Title: Pennsylvania State Horticultural Association news, v.10 Place of Publication: State College, Pa. Copyright Date: 1933 Master Negative Storage Number: MNS# PSt SNPaAg096.3 Title: Pennsylvania State Horticultural Association news, v.10 Place of Publication: State College, Pa. Copyright Date: 1933 Master Negative Storage Number: MNS# PSt SNPaAg096.3 Pennsylvania State Horticultural Association News J hh ■J' ft ^■^: ^ . 4 sc;: VoLX State College, Pa„ Sl^ arch, 033 <-ft No.l ^^^ ir..^ if Proceedings titTlh^ State Horticultural Association of Pennsylvania for 1933 ^ Seventy-fourth Annual Meeting Held in Harrisburg, January 17-18 ^0 i«wjBS"Wr,r^ microseojiicaUif line SULPHUR IF you consider only the iartik'cost of other spray materials, par- ticulate sulphur spray may izvm more expensive. But what is the purpose of your spraying? Aren't you more interested in assuring yourself a profit in your spraying results than in saving money on spray materials? Flotation Sulphur repays you many times over in the increased vitality of your trees, freedom from russetting and foliage injury, fine finish of fruit and a highly profitable increase in fruit quality. SPRAY WITH FLOTATION SULPHUR FOR SCAB AND BROWN ROT CONTROL ^,..,.»«'^'-,„„^ 8 ^Lfieen limes finer ikon ^oo nusk In addition to Flotation Sulphur in Paste, Dry Wettable and Duat form, we manufacture Tar Oil Dormant Spray; AgriculUiral Weed Killers; Non-Caking Sulphate of Ammonia; Coal Tar Disinfectants; Wood Preservers; Cattle Sprays and Poultry House Sprays. \}Yriie for full informalbn and prices KOPPERS PRODUCTS COMPANY lOPPERS BUHOiNG PITTSBURGH, PA. FI.OTATION t SULPHUR i NEW MODELS ^ }■■■*-.* I ! 1 1 1 . ; • ■ I -" I ill I' - . i . : !.< < ', I i >«'l)r|' .il^. I )!|.l|i --. lldCit . -ili.i "^' ,\ II llh'IiL! lin' tic-', • i.tH' t!iiif, liii' lit- l!M\\ iiciriL' 'it- \\'\ . •!■!. ' ii- M'l' -' ■' M' ll!lL' •iIllMli:: \\l,|. 'i r.- \i\\ Solul Kctl Di'liiious. \ '^:i!nr i >•• i . > ■' ■ I iMl - ' il T I ,(• ( ' 'III II |i 'ti i >l 1 |l'|, M 1- - (I -I'M ' - I IMC n[ '••ii iiiL' I "■I'l" ■ ■ - 'If 'lir'ct ".fi'|.,- ••il'llrf ■\\\i\ i-(»|mI'-. ^. 1)1 ' I , t 1|.. ■«' .-Ii : ■! h ! 'ill >---< .'11 ••'! J-" I • \ ■ . . .•••-•■( n Kfil Durhfss. \. ', -..li,| i;, : I ).icti,^v ~ •■ f\i'i ■[ .t iMii III ; icii Mj ' -> M 'I i I'' ■' ! I < »\\ i \ , ! ii ■ n ji III . ! ' rk !•.-•! \\ Mild \i •! lit . I, I ••; 1 iiiijl''-* pfii-f ..| ;ii,. \;>|i|.- lT'iwi. Ill \ ,:. ^ ' ' " ' tin 'i'. I ,. ■ • . . I f. •! ' li; n -I 111' It f' ! •. 1 1 M ' M ■ ^ ' >i;i' ■ I!'" , I !,• , . !•■ .Miriit'ri'i 1 1 \ IM 'I'- I l.< I . ' '.''■'' r In 'I 111 I If I '( .It! Ml' TCI I i «^"ll'i fc- I \c \ M 1 c I -« Ik I I ! I I ' \c\\ Sdliil Kcil St;i\m;m. \ -'ii'i r»'l>;!\i!i >'ivni.!i ' iiic ili '\\\' LI i 'jiii lit ic«« 11* ' !i. (".iriiii II' IL'C ' ' t iciric -« 'il' I I'ci I III c »l' .1 li-' '•< >|( iflML' i« 'III;. 1 III ' h( (*< '111111. >!; St r, Ml ■ !i \^» • " V :■ • III' '!|- -^1/1- I IM i III I |lM"-t : I, 'IK : ic-. _'.|i'\\Ii 111 '111 liC'il't 111 flic c, .|M Ml''r'l,i I iPil' W , 1-" "fVcr >til|ip.T'- I ,:!. I;.-,! r.r. M'kcM. < .ttliji '1 ! --' I'riicii' 'i' ->! . Ii' I I ri i ■. I Md i< ^ ' i! I'i-mIi ''■C' i i|^ ■ ' I'll' W •( M' I I-' !( >l I |M< >f .1 ' |i 'li- ■ r ' TITUS NURSERY COMPANY W \^ \l SROKO. \ \ NEW MODELS The T Model Ford was a good car in its day, but has })een displaced by later models. The Old Delicious, Duchess, Rome, and Stayman were good Apples, in fact among the best, at one time, but are now being displaced by the New Double Red varieties, outstanding among which are: New Solid Red Delicious. A ^'Super" Delicious. An Apple with all the good qualities of the Common Delicious: same size, same shape, same flavor, same texture, and same ripening period, but the New Solid Red Delicious colors two or three weeks earlier and colors solid red without trace or sign of stripe, even into the stem and blossom ends. It can be picked "hard ripe" with full color. It has excellent storage qualities and is the most beautiful Apple ever seen. Red Duchess. New Solid Red Duchess, same as the Standard Duchess with the exception of being a solid red. Lowry. Beautiful dark red winter Apple, enjoying the reputation of selling for the highest price of any Apple grown in Virginia. It sells for $1.00 to $2.00 more per barrel than standard varieties. Always in demand both as a home variety and a commercial Apple. The Lowry should be in every orchard, whether home or commercial. New Red Rome. Same as Rome Beauty with the exception of being a solid red. New Solid Red Stayman. A sohd red Stayman. Sport of the well known Stayman, having all the good qualities of the Common Stayman and the big advantage of being solid red in color instead of pale striped greenish coloring found in the Common Stayman. We offer in various sizes and in almost any quality trees from the above varieties, grown in the heart of the commercial fruit belt of Virginia. We also offer Shipper's Late Red, Brackett, Golden Jubilee, and a large assortment of standard varieties of Peach and Small Fruits. Send us your Want List for quotations. TITUS NURSERY COMPANY WAYNESBORO. VA. 1 — THE PLACE TO BUY YOUR SPRAY MATERIALS Twenty years in the Insecticide business. We Manufacture and distribute a complete line, as follows: "Hy-Grade'* Lime-Sulphur Solution **Hy-Grade" New Process Oil Paste— 90% Paraffine Oil 10% Special Fish Soap. Manufactured under Government formula Nicotine Sulphate, 40% and 50% Nicotine. We specialize in this material. Special price Paradichlorobenzene (Peach Borer destroyer) Sulphurs (all grades) Calcium Arsenate Oxo Bordeaux Arsenate of Lead Bordeaux Mixture Casein Spreader Copper Sulphate (Blue Stone) all grades Lime, high Calcium, especially fine for spraying purposes, approved Koppers' Flotation Sulphur, for Summer Spray "Soco" Wettable Sulphur Dry Mix (Jersey) Dry Lime-Sulphur DUSTING MATERIALS Sulphur Dusts Copper Dusts (all standard formulas) Largest Manufacturers of ''HY-GRADE" LIME-SULPHUR SOLUTION and NEW PROCESS OIL PASTE and SULPHUR GRINDERS in the middle East. Largest Distributors to Orchardists of Nitrates — CHILEAN, 16% and CYANAMID, 22% and 16% Nitrogen. Before purchasing elsewhere, get our prices Hagerstown Spray Material Co. (Hagerstown Sulphur Works) Hagerstown, Md. Southern Chemical Co. Winchester, Va. — 2 — f Pennsylvania State Horticultural Association News Published by the Association Issued Quarterly at State College, Pa. Subscription, 50c Entered as second-class matter at the Post Office at State College, Pa. VoLX State College, Pa., iMarch, 1933 No.l Proceedings of the State Horticultural Association of Pennsylvania for 1933 ^ Seventy-fourth Annual Meeting Held in Harrisburg, January 17-18 I I State Horicultural oAssociation of Pennsylvania OFFICERS FOR 1933 President F- «• ^'^'' ^"^ Vice President H. M. Anderson, New Park Secretary R. H. Sudds, State College Treasurer C. B. Snyder, Ephrata Executive Committee: The above named officers and C. J. Tyson, Gardners; Sheldon W. Funk, Boyertown; and H. F. Hershey, Hamburg. STANDING COMMITTEES Legislation and Representatives on Agricultural Council: C^ J- Tysonfch.; H. S. Nolt, Columbia; R. T. Criswell, Chambersburg, (Repre- sentative on Tax Committee). State Farm Show and Exhibition: John Ruef, State College; Ch.; R. J. Gillan, St. Thomas, 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; K. W. Lauer, Harrisburg. Game Laws: J. A. Runk, Huntingdon, Ch.; Geo, Balthaser, Wemersville; R. H. Bell, Harrisburg. True-To-Name-Trees: F. N. Fagan, State College, Ch.; F. M. Trimble, Harrisburg; G. L. Baugher, Aspers. SPECIAL COMMITTEES Cumberland-Shenandoah Four State: R. T. Criswell, Chambersburg, Ch.; E. A. Nicodemus, Waynesboro; C. E. Raffensperger, BiglerviUe; U. A. Stuart, Harrisburg. Representative from Horticultural Association of Pennsj^yania to Eastern States Fruit Council at Washington: R. T. Cnswell, Chambers- burg. Inspection Rates: E. A. Nicodemus, Waynesboro, Ch.; J. E Slade, AUentown; H. A. Shank, Lancaster; Allen Meyer, Annville. _4_ Proceedings of the State Horticultural Association of Pennsylvania for 1933 The seventy-fourth annual meeting was opened in the audi- torium of the South Office Building at Harrisburg, Tuesday morning, January 17, by President Criswell who called upon the Rev. H B. King of the Paxtang Presbyterian Church to give the invocation. PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS R. T. Criswell, Chambersburg It gives me pleasure to greet you again at the annual meeting of our Association. We of the fruit growing industry have had many trials and difficulties during the past year but from a financial standpoint we are less unfortunate for the most part than those engaged in other fines of agriculture and in business other than farming. At the last annual meeting we passed a resolution authorizing the cooperation of our Association with neighboring State Horti- cultural Societies in matters of mutual interest. In accordance with this resolution, at a conference held m Martinsburg, West Virginia, a Four-State Committee was set up, composed ot representatives from Virginia, West Virginia, Pf°°Y;^^°tf"iJ Maryland. Later at a conference in Washington the Eastern Fruit Growers Council was organized, made up of representatives of the horticultural societies of 18 eastern states and Honorable H F Byrd was elected its President. The object of the Eastern Fruit Growers Council, as set forth in its constitution, is to federate State Horticultural Societies for the purpose of pro- moting the common interests of the apple industry of the eastern or bafreled' apple states in the growing, grading, advertising, marketing and distribution of apples." At this conference in Washington the Export Police Plan was again adopted with slight revision as to grade requirements^ Later the steamship companies agreed to cooperate in enforcing it. I think it would be weU for our Association to pass a resolu- tion adopting or approving the Export Police Plan and recom- mending that our members abide by it in exporting apples. On December 1 a conference with the inspectors from the Argentine was held in Washington with a view to smoothing out some of the difficulties over exporting apples to that country. Later these inspectors were taken on a tour of inspection of the nearby apple country including Adams and Franklin Counties of Pennsylvania. — 6 — REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PLANT DISEASES Peach Brown Rot, Scab, and Leaf Curl R. S. Kirby, State College; H. W. Thurston, State College; K. W. Lauer, Harrisburg Brown rot and scab, diseases of the peach caused by two different fungi, annually cause heavy losses to Pennsylvania peach growers in all parts of the State. Brown rot, in addition to causing peaches to rot before picking, is more destructive after the peaches are picked and are in transit or on the market. It also causes leaf and twig infections which may develop into limb cankers. In addition, under favorable conditions for infec- tion, the speaker has observed as high as 80 per cent of the blossoms to be blighted. Scab occurs on the leaves, stems, and fruit. It does not cause serious injury to the leaves or twigs but on the fruit it forms olivaceous to black spots that may run together and cover as much as one-half the surface of the fruit. Severely scabbed areas frequently split open, making an opening for other rots. The scab fungus may cause the fruit to be undersized or even to drop prematurely. Severely scabbed peaches have an inferior flavor. The fungus causing scab lives from year to year in the small infected areas on the twigs. Spores are formed on the infected areas about shuck fall time, and moist weather with moderate temperatures makes it possible for the spores to infect the new twigs, leaves, and fruit. Scab is more serious in low-lying orchards or parts of orchards where air drainage is poor. Spraying has been found to eliminate scab almost entirely when properly applied and timed. The shuck fall and succeeding spray are usually the most important in scab control. The pruning out of infected twigs is not practicable or necessary. In 1932, the speaker found approximately 80 per cent scabbed peaches in orchards that had not been sprayed for several years. In a spraying test in Adams county, 14 per cent scabby peaches occurred on trees unsprayed in 1932 but sprayed in 1930 and 1931. Peaches sprayed in the same test with self-boiled lime sulphur were entirely free of scab. Brown rot is a far more difficult disease to control than scab. The fungus causing brown rot passes the winter in the mummied fruit hanging on the trees or lying on the ground. It may also pass the winter in limb cankers. The mummied fruits, after passing the winter, are capable of producing spores like those formed on rotting peaches which may infect blossoms, twigs, or young fruit during warm (70° to 80° F. optimum), moist weather. The brown rot fungus in the mummied fruits that fall to the ground and are partly surrounded with packed soil often produce goblet-shaped fruiting bodies. On the inside of each goblet- shaped fruiting body great numbers of spores are produced which are shot out into the air. Since these goblet-shaped, mushroom-like fruiting bodies are usually formed about blossom- I ing time, the spores from them usually cause most of the blossom infection, but they may also cause twig and leaf infections. The spores formed as a result of blossom and twig infection carry the disease along to the ripening fruit. Heavy blossom or twig infection greatly increases the chances of severe fruit infection. Control of Brown Rot. — The mummied peaches hanging in the trees should be removed when pruning. The mummied fruits on the ground are rendered almost harmless if they are plowed down or even if the ground is thor- oughly cultivated about the time the peach blossoms show pink. Mummies seldom produce the goblet-shaped fruiting bodies unless they are in contact with packed soil. The principal method of controlling brown rot is by spraying. In several tests the application of a dormant spray (with Bor- deaux more than with lime sulphur) has been found to check early twig infections. In peach orchards where brown rot has been very severe, a pink spray is advised, but in most orchards it is not needed. The shuck fall and next spray are of value but the most im- portant spray is the one appUed about one month before harvest. A sulphur dust (pure sulphur or 90-10 sulphur lime) applied just before harvest has proved to be very important in preventing rot in storage and transit. A test conducted in Adams county on Elberta peaches in 1932 gave the following results: Relation of Spraying and Dusting to Brown Rot Control Treatment Percentage of Peaches with Brown Rot at Picking Time Unsprayed Sprayed with Self-boiled lime sulphur Sprayed with self-boiled lime sulphur and dusted just before picking with pure sulphur dust 5 3 .3 Percentage of Peaches developing Brown Rot during 3 days' storage 60 29 15 Thus, it was observed that spraying reduced the amount of brown rot from 5.3 per cent in unsprayed to .3 per cent in sprayed fruit at picking time, and that, in addition, spraying reduced the amount of brown rot developing during three days' storage from 60 per cent in the unsprayed to 29 per cent in the sprayed fruit; furthermore, that where in addition to spraying an application of dust was made just before picking, the amount of brown rot was reduced 15 per cent. Peach Leaf Curl. — Many peach growers who did not apply a dormant spray will remember 1932 as the year when leaf curl almost defoliated their peach trees. The 1932 outbreak of leaf curl was the most severe in the last decade. — 6 7 — The fungus causing leaf curl passes the winter as spores adhering to the peach buds. These spores infect the peach buds during the first prolonged period of rainy weather after the buds Lime sulphur, one gallon of concentrate to 15 gallons of spray, or Bordeaux 4-4-50 will control leaf curl if applied during the dormant period of the peach. j ,, ^ u i^ ir. Professor H E. Hodgkiss recommends that where scale m- sects are present in an orchard, hme sulphur should be used at a strength of one gallon of concentrate to eight or nme gallons ot water so as to control both pests. Dr. Rittenhouse: How do you account for the fact that Bitter Rot is hitting sections never hit before? Dr Kirby: Bitter Rot is becoming a problem. We had abnormally high temperatures and heavy ramfall durmg the time that Bitter Rot infestation would normally be commg on. This disease is very troublesome in Virginia and due to these abnormal weather conditions is getting established in Pennsyl- vania During the next two or three years we are going to have a fight with Bitter Rot. During the past year we made a careful study and found the Bitter Rot fungus lives on mummy app es. These start in June and July and spread to new crops of apples That means we must have protection from Bitter Rot at that time if we are going to have favorable weather conditions. But what shall we use? Lime sulphur simply lies down and gives up the ghost. It does not have the proper kick. It takes copper in the form of Bordeaux to stop Bitter Rot. The use of copper in general might mean severe russeting. For those of you who have Bitter Rot, keep track of the infection, get out the mummies and apply a couple of Bordeaux sprays as we will recommend next summer. These recommendations will be sent to anyone requesting them. The results where Bordeaux is used show that where used early enough it has held Bitter Rot to prac- tically nothing. Mr. Snyder controlled Bitter Rot by this method. Question : What can be done about Water Core? Dr. Kirby: This is an environmental disease caused by the upsetting of water relations— too much water or too little water, and particularly too much water. Good general health of the tree will go a long way toward controUing Water Core. Dr. Anthony: What can you tell us about Brooks Spot? Dr. Kirby: Any man who has sprayed as recommended has practically controlled Brooks Spot. Lime sulphur will hold Brooks Spot but Bordeaux is recommended in severe cases. Question: What is the period of infection? Dr. Kirby: From petal fall on is recognized as the incubation period. Mr. Linde: What about colloidal copper as a substitute for Bordeaux? ^^^^< ^ is Td*?> Progressive Products Priced Risht and Give Positive Results TAROLENE The complete dormant Spray for APHIS eggs and SCALE. Used extensively by large orchardists with remarkable results. Kills APHIS— Kills SCALE. GRO-AT.L OIL EMULSION . The economical and efficient 83% Paste Oil Emulsion. CENCO OIL EMULSION . A real 66§% Oil Emulsion (with or without Cresylic Acid). NEW JERSEY DRY MIX . The economical summer fungicide. SUPERFINE SULPHUR, COMMERCIAL SULPHUR, LIME SULPHUR SOLUTION, ARSENATE OF LEAD, SULPHUR DUSTS, COPPER DUSTS and all other SPRAYS for the protection of your crops. Manufactured by ^ Central Chemical Company, Inc. BALTIMORE MARYLAND 8 — 9 — Dr. Kirby: I would use lime sulphur. It depends upon the percentage of copper. Lime sulphur is cheaper than colloidal copper. Question : What about zinc sulphate? Dr. Kirby: This is used as a substitute for sulphur in summer time for peaches. Zinc sulphate is not as good a fungicide as the sulphurs for peaches. However, zinc sulphate cuts down burning. It will be a big help in future work. I think the use of zinc sulphate, particularly in shuck fall, may come into more general use. Question: Do you get any burning from dust? Dr. Kirby: You can burn with dust if the temperature is sufficiently high. We usually give a warning not to dust when the temperature is above 90 degrees. Question: Would you make the same recommendation for lime sulphur? Dr. Kirby: You can start to burn at 75 degrees if you have a high humidity. Sulphur burns depend upon temperature and humidity. Mr. Linde: Is it true that sulphur carried over from one year to the next will cause more burning? Positive Protection . . . that's what you want when you use a spray and that's exactly what you get when you use '-HiahSlandm SPRAY MATERIAL5 Careful laboratory and field tests and actual experience of thousands of successful farmers and orchardists during a period of thirty years, have definitely proved the extremely fine quality, uniformity and effectiveness of High Standard Spray Materials. For Best Results Use High Standard Products Standard Chemical Works Office— READING, PA. Factories at Womelsdorf, Pa. and Baltimore, Md. '% Dr. Kirby: If the sulphur is pure this should not make any difference. Question: What is the cause of DeHcious breaking down between skin and core? Dr. Kirby: I would like to see the apple to determine the cause of breakdown. There are certain insects which get into the apple and cause internal breakdown. This also may come from lack of water or from too much water. Question: Would rapid growth of trees cause this breakdown? Dr. Kirby: That is uncertain. DeUcious is worse in this respect especially in oversized apples. Dr. Anthony: Internal breakdown is usually caused by irregu- lar water supply. Either too much or too little may bring it on, particularly where trees are making rapid growth and then comes a sudden drought. You must understand that the apple will lose its moisture to the leaves when the leaves are tran- spiring rapidly. The apple may wilt when the leaves are still firm. This condition is most serious in Baldwin and DeUcious. Mr. Miller: What do you recommend for a peach spray? Dr. Kirby: We recommend self boiled lime sulphur. Nor- mally we find less injury from self boiled lime sulphur. • Dr. Anthony: I prophesy that you are going to see radical changes in spray recommendations in the next five years. This is a good reason for keeping up your membership in the Horti- cultural Association. It is in our meeting and in our reports that you will find the official reports of new materials and new methods. WEATHER FORECASTING FOR THE FRUIT GROWER George S. Bliss, Weather Bureau, Philadelphia There is no great mystery about the weather, and in saying that I do not mean to imply that everything is known that is to be known about it. Meteorology, or the Physics of the Air, like the other natural sciences, is still in a process of development, and men are likely to continue that development for many generations to come. It was said of Benjamin FrankUn that his mind encompassed all of the knowledge of all of the natural sciences of his time, but in this age it is necessary for a brilliant man to devote all of his energies to a single science in order to keep reasonably abreast of the advancements that are being made. The idea that I do mean to convey to you is that the funda- mental processes of weather development are so well understood that the subject has been wholly rid of the mystery that once surrounded it. We know that these processes are purely phy- sical, and that they occur wholly within our atmosphere by reason of its circulation. We know that outside influences, such as have been supposed to attach to the moon and the planets, are outside of the question entirely. lo- ll — The circulation of the atmosphere is of two types, and is occasioned by its unequal heating. First, there is the constant interchange of air masses between the equatorial and polar regions that is designated as the primary circulation. The trade winds are a part of this circulation. Second, there are the lesser disturbances that appear as ^'highs^' and '4ows'' on our weather maps, and are known as the secondary circulation. These highs and lows develop every condition that we know as weather. They are responsible for the daily changes in both weather and temperature, and the air circulation that develops these varying conditions is what we know as winds. In a general way, the lows bring mild temperatures, cloudiness, and precipi- tation, while the highs bring clearing and colder weather. The primary circulation with its semi-permanent highs and lows is the chief guiding influence of the lesser highs and lows as they drift across the continent, and is therefore responsible for the longer period conditions and changes, for the abnor- mally warm and abnormally cold seasons, as well as the abnor- mally wet and abnormally dry seasons. These processes are no longer shrouded in mystery. When we were experiencing the unusually mild conditions of the last winter, during which January set a new high temperature record for the century, we understood the causes very well, even though we had been unable to forecast them. And now we come to the matter of forecasting which, to the average man, is as complicated a problem as the weather itself. The forecaster is often pictured as an old man in a tower room surrounded by mysterious instruments. He is supposed to study the clouds, consult the instruments, and then hazard a guess on the weather outlook. As a matter of fact the forecaster would be practically helpless if he had no information beyond his visual horizon. His instru- ments are designed to accurately record the local weather, rather than to reveal the immediate future, and his visual horizon is only one point on the weather map. The larger vision is obtained by means of many telegraphic reports from all parts of the United States and Canada. The conditions, as described in these reports, is entered on base maps, and the atmospheric disturbances are outlined. The finished product is called a weather map, and, to one who undei> stands, it constitutes a birdseye view of the weather conditions over all of that vast region. These maps are made twice daily, morning and evening, and enable the forecaster to watch the developments and movements of the storm disturbances across the country. When a disturb- ance of any sort is headed in his direction, he calculates the time of its arrival as accurately as possible, and gives out the infor- mation ahead of it. This method of forecasting is the only one that has ever met with any degree of success, and by its very nature the foresight into the future is limited to a matter of two or three days at the most. — 12 — The forecaster's services to the horticulturist are of two kinds, namely the frost warning service and the spraying-weather ser- vice Only a small percentage of the fruit growers in the eastern portion of the country are equipped for frost protection, but most of the orchards in the Pacific States and many m Florida are supplied with fire pots to be placed under the trees and lighted on receipt of frost warnings. Many a fruit crop has been saved by such methods. The spraying-weather forecasts constitute one ot the most difficult services that we have ever attempted to render. In the first place, they are needed at a season when a large part of the rainfall occurs as local showers, which seldom cover a region thoroughly If the showers seem to be numerous, then the forecasts must be of that character because they will coyer a much larger portion of the region than they will miss. Under such circumstances there will be many orchards in the region that will not be touched. You can all remember times when showers could be seen in all directions with no rain in your immediate locality. On the other hand, when the showers seem to be widely scattered it would be unwise to make a positive forecast for rain with the chances not better than fifty-fifty for receiving it It is at such times that the forecaster must resort to such expressions as ^'mostly cloudy with possibly local show- ers." It is the best that can be done, for it is impossible to define the path of each individual shower. ^ , ,u r Added to these difficulties, is your requirement that the tore- casts shall be extended 24 hours beyond the usual periods^ However, with all of these handicaps we still think we can be ot some service to you by furnishing information that is con- siderably better than mere guesses. Mr Criswell: If we can know 24 to 48 hours ahead when we can expect a rainy season and can get our sprayers started, what is our best plan of getting this information? Mr Bliss: Each rain may last only a short time but we may have a period of showers for 36 to 48 hours over a large area. We hesitate to say how long it will take a shower area to pass over the region. It will be in its effect the same as a continuous rain. When the shower area is small it will perhaps drift over an area in a night or day. We give the best estimate we can. Dr. Anthony: Do you consider owning and knowing how to read a barometer of value? Mr. Bliss: The barometer has some slight value. It is expected to rise and fall more than it does. If you have a barom- eter you can assume conditions. When the barometer is getting a Uttle bit lower and the winds are east you can depend on toui weather. If the winds are west the rains will cease soon, it you use it correctly and in conjunction with wind directions it will be of value. Dr. Anthony: Would it be possible for a grower to obtain weather predictions by a collect telegram? — 13 — I Mr. Bliss: Yes. We get a good many requests during haying and harvest season and we can do the same for the fruit grower. Mr. Hershey: Can you get the same information from the local bureau by telephone? We have a bureau at Reading. Mr. Bliss: The Reading is not as complete as the Philadelphia survey. Question: Are the radio reports reliable? Mr. Bliss: It does cover as much as a weather map. I presume that spray predictions could be put out by radio if the growers would ask the radio stations to give the information. Mr. Runk: A good standard book of meteorology will help a lot. Get the weather map and couple it with the radio report from K.D.K.A. Three years ago we had a rainy season during hay season. We got in 50 loads of hay with only two loads wet from using a weather map. Any grower can get these maps and the radio reports. You can plan a spray three or four days ahead and I find it invaluable. It has meant a lot to me. At this point Dr. Kirby explained how the men who are responsible for the spray service reports are able to send out the letters ahead of the storms by keeping in very close touch with the Weather Bureau. Before Dr. Kirby sends out any of his reports for the southeastern counties he calls Mr. Bliss by phone to get the latest report of probable storms. It is only this cooperation which has made it possible for the spray service to keep recommended sprays to a minimum and to make each one most effective. AFTER EFFECT OF THE DROUGHT YEARS Leif Verner, University Experiment Farm, Kearnersville, W. Va. In 1925, with rainfall for July, August and September 4.4 inches* or more below normal in various localities throughout the Shenandoah-Cumberland Valley fruit belt, the apple crop was considerably reduced by drought. In 1929, with a deficit of 6.3 inches or more for the same three months, the injury from drought was more general throughout this area and was much more severe. The year 1930 capped the climax with a total growing-season rainfall 46% below normal at Martinsburg^ W. Va., resulting in death or severe injury to thousands of trees and causing a crop loss, based upon the estimates of 54 leading growers, of approximately 50%. In 1931 the growing-season rainfall was somewhat above normal, (1.36 inches at Martins- burg) but the after-effects of 1930 were felt through the entire season in many orchards. 1932 has just passed, leaving one more record of drought for this belt, with a deficiency of 2.7 inches of rainfall for July, August and September, which seem to be the most critical months here from the standpoint of mois- ture requirements. ♦The rainfall records given in this paper are for Martinsburg, W. Va. — 14 — lew Line ol Royal" Sprayers **^^#-..., ^1 . By BEAN In this line of Bean ''ROYAL" Sprayers and pumps offered this year there are many advancements and new designs never before associated with spray pump construction. New and lighter metals. New types of bearings. New valves. New Pressure Regulator, added efficiency, longer life and greater economy in spraying. Growers this year are primarily interested in producing a maximum clean crop, but at the same time reducing the cost of producing this crop, and this new line of Bean ''ROYAT/' sprayers or any of our Standard Sprayers will help to do so. Our new catalog is ready and you will want a copy. JOHN BEAN MFG. CO. Division of Food Machinery Corporation LANSING, MICH. SAN JOSE, CALIF — 16 — These recent drought years have brought more forcefully to our attention than ever before the importance of soil moisture in fruit production. A survey of what has happened— ot the conditions under which the most damage occurred and the conditions under which our orchards have come through in the best shape-should give us an insight into the predisposing factors in drought injury. The study here reported was made in the eastern panhandle of West Virginia, which is representative of much of the Shenandoah-Cumberland Valley extending south of it into Virginia and north into Maryland and Pennsylvania. One of the most significant features of the drought two years ago was the marked variation in its effects on different orchards and on individual trees in the same orchard. Why should one tree have been killed or severely injured while another tree ot the same variety standing adjacent to it suffered little or no damage? Why should one whole orchard be nearly ruined while other orchards nearby came through m good shape r' It is quite evident that the low rainfall of 1930, the driest vear on record here, was not alone responsible for the severe damage suffered by some orchards. The 13.9 inches of rain recorded at Martinsburg during the growing season although only 54% of normal, is still somewhat higher than the average rainfall for the same period in other places where apples are successfully grown without irrigation. At Moscow, Idaho for instance, the average precipitation for this period is only ll.b inches. It is known that the amount of water normally available to a tree influences the depth and character of its root systeni and the proportion of its roots to its top, and that a tree adapted to a large water supply may, when suddenly confronted with much reduced rainfall, be unable to maintain itself in good vigor This was no doubt a factor in the injury experienced in 19.3U with rainfall that would have been adequate m certain other regions; but it was not the most important factor, because even under these circumstances some of our orchards suffered no serious damage. In some instances heavy crops of fruit of good size and good color were matured. Those orchards which suffered severely did so not because of the dry weather alone but largely because of other unfavorable conditions that they had been subjected to for years. Many ot these trees were suffering from root rot, collar rot, mouse injury, blister canker or some other devitaUzing condition in no way related to the drought. Many orchards were in low vigor due to shallow or impoverished soils. The dry weather merely accen- tuated these conditions which, for the most part, are subject to some control at the hands of the growers. Healthy, vigorous trees on deep soil suffered no injury other than a temporary check in growth from which they have now recovered. This point is demonstrated by records taken in an 18 year old DeUcious orchard at Kearneysville in 1930 and 1931. The — 16 — trunk circumferences of the trees in this orchard in 1930 were in direct proportion to the amount of injury they suffered from the drought. The trees on the shallowest soil which suffered most had the smallest trunks, averaging 193^3 inches in cir- cumference one foot above the ground. The trees on deep soil had the largest trunks, averaging 32 inches. I wish to emphasize that the different sizes of these trees, which so closely parallelled the severity of drought injury, were due to the conditions they had been growing under during the 18 years since they were planted. The small trees on shallow soil not only suffered most from the drought, but had been suffering from unfavorable soil moisture conditions over a long period. These trees had attained only a little more than half the trunk circumference of the trees on deep soil. Their bearing area was much less than half. Table I — Growth Depression of Delicious Apple Trees Variously Injured by Drought Extent of Injury No. Trees Average of 10 Terminal Growths per Tree for 10 Trees (inches) 1 Terminal Growth Depression Based on 1929 Growth as Normal (per cent) 1929 1930 1931 1930 1931 No apparent injury Moderately injured Badlv injured 10 10 10 10 10 12.70 12.64 11.48 11.77 10.91 8.05 6.77 5.48 4.99 3.85 7.36 1.73 .79 .62 .12 37 46 52 58 65 42 86 93 Very badly injured Dead or nearlv so 95 99 This orchard also offers evidence of the after effects of drought on tree growth. Table I, giving growth measurements in 1930 and 1931 of trees variously injured, shows that the depression of terminal growth is one of the earliest responses to drought con- ditions, and that the effect on terminal growth may be greater the year following than during the drought year itself. This reduced terminal growth in the year following a drought is probably the most significant after effect that has been ob- served, as it indicates so much concerning the condition of the tree and, consequently, the treatment that should be given. Terminal growth, which is normally most rapid early in the growing season, is dependent upon a ready supply of moisture and nitrates in the soil and stored foods in the branches, trunk and roots. The moisture is usually available in the spring and the nitrate can be added, but the stored food supply is dependent upon healthy functioning of the tree the year before. During severe drought the leaves, with their water supply reduced, almost cease functioning, with the result that, as in 1930, the trees go into the winter in a starved condition. This will be reflected in poor growth and low vigor of the tree the following spring, and takes some time to overcome even with favorable conditions. Hence many of our trees continued to behave as 17 — though still suffering from drought long after the moisture suddIv had been built up again in 1931. It was observed in 1931 that trees damaged the Previous year to the extent of showing dead twigs or branches had suffered tL iath of many roots of lead-pencil size and smaller, especially n the upper soil area where fertility is highest. S.