due to a lack of cross-pollination of this self-sterile variety
or other environmental causes. On the other hand, little pruned
trees in the orchards at Cornell have begun to yield well at 7
or 8 years of age and at 17 are second only to Mcintosh in
average annual yield.

Whatever the effect of pruning may be, in dwarfing the growth
or reducing the yield of trees while they are young, the time
comes in the development of all trees when pruning can be done
without materially reducing the yields. This time comes at
different ages with different varieties. With a variety like
Wealthy it will be a number of years sooner than with a variety
like Northern Spy. At this time the tree has become very spurry
and the fruit spurs in the center are beginning to be shaded out
so that they become weak and unfruitful. At this stage a
general thinning out of the top may be done without greatly
decreasing the yields. In doing this care should be taken not
to cut branches from the center or leader of the tree but to
accomplish thinning so far as possible by pruning the lateral
scaffold branches. At this time also attention should be given
to the formation of the secondary scaffold several feet above the
lower main scaffold branches. The same principles involved
in crotch structure of the young tree are applicable here also.
From this time on until the trees occupy nearly all of the space
allotted to them in the orchard pruning should be of such a
nature as to develop the framework of the tree and to protect
the permanent branches by thinning out through the tops.
Very little heading back is desirable in this stage of the tree's
development unless the tree gets taller than is desired. The
grower in each case and with each variety must decide how tall
he desires his tree to become and plan for shortening back the
upper branches to keep them within bounds. In thus lowering
the tops the branches which tend to grow vertically should be cut
back to strong lateral branches. With most varieties it is pos-
sible to keep the trees sufficiently low so that the fruit can be
picked with a 20-22 foot ladder. Some varieties like Wealthy
can be kept even lower.

When trees have reached their full size and occupy all of the
space the principles involved in pruning become somewhat
different. With such mature trees it is not possible for their
tops or roots to extend into new territory. The number of
growing points on the top, however, tends to increase from year

— 88 —

M,

to year. This means that greater demands are being made on
the root system which has no means of further development
with the result that water and nutrients supplied by the root
system are not sufficient to mature fruit of desirable size all
over the tree. Pruning of such mature trees may well be of a
detailed nature which thins out the head with small cuts and
which tends to shorten back branches which are growing too
high or spreading too wide.

As a matter of fact as compared with the experimental work
done on young trees, we may have very Uttle available data on
the pruning of mature trees. Variations in yield and growth
due to stock and soil differences are often greater than those
produced by any pruning treatment. In experiments in western
New York the yield records on 25-year old trees were taken for a
period of 5 years in order to determine the normal yields of
these trees before attempting any pruning. Such records are
necessary because trees in the orchard although they look
exactly aUke do not perform equally well. These trees have now
been pruned— some light and some heavy, for a period of 5
years. Results so far indicate that with these trees there can be
no question of the advantage of pruning from the standpoint
of the mechanics of orcharding. Thinning out the head of the
tree permits more thorough spraying and hence a better control
of pests and diseases and also makes picking easier. Shortening
back of the tops is of value in keeping trees low and thmnmg
out the top to protect the lower branches is of value. Further
than this the effects of pruning have not been very marked.
It is interesting to note, however, that removing as much as one-
third of the growing points has not decreased the yield of the
pruned trees as compared to those Uttle pruned and pruning
has in general increased the size of the fruit though not as much
as might be expected. Heavy pruning of this type should not
be done unless the trees are in a vigorously growing condition.
Pruning away the more vigorous wood from a weak tree is
likely to reduce yields markedly and may lead to severe winter
injury.

To recapitulate, the life of the tree may be divided into several
periods. First, the period of rapid growth when increase in
size is the most important consideration. During this period
the tree should be pruned only as much as is necessary to estab-
lish the framework of scaffold branches. This period of little
pruning should extend through the early bearing years until
the growth becomes spurry and the spurs in the center begin to
be shaded out. At the beginning of this second period even
rather heavy pruning can be done without reducing yields
seriously. Such pruning should aim to. further shape the tree
by giving attention to both the main branches and the secondary
scaffold and to thin out the tops with the purpose of invigorating
the spur system. In the third or mature stage the tops of the
trees may be lowered to facilitate picking and other orchard
practices and the smaller branches thinned out usually with

— 89 —

;i

■i I

tl

r' 1

»

small cuts to protect the branches below. At this time the
trees will occupy all the space available for roots and tops and
the pruning of the top should aim to keep vigorous bearing
wood throughout the tree.

In pruning his trees the grower must always bear in mind that
pruning is not an exact practice than can be reduced to rule of
thumb methods. In most cases the same end result may be
attained in a number of different ways and in many instances
the response of the tree will not be just what was expected.
Varieties differ greatly in their growth and fruiting habits so
that the grower must adapt his practice to the variety. The
tree is a living thing and all living things are variable beyond our
ability to predict the exact response. However, there is suffi-
cient evidence behind the recommendations given above to
make them useful as a guide in the practice of pruning.

THE POLLINATION PROBLEM

L. H. McDANIELS, Ck>rnen University, Ithaca, New York

The problem of cross-pollination in the orchards of the Eastern
United States is not a new one. Thirty years ago M. B. Waite,
now of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, and S. W. Fletcher,
now Professor of Horticulture at the Pennsylvania State College,
demonstrated the necessity of provision for cross-pollination,
particularly in pear orchards. Since then many workers at the
experiment stations have studied the subject. The problem,
however, has been one of increasing importance during the last
ten years due to changing conditions. With the planting of large
commercial orchards there has been a distinct tendency to reduce
the number of varieties planted and to grow these in large blocks
without interplanting with other varieties. From the standpoint
of orchard management such planting is doubtless of great
advantage. From the standpoint of securing cross-pollination,
however, it is very unfavorable and in the case of Mcintosh,
Stayman and other self-sterile varieties, has been a frequent
cause of crop failure. Another factor of importance in the chang-
ing conditions is the decrease in the number of wild insects
which visit orchards at blooming time. This may not be a
serious consideration in Pennsylvania where orchards are not
concentrated in any one section and are likely to be surrounded
by wild land. In Western New York, however, where many
thousands of apple trees are growing together in adjoining
blocks with little waste land nearby, these wild insects are
wholly inadequate in pollen distribution. Of late years, too,
their number as well as the number of honey bees has been
greatly depleted by the broadcasting of arsenical dust.

Among fruit growers generally, it has been difficult to fully
appreciate the pollination problem because of its complexity
and because there are so many other factors which are involved
in obtaining the set of fruit. Only about five percent of the

— 90 —

*

%

blossoms on a full blossoming apple tree are necessary for a
crop It is evident therefore, that most of the blossoms are
doomed to fall. The difficulty is that during the last stages of
bloom and the early development of the young fruit and adverse
growth condition such as shortage of water or lack of nitrate
may cause too many blossoms and young fruits to be cut off
and crop failure results. Cross-pollination, fertilization, and
the development of the young seed are processes that are neces-
sarv for the further development of the fruit beyond the early
stage and though other factors may be equally important cross-
pollination is an essential step in obtaining a set of fruit that no
intelligent fruit grower should ignore.

The underlying basis of the difficulties encountered in the
polUnation problem is in the nature of the varieties themselves
either in their inability to wet fruit with their own pollen, or
to furnish an abundant supply of pollen for transfer in cross-
pollination. Fundamentally this is a technical problem which
need not be discussed here. Practically in considering the
varieties that are grown commercially in P^^?«yl^^^;^ j|^f^^f
be reahzed that Stayman, Northern Spy, Dehcious, Mcintosh
Paragon, Winesap and Stark are sufficiently self-sterile so that
they will not set satisfactory crops without cross-pollination.
The varieties Baldwin, York, Wealthy ^^^ Rome, on the other
hand, though setting better with cross-poUination than without
it are usually not a serious problem in the orchard because they
ordinarily set a crop when they bloom. The varie les King
Grimes, and Jonathan are intermediate m their ability to set
fruit with their own pollen. As a generahzation it may well be
said that all varieties will benefit by some provision ^or c^oss-
poUination. With varieties that are outstandingly seff-steri e,
however, extraordinary provision for cross-polhnation is advis-

able

Just as there is variation in the ability of varietiBS to set fruit
with their own pollen, varieties also differ m their value as
Tources of pollen in the orchard. Among the varieties grown in
Pennsylvania we find that Delicious, Grimes, Jonathan Northern
Spv Rome, York and Mcintosh are good pollen producers and
can 'be relied on to cross-pollinate other varieties that bloom at
he same time. On the other hand Baldwin Stayman Wmeap
Paragon, Stark and King have been shown t^ be of I'ttle value as
sources of pollen and Smokehouse, in the trails made has been
of doubtful worth. Wealthy has given fomfwhat erratic results
as a poUinizer and experience in Maryland has indicated that
Grimes is not satisfactory for Paragon though producing good
results on most other varieties. This group of P?oy P""^" P'-^j
ducing varieties may be under favorable orchard condit ons ot
some value in cross-poUination but they should not be re bed on
as the only sources of pollen unless planted in rather large
proportion to the variety to be pollinated.

In any commercial planting it is always a tfmptation to limit
the number of varieties planted to the few with the best market

— 91 —

I
I

demand. This is undoubtedly an advantage from the market
standpoint but it may be decidedly disadvantageous from the
standpoint of cross-pollination. Fortunately for Pennsylvania
growers the choice of varieties is not so limited with them as it
is in New England or New York. In any case, in providing for
cross-pollination there are a number of important considerations
to be borne in mind. One of them is the necessity of using
varieties for pollinizers whose blooming season is coincident
with that of the variety to be poUinated. Obviously it is unwise
to expect a late blooming variety like Rome to satisfactorily
pollinate an early blooming sort like Mcintosh. In some seasons
even a midseason bloomer like Delicious may not be satisfactory.

The blooming period of Mcintosh or of any variety is often
short — probably 5 or 6 days on the average. Its blossoms are
capable of being effectively pollinated as soon as they are open.
Pollen, however, is usually not shed until the day after the blos-
soms open. For sake of illustration suppose that the Mcintosh
blossoms opened ready for pollination on a Monday. Delicious
being a midseason bloomer probably would not open until
Wednesday and pollen would not be shed until Thursday. There
have thus been three days when the Mcintosh were ready for
pollination when Delicious was of no value. If the weather
happened to be unfavorable for insect flight in the last part of
the Mcintosh blooming season cross-pollination might fail alto-
gether. Such a situation is not at all unlikely in a chmate like
Western New York where cold weather in the spring is of fre-
quent occurrence. To meet these conditions most effectively
there should be an early blooming pollen variety in the orchard
that would be shedding pollen when the Mcintosh flowers
opened.

In growing a self-sterile variety like Stayman that is itself a
poor source of pollen it is advisable to include a third variety
among the pollinizers. For example, Stayman may be pollinized
by Grimes but would not be effective in polUnizing Grimes so
that a third variety like Jonathan would need to be included to
pollinate Grimes. Having two varieties for pollinizers is also
an advantage in providing for the possible alternation in bloom-
ing of one of the pollen varieties.

As an orchard problem there are two phases to be considered
in providing for cross-pollination. One is the provision of the
sources of pollen and the other is the distribution of that pollen
between varieties. The first of these deals with the varieties
that are to be planted together and the planting distances. The
other includes the use of bees specifically for pollen carriers.
Neither of these can be settled finally or exactly because both
depend for their effectiveness upon the condition of the weather
at blooming time. In Western New York there have been
seasons in which the weather was so unfavorable for insect
flight that pollen was not distributed even between adjacent trees.
In other years, as for example, the season of 1929 in the Cham-
plain Valley, the weather was so favorable for insect flight that

— OS-

adequate cross-pollination for commercial crops was secured
practically everywhere even where little provision for cross-
polUnation had been made. Even under these favorable con-
ditions, however, large blocks of self-sterile sorts may not be
adequately cross-pollinated.

Making provision for cross-pollination both by the inclusion
of pollen varieties in the orchard and making sure of a supply
of bees will be found most profitable and effective in seasons
that are in general unfavorable for insect flight but in which
there are a few hours of perhaps a day when the insects carrying
pollen can work effectively. In such seasons good crops will be
harvested in orchards which have well spaced polhnizers and
bees scattered throughout the planting whereas orchards in
solid blocks will have almost total crop failure. It is of course
impossible to give the definite distance at which pollinizers
should be placed so as to be satisfactory under all conditions.
There is frequent observation to show, however, that in seasons
with only a few hours of favorable weather the set of truit
begins to fall off in the second row distant from the poUinizer
trees. To secure satisfactory pollination in such seasons, there-
fore, not more than 2 or 3 rows of a variety like Mcintosh or
Stayman should be planted between rows of polhnizers In
planning a new orchard, a satisfactory plan would be to set 2 or
3 rows of Mcintosh to each poUinizer row. Every third tree
in the poUinizer row should be an early blooming variety such
as Oldenburg or Fameuse. Between these a mid-season bloom-
ing variety such as Wealthy or Cortland might be planted.
This scheme would of course be varied with different varieties
to suit conditions.

In top-working trees in a solid block of Mcintosh or Stayman
for pollination purposes, every third tree in every third row
would be a minimum number of pollinizers. Preferably two
thirds of the trees in the poUinizer row might be top-worked
using two varieties as outlined above.

Bringing bees into the orchard at blooming time for poUination
purposes is a practice which is receiving increasing attention in
aU the northern fruit growing sections. Whether or not the
grower will find it to his advantage to bring in bees is a more
or less individual problem. In an isolated orchard in Pennsyl-
vania with considerable waste land near there is probably little
necessity for bringing in bees at blooming time because of the
abundance of wUd insects. In Western New York, however,
the bee population is so small that unless the weather is excep-
tionally favorable the supply of pollen carriers is whoUy inade-
quate. To be most effective, bees used for cross-poUination
should be given special care in wintering and should be placed
in the orchard at the rate of one strong colony to each two
acres. If a season is unfavorable for insect flight bees wiU work
to some extent in the orchard when they would not venture
across open fields. In using bees it must be remembered that
they have decided Umitations. The body temperature of the

— 93 —

i

bee, so the bee men tell us, must be at least 57° F. before it is
possible for them to be at all active. Under otherwise favorable
conditions they will fly rather sparingly at from 62 to 65 b.
but need temperatures of nearly 70° for full flight. It can thus
be seen that the activity of the bees is limited by the weather.
Often in poor seasons bringing bees into the orchard would have
little effect. In extra good seasons the chances are that wild
insects or the neighbors' bees will be effective. It is in seasons
when there is only a short period of good weather favorable for
insect flight that bees in the orchard are most valuable.

As a temporary expedient to furnish sources of pollen in the
orchard during the time that the grafts of pollen varieties are
coming into bearing the use of bouquets may be of value. By
"bouquets" are meant blossoming branches of pollen varieties
which are placed in containers of water near the trees to be
pollinated. In general the larger the bouquets the more satisfac-
tion will be the pollen transfer. Experiments have shown
rather conclusively that the most effective placing of bouquets
is not near the hives of bees but near the varieties to be polli-
nated. Suspending pails in the trees and filling these with good
sized blossoming branches is an effective method. If large Hmbs
can be secured, placing them out in the open in the square
between four trees has given good results. In this case it is
necessary to tie the blossoming branches to a stake to keep
them from falling over. Another relatively quick and satisfac-
tory way to use bouquets is to place the water container on the
ground underneath the outer spread of the branches. If large
limbs of the pollen variety, for example 2 or 3 inches in diameter
are available the end of the branch can be placed in the water
of the container and the top of the branch forced into the tree
to be polhnated. This obviates the necessity of tying.

It would be unfair to leave this subject without mentioning
the possibility of the disadvantage of over-pollination. Orchards
which are abundantly supplied with pollinizers in a season
favorable for insect flight may have so many fruits set that
unless careful thinning is done early in the season the size of
the fruits borne will be small and the trees thrown out of bear-
ing for the following year. In some years an extra heavy early
set due to over pollination may actually result in such a heavy
June drop that the crop would be smaller than it would have
been had fewer blossoms been pollinated. As the problem
appears to me now, however, it is much more sensible to provide
for pollination in the years of poor weather and to endeavor to
control the size of fruit and possible alternation in bearing by
other means.

Throughout this talk I have been placing emphasis on polli-
nation as an important factor in getting the set of fruit. In
closing I want to again emphasize the fact, however, that cross-
pollination of the flowers is only one factor though a very im-
portant one. The grower who is managing his business intelli-
gently will adopt the best practice he can find with regard to

— 04 —

pruning, spraying and culture and in addition make such pro-
vision for cross-polUnation as seems expedient under his con-
ditions. After this is done, obtaining a set of fruit is a matter
largely beyond his control.

QUESTION BOX

Question: What is the experience of fruit growers in selling
aDoles by inspection to canners and dealers?

Mr Baugher: My experience as a fruit grower in selling
about 5000 bushels of apples to canners by inspection has been
unsatisfactory. Inspection made by two inspectors always gave
different valuations on the same load of apples, varying as much
as $5.00 to $10.00 to a load of 3000 to 5000 pounds. Twenty-
five pounds of apples taken as a sample by two or more inspectors
will not give the same valuation on apples inspected.