^^^ a reduced root system for the absorption of water and nutrients, together wTth low food storage, would be expected to result in conditions ^milar to the direct effects of the drought the Previous sum^^^^^^ This proved to be the case, the injured trees m after-drought years showing little-leaf or rosette; reduced terminal growth small poorly colored fruit, especially in Stayman; and drought spot ^nd similar physiological disorders in varieties such ^s B Davis. A certain amount of such injury following severe drought is probably unavoidable regardless of the water supply. Similar conditions have recently been reported under irrigation in the Northwest following root injury by freezing during the winter ^ There has been an increase in the diseases and insect pests that thrive especially well in dry weather or on weakened trees such as blister canker in the apple and shot-hole borers in peach and cherry trees. There has been a tremendous increase in the number of low producing or ^^boarder^^ trees. An estimated 50,000 such trees were removed last year by West Virginia growers, on the assumption that it would be unprofitable to attempt to salvage them under the present conditions of low returns even for productive trees. In badly injured trees the drought after-effects persisted throughout 1931 in spite of a growing season with above-normal rainfall and were still in evidence in 1932, even before the drought of that year set in. In general the trees that were most severely damaged in 1930 have been slowest to recover and showed injury most quickly at the appearance of drought this past year, although there were some exceptions to this. What practical conclusions can be drawn from observations ot the effects of the drought years? I wish to especially emphasize the following: — ^ , , 1 The severity of injury and the rate of recovery have been determined by two factors, (1) tree vigor, and (2) soil moisture holding capacity. Trees in good vigor, free from disease, and growing in soil deep and porous enough to store a good reserve of water to tide over drought periods suffered no injury. Trees closely approximating these conditions suffered but little and made rapid recovery. i. ,, i u u 2. We can not measure the value of our rainfall by the number of inches we get, but by how much of it our soil takes up and holds. In many orchards the soil is so shallow or so compact that it is incapable of taking up all the rain that falls during the wet seasons and hence goes into the summer with a low reservoir of moisture to draw on through dry spells. I have in mind an orchard near Martinsburg, on a deep but very compact shale soil, in which I attempted to take soil — 18 — moisture samples in May last year. We had had very heavy rains the first two weeks in May, totaling a little over six inches, and there had been no significant drain on the moisture supply this soil should have had from winter and early spring, yet 10 days after these heavy May rains this soil was powder dry 15 inches below the surface. In spite of having a fairly deep soil and ample rainfall this orchard suffered acutely from drought in 1932, simply because the soil was not in a condition to take up the water that was available to it. Where soil moisture is below the minimum amount required for growth, as it was 15 inches under the surface in this orchard, roots will fail to extend themselves or if already there will fail to absorb either moisture or food material. No matter how deep or how rich a soil you may have, if there is enough moisture in only the upper 15*^ inches then the tree roots will be drawing food and water from the upper 15 inches and no more. Thus limiting the area of suitable moisture content also limits the feeding area. In clean cultivated orchards, especially on slopes, large amounts of water as well as the most fertile top-soil are lost by erosion. 3. We can not analyze the effects of weather conditions by individual growing seasons but must take into consideration the effects of previous seasons as well. The after effects are some- times as pronounced as the original. There was evidence of drought injury in 1931 that certainly can not be attributed to the weather conditions of that year. It can be explained on the basis of the facts that the trees were in a devitalized condition following the drought of 1930 and that much of the early rainfall of 1931 was required to replenish the shortage left by 1930 before any became available as an excess to carry into the summer. 4. The months of July, August and September seem to be the most critical here, probably because the stored moisture from spring rains is depleted and the daily demands for water, due to atmospheric conditions, are greatest at this period. 5. The after effects of drought, as expressed by reduced terminal growth, rosette, physiological disorders of the fruit, and many of the other conditions characterizing the drought itself, are indications of an undernourished condition and an impaired root system with which to rebuild the loss. The obvious treatment to aid recovery is to feed the tree Hberally with nitrate and to do whatever is possible to increase the mois- ture supply to its reduced root system. 6. More attention should be given to selecting for future orchard plantings only those locations in which the soils are adequate to maintain an abundant moisture supply. Shallow shales, and Umestone soils with ridges of rock close to the sur- face should be avoided. Shallow-soil orchards suffer not only in serious drought but to some extent every year. Dry spells sufficient to Veduce the crop in such orchards are of frequent occurrence in this belt. — 19 — I I Question: Will sod take in moisture as quickly as cultivated orchards? Mr. Verner: Yes. Dr. Anthony: What effect is drought and falling off in growth going to have on yield during the next six years? Mr. Verner: There seems to be no serious effect in yield from the drought years. Dr. Anthony: Did anybody prune trees in 1930 that were wilted? Mr Verner: We did but have seen no response. These were pruned during the dormant season. It probably would have shown different responses after the leaf surface was formed. Mr. Abraczinskas: Would it be wise to balance root pruning with the top pruning? Mr Verner: Yes, if you have cut too many roots. If you are careful you can get by without cutting many roots. We have done our plowing with the tractor. It is not necessary to turn sod deep enough to cut many roots. EFFECT OF NITROGEN FERTILIZATION ON THE RECOVERY OF A YORK ORCHARD FROM DROUGHT INJURY R. D. Anthony, State College For the past nine years the Department of Horticulture has been studying the influence of time and amount of nitrogen application in a 5-acre York orchard in Frankhn County. These applications were in three amounts— the equivalent ot 5, 10 and 15 pounds of nitrate of soda. A few trees were unfertihzed. Practically all the trees in this orchard which had previously been weakened by mouse injury or other trunk injuries were killed by the drought of 1930. By October of that year much ot the underbrush in the nearby forest was dead. On the edge of our five-acre block is a little valley watered by an underground, spring-fed stream. Here some very large trees had been heavy producers. When the stream went dry these trees suffered more injury than any other trees except those with partial mouse girdles. In the fertilizer block the trees receiving the heaviest amounts of nitrogen showed the greatest check, and drought injury decreased as the amount of nitrogen decreased, the check trees showing the least relative injury. In general the more vigorous the trees and the larger the tops the more serious the injury. The 1930 yields for the blocks receiving the three increasing rates of nitrogen were 1.8 bushels per tree, 1.2 bushels and Yi bushel. The checks gave .8 bushel. The extent of tree injury in 1930 is shown most clearly by the record of branch growth in 1931 when not a single plot in the orchard averages as much as one inch and only three trees made as much as two inches. — 20 Wundreds of Fruit Growers have adopted and are pleased with . • . The CYANAMID PLAN of Fertilizing Fruit Trees It involves no radical changes from the best orchard practices. The Plan requires: \ Growing of luxuriant cover crops when trees are young ^ Use of pliosphate and potash as required by the cover crops 3^ Plowing under or discing into soil of these cover crops A Occasional breaking up of any permanent sod allowed to develop 5, Annual use of Aero Cyanamid to supply required nitrogen and lime GC Aero Cyanamid C M A N U I A ~ 11% NITROGEN 707o HYDRATE D, LIME AERO CYANAMID A Superior Fruit Fertilizer —Supplies a high percentage of available nitrogen. — It sweetens the soil and destroys soil acids. — It holds fast to the soil and is not washed out by rains. -It helps free soil of weeds and disease organisms. — It is quick-acting and long-lasting. Aero Cyanamid, liberally applied in advance of planting, is »lso an «''ceptionally effective fertilizer for vegetables. In addition to supplying nitrogen and lime to feed the plants, tt serves as a partial sterilizing agent, aiding in the C9ntrol of nematodes, the club root ot cabbage and other disease organisms. Write for special booklet. Send for booklet on '*The Cyanamid Plan of Fertilizing Fruit/' including apples, cherries, citrus, grapes, peaches, pears, pecans, plums and small fruit. AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY Manufacturers of Aero Cyanamid and Ammo-Phos 535 Fifth Avenue New York, N. Y. Cyanamid is NITROGEN plus LIME — 21 — I came to the conclusion in the fall of 1930 that this orchard could never recover enough to be commercially profitable agam. Subsequent results show how much mistaken I was. The average yield per tree per year for the next two years, 1931-32 was: for the unfertihzed trees d}4 bushels; for those receiving the smallest amount of nitrogen 534 bushels; the next larger application 53^ bushels, and for the trees receivmg the most nitrogen only 4 bushels. Thus for three years the use of nitrogen in this orchard gave no increase m yield and in the largest amounts may have decreased yields. Was it a mistake to have used nitrogen in this orchard? ^ rpi No the mistake was not in the fertihzer treatment. Ihe chief mistake was made 32 years ago when this site was picked for an orchard. In several places limestone ledges outcrop in the orchard and the average depth of soil is probably less than three feet. Though the orchard lies at the foot of the mountain all seepage was cut off by a depression between it and the mountain. ^ ^ .,. . .^. .^ , A heavy sod— the result of fertihzing with nitrogen, phos- phorus and lime since 1924— was plowed under in 1929 and the land was cultivated until July 1931. The trees suffered serious drought injury not because the soil condition was unfavorable but simply because there was not enough soil to supply a suffi- cient water reservoir to meet the unusual demands of consecutive ^If we had had the gift to see the future we could have pruned these trees rather heavily in the spring of 1930 or even that summer when the first serious wilting showed. We lacked the prophetic vision and the heavily fertilized trees which in the past had averaged better than seven inches of terminal growth yearly now had too large tops and suffered relatively a much greater setback than the unfertihzed trees. i j . u Water has been such a limiting factor in this orchard in the last three years and the low supply has kept down growth to such an extent that the decay of the sod plowed down in 1929 has suppUed as much nitrogen as the trees used and applica- tions of nitrogenous fertilizers since 1929 have given only shght results. In spite of this it has not been a mistake to use nitrogen in this orchard. . xi_ u i. The terminal growth of the branches of a tree is the best index of the tree's present health and its probable future crops. Sixty-three per cent of the trees which have received the equiv- alent of 15 pounds of nitrate of soda annually for nine years made a terminal growth of five inches or better in 1932. Of those trees which received the equivalent of five pounds, only 19% made this growth. This was a most surprising comeback in a year when drought conditions still prevailed through most of the growing season; in addition the entire orchard matured an average crop of 7^ bushels per tree of fruit of good size and good color. I feel quite sure that the present better condition of the most heavily fertihzed trees is not due so much to the 1932 fertiUza- — 22 — tion as to the fact that a much heavier sod was turned under in this plot in 1929 because of six years of heavy fertilization and this organic matter has kept the soil in better shape to soak up all rains and thus supply more water to the trees. We have irrigated the trees out of a nitrate bag. The trouble in 1930 was that there were no rains to soak up. Like most of the other trees in this block these heavily ferti- hzed trees have many limbs two and three and even four inches in diameter which are already dead or have such large patches of dead bark that they will have to be pruned out eventually. But in contrast to the more lightly fertihzed trees, recovery growth of suckers up and down the more healthy limbs is more profuse and longer and the heavily fertihzed trees give promise of a quicker recovery. , What conclusions can we draw from the past nine years history of this orchard? jTirst— Good condition of the surface soil cannot overcome the handicap of too shallow soil when critical drought conditions prevail. It is hard to over-estimate the financial value of a deep fertile soil. j i . Second— Good soil condition which may be secured by turn- ing under a heavily fertilized sod will hasten the recovery of trees which have suffered drought injury. . i ^ ^ Third — In future drought years we should make caretui study of the value of pruning as a means of reducing the water require- ment of trees which are showing signs of suffering. Question: Which is recommended, nitrate of soda or sulphate of ammonia? Dr. Anthony: Comparing the two side by side, where we have used enough Ume to balance the acidity from the sulphate, we see no difference. When you use sulphate of amnioma you make the sod more and more acid and you may reach a point where you affect the type of sod. If that condition develops your sulphate of ammonia will not give you the same results as nitrate of soda. Question : What do you have to say about cyanamid? Dr. Anthony: We have not used it long enough to make any definite statement. Mr. Linde: Cyanamid is cheaper than other forms of nitrate. Question : How deep is your soil? Dr. Anthony: We dug an apple root out of an orchard at State College at 21 feet. Question : What can you tell us about lime and cyanamid? Dr. Anthony: We need to have our soil in good condition for growing legumes, therefore, most soils benefit by the use ot some Ume. If the soil needs lime it is probable that the lime in cyanamid will be of value. ' — 23 — I THE NEXT TEN YEARS IN THE FRUIT INDUSTRY M. R. Cooper, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. D. A. I have chosen to present the subject assigned me in two parts; the first deals with a brief summary of the outlook for some of the fruits that compete with apples in our markets; the second part deals with the apple situation. The General Fruit Situation Properly to appraise the general fruit situation we must go back to the World War. It was at that time that farmers throughout the United States expanded the acreage and pro- duction of such commodities as wheat, cotton, feed crops, and livestock. After the War was over prices of these crops declined abruptly. Farmers in many parts of the country turned to the growing of fruits and vegetables, some of which had already been ex- panded during the War. Fruit production increased until market supplies became burdensome. These increases were so easy of accomplishment that few realized what was going on until heavy supphes were upon us. One reason for this is that very little land is needed to cause a tremendous increase in fruit production. As a matter of fact, in 1930 the total acreage of land in orchards, sub-tropical fruits, vineyards, and planted nut trees amounted to only l}4 per cent of our total crop and tillable pasture land area. It is quite evident to us now that even this small acreage has produced more fruits and nuts than we have been able to profitably dispose of in this country and abroad. Low prices, especially of the last three years, have slowed up plantings of tree fruits in general, but the large numbers of young trees of many fruits foreshadow continued heavy market supplies until their bearing capacity is reduced through further removals or neglect. Peaches. — Peach production expanded tremendously after the World War in the Southern States and in California. Peaches from the South, coming on the markets early, are only indi- rectly competitive with peach and apple production of Penn- sylvania. Peaches in California are used primarily for canning purposes, making them available in stores throughout the country throughout the year for use as desserts, salads, and pies. Production from these Southern and California plantings became so heavy that in years of favorable growing conditions thousands of bushels were left unharvested. Peach growing in these States became unprofitable and as a result, from 1925 to 1930, the number of trees in the South declined about 15 per cent and in California about 6 per cent. This decline has done much to place the entire peach industry on a sounder economic basis. However, there are still sufficient trees in the South to produce heavy crops in years of very favorable growing con- ditions. In California the peak of production of cling-stone, canning varieties for the present cycle has apparently been — 24 — reached, although surplus production may continue for several years unless there is a marked reduction in the number of trees. A slightly downward trend in production of free-stone peaches in the State is indicated. In the states that compete more directly in the marketmg of Pennsylvania peaches, such as Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware, the number of peach trees decreased about 6.5 per cent from 1925 to 1930. In Pennsylvania the decrease was about 10 per cent. In most of the New England States, New York, and New Jersey the decUne in tree numbers has been rather pronounced. No unusually large plantings have been made in recent years in any part of the United States. Grapes.— Grape plantings and production increased tre- mendously after the War. The present bearing acreage is so large that burdensome supplies must be expected in seasons of normal growing conditions. This appears true in spite of the fact that total production has declined during the last 3 or 4 years. The grape industry is so largely dominated by the mdus- try of California, where approximately 90 per cent of the tota grape production in the United States occurs, that any material reduction in our heavy supplies must come from that state. The situation out there is such that in 1930 nearly 20 per cent of the crop was left on the vines. Even now with average growing conditions California may easily produce more grapes than were harvested in that state in 1930. As to the American type, or Eastern grapes, there appears to be very little acreage yet to come into bearing and no indi- cations of continued increased production. On the other hand, few vineyards have been removed and so far as we can deter- mine comparatively few have been neglected or abandoned. Consequently, there is no immediate prospect of material de- crease in production in the East except as yields per acre vary from year to year, or as the vineyards are neglected. Other Competing Fruits Production of other fruits which compete with apples has also increased in recent years. Pears have been planted extensively in certain sections of the West, in many instances to take the place of apple orchards that were no longer profitable. Plum and prune production has been increased until only a few years ago it was not possible to market the entire crop. Cherries have been planted in both the East and West. Bearing cherry trees increased from 1920 to 1930 by 10 per cent and the trees not of bearing age increased also. The upward trend in the production of cherries is expected to continue. It is estimated that in the fall of 1931 the total number of trees in orange and grapefruit groves was twice as large as the number in 1920. Production has increased ten-fold during the last 40 years and has been increasing at an average rate of about 6 per cent per year during the last 10 years. Many of the recent plantings have been made in relatively new areas in which there — 25 — is not much information on which to base estimates of probable production when the young trees shall have reached 15 or 20 years of age. Also, any calculation may be upset by freezes or other adverse conditions, but production from the trees already in bearing is normally so high that unless there is a severe freeze or unusual neglect of trees large citrus crops will continue to offer strong competition with apples. It may be mentioned also that banana imports have increased during the last several years, and in terms of carloads have frequently exceeded the carload shipment of apples. The present outlook, therefore, is for continued keen com- petition among the various fruits and for heavy market suppUes of fruits that compete with apples in seasons when growing conditions are favorable. The Apple Situation Fully to understand the apple situation we must go back even farther than the World War; in fact, to the previous major depression of 1893. For a number of years between 1893 and 1905 apple prices were very low. Orchards were neglected until apples became scarce. A period of heavy planting was started which reached its height during the years 1910-1912. This period marked the development of the apple industry in the Northwest. At the same time heavy plantings were made in the Mid-western and Eastern States. In 1912 weather conditions were good and the largest crop of record up to that time was produced. In the fall of 1912 some of the best apples that ever grew sold for $6.00 a ton in the Williamette Valley of Oregon. This was at the rate of 15 cents a bushel or 45 cents per barrel. Hard times prevailed in various apples growing regions for many years after this deluge of planting. Returns were so low that millions of trees were pulled up or abandoned. There is no way of accurately measuring this removal and abandonment but some idea of what happened may be had from the census figures. From 1910 to 1925 there was a net decrease of 79 million apple trees in the United States. From 1925 to 1930 there was another decrease of 21 million trees, making a total decrease of 100 million trees, or 46 per cent, in the last 20 years. Without further thought we might well enough wonder why there has been no shortage of apples for these 100 million trees would have had to produce less than 2 bushels per tree each year to have equalled the average annual production of the United States during the last 10 seasons. Our interpretation of these facts leads to the following obser- vations and conclusions. The removal of these trees has gone far toward correcting a bad situation caused by overplanting 25 years ago and has done much toward placing the industry on a sounder economic basis. But in spite of these removals production during the last 5 years has averaged only 7 per cent less than the average for the period 1909-1913, and only about 20 per cent less than for the high period 1914-1918. It must be — 26 — CLYDE C. HESS ^OS. A. SCHWALB J. SHERMAN THOMPSON C. C. HESS & CO. Apples Export and Domestic 290 Washinslon Street ew York Our business is all handled exclusively by members of our firm, thereby giving each shipment our personal attention. The members of our firm have all been in the apple and peach business for over twenty years, and are thoroughly qualified. We take pride in our export connections as well, and our ability to handle same. For any information desired, kindly write, or wire us at our expense. 27 — remembered that these decreases in production probably would have been less if the last 5-year period did not include the drought year of 1930 and the very small crop of 1932. These small declines in production as compared with the decline in tree numbers are due to the removals of many small farm orchards, many of which seldom produced well, to a weed- ing out of poorly located commercial orchards, better care of remaining commercial orchards, and the increasing bearing capacity of many trees as they have approached or reached full bearing age. This trend is manifest in the average yield per tree which increased from 1.2 bushels per bearing tree in the period 1908-1912 to an average of 1.9 bushels during the period 1928-1931. Another movement which has been going on is the decided shift to the more popular and better paying varieties. This shift was very noticeable after the World War. The movement has resulted in many relatively young orchards that have not reached full bearing capacity. An apple tree survey for 41 states indicates that in 1928, from 25 to 30 per cent of the trees in commercial orchards were under 9 years of age and 65 to 70 per cent were less than 19 years old. In our opinion the percentage of young trees now in orchards is large enough to maintain commercial production at a high level under conditions of average care. It is possible, however, and perhaps quite likely, that if hard times continue long many orchards will be neglected. If this happens the tendency will be for reduced production which should benefit those who remain in the business. As yet there has been no shortage of apples in years of favorable growing conditions; nor is there any immediate prospect for a shortage. In fact, commercial production, which may be more significant than total production, has increased year after year until a peak of 39 million barrels was reached in the very favorable growing season of 1926. Since 1926 it has averaged somewhat higher than for the 5 years previous to 1926, and the 1931 commercial crop was the fourth largest on record. Western States. — In the eleven Pacific Coast and Mountain States production increased enormously during the develop- ment of the industry. For example, about 20 years ago these states produced 19 million bushels per year, whereas they now produce an average of about 56 million bushels annually. The reason for this is that while tree numbers declined there has been a steady increavse in yield per bearing tree from an average of 1.5 bushels about 1910 to 4.4 bushels during the last 4 or 5 years. The situation in the Western States today clearly indicates that production is near its peak for the present. In the three Pacific Coast States — Washington, Oregon, and California — a very small percentage of the trees are yet to come into bearing and production in these States is being fairly well maintained by resets and by an increase in producing capacity of trees due to an increase in their age. In the Rocky Mountain States production is declining. — 28 — % Plantings in all of these Western States have been very light in late years. In Washington and Oregon the better commercial orchards are generally well cared for, but there is a tendency to cut out the poorer trees, particularly those of odd varieties, and there are indications that if the depression does not end soon a number of orchards will be at least temporarily abandoned. East of the Continental Divide in Colorado orchards have suffered from a lack of irrigation water and are in poor condition. Many old ones are dead and others are far from thrifty. In Utah and Idaho the situation is somewhat better, the larger commer- cial orchards being well sprayed, pruned, and cultivated. The smaller orchards are not so well cared for. The severe depression has affected western growers very materially because of their long distance from markets. In some years about one-half of the car unloads of apples in some of the eastern markets are from the boxed apple States. Trans- portation charges from the Northwest to distant domestic markets are now consuming a very large part of apple values, making it very difficult for Western growers to successfully compete with producers near the large eastern cities. Roadside stands are increasing in an attempt to dispose of more apples locally. Motor trucks are being used to carry apples into many parts of the western country where apples are not produced and from the interior of the coast States to the Pacific Coast for export. If apple prices remain low continued effort to reduce transportation costs for western apples may be expected. Central States.— The quantity of apples produced in the Central States is not generally appreciated by most people In late years these States have produced about 25 per cent of all apples grown in the United States. Many parts of the region are not suited to the economical production of apples. This is indicated by low yields which have averaged about 1.2 bushels per bearing tree in late years as compared with .8 of a bushel 20 years ago. A part of the region is subject to severe damage from frosts, diseases, and insects. For decades farmers in some sections of the Central apple region have been setting out apple trees and then neglecting and removing them as they fail to produce well or as strong competition is encountered from other growing regions. From 1910 to 1930 the number of trees decreased 60 per cent and production decreased 42 per cent. However, considerable planting took place during the last 15 years and many of the orchards now remaining are well supphed with young trees. According to census figures nearly one-third of the trees in these states had not reached bearing age in 1930. Many of the tree removals in the Central States were of odd and unpopular varieties. The more recent plantings have been of the more popular varieties such as the DeUcious, Winesap, Jonathan, and Stayman Winesap. It is believed that the newer orchards of the region are more favorably located than many of the early plantings, and that the past rate of tree mortality may be reduced unless, of course, — 29 — • the present depression continues long enough to cause con- siderable neglect and abandonment. Thus far the depression has had some effects in the region, as elsewhere Reports from some parts of the region indicate that commercial orchards were fairly well cared for in 1932 but that non-commercial orchards received little care. , ^ i w x- In the region as a whole the removal of old trees continues. Few trees are being set. The drouth of 1930 in a part of the region resulted in small incomes, and money is scarce for caring for the orchards. While many growers are very much dis- couraged, others apparently feel the necessity at this time ot more skillful orcharding and are seriously considering the weed- ing out of the unprofitable trees, particularly those of poor varieties, and the concentration of their efforts on the more promising parts of their orchards. , . , • i j ^u Eastern States.— In the Eastern States, which include the New England, Middle and South Atlantic States, the number of apple trees dechned about 24 per cent from 1910 to 1930 Trees of bearing age and production both decreased about 17 per cent. Shortly after the World War there was considerable planting of some of the more popular varieties in the Eastern States. A decided effort was made in some sections to improve orchard practices and management. The result is that the commercial orchards in the region today are, on the whole, perhaps better suited for the economical production of fruit than was the case 10 or 20 years ago. These Eastern States had in 1930 about 44 per cent of all apple trees in the United States and produced about 42 per cent of all the apples. The tree survey of 1928 showed that approxi- mately 70 per cent of the apple trees in commercial orchards in the Eastern States were under 19 years of age, and the census figures of 1930 indicated that 20 per cent of the trees were yet to come into bearing. The proportion of trees in the region that are yet to come into bearing does not seem unusually large. In the region as a whole recent plantings have been light and removals have continued at a normal rate but there are indications that many of the orchards that are not generally profitable will be badly neglected. Reports from New York State, which is second only to Washington in quantity of apples produced, indicate that many growers in the western part of the state are badly discouraged because returns have not been very good during the last 10 years. Neglect of many orchards is to be expected if the depression continues. In the Hudson and Champlain Valleys the growers are reasonably optimistic. The orchards are in good condition and no general neglect is apparent at this time. One reason for this is nearness to markets ; another is that the plantings in these valleys are of the newer varieties. In New England tree removals continue. These are, for the most part, from farm orchards. In the better commercial sections considerable improvement has been made in orchard practices. In the Cumberland-Shenandoah States of Penn- sylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland, nearly one- % Plant Fruit Trees This Spring Prices Lowest in Years —Quality Highest Write for My New Catalosue. Special Prices Quoted in Quantity Adams County Nursery and Fruit Farms ESTABLISHED 1905 H. G. BAUGHER, Prop. ASPERS, PA 30 31 fourth of the trees in commercial orchards were less than 9 years of age in 1928. Roughly the rate of planting for sometime prior to 1928 would maintain the number of trees if the average life of trees is about 30 years. This is a reasonable expectation if the trees are well cared for; but probably too high if the depression continues for many years. Varieties Planted.