Grades and prices paid for the different grades are unsatisfac-
tory I will mention here the grades and prices; U. b. JNo. i
grade apples, free from blemishes with 15% red color, mmm^m
size 2\I'' UD $1 50 per 100 pounds. U. S. Commercial with
same iaht'y^n^^^^^^^^ lacking 15% red color $120 per 00
pounds or 30 cents per 100 pounds less on account of coloj jji^^^^^^
is all pared off and worth just as much when pared as the apples
that have the 15% color. U. S. No. 1 Canner with one speck of
scab which would all pare off, 80 cents per 100 pounds. I think
it can easily be seen that these three grades of apples when
pared are worth practically the same to the canner, while the>
range in price from 80 cents to $1.50 per 100 pounds. U. b.
No 2 Canner with worm hole or bruises on apples, 40 cents per
100* pounds, with, in many cases, not more than one-tourtn
waste to the apple when pared.

Bv the inspection system the grower has no knowledge ot
the value of any one load of apples until reported from inspec-
tion at the canning house. This is in most cases an unsatisfactory
value placed on the load per 100 pounds.

Our representative of the Bureau of Markets has represented
inspection of canning apples as a benefit to the growers, i
think it has proven the first year to be a loss of many thousands
of dollars to the grower.

Mr Weigel: My experience has been practically the sanoe as

Mr. Baugher's. On a certain Friday afternoon we had about
180 crates of culls from the grader and we started to ioaa,
taking away three truck loads in about three hours. Monday
afternoon I received my certification of inspection: The first
load ran 8%, second load 12%, and the third load 48% ciders —
• the ciders were in the cellar. The ciders were 40 cents per 100;
No. 2 Canners were 40 cents per 100 pounds or 19 cents per
bushel; No. 1 Canners were 80 cents per 100 pounds or 36 cents
per bushel; U. S. Commercial were $1.20 per 100 POunds or
54 cents per bushel, and the U. S. Commercial with 15% color
were $1.50 per 100 pounds or 67 cents per bushel. In 1929 tne

— 95 —

same canning factory came to our packing house and paid $1.42
per 100 pounds for similar apples which by inspection in 1930 aver
aged 65 cents per 100 pounds, therefore I received about 40%
of what I should have received for my apples. The apple market
in the fall of 1930 was good. The system as it now is, is poor.
As a matter of criticism I think there should be no inspection
allowed for U. S. No. I in the sale of canning house apples.
As to the matter of samples, twenty-five pounds is not a fair
sample. Another thing is the method of taking samples.

I am in favor of keeping the system on trial but of pointing
out what may be some of the troubles.

Question: What is the most practical mechanical grader for
the small grower who handles a maximum of 100 bushels of
apples a day?

Mr. Funk: The grader which I have is used quite extensively
in my vicinity. It was made by John Bacon Company, Gasport,
New York. This grader would not suit my purpose although
it is a good grader which can be operated by one, two or three
men. It costs less than $100 and grades as many as four sizes
if special rings are used.

Question: What is the capacity of this machine?

Mr. Funk: About 500 barrels per day if the fruit is clean.
The capacity is always regulated by cleanliness of fruit.

Question: What is considered a good day's work for an
apple picker?

Mr. Karns: Picking by the bushel is more satisfactory than
by the hour. I would consider a good day's pick about 80
bushels.

Question: How much does it cost to produce a bushel of
U. S. No. 1 apples in Pennsylvania?

Dr. Livingood: The cost varies, depending upon young or
old trees, variety, full crop, etc. In New Jersey they consider
the cost to be from $1.25 to $1.35.

Question: What is the most economical orchard unit?

Mr. Funk: First of all, the size depends upon the man, —
some man may handle 20 acres and some 2000 acres.

Dr. Fletcher: The size is entirely up to the individual and
his conditions; some may manage successfully 200 acres, some
100 acres and some 20 acres. Speaking generally, I think the
most economical unit is one large enough to justify the cost
of machinery and make the production cost reasonable, — probably
25 acres and up.

Mr. Runk: The fact is that one cannot operate a sprayer to
carry 400 pounds without a good tractor and full time labor.
What is the minimum unit which will furnish labor for the year
around? Most of us in Pennsylvania are operating one-man
units. I think when one goes below 60 to 100 acres, he com-
promises on some of these points. The unit should be larger
than ever before to operate economically with machinery, effi-
cient labor, etc. in order to keep down overhead.

— 96 —

^»

Question: Does anyone have a mowing machine which is
practical in the orchard? I should like to have a mower with
the knife in front of the tractor.

Answer: Caterpillar makes a machine which cuts an eight-
foot swath. Fordson at one time made one with the cutter bar
in front of the tractor. n • i

Question: Does any one know of a machine that will pick
up and cut up brush in the peach orchard?

Mr. Fagan : The college is using a machine brush picker but
it does not cut up the brush.

Question: What is the best spreader and sticker for use with
lead arsenate?

Mr.Hodgkiss: This is a difficult question to answer. There
are on the market stickers like calcium caseinate, wheat flour,
and also hydrated Hme. From experimental evidence there has
never been any indication that stickers add to efficiency. It
has been my observation in the central part of the state that
appUcations of sprays containing lime reduced the efficiency of
codling moth control. They should not be put in late spr.ng
sprays for codUng moth; arsenate of lead without spreader is
more efficient than with it. However, it checks the decomposition
of lead and will stop burning.

Question: Is it necessary to use a complete fertilizer in an
apple orchard?

Mr. Clarke: At the college we get definite returns from
nitrogen. We find some results from phosphorus but they are
not so marked. The use of potash is of little value to us,— our
soil does not seem to need it.

Mr. Criswell: We have mixed phosphate with nitrate and it
does no harm.

Question: Is it possible to use too much nitrogen per tree?

Will it make the trees grow too fast and produce too heavily?

Mr. Clarke: We have not found any injury from our 10

to 25 pound applications per mature tree in bluegrass sod. We

used 25 pounds per tree in one Franklin County experiment.

Question: Is calcium monosulfide a safe and reliable fungi-
cide?

Mr. Bruce: We have had some experience and have found
pretty good results but this year the calcium monosulfide has
contained quite a large percentage of abrasive material which
affected the spray machinery in which it was used.

Question: Does it pay to irrigate apple orchards in Penn-
sylvania?

Mr. Weinberger: It will increase the quality and quantity
of the fruit but whether it pays or not. is a question. Plenty of
water must be used to get results; about 1,000 gallons per mature
tree every 10 days or so. I am convinced that it will be a paying
proposition in years to come. Our irrigated fruit was 50%
larger than in the other places.

— 97 —

A HISTORY OF FRUIT GROWING IN

PENNSYLVANIA

I. The Colonial Period (1623-1827)

S. W. FLETCHER, Professor of Horticulture, The Pennsylvania State

College

The beginnings of fruit growing in Pennsylvania may be traced
in the records of the sturdy and adventurous pioneers who found-
ed the colony. Pennsylvania is fortunate in her varied racial
stock, particularly as related to the development of agriculture.
The Dutch, who planted an outpost on'the banks of the Delaware
in 1623, were primarily traders; but the Swedes, who came in
1638 to dispute with the Dutch for possession of the land, were
rural minded. They were home makers, not treasure hunters,
as were the Spaniards at St. Augustine and Santa Fe. After
1664, when English rule was established on the Delaware by
treaty with the Dutch, there were added to the colony other
groups of countrymen; the English and Welsh, who flocked to
WiUiam Penn's haven for the politically and religiously oppressed
soon after he opened the doors in 1681; the farm-loving Germans
and Swiss Mennonites, who came in a steadily broadening
stream after 1683; and the Scotch and Scotch-Irish, who began
to arrive in considerable numbers about 1720. These several
nationalities differed widely in political and religious background,
but had a common love of the soil. They came to the New
World with one purpose — to carve a home out of the wilderness.
Hence it is not strange that Pennsylvania soon led all the colonies
in agriculture and held this preeminence, unchallenged, for
nearly two centuries.

The strength of Pennsylvania today, in agriculture as well
as in industry, may be traced, in large measure, to the diverse
and virile racial stocks that have entered into the lineage of her
people. Surely the Father of his Country had some personal
grievance against Pennsylvania when he complained, in a letter
to Sir John Sinclair in 1796: ''Pennsylvania is a large state, and
from the policy of the founder and of the government since, and
especially from the celebrity of Philadelphia, has become the
general receptacle of foreigners from all countries, and of all
descriptions; many of whom soon take an active part in the
politics of the state; and coming over full of prejudices against
their own government — and some against all governments — you
will be enabled, without any comment of mine, to draw your
own inference of their conduct."

Early Settlements

The colonists found the valley of the Delaware a land of
Canaan. The Swedes, who settled near the present site of
Chester about 1643, were thrifty farmers. They reported to
the Old Country: 'There are no poor in this country, but

— 1 —

they all provide for themselves; for the land is rich and fruit-
ful, and no man who will labour can suffer want." The Swedish
farmers scattered widely along the Delaware and Schuylkill and
clung tenaciously to their land even after the English took
possession of the Province.

The English first appeared on the Delaware in 1640. They
purchased land and established posts near Salem, New Jersey,
and on the Schuylkill. Until 1680, however, there were only a
few hundreds of Dutch, Swedes and English in ttie colony.
Not until after 1681, when William Penn was granted a patent
to the Province by the English Crown, did settlers begin to
arrive in any considerable numbers. The first visit of Penn to
America was in 1682.

Penn's Agricultural Policies

William Penn was extremely liberal in his colonization policies,
both in granting title to land and in religious toleration, hence the
Province attracted the oppressed from all parts of Europe. It was
his purpose to found a commonwealth of freeholders, or small
farmers, not of landed gentry with peasant dependents, as in
Europe. He encouraged settlement by individuals, not by
communities, as in New England. He sold land to prospective
settlers in tracts of 250 to 10,000 acres, and gave individual
titles. Each freeman (for many were indentured or bound to
wealthy settlers for a term of years, in order to pay for their
passage to the colony) was entitled to at least 50 acres, and to
50 acres more for each indentured servant. The price of land
was very reasonable ; a 5000 acre tract of desirable land sold for
100 English pounds, or about ten cents an acre. Penn also rented
land to those who were not able to purchase it outright; the
annual rental was one penny an acre for not less than 200 acres^.

The Pioneer Home

Even after the lapse of 250 years, we may visualize some-
thing of the enchantment as well as the hardships, of pioneer
life on the banks of the Delaware and the Schuylkill. For-
tunately, the early Pennsylvania settlers were spared the hor-
rors of Indian warfare which harassed their neighbors in the
northern and southern colonies; the peace-loving and just
Penn never showed to better advantage than in his dealings
with the Indians. For the most part, the land was heavily
wooded, but there were cleared areas, chiefly along the river
bottoms, where the Indians had planted corn. Thomas Pas-
chall, writing in 1683 reported :2 "I know a man, together
with two or three others, that have happened upon a piece of
Land of some Hundred Acres, that is all cleare, without Trees,
Bushes or stumps, that may be plowed without let." Many of

»Myer8' "Narratives," p. 219.
•Myers' ••Narratives," p. 254.

— 2 —

these Indian clearings were not in cultivation, but had been
abandoned in favor of ''new ground'' elsewhere. Other clearings
were caused by the periodical burning of the woodland by
Indians in pursuit of game.

Most of the farmsteads, however, had to be cleared. This
was accomplished mainly by grubbing out the underbrush,
''deadening" or girdUng the large trees, and planting crops
between them. The dead Umbs, as they fell, were used for
firewood, and finally the trunks. This was the prevaiUng
method among the English, Welsh and Scotch-Irish; the German
and Swiss farmers, however, cut down the trees, burned them
and grubbed out the undergrowth, thus clearing the land com-
pletely.

Naturally, the colonists first directed their efforts toward the
production of cereals, particularly wheat and the native crop
on which the agriculture of America rests so largely— Indian
corn. But the orchard was not forgotten. The building of a
colonial home was thus described in 1685 by a European visitor:
"They first fix upon the spot where they intend to build the
house, and before they begin it, get ready a field for an orchard,
planting it immediately with apples chiefly, and some pears,
cherries and peaches. This they secure by an enclosure."

Native Fruits

It was necessary for the colonists to plant orchards because
no very edible wild tree fruits were found except the peach,
and that was not common north of Philadelphia. Various
kinds of small fruits, however, were found in great abund-
ance, especially in abandoned Indian clearings, and were to
be had for the picking; they added much to the rather limited
bill of fare of frontier life. Strawberries, black raspberries,
red raspberries, blackberries, dewberries, gooseberries, mul-
berries, plums and grapes were gathered in season by the In-
dians and the colonists. The profusion of native grapes of
fair quality was a matter of general congratulation at first,
but the settlers were disappointed in their wine-making proper-
ties. The early records mention plums about as frequently as
grapes. The native plums, of several species, were used by the
Indians, but were so inferior to the European varieties that
these were soon added to the home orchard. There were no
very edible native species of the apple or cherry, and none what-
ever of the pear; these were introduced from Europe.

There was one wild tree fruit, however, which was a constant
source of delight to the housewife, and to her hungry menfolks;
that was the peach. When William Penn first visited his Wood-
land, in 1682, he reported to his English friends in the Com-
mittee of the Free Society of Traders, under date of "the 16th
of 8th mo., 1683:" "The fruits that I find in the woods, are
the white and black mulberry, chestnut, walnut, plums, straw-
berries, cranberries, whortleberries, and grapes of divers sorts.

— 3 —

There are also very good peaches and in great quantities; not
an Indian plantation without them, but whether naturally
here at first I do not know. However, one may have them by
bushels for little; they make a pleasant drink. "^ The whole
region about Philadelphia and Chesapeake Bay was bounti-
fully supplied with wild peaches.

But the peach was not native to America, as Penn and John
Bartram, the great Philadelphia botanist, supposed; it was
a legacy of Spain. When the Spanish adventurers under Men-
endez settled at St. Augustine, Florida, in 1565, they planted
oranges, peaches and other fruits. The Indians were quick to
adopt the improved fruits brought over by the settlers and to
disseminate them among friendly tribes, so the peach was
spread throughout the South, especially in the Creek, Choctaw
and Cherokee villages. By 1680, it was running wild as far
north as Philadelphia and as far west as Arkansas. It is pos-
sible, however, that the peaches found by the early explorers
on the banks of the Mississippi were derived from the fruits
planted at the Mission of Santa F^ by the Spaniards, in 1605,
and carried eastward by the Indians.

Pioneer Fruit Growing

A picture of pioneer fruit growing is given by Israel AcreUus,
who visited the Swedish settlements along the Delaware about
1685. He said, "Orchards may be regarded as among the highest
advantages of the country. Peach trees stand within an en-
closure by themselves, grown even in the stoniest places with-
out culture. Many have peach orchards chiefly for feeding
their swine, which are not allowed to run at large. For apple
orchards, not less than two or three acres are taken; some
have five or six. The cultivation consists in grafting and prun-
ing in the spring and plowing the ground every five or six years,
when either maize is planted or rye and oats sown in the orchard."

Practically all of the pioneer orchards were of seedling trees,
called "common fruit" to distinguish it from grafted fruit.
For many years, fruits were imported from Europe alniost
exclusively as seeds, since nursery stock was very expensive,
and had small chance of surviving the long sea voyage of over
a month. Occasionally grafted trees or cions were imported;
but the art of grafting, or "inocculation" was comparatively
unknown. There were practically no plantings of the small
fruits; the wild supply was ample.

' 'Comfortable Drinks"

Fruit was grown mainly to drink, frequently to feed to live-
stock, and only incidentally to eat. We have the word of Captain
John Smith, speaking for Virginia, that "few of the upper planters
drink any water" ; they preferred "most excellent and comfortable
drinks". This statement applies as well to the Puritans in Massa-

iWatson, "Annals of Philadelphia," 1:46.

4 —

chusetts and the Quakers in Pennsylvania, as to the Cavaliers in
Virginia. Speaking of Pennsylvania, Thomas Paschall reports,
'Teaches as well as wild plums, cherries and grapes were distilled
for brandy, and most people have Stills of copper for that use^.i
Not until about 1800 did liquors that are distilled from grains,
chiefly rye and corn, supplant fermented fruit juices in popular
favor.

The citizenry in colonial days was by no means as democratic
as it is now; Old World class distinctions were transferred to
America, and flourished here until well after the Revolution.
So we find it reported, 'The upper classes drink wine chiefly''.
The ''middle classes" drank cider, perry (pear cider), peach
brandy, peach vinegar (a sort of cider) and other fermented
fruit juices. A still lower stratum of society, the carousing
"lower classes,'' slaked their thirst with rum (made from molas-
ses), and a potent Uquor called apple jack. There was a pro-
fusion of native grapes, from which a fair quality of wine could
be made. In the colonies from Pennsylvania southward, there
had been a Uvely expectation that the New World would become
a viticultural Eldorado, but the early attempts at growing the
European varieties resulted in almost complete failure; hence
the wines that the "upper classes" drank before the Revolution
were mostly imported.

Indian Fruit Growing

It would be ungrateful to close a review of pioneer days in Penn-
sylvania without recording our debt to the Indians. The treat-
ment accorded the Indians by the whites, from 1620 to the
present time, is not a record in which the nation may take pride,
even though there have been extenuating circumstances. We
are indebted to the Indians most of all for Indian corn, the bul-
wark of American agriculture. We are also under obligation to
them for many of the early American varieties of fruits, particu-
larly of the apple.

Contrary to the popular notion, the Indians were not forest
nomads, but Uved in villages. While the braves hunted, the
squaws cultivated the gardens, which were chiefly of corn, but
also contained beans, peas, squash, pumpkins, sunflowers and
tobacco. The Indians cleared land by girdUng the trees in
favored spots, usually on the richest land along the river bottoms.
When firewood became scarce, they moved elsewhere and made
new clearings. These abandoned Indian clearings were appro-
priated by many of the colonists, to great advantage.