— In the apple tree survey in 41 States made by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics for 1928, some 800 standard varieties were classified separately. Of these varieties, ten made up 60 per cent of the total trees. These 10 varieties were as follows: DeUcious, 8.5 per cent of all trees; Winesap, 8.2 per cent; Jonathan, 8 per cent; Baldwin, 6.8 per cent; Stayman Winesap, 6.3 per cent; Ben Davis, 5.6 per cent; Rome Beauty, 5.2 per cent; York Imperial, 4.4 per cent; Mcin- tosh, 4 per cent; and Grimes Golden, 3 per cent. According to the survey, the Stayman Winesap was the most important apple in Pennsylvania from the standpoint of number of trees. About 38 per cent of the trees of this variety were under 9 years old in 1928 and 85 to 90 per cent of them were under 19 years of age. With reasonable care production of Stayman Winesap would increase during the next several years. In tree numbers York Imperial was second in importance in Pennsylvania. This variety is confined largely to the Cumber- land-Shenandoah States, although it is found in limited quantities in some of the Central States. Recent plantings of this variety have been hght. In 1928, only 11.4 per cent of the York Im- perial trees were under 9 years old whereas over 50 per cent were more than 18 years oif age. It would not be surprising if production of this variety was to decrease during the next several years. The Baldwin was third in tree numbers in Pennsylvania. It is especially prominent in New York and in the New England States and is found to some extent in Michigan and Ohio. Recent plantings of Baldwin have not been heavy. In 1928, only 12.7 per cent of the Baldwin trees were under 9 years old and 60 per cent were over 18 years of age. It seems probable that production of this variety will decHne during the next several years. The Delicious has been widely and extensively planted. In tree numbers, the DeUcious was fourth in importance in Penn- sylvania. It is prominent on the Pacific Coast where a very large part of the present plantings are devoted to this variety, in the Central States, in the Cumberland-Shenandoah States, in New Jersey and Delaware, in New England and in New York. About 56 per cent of the DeUcious trees in the 41 States were less than 9 years old in 1928, and 96 per cent were under 19 years of age. Barring unusual circumstances, production of the Delicious apple is expected to increase considerably during the next several years. The Rome Beauty was fifth in importance in Pennsylvania. Rome Beauty is prominent in the orchards of Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, and the Northwestern States as weU as in Penn- 4 i sylvania; also to a lesser extent in some other Eastern and Central States. In 1928, 23 per cent of the Rome Beauty trees in commercial orchards were under 9 years old and 74 per cent were under 19 years of age. The proportion of young Rome Beauty trees seems sufficient to at least maintain production of this variety under normal conditions of care. In number of trees, the Jonathan is of sixth importance in the State of Pennsylvania. It is also especially important in the Western and Central States. In 1928 about 30 per cent of the Jonathan trees were under 9 years old and 75 per cent were under 19 years of age. With reasonable care the production of this variety may be maintained and possibly increased. The Mcintosh was seventh in importance in Pennsylvania. Plantings of this variety have been largely confined to New York, New England, and Michigan. The Mcintosh is fairly new and in 1928 about 46 per cent of the Mcintosh trees were under 9 years old and 87 per cent were less than 19 years of age. Barring unusual conditions production of this variety may be expected to increase. The Winesap is of considerable importance in many apple growing regions. In 1928, about 26 per cent of the Winesap trees were under 9 years old and about 75 per cent were under 19 years of age. Unless these trees are severely neglected, no material decrease in production is expected during the next few years. Production of apples of the more popular varieties will un- doubtedly go far toward offsetting decreases in production from the hundreds of odd and less popular varieties. For years the Ben Davis has been declining in popularity. In 1928 less than 7 per cent of the Ben Davis trees were under 9 years of age and nearly 80 per cent were more than 18 years old. The YeUow Newtown, which has Umited demand, has not been planted to any extent in recent years. Only 5 per cent of these trees were under 9 years old and nearly 60 per cent were more than 18 years of age in 1928. The Rhode Island Greening and Northern Spy have been moderately planted in late years. In 1928 from 20 to 22 per cent of the trees of each of these varieties were under 9 years of age. Many of the less generally known varieties of apples have been planted only in a very limited way during recent years. The general tendency of commercial growers is to reduce the number of varieties and to confine their plantings to the more popular varieties, many of which are grown in the State of Pennsylvania. Foreign Competition and Demand. — In the 5 seasons (1926-27 to 1930-31) apple exports from the United States have averaged one-sixth of the total commercial crop. About one- seventh of the commercial barreled apple crop and one-fifth of the commercial boxed crop were exported during this period. Exports, as far as quantity is concerned, during the first 5 months of the 1932-33 season have been about normal for the size of the crop. Prospects for the second half of the 1932-33 season appear more encouraging than they were during the 32 — 33 firts 6 months. European home grown supphes are practically exhausted. Demand conditions, however, are still at a low level so that prices anything like those indicated by the very short apple supplies of this year seem very unhkely. As to the long-time situation, World apple production appears to be on a slightly upturn trend. This has resulted in a shght increase in the quantity of apples entering into World trade Fortunately, there has been an increase in the demand for fruit which has tended to offset the increased World supphes. On the other hand, the policy of protecting home industries has made rapid strides in recent years in many of the chief importing countries. This policy has led to trade restrictive measures designed to protect home industries. The future of the American apple export trade will depend, to a large extent, on the degree to which these protective measures discourage American exports, and the success achieved in stimulating production in foreign countries. The restrictions of foreign outlets for American apples by embargo, quota, and sanitary regulations make it absolutely necessary for apple growers and American exporters to make every effort to see that only sound fruit of the better grades is exported. Conclusions In my opinion, the production of tree fruits is about the most fascinating and speculative kind of farming ; fascinating because of the opportunity the grower has of becoming a specialist in a Une that will, in the long run, pay well for the attention and care he gives his orchard ; speculative because of the long-time nature of the business. The apple orchard may be an important source of income for 30, 50 and perhaps 60 years or more. During these many years periods of prosperity and periods of depression are likely to occur. If the orchard has the right varieties, is well located, and is given proper care, it will in the long run be a source of profit and enjoyment. If the orchard is so located that it will produce a crop only when every orchard in the country has a heavy crop; or such that the expense of operation is unreasonably high, losses from the lean years will eat up the profits from the good years, the trees will be neglected, and eventually the orchard will be only a disagreeable memory of the past. For twenty years economic factors have been forcing an adjust- ment of the apple industry until at the beginning of the present business depression (1929) the industry was generally better suited for the efficient production of apples than at any tinie in recent years. On the whole it was conposed of a relatively large proportion of the better varieties, production was almost as heavy as twenty years earlier when tree numbers were twice as great, and there was every indication that with reasonable care and tree replacements the orchards would continue to Aphis Were Not Serious Durins The Past Season Look Out For Them Next In the bad Aphis year of 1931, growers who used MECHLING'S SCALE OIL had very h'ttle injury. This protection was secured at a low cost, and in the same spray Red Mite were controlled. CONTROL OF CODLING MOTH is better secured when MECHLING'S S. S. S. Spreads Sticks Suspends is added to your Arsenate of Lead. In a dry season it pays for itself many times over. In a rainy season it is invaluable. Thirty other products— all equally high class i echling bros emica ical Co. PHILADELPHIA, PA. CAMDEN, N. J. BOSTON, MASS. — 34 — — S5^ hii produce for many years an abundance of apples for domestic consumption and for export. .,i • « The future course of the business depression will mtluence production. If it continues long many orchards will be neg- lected and abandoned. This does not hold out much hope for the poor orchard. It may in the end benefit the good producer Large numbers of young trees indicate future heavy supplies ot oranges, grapefruit, canned peaches, pears, cherries, prunes and plums, and grapes. European exports are uncertain because ot world-wide economic conditions. This together with trade restrictions, quotas and embargoes make it all the more neces- sary to export only good apples. , ., „ • i^ i • One thing must be remembered, while all agricultural prices are low, apple prices have held up very well compared with prices of other farm products. It is my opinion that if the depression continues the Eastern apple grower will be as well ott, and perhaps better off, than most other kinds of farmers. Cer- tainly they will have a decided advantage over producers located long distances from consuming markets. « REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON INSECT PESTS In the absence of Dr. Guyton, Chairman of the Committee, Prof. H. E. Hodgkiss presents the following report for the Committee. Apple Insects.— Codling moth still holds first place as an offender in the apple orchard. The emergence of moths of the overwintering worms extended over the usual period. However, proper flight conditions were irregular and the most of the eggs were laid during a few evenings between the last week in May and the last week in June. In most orchards where a good job of spraying was done for the first generation, Uttle damage resulted from the second brood; however, in orchards where this was not done considerable damage was experienced from the second brood. Damage to fruits in commercial orchards ran from 0.5 per cent to over 60 per cent. The overwintermg larvae probably are as numerous as in 1931. The codling moth situation in the Cumberland and lower Susquehanna Valleys is more encouraging than any year since 1929. A heavy freeze at hatching destroyed the infestation of apple aphids throughout the entire State except in some well pro- tected orchards located on high elevations. The general out- break in 1931 enabled us to demonstrate on a large scale the inefficiency of oil sprays and other substitutes for nicotine sul- phate. . There was considerable damage to foliage and spotting of fruit in orchards caused by the presence of one to four species of leaf hoppers. In some instances the spotting was so much that it was necessary to resort to washing and wiping before marketing the fruit. Forms of all four of these species are overwintering in abundance in and about orchards. One of these species which has no common name but which is known to entomologists as — 36 — af Typhlocyba pomaria is in the egg stage and these eggs are found under the tender bark of apple twigs. The other three forms are wintering over as adults in the leaves in protected places in orchards. Nicotine in the cluster-apple application destroyed infestation in a number of orchards. The apple red bugs were numerous chiefly in the northeastern counties. There was an abundance of leaf rollers in the northeastern counties and in certain restricted localities. The damages in one instance were very severe. The pistol case bearer seriously injured foliage and fruits in one commercial orchard in FrankUn County. Spraying with arsenate of lead in both the pink and petal fall appHcations did not control this insect. The San Jose scale was not as abundant as it was in 1931 and it was generally observed that thorough spraying with either spraying oils or winter strength lime sulphur solution gave complete control. Experience has demonstrated that unless thorough control measures are practiced this insect is capable of rapid increase and is able to cause serious losses both to fruits *^nd trees The apple maggot occurred in northeastern Pennsylvania and southwest to Adams County. Orchardists, and especially those who are contemplating the marketing of their fruit in foreign countries should take precautions to see that this insect is com- pletely controlled. Apples grown in orchards where the spraying program is followed completely are not often injured by the maggot. Unsprayed orchards suffered from attacks by the apple tree tent caterpillar as well as some other general feeders. A number of other insects were reported as causing in some instances considerable damage. A few are listed: Japanese beetle is on the increase and is causing some growers considerable concern in the extreme eastern portion of the State. In this same area the larvae of the leopard moth are causing concern on account of their boring into the limbs of the trees and causing them to break. The giant root borer is in the same class as the leopard moth and is responsible for injury to about six acres of sixteen-year-old apple trees. The worm stage is about 33^ inches long and nearly one-half inch thick. This borer population has been m these trees since the time of planting and has gradually been building up. There is no control measure known for this pest. Worming is a laborious task and it is not always possible to get the last borer present in the trees. Bag worms and canker worms were present in the northern half of the State and caused considerable defoliation in orchards which were not sprayed. u .• A serious outbreak of the gipsy moth, an insect new to horti- culture and forests of the State, was discovered for the hrst time in Pennsylvania. The outbreak is confined to about 100 square miles in the vicinity of Pittston which is directly north — 37 — of Wilkes-Barre. The best efforts of both the state and federal agencies will be put toward exterminating this pest. A larger area in New Jersey was found to be infested about ten years ago and this infestation has been successfully exterminated, Peach Insects. — The Oriental fruit moth was somewhat erratic in its behavior throughout the State; in fact, in one county the count of rate of infestation where all fruits were cut and closely inspected, varied from 1.3% to 18.2% in Elberta peaches. In the vicinity of Harrisburg the infestation ran about 10% for varieties ripening up to and including Elberta and about 20% for varieties ripening after Elberta. There are about 75% as many larvae overwintering in this orchard as in 1931. This reduction is due to two things, namely, the harvest- ing and marketing of the entire peach crop and to the increase of egg and larval parasites. Out of larval collections made from twigs in the Chambersburg district 27.3% were parasitized. Four species of parasites were primarily concerned. C/ these four, one species was liberated in the neighborhood in 1^731 and seems to be very much on the increase. The liberation of Oriental fruit moth parasites has taken place in Allegheny, Beaver, Berks, Cumberland, Erie, FrankUn, Lebanon, Lancaster, Snyder, Washington and York Counties. In certain orchards where a careful check was made, parasitism was as high as 76%. In other orchards it was very much lower. We believe that more should be known about the factors which control the number of para- sites developing in a particular location. Curculio was not a serious problem in most peach orchards in 1932. This condition was due to an early emergence of the adults from hibernation which permitted an unusually large kill by the first curculio spray. The peach lecanium, a soft scale on peach, increased alarm- ingly in the southeast portion of the State and in some instances spoiled much of the fruit at marketing time. Applications of an oil spray during the dormant season continued to control this insect. The peach borer built up a heavy population in many dis- tricts. The committee recognizes that there is only one effective method of control for this insect, namely the yearly appUcation of paradichlorobenzene. Peach twigs were damaged by a native insect commonly known as the peach twig borer. This damage in some places was quite high and in one orchard as much as 8% of the fruit was infested with larvae of this insect. From all over the State reports were received of cat-faces on peaches. This was caused by stink bugs. At least four species of this group of insects were concerned in causing this damage. A species of leaf hoppers (Erythroneura plena) not generally distributed over the State was reported as doing commercial damage to peach trees in the southeastern corner of the State. This species has been known to occur in Maryland and farther south for some little time. The committee hopes that it is a ^ distinctly southern species and that it will not be able to persist in sufficient numbers this far north to cause commercial losses. The cherry maggot was reported as abundant in certain unsprayed orchards in the westerntier counties. The cherry aphid was abundant in certain districts and caused some damage. In two counties the peach tree borer was reported as damaging sweet cherry trees. Applications of paradichlorobenzene may be made to cherry trees as well as to peach trees. The pear slug caused the defoliation of many unsprayed cherry trees and pear trees. Some grape growers failed to spray their vineyards and the vines suffered a heavy loss from the ravages of the grape leaf hopper and berry moth. The committee recognizes that it was not possible for some growers to finance a proper insect control program. The efforts of fruit growers as a whole to produce clean fruit in the face of unusually discouraging conditions, however, are commendable. Much information has been accumulated in Pennsylvania to aid fruit growers in the fight against insect pests. This infor- mation has been ascertained by either the educational, research or regulatory agencies. A review of such data does not come within the scope of a report of this committee. Your committee considers that all the available facts on the control of fruit infesting insects ascertained through these state agencies should be presented before this association. Therefore, we offer the following motion: That this association should make it incumbent on its officers to invite the entomologist of the Agricultural Experiment Station, of the Bureau of Plant Indus- try of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, and of the Division of Agricultural Extension of The Pennsylvania State College, to present papers at each annual meeting of the Horti- cultural Association on some phase of insect suppression within their respective fields. These addresses should be timely and of especial interest to the members. Respectfully submitted: T. L. GuYTON, Chairman H. N. WORTHLEY H. E. HODGKISS Question : Is there a control for stink bug? Mr. Hodgkiss: No. About 20 years ago there was a great outbreak in Ohio. That carried on for about a year and then disappeared. Being a sucking insect, it will be susceptible to dust but with the small amount of injury I question the advis- ability of dusting for it. Question: Is the injury by stink bug deep? Mr. Hodgkiss: No, I would call it a roughing off of the surface. The bug itself sucks the juice out of the peach. The peach then has a discolored surface injury. 38 — 39 Question: When does] it do this damage? Mr. Hodgkiss: As soon as the peaches are the size of hazel nuts. Question: Is there anything new known for control of plum eurculio? Mr. Hodgkiss: Nothing new. It depends entirely upon time- liness of spraying. In some counties the usual pink or early pink application was the one that killed the most of them. For the last three or four years the one that killed the most of them was either petal fall or cluster appUcation. Question: If the reinfestation was very light, what would be your recommendation for spraying. Mr. Hodgkiss: I would cut it down to one spray and put it on shuck fall spray. In certain orchards where eurculio is very severe, I would put on two applications. The greatest atten- tion should be given to the sections of peach orchards along wood lands because of hibernating insects. muu m NEW LOWER PRICES ...and... Delivered Free to Tour Buiilroad Station SUNDCQ SELF EMULSIFYING SPRAf CONTROLS SCALE, APHIS, RED MITE H will NOT clog spray nozzles... A finer BELL-MINE HYDRATED LIME manufactured by the American Lime & Stone Co., at Bellefonte, Pa. Sales Office • Pittsburgh — 40 ^% Mixes with hard water Will not freeze • Effective and safe WRITE FOR SPRAY SCHEDULE AND PRICES SUN OIL COMPANY Spray Department 1608 WALNUT STREET PHILADELPHIA, PENNA. 41 — SAVING MONEY IN THE ORCHARD F. N. Fagan, State College, Pa. This is not exactly the subject I gave to our Secretary, Mr. Sudds, when he asked me this last fall if I had a message I wanted to inflict on our members. In reply to his question I said ''Yes, put me down for the subject 'Economy in the Orchard'.'' My reply gave Mr. Sudds a good laugh for, as you know, Mr. Sudds is also in the orchard department of The Pennsylvania State College and for the past year we have had to economize in the orchard expenses very decidedly. It may seem out of place for me as a member of your experi- mentation staff to presume that I can give you pointers on saving money in the orchard, but when I tell you that our Orchard Department had to operate in 1931-32 (July to July) on a sales income of $5,265.00 while in 1930-31 we had a sales income of $18,727.00 you will understand that we had to econ- omize. We had to operate without dropping members of the staff or any of our important experiment?. For this reason you will see why I suggested the subject and why your Secretary got a laugh from my reply. We are no different than the com- mercial grower, except that our experimental wo k is much more expensive than would be the case in a commercial orchard. Some of you during the past two years have heard me make the remark that the successful owner will be the orchardist who learns how he can cut his cost of production and still keep up his yields. In these trying times I wish to offer encouragement. Let me say that the future of the orchard business looks as bright to me today for our eastern growers as it did just 20 years ago this month when I first became a member of our Association. I hope other members have gotton as much good and enthusiasm out of our State meetings as I have during this time. The past 20 years have brought to me many pleasant and valuable contacts with our Association members. Let me say here that which is to me a fact — that there is not so much wrong with orcharding or agriculture in general except that a lot of folks, as in other businesses, lost their heads (or financial equi- librium) and plunged too deeply. In other words over-cap- italization. In the report of United States Secretary of Agri- culture as of January 1, 1932, you will find that commodity prices have in the past two years had a greater shrinkage than has taken place for 70 years, and that capital employed in agriculture dropped $13,910,000,000 from January 1930 to January 1932. That is a right large shrinkage; about one- fourth. No wonder there are idle manufacturing plants through- out the United States. Just another item of over-capitalization that took place during the World War period. Now in the face of these facts let me say that the orchard owner or the farmer for that matter, who owns his property, stock and equipment free of mortgages and other debts is sitting at the top of the ■m mountain looking down on a worried world. And this worried world of people must face the facts and take their losses them- selves and quit figuring that governments must stand their losses. Any orchardist, whether he is free of debts or not, must cut his costs of production and do his best to maintain his yields at a high level. In what way can cost of production be lowered? Let us take the apple orchardist problem first. Can he cut out his dormant spray? Yes, if he has no scale. If the orchard is equipped with a power sprayer large enough to operate one of the six- or eight-nozzle spray guns one man can do the spraying. The spraying can then all be done from the tank by this one man. Of course, the spray man must learn how to use these large guns. We know it can be done for we have been spraying this way. In other words our sprayers now a e operated by the use of one teamster and one spray man instead of one teamster and two spray men. No orchardist can afford to cut out any of his spray program other than his dormant spray and he cannot cut out this if the scale is not under control. No orchardist can cut out the use of his nitrate fertiUzer early in the spring unless his orchard is in a very high state of fer- tility and I doubt even then whether he can afford to cut out the nitrate entirely. No orchardist can cut out the rough breaking up oi a sod in his orchard by the use of the disc, weed hog, or plowing if the sod is thrifty and rank with grass. Even a clover or alfalfa sod should be chopped a little if it is rank. Where then can the apple grower save in production cost, if he is short of money? He can neglect pruning, using judgment and devoting what time and capital he has to pruning in the thickest trees. A "no pruning" system can not go on forever but it is better to neglect pruning than the fertilizer and spraying. He can save on his cultivation. In an orchard in sod crack up the sod once or twice in very early spring as soon as the land is fit to work and then quit. In a cultivated orchard fit a seed bed and seed the cover early. If using clover do this as early as the land can be worked. If using covers such as millet, Sudan grass, peas or soybeans fit the land in May and seed as soon as frost danger is over. All cultivation can be cut; just fit a seed bed and seed the cover. Regardless of the cover used, one may have to mow the growth once or twice during the summer. If the dry weather hits mow down the cover. Cutting out cultivation and seeding covers early will not hurt the orchard or the crop on the trees. A big saving will result for it costs a lot of money to clean cultivate during the months of May, June, July and part of August. A saving of $1.00 an acre a month for gas and oil alone can be expected. Wear and tear on tools and the labor bill will raise this saving. 42 — 43 Can the orchardist save in thinning? If he has a set too heavy for his trees he must thin if he reaps the best return for his crop. Only when the demand returns for IM, 2 and 2% inch apples will the grower be justified in cutting out the thinning of a heavy set. And by the way, when the demand for \%y 2 and 2\i inch apples returns no one will be interested in ''Saving money in the orchard" but will be interested in letting the manufacturer sell him new tools, the latest and most up-to-date packing house equipment, etc. That is what took place in the good years from 1915 to 1929. The time to save would have been during those good years by taking silver and gold coins and putting them in a lead box and burying it in the orchard below plow depth. But instead we put it in more land, more trees, more tractors, and more new contraptions about the packing house. Now let us get back to the subject and tackle the peach orchard problem. It is about the same as the apple deal. The peach grower cannot trust to the cutting out of his spraying. He cannot cut out his pruning which is different from the apple. Peach sales in 1931-32 tell us he cannot cut out thinning if he has a heavy crop set for the little peaches did not sell. Where can he cut costs in the peach orchard? If his peach trees have been making strong 18 to 36 inch branch growth he could cut out his early nitrate fertilizer. If not strong growth, he cannot cut out the use of a little nitrate in the early spring. He can cut out all his cultivation. He can fit a seed bed and sow cover crops at once. He can fit the seed bed as early as his land is fit to work and seed to clovers, if his soil will grow clovers. By seeding biennial sweet clovers this way for two consecutive years he can even forget seeding in future years if he lets the second growth of clover go to seed. Will this cover rob the trees of moisture? It will not if he cuts it when it is about 18 inches high the second year. The first year's seeding will not get high enough to damage much. If it gets too high and begins to rob the trees of moisture a few days with a mower and team will stop the robbing. Biennial sweet clover can be disced and harrowed in May until the land is a seed bed and still it will make a good crop of seed by mid-summer. If the land will not grow clovers then do not rush to fit a seed bed for the non-legume covers or any cover that will be killed by frost. Just fit a seed bed in May and seed at once after all danger of frost has passed. Our 17-year old peach orchard has never had more than two weeks, a year of cultivation since 1928. A seed bed is fitted each year in May and the land seeded at once. It is self-seeding now with biennial sweet clover. By the way, we have had nice crops every year since 1928. Not bad medicine to take in these depression times! The plum and cherry orchard can be handled the same as the peach. Some saving can be done in pruning but pruning cannot be neglected but for one year with these fruits. A # r heavy set of plums should be thinned. Also the spraying of both must be given. If the trees are making strong growth the nitrate could be left off in early spring. Do not cut out nitrate if the trees are not growing vigorously. If money is available I would suggest the use of phosphate and even a little potash or a complete fertihzer at the time of seeding the covers in the cultivated apple, peach, plum and cherry orchards. Use whatever fertihzer for the covers you need for your soils. Phosphate is needed in most Pennsylvania soils for these covers and in some sections potash makes a response. Follow the farm practices in your section as to the use of fertilizers for the covers you are growing. These recommendations are not new to many of you for at our last two annual meetings some of your Experiment Station workers have given papers in which the minimum of cultivation has been recommended. Let me read to you the recommenda- tions from the New York Agricultural Experiment Station, Geneva, New York, as given in Circular No. 134, *The Plum in New York.'' As many of you know most of the New York orchards have been handled under the clean cultivation system but the Station recommendations are swinging to the short period of cultivation. ''A combination of cultivation and cover crops is generally recommended for the plum orchard. Clean cultivation without cover crops sooner or later exhausts the soil of humus. In order to maintain organic matter and nitro- gen in the soil, the cover crop must be sown early in the summer so as to make good growth before the dry hot weather comes A winter green manure crop and especially a legume is much preferred over the annual cover crops as it not only gives more protection in the winter and prevents erosion, but it also starts to grow early in the spring so that there is considerable growth made by the time cultivation starts. Legumes also furnish additional nitrogen to the soil." In conclusion let me say that even the grower that is free of debt, but especially the grower that is in debt, must cut costs ot production in the places where volume of production will not be reduced if he is to climb the side of this depression and take a look at the green pastures over the crest. We will have to stop looking around for that famous corner and go to cuttmg corners. Question: What has been your experience in getting legume cover crops started in old orchards planted too close— large trees and where you have to drive over the ground in spraying about the time you should be starting the cover crops? Mr. Fagan: We have not had any experience in orchards older than 24 years, but we had the same difficulty in a younger orchard planted 20 X 20. The fillers were so close that cover crops were beginning to decline seriously. The fillers are now out and are being used for fireplace wood. Question: Which of the covers would start easiest under these conditions? 44 ^45 — i I Mr. Fagan: Corn broadcast with a little phosphate. Mow this down and let it lie; also Sudan grass or mixed Sudan and German millet. Question: Will Sudan grass reseed itself? Mr. Fagan: Sometimes yes and sometimes no. I do not believe it advisable to let it grow high enough to form seed. It makes a heavy demand on soil moisture and if the ground starts to get dry the cover should be cut. Anything that will break the grass down will keep the moisture in. Question: Is there a mower made with a cutter bar in front of the tractor? Mr. Fagan: No, but I think the larger tool companies would be glad to make such a machine. Mr. Fetterman: Did you say that you cut clover seeded in May twice before picking? Mr. Fagan: No, not new seeding. In May of the second year we again seed sweet clover after discing or harrowing the orchard and fitting a seed bed. We now have two ages of plants and the second growth makes the seed. If this growth becomes too heavy for the moisture supply it should be cut once or twice. Question: Should sweet clover seeded in May be mowed before picking? Mr. Fagan: Yes, if it is tall enough to bother the pickers. Question: Would you recommend mixed seed for cover crops? Mr. Fagan: Yes, sometimes but usually not. I believe we will come to the time when we will rotate covers in the orchard — Sudan, clover, etc. Mr. Wagner: Did the sweet clover reseed itself? Mr. Fagan: It went through the winter and germinated the next spring satisfactorily. We know from work in the west that sweet clover which reaches 18 to 20 inches will leave more nitrogen in the soil if cut then rather than later when it may be much taller. Mr. Funk: My sweet clover does not come up until the second year. Mr. Fagan: We find a growth the first spring. Question: Would a light discing in the spring kill out the sweet clover? I have a peach orchard with sweet clover which I should like to disc. I have had heavy growth each year. Mr. Fagan: I think you can do the same with your orchard as we did with ours. Early in the spring we harrow or disc the old tops into the ground until the new seed bed looks bare but in two weeks' time you will see new growth from the crowns. Mr. Fetterman: Do you think a two-horse disc would 'cultivate a peach orchard enough this year? # TYSON ORCHARD SERVICE FLORA DALE, PA. TO MEMBERS PENNSYLVANIA STATE HORT. ASSN. Dear Friends: With the possibility staring them in the face of a federal regulation prohibiting the use of poison sprays after this year, as a public health measure, it is no wonder that experiment station men in many states are worried, and are urging a strenuous warfare from all angles that the end of 1933 may see a marked reduction in codling moth population. This program includes careful scraping of the trees, a thorough job of spraying with the best materials available, and banding of all mature trees with chemically treated bands. Fortunately, old reliable remedies are available for this work. Maryland Experiment Station has discovered that **Scalecide/' (already known as death to all scale insects and a general tree invig- orator) when used at winter strength as a delayed dormant applica- tion, not only destroyed aphis, but killed 50% of codling moth present in their winter cocoons. Thus is suggested a very important, first line trench movement. Experiment station men have also discovered that **Latimer Dry Arsenate of Lead*' with spreader mixes better with Lime- Sulphur Solution, with a minimum of harmful reactions, improves the coverage and adherence of both materials in a perfect 100% film, with a resultant minimum of loss by run-off, with less tendency to burn than any other Lead, and that for these reasons, 2 lbs. of Lati- mer Dry Arsenate of Lead proved more destructive to codling moth than 3 lbs. of other straight leads. **COD-0-CIDE'' tree bands have time and time again captured large quantities of worms and controlled them 100%. Write us for facts and figures on these three vital essentials to your success. We are prepared to furnish all standard materials and equipment at reduced prices in sympathy with the times. Soliciting an opportunity to serve you. we are Very truly yours, EDWIN C. TYSON TYSON ORCHARD SERVICE FLORA DALE, PA. 46 — 47 in Mr. Fagan: Try to chop up as wide a space as possible because we go through to spray and ruin a lot of cover crop in the center of the row. Question: How deep would you cultivate a 15-year old orchard that has never been cultivated? Mr. Fagan: As deep as though hogs had been in it and then go over it with the roller and roll it down. Question: How about disturbing the root system? Mr. Fagan: It will not hurt. I would not plow unless I had to. It is better to use a harrow. Question: Do you get better germination with scarified seed? Mr. Fagan: Yes, we do. Mr. Hershey: Do you broadcast sweet clover? Mr. Fagan: Not always. We sometimes drill our seed and throw some in the tree rows where we could not reach with the drill. Question : Could you get a stand of sweet clover by seeding in March when the ground is cracked and if so could you then eliminate cultivation? Mr. Fagan: Yes, you can do so but you can let the sweet clover run too long without cultivation and grasses will come in and live on the nitrogen brought in by the clover. We also run a harrow through alfalfa to keep blue grass from competing with alfalfa. Blue grass or rye will take more available nitrogen than anything else in the early spring. Question: How are weeds as a cover crop? Mr. Fagan: I believe they are all right if they are heavy enough but not as good as sweet clover. Question: Where do we get '^weed hogs?'' Mr. Fagan: The *^weed hog'' type of cultivator is made by several companies but this name is applied to one type of make. It is a better tool than a cultivator. The ^^weed hog" is made by the Babcock Mrnufacturing Company, Leonardsville, N. Y. BRIEF REMARKS MADE BY DR. W. S. HOUGH OF THE WINCHESTER FIELD LABORATORY, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA This is a great surprise to me. I certainly did not expect to do more than pass through Harrisburg but, learning that your meeting was in session, I stepped into the back of the room. Unfortunately I was not as small as I thought I was. Down in Virginia we are still holding on but nothing more. We do not have to tell our growers to economize; they have to do so anyway. The growers as a class have experienced a little better year than last year. This is at least a move in the right direction. I know they are in better shape than a year ago and we feel that things are not so bad they couldn't be worse. I will say that the orchard industry, not only in the * east but in the west, is facing some critical problems and we will have to face some special ones from the spraying standpoint. It is not for me to start a discussion on it but we probably will have to look forward to some rather trying times in our attempts to find substitutes for lead arsenate. The lead arse- nate residue problem may entirely alter our spray program within the next few years. From that standpoint we entomolo- gists are very much interested in what is coming. We are especially interested down in our section for we have to spray later to control codling moth for we have large second and even third broods. If the weather is with us I think we will continue to hang on. It has been my experience in this game that we have to hang on once we are in it. If any of you come to our section of the country we will show you how bad off we really are. RESTRICTIONS ON FRUIT EXPORT AND HOW TO MEET THEM G. L. S. Carpenter, Hancock, Md. Restrictions on our fruit for export are daily becoming more varied and difficult to meet. Our export outlets are of vital interest to us, as the production of apples in our country was created to supply the markets of the world. In normal years, approximately 20 percent of our total commercial production, or 20,340,000 bushels, is exported. Our apples from this region are exported mainly in barrels, and on account of our proximity to the Atlantic seaboard, we have developed our export move- ment, so that it ranges from 40 to 60 percent of our commercial production. Exports of barreled apples from the United States, for the years 1928 to 1931 inclusive, show the following countries as our major export outlets: Barrels Barrels Barrels Barrels Destination 1931-32 1930-31 1929-30 1928-29 United Kingdom .... 1,893,000 954,000 953,000 1,720,000 France 367,000 131.000 8,000 62,000 Belgium 189,000 313.000 14,000 321,000 Sweden 84,000 35,000 95,000 115,000 Germany 73,000 404,000 50,000 236,000 Denmark 73,000 65,000 42,000 81,000 Netherlands 49,000 334,000 17,000 201,000 Canada 31,000 40,000 40,000 63,000 Norway 19,000 12,000 23,000 25,000 Other 40,000 191,000 185,000 181,000 Total 2,818,000 2,479,000 1,427,000 3,005,000 United Kingdom.— During the season of 1931-32, the United States exported to the United Kingdom the following apples: Barrels 1,893,000 Boxes 3,475,000 48 — 49 — The United Kingdom is our principal foreign market for barreled apples, during the season 1931-32 takmg approxi- mately 68 percent of our total barreled exports. The restrictions applying against our fruit are: ^„„x. „ Effective June, 1930, the importation of alHruit not meeting the requirements of the U. S. Fancy and No. 1 grades was prohibited from July to November 15th of each year. This regulation is still in force. , Effective March 1, 1932, an import duty of 10 percent ad valorem was placed on our apples. , ^ ,. ^ ,, . On November 15, 1932, the British Parhament, as a result of the Ottawa Conference, approved the Ottawa Agreement Act making effective a duty of 4 shillings 6 pence per cwt. (112 pounds) throughout the year. Apples from British Dominions Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, enter duty Imports into the United Kingdom were little affected as regards volume or source of supply by the import duty of 10 percent, as indicated by the figures shown below which were published by the Empire Marketing Board m ^^Weekly Fruit InteUigence Notes:'' Receipts of Apples into the United Kingdom— July to November, Inc. Bushels Bushels Bushels Source 1932 1931 1930 United States 2,722,241 3,608,541 2,114,935 Canada • • • 1 663 084 3,175,042 2,387,091 Australia and New' Zealand 1 493 356 608,919 1 ,366,608 cSent" i;261,399 1,300,771 208,171 Other Sources 17,054 25,474 84^ Total 7,157,134 8,718,747 6,077,648 It is too early as yet to determine accurately the effect of the duties set up in the Ottawa Agreement Act, effective Novem- ber 17, 1932. From figures at present available, the movement of barrel apples for December will not be more than 20 percent of that in 1931. , . , , , 4.;i An accurate picture will not be obtainable, however, until storages in the United Kingdom have their holdings reduced and normal storage conditions prevail. France.— The United States exported directly to trance, during the season 1931-32, the following apples: Barrels 367,000 Boxes : 913,000 In March, 1932, the French Government made effective regulations preventing the introduction of San Jose Scale on apples. All shipments must now be accompanied by a sanitary certificate, issued by inspectors of the United States Department of Agriculture, certifying that the fruit offered for export to France is free from scale. The inspection of the fruit by our inspectors is subject to the reinspection and approval of the French officials at the following designated ports of entry: Marseille, Le Havre, Bordeaux, Dunkirk. — 60 — CHOOSE your commission house with the same care used in selecting spray SHIP TO US B ecause we have one of the largest stores in Phila. -can handle truck or carload shipments -do not buy any to compete with yours -handle strictly on commission -make apples our specialty -make prompt returns & oem hiid FRUIT and PRODUCE Commission Merchants 1 22 DOCK STREET LOMBARD 1 000 PHILADELPHIA — 61 — m m Nil At the present time, a duty of 15 francs per 100 kilos (220 pounds) applies on apples in containers weighing not over 44 pounds. On apples in barrels, the duty is only 7.5 francs per 100 kilos (220 pounds) so that, at the present time, our barrel fruit enjoys a duty only half of that of apples shipped in boxes. Effective July 1, 1932, import quotas were imposed on apples based on the average direct imports during similar months of 1929, 1930 and 1931, and on October 1, 1932, French importers were required to secure licenses to import apples applying on the foregoing quotas. Belgium.— Our exports of apples to Belgium for the season 1931-32 were: Barrels 189,000 Boxes 83,000 Effective March 27, 1932, the duties applying on shipments of apples to this country are as follows: Imported in boxes, baskets and other packages weighing 20 kilos (44 pounds) or less— 172.5 francs per 100 kilos (220 pounds). Imported in bulk— 3.45 francs per 100 kilos (220 pounds). Imported otherwise— 5.75 francs per 100 kilos (220 pounds). In this instance, we enjoy a particularly favorable tariff on the shipment of our barreled apples into Belgium, when com- pared with the tariff applying on boxes and baskets. Sweden.— During the season 1931-32, we exported the fol- lowing apples to Sweden: Barrels Boxes . 84,000 215,000 On February 1, 1932, a duty of 20 crowns per 100 kilos (220 pounds) was made effective. Swedish fruit importers are sub- ject to bank regulations restricting the allocation of foreign exchange. Germany.— During the season 1931-32, the United States exported to Germany the following apples: Barrels 73,000 Boxes 1,988,000 These apples were subject to an import duty of 7 marks per 100 kilos (220 pounds). German regulations provide for the inspection of United States apples for San Jose Scale and fruit fly. During 1932, German fruit importers were subject to Government regulations restricting the allocation of foreign exchange. Only sufficient exchange was made available to each importer to cover imports to an amount equaling 50 per- cent of his total imports for 1931. Denmark.— During the season 1931-32, the United States apple exports to Denmark were: M Barrels Boxes . 73,000 251,000 These apples were subject to an Import duty of 5 crowns per 100 kilos (220 pounds). Beginning January 30, 1932, Danish fruit importers were required to secure licenses to import apples, a measure undertaken by the Danish Government to control foreign exchange. Netherlands. — During the season 1931-32, the United States exported to the Netherlands the following apples: Barrels 49,000 Boxes 1,303,000 These apples were subject to an import duty of 10 percent ad valorem, which became effective January 1, 1932. Canada. — During the season 1931-32, the imports of apples to Canada were: Barrels M,000 Boxes 2o7,000 The schedule of Canadian duties is too long for listing. Created on a sliding scale basis, they have been very effective in curtailing the shipment of our apples, and this market, which formerly consumed a relatively high percentage of our Summer apples, has been virtually eliminated. Norway. — During the season 1931-32, the United States exported the following apples to Norway: Barrels 19,000 Boxes 75,000 The present duty on apples is as follows: August to January inclusive— 72 crowns per 100 kilos (220 pounds). February to July inclusive— 36 crowns per 100 kilos (220 pounds). Norwegian fruit importers are subject to bank regulations restricting the allocation of foreign exchange. The restrictions set up by the foregoing countries embody most of the devices used in curtaiUng international trade. Argentina, however, by its requirement providing that all apples in barrels must be wrapped for shipment to that country adds yet another device to the long list used for throtthng international trade. There are yet two conditions, which have been responsible for the reduction in the net return to the grower: The United Kingdom, Norway, Denmark and Sweden in 1931 went off the gold standard, probably resulting in slightly higher prices for our apples in these countries, but at the same time resulting in a greatly decreased net return. The economic condition of the countries to which we have been exporting has resulted in the creation of a price level beyond which the buying public will not pay in their purchases of fruit. In order to have a resumption of foreign trade on a basis of more than salvage, there must come about a change in world economic conditions. — 52 — 53 — ( The effect on the American grower of apples of the above enumerated restrictions will no doubt force a complete readjust- ment of the apple industry. The restrictions requinng the shipment of high-grade fruit and fruit free from scale are bound to have an effect in improving the quality of the fruit grown. These restrictions may be of some benefit also, as they preclude the possibility of shipping anything but high-quality fruit. This should maintain and improve the existing high reputation, which American apples enjoy in most foreign markets. Tbese restrictions may also influence the removal of many undesirable and unprofitable varieties of apples from our orchards. Color is a deciding factor in the sale of fruit on foreign markets, and this makes desirable, particularly at this time when reduced production is vital, the removal of half the trees in closely planted blocks, permitting more sunhght, more color and better insect and disease control. All of the above changes and many more will become necessary, if we are to readjust our industry in accordance with the changed conditions which confront us. The above outline presents some of the changes we can effect within our own industry. We are, however, dependent upon a world economic conference participated in by all nations for the solution of this problem. Even under most favorable circumstances, it may be several years before much can be accomphshed toward the restoration of world trade. The creating of reciprocal tariffs, the settUng of international debts and our foreign poUcies are so interwoven that a solution of one demands the solution of all. Only by the concerted effort of all fruit growers in the United States can we influence our foreign policy as it affects our industry. Working in conjunction with the International Apple Shippers Association, we outlined a resolution embodying conditions as they appear to us in Maryland. The following resolution, passed at the Annual Meeting of the Maryland State Horticultural Society, is being forwarded to our Senators and Representatives and to horticultural societies throughout the United States in the hope that joint action may be taken by all, and the opinions of our Congressmen so influenced that they will take positive action toward the opening of international trade. The Resolution WHEREAS, the fruit growers of the United States, especially producers of apples, are now facing bankruptcy owing to in- abiUty to market their products, having based their production on supplying both domestic and foreign markets (in the case of apples, four milUon barrels and nine milUon boxes must be exported, or our domestic markets are glutted), and, WHEREAS, it takes ten years or more to bring an orchard into production, and curtailment of production involves stag- gering capital losses for growers, as well as heavy losses for — 54 — k\ cold storages, manufacturers of orchard supplies and packages, distributors, railroads, and others, and, WHEREAS, tariffs, embargoes, quotas, drastic sanitary restrictions, exchange restrictions, widely fluctuating exchange, and the general paralysis of international trade are devastating our markets and destroying the incomes of the American pro- ducers, and, WHEREAS, the above mentioned difficulties and problems are dependent upon our own foreign poUcies, tariffs, etc., and are inextricably interwoven with the problem of international debts, RESOLVED, that we hereby request our Senators and Representatives to give all possible consideration looking toward the removal of the trade barriers confronting our industry, the thawing out of the stream of international commerce, and a solution of the debt questions which are inextricably interwoven with the above. SUCCESS Authorities now urge orchard soil conditioning for best suc- cess in fruit growing. Here, tgwurr^^mijKitnj plays a part by offering dependable lime products, whatever type of lime is required. LIMOID . . . Pure Hydrated Lime WARNER GROUND BURNED LIME WARNER PULVERIZED LIMESTONE yiarnrr 1616 WALNUT STREET PHILADELPHIA — 66 — i i\ FACTORS AFFECTING PROFITS PROM ORCHARDS Dr. F. P. Weaver, State College Only a few of the factors that affect profits can be discussed in this period. The Chairman of the Program Committee placed the subject on the program for the purpose of presenting the results of a three-year study of orchard management in the Cumberland-Shenandoah region. Unfortunately the results of that study have not been summarized sufficiently for presentation at this time. Some of the workers resigned and some were dropped for lack of funds and this has delayed the work. The following data covering one small section of the study illustrate what those in charge of the work hope to be able to present some time during the next year. For most of the apple orchards in this study in Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia for the three-year period 1929 to 1931, and which includes 158 records, we have divided costs into pre-harvest or growing costs, harvest costs, and ^^other costs.'' Pre-harvest costs for the three years were 28 per cent of total costs, harvest costs 44 per cent, and other costs 28 per cent. ''Other costs,'' for the entire farm, were made up of the following items: paid interest 4 per cent, taxes and insurance 4 per cent, unclassified labor 2 per cent, general building and equipment repairs, and depreciation 8 per cent, management 6 per cent, and miscellaneous costs 4 per cent. These other costs were distributed to the various enterprises and orchard blocks on the basis of the number of man hours used in the particular enterprise. The cost of spraying represented approximately 45 per cent of the pre-harvest cost, and approximately 12.5 per cent of the total cost. Cost, as used here, includes all items of cost ex- cept that of interest on the capital owned by the orchardist. In Albemarle, Nelson and Rappahannock Counties, of the Piedmont area of Virginia, there were 16 orchardists who fur- nished rather complete data relative to spraying. Their farms included 1065 acres of bearing orchard with 38,570 bearing trees and 3,047 replants. Some figures from these 16 orchards for the year 1931 follow: 10 applied the dormant spray^ 10 apphed the pink spray 15 applied the petal-fall spray 15 applied the three- weeks' spray 13 applied the five-weeks' spray 9 applied the seven-weeks' spray, and 1 applied an additional spray in August for bitter rot. It is the opinion of most entomologists that each spray, except the dormant, should be completed within five days after the correct time to begin in order to obtain proper control of insects and diseases. On this basis we have tabulated the number of growers that did, and those that did not, complete the spray within the five-day period. 'If less than one-half of the trees were sprayed for a particular application, it was not counted as a spray. M Of the 10 growers who applied the pink spray, each completed the appUcation within the five-day Hmit. Of the 15 growers who applied the petal fall spray, 6 com- pleted the application within the five-day Umit and 9 did not. Of the 15 growers who applied the three- weeks' spray, 6 completed the application within the five-day limit and 9 did not. Of the 13 growers who applied the five-weeks' spray, 5 com- pleted the application within the five-day limit and 8 did not. Of the 9 growers who applied the seven-weeks' spray, 5 com- pleted the application within the five-day limit and 4 did not. Referring to the five standard sprays only, eliminating the dormant spray and the late (August) spray: Of the 16 growers, 3 apphed 5 sprays 8 applied 4 sprays, and 5 applied 3 sprays. Of the 3 growers applying 5 sprays, 1 applied all of the sprays within the five-day limit 1 applied 3 of the sprays within the five-day limit 1 applied 1 of the sprays within the five-day limit. Of the 8 growers applying 4 sprays, 3 applied all sprays within the five-day limit 1 applied 2 sprays within the five-day limit 3 applied 1 spray within the five-day limit 1 applied 0 spray within the five-day limit. Of the 5 growers applying 3 sprays, 1 applied all within five days 1 applied 2 within five days 1 applied 1 within five days 2 applied 0 within five days. It is evident that the spraying practices of these 16 growers vary both as to the number of sprays applied and as to whether or not the applications were completed within the five-day limit. For the purpose of a summary expression of the spraying prac- tice of each grower relative to these two factors, we might assume that 5 sprays, excluding the dormant and late summer sprays, each with the appUcation completed within the five-day limit equal 100 points — each spray completed within the five- day limit counting 20 points, and each spray completed within a longer period than the five-day hmit 10 points. On this basis, 5 of the 16 growers scored 80 or more points (1 scored 100) 4 of the 16 growers scored 60 or 70 points 5 of the 16 growers scored 40 or 50 points, and 2 of the 16 growers scored 30 points. It has been suggested that some growers are under-equipped for applying the proper amount of spray within the five-day limit, while some have more equipment than is needed and thus have a comparatively high cost for spray equipment. 56 — --57 — of the 16 growers, 4 with an average of 14 acres of orchard had less than two acres per gallon pump capacity (and one of these had only one acre) 8 with 54 acres of orchard had from 2.0 to 3.9 acres 4 with 144 acres of orchard had 4.0 or more acres (one having 10 acres). Thus it will be seen that the small orchards, although they were equipped with pumps of only 10 gallons per minute capacity, were over-equipped and therefore handicapped with high over- head The average investment in spray machinery for the group with less than 2.0 acres of bearing orchard for each rated gallon per minute of pump capacity was $8.89 per acre of bearing orchard, for the second group $7.19, and for the last group $5.11. The average for the 16 growers was $410 per orchard or $6.15 per acre of bearing orchard. To throw Ught on the extent to which sprayers were used to their full rated pump capacity, a study of the spray eqmpment in relation to the amount of spray used and the length of time used in completing the appUcation of the spray dilution was made for these 16 growers in the Piedmont section of Virginia for 1931. The spray in which the maximum number of gallons were used in making the application was selected for each grower in this instance. Some of the results follow. The average time limit within which the application was completed was 10.2 days and the average time used m making the application 42 hours. Based upon the rated pump capacity of the sprayers, the appUcation could have been made in 11 hours if the sprayer was operated continuously, and if the pumps actually delivered spray up to their rated capacity, which time is only 26 per cent of the time used in the spraying operation. In other words, the sprayer was in actual use about one-fourth of the time used in the spraying operation, the other three-fourths being used in filUng tank, moving from tree to tree, and so forth. . x i xu While the average time the sprayer was in actual use on the 16 orchards was 26 per cent of the time used in the spraying operation, this figure varied from 14 per cent of the time on one orchard to 40 per cent on another. Of the 16 orchards there were: 4 orchards in which the sprayers were in actual use less than 20 per cent of the time, averaging 16 per cent. 7 orchards in which the sprayers were in actual use from 20 to 24 per cent of the time, averaging 23 per cent, and 5 orchards in which they were in actual use 25 per cent or more of the time, averaging 36 per cent. On the 4 orchards in which the sprayers were in actual oper- ation less than 20 per cent of the time used in the spraying operation, about 4 gallons were applied per tree; on those in which the sprayers were in actual operation from 20 to 24 68 — per cent of the time used in the spraying operations, about 7 gallons were applied per tree ; and on those in which the sprayers were in actual operation 25 or more per cent of the time used in the spraying operation, about 6 gallons were applied per tree. The average cost per gallon of spray apphed during the season 1931 was $.017 for the group of orchards in which the sprayers were used at less than 20 per cent of their rated pump capacity; $.017 for the group in which they were used at from 20 to 24 per cent of their rated pump capacity; and $.014 for the group in which the sprayers were used at 25 or more per cent of their rated pump capacities. The groups averaged 43 acres, 61 acres, and 93 acres of bearing orchard. The average cost of spraying per barrel of packed apples was $.35, $.35 and $.22 respectively, and the total pre-harvest cost, $.71, $.63, and $.48. The total cost per packed barrel (excluding interest on the capital owned by the orchardist) was $2.24 for the group of orchards in which the sprayers were used at less than 20 per cent of their rated pump capacities; $2.24 for the group in which the sprayers were used at 20 to 24 per cent of their rated pump capacities; and $2.60 for the group in which the sprayers were used at 25 or more per cent of their rated pump capacities, while the receipts were $1.48, $1.69, and $2.26 per barrel for the respective groups. The net figures (receipts less costs) were -$.76, -$.56, and -$.34 for the respective groups. Although each group showed a net loss per packed barrel, the loss for the group highest in efficient use of sprayers was 42 cents less per barrel than the group lowest in efficient use of sprayers. The deficit per orchard was greater for the group highest in efficient use of sprayers than for the group lowest in efficient use of sprayers. This is to be expected in a losing year like 1931. The highest group yielding 4205 barrels of picked apples per orchard averaged 93 acres of aring apple trees while the lowest g. p averaged 43 acres, yieldng 1487 barrels of packed apples per orchard— more than twice as many acres of bearing orchards, nearly three times as many barrels of packed apples for the former group. The yields per acre of packed apples for the respective groups were 27 barrels, 33 barrels and 46 barrels. A factor affecting the efficient use of the spray machine is the water supply. In some orchards the water is pumped or run by gravity to a storage tank within or near the orchard, and piped to convenient points in the orchard, thus saying labor and power in supplying the water for the spray dilution. Of the 16 orchards already discussed, 6 had such a water sup- ply system (or stand pipes) and 10 did not. Grouping the orchards on this basis some comparison of the two groups follow. t ^u The average acreage of bearing orchard was 56 acres tor tne group without standpipes and 102 acres for the standpipe group. There was an average of 5 gallons of spray dilution — 69 — applied per tree, for the spray in which the maximum number of gallons were applied for the season 1931, for the orchards without standpipes and 7 gallons per tree for those with stand- pipes. The average amount applied per tree for 1931 was 18.1 and 20.1 gallons for the respective groups, and the average for the two seasons, 1930 and 1931, was 16.6 gallons for the non- standpipe group and 21.6 gallons for the standpipe group. The average cost of applying the spray per gallon for the season 1931 was about 1 cent per gallon for the non-standpipe group as compared with approximately three-fourths cents for the stand- pipe group, and the two-year average costs were $.011 and $.0078. There were 13 sprayers on the 10 non-standpipe orchards and 11 on the 6 standpipe orchards. The gallons applied per minute for each spray pump in 1931 for the non-standpipe group was 2.3 gallons, and 4.0 gallons for the standpipe group. The orchards in the two groups had average rated pump capacities of 16 and 28 gallons per minute, respectively, and an average output of 2.9 gallons and 6.5 gallons per minute. The actual output was 18.3 per cent of the rated capacity in the non- standpipe group and 23.1 per cent in the standpipe group. The spraying cost per bearing tree for 1931 was $0.32 for the group of orchards without standpipes and $.28 for the group with standpipes. The other factors affecting profits that should be mentioned are the decline in export demand resulting from war debt pay- ments and international trade restrictions, and the high dis- tributive margins in the handUng of farm products which have resulted from the drastic price declines in the last three and a half years. The importance of an export outlet for the smaller sizes of fruit has been stressed by the previous speaker. No one knows better than you fruit growers how this affects your profits. A number of factors enter into the foreign situation which make it impossible for them to purchase our fruit. I want at this time simply to stress the importance of war debt payment in this connection. Most of what has not already been cancelled of the Allied Nations' debts to us was contracted, not during the war, but in the period after its close. I therefore do not question the moral right of the United States in demanding full payment of these debts but I seriously question the wisdom on our part in doing so. International trade depends in part upon prices at home and abroad on such a level that trade is possible. In this level only the gold price is important since gold is the only commodity universally accepted in payment of international debts. With twenty some nations off the gold standard because of inadequate gold reserves and with tariff barriers so high that products cannot be shipped over them to build up Europe's gold reserves, further payments from European nations to this country which must be made in gold tend to postpone the day when economic recovery — 60 — M 61 can be possible in this country. Since adequate gold reserves in Europe could do more to promote our welfare than additional reserves locked in the vaults of our rieserve banks further pay- ment of war debts in gold are not only wrong from the standpoint of Europe's recovery but bad business from the standpoint of our own selfish interests. The decUne in prices of farm products in Pennsylvania in the last four years is shown in the following table. Prices of Pennsylvania Farm Products 1928 and 1929 Freight Rates on Farm Products, Carload Lots, Chicago to New York AND Comparative Prices on Pennsylvania Farms 1913-1932 Product Price and Average Price Unit 1928 1932 Index Number =100 Base 1910-14 1928 1932 %Drop in Price Corn c per bu. Wheat c per bu. Oats cperbu. Hay S per ton Potatoes c per bu. Apples c per bu. Rye c per bu. Buckwheat c per bu. Chicken c per lb. Eggs c per doz. Butter c per lb. Wool c per lb. Horses S per head Milk Cows $ per head Veal Calves $ per cwt. Hogs $ per cwt. Beef Cattle $ per cwt. Lambs $ per cwt. Sheep $ per cwt. Milk c per cwt. 1.07 1.43 .60 11.78 1.00 1.59 1.12 .95 .251 .37 .49 .41 131.60 121.42 13.58 9.95 10.18 12.28 7.32 2.83 .42 .56 .30 9.59 .51 .70 .46 .40 .165 206 .23 .14 103.08 51.75 6.09 4.76 4.83 5.20 2.50 1.42 148 147 122 73 132 201 144 136 185 143 163 193 76 230 168 124 161 188 151 175 58 58 62 59 67 88 59 57 114 114 86 66 60 98 76 59 76 80 51 88 61 61 50 19 49 56 59 58 38 44 53 66 22 57 55 52 53 58 69 50 Hay and horses dropped only 19 and 22 per cent respectively from the low points they occupied in 1928 but all other com- modities decUned from 40 to 70 per cent and a large number of them dropped to less than half the 1928 level. Because of the natural lag in distribution charges a drastic price decUne like the one that took place in the last three to four years results in a much greater drop in prices at the farm than in retail prices paid by the consumer. The following table shows how prewar and postwar prices and freight rates compare: M Commodity and Measure Pennsylvania Prices Dec. 1913 Cattle, cwt. Hogs, cwt. . Sheep, cwt.. Wheat, bu. Corn, bu. . . Eggs, doz.. . Poultry, lb. Butter, lb. 7.10 8.10 4.50 .92 .74 .39 .131 .35 Dec. 1932 Per cent Change 4.83 4.76 2.50 .66 .42 .206 .156 .23 —32 —41 —44 —39 —44 —24 + 18 —34 Freight Rates per 100 pounds 1913 $ .28 .30 .30 .212 .212 .65 .50 .76 1932 .53 .61 .665 .38 .38 .966 .965 .965 Per cent Change +89 + 103 + 122 +79 +79 +48 +93 +29 This puts the apple industry in the position where truck transportation and other ways of cutting around the normal channels of trade are the only way for the fruit grower to cope with the present situation. This organization should therefore see to it that regulation of truck transportation does not go so far as to deprive fruit growers of this avenue of reaching the consumer. The trucks should be taxed to pay their full share of highway costs but regulation beyond that point would result in detriment to the fruit industry of Pennsylvania. If too drastic regulation of railroads make it impossible for them to compete with trucks under these terms the remedy should come through permitting the railroads to reduce charges for short hauls rather than through elimination of trucks. With the railroads in a less monopoUstic position as regards transportation, less drastic government regulation is in order. MARKETING PENNSYLVANIA APPLES— 1932-33 D. M. James, Pennsylvania Bureau of Markets, Harrisburg The past season has not been one to raise the hopes of the Pennsylvania fruit growers in the future of the industry or to fill their pockets with money. Nevertheless conditions have not been so bad that they could not have been worse. Compared with 1931, prices received for apples and peaches were quite favorable. Compared with prices received for many other farm crops, fruit crops have better than held their own. A short crop of apples in the Eastern states was largely responsible for holding up apple prices. Pennsylvania growers benefited by this situation since the crop in this state was not as short as in most of the other eastern states. An analysis of the U. S. Government daily market reports shows that 2}^ inch Stayman, U. S. No. 1, f .o b. car or truck, Shenandoah-Cumberland Valley points, brought 95 cents per bushel basket the latter part of October. This price moved up to $1.00 by the middle of November, shortly afterward to $1.10, to $1.15 by the end of November and on up to $1.20 or I 1, — 62 — — 63 — ^x 25 by the middle of December. Yorks, U. S. No. 1, 2)/^ inch minimum, started at 60 cents during the packing season and were up to $1.00 by the middle of December. These ad- vances cover little more than the cost of storage. However further advances during the remainder of the season will be velvet for the growers, with storage costs paid. Prices for bulk stock were also considerably higher during the fall of 1932 than during the disasterous fall of 1931. From the standpoint of quality it is safe to say that Pennsyl- vania fruit ranked high in 1932. Of all the cars of apples inspected and certified by the Pennsylvania shipping-point inspectors 96% graded U. S. Fancy or U. S. No. 1. This was the best showing made any year since the inspection service was begun in Pennsylvania in 1923. During 1930 and 1931, 89% of the cars inspected graded either U. S. Fancy or No. 1, the best showing made up to this year. Peaches also graded up well in 1932, with 90% of all cars inspected meeting the requirements of either U. S. Fancy or U. S. No. 1 grades. Our fruit was highly colored last fall, particularly the apples. Worm damage, scale and russetting were not as bad as most years although the infestation of scab was severe in many orchards on sus- ceptible varieties. That our 1932 crop of apples was of high quality, and, that m general it was well graded and tightly packed was evident from export price quotations. Let me quote a few figures from the U. S. Government Foreign Service Cables. On October 13th at Liverpool, Pennsylvania Jonathans sold for $4.90 to $6.02 a barrel. The only other Jonathan quoted from another eastern state brought $3.40 to $5.16. On October 20th in London, Pennsylvania Jonathans brought $5.93 a barrel, from another state $5.42. Same date, same market, Pennsylvania Mcintosh brought $1.61 a bushel, from another state $1.31. Same date at Liverpool market, Pennsylvania Grimes brought $4.15 to $4.41, from another state $4.07. On October 26th in Liverpool, Penn- sylvania Yorks were sold at $1.49 a bushel, from another state sold for $1.40. On December 15th at Liverpool, Pennsylvania Yorks sold at $4.10 a barrel, from another state Yorks brought $3.94. On December 22nd at Antwerp, Pennsylvania Black Twig brought $4.46 to $4,50 and Black Twig from another state brought $4.17 to $4.28. Pennsylvania stock is not quoted every week on the foreign markets but it was certainly gratifying to note that Pennsylvania apples topped the market for the variety, grade and size quoted practically every time they were listed. Apparently we are grading and packing our export apples in a manner which is acceptable to the foreign trade. During the past fall the volume and quality of Pennsylvania apples attracted more domestic and export buyers to the com- mercial fruit district than ordinary. These buyers were gen- erally well pleased with the quahty of fruit which they secured here. Several weeks ago I wrote to Mr. Motz, Foreign Representative of the U. S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics, and requested %i ^\ RED ARROW NON- POISONOUS INSEa SPRAY (PYRETHRUM SOAP) Does not require the addition of soap suds or soap flakes— deadly to both chewing and sucking insects but harmless to human bemgs and warm blooded animals. ^^^^^ Rose Chafers Mexican Bean Beetle Leaf Hoppers Aphids (plant Lice) Sod Web Worm Mealy Bugs Red Spider Japanese Beetle Army Worm Harlequm Cabbage Bug and a host of other resistant insects ECONOMICAL 2 teaspoonfuls Red Arrow in 1 gallon of water makes a solution of sufficient strength to kill the Rose Chafer. For most purposes, 1 teaspoontul is plenty. SAFE Red Arrow will not injure or discolor plant tissues. SIZES 1 oz. 35c; 3^ oz. $L00; ^ pt. $L75; pt. $3.25; qt. $6.00; gal $20.00 Mccormick & co., inc. Baltimore, Md. rexler rarms DEALERS Tractors Sprayers Packing Equipment Fruit Cleaners & Washers Farm Machinery DISTRIBUTORS Spray Materials Pruning Tools Package Supplies Ladders Fertilizers Weed Killers Lime Everything for Orchard, Field and Turf Full line of equipment and repairs carried in stock at our warehouse located 1 0 mil^s north of Allentown, on Route 309. Let us quote on your requirements. Sales Office OREFIELD, PA. Phone ALLENTOWN 36657 64 65 — +li«t he comment on the Pennsylvania apples received on foreign lJke?s X sSson. I would like to read several paragraphs ^'"^urinfWpast season Pennsylvania apples have been rpcelv^d on the English market in considerable quantity. The PeTsvlvaSia grower might not consider it a compliment, but ftTs a rSoinifed fact, nevertheless, that all apples originating from the Keystone Stkte are classified catalogued and sold as Vi^inia AoDles ' In fact, this not only pertams to fruit from p'^eZyfvaS but to fruit coming from, West JJjg- M ^^: lonH T)plaware and New Jersey as well/ Mr. Motz tnen men 'S^^ert^iZ 'that by ^-^T\--X of the various names and brands, he ^^^ble ^^^^^^~ according: to state of origin. Contmmng he says, ^^^^^^ ^^t 5 season many Pennsylvania apples were seen on the Enghsh Eketr Despite the many unfavorable reports received from X side-I can say without reservations or hesitation, that the 6 apple deal, insofar as England is concerned, ha« been the most satisfactory of any season I have ^P^^\Z'^.l'^^^^^ Pennsylvania pack on the whole has been outstanding and, in rSnlss, th^re is not much to be said in the way of c^^^^^^^^^^ There are of course, exceptions to every rule, but even so, 1 have not observed or had called to my attention a single ship- ment of Pennsylvania fruit which could evoke any severe Complaint. The grade has been quite satisfactory Some packs of co^urse, were better than others, but none could be qu^^^^^^^^ as not meeting requirements. The condition (of the fruit) has been good. The fruit has been bright, quite well colored, made a good appearance and been quite satisfactory in every way. The blank pack is especially well known and invariably com- mands a premium over any other mark. If all packs were as good, many of our present market ills would be cured. 