Before white occupation, the Indians cultivated no fruits, the
wild supply being adequate for the needs of a native population
which has been estimated at not much over 150,000 east of
the Mississippi River. More than 200 species of tree, bush and
vine fruits were used by them for food, but chiefly plums, grapes,
raspberries, blackberries, dewberries, cranberries, gooseberries

•Myers' "Narratives," p. 227.

— 5 —

and blueberries. Fruit was dried in large quantities for winter
use, being spread on mats and exposed to sun and air. It also
was preserved with syrup or honey. They crushed wild straw-
berries in a mortar and mixed the pulp with corn meal, to make
strawberry bread.

The Indians very quickly secured seeds of the improved fruits
introduced by the colonists and planted them near their villages.
Traders and missionaries carried them to Indian villages far
beyond white settlements. Indians often made long trips to
other tribes, and exchanged various articles of food. In this
way, the peach was disseminated through the South and South-
west, and as far north as southern Pennsylvania; and the apple
was distributed throughout the East. The famous "Townsend
Apple Tree", in Bucks County, on the farm of Richard Town-
send, was a seedling planted by the Indians, and highly valued
by them. In 1760, this tree was four feet in diameter.^ When
General Sullivan led his punitive expendition against the Cayu-
gas and Senecas of western New York, in 1779, he reported
that most of the villages destroyed by the expedition had large
peach and apple orchards. A few Indian seedling apple trees
still stand. From the Indian orchards came many of the varie-
ties that marked the beginning of American pomology.

Fruit Growing Before the Revolution

Between 1683 and the Revolution, a constantly widen-
ing stream of settlers came to Pennsylvania from the Old
World, and a considerable number from other parts of the
New World. Pennsylvania became foremost of the colonies
in wealth and in agriculture. By 1700, the population of
the Province was 20,000. No better farmers ever came to
America than those of German stock who settled in what is
now Lancaster County, in 1709-1727. They were not content
to remain in the vicinity of Philadelphia, where the best land
already had been taken by the Swedes, the Welsh and the
English, but pushed inland, seeking Umestone soil. At first
the trend of settlement was toward the "Great Valley," to the
fertile limestone lands of Lancaster and York Counties, thence
southward into the Shenandoah Valley. Another tide of immi-
gration flowed northward into Berks and Lehigh. By 1774,
Reading was the trading post for the Schuylkill Valley. Phila-
delphia, however, remained the center of the life of the colony,
and its chief market. In 1750, Douglas reported: "There may
be from 7000 to 8000 Dutch Wagons with four horses each that,
from time to time, bring their produce and trafliic to Philadelphia
from 10 to 100 miles distance."

There were no railroads or canals then, and the roads were but
trails; the rivers furnished the easiest mode of transportation.
Hence, most of the inland settlements followed the valleys of
the Delaware, Schuylkill, Susquehanna and Juniata. There

>Mem. Phila. Soc. Pro. Agr. Vol. 2, p. 90-95 (181 1>.

— e —

were few settlements beyond the Alleghenies until after the
Revolution. The first was in Fayette County, in 1752. Ihe
early amity with the Indians was soon broken. So great was
the loss of life in Indian warfare that the British Government
passed the 'Troclamation of 1763/' which prohibited settlements
west of the Allegheny Mountains. The hardy frontiersmen of
Pennsylvania, mainly those of Scotch-Irish stock, ignored this
royal edict as they had many another, and began to push their
way westward along the passage ways of the Alleghenies. The
treaty of Paris (1763) removed the French and Indian menace,
but there was no considerable trans-Allegheny settlement until
after the Revolution, save in the vicinity of Pittsburgh.

Franklin's Contribution to Horticulture

For 100 years, from 1740 to 1840, Philadelphia was the center of
scientific learning in America. It also held undisputed leadership
in horticulture; the only community that at all approached it,
in this respect, was Boston. Pennsylvania was the richest of
the colonies agriculturally; Lancaster and York Counties were
''the granaries of the Revolution.^' In 1755, it was reported,
"Pennsylvania produces enough provisions to feed its own
population, which is about 220,000, and a hundred thousand
men besides." An even more important factor in assuring leader-
ship for Pennsylvania was a little group of progressive men who
lived in the City of Brotherly Love, whose interests and activi-
ties extended even to the farm. The Pennsylvania horticulture
of today is founded largely on the labors of Benjamin Franklin,
John Bartram and Richard Peters.

One of the most trustworthy of the many biographies of
Benjamin Frankhn is entitled "The Many-sided Franklin.''
Even this title scarcely does justice to his versatility and initia-
tive. FrankUn was the moving spirit in founding The Society
for the Promotion of Useful Knowledge, in 1744, later known,
and still flourishing, as The American Philosophical Society.
In his time, Agriculture was the chief concern and occupation
of the people; hence we find a number of papers on agriculture
in the Transactions of this Society. These are among the earliest
American literature on this subject.

In 1749, Franklin proposed that there be founded in Phila-
delphia an ''Academy of Science," and suggested that there be
established under the direction of this body, an experimental
garden in which the best methods of cultivating and grafting
fruits should be practiced and taught. FrankUn also advised
that the members of the Academy should make frequent excur-
sions to study the methods of the best farmers in the Phila-
delphia district. He inquired, "Why cannot the gentlemen of
Philadelphia, and its neighborhood, who are lovers of agii-
culture, form themselves into a Society for the encouragement
of this noble art?" This came to pass in due time; in March
1785, the Philadelphia Society for the Promotion of Agriculture,

— 7 —

the first agricultural organization in America, was incorporated.
It had a notable career for over a century. From it sprang the
first Horticultural Society, organized in 1827, the Pennsylvama
Horticultural Society. The Philadelphia Society for the Pro-
motion of Agriculture also provided the initiative which led to
the organization later of the Pennsylvania State Agricultural
Society, the County Agricultural Societies and, finally, the
State Board of Agriculture. We are indebted to Benjamin
FrankUn, more than to any other man, for initiating organized
education and research in agriculture and horticulture.

Franklin and the Apple Export Trade

FrankUn's interest in horticulture was not only that of the
scientist, but also that of the country gentleman. Agriculture was
the avocation of aU the prominent men of his time. It was the
foundation of the national life. AU the well-to-do professional
men— doctors, lawyers, merchants, statesmen— were patrons
of agriculture, and sought to advance it as assiduously as they
now seek recreation on the golf course. Franklin s arduous pohti-
cal career prevented him from giving more than incidental atten-
tion to horticulture, yet he did make one notable contribution,
which entitles him to a permanent niche in our horticultura hall
of fame— he initiated the export apple trade. In February, 1759,
Peter CoUision, the EngUsh naturalist wrote to John Bartram,
"Our Friend Benjamin had a fine parcel of apples come over this
year, which I shared." These apples whetted the appetite of Col-
lison for more and brought to John Bartram an order for grafts of
the variety, the Newtown Pippin. FrankUn distributed specimens
of the Newtown Pippin at the British Court, where they were
received with such favor that a brisk export trade with England
soon started. In February, 1773, Michael ColUson son of Peter,
wrote to John Bartram, '^Your American apples have been an
admirable substitute this season, many of our merchants having
imported great quantities of them."iFrom this smaU beginning
sprang the American export trade in apples which now absorbs,
in normal years, over ten percent of the commercial crop, or
more than 10,000,000 bushels, and which is a very important
factor in Pennsylvania fruit growing.

John Bartram

The horticultural achievements of a contemporary and
friend of FrankUn, John Bartram, were no less significant
than the labors of Franklin in statecraft. He was the first
great American botanist. Botany then, as now, was closely
aUied to Horticulture. John Bartram was born in 1699 in
the village of Darby, Delaware (then Chester) County. In
1728 when but 29 years old, he established the first American
botanic garden, on the bank of the SchuylkiU, about four miles
south of the town of PhUadelphia. The Bartram Botanic
Garden became the clearing house, not only for ornamental
trees, shrubs and flowers, but also for native and foreign fruits.

'Darlington's "Memorials," p. 456.

— 8 —

Plants from this garden were sold or exchanged throughout the
colonies, and in foreign countries.

The first variety of fruit to originate in America of which
there is authentic record, the Petre pear, was raised by Bartram

JOHN BARTRAM

The first greai American botanist. He nwdc notable contribu'ions

to HorticuUure

from seed planted in 1735. He was one of the first in America
to make successful experiments in hybridization. Bartram made
many botanical exploration trips throughout the colonies, from

— 9 —

Lake Ontario to Florida; his recorded observations form a large
part of the foundation of American botany. Bartram was a
thrifty Quaker, and was able to finance his extensive travels
through the sale of seeds and plants. He was fortunate in having
many distinguished people as his friends; these helped him to
establish a correspondence with eminent botanists abroad. John
Bartram was responsible for much of the early interest in horti-
culture throughout the colonies by the wide sale and exchange
of his seeds and plants. After his death, on September 22,

►. tik^-

-1- M. ,t

*i^.^-

^W^M

.::>;.v^,

m^::,'^

^ilfiif--

>.,-•.'

>:; •■■

%*'-

THE PETRE PEAR TREE

This tree still stands in Bartram: s Garden, It was originated in 1735y and is
the first named variety of fruit to originate in America

— 10 —

Plants from this garden were sold or exchanged throughout the
colonies, and in foreign countries.

The first variety of fruit to originate in America of which
there is authentic record, the Petre pear, was raised by Bartram

^

JOHN BARTRAM

The first great A merican botanist. He made notable contribu'ions

to Horticulture

from seed planted in 1735. He was one of the first in America
to make successful experiments in hybridization. Bartram made
many botanical exploration trips throughout the colonies, from

— 9 —

Lake Ontario to Florida; his recorded observations form a large
part of the foundation of American botany. Bartram was a
thrifty Quaker, and was able to finance his extensive travels
through the sale of seeds and plants. He was fortunate in havmg
many distinguished people as his friends; these helped him to
establish a correspondence with eminent botanists abroad. John
Bartram was responsible for much of the early interest in horti-
culture throughout the colonies by the wide sale and exchange
of his seeds and plants. After his death, on September 22,

S*?.,*'

THE PETRE PEAR TREE

This tree still stands in Bartram' s Garden. It was originated in 17 So y and is
the first named variety offruU to originate in America

— 10 —

-r-

INTENTIONAL SECOND EXPOSURE

I ..

1777, his Garden was continued by his sons, John and WiUiam,
who inherited his botanical tastes.

Fortunately, Bartram's Garden is preserved to us as part of
the pubUc park system of Philadelphia; in 1879, it was pur-
chased by the city, mainly through the efforts of Thomas
Meehan. The visitor may see the stone house Bartram built
with his own hands; the sturdy Petre pear tree, monarch of two
centuries; the cider mill— a deep circular groove hewn in the
solid rock, into which the apples were placed and crushed by a
weight rolling over them; and some magnificent specimens of
ornamental trees. Other early Philadelphia botanists of note
near the close of the eighteenth century were his cousin, Hum-
phrey Marshall, who established a botanical garden at West
Bradford, Chester County, and William Hamilton, of Wood-
lands, both of whom distributed fruits as well as ornamentals.

The Home Orchard

During the colonial period, there was practically no com-
mercial fruit growing, as we know it today. The supply of
native fruits, especially small fruits and grapes, still was suffi-
cient to meet the needs of the colonists, but tree fruits were
widely planted. Fruit was grown chiefly for home use, and
only occasionally to barter. Not all of it was consumed in
Uquid form. 'In the Autumn,'' said Beach, ''the kitchen
^tove, or fireplace, usually was surrounded by festoons of quar-
tered fruit, which had been patiently strung on tow strings;
or the prepared fruit was spread on rocks above or on paper
beneath the stove. When the farmer went to town, he might
take with him a few bushels of apples or peaches to offer in
trade for articles which he wished to purchase. "^

Town markets for fresh fruit had not developed to any extent,
nor were there satisfactory means of conveying it to market.
The farms were mostly self-sufficient — the farmer and his family
derived their sustenance mainly from the products of their own
farm; only occasionally was there a surplus to barter when they
went to town. There was a scarcity of labor; the whole family,
including the women was forced to do even the harder forms of
farm labor. The farmers rejoiced at the birth of children;
"another son meant another ploughman and another daughter
another milk-maid or spinster. ''2

In 1693, Philadelphia, then a town of about 5000, established
fairs and market places, designed to bring consumers and pro-
ducers together, and made definite regulations concerning the
sale of farm produce of all kinds, including fruit. The market
days drew farmers from many miles around, even from Lancaster.
For the most part, however, fruit growing was but an incidental
feature of general farming, save where it was rescued from
obscurity by the enthusiasm of some gentleman farmer.

iBeaoh, S. A. "Apples of New York," Vol. 1, pp. 10-11.

'Benjamin Hush, "An Account of the Manners of the German Inhabitants of Pennsyl-
vania." p. 28, Philadelphia, 1789.

— 11 —

4

Liquid Fruit

Although the amount of fruit sold for dessert and culinary
purposes was negligible, there was no stint to the amount
consumed as drink. Wines, cider, perry, peach vinegar, peach
brandy, applejack and other fermented fruit juices contin-
ued to be the most popular means of slaking thirst. Much
of the advertising of the New World in Europe, designed to
attract settlers, featured the advantages of America for the
production of wine, cider and brandy. All the colonies had laws
restricting the price of liquors, so that they might be within
the means of even the poorest.

The cider barrel was cherished far more than the apple bin.
A barrel was kept on tap all the time in every farm home.
Brimming, foam covered pitchers of cider were brought to the
table at every meal, and in the evening. The prevaihng colonial
opinion of cider was well expressed by John Taylor, of Virginia,
in his ^'Arator": '^Good cider would be a national saving ot
wealth, by expelling foreign liquors; and of life, by expelling the
use of ardent spirits. Apples are the only species of orchards at
a distance from cities capable of producing sufficient profit and
comfort to become a considerable object to a farmer. The apple
will furnish some food for hogs, a luxury for his family in winter,
and a healthy liquor for himself and his laborers all the year.
WiUiam Coxe, of Burlington, New Jersey, mentions with ap-
proval the 5000 hogsheads of cider made annually '^by a single
reUgious society." In Pennsylvania, cider was fully as popular
as in Massachusetts, where Paul Dudley reported, ^\yl^y
'In another Town of two Hundred Families, I am creditably
informed, they made near ten Thousand Barrels of Cyder, i

About 1720, large numbers of Scotch and Irish came to the
colony, bringing with them a preference for stronger liquors
than those made from fruit juices. They turned to the distillation
of whiskey from wheat and rye. By 1800, this fiery hquid had
begun to supersede fruit liquors in popular approval. Whiskey
and the stronger fruit beverages were used by the colonists to
debauch the Indians and acquire possession of their land. 1 he
government of Pennsylvania passed a law making it illegal to
sell or to give liquor to Indians, but there was little observance
of this law by the frontiersmen and traders.

The period in our pomological history when fruit was grown
primarily for drink passed about 1840, when the era of commer-
cial fruit growing, primarily for dessert and cuUnary purposes,
was ushered in. "Fruit growing in America," says U. P. Hedrick,
"had its beginning and for 200 years had almost its sole susten-
ance, in the demand for strong drink."

Cultural Methods Before the Revolution

On the average colonial farm, fruits trees of all kinds were al-
most universally left in sod and the grass cut for hay, or pastured.

^Philosophical Transactions, Abridgement, Vol. 6, Part II, p. 34.

— 12 —

Occasionally the sod was plowed and the orchard cropped with
corn. Fortunately, Pennsylvania led the other colonies in the use
of red clover, in orchards as well as in meadows. The earliest
colonists brought over **claver-grasse seede^^ and William Penn
mentions sowing it. There was little pruning, and no fertihzing
except manure dropped by the live stock in the orchard. After
1750, calcareous materials — lime, marl and gypsum or land
plaster, came into common use in orchards as well as on field
crops. Practically all of the fruit trees were seedlings. In some
parts of Pennsylvania, especially in the eastern counties, there
still may be seen the remnants of these seedling orchards,
'^silent reminders of the days of the stage coach, the spinning
wheel, the hand loom and the apple paring bee."

Insect pests and diseases held practically undisputed sway in
colonial orchards. This was before the day of life history
studies and spray schedules. For the most part, * 'faulty"
fruit was accepted as natural aAd inevitable. Great outbreaks
of insect pests were believed to be the direct result of the sins
of the people; in 1665, 1686 and 1708, fasts were held in Salem,
Massachusetts, for deliverance from a scourge of caterpillars.
In these latter days of increasingly intricate and laborious spray-
ing practice, the report of John Josselyn in 1671, is diverting:
'Theer fruit trees", he says, "are subject to two diseases, the
Meazles, which is when they are burned and scortched with
the Sun; and lowsiness, when the woodpeckers jab holes in
theer bark ; the way to cure them when they are lowsie is to bore
a hole in the main roote with an Augur and pour in a quantity
of Brandie or Rhum and then stop it up with a pin made of the
same Tree." The simplicity of this treatment — if effective —
would commend it to the harassed fruit grower of today. There
was not much progress in insect and disease control until after
1830.

The credulity of the times, in matters pertaining to fruit hus-
bandry at least, is illustrated by the counsel of Samuel Dean,
Vice-President of Bowdoin College. Speaking on the subject
of picking apples so that they would keep well over winter, he
said, **I gather my apples about noon, on the day of the full of
the moon. Some may think it whimsical to gather them on the
day above mentioned, but as we know animals and vegetables
are influenced by the moon in some cases, why may we not
suppose a greater quantity of spirit is sent up into the fruit when
the attraction of the heavenly bodies is greatest?" This from a
learned college professor! So the truth, as it appears to one
generation, may be the error of the next.

Plums and cherries were not very common in colonial orchards,
but the peach was much more important, as compared with the
apple, than it is today. One of the most attractive features of
Germantown, in 1700, was that 'Hhe whole main street, one mile
in length, was fronted with blossoming peach trees. "^ Peter
Kalm, an eminent Swedish naturalist who visited Pennsylvania

'Watson, "Annals of Philadelphia," 1:46.

— 13 —

^

in 1750, reported:! <<Every countryman, even a common peasant,
has commonly an orchard near his house in which all sorts of
fruit, such as peaches, apples, pears, cherries and others are in
plenty. . . . Every Countryman has an orchard full of peach
trees which were covered with such quantities of fruit that we
could scarcely walk in the orchard without treading on those
peaches which were fallen off, and only part of them were sold
in town, and the rest was consumed by the family and strangers;
for every one that passed by, was at liberty to go into the orchard
and to gather as many as he wanted. Nay, this fine fruit was
frequently given to the swine." He also says that peaches were
dried extensively for winter use, being quartered and strung on
a thread and exposed to the sunshine, or dried in the oven.

After the Revolution

Historically, the Colonial Period ended with the close of the
Revolution, in 1783; horticulturally, it continued for a quarter
century thereafter, with comparatively little change in cultural
practice or commercial outlook. The organization of the Penn-
sylvania Horticultural Society, in 1827, marks the beginning

of the new era.

After the Revolution, agriculture received even more attention
from statesmen and pubUcists than before; they recognized that
agriculture was, and must long continue to be, the most impor-
tant industry of the infant republic. The population of Penn-
sylvania increased rapidly. Villages sprang up in the newly
opened territory; these were potential markets for fruit. We
now begin to hear of other centers of horticultural interest
beside Philadelphia. Timothy Matlock, Esq., who lived on
the summit of the hill on which the Borough of Lancaster
stands" was reputed to be a very successful fruit grower; he
was an authority on ^^Cyder Making."2 Henry Wynkoop, Esq.,
of Northampton, Bucks County, was one of the first to practice
the budding or 'Mnocculation" of peaches.3 The first Federal
Census, in 1790, reported that the population of Pennsylvania was
434,573. Thirty years later, in 1820, near the close of the period
covered in this review, it was 1,049,458. Before the Revolution,
the territory west of the Allegheny was practically uninhabited,
except for wandering tribes of Indians and a few outposts,
notably Pittsburgh. After the Revolution, trans-Allegheny
settlements multiplied rapidly. By 1810, there were scattered
settlements in all parts of Pennsylvania, except in several of the
north-central counties.

The Metropolis of Philadelphia

There were few towns large enough to be important markets for
fruit. In 1790, the only cities in America of 10,000 people or over
were Boston, New York and Philadelphia. At that time, PhUadel-

I'Travelfl into North America," 1:71. ^

»Mem. Phila. Soc. Pro. Agr. Vol. 1, p. 268-273.
•Ibid, Vol. 3, p. 43-49.

— 14 —

phia, city and county, had a population of 55,000. It was the
largest and wealthiest city in the young republic and the center of
progressive agriculture in the colonies. It was also the seat of the
Federal and of the State governments. The State government was
transferred to Lancaster in 1799, and to Harrisburg in 1812.

As Philadelphia grew from a town to a city, it reached farther
and farther afield for supplies of fresh produce. The covered
wagon and the boat were almost the sole means of transportation;
there were no canals or railroads. Philadelphia drew the trade
of all the state east of the Susquehanna, except near the Mary-
land line, where Baltimore was more accessible. It was also
the market of western New Jersey and northern Delaware.
Philadelphia had excellent connections with the interior by water,
the Delaware and Schuylkill, and had better roads leading to it
than were enjoyed by any other state. The German farmers of
Lancaster, York and Lebanon counties made regular trips to
Philadelphia, 75 miles or more away, in their great Conestoga
wagons. Overland transportation of farm products, however,
was difficult, especially for fruit.

The progress of horticulture after the Revolution, both in
Pennsylvania and throughout the RepubHc, was greatly stimu-
lated by the activities of a group of enthusiastic amateurs in
Philadelphia — gentlemen farmers. Benjamin FrankUn and John
Bartram were succeeded as leaders of agricultural progress by
William Coxe and Bernhard M'Mahon.

The First Agricultural Society

Among the many ''firsts'' that are the pride of Philadelphia, few
are more important than the first agricultural society organized in
America— The Philadelphia Society for Promoting Agriculture.
This Society was born on February 11, 1785. It was the child of
the active brain of Benjamin FrankUn, and was the mother of
various state, county and local societies that soon followed its
leadership. New York State Agricultural Society was founded
in 1791, and the Massachusetts Society for Promoting Agri-
culture in 1792.

At the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the Society,
on February 4, 1885, George BUght called up the past: ''On the
eleventh of February, 1785, twenty gentlemen met at a public
house on Water Street, having the Sign of the Clock, and formed
the Philadelphia Society for Promoting Agriculture. When the
War of the Revolution had closed, and the independence of the
country was recognized by the governments of Europe, they
laid aside the implements of war, and exchanged them for the
plow, and endeavored to promote a fondness for the pursuits of
peace, which alone, would strengthen the nation.'' George
Washington was an honorary member of the Society. Its
Memoirs are one of the most valuable sources of information on
early American agriculture, including horticulture. Another is
the "American Farmer," a monthly periodical which began
publication in Baltimore in 1819.

— 15 —

Judge Richard Peters

Pennsylvania has special reason for remembering this Society
with gratitude, for out of it sprang most of the organizations that
promote the advancement of Pennsylvania agriculture today.
The moving spirit in the Society was Judge Richard Peters, a
Philadelphia lawyer, whose magnificant estate, "Belmont," now
is part of Fairmount Park. Judge Peters was President of the
Society for many years. He contributed more to the advancement
of agriculture than any other man of his time, particularly in
bringing about governmental recognition of agriculture. At a
special meeting of the Society held on January 28, 1794, he pre-
sented plans for estabUshing a State Agricultural Society, to pro-
mote instruction and research in agriculture. But he was met in
the Legislature by the opposition of the farmers themselves, who
insisted that the best mode of improving agriculture was to
"lay your hands on the plow handles and urge on your horses. "i
In 1818 he protested, "Hitherto the general or state government
has done nothing for the promotion of agriculture except in an
indirect way, as by incorporating canal and turnpike companies."

The efforts of Judge Peters finally were crowned with success.
A memorial to the General Assembly, to authorize the organiza-
tion of County Agricultural Societies, was passed by that body
on March 6, 1820. For some years previous to this, there had
been several county fairs or exhibitions of live stock and farm
crops, with the award of premiums. Two of the first county
fairs in Pennsylvania were in Luzerne and Bucks counties, in
1810. Under the stimulus of state aid, the idea spread rapidly
to other counties — to Chester, Cumberland, FrankUn, Susque-
hanna, Allegheny and Bradford counties; but only a few sur-
vived after 1825, when the state bounty was withdrawn.

In 1818 the Society issued an address to the people of Penn-
sylvania, urging them to aid in establishing a "Pattern Farm,"
where agricultural experiments could be conducted, and young
men trained in the art and science of Agriculture. This was but a
re-statement of a plan advocated by Benjamin Franklin in 1749.
Many large subscriptions for this purpose were obtained, but
the undertaking was too great for that period.

The Philadelphia Society also sponsored the organization of
the Pennsylvania State Agricultural Society, which held its
first annual meeting and exhibition of livestock and produce on
a farm near PaoU in October, 1823. This was the first State
Fair, of which the present State Farm Products Show is the
modern equivalent. No premiums for fruit were offered at this
exhibition, but $10 was awarded "for the best barrel of cider,"
which is sufficient commentary on the status of fruit growing at
that time. This first State Agricultural Society, however, had
but a brief existence. It was re-created, by act of the General
Assembly, on March 29, 1851. The State Board of Agriculture
was formed in 1877. These circumstances are mentioned here

i

»Phila. Soc. Pro. Agr. Vol. 4, p. 32.

16 —

only to point out the chain of events in the agricultural history
of Pennsylvania which leads back to the parent organization,
the Philadelphia Society for Promoting Agriculture, and to the
vision and initiative of Benjamin FrankUn and Richard Peters.

M'Mahon and Coxe

•

Judge Peters had worthy associates in his efforts to secure
governmental recognition of agriculture, and to promote im-
proved methods of farming. He was ably seconded by a dis-
tinguished Philadelphia physician. Dr. James Mease, who
served as Secretary of the Society for many years; and by
Bernhard M'Mahon, who had a seed store on the east side
of Second Street, below Market. His gardens and green-
houses were near the Germantown turnpike. M'Mahon gave
decisive impulse to scientific horticulture in America. His book,
**American Gardeners' Calendar," published in 1806, was the
best American work on horticulture; it was standard for nearly
fifty years and exerted a wide influence. M'Mahon did a large
business throughout the colonies; he also imported and exported
large quantities of seeds and plants, including fruits.

Hardly less worthy of note, in his influence on the horticulture
of his times, was William Coxe, of Burlington, New Jersey.
Pennsylvania may claim Coxe as her own, because he was so
closely identified with the little group of men who made Phila-
delphia the horticultural center of the country. He made many
contributions to the Philadelphia Society for Promoting Agri-
culture, of which he was a member. Coxe was the pioneer
pomologist of America. Judge Peters and James Mease were
general farmers; Coxe speciahzed in fruits, and fruits only.
Most of the horticultural authorities of his day still slavishly
followed European methods of culture, many of which were not
adapted to this country. Coxe showed remarkable originality;
he had an inquiring mind. His ''View on the Cultivation of
Fruit Trees," published in 1817, was the first American book on
pomology. In it he records the results secured in the first
experimental orchard in America. He secured varieties of fruits
from abroad, and from the States, and introduced many new
sorts. In 1804 he offered for sale trees of ''eighty kinds of apples,
ninety of pears, and fifty-one of cherries, nearly all imported,
and one hundred varieties of peaches."^ The early develop-
ment of fruit growing in southeastern Pennsylvania may be
attributed very largely to the enthusiasm of William Coxe.

Fruit Growing Under Glass

Most of the interest in fruit growing at this time, especially in
new varieties and improved methods of culture, was confined to a
comparatively few gentlemen farmers, who had sumptuous estates
near the larger towns; it did not reach the "dirt farmers" until well

>A. F. M. WiUich and James Meaae, "Domestic Encyclopedia," Vol. 3, p. 109 (1804).

— 17 —

\

\%f

after 1830. The farmers were not prepared to profit by the perusal
of books, such as the Memoirs of the Philadelphia Society for
Promoting Agriculture, and no agricultural magazines were in
general circulation then.

The extent to which gentlemen farmers indulged their passion
for agricultural pursuits is evidenced by their interest in the
culture of fruit under glass. A large proportion of M'Mahon's
*' American Gardeners' Calendar" is devoted to detailed directions
on the care of the ''fruit garden," as distinct from the ''orchard."
Transportation of fruits from the South, thus prolonging the
season, then was unknown; the season of a fruit was Umited to
the range of ripening of the different varieties in a particular
locaHty. Those who could afford to do so sought to prolong the
season by forcing fruits under glass.

Every gentlemen farmer employed one or more private
gardeners, most of whom were secured from England. These
men had been rigidly trained in the rule-of-thumb apprentice-
ship gardening of England. It was inevitable that they should
persist in growing fruit exactly as they had been taught to do so
in England, regardless of the widely differing conditions pre-
vaihng in America. America had cut herself loose from England
politically, but was still tied to the apron strings of the mother
country horticulturally. English methods still were slavishly
copied by American fruit experts, save that original thinker,
William Coxe.

The horticultural literature from 1790 until 1830 is full of
minute counsel on the forcing of fruits. M'Mahon describes at
length the construction of "dung-heat forcing frames," which
were used to ripen peaches, cherries, apricots, nectarines, figs,
grapes, strawberries, pineapples, gooseberries and currants, a
few weeks in advance of their normal season. Tan-bark also
was used as a source of heat in forcing frames.

Dwarf fruit trees were trained in geometric design. Old World
fashion, against brick walls, 10 to 12 feet high, their roots being
confined in a narrow border, and "trenched" regularly. The
trees were enclosed in a glass structure during the forcing period.
Firing, usually with wood, began in January or February, and
continued until late April. The heat was carried the length of
the wall through internal flues. The trees were brought into
full bloom in March; the fruit ripened in April and May. After
the crop was off, the glass was taken away, to be replaced the
following January. This interesting — but expensive — phase of
American fruit growing passed about 1845, when improved trans-
portation brought fruits from a greater distance.

Grafted Fruit Trees

The first milestone on the road toward the commercial fruit
growing of today was the appHcation of the art of grafting.
Most of the colonial orchards were seedling trees, hence vari-
able in type and unpredictable in results. The art of graft-
ing, or "inocculating,"a horticultural practice of remote an-

— 18 —

tiquity, was brought to America by the first colonists, but was
appUed very infrequently. A few grafted trees were planted
mostly stock imported from Europe, but practically all the
orchards were of ^natural" or ^common'' fruit. Little progress
could be expected until there were American nurseries for the
propagation and dissemination of improved varieties.

The first independent nursery in America was established by
WilUam Prince, at Flushing, Long Island, about 1750; it con-
tinued under the management of the Prince family for four
generations. Prince's ^^Linnaean Gardens" were an important
factor during the formative years of American fruit growing.
In 1791, Prince offered for sale 35 varieties of peaches, mostly,
however, European sorts. The seed house of David Landreth
and Son, of Philadelphia, founded in 1784— the first seed house
in America— had a fruit tree nursery during the latter part ot
the century, located on what is now the corner of Market and
Arch Streets. The Landreth collection of fruits was among the
most extensive of the time. Most of the grafted fruit planted m
Pennsylvania during the latter part of the eighteenth century
came from Prince and Landreth, and later from the nursery ot
Wilham Coxe, of BurUngton, New Jersey, which was founded
in 1806. The advantages of grafted fruit were not generally
recognized, however, until about 1830.

Sod Versus Tillage

Pennsylvania orchards, and most of the orchards in the other
states, were in sod, except while the trees were young Interest
in the tillage of orchards was quickened by the pubhcation ot
Coxe's eleven experiments on cultural methods, in which tie
secured a decided benefit from annual tillage.i He concluded:
"I think they prove the utility of cultivation to the promotion
of the growth of the orchard." This view was stoutly con-
troverted by many, including that other distinguished horti-
cultural authority, Richard Peters. So the controversy on sod
versus tillage was on ; it has not been settled to the satisfaction

of everybody to this day. . r u ^

Little attention was given to the fertiUzation of orchards
before 1850, except for the manure dropped by animals ranging
in them. In 1808, Richard Peters gave as his judgment: ['I have
my doubts whether enriching and constantly cultivating old
orchards will be found advantageous. Occasionally plowing an
old orchard is serviceable to promote the health of the trees,
but manuring and loosening the soil too much, I fear, will cause
them to overbear. "2

A Powerful ''Composition"

Pruning was generally neglected, except on dwarf, trained trees.
Whenever it became necessary to trim off large hmbs, the use of

iMera. Phila. Soc. Pro. Agr., Vol. 1, pp. 217-226 (1808); also in his "View on the Cultiva-
tion of Fruit Trees, " 1817.
'Ibid, Vol. 1, p. 211.

— 19 —

WilUam Forsyth's famous *' composition" was recommended
highly by Coxe and others for treating the wounds. Forsyth, an
English gardener, achieved great honor at the Royal Gardens,
Kensington, England, and a not inconsiderable grant of money
from the British Crown, for discovering this potent mixture. It
was recommended '^for curing diseases, defects and injuries in all
kinds of fruit and forest trees." Its preparation, as detailed by
Forsyth, was simple and pleasurable : ''Take

1 bushel of fresh cow dung /^u w

^ bushel of lime rubbish from an old building (that from

the ceiling of the room is preferable)
}^ bushel wood ashes
1-16 bushel river sand.

''Reduce the mixture to the consistency of thick paint by
mixing it with a sufficient quantity of urine and soap suds.
Apply with a brush." By applying a sufficient quantity of this
savory mess, the fruit grower certainly ought to have been able
to drive away most any kind of pest.

In order to make it easy to crop the apple orchard while it was
voung and keep the fruit out of the reach of pastured live-stock,
it was recommended: "The head of every apple tree should
begin at least six feet from the ground, and of those whose
branches are sloping, eight feet."i Further confirmation of the
adage, "There is nothing new under the sun, /s derived from a
perusal of the numerous comments between 1800 and 1825 on
the girdUng, ringing or "circumcising" of fruit trees. Then, as
now; it was found desirable to score or ring the tree rather than to
remove the bark; but if the bark was removed, to protect the
wound.2

Insect and Disease Control

There had been practically no progress in insect and dis-
ease control for a century, although pests were increasing
rapidly In 1806, Richard Peters complained that fruit trees
near Philadelphia were "more subject to mortifying decay,
disease and destruction" than when he was a boy; but he had
observed that fruit grew in great perfection "in and about Lancas-
ter and other parts where limestone and other calcareous sub-
stances abound." He attributed the decline to "some change in
our chmate, some morbid infection of the air, and new races of
vermin not known to our ancestors. Pears are hable to bhght
from the electric fluid. Iron hoops and old horse shoes, hung on
these trees, attract and conduct for a time this . floating tiuid.
But when the air is surcharged, partial or total destruction is
certain. Cherries are fatally operated on by the four o clock
sun. "3 This from one of the best posted horticulturists of his day!

iMem. Phila. Soc. Pro. Agr., Vol. 3, p. 200 (1814).