1 h s pack has an enviable reputation and is a credit to any fruit grower or any state. Pennsylvania's problems are not contmed to state lines. The barreled apple producing states have a common problem. If shipments from neighboring states arrive in poor condition, it has an adverse effect upon the market as a whole and your apples suffer in consequence and move at lower values in sympathy with the general average. Since shipments are sold according to sample, shippers are only fooling them- selves when they put up inferior fruit. ^The quality and pack of apples originating frona your sec- tion have made a definite place for themselves on this market. They are wanted, in fact, preferred to supplies originating from competitive sources. Under existing conditions it pays to ship nothing but the very best. Buyers will not or cannot afford to pay 25/— a barrel for inferior fruit. It must be remembered that, while 25/— represents $6.00 in terms of the Enghshman s money, it is $4.17 in terms of a dollar. With expenses exceeding $2.50, the net return to the grower works around $1.50 or $1.60 per barrel. It is my opinion that, in the course of time, existing difficulties will work themselves out and that there — 66 — *l will always be a demand for a certain quantity of American apples. There is a definite trend, however, toward the better grades. Competition is becoming keener all the time and each year I think it will become less easy to market the inferior pack at a profit. . . . **If we can maintain the present high standards established this season, only government intervention can restrict the sale of American apples on European markets. The public knows them, prefers them and, prices being equal, will buy them. Our job is to maintain a highly standardized pack of the variety and size required by the different markets. If we do that, we can hold our own most anywhere. '' I believe we have been too backward in Pennsylvania in advertising the fact that we can and do grow many of the finest apples produced in the country. Our cultural methods have improved so greatly in recently years that we can generally do a pretty good job at controlUng scale, scab, blotch, aphids and the various worms. With our favorable climate and hillside orchard locations we are generally able to produce higher colored apples than they are able to in most any other eastern state, except possibly in New England or parts of New York. We are grading a larger proportion of our commercial apple crop than any other state in the east. It is time that we begin to shout a lot more about the high quaUty Pennsylvania apples. If this were Florida, California or Texas and not Pennsylvania the State Chamber of Commerce would have glorified our apple industry long before this. We should use the Pennsylvania quality label next year on all the good fruit which is packed for domestic or export sale. The label was adopted rather late this past season and it was not used to any great extent by the fruit growers, although approximately 80,000 labels were sent out from the Bureau of Markets for use on apples, peaches, grapes, potatoes and eggs. The trade-mark has now been registered by both the Federal and State Governments so that it is fully protected from en- fringement and improper use. The label used this year was designed and shaped for use on bushel baskets. We have been working on designs suitable for use on barrel heads and on the ends of bushel boxes. I would like to suggest that the president might appoint a label committee which would have power to act for the association in regard to the design and use of these labels Another method of advertising Pennsylvania fruit during the past season was by means of radio talks given by the Bureau of Markets. Under the title of ^^Marketing Hint3 to Housewives weekly talks are given over radio stations at Philadelphia, Wilkes-Barre, Scranton and Harrisburg. The object of these radio talks is to tell the consumer when fruit and vegetable crops are in season, the best varieties or kinds to buy for par- ticular uses, how to choose good quality in purchasing, new ways to prepare, nutritional value or especial health giving properties and other similar information of interest to the housewife. — 67 — During the past season we have given talks on early apples radio stations in the state for their use each week. The new arrangements for handling the finances of he Inspec tion Service through a revolving fund set up at 8*^*^ S^^^^ wnrkpH ouite well during the past season. The daily inspeciion workea quiie weu ""' s f ^ ^ ^j^ certificate fee fr'.lTo%'o sTc^^^^^^^^^ JrTabirof about 8 to 10% wTbe madias s^^^^^^^^ covering certificate fees TrP n.id ThL reb^^^^^^ wipe out the entire amount remaining this work during 1933. It would seem to fe qmte log ca^ i^^ the Horticultural Association to act as ^^^^^^^^^^ ^ X,/^^^^ for next year which would mean nothing more than that the i" oTaLrdWnate some bank to aecept f epo^^^^^^^^^^ - account and to act as the fiscal agent of this ^ssocj^ signing the inspector's pay checks as submitted by the federal Supervisor of the inspection service. Further cuts in the Depart- StTfAgr culture appropriation will no doubt make it impos- S ?o fuSh inspection without charging mileage, as has been the case during the past two seasons. Costs of supervision havealsUeencarrie'd by t'he state in the Paf, Th.se m^^^^^ be Daid by the fruit growers in the form of additional inspection costs Furthermore the costs of collecting apple samples for arsenical residue have been borne by the state m the past, as well as the cost of making the actual chemical analysis. In ail probabiUty the state will continue to make the analyses without charge but the expense of collecting the orchard samples which includes considerable labor cost and car mileage, may have to be charged to the fruit growers who receive this service, ine Inspection Rates Committee will have quite a job on it s hands to iron out these questions of rates for next season. The matter of arsenical residue was not a serious problem in Pennsylvania during the past season. We collected orchard samples between the peach and apple packing seasons on prac- tically all the orchards in Adams, Cumberland and Franklin counties. We also took scattered samples in York, Berks, Dauphin, Lehigh, Lancaster and in several other counties when requested to do so. Most of the samples ran a clean test on the hrst analysis. Those which did not were treated. Only 6 or 4 orchards did not finally get down below the tolerance by natural means before the packing season got under way, even with the dry season and small fruit. We have found after several years experience that the orchards with stationary spray plants are more apt to show excessive spray residue than the others and that the removal of spray residue in the cement dust regions is a job which requires a washer. After passing through several unusually dry seasons which developed no particularly dangerous arsenic situation in Pennsylvania I have yet to be convinced — 68 — %\ that the average fruit grower need worry about the arsenic problem or purchase a washer. The unusual operator, who sprays later, more often and more thoroughly has an arsenic problem in dry seasons, when a washer might be necessary to remove the residue. INFLUENCE OF MOTOR-TRUCK TRANSPORTATION ON THE FRUIT INDUSTRY By J W. Park, U. S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics Washington, D. C. The use of the motor truck is resulting in great changes in fruit marketing. Changing methods of doing business, as history shows, practically always meet opposition from certain groups who are adversely affected and the introduction of the motor truck into the fruit marketing field was no exception. The rapid increase in marketing by truck has undoubtedly been accompanied by some uneconomic practices and has in many instances unsettled marketing conditions. However, the fact that marketing by truck has increased so rapidly is proof that many fruit growers and some dealers have found it to their advantage to use the truck in marketing. In discussing the subject of motor-truck marketing let us hrst review the information we have on the quantity and kind of fruits and vegetables moved to market by truck and the growth of the truck movement in recent years; then we can consider: second, some of the methods and practices employed in marketing by truck; third, some of the influences or effects of the use of the truck on 'the marketing situation; and fourth, efforts to regulate the truck and improve truck marketing conditions. Figures on the volume of fruits and vegetables moved to market by truck are not available for the country as a whole. Some statistics are available, however, on motor-truck receipts in certain markets and motor-truck shipments from certain districts. All evidence at hand indicates a rapid growth, par- ticularly in the last few years, in the volume of motor-truck movement to market. ^ . • i x r t> While this society representing the fruit industry of Penn- sylvania is interested particularly in the marketing of fruit, chiefly apples, peaches, and grapes, statistics relating to both fruits and vegetables will serve to illustrate the importance ot the truck movement in marketing. r r •+ Federal-State market news on motor-truck receipts ot truits and vegetables in eight important markets situated from Boston in the East to San Francisco in the West, show that the equi- valent of 112,000 cars of fruits and vegetables were received by truck in 1930; the equivalent of 136,000 cars in 1931, ^nd tor 11 months up to December in 1932, the equivalent of about 150,000 cars. For these eight cities the truck receipts in 193U amounted to 25 per cent of the combined truck and rail receipts compared with 29 per cent in 1931, and 36 per cent in 1932. — 69 — Motor-truck receipts in both New York City and PhUaaelphia showed a large increase in 1932 as compared with 1931. For Se first 11 months of 1932 the receipts reported for New York ctty were thTequivalent of 51.000 cars by truck compared w^J^ 146 000 cars by rail, and in Philadelphia the equivalent of 28,000 cars by truck compared with 39,000 cars by rail In 1928 and 1929 a study was made by the United btates Bureau of Agricultural Economics in some of the Eastern and Midwestern fruit and vegetable producing areas This s udy ScTed that in the sections studied, which included parts of Pennsvlvania Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Michigan, rXeveraSher States, 36 per cent of the fruits and vegetables marketed, exclusive of market garden «^.f l^^^'^^^^^^.^^^^^^^^ market by truck. Since then, the quantity marketed by truck has undoubtedly increased greatly. <,hir.ments While comprehensive statistics on motor-truck shipments from various producing areas are not available, there are in- stances where data have been collected on the quantities of cerS cTops moving to market by truck. For example, frorn he Eastern Shore of Maryland ip 1931, the^q\»^t°* f^^^^O cars of cantaloupes moved by truck compared with 344 cars by S and the equivalent of 1,851 cars of strawberries moved by trSck compared with 699 cars by rail. From North Carolina in 1932, 55 per cent of the strawberry crop moved to market by truck compared with 37 per cent in 1931. If we analyze the trend in car-load shipments by States during the last 10 years we observe that the rail shipments from btates which are distant from the leading markets such as California, Washington, Texas, and Florida have increased steadily up till 1931 On the other hand, car-load shipments from btates which are within easy trucking distance of leading markets such as Michigan, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Mary- land have declined during the 10-year period ending in 1931. Truck shipments have replaced part of the rail shipments from States within easy trucking distance of the large markets or important consuming areas. At the same time fruit and vege- table production and rail shipments have contmued to increase from distant States. . i c -i. a It is apparent that the motor-truck movement of fruits and vegetables has reached an immense volume, and that the pro- portion of fruit crops and other perishable crops moved to market by truck has increased greatly in the last few years, tor the country as a whole, however, the quantity moved to market by rail is still far in excess of the quantity trucked to market. This is due to the very heavy production in States at great distances from the important consuming areas. Most of the motor-truck movement is to points within a lew hundred miles of the producing areas, although considerable quantities are trucked 500 miles or more. Ninety-two per cent of the truck receipts in Philadelphia in 1931 came from Penn- sylvania and the nearby States of New Jersey, Maryland, and Delaware.. — 70 — Are You Able to Grow a Good Cover Crop in Your Orchard? en Did You Last Lime Your Orchard? Perhaps it is Lime that is Needed— for Legumes Demand a Sweet Soil In Addition: Trees Require Larse Amounts oJ Calcium for Growth This year Palmer Lime and Pulverized Limestone are being used in a number of large orchards. It has come about by the accurate soil testing, to deter- mine the lime requirements, that we made for these particular orchardists. May We Assist Ton in Determining the pH Rating of Tour Soil? We produce Pahner Brand High Calciiun Lump, Pebble and Hydrated Limes for Spraying Purposes, as well as Agricultural Lime for your soil. Universal Gypsum & Lime Company YORK, PA. — 71 As a general rule the more perishable fruit and berry crops are rucfe'to markets in relatively ^-ater quantities th^^^^^^^^ hiilkier and less perishable vegetables. Of the 19^1 unioaas m PhUadeSa 71 per cent of the strawberries came by truck, fommred with 60 per cent of the peaches, 50 per cent of the cantKper 44 per cent of the apples, 51 per cent of the potatoes, 1 q ner cent of the cabbage, and 11 per cent of the lettuce. The locEn of ?he producing districts with respect to the market wfll of course influence the proportion marketed by truck A Study of 'the methods used in marketing by motor truck show that there are three general ^}^«««%?tC'°^7the fiTst trucks engaged in fruit and vegetable marketmg. In the nrst olace there are the farmers who own and operate trucks hauhng their own produce to market, mostly to nearby pomts withm a SLce of 20 or 25 miles; second, there are those who operate trucks fo?hSe, either on a contract basis or on regularly estab- Ushed lines aid third, there are the merchant-truckmen who buylrom the grower and sell on any available market either to the city jobber, retailer or to the consumer direct. Under this tpneral heading of merchant-truckmen may be grouped city dealers wSo sefd their own trucks out to buy fruits and vege- *""£■ relative importance of these classes of truck operators varies in different parts of the country Recent reports from market news representatives indicate that all these classes are well represented ia Pennsylvania markets ana other eastern sections It is the merchant-truckman commonly known as a trucker or truck peddler, who is causing the most discussion among those interested in fruit marketmg. , ^ •. „j Having in mind a general idea of the volume of fruits and vegetables moved to market by the motor truck and its relative importance as compared with rail shipments, and also having in mind the classes of truck operators, we are in a position to consider the influence or effect of the motor truck on fruit marketing and on the fruit industry. The influences of the truck on the industry as a whole have not been all good or all bad. I believe the principal effects or influences of the truck on fruit marketing can logically be classed under four general heads (1) The effect on market distribution; (2) the ettect on quality and grade; (3) the effect on returns to growers and, (4) the long time economic effects. These are, of course, closely related and overlapping in some respects. . , ^, . Perhaps the most frequently heard charge against the motor truck is that it has worked against orderly market distribution and it has undoubtedly had a tendency in this direction in many instances. The picture has been drawn of numerous itinerant truck-peddlers, many of who have very small equities in the trucks they operate and who are often inexperienced in fruit marketing, and many of whom are irresponsible. They buy from farmers often on an orchard run basis, and are not par- ticular about grade or quality but buy at the lowest possible price, and start out to any market where from hearsay or pre- — 72 — ^ vious experience they believe the load can be prohtably sold. ¥hey sell to any type of purchaser, jobber, retailer or consumer, or may leave the lot with a dealer on a large market to se 1 on a emission basis. They are often obhged to dispose of t he r bads at the end of the day even at a sacrifice in price. This nature is substantially true for conditions which have existed and still exist in many fruit growing sections. Ihis placing of market control in the hands of numerous small truckers, many S whom are inexperienced in marketing, has a tendency to disorganize the established marketing machinery But if the moS truck and motor-truck peddler has unsettled the estab- lished order they have also brought certain advantages to the ^'rtTexamplc, it has provided a direct farm to store door or farm to customer route for fruit marketing which has meant a IreTt saving in labor and time. Truck transportation in fruit Eketing has also provided a wider and more thorough dis- Sibution to small towns and to rural and mining comniunities. Reports from fruit producing sections m the Cumberland- Shenandoah area and in Illinois, for example, indicate that Targe quantities of apples have been distributed largely to mining and rural communities by means of motor-truck peddlers Much of this fruit which was generally of low grade could not have been marketed profitably if it had been necessary to spend a considerable quantity of money in packing and shipping bv rail New markets were found by the truck peddlers among sections of the population which would probably not have been '"fick "Spments frequently take a more direct route than rail shioments from producer to consumer. Instead of gomg fi'st fnSts {o some large market and then being reshipped in less than car-load lots or in mixed cars to ""tlymg points the fruit may now, in some instances, go directly by truck to the towns or villages which are too small to receive car-load ship- "^Reshipment of fruits from distant States, from the large centra? markets as Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore ,s now largely handled by truck. These reshipments go mostly to surrounding cities within a radius of 100 miles or more. In Pittsburgh, for example, the market ^^7"^^ ^T'^^'^lflZut^. that a few years ago between 100 and 150 cars of fruits and vegetables were reshipped each day to the surrounding trade territory. Now, this business is done almost entirely by truck One theory has been that carload receipts in medium sized markets will decrease because of this increasing redistribution o fruits and vegetables by motor truck from the large term "o^ markets. An examination of carload receipts in 13 cdium sized Pennsylvania cities over a 10-year period fails to show conclusively that this is taking place although there iSjf Pro- nounced tendency in some of these niarkets toward declining carload receipts which is undoubtedly due to increased receipts by truck from the larger cities. — 73 — Dealers in the smaller cities or towns often send trucks on regular routes daily or every few days to the large cities where they can buy fruits and vegetables shipped from distaiit points by rail and deliver to their customers in small towns and villages. These dealers are not taking a chance on decUning markets as they would be on a full carload if a product were bought and shipped into a small city for use over a period of several days. Truckers also operate out of some of the larger cities on regular routes taking orders from dealers and retailers in the small towns and villages for subsequent deUvery. The truck movement is also changing the channels of distri- bution in the cities. Truckers are seUing considerable quan- tities direct to retailers and consumers and in this respect are tending in some instances to eliminate the services of jobbers or wholesalers on commodities produced within trucking distance. This practice may lower the cost to the retailer but there are some valid objections as retailers must have a regular and reliable source of supply which itinerant truckers have not always been able to furnish. From the view point of an adequate market news service, the advent of the trucker has added many difficulties. When naost of the shipments were by rail, it was possible to get a good idea of supplies which would be available on the leading markets each day from the reports of rail shipments and the number of cars on hand. This information on supply was used as a basis for establishing the day's prices. Market news representatives in the cities and the fruit dealers agree that the increased receipts by truck have made it impossible in many instances to gauge the supplies, as many unexpected truck loads may arrive during the period of selUng and cause sharp price declines, or if the arrivals are lighter than anticipated, sharp increases in price within a short time may occur. These sharp fluctuations within an hour or a few hours result in a lack of confidence and unsatis- factory market conditions. A retailer who buys on the whole- sale market at a higher price than his competitor on the opposite corner will demand and mostly obtain a rebate from the jobber or wholesaler from whom he purchased. On the large markets, therefore, unregulated truck shipments have resulted in a diffi- cult problem. To summarize the effect of the motor truck on distribution, it can be said that methods of distribution have been radically changed. In the marketing of fruit the truck has opened up new market outlets and has provided a more direct route between producer and consumer in many instances. The direct farm to store door or farm to customer deUvery has meant a great saving in time on short hauls. The use of the truck has unsettled market conditions in cities in some instances because of the uncertainty and irregularity of supplies and the difficulty of obtaining adequate information on the prospective market sup- plies. It has aided in the redistribution of distantly grown fruits in the consuming areas. 74 The average quality and grade of fruit which is marketed has unquestionably been affected by the motor truck. The direct ?arm to store door or farm to customer de ivery has meant not only a saving in time, but less damage to the product from h aniline The average time in hauling strawberries and other pSctf from Eastern Shore points to Philadelphm, often a Sstance of 200 miles, is probably 5 to 6 hours. Strawberries Sv^been trucked from North Caroline to Philadelphia, about 500 miles, in a little more than 16 hours. In general, it can be S This quick direct delivery on rubber tired vehicles has often r^ad it Sle to place fruit on the market and on the con- ^irn^rs table in fresher and better condition than was formerly noS e It is po^^^^^^^ to allow highly perishable fruit to reach a mire advanced stage of maturity in some instances when this SuTck and direct method of truck hauling to market is used. %ruck peddlers have at times been responsible for placing on the markeL ungraded and low grade fruit in packages which were deS^^ in that the face of the pack was not reasonably renresenta^^^^^ of the contents. Fruit of this kmd, whether rSivXn the markets by truck or raU, has a tendency to lower tS price of well graded fruit and may curtail consumption. As to whether the total returns to the fruit growers would be higher f only the higher grades of fruit were marketed is a much argued Question and would depend on varying seasonal and economic SiSs The best growers whose crops average high m quau\T would ^ if the lower quality fruit could be pre- Sed fTom reaching the markets We are "^^^^^^ raising the average quality and grade of fruit, but if too strict rSme^^^^^ should be enforced as to the quality and grade of fSSch can be marketed, it might work a hardship on many 'ThTlow t^^^^^^^^^^ of large classes of consumers in the last few years has made it desirable and necessary to red^^^^^^^ possible marketing costs. It cannot be denied that the motor truck and particularly the merchant-truckman ^as ^e^^^^ means of supplying fruit to these groups which have a low ""Comf Knee,, apple, on the tree, "-eXSlnS merchant-truckmen. The method of harv^/^n^ has s^^^^^^^ •consisted of letting the apples fall on the sod A few of tje very smallest and poorest apples have been culled out and the f rmt hauled to market in secondhand crates or baskets Jhis ^easo^^ in sections of the Cumberland-Shenandoah apple /^S/^^^ J^^^^ orchard-run and low-grade fruit has been trucked {o the minmg sections in West Virginia and Pennsylvama. In Illinm^^^^^^ peddlers have marketed in the mming districts a considerable Tart of the apple crop from an important commercial section of that State, and have paid Uttle attention to grade As a general conclusion to the fS^^Vf. ^^^J^"^ ^ condition of fruit reaching the markets, I behef f ^n ^^^^^^^ that because of quicker movement (usually ^^^^-^^^S^t^^^^^^^^ and less handling its influence has been to make possible the — 76 — placing of considerable quantities of highly perishable fruits and vegetables on the market in better condition than formerly. At the same time it appears that larger quantities of lower grades of some fruits have been marketed by truck than was formerly the case when rail transportation was used. Since the use of the truck increases the number of transactions where the seller and buyer are both present and since the buyer has an opportunity to inspect the fruit, truck shipments are less likely to be graded and inspected under official grades than are rail shipments. The effect of truck marketing on returns to the growers is the thing which is of vital interest to fruit farmers. The truck has, in many instances, meant lower marketing costs. Fruit sold to truck peddlers has cost less to pack. The merchant-truckman often combines the functions formerly performed by the country buyer, the city dealer, and the transportation agency, including delivery from orchard to store door or to the consumer, all at a cost which is often less than the cost of transportation alone under the former system. Some of this trucking has probably been on an uneconomic basis and at rates which could not be maintained over a period of years. It seems, however, probable that both producer and consumer have benefited by lower marketing costs in numerous cases. The farmers often feel that the large number of truck peddlers offering cash for the crop is a factor in holding up prices and it may often have this result. Reports indicate that the increase in truck peddlers has meant an increase in cash sales. It is also true that placing control of the crop in the hands of a large number of smaller dealers or peddlers may tend to weaken the general price situation. The argument has been advanced that in some cases the operation of truck peddlers tends to act as a club in constantly beating down prices to the grower. The truck peddler may offer fruit in the city market at a dime per package less than the price of regular established dealers. These dealers are then obUged to cut their price at country points. It is, of course, impossible to get a comparison of prices received by the grower under the present truck peddler system of selling as compared with prices that would have been received if the motor truck was not in existence. Some studies in recent years have indicated that in certain instances returns to farmers who marketed by truck were higher than where the crop was marketed by rail. The fact that the truck is being used more and more each year is evidence that many farmers believe they obtain higher returns by its use. Instances have been reported where growers who produce high quaUty fruit of good varieties have suffered from the operation of truck peddlers. These peddlers who knew little or nothing about varieties havie offered little, if any, premium in price for the best varieties. Some growers with high quality varieties which were properly graded have found it difficult to get their usual price premium and have suffered in this respect. For a long time point of view it is apparent that the truck will have some pronounced effects on the fruit industry. The fact — 76 — « wmm ^W-v .^' *?5vS^P''tofci6" • '■-••^•^jiO^ T ■i'Si- SBb v^m '^"'■^'iita Ipse NlT^ eNf hop^i""" on pOP peA u/ UST Descriptive literature sent on request L.will protect your investment in Spray and Dust .^plications Two generations of orcKardists have relied on the ORCHARD BRAND name for quality of spray materials— and on the soundness and conservatism of ORCHARD BRAND recom- mendations in meeting the ever-growing problems of insect and disease control. Use ORCHARD BRAND Spray and Dust mate- rials for your regular crop protection — and let our field service staff advise you in meeting unusual conditions. Their advice is practical and creates no obligation. General Chemical Company 40 Rector Street, New York, N.Y. Buffalo • Providence • Philadelphia • Chicago Kansas City • St. Louis • Montezuma, (Ga.) Lot AnKcIes • San FrancUco • Seattle — 77 — that a fruit farm or fruit producing district in the East is located at a considerable distance from a railroad does not now neces- sarily mean a handicap as compared with a farm or district located near a railroad. Some shifts in fruit production may be expected because of this factor. Fruit producing districts which are within easy trucking dis- tance, say a few hundred miles, of important markets insofar as their transportation costs by trucks are less than by rail appar- ently have a relative advantage over more distant producing districts. In this respect Pennsylvania fruit growers are well situated. The 1930 census shows that Pennsylvania has 966 incorporated places with a combined population of 6,882,000. The large population within trucking distance in Pennsylvania and nearby States should be to the relative advantage of fruit growers in this area. Growers and shippers may expect some benefits from com- petition of transportation agencies. The railroads apparently are making strong efforts to regain some of the business taken over by trucks. Inducements to growers and dealers to ship by rail, in the form of better service and rates, have been put in effect in some sections. Reports from some areas this fall indicate that rail transportation has apparently regained some of the fruit and vegetable traffic to points 300 to 500 miles dis- tant which had been handled by truck. It is to be expected that the fly-by-night and dishonest type of itinerant trucker will find it harder to operate as reliable and efficient truckers will gradually build up regular customers at both the producing and consuming ends of the marketing routes, so that some of the chaotic conditions which have at times prevailed will probably disappear. In the large markets it is likely that permanent changes in marketing methods will result from the introduction of the truck. Changes in physical facilities in these markets for handling truck shipments may be one result. In some cases, dealers or jobbers are specializing in truck receipts, while others are limiting their operations to car-lot receipts. There is also a tendency in certain important fruit producing sections, as in southwestern Michigan, for development of regional markets where fruits and vegetables are brought in by truck, often from distant points, to be assembled by brokers or dealers for reshipment by truck or rail to distant points according to the needs of their customers. The trucks which bring in loads from a distance can obtain return loads of some other product. At Benton Harbor, Michigan, where a regional market is in operation, the equivalent of 8,600 cars of products, mostly fruits, were sold during the 1932 season and most of this quantity was shipped out by truck. At Baltimore, too, there is a market largely devoted to the concentration and redistri- bution of fruits and vegetables hauled by truck. These are — 78 — ^ examples of developments brought about by the motor truck Tthe fruit marketing field. We have seen that the motor truck has had both good and bad effect on marketmg. Many city ordinances and State laws have been passed to regulate truck marketing activities. A review of the ordinances passed in about twenty different cities shows fat there is mostly i fee of $100 to $200 a year required for a truck peddler rSrate in these cities. Farmers selling their own products Sp KtUlly always exempted. Most cities have reqmred Sse'^tSk P^^^^ to post a bond of $500 to $5 000. In some cases there Tre sanitary and other regulations to be observed. State laws vary widely regarding license fees and taxes re- ouired for operating trucks. These various requirements of sSte and c?ty regulations have restricted and confused truck miLtSg operations to some extent, particularly in interstate Xernenl ^Judging from the history of railroad legislations whire we find the Laissez Faire theory which prevailed for TeveralTecades after the Civil War was replaced by the Inter- SrCor^merce Act of 1887 and subsequent legislation, we mfght expect some further regulations to govern interstate motor-truck transportation. As to what, if any, further legislation is desirable to regulate motor-truck transportation and peddling i^.^, difficult question^ Most of vou know that there is a Federal law known as tne Perishable Agricultural Commodity Act which applies to dealers Lndling fruL and vegetables in Inter-state commerce and includes truckers hauUng as much as a carload a year m Inter state commerce and selling in a wholesale ^^ ^his law wh^ch is a licensing act rather than a criminal statute forbids certain practices Sch as making fraudulent charges fdsestatem^^^^^^ regarding condition of products or false quotations of prices, and various other practices. The DoUcy of the United States Bureau of Agricultural EconomS has always been that the use of Feder a grades ^ml inspection is entirely optional with the grower or shipper Mis branding of containers or misrepresenting the contents of a package of fruit is undoubtedly harmful to the fruit industry and in some States there is legislation to control such practices. The motor truck has taken its place as an i/^Po/t^"* "'^X of market transportation of fruits and .vegetables not only locally, but to an important extent in '^^^'^^^f.'^''J^'^^± It has brought some benefits and has also introduced new prob lems in the marketing field. Progress is being made in solving these problems and making adjustments necessitated by this means of transportation. From a If^g t!°^f. P^!"* ^ JSng believe the introduction of the motor truck in the fruit marketing field will have a favorable influence on the fruit industry oi Pennsylvania. — 79 — l( GROWERS' EXPERIENCES WITH TRUCK TRANSPORTATION AND THE TRUCK PEDDLER The Truck as a Means of Long Distance Transportation H. F. Hershey, Hamburg The question can be interpreted in various ways. It depends upon what you mean by long distance; 200 miles or 100 miles. We will take the distance of 200 miles for I know little beyond that. Anybody can start an argument as to whether the trucker is a menace to us or not. In our business trucking of peaches, strawberries and other perishable products has grown quite a lot in the last three years. This past year about 75 per cent of our peach crop went out by truck to New York, Philadelphia and other cities. This past year we trucked to Washington three or four trucks or about 1000 bushels of peaches. Why did we do this? Because the shipper who bought them wanted them trucked and because it was cheaper. We are 175 miles from Washington and the freight rate was 55 cents per bushel The hauling charge by truck was around 41 cents per bushel. By rail we would have had to haul them three miles to the car and add to this an extra cost of over seven cents per bushel. Mr. Parks raised the question that some of these truckers are not reUable. The ones we know are reUable and so far as we know every load we sent to Washington arrived in good shape. Our requirement is that the trucker must carry insurance on the load that he carries. It means a lot to us to be able to truck our peaches, especially, to Washington, which is a long distance for this means we do not have to haul to the car and load and that the people at the other end do not have to unload them from a car. We can pick and pack our peaches just a little bit riper and get to the consumer a better peach than if we have to send them otherwise. The trucks we employ make the trip to Washington in seven hours, thus we pick one day and deliver early the next. Our markets depend upon the trucks. We sent peaches to Elmira, Binghampton and Wilkes-Barre. The largest truck load we sent out contained 387 bushels. I would rather send my perishable fruits such as peaches, strawberries, etc., by truck to points as far distant as 200 miles than by rail. Mr. Weaver has shown us the difference in rail rates now and in 1912 and 1913. He also showed the difference in price in products at this time and then. There is no relation between freight rates and goods produced then and now. I think the truck is here to stay. I sincerely hope so. I believe it would be un-American for a man to prohibit me from going to other markets with my produce and attempting to sell it. Certainly these truckers have hurt my retail business but I believe we have had things — 80 — our own way for many years in our -own markets and a little competition will not hurt us. The only way to meet this com- petition is to put in storage facilities and hold our fruit until the market is ready for it. „ , ,, . • I do not feel that we can afford to sell at the same price m the home market as we do in the trucker's markets. I think everything will work out for the best as time goes on. As I said before, I hope the trucker is here to stay and I do not want to see too many regulations placed on him but we do need some. I believe the truck owners should pay a fair share of the upkeep of the roads either in license fees or in d gas tax. Question: What was your experience in shipping strawberries by truck? Mr. Hershey: We shipped to Rochester, Syracuse and other cities of equal distance and all of them went by truck. It is the best way to send strawberries within reasonable distances. TRUCKING FRUIT SOUTH H. A. Schantz, Allentown Usually when a topic is assigned to a speaker he is expected to take a positive stand. From my personal observation, I will be obliged to take a negative attitude when speakmg along the lines of the topic assigned to me. Before my cold storage plant was completed, when the growers of eastern Pennsylvania met at the Trexler orchard for a summer meeting, I related to a number of the men from State College a plan of sending apples to Florida and hauling back oranges and grapefruit so when this topic was assigned I believe the thought was that I should give recommendations and experience in con- nection with this undertaking, and I am, therefore, mentioning south, as far as points in Florida. In going south we would first pass through either Maryland or Virginia and we all know that our brother fruit growers of those States have ample production to take care of most require- ments of their own communities. It is more than likely that trucking would be done from the Virginia apple section into market centers of Pennsylvania. The next States would be the two CaroUnas. Due to the closeness of the Virginia orchards to the CaroUnas it would be unprofitable to truck apples from Pennsylvania to points in these States. Georgia and i^lorida would also have these same conditions, and, in addition, the distance would be so great that unless one would have a return load, it could hardly be considered profitable to look for such m arket s I personally thought, a few years ago, I could truck apples from Allentown to Florida and bring a return load of citrus truit, but after covering this territory, I felt it would not be advisable as I had seen piles of apples on lots at Jacksonville, Sanford, ana Orlando selling at a price not much more than we were selhng them right here in our own locality, further, I noticed that ma-ny of these apples did not stand the haul very well. After covering — 81 — this territory and considering the mileage and. the hkehhood of any breakdown to trucks, we decided after one truck load to discontinue any further thought of such enterprise Another thought in this line is that generally Florida com- munities are made up of a summer population of 30 per cent of what their winter population might average. This large number of tourist visitors are not going to Florida to eat apples but to consume as large a quantity of oranges and grapefruit as pos- sible during their stay. While you hear certain localities men- tioned quite prominently, when you visit such places Jon fre surprised to see what small places they really are and to tmd the great distance between localities. Naturally, with such a small population there is only a limited demand for our product. Understand this is only my personal view of the matter and one may possibly make a connection in some sections which might result profitably. Viewing the enterprise as an attrac- tion for Pennsylvania growers, I can see no reason to encourage a Pennsylvania grower to look to this market to consume his apples. On the other hand I believe most of your growers will recall a chart exhibited by Dr. Fletcher showing the number of towns over certain populations and recall his talk on our own home markets, and that we as growers had our markets close to our own door. I believe in the end our own near-by markets will be a greater attraction than the ones to the south SELLING TO THE TRUCKER C. Frank Gillan, St. Thomas It is nine years ago that a group of us organized a Co-op on the Lincoln Highway midway between Philadelphia and Pitts- burgh with no other purpose in mind but selling to anybody who came along. The trucking end of this business has developed largely since that time. The trucker who comes along will no doubt be one of the three whom Mr. Parks spoke about. One is the itinerant man who comes by night or day and if he can make a profit on the load he will be back tomorrow. He is the man I am interested in in this discussion. Our production of apples and peaches will run about 100 cars a year. These past two seasons we did not run that much; we had some drought. We are growing 10 to 25 per cent culls. I kept records at the Cooperative and to my surprise, after we had sorted out the No. ones, the bushels we sent to the canners and to the cull pile and cider mill averaged from the different varieties froni 10 to 25 per cent, and when we were done the whole average was about 18 per cent culls. This sounds high but it is true. We are interested in that 18 per cent and always will be. I will speak of one year back — 1931. If it had not been for the sale of culls to the trucker we would have been much more in the red than we were. — 82 Who is this trucker? I commented to a number of people this fall that I hardly knew a person who drove up to our pack- ing house. It was not the local fellow at all. These truckers come from points as far as Binghampton and Pittsburgh. He goes as far as Florida and the Carolinas. This fellow to us has been a storekeeper, a coal dealer, a farmer, laborer and any other occupation in the country to the north and west with a truck out of which he thought he could make some money. Those fellows are cash buyers in which we are all interested and our experience has been that they pay their bills. One fellow came to our place a week ago and said he wanted to handle some of our rotten accounts. We do not have any. These truckers have been honest purchasers and paid their bills. Sometimes their checks came back but they finally paid them without protest fees and law suits. We need those fellows. I do not believe that Gillan Brothers will ever produce all the fruit that is needed even with the help we get from the college This fellow has gone into markets that we were never able to reach before. He hits any kind of a town, such as those Mr Schantz spoke of in the south. We used to speak of wider distribution. We have it now within 200 miles and can touch every town. Dr. Fletcher complained to me that we Franklin county people were beginning to compete with his section. He thought he had it all his own way. Now we all overlap so when the Virginia peaches are in we are in and so is State College. The trucker is the only possible way to distribute to each and every community. xr o These fellows usually will buy from us all the culls or JN o.