'American Farmer, Vol. 5. p. 309 (1823).

•Mem. PhUa. Soc. Pro. Agr., Vol. 1, p. 21 (1806).

— 20 —

All the authorities advocated the pasturage of hogs in the
orchard as the best means of destroying insect pests. Many vile
smelling washes were used freely on trunks and crowns of trees
on the theory, no doubt, that if a man could not stand it to be
near them, an insect certainly could not. Tar, turpentme,
tobacco, snuff, sulphur, camphor, urine, and rabbit's blood
entered into the preparation of thes^ repellants. M'Mahon,
speaking of plum ^'curculiones,'' suggested hopefully, ^'General
Robinson, of Naaman's Creek, suspends four or five little bits
of boards, about the size of a case knife, dipped in tar, in each
of his plum trees, from about the time the trees are in full bloom
until the fruit is ripe, renewing the appUcation frequently. To
this expedient he attributes his never failing success.'' M'Mahon
cautioned against leaving ^'descending roots" on fruit trees;
they should be cut off when the tree is trenched; ''there is not a
more powerful agent for producing the canker and other dis-
orders, than the descending roots."

An even more heroic method of disease control was recom-
mended by Samuel Preston, in 1811.1 He said: "A very intelli-
gent gentleman from near Boston informed me that he had dis-
covered the true cause of the bitter rot of apples — a certain
kind of worm between the wood and the bark ; and that a safe
and easy mode to prevent it was to peal all the bark off the body
of the trees on the longest day of the year, which he said he had
frequently done; that it did not kill or injure the trees but that
they grew much better for it, and that it effectually prevented
bitter rot." These examples will serve to indicate how far we
have come in insect and disease control during the last hundred

years.

The Varieties of a Century Ago

After 1800, when the art of grafting was more generally known
and nurseries had been established, the number of named varie-
ties increased rapidly. Most of these were superior trees that had
been noticed in the old seedling orchards. Gradually native varie-
ties supplanted seedlings and European sorts. Most of the early
varieties served their time and dropped out of cultivation when
better sorts were introduced, but a few survive to this day.
Witness this list of old time favorites, which were described by
M'Mahon in 1806, and by Coxe in 1817, in their respective
books:

Sweet Bough

Maiden Blush

Fall Pippin

Dominie

Gilliflower

Rambo

Pound

Yellow Bellflower

King

Lady Apple
Esopus Spitzenburg
White Winter Pearmain
Rhode Island Greening
Seek-No-Further
Yellow Newtown
Winesap
Early Harvest
Tallman Sweet

iMem. PhUa. Soc. Pro. Agr. Vol. 2, p. 83.

— 21 —

The only varieties of pears in their lists that we recognize are
'^Summer Bon Chretien'' which is the Bartlett, and Seckel (of
Philadelphia origin); peach. Old Mixon; cherry. May Duke,
Ox Heart, Black Heart, Morello, Yellow Spanish, Montmorency;
plum. Green Gage, Orleans. We pay tribute to these patriarch
varieties which have stood the test of time. They bring back
fragrant memories of boyhood days to many.

Peach Growing Simplified

' The peach grower of today, harassed by the Yellows, Brown
Rot, borer, curculio. Oriental Fruit Moth, and what not, may
sigh for the '^good old days" of 100 years ago. The following de-
scription of the methods of peach culture prevailing near Phila-
delphia in 1808 may bring tears of self pity to the eyes of the
peach growers of this generation: 'The common mode is to plant
the young trees grown from the stone, without budding or graft-
ing, dropping two stones in a hill of corn, about twenty-five feet
apart in squares. They tend the corn in the usual way, and the
young trees grow with the corn crop, at small expense. The
knife is never applied to the trees, it being found injurious and to
occasion the limbs of pruned trees, heavily loaded, to break.
When suffered to grow at pleasure, the limbs are flexible and
tough and lay on the ground securely when loaded with fruit.
They recover their usual position when the fruit is detached. The
orchards are generally enclosed, to exclude horses or horned cat-
tle. The trees have been known to endure fifty years. They are so
easily renewed, that it is not uncommon to cut the trees down to
the ground occasionally, to permit a course of tillage, after
which the trees are renewed by sprouts from the roots."i

An even more inviting prospect is spread before us by Thomas
Coulter of Bedford County. Coulter was one of the original sod
mulch men of the state; he inveighed against the tillage of
orchards for a half century. In 1803 he presented a paper
before the American Philosophical Society, in which he described
his method of renewing peaches: ''In the month of March or
April, in the third year after transplanting, cut them all off by
the ground. ... Let all the sprouts from the roots grow, from
four to six in number. . . . When loaded with fruit they will
bend and rest on the ground in every direction, without injury,
being rooted in the ground as though they had been planted. . . .
If any of the sprouts split off or die, cut them away to give place
to new sprouts from the stump. . . . In this way you will have
trees from the stump for 100 years, as I believe. I now have
trees 36, 20, 10, 5 and down to one year old, all from the same
stump."2

It may be of some comfort, after reading this tantalizing
statement, to take a look at the other side of the picture. In
1805, one extensive peach grower reported, "I have sold all my

iMem. PhUa. Soc. Pro. Agr. Vol. 1, p. 185 (1808). o- ..,,,. „„ oaa o±r

»A. F. M. Willich and James Mease, "Domestic Encyclopedia, Vol 4, pp. 244-246,
(1804); also in Trans Amer. Phil. Soc, Vol. V.

— 22 —

peaches for four pence per peck, the buyers to do the picking;''
and another complained that feeding peaches to hogs was not
altogether satisfactory, ''for after a short time they will eat
only the best, and refuse the others, as a man would." So peach
growing was not without its drawbacks, even in the ''good old
days."

About 1800, peach growers in the vicinity of Philadelphia
began to complain bitterly of "a morbid infection of the air"
which caused the trees to die after a few crops had been har-
vested." This was the Yellows, which was first described by
Judge Richard Peters, of Philadelphia, in I8O6.1 He advocated:
"Promptly, on the first symptoms of the malady appearing,
remove the subjects of it, deeming their cases desperate in
themselves, and tending to the inevitable destruction of others."
This is exactly where we stand in peach Yellows control today;
no progress has been made in a century, save in governmental
inspection.

Great Expectations in Grape Culture

One of the most interesting — and most tragic — chapters in the
pomological history of America relates to the efforts of the colo-
nists, extending over 200 years, to grow the European varieties of
grape for wine making. Pennsylvania played a major part in the
drama of the grape.

Our horticultural forefathers from the Old World, all wine
lovers, were greatly impressed with the luxuriant growth of the
native grapes of several species. The wine made from them was
only fair in quality, but "strong and heddy". It was assumed
that the improved European sorts of Vitis vinifera would
grow readily in America because of the luxuriant growth of
wild grapes, and glowing accounts were sent back to the mother
countries of the unrivaled opportunities in America for growing
the vine. This stimulated immigration; the vine was one of
the chief lures of the New World.

All the colonies sought assiduously to encourage grape growing
and wine making. Lord Delaware, Governor of Virginia, was
the first prompter of grape culture; iu 1616 he imported plants of
European varieties and transplanted to the garden some of the
best native vines. In 1619, his Assembly, the first colonial
Assembly in America, passed an Act requiring every householder
to plant ten grape cuttings, and protect them, and granted
subsidies for wine making. In 1643, Queen Christina, of Sweden,
commanded John Printz, Governor of New Sweden, to encour-
age the culture of the vine. After New Sweden became a part
of Pennsylvania, William Penn evidently thought that his
Woodland was destined to become a great wine-making country,
rivalUng France and Germany. He imported many cuttings
of the best French and Spanish vines, and set out several experi-
mental vineyards near Philadelphia, under the care of an experi-

»Mem. Phila. Soc. Pro. Agr., Vol. 1, p. 22 (1806).

— 23 —

< WJr

enced French vigneron.^ Nothing came of this venture; the
foreign vines dwindled and died of a mysterious sickness.

For over a century thereafter, numerous other plantings, m
Pennsylvania and elsewhere, met a similar fate. The colonists
simply could not believe it possible that the European varieties
could not be grown successfully in America. Repeated failures
were discouraging, but did not dissuade them from making new
attempts. One of the most ambitious of these projects was the
ten acre vineyard of European varieties planted near Pittsburgh
in 1803, by the Harmonists, a religious-socialistic community
founded in Germany. This vineyard, like all that had pre-
ceded it, was a complete failure.

The Venture of Peter Legaux

Soon after the Revolution, a French gentleman, Peter Legaux
planted a large vineyard at Spring Mill, on the Schuylkill, about
thirteen miles north-northwest of Philadelphia Most of his vines
were of European varieties; some were secured from other coun-
tries* a few were of native stock. Legaux was a promoter, as well
as a grape grower. In 1793, he succeeded in interesting a number
of wealthy Philadelphians who subscribed for stock in his com-
pany; it was incorporated by the General Assembly for the pro-
motion of the cultivation of the vine." Bernhard M'Mahon was
Secretary of the corporation.

In 1796, John James Dufour, a distinguished Swiss vineyardist,
inspected the most prominent vineyards in this country, but
"found none that would pay for one half theer attendance ^^
except "about a dozen plants in the vineyard of Mr. Legaux
In 1800, Legaux published an address "To the People of the
United States" in which he exhorted them to ignore the native
grapes, and to grow only Old World varieties as a patriotic
dutv ^'2 This view found wide acceptance, but not everybody
was fooled by the grandiloquent, disputatious and cocksure
Leeaux. We note, with considerable pride, that it was a Phila-
delphia doctor, James Mease, then Secretary of the Philadelphia
Society for the Promotion of Agriculture, who first publicly
condemned the Old World varieties and advanced the idea that
American grape growing must be founded on the native species.

The Cape Grape

The Legaux vineyard enterprise failed miserably. The
vines began to die, dissension arose among the stock holders,
and the vineyard was neglected. Although the stock holders
lost their money this was one of the most profitable vineyards
ever planted in America, for the "dozen plants mentioned
by Dufour became the foundation of American grape culture.
Dufour was so impressed with these few vines that when he
established his great vineyard enterprise m Kentucky, in

jPastorius, in Myer's "Narratives," p. 398.

a'The True American," Philadelphia, March 24, 18UU.

— 24 —

1801, and later in Indiana, he set out a few plants that had
been propagated from them. These turned out to be the only
profitable vines in his vineyards; the others, European varieties,
perished from the ^'sickness/' The vine which Legaux called
the *'Cape,'* and which he said had come from the Cape of Good
Hope, was by far the best.

The evidence is quite clear that Peter Legaux was economical
with the truth when he stated that he had secured his famous
Cape grape from the Cape of Good Hope. Evidently he was
so strongly prejudiced against native grapes that he was not
willing to admit that any variety worth while could come from
them. Yet we have it on the authority of William Bartram, son
of John Bartram, a truth-loving Quaker and a painstaking botan-
ist, **It was supposed to be a hybrid between Vit. sylvestris (com-
mon bunch grape) and Vit. vinifera because it was found on the
rocky hills near the Schuylkill, above the upper ferry in the neigh-
borhood of an old vineyard of European origin ; but I believe it to
be an American. ^'^ He was a good botanist, and we can trust his
judgment. This variety had been grown '4ong before the Revolu-
tion'^ in the vicinity of Philadelphia under the names of Schuylkill
Muscadel and Taskers, but mostly as the Alexander. The Cape
grape undoubtedly was a variety of the native fox grape, Vitis
lahrusca. Being a native, it was not subject to the **sickness^'
that had blasted American vineyards of European varieties for
200 years. This '^sickness", we now know, was caused mainly
by the attacks of various fungous disorders, especially downy
mildew and black rot, also by the phylloxera, or root louse.

Pennsylvania gave further impetus to the culture of the grape
by being the first state to plant the Cape, or Alexander, on a
commercial scale. York, Pennsylvania, was one of the first,
if not the first, center of successful commercial grape growing
in America. In 1818, Thomas Eichelberger, a German vine
dresser of York, planted four acres of grapes, which soon were
increased to twenty acres. By 1826, there were 150 acres of
vineyards in the vicinity of York, mainly of the Alexander.
Hedrick says,2 **In looking up the history of varieties of grapes,
a surprisingly large number may be traced back to this early
center of the industry. York and Lancaster counties, Penn-
sylvania, must be counted among the starting places of American
viticulture.*' The Alexander grape passed out of cultivation
about 1850, being superseded by a better native variety, the
Catawba. This was introduced by another Pennsylvanian,
John Adlum, author of the first American book on grape growing.*^

Among the many contributions of Pennsylvania to American
pomology, none is more outstanding than its promotion of
the cultivation of the native grapes. The foundations of Ameri-
can grape growing were laid in southeastern Pennsylvania.

»A. F. M. Willich and James Mease, "Domestic Encyclopedia," Vol. 6, p. 291 (1804).
'"Grapes of New York." p. 44. ^^

•"Cultivation of the Vine." 1823.

t

•t

This chapter of the pomological history of Pennsylvania
closes with the organization of the Pennsylvania Horticultural
Society, November 24, 1827. The next period is concerned with
the building of canals and railroads, the growth of cities, and
the beginnings of commercial fruit growing as we know it today.
The Colonial Period, extending over 200 years, has all the fasci-
nation of the frontier, of exploration, of adventure into the
unknown. We may take pardonable pride in the achievements
or our horticultural forefathers, the pioneer fruit growers of
Pennsylvania. They contributed largely to the advancement of
American pomology. They left us a goodly heritage.

— 25 —

— 26 —

I

I

AFFILIATED COUNTY HORTICULTURAL

SOCIETIES

ALLEGHENY COUNTY HORTICULTURAL

ASSOCIATION

Organized March 14, 1930

OFFICERS

President— F. G. REITER Mars

Vice President— ROBERT A. POWERS Glenshaw

Secretary— CARLOS E. NORTON Sewickley

Assistant Secretary— EDWARD SHENOT Wexford

Treasurer— SAMUEL SIMMONS Mt. Oliver Station, Pittsburgh

BERKS COUNTY FRUIT GROWERS ASSOCIATION

Organized 1922

OFFICERS— 1930

President— CLETUS Y. DeLONG Mertztown

Vice President— GEORGE BALTHASER Wernersville

Sec. -Treas.— WILLIAM W. LIVINGOOD Robesonia

Member, Executive Committee— GEORGE MELCHER Bally

BUCKS COUNTY FRUIT GROWERS ASSOCIATION

Organized 1924
OFFICERS— 1930

President— R. E. ATKINSON Wrightstown

Vice President— SAMUEL L. PAXON Lumberville

Sec.-Treas.— S. B. MONOSMITH Weisel

ERIE COUNTY HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY

OFFICERS— 1930

President -FRANK WOLF North Girard

Vice President— FRED MOHRING North Girard

Secretary— J. V. MEEDER North Girard

Assistant Secretary— E. B. GRUBBS North Girard

FRANKLIN COUNTY HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY

Organized January 21, 1922

OFFICERS— 1930

President— S. A. HEISEY Greencastle

Vice President— CLAYTON MILLER Marion

Secretary— J. H. KNODE Chambersburg

Treasurer— G. R. GRISSINGER Chambersburg

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

H. W. SKINNER.: Chambersburg

FREDBIKLE Fayetteville

R. J. GILLAN St. Thomas

INDIANA COUNTY HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY

Organized February, 1924

OFFICERS— 1930

President— T. C. HOOD Saltsburg

Vice President— CLARENCE McHENRY Indiana

Sec.-Treas.— H. W. STONEBREAKER Indiana

•f

r

DIRECTORS

FRANK W. WILLIAMS {SdiaSa

WILLIAM NIBERT Punisutawney

ED. A. MURRAY Ho^eJ^CiZ

THOMAS K. GEORGE Homer City

LANCASTER COUNTY FRUIT GROWERS ASSOCIATION

OFFICERS— 1930

Secretary-M. A. MOORE Eohrata

Treasurer-S. E. FORRY Ephrata

LAWRENCE COUNTY FRUIT GROWERS ASSOCIATION

Organized 1914

OFFICERS— 1930

President-RANKIN S. JOHNSTON New Wilm!n|ton

Vice President-W. C. HILEMAN New Castle

Sec.-Treas.— CHARLES HARBISON Newcastle

LEHIGH COUNTY HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY

Organized March 16, 1923
OFFICERS— 1930

President-J. E. LINDE. .. 8refield

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

J.H.WEINBERGER F^Sille

F.J.MOHR AHentown

H.A. SCHANTZ AHentown

LEBANON COUNTY HORTICULTURAL ASSOCIATION

OFFICERS— 1930

President-H. MEYER SNAVELY hu^Unn

Sec.-Trea8.-J. MORRIS HORST Lebanon

LUZERNE COUNTY HORTICULTURAL ASSOCIATION

OFFICERS— 1930

President-NELSON H. LEWIS Rprwick
Vice President-WILLIAM SMITH n^lla,

Sec.-Treas.- HAROLD BRACE "alias

SNYDER COUNTY FRUIT GROWERS ASSOCIATION

Organized January 28, 1931

WAYNE COUNTY FRUIT GROWERS ASSOCIATION

Reorganized 1930

President-HERMAN HAASE . ^^H^rS
Sec.-Treas.-GEO. H. SEAMAN Honesdale

YORK COUNTY FRUIT GROWERS ASSOCIATION

OFFICERS— 1930

President— C. F. WEAVER M^J^Park

Vice President-H. M. ANDERSON o! ^T.*^»«
Vice President-RUSSEL SHAW - ^*T"r<.„v«lP
Secretary-GEORGE A. GOODLING LoganWlle

Treasurer— S. A. SMITH ^^

^f'^Ji^l^fS^

I

III

STATE HORTICULTURAL ASSOCIATION

OF PENNSYLVANIA

MEMBERSHIP LIST— 1930

Name

Abbey, J. H.

Aber, R. M.

Abraczinskas, Andrew

Ackerson, S. A.

Acme Veneer Pkg. Co.

Adam, J. N.

Adams, W. S.

Adams County Fruit Packing

and Distributing Co.
Aiken, J. V.
Alban, Thomas A.
Allem, S. W.
Allen Co., S. L.
Allen, Howard G.
American Lime and Stone Co.
Anderson, Edward T.
Anderson, H. M.
Anderson, H. W.
Anthony, R. D.
Anwyll, Harry L.
Atkinson, D. W.
Atkinson, R. E.
Aument, Andrew
Avalon Farms
Babcock, D. E.
Bacon, John
Baggs, W. E.
Baldesberger, W. P.
Balmer, Clayton
Balthaser, G. W.
Banzhaf, W. H.
Barnard, C. P.
Barr, I. C.
Bartram, Frank M.
Bartram, G. Maurice
Baugher, George L.
Baugher, H. G.
Bavard and Baldwin

Bayers, William
Bean, John Mfg. Co.
Bear, John W.
Bear, Arthur
Bear, Paul A.
Bear, S. H.
Beatty, J. E.
Beaver, James B.
Beaverson, E. S.
Beck, A. F.
Becker, C. E.
Behrens, H. A.
Bender, L. J.
Bendine, F. R.
Benn, Robert J.
Benner, Roy

>

Post Office

County

North Girard

Erie

Gibsonia

Allegheny

Catawissa R. 2

Columbia

Blairsville R. 4

Indiana

Orchard Park, N. Y.

West Chester R. 5

Chester

Aspers

Adams

Biglerville

Adams

Portersville

Lawrence

Loganville

York

Ottsville

Bucks

Philadelphia

New Park

York

Bellefonte

Centre

New Cumberland

Cumberland

New Park

York

Stewartstown

York

State College

Centre

Harrisburg

Dauphin

Wrightstown

Bucks

Wrightstown

Bucks

Safe Harbor R. 2

Lancaster

Bantam, Conn.

Medina, Ohio

Gasport, N. Y.

Martinsburg, W. Va.

Bridgeville R. 2
Manneim R. 1

Allegheny

Lancaster

Wemersville

Berks

Muncy

Lycoming

Kennett Square

Chester

Greencastle R. 2

Franklin

Kennett Square

Chester

West Chester

Chester

Aspers

Adams

Aspers

Adams

New Castle, 605 E. Washington

Street

Lawrence

Lehi^hton

Lehigh

Lansmg, Mich.

York R. 10

York

York R. 10

York

Mount Wolf R. 4

York

Scotland

Franklin

North Girard

Erie

MiflUnburg

Union

York R. 5

York

Perka.sie R. 1

Bucks

Bloomsburg R. 5

Columbia

Wilkes-Barre 120 Sanbourne St.

Luzerne

AUentown R. 4

Lehigh

Fairview

Erie

Bangor

Northampton

Perkasie

Bucks

Name

Bell, R. H.

Bickley, Mrs. Mae E.
Bievenour, W. S.
Bikle, F. C.
Bikle, Philip and Son
BiUmeyer, H. W.
Bingham, A. H.
Bingham, W. O.
Birth, Elmer
Bishop, William
Bitner, Elsie L.
Black, M. C.
Black, H. M.
Blaine, George W.
Blessing, David H.
Boak, J. A. & Sons
Bogart, Fred
Bock, Walter N.
Boies, McClellan T.
Boltz, Peter R.
Bonham, Boyd, Jr.
Borry, Joseph W.
Bostwick, George
Bountiful Ridge Nursery
Bowman, Oscar R.
Boyd, Paul C.
Boyer, John F.
Brace, Harold
Bracken, Ed.
Bream, D. M.
Breidenbaugh, H. L.
Brenneman, John S.
Brereton, O'Hara D.
Bricker, E. B.
Bridenbaugh, Herbert
Brinton, H. C.
Broomell, J. Howard
Brossman, Morse

Brown, H. W.
Brown, H. M.

Brown, Bert C.

Brown, J. E.

Brown, J. Turner

Brown, Norman C.

Brubaker, Daniel A.

Brubaker, J. C.

Bruce, C. H.

Bruugess, J. Jenkins

Buck, Warren W.

Bullock, W. H.

Burr, Milton

Bupp, Jere

Cation, William R.

Central Chemical Co.

Chapin, Irvin

Chase Brothers Co.

Chase, Charles T.

Chumard, Lewellyn

Clark, B. M.

Close, E. V.

Coates, W. B.

Coffroad, L. C.

Colby, C. C.

Post Office

Harrisburg
Quakertown R. 6
York 822 Prospect St.
Fayetteville R. 1
Chambersburg R. 1 1
Quakertown R. 2
St. Thomas
St. Thomas

Fairmount Springs R. 2
Doylestown
Gordonville R. 1
Allison Park

Idamar R. D.

North East

Harrisburg, 4 N. Court St.

New Castle R. 4

North East

Crafton R. 8

Hanlin Station

Lebanon

Hunlock Creek R. 2

Ephrata R. 1

North East

Princess Ann, Md.

Hanover, 307 W. Hanover St.

Delta

Middleburg

Dallas R. 3

Leesburg

Chambersburg

Boyertown

Lancaster R. 7

Chambersburg Lincoln Way b.

Lititz

Martinsburg

Hanover

Bridgeport

Ephrata R. 4

Allentown Box 676

Indiana R. 6

Marion Center R. 3

McDonald

New Park

Waynesboro R.D. Box 285

Ephrata R. 2

Lititz R. 1

Chambersburg Box 12

Tunkhannock R. 3

Elizabeth

Honesdale

Bardane, W. Va. R.D.

York R. 2

Orrtanna

Hagerstown, Md.

Shickshinny R. 3

Rochester, N. Y.

Bala

Ariel

Indiana

Lawrenceville

Parkersburg

New Holland R. 2

Erie 918 Cherry St.

County

Dauphin
Bucks
York
Franklin
Franklin
Lehigh
Franklin
Franklin
Luzerne
Bucks
Lancaster
Allegheny
Indiana
Erie
Dauphin
Lawrence
Erie
Allegheny
Washington
Lebanon
Luzerne
Lancaster
Erie

York
York
Snyder
Luzerne
Lawrence
Franklin
Berks
Lancaster
Franklin
I^ancaster
Blair
York
Montgomery
Lancaster
Lehigh
Indiana
Indiana
Washington
York
Franklin
Lancaster
Lancaster
Lancaster
Wyoming
Allegheny
Wayne

York
Adams

Luzerne

Montgomery

Wayne

Indiana

Tioga

Chester

Lancaster

Erie

Ati'S^3mm£^'Sit£si^

r.

Name

Cooper, C. A.

Cope, F. R., Jr.

Cornwall Farms and Orchards

Cowen, W. H.

Cox, J. W. & Sons

Craig, Albert B.

Craighead, E. M.

Crawford, J. B.

Crawford, Thos. H.

Creasy, C. W.

Creasy, Luther P.

Cressman, C. K.

Crist, James P.

Criswell, R. T.

Croft, F. W.

Cromley, P. S.

Crossman, P. S.

Crouse, Iram D.

Crouse, E. A.

Crouthamel, R. M.

Crowell, Ralph T.

Crowell, Samuel B.

Crowell, A. and T.

Cummings, Joseph F.

Cummings, J. W.

Currie, W. E.

Cutler Mfg. Co.

Dagostin Bros.

Davenport, Eugene

Dayton, R. S.

Dean, Rev. J. W.

DeCou, Benjamin S.

DeLong, Cletus Y.

Dennis, A. J.

Derick, F. P.

Detweiler, Ira K.

Dickenshied, F. S.

Dickey, Samuel

Dickinson, B. M.

Diehl, H. T.

Dietrich, Irvin C.

Diffenderfer, C. R.

Dill, Robert

Diven, W. C.

Dixon, M. E.

Dochat, C. J.

Drumheller, J. R.

Duke D. R. and B. F.

Duncan, Eleanor

Dunlap, James M.

Dunlap, R. Bruce

Dye, H. W.

Eagleman, J. G.

Ebaugh, W. H.

Ebling, Aaron

Eby, Henry

Edgerton, J. Russell

Edgerton Mfg. Co.

Ehrhart, John

Elbell, Geo. H.

Electric Hose and Rubber Co.

Eldon, Robert

Emery, Harvey

Post Office

Coraopolis 1000 Highland Ave.

Dimock

Cornwall

Roaring Springs R. 2

New Castle R. 5

County

Allegheny

Susquehanna

Lebanon

Blair

Lawrence

Allegheny

Adams

Franklin

Franklin

Columbia

Columbia

Berks

Sewickley

Gettysburg

Fayetteville R. 1

Fayetteville

Catawissa R. 1

Catawissa R. 1

Boyertown

Walden, N. Y.

Chambersburg 12 N. Second St.

St. Thomas

Danville R. 6

Girard

Stevens R. 2

Gettysburg

Perkasie

Buckingham

Edgemont

Avondale

Sunbury

New Wilmington

New Castle R. 1

Portland, Ore.

Sugarloaf R. 1

Plymouth

Dimock

Adrian

Norristown R. 1

Mertztown R. 2

Zionsville R. 1

Newburgh R. 1

Lebanon 36 N. 8th St.

Zionsville R. 1

Oxford

Pittsburgh 5634 Stanton Ave.

Millmont R. 1

Kempton R. 2

St. Thomas

North East

Livermore R. 2

Livermore R. 2

Lancaster R. 2

Boyertown R. 1

Chambersburg 60 W. Queen St.

Shippensburg 323 E. King St. Cumberland

Shippensburg R. 2 Cumberland

Harrisburg Bureau of Welfare Dauphin

Middleport, N. Y.

Geigers Mills

Stewartstown

Reading R. 2

Pittsburgh Court House

Westtown

Plymouth, Ind.

Spinnerstown

Rossiter R. 1

Wilmington, Del.

Aspers

Waymart

Frankhn

Franklin

Montour

Erie

Lancaster

Adams

Bucks

Bucks

Delaware

Chester

Northumberland

Lawrence

Lawrence

Luzerne

Luzerne

Susquehanna

Armstrong

Montgomery

Berks

liChigh

Cumberland

Lebanon

Lehigh

Chester

Allegheny

Union

Berks

Franklin

Erie

Indiana

Indiana

Lancaster

Berks

Franklin

Berks

York

Berks

Allegheny

Chester

Lehigh
Indiana

Adams
Wayne

'i

Name

Englemen, E. Y.
Erb Bros.
Evans Brothers
Evans, W. H.
Everhart, G. W.
Fagan, F. N.
Fahs, David C.
Fassett, F. H.
Feeg, A. C.
Felty, G. O. B.
Fernstermacher, P. S.
Ferrall, Geo. K.
Fetter, Joseph M.
Fetterman, J. Gordon
Field Force Pump Co.
Filbert, R. J.
Fisher, Isaac L.
Fisher, H. J.
Fisher, Fred
Fitting, George
Flack, M. Raymond
Fletcher, S. W.
Flinchbaugh, H. H.
Flora, Wm. H.
Forbes, R. M.
Forry, S. E.
Francis, CD.
Frantz, Ira
Free, W. A.
Freed, A. J.

Freed, W. A.

Fretz, J. Franklin

Frey, John L.

Frey, Harry E.

Friday, G. P. and Sons

Friend, Mfg. Co.

Fritz, Wm.

Fry, Emory

Fidlerton, A. H. and Son

Funk, Sheldon

Fyock, S. L. and Son

Gabler, C. Grover

C. A. Gackenbach

Garber, Henry F.

Garman, Albert S.

Garrahan, R. H.

Gates, G. H.

Gay, Arthur

Gerh, Harvey J.

Gibson, Ira E.

Gibson, W. F.

Gillan, R. J.

Gillan, G. G.

Gillan, C. F.

Glebe, William

Glick, Jacob R.

Goldsborough, E. L.

Good, James, Inc.

Good, Harvey

Good, Martin R.

Goodling, G. A.

Goshom, Taylor L.

Graybill, N. Charles

Post Office

Noxen

Lititz 305 E. Front St.

Glen Mills

Plainsville

York, S. George St.

State College

York, R. 9

Meshoppen

Robesonia, R. 1

Millersville

AUentown, R. 5

Crafton, 401 Barr Ave.

Wexford

Media

Elmira, N. Y.

Fox Chase

Soudersburg

Willow Grove, Box 602

Wemersville

Lumberville, R.D.

West Chester, R. 5

State College

Lo^anville

Wnghtsville

Erie. R. 1

Ephrata, R. 1

Allentown, 225 N. 17th St.

Dallas, R. 3

York, Elmwood Blvd. & Yale

Racine

Racine

Ottsville, R. 1

Reading, C. K. Whiting Co.

York, R. 2

New Castle, R. 1

Gasport, N. Y.

Barto, R. 2

Millerstown

Edinburg

Boyertown

Clymer, R. 1

Roxbury

Orefield, R. 1

Mt. Joy, R. 3

Manheim, N. Charles St.

Kingston

Shippensburg

Dallas, R. 3

Waynesboro

Blairsville, R.l

Yoe

St. Thomas

St. Thomas

St. Thomas

Delaware Water Gap

Lancaster, R. 5

Shepherdstown, W. Va.

Philadelphia

Lancaster. R. D.

Bareville, Box 55

Lo^anville

Quincy, Box 47

New Windsor, Md.

County

Wyoming

Ijancaster

Delaware

Luzerne

York

Centre

York

Wyoming

Berks

Lancaster

Lehigh

Allegheny

Allegheny

Delaware

Philadelphia
Lancaster
Montgomery
Berks
Bucks
Chester
Centre
York
York
Erie
Lancaster
Lehigh
Luzerne
St. York

Beaver
Beaver
Bucks
Berks
York
Lawrence

Berks

Perry

Lawrence

Berks

Indiana

Franklin

Lehigh

Lancaster

Lancaster

Luzerne

Cumberland

Luzerne

Franklin

I ndiana

York

Franklin

Franklin

Franklin

Monroe

Lancaster

Philadelphia

Lancaster

Lancaster

York

Franklin

i'

Name

Gregor, E. N.
Griel, C. B.
Griest, C. A.
Griest, Frederick
Grimshaw, Harry
Gross, Mahlon
Gross, H. S.
Group, Foster
Grove, W. E.
Grubbs, L. L.
Gutelius, Ray D.
Guyton, T. L.
Haag, Arthur M.
Haas, William
Haase, Herman
Haase, Alfred H.
Haberman, Mrs. T. C.
Hacker, A. L.
Haddock, John C.
Hafer, Roy
Haines, R. B. 3rd

Hall, L. C.
Hamme, Walter S.
Hann, Jesse
Harbison, C. F.
Hardt, C. W.
Hamish, C. H.
Hamish, Enos C.
Harnish, James B.
Harrison, Joseph
Harshman, John Jr.
Hart, H. V. Co.
Hartman, Scott W.
Hartman, D. L.
Hartman, L. E.
Hartman, E. W.
Hattenstein, S. C.
Haudenshield, Chas. H.
Haughay, John, Jr.
Hausman, George B.
Haverstick, Paul E.

Hayman, Guy L.

Hawkins, Paul M.

Hawkins, Charles A.

Hayes, S. B.

Heacock, O. J.

Head, J. B.

Heaps, T. Jerome

Heilman, Albert

Heinz, Henry

Heisey, S. A.

Helwig, D. B.

Herr, C. W.

Herr, C. H.

Hershey, J. Maurice

Hershey, H. F.

Hershey, H. S.

Hertzler, Jacob

Hess, J. S.

Hess, Elmer E.

Hess, Francis P.

Hess, Paul G.

Post Office County

Glenside, 324 W. Glenside Ave. Montgomery

Lamar, R. 1 Clinton

Guernsey Adams

Flora Dale Adams

North Girard _Ene

FountainviUe B^cks

York, R. 10 , York

Gradners Adams

York Springs .n^l^°^®

Wexford Allegheny

Mifflinburg ^ ^ ^ t^ ^T^
Harrisburg, Bureau Plant Industry Dauphm

A'

Reading, 1230 Robeson St.

Coplay

Narrowsburg, N. Y., R. 1

Narrowsburg, N. Y.

Baden

Allentown, 451 Hamilton St.

Wilkes-Barre

Fayetteville, R. 1 .

Germantown, 156 W. School

Lane
North Girard
New York City
Hunlock Creek
New Castle, R. 1
Harrisburg, 2245 N. 2nd St.
Leola

West Willow
Sinking Springs
Berlin, Md.
Smithburg, Md.
Hagerstown, Md.
Palm

Little River, Fla.
Cly

Chastown
Spring City

Crafton, Noblestown Road
Bel Air, Md.
Coopersburg, R. 2
Lancaster, 642 Woolworth Bldg

Northbrook

Flora Dale

Delta

Enon Valley

Clearville

York, 114 E. Market St.