^ grades. In 1931 we could not get them to buy anything but the large size, or as one fellow put it, a fellow with a little Ford truck, ''I do not care how rotten they are just so they are big, and he bought that kind of stuff. We have a place where we dump our culls and those fellows keep that cleaned out. in comparison, in 1923 we had 2000 bushels of cu s at one time standing on our packing house floor and we finally trucked tne 2000 bushels to the stone pile because there was no market tor them. In 1931 when peaches grew on fence rails we took none of ours to the stone pile. The trucker took them away. We could not put that fruit on the market and get away with it The cost is too great. I have always felt that the truck market to us has been just about the same as a wholesale market in a city. These fellows just help to get a cash or F. O. i3. price without the freight. We have had the experience time and time again of receiving in Chambersburg as much for produce as i can get on the wholesale markets. t^, . i ^ n.^j I have lived through the period that Dr. Fletcher talked about and I know something of this period. I have seen orchards go out from the use of sugar as a spray for scale. 1 nave seen the trucking business grow from nothing to its present size. I hope it continues. The trucker is a cash buyer and a good buyer. He hauls away a lot of stuff and he will be back next year. I beUeve there should be some regulation ot this trucKer — 83 — in my neighborhood. One of these truckers tried to buy our peaches in 1931 for five cents less than I quoted him. I stored them and later sold them for more than I quoted him. Two years ago we took 3000 bushels of peaches into Washing- ton in one night at a profit. We could not have sold these peaches to anybody in any way. The trucker will pay just as much as he can if he can get rid of them at the other end. 1 used to ship to a dealer in Johnstown and Altoona who dis- tributed from car to consumer. This dealer tells me that so much fruit comes into his section by truck that now he can hardly handle a single car in a week. Question: Have you found it hard to sell your better grades by selling the small fruit to the trucker? Mr. Gxllan: No, it has caused us no trouble. We have been trying to keep up our car shipments with our best grades of fruit Our car shipments went further than our trucks went, most of the trucks do not go over 100 miles and usually only 75 miles, which is not up to a car market. We sell most of our cull peaches in Bedford or around the coal regions. If a trucker does take No. 1 stuff, I make him pay wholesale prices for it. We never put No. 2 fruit in car lots of peaches. Mr. Schantz: I put a large number of Mcintosh, Stayman, etc. in common storage for I found the trucker wanted these. WHAT TRUCK COMPETITION MEANS TO THE GROWER WITH A LOCAL MARKET J. A. Runk, Huntingdon I have given this matter of the trucker some little thought. To come back at Mr. Gillan, I will give the question from the other side of the mountain. I told him he was spoiling our peach market. It works out to the especial disadvantage of the early peach crop. I have always sold my peaches locally but I can- not do it now. The Potomac and other sections have demoraUzed our markets. The only market we have left is the little group that will come to us. I would never consider planting any volume of peaches; only enough for our small local sale. Dr. Fletcher is facing the same type of situation with regard to distribution. The majority of my seUing has always been done in Altoona when the shops are working. This and the soft coal regions are our main selUng districts. The Altoona wholesale man is now a thing of the past. The A. & P. are sending their trucks to many distant sections. These chain stores bring in the maxi- mum number of car lots of fruit. They want a source and constant supply that they are sure of. Their trucks roll all night long. Then too itinerant peddlers come in and the market is pretty generally filled before our peaches are ripened. The volume of peaches canned in the home has dropped so con- — 84 — ialntij IS IN THIS /i;' ■.. ran ante .•^1^ 'm:f<: PRO BEFORE any Grasselli product is con- sidered worthy to carry our stamp of approval, it is subjected to exhaustive re- search and O. K.'d by a critical group of Grasselli research chemists. Its efficiency is proved by a long series of experimental and practical field tests over a period of years. • Grasselli Insecticides and Fungi- cides are manufactured under definite chemical control, thus insuring uniformity. GRASSELLI SPRAY and DUST DUCTS • 1» Arsenate of Lead Powder Calcium Arsenate Powder Bordeaux Mixture Powder Lime Sulphur Solution Diy Lime Sulphur Kleenup Oil Monohydrated Copper Sulphate Casein Spreader Sulphate of Nicotine Sulforon Flake Zinc Sulphate Dutox {non-arsenical) THE GRASSELLI CHEMICAL COMPANY Founded 1839 Incorporated Qeveland, Ohio 350 FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK, N. Y. 3500 GRAYS FERRY RD. PHILADELPHIA, PA. — 85 — siderably that the local distribution is an entirely different ^^I^was mentioning Altoona. Here is one way I feel the peddler has acted on our market and demoraUzed the local trade. Me gets on the inside and finds what melons or any other fruit or vegetables are seUing for and then offers his for five cents less. There is consequent slashing of prices. The grocer demands a rebate on the melons he has already brought froni the whole- saler and the wholesaler decreases the returns to the producer. The chain stores cut prices two or three cents on a few leaders for advertising but these cuts establish a price level that is hard to raise. I saw a trucker going up and down the wholesale district in Altoona with a load of three-inch Summer Rambo apples. It was about 5:00 P. M. and the fellow was getting anxious to get rid of his stock and get home. He finally sold the whole load for 40 cents per bushel to the least reputable dealer on the street. He could not have made his costs out of them. This regulated the price for Summer Rambos for the rest of the season. • j • j i Since this peddler has come into our trade those individual buyers from the soft coal regions have ceased to come to us That source of selling was desirable. Four years ago we sold our cull apples for $1.00 per bushel at the orchard. One man took eleven truck loads of them to Du Bois. He told me last fall that he could not handle apples any more as the truckers are selhng cheaper than he can do it himself. We assume these markets are ours. It is a big problem and we cannot fight about it, but we have thoughts about it. , , ^ My experience with the trucker is that he is a low down type of humanity and I don't want anything to do with him. The steel mills and shoe manufacturers will not sell things for less than the cost and why should we allow the trucker to buy at less than cost? If we would dump these culls into the river we would be better off. The farther away from your orchard you can sell your culls the better you can maintain the price at home. We fell that the itinerant peddler has been a menace rather than a help to us. We do not see any changes in that particular phase of the situation. I made appeal for some action on this problem last year. If the commission distributer has protection in the city markets, surely the grower is entitled to protection also. The producers are paying their bills as well as the other fellow. THE TRUCKER AND THE PRESENT GRADING LAWS D. M. James, Bureau of Markets, Harrisburg I have seen a good many instances of the demoraUzing effect of the trucker. The great increase of trucking has changed conditions materially in Pennsylvania during the last two years. We used to ship 500 cars of potatoes and now we ship only 200 86 — cars. Conditions are now very different and it certainly has not helped in the grading of products. , ^ The trucker will buy tree-run products and the owner does not reaUze that he is hurting his own trade by selling ungraded stuff Are we neglecting our best markets by shipping our best products south, west or some other place and disposing of second grade fruit in the near-by markets? In Erie County the truckers have changed the grape industry. It is estimated that one-half of the grapes were trucked and the market is demorahzed by the truckers from Cleveland, Buffalo and Pittsburgh. These men have no storage facilities, consequently they flood the market at times and demorahze prices. When grapes are ship- ped in cars under refrigeration when necessary, they can be held off the market for several days if there is an over-supply. These are some of the direct effects of the trucking business. Many cities have laws regulating the issuing of hcenses for truckers who wish to sell in those cities. The State law permits a grower to sell his own produce in any city without a hcense. If you wish to sell outside of your own neighborhood it is desir- able to have means of identifying your self as the grower of the produce you are selling. , . .i x i £ u n The present State grading laws apply to the trucker if he sells in closed packages but most of this trade is in open packages and in such cases the law does not apply. The Interstate Com- merce regulations are at present contradictory. Probably they will have to be worked out as for railroads, thus making uniform Mr Tyson: We have no laws that closely touch the trucking situation and whether or not this Association wants to take any position in the matter is up to you. We do have the assump- tion on the part of the PubHc Service Commission that trucks offering themselves regularly for particular loads are thereby common carriers and come under PubHc Service Commission rules. It is now necessary for truckers regularly taking loads to register with the PubUc Service Commission. They must announce their rates. The question of proper control is a big Trucks are handling a large volume of produce and they are here to stay until something comes to take their place. As to what they have done to the railroad, I do not believe we are in a position to change. Some the railroads brought on themselves and some is in the line of progress and bound to come in any case. I am very much at a loss as to what we should ask m tne way of legislation. I am frank to admit that I think we should keep hands off for fear of too much regulation. The truck pea- dling trade has brought about havoc in establishing markets. It would be most desirable if the undesirable /rmt were not produced but how are we going to get rid of it? Without tne canning trade a big part of our trade would be in a bad nx. A great many of our customers are using canned apples today and many cull apples are being sold but at low prices, to the canners. — 87 — Undoubtedly this method of moving fruit through peddlers or dealers by truck loads is here to stay to a certain extent. What we want to do in the way of legislation must be thought over very carefully. I feel that it is fair for these big truckers to pay their share of the cost of maintaining the roads. How near they come to doing that today is more than I can say. If they buy their gas in Pennsylvania they do some of it that way. The truck Ucense fee is very high. Also the size of the trucks should be rigidly controlled. Up to that point these two things are as far as I feel ready to commit myself. BUSINESS MEETING AND COMMITTEE REPORTS Secretary's Report R. D. Anthony, State College, Acting There is no formal report to present at this time; just a few informal remarks. We feel that now of all times we should keep up our membership just as much as possible. We need the power that comes from a large membership. When your repre- sentatives appear before State or railroad officials or legislative bodies on your behalf it means much that they can say they represent 750 or 800 fruit growers. In considering the finances of the Association it must be remembered that only one dollar is received from those who are members of county societies which are affiUated with the State Association. Such a large part of our membership is in this class it has the effect of reducing the State dues practically to one dollar per member. No other State society that I know of attempts to live on this income and furnish the service to its members that we do. If it were not for the receipts from adver- tising in our reports we should have to raise our dues. As individual members we should remember this and express our appreciation to those firms. That our friends who supply us with fertilizers and tractors, spray materials and packages, and the multitude of other things we have to buy still feel they can reach more good fruit growers at less cost through the "Horti- cultural Association News'' than through other pubUcations is indicated by an increase in advertising. Treasurer's Report C. B. Snyder presented the following report for the past year: Cash on hand, Jan. 21, 1932 ... $ 322.87 Receipts from memberships and advertising . 938.50 Interest on investment 37 . 25 Fruit premium presented to Association 1 . 50 $1,300.12 — 88 — Disbursements: Printing and postage iqi ^n Stenographic services 6 50 Buttons 10 00 Membership prize •••••:•• iX* on Expense of speaker at Harrisburg au. zu Federal tax k* kq Bond of treasurer $1,150.46 Cash balance Jan. 16, 1933 ' . $1,300.12 . Assets, Jan. 16, 1933: Two $100.00 mortgage bonds 50O 00 Liberty bond ^^'^^ Bank certihcate 149 66 Cash balance $949.66 This report was referred to the Auditing Committee, H. F. Hershey a^^^^^^^ J. GiUan, and by them found to be correct. Election of Officers The nominating committee, consisting of gieWo^ F^^^^^ Rittenhouse, and H. C. Brinten, presented the list of nomma- tions and the following officers were unanimously elected. President— F. G. Reiter, Mars, Allegheny County Vice President— Harry Anderson, New Park, York County Secretary-R. H. Sudds, State College, Centre County Treasurer— C. B. Snyder, Ephrata, Lancaster County. Retires as President of Association Mr. Criswell: ^1 want to thank the ^^^^e^^^^^^^ oiation for the fine spirit of cooperation which they have shown dS mv te?m as your President. I want to assure you that itTmv Pk^^^^ stick to the Association and do everything in my po4r to further the cause. Will Mr. Reiter now take the '^Mr! Reiter: ^^I want to thank the Association for t^^^^^^^ it has conferred upon me. I hope I can eont nue the work ot this Association in a satisfactory manner. It ^^es o^e^J^^ good to see the optimism of this meeting ^^^ I^^^ !?^f Jf forward to the 75th anniversary and the summer meeting at State College.'^ REPORT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE G. J. Tyson, Gardners I shall tell you some of the activities of the S*;^*?. f^^Jg^^^^'i'S;! Council. Most of you know what the State Agricultural Council — 89 — IS. it is a committee of agricultural organizations. All of the agricultural associations meeting in Harrisburg this week are authorized to appoint three members as delegates to the State Committee which the State Council is forming of these respec- tive associations. This organization has been in existence for about nine years. It has attempted a number of things. In the beginning representatives of this association brought numer- ous questions to the council. It had been decided that it is most effective for the State Council to put its work into a small number of larger projects and at this time the work is divided into three principal objects, each in the hands of a committee. Those committees are, first, the committee on The Pennsyl- vania State College. The objects of that committee and car- ried out by that committee have been in two general directions. Primarily it has been to carry to the college, to the administra- tion and the Board of Trustees what the agricultural interests of Pennsylvania want from the college and there have been times in the past few years, and particularly in the last three years, when that committee had to take rather positive and firm position in the matter of some things that the farmers thought the college was failing to do. A very concrete result of that committee was the building of the new Dairy Building at the college. I am very sure the activities of the committee went a long way toward securing that building. Also the Home Economics building. The other phase is to study the needs of the college with respect to agriculture and help secure the support which the college must have. Another committee in existence since the formation of the State Agricultural Council is on rural electrification. This organization maintains a secretary here in Harrisburg who serves all the time. His work is very largely to bring the power com- panies and the rural users of electricity together and to work out problems that farmers have in having electric lines extended, etc. The third, and probably at this time the most important, certainly in the field of the State Council, is the committee on rural taxation. That committee has been in existence for about five years. It started with a very wide difference of opinions expressed in the meeting as to what could be done to relieve the tax burden in the country. Many members had different ideas and apparently nothing was being accomplished. Through Miles Horst there has come about a feeling which developed into a vote at this time and a decision that the efforts of the tax committee should be to take the situation as they find it and meet it the best way possible in their judgment. A new tax committee is being appointed and given full power to represent the association and the association agrees to back the committee. We are now in the midst of a meeting of the State Legislature and they are making efforts to change the tax situation one way or another. It seems to the State Council that the work of the tax committee will be the most important thing for agriculture at this time. They asked me to suggest to this Association — 90 — 1^ that it appoint a member to represent this Association on this 'TlTere'are no matters that have been definitely left to the legislative committee and I have nothing in mmd at this time. It was moved and seconded that the Association appoint a delegate to represent us on the tax committee. The appoint- ment will be made by President Reiter. Mr. Gillan: Can we secure tax emption on gas used for sprayers? - . ^ xu- Dr Weaver: There is a movement on foot to secure this exemption on sprayers and also tractors used for farm work. Question: Do you know what proportion of gas is used for travel on the roads and what proportion for farm machinery? Dr Weaver: I do not know about these proportions. One difficulty in securing exemptions is in determimng what pro- noVtion is used for farm work. There would be a strong temp- En for some people to use tax exempt gas in their automobiles. ifCs Sen suggested that road taxes be largely removed from eal estate and placed chiefly upon gas and automobiles At present about 28 per cent of real estate tax m townships is used For roads. Objection has been raised to removing the road tax frJm real estate in that it would concentrate road control en- t reTyTn the hands of State officials. I feel that this objection could be met by retaining certain of the ocal f ut^^^^^^^^^ transferring to their use a certam proportion <^/^ J^ ^tate road tax. It is desirable to have two agencies in control in order thatone may be a check upon the other. Member from Maryland : In Maryland we ^ave had exemp- tion on gas for sprayers and tractors for six years. Jn these daTs o? lepression'wJhave appreciated this -^^yj--^^^^^^ is no check upon this except one^s own consience though we have to make affidavit for that part of the gas we use for farm pur- ^""ifwas moved, seconded and carried that the Association go on record ^s supporting the plan to remove road tax from real 'If was moved, seconded and carried that the As^oda^^^^^^^ favors legislation which shall grant tax exemption to gas for such farm purposes as sprayers and tractors. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON RESOLUTIONS Your Committee on Resolutions recommends the adoption of ''1 Tht'LrS^ to our attention that the Railroads of the NorSwesrar?^^^^^ to join with the apple g-wers 0^0 northwestern states in requesting the Interstate Commerce Commission to reduce the rates ^^/,^^^^*^^^^^f„'^,,^?S^ eastern points in carload lots, from $1.50 per "^d pou^^^^ to $1.25 per hundred pounds. Since the proposed reduction — 91 — would place eastern apples at a still greater disadvantage in competition with western apples, this Association is opposed to the reduction unless it is accompanied by a corresponding reduction in the rates on apples originating in eastern territory. The Secretary is instructed to transmit this action to the Chair- man of the Freight Traffic Committee of the Eastern Trunk Line Association, and to the Secretaries of the New York New Jersey, Virginia, Maryland, and West Virginia State Horti- cultural Societies. 2. It is the judgment of this Association that the best interests of Pennsylvania fruit growing will be served if no restrictions are placed at this time on the movement of produce by motor truck other than reasonable regulations as to the size of the trucks and provision that they shall pay a fair share of the cost of maintaining the highways. The Legislative Committee is requested to represent the Association in this respect during the present session of the General Assembly. 3. The Association endorses the movement for standardized Pennsylvania farm products, as sponsored by the Pennsylvania Council of Agricultural Organizations and the Pennsylvania Bureau of Markets, particularly the Pennsylvania label for Pennsylvania fruits of standard grade and pack; and requests the Executive Committee to soUcit the cooperation of the State Chamber of Commerce in the advertising of this home grown produce. Committee Charles E. Wagner Chas. C. Miller S. W. Fletcher J. Gordon Fetterman REPORT OF STATE FARM SHOW COMMITTEE H. S. Nolt, Columbia; J. L. Mecartney, State College; Paul Thayer, Carlisle The fruit committee wants to congratulate the members of this Association who exhibited fruit. We feel the exhibits are getting better every year. There are 106 exhibitors and many have more than one exhibit. The Gabriel Hiester Award of $30.00 for the county with the largest number of members exhibiting and the largest total score of winnings has been given to Franklin County. The State Horticultural Association Cup for the sweepstakes bushel was awarded to Guy L. Hayman of Northbrook , Chester County. There were nearly 450 bushels of fruit in the show. The awards for the best county exhibits were as follows: 1st, Snyder County; 2nd, Delaware County; 3rd, Chester County; 4th, Lancaster County, and 5th, Franklin County. 92 Pyrox Kills — Prevents Blishl All you have to do to keep your farm crops free from leaf-chewing insects and fungus diseases is this: Mix Pyrox with water and spray. No need to waste time and effort mixing Bordeaux and arsenicals. We recommend Pyrox because it will not clog the smallest nozzle. It comes out a fine mist and covers the foliage completely, sticking to the leaves even through the hardest rains. Insects die. Blight is prevented. Your farm has a chance to show what it really can do for you! There is a size of Pyrox to suit every need! Nicotine Pyrox If you have a garden patch, you will want a jar of the new Nicotine Pyrox— Standard Pyrox treated with Nicotine. It not only kills leaf- chewing insects, prevents blight and other diseases, as Standard Pyrox does, but it also kills sucking insects, such as aphis, thrips and leaf-hoppers. Standard Pyrox, of course, is designed for most commercial crops, but in the garden, where sucking insects do so much damage, you will want Nicotine Pvrox. BOWKER'S COMPLETE LINE In addition to Pyrox and Nicotine Pyrox, the Bowker Chemical Company, New York, manufacturers a complete line of insecticides and fungiode^ including Arsenate of Lead. Calcium Arsenate, NicoUne Sulp^'^te Bord jx Mixture, Bordeaux Arsenate, Lime Sulphate. Sulphur Dusts and Sulphur Lead Dusts, Miscible Oil and others. You wiU find these materials on sale by leading hardware, seed and farm supply stores. See your dealer today! JUST MIX O. S. I»AT. OFF* I BO WITH WATER AND SPRAY 93 — REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON GAME LAWS John A. Runk, Huntingdon, Chairman, reported that through open seasons on anterless deer and special doe hcenses many thousands of deer had been killed in the last three years that would not have been killed during an ordinary hunting season. As a result the Game Commission has had fewer reports of damage during the last year than for 15 years. By special permit farmers killed over 2000 deer when they were damaging crops. Of these, 93 per cent were retained by the farmers for food. For the first year since it was granted the appropriation for deer fencing has not been entirely spent. This committee feels that the activities of the Horticultural Association have been of much weight in securing these various decisions from the Game Commission which have resulted in decreasing damage to fruit growers and farmers. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON GAME COMMISSION H. C. BRINTON, Hanover This committee was formed to study the possibility of secur- ing the appointment of a farmer in the Game Commission. My report will be brief. When the committee got to work we found that it required a great deal more than we thought. We got our appointment with the Governor through our Secretary of Agriculture. We put the porposition up to the Governor and he frankly stated that he did not think the farmers were entitled to representation on the Game Commission. We farmers must feed this game, take the damage from the hunters and from the game itself. We are not satisfied but we realize that the only way we can ever get a representative on the Game Commission is through poUtics. We will have to go to our county poUticians and work it that way. This is the second time we have asked the Governor. It happens the gentleman we wanted to put on that commission is widely known as a sportsman. He stands very high as a sportsman and enjoys the sport but does not want to load duties on himself. We went to the Izaak Walton League and got their endorsement of Mr. Anderson, the man in mind, and then we went to Sam Lewis and had a talk with him. We lost some time by thinking we could get this through the Governor and by the time wo get it through the appointment was one day too late. To get a representative on the Game Commission we have got to get it through politics. That was our experience. F. G. Reiter Sheldon Funk R. T. Criswell H. C. Brinton, Chairman. — 94 — FEDERAL-STATE INSPECTION FUND During the past year The Pennsylvania State College has handled the money received for the Federal-State inspection of fruit and made out the checks against this fund. W. G. Murtorff, the College Treasurer, has asked that he be relieved of this work. At a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Association, the Dauphin Deposit Trust Company of Harrisburg was selected to handle this account for 1933. SUMMER TRIP 1933 The summer trip will be to State College to inspect the fer- tility experiments in the old Experiment Orchard which is now 25 years old. The results from this orchard have had a pro- nounced effect upon the development of our present cultural practices and are well worth a trip to State College to study. Thousands come each summer to see the experiments in the fields and flocks at The Pennsylvania State College and to enjoy the wonderful scenery of Central Pennsylvania. The date has been set tentatively for the second week in August. There will be an evening meeting with the followmg day devoted to the orchards. Watch the next **News'^ for full particulars. — 96 A HISTORY OF FRUIT GROWING IN PENNSYLVANIA * III. The Fruit Growing of Our Times (1887-1932) S. W. FLETCHER, Professor of Horticulture, The Pennsylvania State College The year 1887 may be considered the beginning of commercia fruit growing, as we know it today. Several great advances in the fruit industry had their beginning that year Chief of these were the application of science to the solution of the problems o the fruit grower through the organization of the Agricultural Experiment Stations, the rise of spraying, and the development of the refrigerator car. During the fast-moving forty-five years since 1887 our generation has witnessed more momentous changes in the fruit industry than all the generations since William Penn came to these shores. These changes should be brought to mind before we are in a position properly to appraise the progress of our times. THE APPLICATION OF SCIENCE The State Agricultural Colleges had been established for a number of years. One of the first was the Farmers High School, later the Agricultural College of Pennsylvania and now i he Pennsylvania State College, which opened its doors in 1859. This had contributed a considerable amount of information through experimentation, chiefly on the Hfv. "^ u ^'^ iV fIL\°" in the culture of the staple farm crops. The "model farms, however, never were a complete success. Practically no research had been done for the special benefit of the fruit industry. WiUiam A. Buckhout, Professor of Botany, Forestry and Horti- culture at State College had appeared on the programs of the State Horticultural Association for a number of years, but haa conducted no research in fruit growing. „f +u„ Feeling the need of this service, at the 1883 meeting of the State Horticultural Association the question was raised, bhourt our State establish an Experiment Station for experiments in agriculture and horticulture, as has been done m, Connecticut and New Jersey?" Several growers spoke rather disparagingly of the several "Experimental Farms" of the College. However the majority sentiment favored the move and a bill to establisti an Experiment Station was passed by the General Assembly, but was vetoed by the Governor. ^ ,,. , , ■ xu^ TT^i+AH In 1884 a Division of Pomology was estabhshed m the Unitea States Department of Agriculture. This agency has vied with the State Experiment Stations in service to the fruit industry through research. The State Agricultural Experiment Stations. In 1887 Congress passed the Hatch Act, which made available to each state $15,000 annually, to be used for the support of agricultural research. This bill was immediately endorsed by the btate — 53 — I Horticultural Association These events marked the beginning of the appHcation of scientific research to the problems of fruit growing; this has been one of the most notable characteristics of the industry every since. In proportion to its capital invest- ment and the annual value of its product, no other branch of agriculture has profited more by research. Most of the standard orchard practices of today, in soil management, fertilizing, pruning, spraying, storage, and marketing, are based, to a very large extent, on the results of research since 1887. In no other branch of agriculture are the underlying sciences more fully explored for the benefit of the art. The year 1887 also marked the first recognition of Horticulture as a separate academic unit at State College, by the appointment of George C. Butz as Horticulturist of Pennsylvania Agricultural Experiment Station. THE RISE OF SPRAYING One of the first services of the Experiment Stations was in the control of insect pests and funguous diseases. At the beginning of this period, in 1887, there was practically no spraying. A few fruit growers had experimented with Paris green and London purple for the control of codling moth and canker worm, with varying success. A hand force pump, costing $7 or ?8, and giving 50 to 75 pounds pressure was used. No fungicides were used; in fact, the nature of fungous diseases was not known. The idea that diseases of fruit generate spon- taneously, under the stimulus of hot or cold weather, a ''sur- charge of the electric fluid," and other natural phenomena, was held quite generally until after 1890. The discovery of the bacillus of fire blight by T. J. Burrell of Illinois, in 1878, was an epoch-making event; it paved the way for explorations into the life history of fungous diseases under the impetus of the Hatch Act. Not until 1887 was there established, in the U. S. Depart- ment of Agriculture, a ''Mycological Section'' for the study of fungous diseases. At the meeting of the State Horticultural Association that year, the Mycologist of the Department, F. Lamson Scribner, presented the first paper on fungicides to appear in Pennsylvania*. This was a report of the classic experiments of Millardet, of France, in 1882, with various com- binations of copper, sulphur and Ume ; Bordeaux was introduced into the United States in 1885 and was used successfully in 1886 and 1887 for the control of the black rot of the grape. At the 1888 meeting of this Association, Professor W. A. Buckout, of The Pennsylvania State College, an eminent Bot- anist, summarized the current knowledge of orchard spraying: ''I regard the practice of spraying as exceedingly promising. Heretofore, I beheve, it has been employed solely against insect ravages. I suspect it has a wider use. In addition to insect attacks, there seems to be some unknown agency, sus- ♦Proc. State Hort. Abso. of Pa., 1887, pp. 41-44. pected of being of fungal nature, which produces gnarled, mis- shaped and rotten fruit." By 1892 the results of Experiment Station work on spraying and studies of the life histories of insect pests and fungous diseases, especially of apple scab and codling moth, began to be made available. Here and there fruit growers began to spray using. mainly Bordeaux and Paris green. Gabriel Hiester of Dauphin County was one of the first commercial fruit growers to adopt the spraying recommendations of the Experiment Stations. He abandoned the practice of bagging grapes, as a means of controlling black rot, and