Street, Md.

Lebanon, R. D.

Narrowsburg, N. Y.

Greencastle, R. 4

Catawissa, R. 1

Lancaster, R. 2

Lancaster, R. 2

Paradise, R. 1

Hamburg

East Petersburg

Lancaster, R. 3

Wapwallopen

Lancaster, R. 7

Lancaster, R. 7

Mt. Alto, R. 1

Berks
Lehigh

Beaver

Lehigh

Luzerne

Franklin

Philadelphia
Erie

Luzerne
Lawrence

Dauphin

Lancaster

Lancaster

Berks

Montgomery

York

Adams

Chester

Allegheny

Lehigh

Lancaster

Chester

Adams

York

Lawrence

Bedford

York

Lebanon

Franklin
Columbia
Lancaster
Lancaster
Lancaster
Berks
Lancaster
Lancaster

Luzerne
Lancaster
Lancaster

Franklin

, " \

Name

Hess, Ray B.
Hess, WUlis A.
Hile, Anthony
Hileman, W. Cari
Hill, William D.
Hilles, William T.
Hines, Zenas
Hockensmith, J. J.
Hoffman, Frank G.
Hoffman, H. L.
Hoffman, R. C.
Hoffmaster, J. G.
HoUinger, J. W.
Holt, Herbert
Hood, T. C.
Hoopes, Wilmer W.
Horn, W. H.
Home, David
Horst, J. Morris
Hosier, Ralph
Hostetler, Abram
Hostetter, Dr. J. E.
Houck, Clyde
Howard, P. H.
Howe, Homer B.
Huber, Edwin B.
Huber, Levi B.
Huey, S. R.

Hunsberger, Howard K.
Hunt, C. W. and Son
Hutchinson, J. D.
Hutchinson, C. H.
Hutchinson, T. G.
Hydraulic Press Mfg. Co.
Hykes, E. S.
Indiana County Home
Ingham, M. M.
Irey, Allen M.
Janes, G. T.
Jayne, Allen
Jefferson, Thomas H.
Johnson, Mrs. Evelyn B.
Johnston, Mrs. F. C.
Johnston, J. H.
Johnston, R. S.
Kams, J. H.
Kauffman, A. L.
Kauffman, C. E.
Kauffman, J. B.
Kauffman, E. F.
Keller, Paul J.
Kelly Bros. Nurseries
Kelso, James
Kemery, C. H.
Kendig, Dr. J. D.
Kephart, H. C.
Kerchner, Harvey T.
Kerr, F. P.
Kerr, George A.
Kessler, George W.
Ketner, Jacob B.
Kibler, T. F.
Kind, J. H.

Post Office

Mt. Alto, R. 1

Winchester, Va.

Curwensville

New Castle, R. 3

North East

Malvern

Clymer, R. 2

Harpers Ferry, W. Va., Box 9, R.

Reading

Butler, Star Route

Arendtsville

Muddy Creek Forks

Rohrerstown

Coopersburg, R. 2

Saltsburg, R. I

Westchester

Chambersburg, R. 10

York, R. 3

Lebanon, R. 3

Berwick, R. 1

Johnstown, R. 3

Gap, R. 1

Clymer, R. 1

Dover, R. 1

Benton . ^

Chambersburg, 232 S. Mam St.

Neffsville

New Castle, R. 3

Perkasie

Elwood City

Wilkes-Barre, 84 Scott St.

Armagh, R. D.

New Wilmington

Mt. Gilead, Ohio

York, R. 3

Indiana

New Castle, R. 5

Boyertown

North Girard

West Auburn

Wycombe

New Hope

Dallas

New Wilmington, R. 1

New Wilmington, R. 1

Chambersburg

Ronks, R. 1

York, 124 S. Hartley St.

York, R. 7

York, R. 7

Gettysburg, R. 5

Dansville, N. Y.

Enon Valley

West Chester

Manheim

Tyrone, R. 1

Lenhartsville

Sewickley

Virginsville

Tyrone

Wemersville

North Girard

Bellevue

County

Franklin

Clearfield

Lawrence

Erie

Delaware

Indiana

3

Berks
Butler
Adams
York
Lancaster
Lehigh
Indiana
Chester
Franklin
York
Lebanon
Luzerne
Cambria
Lancaster
Indiana
York
Columbia
Franklin
Lancaster
Lawrence
Bucks
Lawrence
Luzerne
Indiana
Lawrence

York

Indiana

Lawrence

Berks

Erie

Susquehanna

Bucks

Bucks

Luzerne

Lawrence

Lawrence

Franklin

Lancaster

York

York

York

Adams

Lawrence

Chester

Lancaster

Blair

Berks

Allegheny

Berks

Blair

Berks

Erie

Allegheny

Name

King, J. J. and Son
King, M. G.
Kester, U. G.
Kistler, H. C.
Klein, M. J.
Kleppinger, B. M.
Knappenberger, Thomas

Kock, C. H.
Koehler, Paulus, E.
Koppere, Co., Labs.
Kraus, J. W.
Kraybill, S. S.
Kreider, Harry
Kuhns, Oscar H.
Kuhns, Victor
Kuntz, Mrs. M. M.
Kunzig, Geo. A.
Kyle, Wm. B.
Landis, D. L., Jr.
Lanids, D. M.
Landis, H. D.
Laskoski, B. G.
Latshaw, J. E.
Latterman, R. A.
Lau, Rev. I. M.
Lau, L. B.
Lau L. E.
Laub, H. H. Jr.
Laudenslager, Martin
Lehman, G. E.
Lehman. Sylvester
Lehman, S. S.
Leibhart, Samuel
Lemmon, D. R.
Lengle, Paul H.
Leonard, F. E.
Lepole, Walter
Lesher, H. V.
Lewis, L. A.
Lewis, Russell
Lewis, S. V.
Lewis, Norman
Lewis, Howard G.

Lewis, Nelson H.

Lewis, L. N.

Lieberknecht, H. F.

Lightner, E. S.

Lightwood, M. H.

Linde, J. Eric

Linville, Arthur S.

Livingood, W. W.

Lohry, Charles F.

Long, D. Edward

Ijoop, A. I.

Loop, H. S.

Loose, H. H.

Lord, John

Luginbuhl, R.

Lupton, J. McSherry

McCandless, Ray

McClelland, J. B.

McClenathan, J. J.

McCormick, C. M.

Post Office

New Castle

Mt. Wolfe, R. 1

Etters

Lenhartsville, R. 1

Wapwallopen, R. 1

Coopersburg, R. 2

Zionsville, R. 1

McKeenburg

Monaca, 826 Washington Ave.

Pittsburgh

Bamesville

Mt. Joy

Lancaster, R. 3

Allentown, R. 3

AUentown, R. 2

Allentown, 530 Hamilton bt.

Girard

Zionsville

Chambersburg, R. 1

Lancaster, R. 7

Girard

Trucksville

Marion

York, R. 6

York, 715 Manor

East Berlin, R. 2

EastBerling R. 2

Lewistown, 77 Chestnut bt.

Orefield, R. 1

Wrightsville, R. 2

York, R. 9

Girard

Wrightsville, R. 1

North Girard

Pine Grove

Carlisle, R. 1

Akron

Northumberland, R. 1

Wyoming, R. 3
Pittston, R. 1
Wyoming
Pittston, R. 1
Pittston, R. 1
Pittston, R. 1

County

Lawrence
York
York
Berks
Luzerne
Lehigh
Lehigh
Schuylkill
Beaver
Allegheny
Schuylkill
Lancaster
Lancaster
Lehigh
Lawrence
Lehigh
Erie
Lehigh
Frankhn
Lancaster
Erie
Luzerne
FrankUn
York
York
York
York
Mifflin
Lehigh
York
York
Erie
York
Erie
Schuylkill
Cumberland
Lancaster
Northumberland
Luzerne
Luzerne
Luzerne
Luzerne
Luzerne
Luzerne

A

■)•

f

niLsion, xv. 1 TTT A — ^\\^A

Ligonier, 210 Summit Ave. Westmoreland

York
York

Hellman, R. 1

York, R. 10

Emmitsburg, Md.

Orefield, R. 1

Media, R. 2

Robesonia

Beaver

Chambersburg

North East

North East

Menges Mills

Wyoming, R. 1 ^^ t>i j

Lypbrook, Long Island, 3 Nassau Blvd.

Winchester, Va. . „ ,

Oakdale w^v^^tnJ^

Canonsburg Washington

North Girard _ ^^«

New Castle, R. 2 Lawrence

Lehigh

Delaware

Berks

Beaver

Franklin

Erie

Erie

York

Luzerne

Name

McCormick, James
McDonald, R. C.
McFarland, J. Horace
McFrea, F. C.

McGeor^e, Mrs. Katherine L.
McGinms, C. R.
McGowan, Howard
McHenry, Clarence
McKee, J. M.
McKee, T. C.
McKinney, C. W.
MacNeal, William H.
McPherson, Roy P.
McPherson Bros.
Mahle, H. F.
Maffet, Miss M. A.
Mahaley, Clyde
Malone, Mary S.
Maloney Bros. Nursery Co.
Markey, Elmer J.
Marsh, H. V.
Martin, A. C.
Martin, J. O.
Marvil, Pkg. Co.
Mattem, Jos. C.
Mattes, Paul
Matthews, G. Edw.
Matthews, W. H.
Mauger, Maurice
Maule, Norman C.
Maurer, W. H.
Mayer, Guy S.
Mayer, L. E.
Mecartney, J. L.
Mechling, Edward A.
Meeder, J. V.
Mellinger, Adam
Meehan, S. Mendelson
Melcher, George W.
Mellinger, Jacob D.
Merkel, C. D.
Merkel, Floyd
Messmer Brass Co.
Mesta Brothers
Metzler, E. N.
Mayer, Henry T.

Meyer. M. A., Jr.

Miles, H. C. C.

Miller, Carroll R.

Miller, Jos. T.

Miller, Edward W.

Miller, L. P.

Miller, H. W.

Miller, Amos

Miller, C. Clayton

Miller, Harvey

Miller, Jos. C.

Miller, John W.

Miller, W. C.

Mills, Irvin

Minnich, W. L.

Mitchell, W. T. & Son

Mohr, Frank J.

Post Office

Harrisburg

Inwood, Va.

Harrisburg

Blairsville

l/iT^anna

Reading, 507 Colonial Trust Bldg.

Gei^ers Mills

Indiana

Harrisburg

East Springfield

Ariel

Parkesburg

LeRoy, N. Y.

Bridgeton

New York City, 295 Madison Ave.

Wilkes-Barre, 264 S. Franklin

New HoUand, R. 1

Brandywine Summit

Dansville, N. Y.

York, R. 2

Seven Valleys, R. 2

Muddy Creek Forks

Mercersburg

Laurel, Del.

Hollidaysburg, 310 Newry St.

Emaus, R. 1

York, R. 6

Salem, Ohio, Box 313

Boyertown, R. 2

Willow Street, R. 1

Hegins

Willow Street

Boyertown

State College

Moorestown, N. J.

North Girard

Clay

Germantown, 380 Dorset St.

Bally

Lancaster, R. 8

Coopersburg, R. 2

Hamburg

St. Louis, Mo., 2700 S. 7th Blvd.

County

Dauphin

Dauphin

Indiana

Adams

Berks

Berks

Indiana

Dauphin

Erie

Wayne

Chester

York

Luzerne

Lancaster

Chester

York

York

York

Franklin

Blair

Lehigh

York

Berks
Lancaster
Schuylkill
Lancaster

Berks
Centre

Erie

Lancaster

Philadelphia

Berks

Lancaster

Lehigh

Berks

Finleyvilie, R. 1
Ephrata, R. 4
Lewisburg
Lebanon, R. 3
New Milford, Conn.
Martinsburg, W. Va.
Wilkinsburg
Romney, W. Va.
Paw Paw, W. Va.
Paw Paw, W. Va.
Hanover, R. 4
Marion
Logan ville
Safe Harbor, R. 1
Ephrata, R. 2
Catawissa
Ottsville, R. D.
Waynesboro, Box 148
Beverly, Ohio
Fogelsvills

Washington

Lancaster

Union

Lebanon

Allegheny

York

Franklin

York

Lancaster

Lancaster

Columbia

Bucks

Franklin

Lehigh

Name

Mohring, F. G.
Monosmith, S. B.
Moon, Henry T.
Moore, M. A.
Moritz, George
Mt. Breeze Orchard Co.
Mowery, N. E.

Moyer, Levi S.

Moyer, Samuel

Murray, Edward A.

Musselman, C. H. Co.

Musser, A. G.

Musser, W. E.

Myers, H. L.

Myers, F. E. & Bros. Co.

Myers, Levi M. '

Myers, Paul M.

Neiman, Otto

Newell, Henrietta B.

Newman, M. H.

Newton, E. M.

Niagara Sprayer & Chemical

Co.
Nibert, Wm.
Nichols, Oliver T.
Nichols, Harry A.
Nicodemus, Ed.
Niering, Theo.
Nissley, D. H.
Nolt, Harrison
Northrup, H. J.
Northrup, A. M.
Norton, Carlos E.

Noss, J. A.
O'Connor, Haldeman
Omwake, J. Ed.
Old Patton Nurseries
Orrtanna Canning Co.
Orton, C. W. & Son
Overdorff, H. W.
Page, C. M.
Palmer, Alex S.
Pannebaker, WiUiam M.
Panovec, Victor
Parker, Capt. H. B.
Parks, S. J.
Parks, Wm. H.
Parmell, D. M.
Parrish, E. R.
Passmore, S. S.
Paschal, John
Passmore, Norman S.
Payne, E. W.
Paxson, Samuel L.
Paxson, Edw. M.
Pennsylvania Nursery
Pfaff, C. Calvin
Pifer, Harvey
Philip, George

Poff, Curvin
Powers, R. A.

Post Office

North Girard

Weisel

Morrisville

Lititz

Wescoesville, R. 1
Fayetteville, R. 2
Mechanicsburg, 414 E.

Blooming Glen

Hershey
Punxsutawney, R. D.

Biglerville
New Holland, R. 3
New Bethlehem
Dover, R. 2
Ashland, Ohio
Siddonsburg
Lancaster
Dover, R. 3
Oxford Valley
New Castle, R. 4
New Wilmington

Middleport, N. Y.
Indiana, R. D.
Downingtown
Indiana, R. 3
Waynesboro
Wapwallopen, R. D.
'Lancaster, 142 E. Chestnut
Columbia, R. 1
Dalton
Danville
Sewickley
New Castle, R. 5
Harrisburg, 13 N. Front St.
Greencastle
Stewartstown
Orrtanna
North East
Blairsville, R. 4
Etters

Berwick, Nova Scotia
VirgiUna, Va.
Easton, R. 2

Boston, Mass., State House

Clarksburg, R. D.

Dallas, R. 2

Farm School

Dallas, R. 1

Mendenhall

Kennett Square

Glen Mills, R. 1

Stewartstown

Lumberville

Lumberville, R. D.

Girard
Quakertown, R. 1

Stevens, R. 2 , , ^ , ,
Pittsburgh, 1700 McFarland

Road
York, R. 6
Glenshaw, R. 1

County

Erie

Bucks

Bucks

Lancaster

Lehigh

Franklin

Wayne St.

Cumberland

Bucks

Dauphin

Indiana

Adams

Lancaster

Clarion

York

York
Lancaster

York

Bucks

Lawrence

Lawrence

V^''

Indiana
Chester
Indiana
FrankUn
Luzerne
Lancaster
Lancaster
Lackawanna
Montour
Allegheny
Lawrence
Dauphin
Franklin
York
Adams
Erie
Indiana
York

Northampton

Indiana
Luzerne
Bucks
Luzerne
Chester
Chester
Delaware
York
Bucks
Bucks
Erie
Bucks
Lancaster

Allegheny

York

Allegheny

Name

Pratt, B. G.

Pratt, Lee F.

Rahauser Bros.

Raine, Tom

Rankiii, S. H.

Rankin, Charles C.

Rarig, L. G.

Ray, Chas. K.

Ray, Edgar S.

Read, F. A. Inc.

Reading Bone Fertilizer Co.

Redinger, Austin B.

Reed, Vernon

Reichard, Chas. W.

Reinhold, E. C.

Reist, Allen E.

Reist, Henry G.

Reiter, F. G.

Resh, Noah W.

Rhodes, Chesley

Rice, Daniel

Rice, Oscar C.

Richards, Neff F.

Richardson, W. T.

Rick, Charles M.

Rick, John

Rife, Jacob L.

Riland H. E.

Rilling, Harvey

Ritter, Astor

Rinehart, E. S.

Rinn, D. F.

Risser, H. N.

Rittenhouse, Dr. J. S.

Rittenhouse, S. B.

Ritter, Henry A.

Roberts, Arthur

Roberts, J. Earle

Roberts, A. J.

Roberts, Horace

Rhode, WiUiam

Rhode, W. C.

Rohlfing, F. F.

Rhorer, Geo. H.

Roland, Ottq

Romig Brothers

Root, J. W.

Rosensteel, L. C.

Roth, Edwin

Royer, John

Rozelle, H. E.

Ruef, J. U.

Ruhl, Dr. H. F.

Runk, J. A.

Rush, Perry M.

Russell, Mrs. Florence

Rutt, Amos S.

Rutter Bros.

Rutter, Walter W.

Salsgiver, Andrew

Sanville, Florence

Satterthwaite, Lewis P.

Satterthwaite, F. G.

Post Office County

New York City, 50 Church St.