substituted the Bordeaux spray For a time, objection was raised to the use of Bordeaux by consumers who had the impression that the spray residue on the fruit was poisonous. In New York and other cities, grapes stained with Bordeaux were boycotted; some growers lost heavily. This misunderstanding was cleared away by 1895. The first paper on spraying given before the State Horticultural Association by a fruit grower was that of H.C. Suavely of Lebanon, in 1892. The first spraying calendar in Pennsylvania was issued in 1894*. Comparatively little progress was made in spraying, however, until after 1900. The benefits were undisputed, yet only a few of the more progressive fruit growers sprayed. Possibly their reluctance to adopt this new practice was due, m part, to the prevaiUng business depression; the years from 1887 to 19UU were not ^^good times" for fruit growers. Prices were low and the outlook was gloomy; there was little inducement to invest m new orchard equipment. At the 1902 meeting of the State Horticultural Association, R. L. Watts reported. Spraying to combat insects and fungi has witnessed no material progress ; neglect is the rule, and poor fruit is the consequence. The San Jose Scale Panic. At this point there appeared on the scene the chief instigator of modern spraying— the ban Jose Scale. This insidious pest struck terror to the hearts ot fruit growers everywhere ; after observing how quickly it could ruin an orchard, they became wilUng, even eager, to adopt any remedial measures that the Experiment Stations might suggest. The younger generation of fruit growers, who live in the sate se- security of a standardized and effective spraying program against this pest, can hardly imagine the furor that was created when it became known that the scourge had become estabhshed on the Atlantic Coast. It was first found in the East in the nursery of WiUiam Parry, of Cinnaminson, N. J. in 1891, and near Charlottesville, Virginia, in 1892. The first report of an infes- tation in Pennsylvania was in December, 1894. By 1896, the year of the biggest apple crop in the history of the United States, the State Horticultural Association had begun to show concern over the situation. The fear was openly expressed that the pest might ^^wipe out the fruit industry. Since practically all the infestations could be traced to nursery ♦Bulletin 25, Pennsylvania Agricultural Experiment Station. — 54 — 65 — stock there was bitterness and mutual recrimination between fruit 'growers and nurserymen. The time-honored Western New York Horticultural Society, in which nurserymen and growers had worked together harmoniously for fifty years, spUt into two Societies on this issue. State Crop Pest Laws, providing for the inspection of nurseries and orchards and for the treatment of infested trees, were passed in all the eastern states. The first was in Virginia, in 1896; the Pennsylvania law was effective in 1900. The danger from the San Jose Scale was not exaggerated. It swept through the orchards of the State with a virulence equalled only by the early outbreaks of peach yellows. Thousands of trees, especially in neglected farm orchards, were killed; many other thousands were so weakened that they fell an easy prey to winter injury, drought and other ills. At the 1903 nieeting of the Association, R. L. Watts reported, ^T.ntire blocks and even entire orchards have been destroyed by the San Jose Scale. One firm in Berks County has lost 5,000 trees through its ravages." , . i a • ix i Here was a problem for the recently organized Agricultural Experiment Stations to solve. They accepted the challenge, and met the test. Whale-oil soap and kerosene sprays were used first, with varying degrees of success. In 1902 the lime- sulphur-salt wash, or California Wash, which had been used to considerable advantage in California since 1880, was introduced into the East. This gave immediate relief. The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture waged an extensive campaign against the Scale ; numerous demonstrations of the preparation and application of the lime-sulphur-salt wash were held throughout the state. By 1906 it was generally admitted that the San Jose Scale was whipped. What was even more important, fruit growers now were launched on an orchard spraying program which has continued to this day, with ever-increasing benefit to the industry. Recent Developments in Spraying. Improvements in spraying, both materials and equipment, came thick and fast. Some of the high points in recent years have been the substitution of arsenate of lead for Paris green about 1896, following its intro- duction by F. C. Moulton, Chemist of the Gypsy Moth Com- mission of Massachusetts, in 1892; the introduction of oil emulsions and miscible oils, about 1905; the discovery of self- boiled lime-sulphur spray by W. M. Scott, of the U. S. Depart- ment of Agriculture, in 1907 ; the substitution of the concentrated lime-sulphur solutions for the California Wash, about 1910; the substitution of dilute Ume-sulphur sprays for Bordeaux, m summer appUcations, about 1910, as a result of experiments by A. B. Cordley, of the Oregon Experiment Station; the more general use of nicotine sulphate sprays in the control of sucking insects, beginning about 1910; the introduction of dusting, as a substitute for or supplement to spraying, about 1914, based on the experiments of W. H. Whetzel and Donald Reddick, of Cornell University ; the partial success achieved with the natural 56 — parasite method of controlling certain insect pests, as illustrated in the black scale of the orange, and the Oriental fruit moth. We have proceeded far since 1887 m spraying equipment; from the hand force pump mounted on a 50.gallon barrel, to the double action hand pump, about 1890; to steam outfits, in 1894; to small gasoline engine power sprayers, about 1900 to four-cylinder gasoline engine sprayers, giving a pressure of 400 to 600 pounds, about 1920; and to the use of stationary spray Sants by many growers, since 1925. The displacement of the snrav calendar by the more accurate County Spray Service dates from 1925. The whole program of controlling the insect pests and diseases of fruit is in a constant state of flux; the best practice of one year may be out-moded the next. IMPROVEMENTS IN TRANSPORTATION Perhaps the most important development of the past forty- five yeS, as affecting the fruit industry, has been the improve- ments in transportation. In 1887, fruit growing was mostly S A considerable quantity of fruit, especially oranges and apples was shipped by rail and boat to distant markets, but chiefly to a few large cities; the smaller cities and towns were tpSent mainly on the local supply. Pen-yi™ growls still enioyed something of a monopoly in their local markets whle home grown fruit was in season. Distant fruit growing Tedons in the South and West had been shipping fruit into vtZi^l^JS^ior twenty years but transportation char^^^^^^^^^ high and the loss, because of the l^^V^^'^Xn^^^^^^^ verv heavv The ventilator car, introduced in 1870, was an SoveSt over the box car, but did not give assurance that the frSt would reach distant markets in a salable condition. By 1885 many shippers in the West and South had begun to lose heart; the risks were too great. The Refriaerator Car, At this critical juncture the refrigerator car whirff used in the meat packing industry for a number of years, was adapted for use in transporting fruit tS saved the day for the distant shipper. Parker Earle, of JSdeTim^^^^^^ wis chiefly responsible for this epoeh-m^^^^^^ development. His early attempts from 1868 to 1871 to carry carloads of strawberries to market under ^^^^^/^^^^^^ in heavv loss. Undaunted by failure and the ridicule ot nis LssocTale^s, Parker Earle continued his expenm^^^^^^^^^ making changes in the construction of the car to meet the special require "^Thrfi^rK^^ use of refrigerator cars for carrying straw berrfes to distant markets was in 1872 ^^^V^^^^ ^^^^f/^^^^^^^^^ years they were used to a slight extent with W^^^ f^^f .^* success. The chief difficulty was that they had ^ "^^ capacity and hence required frequent ^^^'^^/'T^f,^^^^ never could be sure that the railroads would re-ice the cars Regularly ;m^^^ reached the market with the ice bunkers empty -^67 — i and the fruit ruined. The outlook for refrigeration of fruit in transit was not very encouraging in 1886. Among the other important pomological events of 1887, none was more significant than the decision of F. A. Thomas, of Chicago, to join forces with Parker Earle in an attempt to standardize refrigerator car service. In order to avoid the loss caused by neglect of icing by indifferent railroad employees, he conceived the idea of providing through service under one management, similar to the Pullman car service. The plan met with immediate success. Thus were born the numerous private refrigerator car Unes of today, which operate more than 125,000 cars, and carry about half of the fruit crop of the nation. The general use of refrigerator cars by distant shippers has made fruit growing continental instead of local. No longer can the fruit grower whose orchard is a few miles from Altoona, or Scranton, or New Castle, be assured of possession of his local market during his short peach season, or his longer apple season. His sharpest competition may come, not from his neighbors, but from growers who Uve 3,000 miles away. The day of the pos- session of local markets by local fruit growers has passed, never to return, save as the local grower can produce a better grade of fruit than his distant competitor, or can under-sell him, because of lower costs in production and marketing. The Motor Truck. Another factor which has disturbed the former smug complacency of local market fruit growers is the motor truck. Within a decade this has revolutionized the fruit industry of the East. Motor truck transportation was made possible by hard surface roads, of which Pennsylvania now has approximately 20,000 miles. Practically every city, town and village in the State now is served by good roads. The length of the haul has gradually increased from 50 miles, ten years ago, to the width of the continent. Trucks ply between Florida and Pennsylvania, laden with oranges one way and with apples on the return trip. A shortage of peaches in the Johnstown market is filled within a few hours by trucks from western New York, or Ohio, or southeastern Pennsylvania. These modern draft horses of the highway poke their blunt noses into all the little villages which formerly were scantily served with fruit, chiefly from local orchards. They have opened new markets and increased consumption per capita. Direct sales, from grower to consumer, are increasing rapidly. The railroads, feeling keenly the marked shrinkage in freight, are acquiring motor truck lines themselves and so are endeavoring to meet this dangerous competitor on equal terms. This amazing transformation in methods of distributing fruit has come to pass, for the most part, within a decade. We are not yet able to grasp its full significance; we know only that the old order has passed, giving place to the new, and that the readjustment period is difficult. — 58 — * STANDARD GRADES AND PACKAGES; In 1887 there were no commonly accepted standards as to grades or packages for fruit. Every grower followed his own inclination in this respect. '^No. 1'^ apples varied in quality to suit the convenience of the packer or seller. The ethical stand- ards of growers and dealers were far below those that prevail today. Packages of fruit were commonly ''deaconed," that is, they were not as good as they pretended to be. The 1894 meeting of the State Horticultural Association was noteworthy in at least one respect— the program included a discussion on 'Troper Grading of Fruit." This was the first extended! consideration of the subject in Pennsylvania. The awakening to the need of better grading was due, in large measure, to competition from the Pacific Coast, which had just begun to cause concern. California friiit was well graded and well packed —it had to be, in order to make a profit for shippers 3,000 miles from their markets. Eastern growers were forced to emulate their energetic western competitors in this respect, or lose their Influence of the Western Box Pack, Standardization of grades and packages for apples began about 1905 in the Pacific North- west which profited by the previous experience of California in standardizing the pack of oranges and deciduous fruits. The high prices received by Hood River Valley apple growers in 1907 and 1908 greatly stimulated interest m grading m the East Few of the early attempts to use the western apple box in Eastern orchards were successful, but the higher standards in grading set by western apples were largely responsible for the agitation for better grading and packing in the East after 1905. Little progress could be expected, however, as long as most of the fruit was packed, not by growers, but by buyers At the 1908 meeting of this Association, a canvas revealed that only about a third of the growers present packed their own apples; apple speculators bought the crops on the trees, and packed them to suit their own preferences. The practice of selhng apples on the trees began to decUne after 1912, with a corre- sponding increase of interest on the part of the growers in the subject of standard grades and standard packages. Federal and State I egislation. Federal legislation in the interest of better grading of apples was initiated with the passage ot the Sulzer Law, in 1912. This defined a standard barrel and a standard grade; it was somewhat similar to the Fruit Marks Act of Canada, which became a law in 1902. Since the provisions of this law could apply only to fruit in inter-state commerce, a number of Eastern states established standards for intra-state commerce. The first state law, the apple package and grade law of New York, was passed in 1914; this defined an A and a ^'B^^ grade of apples. The Pennsylvania apple branding law, passed in 1917, was a first step toward better packing; it pro- vided that the face or shown surface of a closed package ot apples should fairly represent the contents; and that the true — 59 — name of the variety, the minimum size of the fruit or the numeri- cal count, and the name and address of the person by whose authority the apples were packed must be marked on the outside of the package. Since the promulgation of U. S. Standard Grades for apples, in 1920, and later for peaches, grapes, and other fruits, the Federal standards have been used almost exclusivelv* The next great advance toward standardization of pack was Federal-State shipping point inspection, which began in 1923. Within ten years, this governmental service, which is paid for by the shipper himself, has firmly estabhshed itself as one of the most useful means for promoting the confidence between buyer and seller that is essential to the successful merchandizing of fruit In 1931-1932, there were inspected and certified as to grade in Pennsylvania, 2067 cars of apples, 503 cars of peaches and 1250 cars of grapes. All of these standardization measures are optional with the grower, not compulsory. Standard Containers. Hand in hand with standardization of grades has come standardization of packages. In 1887, and for many years thereafter, the only way to determine the quantity of fruit in an apple barrel was to measure it. Quite commonly a second hand flour or sugar barrel was used; the variation in capacity might amount to more than three-quarters of a bushel. The same was true of boxes and baskets. A ^ 'snide'' basket of strawberries purporting to be a quart, fell far short of that unit. There were dry measures and Uquid measure quart baskets. This placed a premium on short measure. Standardization of the dimensions of the western apple box had made considerable progress by 1903, by agreement among growers. The Standard Barrel Law was passed by Congress in 1915; the U. S. Standard Container Act, establishing stand- ards for berry boxes, Chmax baskets and till baskets, in 1916; and the Vestal Law, which estabhshed standards for baskets and hampers, in 1928. The Federal pure food laws require that the contents of each package be stamped upon it, or the numeri- cal count of the fruit. Thus, within a quarter century, order has come out of chaos in fruit packages, to the advantage of producers and consumers aUke. This achievement should be set down to the credit of the present generation; it will help to balance some of our mistakes. The drift continues toward small ''consumer packages, those which may be easily carried home from the store, roadside market or packing house by the purchaser. During the past fifteen years, the three-bushel barrel, long supreme among apple packages, has been forced to abdicate in favor of the bushel basket and the bushel box. It survives now chiefly in the export trade. It is probable that even smaller packages than the bushel will be required, as chain store and direct-to-consumer sales increase. A generation hence, various types of light spUnt half- bushel and peck baskets, together with pasteboard cartons and stout paper bags, are likely to comprise the bulk of the trade, except for long distance shipments. — 60 — MARKETING CHANGES ^rhe fortv-five years since 1887 have witnessed revolutionary changes in the marketing of fruit. Chief of these is the develop- ment of continental and world competition as a result of im- provements in transportation, especially the refrigerator car and the motor truck. The Invasion of Western Fruit, Competition from the West began to pinch soon after 1887. In that year, California shipped 1,000 cars of oranges and 1894 cars of deciduous fruits to eastern markets. By 1896, the western invasion had risen to 30 000 cars of oranges and 4,568 cars of deciduous f ruts. In 1890 Cvrus T Fox, of Reading called the shipment of California pears, peaches * and grapes to Pennsylvania '^carrying coals to New Castle^' This ridicule, however, did not suppress California^ In 1905, California poured 50,000 cars of oranges and 10,000 cars of deciduous fruits into eastern markets J^ ^f ^/ f ^^^ invasion reached the astounding proportions of 78,000 cars ot citrous and 16,000 cars of deciduous fruits. California and Oregon apples mainly from Hood River Valley, Oregon, began to appear in eastern cities in quantity about 1898; ^A 1902 New York City received 335,000 boxes and Phila- delohia 262,000 boxes. ^ i • ^.^ The state of Washington did not begin to come strongly into the pomological picture until after 1914. Now^ only 20 years later in a normal season the Wenatchee and Yakima Valleys, Washington, ship over 30 per cent of the commercial apple crop S the United States. The three Pacific Coast sta es Cahf orma Oregon and Washington, produce practically half of the entire fruit CTop of the nition. California and Oregon pears have "knocked the spots out of Pennsylvania pear growing as Tobias Martin of Mercersburg predicted they would in 1873^ The Dcach "season" in Pennsylvania now begins in May, with the firsrshipments from the South, and lasts five months or more; a generatS)K ago, when only home F«-\P-XraVaches able it began in August and lasted six weeks. Elberta peacnes Sm the South have practically driven off the market our home grown Carman and other early white-fleshed varieties, which once were profitable. Competition from Other Fruits Improvements i" tf^^^^^PO^J^: tion also have made it possible for othf kinds of fruit not pro duced in this State, to compete with Pennsylvania apples JeacL and grapes. Chief of these are the orange banana and grapefruit. The introduction into California of t^e Washington Navel orange, in 1879, was an epochal event i^ North American fruit srrowinc It became the foundation of a $300,00U,uuu Industfy whfch now brings to California each year five ta-s more gold than all the dust and nuggets mined m the gold rush of "Forty-Nine." Backed by well organized cooperative sales agencies, these fruits have pushed their way into markets ence occupied exclusively, or chiefly, by eastern fruit Adve« campaigns, costing millions of dollars, exploit these truits in — 61 — eastern markets, and usually at the expense of the widely scat- tered and poorly organized fruit industry of the East. Cali- fornia table grapes have all but driven Eastern Concords from the fresh fruit and juice market. The banana trade has grown from $1,820,000 in 1884, to $6,000,000 in 1900, and $25,000,000 in 1930. Certain vegetables, also particularly western head lettuce and cantaloupes, have caught the fancy of consumers to such an extent that the demand for Pennsylvania fruits has been materially reduced. Cooperation in Packing and Marketing. This period has witnessed the rise of cooperative marketing of fruit, beginning with the organization of the Fennville, Michigan, Fruit Shipper's Association, in 1891, and the California Fruit Growers' Exchange, in 1895. The early success of these organizations and of the Hood River Valley, Oregon^ Apple Growers Union, from 1903 to 1908, led many communities in Eastern fruit districts to establish central packing houses and to embark on collective selling, beginning about 1910. The first central packing house in Pennsylvania was opened at Biglerville, Adams County, in 1915; it is still operated, but by a corporation, not as a cooper- ative. Between 1910 and 1919, local cooperative central pack- ing houses multiplied in the East; there were several in Penn- sylvania. In 1913 the numerous independent community pack- ing houses in western New York were affiliated under a central sales agency. This was a failure, as were most other similar attempts in the East. The Apple Speculator, The past twenty years have seen the rise and fall of the apple speculator. During the boom days of 1900 to 1914, a large percentage of the crop in the wholesale districts was sold on the trees. The speculators went into the orchards in July and August and bid for the crops of fruit, engaging to pick and pack them, without further trouble to the growers. In those days, the trade organization of the apple buyer supplied him with crop estimates which were far more reliable than any that the individual apple grower could secure; only since 1914 have the Federal-State crop estimates been of much value to the fruit grower. At that time, also, commercial cold storage space was largely in the hands of the buyers. Armed with these advantages, the speculator was able to buy crops on the trees at very low prices, often at less than half their real value. Not infrequently he made as much money on the deal as the grower received for his year's work in the orchard. Selling on the trees was a gamble and usually the cards were stacked in favor of the buyer. With the coming of lower prices, reliable crop estimates and g;rower-controlled cold storage, the apple speculator has become a minor factor in fruit marketing. Storage. Common storage is one of the most important factors in the local market fruit growing of Pennsylvania which com- prises at least 80 per cent of the commercial industry. Insulated storage houses, in which ice was used as a refrigerant, were quite common between 1870 and 1895. — 62 — Cold storage was practically unknown in 1887. After the disastrous apple crop of 1896, when hundreds of thousands of bushels rotted on the ground, there was a Quickemng of interest in cold and common storage. Between 1900 and 1920 the Quantity of fruit placed in cold storage annually mcreased 300 ner cent. At first, the storages were located only in the terminal markets and the space was controlled by speculators. After 1910 the number of grower-controlled storages increased rapidly, especially at or near points of production. Cold storage has been one of the great stabilizers of the apple industry Recent developments in the adaptation of cold storage to the use of the fruit grower of limited acreage seeni to indicate that within a few years cold storage houses will be about as numerous on Pennsylvania fruit farms as common storage Srs have been heretofore. Thus another element of uncer- tainty will be removed, and a considerable savmg m storage costs effected. • • xu^ Bij-vrodiicts There has been a tremendous expansion in the caSed and dried fruit industry since 1887. The active com- mercLl exploitation of canning, which has bro^f^ ^^^ fruits into general use, has occurred mainly since 1900. The value of canned American fruits now amounts to over $100,000,- 000 Lnually With constant improvements in the process and SteSe advertising, canned fruits have displaced fresh fruits SfaTeryconliderable extent, especially in hote s and restaurants^ TMsTs Isatisf actory development to California, where the bulk of the canned fruits originate but is not reass™ ^^^^ Penn- svlvania which sells most of her fruit in the fre^h state, ine giral^n^roachment of canned fruits in --^f w^^^^^^^ used fresh fruits almost exclusively, together with the possi SesT^^ new quick freezing process, constitute one of the most disturbing factors in the outlook. Other important changes in the marketing system during recent yeaS include the development of auction .^^arkejs f or Jru^^^^^ in cities beginning with citrous fruits; the division of the whole- "alfma;^^^^^^^^ process into various services, e-h ^^^^^^^^^^ speciaUst-broker, jobber, commission man, ^^^^^^^^^^^^ mav be four or five intermediaries between the grower ana me uufmaL consumer; the rise of chain ^tore^^.-^-^^^^^^^^ nated one or more of these middlemen; and the development ot the motor truck movement of fruit. The Truck Peddler. The motor truck has brought upon the scene a new type of merchant, the trucking-jobber, or truck Sddler, who bSs from the grower or the wh^le-^^^^^^ and sels wherever he thinks best, at one ^^d of the btate o^^ the other, according to conditions in each ^^'^^^^^^^^ ^^ No longer are the commission men m any city able to gauge Sith any degree of certainty, th%probable amou^^^^^^^^ that will be offered on that market today or t^mor^ow^ there is a temporary shortage a swarm of truck Peddle^ swoop down upon the city in a few hours, perhaps commg from pomts — 63 — 150 to 300 miles away. These peddlers are not considered legitimate purveyors of fruit by commission men, and many attempts have been made to legislate them out of business, but without success. Motor truck marketing has come to stay. It is an effective weapon in the hands of the grower for short- cutting the old wholesale marketing process, in which too many hands took toll from the grower's dollar. Over eighty per cent of the commercial fruit crop of Penn- sylvania now is sold by direct marketing, with not more than one intermediary between the grower and the consumer, and often with none at all. This usually yields a somewhat larger return to the grower and helps to offset the increasing compe- tition from fruit that is shipped from a distance. We have made steady progress in these forty-five years toward the marketing goal of the fruit grower — a larger share of the consumer's dollar. CHANGES IN CULTURAL PRACTICES The changes in cultural practices since 1887 have been hardly less striking than the changes in marketing methods. These have come about, not only because of changes in economic con- ditions, but also through the influence of research conducted by the Experiment Stations and the United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Management, Since 1887, the pendulum of soil manage- ment practice in bearing orchards, especially in apple orchards, has swung from permanent sod to the other extreme, annual tillage with cover crops. Now it seems to be turning toward the median position of temporary sods or **sod rotations.'' The intensive tillage propaganda of 1890 to 1900 was due mainly to the influence of California and Hood River, Oregon. In those days, the fruit grower who kept his apple orchard in sod was held up to public scorn as a clog in the wheel of progress. Revolt against the extreme tillage cult began about 1905, when the grass mulch orchard of Grant Hitchings, in New York, and the Vergon orchard in Ohio were cited to illustrate the now generally accepted fact that no one method of soil management is best under all conditions. In 1887, practically no commercial fertilizers were used in orchards; the prevailing practice was to make frequent appli- cations of barnyard manure. Bone meal was used by a few growers and wood ashes by many more. Between 1890 and 1910, potash was considered the limiting factor in orchard fertiUzing. In 1889, George C. Butz reported, ''Barnyard manure is occasionally applied to Pennsylvania orchards, but most fruit growers realize that the plant food they need most is potash, and are using Canada wood ashes, muriate of potash or kainit. Phosphoric acid, in South Carolina rock, is applied occasionally^" In the light of recent experimental evidence, it seems likely that many thousands of dollars were thrown away by Pennsylvania fruit growers for potash applied alone. >Proc. Am. Pom. Soc, 1889, p. 213. — 64 Although some experimental evidence m support of a more liberal usf of nitrogen in orchard fertilizing was available m the last dec3e of the nineteenth century the shift from potash to nTtroeen in commercial orchards did not begm until about 1900, The ferti^^^^^^^^ of Dr. J. P. Stewart, conducted in a lumhZT^^^^ in different parts of the state beginning fnT907 revealed the paramount importance of qmckly available nitrogens an orchard fertilizer, especially for a sod orchard, «nH the advantage of applying it very early in the spring. SL recent e^peT^^^^^ indicated that phosphorus may Keeded'fully^as much as nitrogen - ,^Xt'S? mSS^^^ «nH^ or cover crops are to be grown; and that the maintenance of roSc ^onLt of the orchard soil is of far g-ate'- momen than thp annlication of any kind of plant food. Over-vigorous Sees "onTa bugaboo of American pomologists, no onger are a matter of conce^rn. We have learned that the most vigorous trees usually are the most productive. Prvnina and Trainirw. The most important contribution ot th£ fX-five year period to orchard pruning has been the d^rcover/ of thffallacy of heavy pruning, especially of young frees For many years, these had been cut back heavily each year wfth a co^sponding loss in vigor and early fruit-bearmg ^! KaH hpen nointed out by Thomas Meehan as early as 1868. Cween TgoKd lOmh^^^ was much ado about rejuvenating Sd Tpple t?eerby dehorning the ^^-^^^l-f^^^^'t^^^i ?rees?these passed out Jf the pomological picture, commercially, about 1910. , Urmtmg the Number of Varieties ^^ven as late as 1887. "lo^* of the discussions at horticultural meetings ^^re about t comparative value of varieties. After jf^O, cultural prac gradually took precedence, only to give way, about 19^u, to consideration of marketing problems. ,..i^tv nroblem The most significant trend of the times in the variety prob^m is the d™ft toward the planting of fewer varieties^ ^^18?" no =esrfrl%\re-rs^^^^^^ *Proc. Pa. Fr. Or. Soc. 1868, p. 23. — 65 — hundred or more varieties. This was the day of the connoisseur on varieties, of whom Marshall P. Wilder, of Boston, was the most prominent exponent. After 1900, the old orchards on general farms, of few acres but many varieties, began to give place to the modern commercial orchards of larger size, but few varieties. In wholesale fruit growing, this shift was stimulated by the obvious advantage of having carlot quantities of each variety to sell, and by the growing appreciation of the fact that variety adaptations are exceedingly local, both as to district and as to soil. Hence we have the ^'New England Six,'' six varieties of apples recommended for commercial planting in all New Eng- land, to the exclusion of other sorts; and the almost complete limitation of apple planting in the Wenatchee Valley, Wash- ington, to the Delicious and the Winesap. In Pennsylvania, variety limitation is in danger of proceeding too far; we can plant too few varieties as well as too many. This is because our outlet is chiefly local; direct marketing requires a succession of varieties. The advantage of so planting the orchard as to secure cross-pollination between varieties, which was first brought to the attention of fruit growers in 1894 by M. V. Waite, of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, now is generally recognized and acts as a check to an injudicious limitation of the number of varieties. This is one of the most important problems in modern fruit growing, as related to the economics of the industry. New Varieties. This forty-five year period has brought forth a host of new varieties, several of which have dispossessed the favorites of a generation ago. In Pennsylvania, the most im- portant changes in the apple variety list have been the dis- placement of the Baldwin by the Stayman as the dominant variety of the State, beginning about 1905; the rise of the Rome in commercial esteem, after 1910; the onward sweep of the Delicious and Mcintosh after 1915; the waning popularity of Grimes and all other yellow varieties ; and the dogged persistence of the Ben Davis in holding a place in the wholesale districts of the State, in spite of ridicule which would have driven a more sensitive soul to cover. After 1895, sweet varieties of apples, which had been prominent in the early days of the industry, fell into disfavor. Between 1890 and 1900 there was much interest in certain hardy varieties of apples introduced from Russia, but none of them proved acceptable in Pennsylvania except Duchess of Oldenburg and Red Astrachan. The Elberta peach came into prominence early in the '80's and soon completely displaced Mountain Rose, Reeve's Favorite, Stump the World, Old Mixon, Steven's Rare-ripe and other white-fleshed favorites of a generation ago. Since 1900 it has completely dominated American peach growing as has no other variety of fruit but the Wilson strawberry and the Concord grape. After 1895, the Kieffer, which was first fruited in Phila- delphia in 1873, superseded most other varieties of pears for commercial planting in the East. Its poor quahty brought home grown pears into such disrepute that California and — 66 — Oregon had no difficulty in capturing the market with the more delectable Bartlett, Anjou and Winter Nelis. A new era in the production of varieties began about 1900 when nlant breeding became a more exact science, following the dis- covery of Myden's Law of heredity. Considerable progress a?ready has been made in the breeding of improved varieties of S especially at the New York, Minnesota and California ESeriment Stations iind in Canada. Most of the standard S™cial varieties of today originated as chance seedlings; Sv were merely found. Most of the varieties of the future will come from plant breeders, having been originated by crossing Tnd seTection. Others will come as mutations or bud sports which aTe observed by fruit growers. Already there is a con- Serable Ust of valuable varieties which have originated as rmitati^^^^ as color sports. In another generation com- Trative?^^ new varieties will originate as chance '^ oJJr^f the most important developments in our generation has been the application of the science of systematic botany to the solution of the problem of trees ^^not true to name." For centuS^^^^^ has been a prolific source of loss to the f-it^^^^^^^^^^^^ nnd of bitterness between the nurseryman and his patrons The SuS of J. K. Shaw of the Massachusetts J.xpenment Nation about 1920, paved the way for the identification of ^arSes in ^^^ row. Nurserymen have shown com- Sdable zeal in adopUng the practice of roguemg trees m the nursery row. GOVERNMENTAL AID AND REGULATIONS Tn 1 «87 the fruit grower produced, packed and marketed fruit ini Hs he DleS this was nobody's business but C ::.":' &it£^^. of the art and science oHmit^ro^l was derived from experience, from observation of the metnoas racticed by o?her successful cultivators, from the columns of the few horticultural periodicals of the times and from the Proceedings of this and other horticultural societies _No Exper - ment Statton research came to his aid in ^'S Jg^t against insects^ No Federal or State laws regulated the size of.his Packages or the Qualitv of his grades. No Extension Speciahst or County AeeXfurnished him with spray service, or gave prunmg demon- f^tStionsTEL orchard. The Agricultural College. -Jjch had been established for some years, were ^Zf^Y.rjTiLiZ- fidence but their contribution to Horticulture, through instruc '"X''rrr?ri"of"iS is the beneficiary of numerous Federal and Ifate laws and conforms, wUUngly or u^^^^^^^^^ to numerous governmental regulations. The Federal and state governments, jointly, provide for the t'-a'^ing of Ins sons the fruit irrowprs of tomorrow, through resident instruction at tne clleanToffer assistance to olVJ'"^ETnd Set ng exteniion service. The solution of his cultural and marketing — 67 — problems is sought by trained scientists employed by the State and Federal governments. He receives from both agencies, on request, numerous bulletins on all phases of fruit growing. He has only to stretch out his hand and a dozen specialists rush to his aid. Regulatory Laws. Governmental aid to fruit growing now is extended not only directly through educational and research agencies, but also indirectly, through regulatory laws. The first regulatory legislation in Pennsylvania in aid of fruit grow- ing was the Peach Yellows Act, which was sponsored by this Association and passed in May, 1891. This made it the duty of every citizen to destroy all peach trees observed to be affected with the Yellows. No provision was made for enforcement of this Act, so it became a dead law almost immediately. Not until 1900, when a Nursery Inspection Law was passed under the spur of the San Jose Scale panic, was there organized enforce- ment of regulatory laws in the interest of Pennsylvania fruit growing. The fruit grower of 1933 is guarded by the State, through the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. His orchards and the nurseries from which they sprang are inspected for Peach Yellows, San Jose Scale, Oriental Fruit Moth, Japanese Beetle, Crown Gall, and sundry other pests. His fertiUzers and spray materials are analyzed. His fruit is inspected as to grade and analyzed as to freedom from spray residue. He is advised both as to the probable size of the current yearns crop, and as to the outlook for fruit growing during the years to come. The Federal Government, also, comes to his aid with Quarantine No. 37, which practically prohibits the importation of foreign nursery stock, formerly a prolific source of insect and fungous pests; with a law requiring the commission man who sells his fruit to take out a license and give a bond; with the promulgation of Federal grades for fruit; with pure food laws; with protective tariffs and embargoes. Evidently fruit growers, as well as others, think ^^ there ought to be a law.'' Since 1900 the tendency has been to let Uncle Sam do it. Some are of the opinion that there is ^'too much government'' as related to fruit growing; or, at least, too much paternaHsm in government to suit the tax payers' pocketbooks. Others point to the undoubted economic benefits that have accrued, not only to fruit growers, but also to the general public. THE CHANGING FORTUNES OF FRUIT GROWING SINCE 1887 The foregoing review of changes in cultural and marketing practice during the past forty-five years may serve as a back- ground for a consideration of the economic shifts in the industry. The opening of this period found the fruit industry of Penn- sylvania and throughout the East at a very low ebb. From 1872 to 1895 occurred the greatest depression period in eastern fruit growing. "The chief business of fruit growers these days," said one of them, "is to try to cheer one another up." This — 68 — nrolonged depression was due chiefly to reaction from the mdus- trial inflation which followed the Civil War, to over-production of fruit resulting from excessive plantings durmg the long period of expansion from 1845 to 1872, and to the seeming hopelessness of the fight which fruit growers then were waging against insect nests and diseases. The introduction of spraying brought new hone but, with two exceptions, there was little optimism among Pennsylvania fruit growers until after 1900 One of these exceptions was in peach culture, the other in plum culture. The Juniata Valley Peach Craze. Between 1885 and 1893, Juniata County, which now is comparatively unimportant in fruit growing, achieved a conspicuous place in the pomologicai sun The industry was started by Smith Brothers about 1875. The fruit was shipped to Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and the mining towns. The profits from these early plantings were so great that neighboring farmers began to plant peach orchards instead of corn and the industry soon spread from Jumata to Mifflin, Huntingdon and Blair counties In 1888, there were 300,000 peach trees in Juniata and adjacent counties, i he enthusiasm reached its height in 1890 when the State Horti- cultural Association held its annual meeting at pewistown It was reported then, ^There are at present about 260,000 peach irels in Juniata CoAnty alone, of which 160 000 were planted last spring. Next spring 100,000 more will be planted, and there is no telling where it will stop." The peach crop of Juniata County that year was 400,000 bushels, which sold for $3.50, to $4.00 a bushel. . The fever ran its course in the usual way. Human judgment being as frail then as now, it was confidently expected that there would be no end to the golden harvest. Said the State Board of Agriculture, in 1891, -Thousands of acres of peaches are being planted, and growers are encouraged by remunerative Pnces of $1.50 to $3.00 a bushel. A number of counties of the state bid fair to become the greatest peach growing centers of the Union . The bubble burst in 1893, when the price ^f {uniataj^al^^^^ peaches dropped to 25-40 cents a bushel. "These returns, saTd one Tgrnntled farmer, "are below the cost of production and a general lethargy prevails." After ^^ther year or two^^^ low prices, the orchards were neglected In a ^^^ J^^^J^/f^^^^^ the golden tasseled corn again waved trmmphantly over land that: for a brief period, had seen the pink beauty of peach blossoms in the spring time. Thus perished one f the m^^^^^^ ephemeral of Pennsylvania fruit booms. Juniata ^^^^^^yj^f^^^ dillusioned of their dreams of easy wealth, returned to the production of the staple farm crops, sadder but wiser m^^^ What a pity that the experience of one generation f Idom^^^^^^ the next from committing the same blunder. Each has to learn the same hard lesson. The South Mountain Fruit Belt. Meanwhile another center of peach production was developing in Franklin County. Observing *Rept. Pa. State Bd. Agr. 1892, pp. 147-8. — 69 — the success of a few pioneer peach growers just across the state line, in Washington County, Maryland, with orchards planted in 1875 and 1876, several orchards were planted in the ''South Mountain Peach Belt'' near Waynesboro in 1879 and 1880. The dividends from these early plantings were so gratifying that the industry spread rapidly. Soon it overflowed South Mountain into Adams County. By 1895 there were 2,000,000 peach trees in the three counties, 500,000 of these being in FrankUn. The loss of two successive crops by winter-killing, in 1898 and 1899, and the ravages of the Yellows, disheartened many growers; but the industry was established on a firm foundation and has continued, with varying degrees of success, to this day. The commercial planting of peaches in the southeastern counties, did not become extensive until after 1900. The Heyday of the Plum. In 1887, the plum, once a major fruit in Pennsylvania, was rapidly passing into comparative oblivion, when it was granted a short reprieve by the introduc- tion of the Japanese varieties. These had been introduced into California in 1870, but did not begin to impress themselves on Eastern pomology until about 1890. The heyday of plum culture in the East was from 1895 to 1905. Between 1890 and 1900 the number of plum trees in the United States increased 335 per cent, not only because of the new acreage of prunes on the Pacific Coast, but also because of the heavy plantings of Japanese and native plums in the East. By 1900 the plum ranked third in commercial value among orchard fruits in the United States, being exceeded only by the apple and the peach. In 1904 it was reported, ''Japanese plums are planted most extensively in Pennsylvania.'' The crash came about 1905. When all the ill-considered plantings had come into bearing, there were far more plums than the markets could absorb. Moreover, the Japanese and native varieties were inferior in quality to varieties of the European plum, and the Japanese sorts were not as hardy in bud. Since 1910 the plum has been a very minor factor in Pennsylvania pomology. Only the Burbank, Abundance and certain hybrid varieties remain to remind us of this unfortunate epoch in our pomological history. The Passing of the Farm Apple Orchard. Pennsylvania apple growing was dominated by farm orchards until after 1900. These small orchards, mostly of 3 to 6 acres, were planted during the expansive years of 1854 to 1872. They were owned by general farmers, not by fruit growers; the orchard was a very incidental feature of the farm enterprise. Usually there were ten or more varieties, but Baldwin predominated. Practically all farm orchards were kept in sod and were pastured. The trees were pruned infrequently, fertilized only with the drop- pings of pastured livestock, and never sprayed. The farm orchards were planted at a time when the chief outlet for the apple crop was the cider barrel, and received the neglectful culture that usually prevails under this objective. In good — 70 — rroD vears fruit not needed for family use was sold or bartered S at very low prices. Almost any price, however, was -velvet'' to the farmer, for the cost of production was negligible. The manrth^^^^^^^ of old apple trees on Pennfvania farms toda^ are but a remnant of the hundreds of thousands that s?ood in 1875 The Census of 1900 reported over 11,500,000 aoDle Jrees in the State; today, in spite of the very heavy com- Scial S^^^^^^ between 1895 and 1920, the number has Shied to 7,860,457, with no diminution m production. The old apple trees in farm orchards began to pass out rapidly afftr 1895 chiefly because of neglect, the ravages of the San os^^ScS andtJcause a large P-Portion oU^^^^^^^ 79^7 mty SlKurpts"^^^^^^ parW because of the uneeo^^^^^^^^ t,,r^ of varieties partly because the small size ot the orcnaras, HH not iustifv the purchase of specialized orchard equipment J It SeC Sause Sey were owned by farmers not by fruit .rowers AboSToOO the apple industry of Pennsylvama passed ?nto the hands of fruit speWs; apples from farm orchar^^^^ now are a minor and a constantly declinmg factor m our markets. The Rise of the Apple SpeciaUst. Until l^JO ^^^ ^t^^^^^^^^ nnnle production in Pennsylvania were the territory coniiguous rthiSelphJa and Pittsburgh, and th^^tt^^in number of 4.' Tr. iftQO Allpffhenv County led the State in numoer oi The rise of specialized apple culture, « VC^rt^s t'cumd is the major -d «ften th| so^^^^^^^^ ST ^porter-The Z^lSlTseJLTt^eZll are the. JunWd the South Mountain peach belts, each jmb«^^^^^^^^ to'Te acres of peaches. There'.re no ma Jed sections de^^^^^ apple, but there is great ^^ ^ oSn£* '^ T^^ter^^ ^^« during the early '90's The "c^tastroge rf ^^^^^^^^^ 000,000 barrels of apples were produced in the Unitea o the largest crop on record, most of ^^ich rotted on^hegro, acted as a decided check to planting ; and so did the ^an^ Scale Panic from '1896 to 1904. H»"^X1?/iistricts of western were cut down in the older apple growing d^^st"rts m we New York and New England. Planting was renewea, steadily increasing fervor, after 1904. *Proc. Am. Pom. Soc. 1889, p. 213. — 71 — THE **BIG APPLE BOOM," 1905-1919 The second great expansion period of America apple growing, the first being from 1854 to 1872, occurred from 1905 to 1919. The foundation for this hectic period was laid in the sharp decline in commercial apple production from 1905 to 1912, a population increase of over 10,000,000 a decade, and great industrial prosperity. Experienced fruit growers and hard headed business men took leave of their judgment with as much abandon as did Juniata County farmers in 1890. They followed the will-'o-the-wisp of easy wealth, only to find themselves, at last, mired in the swamp of disilusion. ''The Magic Valley.'' One of the electric sparks which fired this particular charge of dynamite was the very high prices received by the apple growers of the Hood River Valley, Oregon. This ''Magic Valley'' was, indeed, a pomological Eldorado— for a time. It was pictured in the flashy magazines of that period and in the tales of returned travelers as the goal toward which all Eastern fruit growers should strive, if haply they might even approximate it. Had not Hood River apples sold for $2.60 a box in 1906, and $3.27 in 1908, f.o.b. shipping point; and could not Pennsylvania apple growers do likewise, if they become equally efficient? Who could resist the urge to plant an apple orchard after reading this: ''The crop of the Hood River Apple Growers' Union has again sold at record-breaking prices. Fancy Spitzenburg apples will bring $3.27 a box. Fruit lands about Hood River are rapidly advancing in price; sales of bearing orchards for $1,000 an acre are not uncommon. Oscar Vanderbilt, of Hood River, sold 40 bushels of Winter Banana apples to a Portland dealer for $8.00 a box. The dealer sold them to a New York buyer for $12.00 a box. This price nets the grower 13 cents per apple, The same grower sold 60 boxes of Delicious for $6.00 a box."i The blood pressure of Eastern fruit growers rose rapidly. Apple planting and, in some sections, peach planting also were the royal road to riches. Nurseyrmen could not propagate trees fast enough to supply the demand. The landscape in Adams, FrankUn, Berks, Montgomery, Chester, York, Lancaster and a number of other counties, was dotted with young orchards. Between 1900 and 1910, 2,676,000 fruit trees were planted in Pennsylvania, four times as many as were planted during that period in the great fruit State of New York. In 1915; thirty- one per cent of the 10,000,000 apple trees in Pennsylvania were not yet in bearing. Between 1907 and 1912, most every grower made money, and some made much money. The Erie County grape belt blossomed like the rose. Said Francis N. Thorpe, in 1911, "A fruit farm in Erie County gave the following gross returns per acre; grapes, $125; raspberries, $400; sour cherries, $550; gooseberries, $700; prunes, $600; peaches, $350. This means that the land is worth $1,500 to $12,000 an acre."^ »The Fruit Grower, October, 1907, p. 402. >Rept. Pa. Dept. Agr., i911, p. 676. — 72 Cnrvoration Orcharding. The speculative craze in fruit grow- ing reached ^^^^^ heat in 1911 and 1912. Numerous orchard s?KSaSwere organized, mainly of town busmess men not frSt growers; these acquired bearing orchards or planted neUnesafaheav^ investment. In vain did the more conservative ?ruTt g^^^^^^^ urge caution: ^The planting of apple trees m the nast five years has gone on at a wild and reckless gait/' said rSste^/ Tyson in 1912. ^^Many real estate development Semes based on orchard planting have been started recently cSal from our cities and towns has been persuaded into these scSmes S some of them are doing a flourishing business-in S Se ofland, at least; Pennsylvania orch^^^^^^ sold o l^nci fn o8t Office Edgemont Avondale Buckingham New Wilmington Sunbury New Castle, R. 1 Bantam, Conn. Plymouth Dayton, Ohio Dimock Adrian Mertztown, R. 2 Zionsville, R. 1 36 N. 8th St., Lebanon Zionsville, R. 1 563rStanton Ave., Pittsburgh Fishertown Pt. Pleasant North East Livermore, R. 2 Wrightsville, R. 2 Chambersburg . 323 E. King St., Shippensburg D^pHf^ Welfare, Harrisburg Middleport, N. Y. Geigers Mills Mars Reading, R. 2 County Delaware Chester Bucks Lawrence Northumberland Lawrence Sunbury, R. 2 Plymouth, Indiana Westtown New Wilmington, K. u. Lewistown, Me. Aspers Biglerville New Windsor, Md. Noxen . 305 E. Front St., Lititz Longwood Farms, Kennett Square Plainsville , 219 E. Philadelphia bt., lorK State College York, R. 9 . , ^ . New Brunswick, iN. J- Waterville, Ohio Meshoppen Lafayette, Ind. Robesonia, R- 1 Chambersburg, K. o Millersville AUentown, R. 3 • 401 Barr Ave., Cralton Wexford, R. 1 Media Wexford, R. I Fox Chase Wernersville Lumberville, K. u. , State College Logan ville Sharpsburg Wrigntsville Luzerne Susquehanna Armstrong Berks Lehigh Lebanon Lehigh Chester Allegheny Bedford Bucks Erie Indiana York Franklin Cumberland Cumberland Dauphin Berks Allegheny Berks Northumberland Chester Lawrence Adams Adams Wyoming Lancaster Chester Luzerne York Centre York Wyoming Berks Franklin Lancaster Lehigh Allegheny Allegheny Delaware Allegheny Philadelphia Berks Bucks Centre York Allegheny York Mame Forbes, R. M. Forry, S. E. Francis, C. D. Frankenfield, Asher Frantz, Ira Freed, A. J. Freed, W. A. Frey, Harry E. Fry, John L. Funk, Sheldon Gackenbach, C. A. Gardenhour, G. W. Garman, Albert S. Garrahan, R. H. Garrett, Philip C. Gay, Arthur Gehman & Rosenberger Gehr, Harvey J. George, Kermit Gibson, Ira E. Gibson, W. F. Gillan, C. F. Gillan, G. G. Gillan, R. J. Gillesfui Co., G. C. Glebe, WiUiam M. Ghck, Jacob R. Glick, Jonas R. Goldsborough, E. L. Good, James, Inc. Good, Harvey Good, Martin R. Goodling, G. A. Goshorn, Taylor L. Graybill, C. W. Gray bill, N. Charles Greenbaum, Raymond Griest, C. A. Griest, Frederick E. Grimshaw, Harry Gross, H. S. Group, Foster C. Grove, W. E. Grove, W. E. Guyton, T. L. Haas, William Haase, Henry Haase, Herman Haberman, Mrs. T. C. Hackenburg, Chas. Hacker, A. L. Haddock, John C. Hafer, Roy Haines, Robert B. 3rd Haines, Granville E. Hall, L. C. Harbison, C. F. Harrison, J. G. Harshman, John W., Jr. Hartman, Scott W. Hartman, D. L. Hartman, L. E. Hartzell, Floyd R. Post office County Erie, R. 1 Erie Ephrata, R. 1 Lancaster 225 N. 17th St., Allentown Lehigh Berks liuzerne ijeespori Dallas, R. 3 Racine Beaver Racine Beaver York, R. 6 York Reading Berks Boyertown Berks Orefield, R. 1 Lehigh Smithburg, Md. Manheim Lancaster Kingston Luzerne Malvern Chester Dallas, R. 3 Luzerne Souderton Bucks Waynesboro FrankHn Perkasie Bucks Blairsville, R. 1 Indiana Yoe York St. Thomas Frankliu St. Thomas Franklin St. Thomas Franklin 270 W. Market St., York York Delaware Water Gap Monroe Lancaster, R. 1 Lancaster Lancaster, R. 5 Lancaster Shepherdstown, W. Va. 2111 E. Susquehanna Ave. Philadelphia Lancaster, R. 8 Lancaster Bareville Lancaster Lo^anville York Qumcy, Box 47 FrankHn Middleburg, R. 4 Snyder New Windsor, Md. Allentown State Hospital, Allentown Lehigh Guernsey Adams Flora Dale Adams North Girard Erie York, R. 10 York Gardners Adams 120 N. 6th St., Chambersburg Franklin York Springs Adams Bureau of Plant Industry, Harrisburg Dauphin Coplay, R. 1 Lehigh Narrowsburg, N. Y, Wayne Narrowsburg, R. 1., N. Y. Wayne Baden Beaver Mt. Pleasant Mills Snyder Allentown Lehigh Wilkes-Barre Luzerne Fayetteville, R. 1 Franklin 156 School Lane, German town Philadelphia Mt. Holly, N. J. North Girard Erie New Castle, R. 1 Lawrence Berlin, Md. Smithsburg, Md., R. 1. Franklin Palm Berks 471 N. E. 79th St., Miami, Fla. York Cly York Sharpsburg Allegheny Name Hassinger, H. C. Haudenshield, Chas. ±1. Hausman, George B. Haverstick, Paul E. Hayman, Guy L. Hayes, S. B. Heacock, O. J. Heilman, Albert Heisey, S. A. Henderson, John u. Herr, C. H. Herrick, R. fe. Hershey, Maurice Hershey, H. F. Hertzler, Jacob Hess, C. C. Hess, Ray B. Hess, Paul G. Hile, Anthony Hileman, Carl W. Hill, William D. Hines, Zenas Hinnershitz, C. Walter Hoffman, H. L. Hollingerf J. W. Holtzapple, Frank P. Hood, T. C. Hoopes, Wilmer Hootman, H. D. Horn, W. H. Home, David Horst, J. Moms Hostetler, Abram Hostetter, Dr. J. E. Hourdequin, L. R. Hou§er, Jacob R. Hovis, Perry Howard, P. H. Huber, Edwin B. Huey, S. R. Hunt, M. H. & Son Hutchinson, J. D. Huyett, Irwin B. Imswiler, John S. Irey, Allen M. James, D. M. Janes, G. T. Jayne, Allen Jefferson, Thomas H. Johnston, R. S. Johnston, J. H. Johnston, M. E. Johnston, Mrs. F. C. Karns, J. H. Kaffman, C. B. Kauffman, J. B. Kauffman, C. E. Kauffman, A. L. Kelso, James Kendig, Dr. J. D. Kerchner, H. T. Kessler, George W. Kimmel, Paul King, J. J. & Son Post Office Beavertown Noblestown Rd., Crafton Coopersburg, R. 2 Farm Bureau, Lancaster Northbrook Enon Valley, R. 1 Biglerville Cleona Greencastle, R. 4 Edri, R. D. Lancaster, R. 2 Des Moines, Iowa Paradise, R. 1 Hamburg Lancaster, R. 3. County Snyder Allegheny Lehigh Lancaster Chester Lawrence Adams Lebanon Franklin Indiana Lancaster 290 Washington St., New York City Lancaster Berks Lancaster Mt. Alto, R. 1 Waynesboro, R. 2 Curwensville New Castle, R. 9 North East Clymer, R. 2 t^ j- 1255 Buttonwood St., Reading Butler, Star Route Rohrerstown SeUnsgrove Saltsburg, R. 1 West Chester East Lansing, Mich. Chambersburg, R. 10 York, R. 3 Lebanon, R. 3 Johnstown, R. 3 Gap, R. 1 Avondale Lampeter Indiana, R. 1 Dover, R. 1 ^, , , 232 S. Main St., Chambersburg New Castle, R- 3 . 510 North Cedar St., Lansing, Mich. Franklin Franklin Clearfield Lawrence Erie Indiana Berks Butler I^ancaster Snyder Indiana Chester Franklin York Lebanon Cambria Lancaster Chester Lancaster Indiana York Franklin Lawrence Wilkes-Barre, Rear 84 Scott St. Reading, R. 1 West Chester Boyertown . Bureau of Markets, Harrisburg North Girard West Auburn Wycombe New Wilmington, R. 1 New Wilmington, R. 1 Connoquenessing Dallas Chambersburg Bird-in-Hand, R. 1 York, R. D. 7 Manchester, R. 1 Ronks, R. 1 Enon Valley Salunga Lenhartsville Tyrone Shelocta, R. D. New Castle, R. 7 Luzerne Berks Chester Berks Dauphin Erie Susquehanna Bucks Lawrence Lawrence Allegheny Luzerne Franklin Lancaster York York Lancaster Lawrence Lancaster Berks Blair Indiana Lawrence Name Kister, U. G. Key, Wm. H. King, M. G. Kleppinger, B. M. Kline, V. C. Knappenberger, Thomas Koch, C. H. Koehler, Paulus E. Kraybill, S. S. Kuhns, Oscar H. Kuhns, Victor Kyle, Wm. B. Landis, H. D. Landis, D. M. Latshaw, J. E. Lau, L. E. Lau, Rev. I. M. liau, L. B. Laub, H. H., Jr. Laudenslager, Martin Laudenslager, John Lay, W. G. Lehman, G. E. Lehman, Sylvester Leibhart, S. H. Lemmon, D. R. Lengle, Paul H. Leonard, F. E. Lepole, Walter Lesher, H. V. Lewis, L, N. Lewis, L. A. Lewis, Russell Lewis, Nelson H. Lewis, S. V. Lightner, Irvin Linde, J. Eric Linville, Arthur S. Livingood, W. W. Long, D. Edward Longenecker, Howard G. Loop, H. S. Loop, A. L Loose, H. H. Lord, John Loucks, Walter McClure, Frank McCormick, C. M. McDonald, R. C. McHenry, Clarence MacVeagh, W. F. McClelland, J. B. McClenathan, J. J. McCormick, James McFarland, J. Horace McGeorge, Mrs. Katherine McGinnis, C. R. Mcllvaine, J. S. McKee, J. M. MacNeal, WiUiam H. McPherson Brothers McPherson, Roy P. McWhorter, C. T. Maderia, A. B. Post Office Etters Verona, R. 1 Mt. Wolf, R. 1 Coopersburg, R. 2 413 Market St., Harrisburg Zionsville, R. 1 McKeansburg 826 Washington Ave., Monaca Mt. Joy ~ 3 2 County York Allegheny York Lehigh Dauphin Lenigh Schuylkill Beaver Lancaster Allentown, R. 3 Lehigh Allentown, R. 2 Lehigh Zionsville Lehigh Girard Erie Lancaster, R. 1 Lancaster Marion Franklin East Berlin, R. 2 York 715 Manor St., York York East Berlin, R. 2 York 77 Chestnut St., Lewistown Mifflin Orefield, R. 1 Lehigh Orefield, R. 1 Lehigh North Girard Erie Wrightsville, R. 2 York York, R. 9 , York Wrightsville, R. 1 York North Girard Erie Pine Grove Schuylkill Carlisle, R. 1 Cumberland Akron Lancaster Northumberland, R. 1 Northumberland 210 Summit Ave., Legonier Westmoreland Wyoming, R. D. Pittston, R. 1 Pittston, R. 1 Wyoming, R. 1 York, R. 11 Orefield, R. 1 Media, R. 2 Robesonia Fayetteville Mt. Joy North East North East Menges Mills Wyoming, R. 1 York New Castle, R. 5 New Castle, Knox Ave. Shippensburg, R. 3 Indiana Muncy, R. 3 Canonsburg North Girard Harrisburg Harrisburg Orrtanna Reading, 523 Oley St. Fayetteville Harrisburg, Dept. of Agr. Parkesburg ; Bridgeton LeRoy, N. Y. Corvallis, Ore. Sinking Springs Luzerne Luzerne Luzerne Lucerne York Lehigh Delaware Berks Franklin Lancaster Erie Erie York Luzerne York Lawrence Lawrence Cumberland Indiana Lycoming Washington Erie Dauphin Dauphin Adams Berks Franklin Dauphin Chester York Berks Name Maffet, Miss M. A. Maloney Brothers Nursery Markey, Elmer J. Marsh, H. V. Martin, J. O. Marvil Package Co. Mattem, Jos. C. Mattes, Emaus Matthews, W. H. Mauger, Maurice Maurer, D. Edward Mayer, Guy S. Mecartney, J. L. Mechling, Edward A. Meeder, J. V. Melcher, Geo. W. Mellinger, Adam Meehan, S. Mendelson Mesta Brothers Meyer, Allen J. Miles, H. C. C. Mill, Erwin Miller, John W. Miller, J. L. Miller, H. W. Miller, Frank M. Miller, Jos. T. Miller, Jacob Miller, Jos. C. Miller, Jacob R. Miller, Harvey Miller, W. C. Miller, Carroll R. Miller, L. P. Miller, David Miller, C. M. Miller, C. Clayton Miller, Amos Minnich, C. S. Mitchell, E. B. Mitterling, John T. Mohr, Charles Mohr, Frank J. Mohring, F. G. Morhman, Dick Monosmith, S. B. Moon, Henry T. Moore, M. A. Morse, Carl Mt. Breeze Orchard Co. Mowery, N. E. Moyer, J. Calvin Moyer, Lee Murray, Edward A. Musselman, I. Z. Musser, W. E. Myers, Paul M. Myers, Levi M. Nash, Duane H. Neiman, Otto Nelson, Corbett D. Newcomer, Aaron Newman, H. W. Newton, E. M. Post Office Wilkes-Barre, 264 Franklin St. Dansville, N. Y. York, R. 2 Seven Valleys, R. 2 Mercersburg Laurel, Dela. Hollidaysburg, 310 Newry St. Lehigh, R. 1 Salem, Ohio, Box 313 Boyertown, R. 2 Selinsgrove Willow Street, R. 1 State College Moorestown, N. J. North Girard Bally Clay Newton Square Finleyville, R. 1 Annville Milford, Conn. Ottsville Ephrata, R. 2 York, R. 9 Paw Paw, W. Va. Waynesboro, 42 W. Main St. Wilkinsburg, 712 South Ave. York, R. 9 Safe Harbor, R. 1 Elizabethtown, R. 2 Loganville Catawiss, R. 1 Martinsburg, W. Va. Paw Paw, W. Va. Allentown, 221 Chew bt. Newville Marion Hanover, R. 4 Leesport, R. 1 Harrisburg, R. 3 Mt. Pleasant Mills Mt. Wolf Fogelsville North Girard Narrowsburg, N. Y. Weisel Morrisville Lititz New Wilmington Fayetteville, R. 1 Mechanicsburg Middleburg, R. 4 Freeburg Punxsutawney, R. D. Orrtanna New Bethlehem, R. 3 Lancaster, R. 8 Siddonsburg Haddonfield, N. J. Dover, R. 3 Baltimore, Md. Smithburg, Md. New Castle, R. 4 New Wilmington, R. 1 County Luzerne York York Franklin Blair Berks Snyder Lancaster Centre Erie Berks Lancaster Chester Washington Ijcbanon Bucks Lancaster York Franklin Allegheny York Lancaster Lancaster York Columbia Lehigh Cumberland Franklin York Berks Dauphin Snyder York Lehigh Erie Wayne Bucks Bucks Lancaster Lawrence Franklin Cumberland Snyder Snyder Indiana Adams Clarion Lancaster York York Franklin Lawrence Lawrence Name Nibert, Wm. Nichols, Oliver T. Nicodemus, Ed. Niering, Theo Niles, Ben E. Nissley, D. H. Nolt, Harrison S. Northrup, Dr. A. M. Norton, Carlos E. Noss, J. A. No well, Mary B. Oaks, J. J. Oats, Wm. O'Conner, Haldeman Offutt, N. A. Omwake Brothers Page, CM. Panovec, Victor Pannebaker, Wm. M. Parker, Capt. H. B. Paschal, John Passmore, Norman S. Passmore, S. S. Paxson, Edw. M. Paxson, Samuel L. Pedrick & Roemhild Pennock, Geo. S. Peters, John B. Pherson, J. L. PofF, Curvin Poor, D. W. Powers, R. A. Prather, E. M. Pratt, B. G. Pratt, Nat Raine, Tom W. Rankin, Chas. C. Ray, Edgar S. Redinger, Austin B. Reed, Merton Reichard, Chas. W. Reist, Henry G. Reiter, Francis G. Rhine, H. L. Rice, Daniel Richardson, W. F. Rich, John M. Rich, Charles M. Rick, John Riley, Raymond G. Ritter, Henry A. Est. Ritter, Elias Rinehart, E. S. Rittenhouse, S. B. Rittenhouse, Dr. J. S. Ritter, Astor Roberts, J. Earle Roberts, Byron Roberts, Horace Rohde, William Rohlfing, F. F. Rohrer, Geo. H. Romig Brothers Rosensteel, L. C. Post Office Indiana, R. D. Downingtown Waynesboro Wapwallopen, R. D. Henderson, Ky. Lancaster, 142 Chestnut St. Columbia, R. 1 Harrisburg Sewickley, Box IGO New Castle, R. 3 I^anghorne Chadds Ford Hanover, R. 3 Harrisburg, 13 N. Front St. Volant, R. 1 Greencastle Etters Easton, R. 2 Virgilina, Va. Boston, Mass. Kennett Square Glen Mills, R. 1 Mendenhall Lumberville, R. D. I^umberville Philadelphia, 122 Dock St. Lansdowne, 165 W. Essex Ave. Gardners Volant York, R. 5 Narrowsburg, N. Y. Sharpsburg, R. 2 Knoxville, Tenn. New York City, 50 Church St. EUijay, Georgia Fairview Germantown West Chester Oley, R. 2 MclCean Waynesboro Schenectady, N. Y. Mars McClure Elliottsville Whiteford, Md. Ellwood City, R. Reading, 431 Windsor St. Reading c/o C. K. Whitner Co North Girard Coopersburg Selinsgrove Mercersburg Lorane Lorane Allentown, R. 3 Philadelphia, 220 Dock St. Moorestown, N. J. Moorestown, N. J. Johnstown Hummelstown Dryville Downingtown Edri County Indiana Chester Franklin Luzerne Lancaster Lancaster Dauphin Allegheny Lawrence Bucks Chester York Dauphin Lawrence Franklin York Northampton Chester Delaware Delaware Bucks Bucks Philadelphia Delaware Adams Lawrence York Wayne Allegheny Erie Philadelphia Chester Berks Erie Franklin Butler Snyder Perry Lawrence Berks Berks Erie Lehigh Snyder Franklin Berks Berks Lehigh Philadelphia Cambria Dauphin Berks Chester Indiana Name Roth, Edwin Royer, John Rozelle, H. E. Ruhl, Dr. H. F. Runk, J. A. Russell, N. W. Russell, Mrs. Florence Rutt, Amos S. Rutter, Walter W. Sadler, C. H. Salsgiver, Andrew Sanchelli, Vincent Sanville, F. Satterthwaite, Lewis P. Satterthwaite, Frederick Schantz, H. A. Schantz, Horace Schantz, L. M. Schieferstein, William Schlegel, Edwin Scholl, W. J. SchoU Brothers Schoonover, W. E. Schreiber, Harry F. Schrope, John Schuldt, J. Carlton Seachman, George E. Seamn, George Searle, Alonza T. Seibert, H. Seitz, John B. Settlemeyer, C. T. Shaffer Bros. Shank, H. L. Sharp, Raymond D. Shattuck, J. H. Shaw, R. C. Shenk, D. W. Sheadle, Misses Adele, Lydia Shearer, Walter J. Sheble, Earl Shenot, Edward Shenot, C. P. Shenot, Henry Sherman, Mrs. F. T. Shultz, Chester K. Sidler, Anton Siegfried, A. H. Simmons, S. h. Simpson, J. A. Skinner, H. W. Skinner, Sam M. Slade, J. E. Slaybaugh, Glenn Sleighter, A. R. SmSiley, S. L., Jr. Smedley, Samuel, Sr. Smith, Geo. K. Smith, Lawrence Smith, Wm. M. Smith, Philip S. Smith, Roland M. Smith, A. Woodward Smith, William Post Office Fogelsville Akron Pittston, R. D. Manheim, Box 236 Huntingdon Erie, R. 6 Wellsboro, 33 West Ave. liancaster, R. 7 New Holland, R. 2 Emsworth, 215 Beaver Rd. Indiana, R. 7 Pittsburgh, 1628 Koppers Bldg. Westtown, Box 25 Newton Yardley Allentown, 538 Hamilton St. Allentown, 1736 Hamilton St. Orefield, R. 1 Leesport Stetlerville Barto MuUica Hill, N. J. Dallas, R. 3 Zionsville Hegins Elizabethtown Red Lion, R. 1 Honesdale Honesdale Springtown Royerstown Wilmore, R. D. Ariel Lancaster, R. 7 Manheim, R. 4 Erie, R. D. 6 Stewartstown Lancaster, R. 7 Jersey Shore, R. 4 Vinemont Hamburg, R. 2 Wexford Wexford Sharpsburg Frazer Barto York, R. 9 Selinsgrove Pittsburgh, R. 6 Indiana, R. 5 Chambersburg Shepherdstown, W. Va. Allentown, 25 N. 14th St. Gettysburg, R. 5 Chambersburg, R. 1 Newton Square Newton Square Akron _ ^^^ South River, N. J. Box 222 Crefield, R. 1 Laughlintown Marion Center, R. 2 Blairsville, R. 1 Berwick, R. 2 County Lehigh Lancaster Luzerne Lancaster Huntingdon Erie Tioga liancaster Lancaster Allegheny Indiana Allegheny Chester Bucks Bucks Lehigh Lehigh Lehigh Berks Lehigh Berks Luzerne Lehigh Schuylkill Lancaster York Wayne Wayne Bucks liancaster Cambria Wayne liancaster liancaster Erie York Lancaster Lycoming Berks Berks Allegheny Allegheny Allegheny Chester Berks York Snyder Allegheny Indiana Franklin Lehigh Adams Franklin Delaware Delaware Lancaster Lehigh Westmoreland Indiana Indiana Columbia Name Smith, G. C. Smith, S. A. Smith, Leonard Smith, G. E. Snavely, Ammon Westmont Farms Snavely, H. H. Snyder, Fred Snyder, Elmer R. Snyder, C. B. Snyder, C. B. Snyder, Simon R Snyder, L. S. Snyder, T. S. Spiegelmyer, S. H. Stahle, Carl Stark Brothers Nurseries Stauffer, T. H. Stauffer, Wallace Stear, J. R. Stein, Henry Stein, George E. and Son Stephens, A. Woodward Stitzer, C. E. Stonebraker, H. W. Stover, Jacob E. Strasbaugh, E. F. Stratton, Lawrence Straub, W. D. Strawser, A. A. Strong, T. M. Struble, Vernon T. Stuntz, H. E. Sudds, Richard H. Sun Oil Company Surface, Dr. H. A. Swank, Luke H. Swart z, Emma Swinderman, H. P. Tarbert, D. F. Taylor, Ralph S. Thomas, John M. Thayer, Paul Thomas, Charles T^. Thomas, Edwin W. Thomford, C. F. B. Treichler, Raymond Trexler, Harry C. Turrell, Elmore Tyler, W. D. Tyson, C. J. Tyson, E. C. Tyson, W. C. Uncle Peter*s Fruit Farm Verner, Leif Vierheller, A. F. Virginia State Hort. Assn. Vogel, E. H. Wagener, D. D. & Co. Wagner, Charles E. Wakefield, E. B. Walker, F. W. Walker, William Walp, Chas. F. Post Office Fairview Yoe Garden St., Mt. Holly, N. Bethlehem, R. 4 Manheim, R. 1 Lebanon, R. 5 Willow Street Avonmore, R. I Florin Ephrata Lititz, R. 3 Ephrata. R 1 Gardners Brodbecks McClure Manchester, R. 1 Louisiana, Mo. Lititz, R. 1 Quakertown, R. 3 Ligonier Woodville Wrightsville, R. 1 Mooresburg Mifflinburg, 221 Chestnut Indiana, R. 7 Springwood Farms, York, Orrtanna Smethport, R. 2 Middleburg, R. 4. Mt. Pleasant Mills Blairsville, R. 1 Athens Girard State College Philadelphia, 1608 Walnut Selinsgrove Johnstown Spring Grove Wexford Dallastown, R. 1 West Chester Dauphin, R. 1 Carlisle, R. 6 King of Prussia King of Prussia Kennett Square Coplay, R. 1 Allentown Noxen Dante, Va. Gardners Flora Dale Flora Dale Mt. Carmel Charlestown, W. Va. College Park, Md. Staunton, Va. Lancaster, R. 3 Easton, R. 2 McClure Homer City, Star Route Connoquenessing New Castle, R. 1 Berwick, 401 3rd St. County Erie York J. Lehigh Lancaster Lebanon Lancaster Westmoreland Lancaster Lancaster Lancaster Lancaster Adams York Snyder York Lancaster Lehigh Westmoreland Allegheny York Montour St. Union Indiana R. 9 York Adams McKean Snyder Snyder Indiana Bradford Erie Centre St. Philadelphia Snyder Cambria York Allegheny York Chester York Cumberland Montgomery Montgomery Chester Lehigh Lehigh Wyoming %] Adams Adams Adams Northumberland Lancaster Northampton Snyder Indiana Butler Lawrence Columbia 7wv Name Walton, Robert J. Ward, M. R. Watts, Gilbert Weaver, C. F. Weaver, Wm. S. Weaver, Abram Weber, Nelson Weicksel, Dr. Amelia Weigel, H. M. Weimer, E. A. Weinberger, J. H. Weinman, R. B. Welshans, D. D. Welshans, M. O. Wenger, C. P. Wernig, Charles M. Wertsch, Edwin Wertz, D. Maurice Wertz, George M. Westrick, F. A. Wheeler, W. S. Wheeler, C. B. Whisler, Edgar Whitcomb, Paul White, F. Hayes White, James W. Wickersham, C. T. Widders, J. B. Williams, Luther S. Wills, F. A. Wilson, Geo. E. Wink, Edwin F. Winter, M. L. Wister, John C. Witherow, R. T. Witman, John WohUn, Fred Wolff, F. B. Wolfe, Frank L. Wolfe, Joseph Wolfe, Charles A. Wolgemuth, A. M. Woodward, N. H. Woolsey, Claud Worley's Nursery Worthington, H. R. Worring, Oscar A. Yaple, L. B. Yoder, Ira L. Yohe, George S. Yohe, Jay W. Young, June Young, J. Fred Young, R. C. Youngs, L. G. Zeigler, E. Calvin Ziesenheim, J. R. Zook, I. F. Zook, Amos F. Post Office Hummelstown East Springfield Bellwood York, R. 9 Macungie Scalp Level Orefield Perkasie, R. D. Harrisburg Lebanon Zionsville Pittsburgh, Koppers Bldg. Jersey Shore, R. 3 Jersey Shore, R. 3 Ephrata, 402 S. State St. York, R. 2 Stevens, R. 2 Waynesboro Johnstown Patton, R. 2 North East Hunlocks Creek, R. 2 Etters York, R. 4 Liverpool, R. 1 County Home, Indiana East Springfield Lancaster, R. 3 Indiana, R. 1 , ^ Philadelphia, 1515 N. 26th St. Wilkinsburg, R. 1 Lenhartsville, R. 1 Hellman, R. 1 Germantown, Clarkson & Wister Streets Punxsutawney Reading, 434 Windsor St. Perrysville Lima North Girard Allentown, R. 1 Aspers Mt. Joy, R. 1 Mendenhall New York City, 535 Fifth Ave. York Springs West (Jhester Orefield . ^ „ t^, i Chillicothe, Ohio, Foulke Block Middleburg Spring Grove Fayetteville Narrowsburg, N. Y. EUwood City, R. 1 Chambersburg, R. 10 North East ^ ^^ York, 529 W. Market St. North Girard Curryville Lancaster, R. 5 County Dauphin Erie Blair York Lehigh Somerset Lehigh Bucks Dauphin Lebanon Lehigh Allegheny Lycoming Lycoming Lancaster York Lancaster Franklin Cambria Cambria Erie Luzerne York York Perry Indiana Erie Lancaster Indiana Philadelphia Allegheny Berks York Philadelphia Jefferson Berks Allegheny Delaware Erie Lehigh Adams Lancaster Delaware Adams Chester Lehigh Snyder York Franklin Wayne Lawrence FrankUn Erie York Erie Blair Lancaster INDEX PAGE Officers and Committees for 1933 - 4 President's Address ^ Report of Committee on Plant Diseases, R. S. Kirby 0 Weather Forecasting for Fruit Growers, George S. Bliss 11 After Effect of Drought Years, Leif Verner 14 Effect of Nitrogen Fertilization on the Recovery of a York Orchard from Drought Injury, R. D. Anthony 20 The Next Ten Years in the Fruit Industry, M. R. Cooper 24 Report of Committee on Insect Pests, H. E. Hodgkiss 36 Saving Money in the Orchard, F. N. Fagan 42 Brief Remarks by Dr. W. S. Hough of Winchester Laboratories, Win- chester, Virginia _ 48 Restrictions on Fruit Export and How to Meet Them, G. L. S. Carpenter 49 Factors Affecting Profits from Orchards, F. P. Weaver..... 56 Marketing Apples in Pennsylvania, D. M. James 63 Influence of Motor-Truck Transportation on the Fruit Industry, J. W. Park 69 Growers' Experiences with Truck Transportation and the Truck Peddler: The Truck as a Means of Long Distance Hauling, H. F. Hershey 80 Trucking Fruit South, H. A. Schantz 81 Selling to the Trucker, C. Frank Gillan 82 What Truck Competition Means to the Grower with a Local Market, J. A. Runk - - 84 The Trucker and the Present Grading Laws, D. M, James — 86 Business Meeting and Committee Reports: Secretary's Report, R. D. Anthony 88 Treasurer's Report, C. B. Snyder 88 Election of Officers 89 Report of Legislative Committee, C. J. Tyson 89 Report of Committee on Resolutions, S. W. Fletcher — 01 Report of State Farm Show Committee, H. S. Nolt._ 92 Report of Committee on Game Laws, J. A. Runk 94 Report of Committee on Game Commissions, H. C. Brinton 94 Federal-State Inspection Fund 95 Summer Trip 1933 95 A History of Fruit Growing in Pennsylvania, Part III, S. W. Fletcher (follows page) 96 Membership List to follow Dr. Fletcher's Article INDEX OF ADVERTISERS PAGE Spraying Equipment and Materials: ^^ Bean, John Mfg. Company ". ^^ Bowker Chemical Company ^ Central Chemical Company ^^ Field Force Pump Company ^^ General Chemical Company ^^ GrasseUi Chemical Company- ^ Hagerstown Spray Material Company " "7 ."r^r- Kolpers Products Company Inside front cover Mechling Brothers Chemical Company McCormick Company^ Outride' bacl^ cover Pratt, B. G. Company ^"^ ^^ Standard Chemical Company ^^ Sun Oil Company Fertilizers: 21 American Cyanamid Company ^^ American Lime and Stone Company ^^ Universal Gypsum and Lime Company.-- ^^ Warner Company Nurseries: 3^ Adams County Nurseries. - inside back cover Bountiful Ridge Nurseries - "^'^'^^ ^ Titus Nursery Orchard Supplies: ^5 Trexler Farms ^^ Tyson Orchard Service Commission Merchants: 27 C. C. Hess and Company ^^ Pedrick and Roemhild Patronize our Advertisers-They make these Publications Possible. Mention the Asso- ciation when ordering from, them. I New Low Prices For Sprins 1933 SEND us YOUR PROPOSED P^^^NTING LIST FOR SPE^^^^^ OUOTATIONS. SPECIAL PRICES TO ALL COOPERATIVE QUO I A 1 iur>» BUYING ORGANIZATIONS We speciaUze in the growing and distribution of fruit trees and small berry plants, selUng direct to the planters. berry plants being offered today by any nurseryman. For tried and proven products buy from Bountiful Ridse Nurseries Princess Anne, Md. Get Your Money's Worthl When you spray with Scalecide you not only control scale, check red mite and kill aphis, but you invigorate the trees. No orchard operation does so much in the building up and retaining the vigor of the trees as the dormant application of Scalecide. You simply cannot grow fruit with rundown trees. If you will build up your trees at this time— whether anyone else in the industry does it or not— you will have vigorous trees, bearing profitable crops when otheis are wondering why they cannot make money out of their fruit. LOWEST PRICES IN 28 YEARS Scalecid** is now being sold at the lowest prices in 28 years. The accumu- lated r. auction in the price of Scalecide during the past few years is the greatest in the insecticide industry. Plan now to put on a good thorough spray with Scalecide and revive the rundown trees. Scalecide does all that can be done at that particular time with any spray or combination of sprays. B. G. PRATT COMPANY Dept. D !i! 50 CHURCH STREET NEW YORK ''Makes a Tree OuWrow Its Troubles