Chambersburg

Greencastle

Fairview

EUzabeth, R. 1

West Chester

Danville

Ingomar

West Chester

Albion, N. Y.

Reading

Oley, R. 2

McKean

Waynesboro

EUzabeth, R. 1

Palmyra, R. 2

Schenectady, N. Y., 1160 Avon Road

Mars Allegheny

Hanover, R. 2 , York

Elysburg Northumberland

Franklin

Franklin

Erie

Allegheny

Chester

Montour

Allegheny

Chester

Berks

Berks

Erie

FrankUn

AUegheny

Lebanon

New Bloomfield

Biglerville

Schellburg

Whiteford, Md.

Reading, 431 Windsor St.

Reading, C. K. Whitner Co.

Lemoyne, 839 Market St.

Cressona R. 1

North Girard

AUentown, R. 3

Mercersburg

Indiana

Marietta

Lorane

Lorane

Coopersburg

McKnightstown, R. 1

Philadelphia, 220 Dock St.

Moorestown, N. J.

Moorestown, N. J.

Johnstown

PikesviUe, Md.

Hummelstown

Dryville

Narrowsburg, N. Y. R. 4

Downingtown

Manheim, R. 1

Edri

Orefield

Akron

Pittston, R. D.

State CoUege

Manheim

Huntingdon

Sycamore, R. 1

Wellsboro, 33 West Ave,

Lancaster, R. 7

Lancaster, 551 W. King St.

New Holland, R. 2

Indiana, R. 7

Westtown, Box 25

Newtown

Yardley

Perry
Adams
Bedford

Berks

Berks

Cumberland

SchuylkiU

Erie

Lehigh

FrankUn

Indiana

Lancaster

Berks

Berks

Lehigh

Adams

Philadelphia

Cambria

Dauphin
Berks

Chester

Lancaster

Indiana

Lehigh

Lancaster

Luzerne

Centre

Lancaster

Huntingdon

X Green

Tioga

Lancaster

Lancaster

Lancaster

Indiana

Chester

Bucks

Bucks

I

Name

Saul, Mrs. M. B.
ScanJon, John
Scarff's Nurseries
Schaffer, C. D.
Schantz, H. A.
Schantz, L. M.
Schieferstein, Wm.
Schlegel, Edwin
Scholl, Paul
Schoonover, W. E.
Schreiber, Harry F.
Schuldt, J. Cariton

Schultz, Chester

Schwinderman, H. P.

Seachman, George E.

Seaman, George

Searle, Alonza T.

Seitz, M. H.

Seley, Fred

Settlemeyer, C. T.

Shaffer Bros.

Shaffer, Charies N.

Shaffer, Frank H.

Shank, Owen D.
Shank, H. A.
Sharpe, Walter K.
Shattuck, J. W.
Shaw, R. C.
Sheble, Eari
Shenk, D. W.
Shenot, C. P.
Shenot, Henry
Shenot, Edward
Sheppard, Chas. W.
Sherman, Mrs. Francis T.
Shermeyer, Harry A.
Shirk, Ira J.
Shirker, J. B.
Showalter, A. R.
Sidler, Anton
Simmons, S. L.
Simons, R. B.
Simpson, J. M.
Singleton, L. P.
Skinner, H. W.

Slade, J. C.

Slaymaker, Samuel

Smedley, W. P.

Smedley, S. L., Sr.

Smedley, S. L. Jr.

Smith, A. Woodward

Snaith, J. R.

Smith, Lawrence

Smith, J. E.

Smith, Leonard R.

Smith, Geo. K.

Smith, PhiUp S.

Smith, Roland M.

Smith, William

Smith, S. A.

Smith, Wm. M.

Snavely, Ammon

Post Ofiftce

Rose Valley, Moylan

Weatheriy, R. 2

New Carlisle, Ohio

Hartsville

Allentown, 602 Hamilton St.

Orefield, R. 1

Leesport

Orefield, R. 1

Fogelsville

Dallas, R. 3

Zionsville

Elizabethtown

Barto

Wexford

Red Lion, R. 1

Honesdale

Honesdale

York, R. 6

New Wilmington

Wilmore, R. D.

Ariel

Willow Grove, Box 48

Pittsburgh, Chamber Commerce

Bldg.
Waynesboro, R. 2

Lancaster, R. 7 ^^^ -^ ,-. 1 1-

Chambersburg, 167 Lincoln Way, E. Franklin

Erie, R. 6 ^^l

Stewartstown ^^rK

Hamburg , ^®^,^^

Lancaster, R. 7 Lancaster

County

Delaware
Carbon

Bucks
Lehigh
Lehigh
Berks
Lehigh
Lehigh
Luzerne
Lehigh
Lancaster
Berks
Allegheny
York
Wayne
Wayne
York
Lawrence
Cambria
Wayne
Bucks

Allegheny

Franklin

Lancaster

Wexford
Sharpsburg
Wexford
Pittston, R. 1
Frazer
York, R. 6
Miflftintown
Akron

Reinholds, R. 1
York, R. 9
Pittsburgh, R. 6
Sterling
Indiana, R. D.

Allegheny
Allegheny
Allegheny
Luzerne
Chester
York
Juniata
Lancaster
Lancaster
York
Allegheny
Wayne
Indiana

Rochester, N.Y., Monroe Warehouse Co

Chambersburg

Allentown, 1223 Walnut bt.

Shamokin Dam

Media

Newton Square

Newton Square

Blairsville, R. 1

Indiana

South River, N. J., Box 222

Bethlehem, R. 4.

Mt. Holly, N. J.

Akron

Lau^hlintown

Manon Center, R. 2

Berwick, R. 2

Yoe

Orefield, R. 1

Manheim, R. 1

Franklin
Lehigh
Snyder

Delware
Chester
Chester
Indiana
Indiana

Lehigh

Lancaster

Westmoreland

Indiana

Columbia

York

Lehigh

Lancaster

Name

Snavely, C. B.
Snavely, Elmer
Snavely, H. H.
Snavely, H. Meyer
Snavely, Misses
Snyder, C. B.
Snyder, Simon
Snyder, Elmer
Snyder, Fred
Snyder, T. S.
Snyder, Fry and Rick
Spangenberg, R. F.
Standard Chemical Works
Stark Bros. Nurseries
Stauffer, T. H.
Stauffer, Wallace
Stear, J. R.
Stein, Henry
Stein, Geo. E.
Steninger, CD.
Stephens, A. Woodward
Stitzer, C. E.
Stockdale, H. C.
Stoke, H. W.
Stoner, Bertha
Stoneroad, S. A.
Stonebraker, H. W.
Stover, Jacob E.
Strawbaugh, E. F.
Strohecker, Herman A.
Strong, T. M.
Sudds, Richard H.
Sun Oil Company
Swank, Luke H.
Swartz, D. H.
Tabor, Rollin H.
Tarbert, D. F. ^
Taylor, Ralph S.
Thayer, Paul
Thomas. Charles L.
Thomas, Edwin W.
Thomas, John M.
Thompson, Dr. L. M.
Thompson, P. D.
Titus Nursery Co.
Tobacco By-Products Co.
Trexler, General Harry C.
Treichler, Raymond
Trexler. T. A.
Turrell, Elmore
Tyler. W. D.
Tyson, Chester J.
Tyson, Edwin C.
Tyson, William C.
linger, D. H.
Vierheller, A. F. .

Virginia-Carolina Chemical

Corp.
Vogel, E. H.
Wadsworth, J. W.
Wagener, D. D. and Co.
Wagner, J. S.
Wagner, Charles E.

Post Oflfice

Ilititz, R. 5
Li tit z, R. 5
Willow Street
Lebanon, 1505 Oak St.
Lebanon, R. 8
Ephrata, R. 1
Ephrata, R. 1

County

Lancaster
Lancaster
Lancaster
Lebanon
Lebanon
Lancaster
Lancaster

HipnraLa, i\. i . ,^ ; ,

Elizabethtown, Masonic Homes Lancaster
Avonmore Westmoreland

Brodbecks

Reading, R. 2

Hamlin

Reading

Louisiana, Mo.

Lititz, R. 4

Quakertown, R. 2

Chambersburg, 68 N. 6th bt.

Woodville

Wrightsville, R. 1

Coopersburg

Mooresburg

Mifflinburg, 221 E. Chestnut St.

Ravena, Ohio

Chester, 221 W. 23rd St.

Hellam

New Providence

Indiana, R. 7

York, R. 9

Orrtanna

Gouglersville

Blairsville, R. 1

State College

Philadelphia

Johnstown

Clymer, R. 1

Mount Vernon, Ohio

Dallastown, R. 1

West Chester, R. D.

CarUsle, R. 6

King of Prussia

King of Prussia

York, R. D.

Montrose

Norristown, R. 2

Waynesboro, Va.

Louisville, Ky.

Allentown

York

Berks

Wayne

Berks

Lancaster

Lehigh

Franklin

Allegheny

York

Bucks

Montour

Union

Delaware

York

Lancaster

Indiana

York

Adams

Berks

Indiana

Centre

Philadelphia

Cambria

Indiana

York

Chester

Cumberland

Montgomery

Montgomery

York
Susquehanna
Montgomery

Lehigh

Sunlfury, 126 Chestnut St Northumberiand

Noxen Wyoming

Dante, Va. ka^^c,

Gardners ^f^l

Flora Dale Adams

Flora Dale Adams

Boyertown ^^^^^
College Park, Md.

Richmond, Va.
Lancaster, R. 3
Seward
Easton

Blacklick, R. 1
McClure

Lancaster

Indiana

Northampton

Indiana

Snyder

I

Name

Wakefield, E. B.
Walp, Charles F.
Walter, M. T.
Walton, Robert J.
Wardan, Howard
Way, D. H.
Weaver, Abram
Weaver, M. M.
Weaver, C. F.
Weaver, Wm. S.
Webster, Joseph
Weigel, H. M.
Weicksel, Dr. Amelia
Weimer, E. A.
Weinberger, J. H.
Welshans, D. D.
Welshans, M. O.
Wenger, Benj. G.
Wertsch, Edwin
Wertz, D. Maurice
Wertz, George M.
Westrick. F. A.
Wheeler, C. B.
Whisler, Edgar
Whitcomb, Paul
White, Arthur L.
White, F. Hayes
Whitehead, P. B.
Widders. J. B.
Williams, Carl
Williams F. W.
Wills, F. A.
Wilson, Geo. E.
Wilson, P. D.
Wilson, C. C.
Wink, Edwin F.
Wingert, S. B.
Winter, L. M.
Wister, John C.

Witherow, R. T.
Witmer, John B.
Wohlin, Fred
Wolfe, Clayton H.
Wolgemuth, Abner M.
Wolff, F. B.
Woodward, N. H.
Woolsey, Claude
Wood, I. C.
Woods, D. A.
Wolf, Frank L.
Wolfe, Walter
Wolfe, Charles A.
Wolfe, Joseph
Woods, Emmett R.
Worley's Nursery
Worthington, H. R.
Wotring, Oscar A.
Yaple, L. B.
Yeger, Wilson
Yone, George
Yohe, Thos.
Young, J. Fred

Post Office

County

Homer City, St.aT Route

Indiana

Berwick, Walnut St.

Columbia

Biglerville

Adams

Hummelstown

Dauphin

Dallas

Ijuzerne

Port Matilda

Centre

Scalp Level

Somerset

Ephrata, R. 4

Lancaster

York, R. 9

York

Macungie

Lehigh

West Grove

Chester

Harrisburg

Dauphin

Perkasie, R. D.

Bucks

Lebanon

Lebanon

Zionsville, R. 1

Lehigh

Jersey Shore, R. 4

Lycoming

Jersey Shore, R. 4

Lycoming

Ephrata, R. 3

Lancaster

Stevens, R. 2

Lancaster

Waynesboro

Franklin

Johnstown

Cambria

Patton, R. 2

Cambria

Hunlocks Creek, R. 2

Luzerne

Etters, R. 1

York

York, R. 4

York

Pulaski

Lawrence

Liverpool, R. 1

Perry

Newton Square

Delaware

Lancaster, R. 3

Lancaster

Elderton

Indiana

Indiana, R. 4

Indiana

Philadelphia

Philadelphia

Wilkinsburg, R. 1

Allegheny

Indiana, R. D.

Indiana

Sharpsburg, R. 2

Allegheny

Lenhartsville, R. 1

Berks

WilUamsport, 634 W. 4th St.

Lycoming

Hellam, R. 1

York

Germantown, Clarkson &

Wister St.

Philadelphia

Punxsutawney

Jefferson

Lampeter

Lancaster

Perrysville

Allegheny

Girard

Erie

Mt. Joy, R. 1

Lancaster

Lima

Delaware

Mendenhall

Delaware

Washington, D. C, 4219 River Road

Shelocta

Indiana

Alexandria

Huntingdon
Erie

North Girard

Dallas, R. 2

Luzerne

Aspers
Allentown, R. 1.

Adams

Lehigh

Carlisle, Court House Ave.

Cumberland

York Springs
West Cnester

Adams

Chester

Orefield

Lehigh

Chillicothe, Ohio, Foulke Block

Wismer

Bucks

Spring Grove
Menges Mills

York

York

EUwood City, R. 1

Lawrence

^

Name

Young, Miles
Young, R. C.
Youngs, L. G.
Zeigler, J. A. C.
Zellers, E. B.
Ziesenheim, J. R.
Zook, Amos
Zook, I. F.
Zundel, G. L.

Post Office

Narrowsburg, N. Y.

Chambersburg, R. 1

North East

York, 529 W. Market St.

Montgomery

North Girard

Lancaster, R. 5

Curryville

State College

County

FrankUn

Erie

York

Lycoming

North Girard

I^ancaster

Blair

Centre

!

■1
4ii

^i

INDEX

PAGE

Officers and Committees 3

President's Address ^

Secretary's Report 5

Treasurer's Report ^

A Summary of the Pennsylvania Apple Disease Situation for 1930,

R. S. Kirby 8

Report of Insect Pest Committee, T. L. Guyton 12

The Control of Codling Moth with Tree Bands, H. N. Worthley .... 13

The Relation of Insect Control to the Arsenic Content of Spray Residues,

H. E. Hodgkiss 18

Report of the Fruit Tree Identification Committee, F. N. Fagan ... 28

Resolutions Adopted by the Association 28

Some Problems Connected with the Installation and Operation of Sta-
tionary Spray Plants, Wm. Abildgaard 29

The Removal of Dirt and Spray Residues from Fruit, Wm. Abildgaard . 33

The Part which Fruit Plays in the American Dietary, Mary I. Barber 37

My Two Stationary Spray Plants, H. W. Skinner 40

The Importance of Organic Matter in the Orchard During a Dry Season,

F. N. Fagan 42

The Massachusetts Deer Laws, Charles H. Gould 62

Some Problems of New England Fruit Growing, Charles H. Gould ... 57

Adjusting Orchard Practices to Meet Market Requirements, E. C.

Auchter ^2

Horticultural Observations in England, J. H. Karns 69

Cherry Growing, Foster Group 72

The Production and Marketing of Quality Fruit in the Hard Coal Dis-
trict, Andrew Abraczinakas 73

Gap Way Products — Their Production and Marketing, William H.

Glebe 73

The Behavior of Certain Varieties of Peaches and Apples in Berks County,

Sheldon Funk 74

Lessons to be Learned from Fruit Growing Practices in the Pacific Nort h-

west, J. R. Magness 77

Pruning Apple Trees in New York State, L. H. Mac Daniels 84

The Pollination Problem, L. H. Mac Daniels 90

Question Box 95

A History of Fruit Growing in Pennsylvania, S. W. Fletcher, Part I, The
Colonial Period (Paged independently, following page 95, Question
Box).

VV«

f

ADVERTISERS

PAGE

Tobacco By-Products & Chemical Company— "Black Leaf 40" .... 31

Bowker Chemical Company— Pyrox ^^

Reading Bone Fertilizer Company— Fertilizers, Sprays 39

Thar's Gold in them hUls! ^^

Moore & Munger— Scientific Spray Oils ^^

The Grasselli Chemical Company, Inc.— Spray and Dust Materials 47

A. B. Farquhar Company, Ltd.— Cider Presses, Sprayers, etc 51

Adams County Nursery— Fruit and Ornamental Trees 55

California Spray Chemical Company— "Kleenup" Oil Spray 59

The Associated Cooperage Industries of America— Bands 63

Peerless Dust Gun Company— Hand Dust Guns ^^

The Toledo Rex Spray Company— Rex Spray Materials 67

Standard Chemical Works— Spray Materials 71

Golden State Sales Corporation— Kayso . . . : 71

Hagerstown Spray Material Company— Southern Chemical Company-
Spray Materials, Fertilizers '^

Jersey Package Company, Inc.— Baskets, Crates, Packing Equipment 79
John Bean Manufacturing Company— Sprayers, Dusters, Graders,

Washing and Wiping Machinery ^^

R. W. Doebler— Cletrac Tractors, Contractor's Equipment 87

Niagara Spray and Chemical Company, Ind.— Spray Materials and

T^ X Rear Cover

Equipment

THESE ADVERTISERS HELP MAKE THESE
PROCEEDINGS POSSIBLE. PATRONIZE THEM !

^agara

and

Clean Crops

GO HAND IN HAND

Whether you are a disciple of the dusting
method or follow a spraying program, when
you buy Niagara materials or equipment,
you have the assurance of using the best.

mgara

Niagara Sprayer & Chemical Co., Inc.

Middleport, N. Y.

Patronize Our Advertisers