SItjp i. '£. Itll 3itbrara ^ovtl} (Earoliita ^tal? Initiprflitg SB608 P3S5 1*7089 Digitized by tine Internet Archive in 2009 with funding from NCSU Libraries http://www.archive.org/details/peachyellowsprelOOsmit DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, BOTANICAL DIYISIOX. BULLEiTiisr :>^o. 9. SECTION OF VEGETABLE PATHOLOGY. ;E^EACH YELLOWS: A PRELIMINARY REPORT . BY ElRAV^IISr F. S]MITH, B. So. SPECIAL AGENT. y A PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE. YV^ASHINGTOIsr: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, ISSS. IIL'45— Xo. 9 1 / LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith the report of Mr. Erwiii F. Smith, who was appointed by you as a special agent to investigate peach yellows, under the direction of this section. This report em- bodies the researches so far made by Mr. Smith as well as a history of the disease in this country. Eespectfully, B. T. Galloway, Chief of the Section of Vegetable Pathology. Norman J. Colmats^, Commissioner of Agriculture. 1 7081 LETTER OF SUBMITTAL. Washington, D. C, November 10, 1888. Sib : This preliminary report, prepared by request iii advance of a report ou the aetiology of the " yellows," embraces all the trustworthy information I have been able to gather during sixteen months of con- tinuous observation and inquiry. It is too much to expect that it is entirely free from errors, but every statement has been repeatedly scru- tinized, and an honest endeavor has been made to briug each one to the test of actual facts, irrespective of previous opinion. The iield work received special attention, and will, I think, throw light upon a number of important points. Some experiments have been completed, some are now under way, and some remain to be performed. Much additional field work and a large body of very important microscopic work remain to be done be- fore definite conclusions can be reached as to the cause of the disease In m}- judgment, however, the results already obtained are sutficient to warrant the vigorous prosecution of the investigation in the field and in the laboratory, and to lead to the belief that the cause of the disease will bo defiuitely settled in the near future. Throughout the investigation peach growers in all parts of the coun- try have manifested a very lively interest, and have materially facili- tated my work. Very respectfully, Erwin F. Smith, Special Agent. To B. T. Galloway, Chief of the Section of Vegetable Pathology, Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. TABLE OF CONTENTS. Pag©. 1. History and distribution : (1) Fruits affected, etc 9 (2) GeograpWcal distribution 9 (3) Early history of peach growing in the eastern United States, show- ing marked suitability of climate 10 (4) First appearance of yellows 17 (5) Extension of yellows since 1830 23 (a) Northward and northeastward movement 23 (&) Westward and northwestward movement 32 (c) Sauthwestward movement 53 (6) Conclusions drawn from history and literature of yellows 83 II. Characteristics of the disease (drawn from field studies) 84 (1) First year of attack 85 (2) Second year of attack 90 (3) Third and later years 91 (4) Digest of symptoms 93 (5) Diseases mistaken for yellows 93 III. Losses due to yellows : (1) Destructive nature of the malady (field studies) 96 (2) Extent of i)each industry in the United States 107 (3) Value of peach products 108 (4) Value of peach farms Ill (5) Depreciation of real estate due to yellows 112 IV. Conditions known or supposed to favor the disease : (1) Climatic conditions 114 (a) Non-adaptation of the peach to our climate 114 (&) Supposed general change in climatic conditions 115 (c) Early autumn frosts 115 (d) Cold winters 120 (e) Excessive rain-fall 122 (2) Earth conditions 124 (a) Exhaustion or infertility of soil 124 (b) Wet aud rich soils.: 140 (3) Artificial or culture conditions (a) Neglect of cultivation 141 (6) Neglect of pruning 141 (c) Excessive use of nitrogenous manures 142 (d) Degeneracy due to continued propagation by budding 142 (e) Propagation by means of imperfect or diseased pits 143 (/) Diseased buds - 149 (g) Spread of the disease by infected pruning knives or saws 155 (h) Nurseries not responsible for all of the outbreaks 155 7 8 CONTENTS. -i Page. IV. CoKblTlOXS KNOWN oil SUPPOSED TO FAVOR THE DISEASE— Coutinued. (4) Media nical or vital iiijiirios (a) Injuries by men or qaadrupeds 15d (6) Injury by borers 158 ( c) Root aphides 160 (d) Fungi 165 V. Restrictive Legislation : (1) Wliere it has beea tried 170 (2) What has been accomplished 171 (3) Wliar may be hoped 177 VI. Conclusions as to cause oxi" yellows : (1) Hyi)olheses ruled out 178 (2) Hypotheses probably ruled out 179 (ii) Remaining probable hypotheses 179 Appen'dix a. — Chemical analj'ses 181 Appendix H. — Legal enactments 198 Explanation of plates 209 Maps. (Seven orchard maps ; one map of infected district iu New Jersey, Mary- land, and Delaware ; one map of United States.) Plates. (Lithographic and photo -engraved, 37 iu uumber. ) Index 213 CORRIGENDA. Page 27, read "I. M. Smalley" for "J. McSmalley." Page 51, the .statemeut for Kent Couuty, in sixth line of seventh paragraph, must be modified slightly, Charles W. Gartipld having seen premature peaches due to ye'lows on oue tree of Early Alexander, iu July, 1882, on the farm of William H. Anderson, iu Sparta township, 12 miles northwest of Grand Rapids. The tree was dug out, and careful search revealed no others in that orchard or elsewhere iu the township. Pago 63, i'lTst foot-note, for "152 (?) car-loads" read " 102 car-loads." Pajre 210, second paragraph, read "one foi'ty-fifth" instead of "one thirty-fifth." Map IV, southeast corner, the circle printed by mistake on the yellow dot should berfa Vol. I, p. 153; History of New Jersey, by John O. Raum, p. 108, Stacy's letter was ■written from " Falls of the Delaware," April 26, 1680, to his brother Revcll and others iu England. '""History of the Peach in America," Loreu Blodgett. The Gardeners' Monthly, Philadelphia, 1882, p. 347; see also Frond's History of Pennsylvania in America, Vol. I, p. 249. EARLY HISTORY OF PEACH IN UNITED STATES. lo Campauiiis records fiiuUng peaches in three places along the Dela- ware. Hennepin snys : The psaches there [iu Louisiana] are like those of Europe and bear very good fruit in such abundance that the savages are often obliged to prop up the trees with forked sticks. DnPratz thinks it probabl;> that peaches were introducetl into Lou- isiana by the Indians prior to French occupation ; the aborigines having obtained them from the Euglisli colonj^ in Carolina. This is the most probable origin of those found by Hennepin, De Soto's visit to tlie Mississippi one hundred and fifty years before having been under conditions not at all favorable either to the transportation or the plant- ing of peach pits. Stacy writes from New Jersey : I have traveled through most of the places that are settled, and some that are not ; and in everyplace I find the country very apt to auswer the expectation of the dili- gent. I have seen orchards laden with fruit to admiration ; their very limbs torn to pieces by the weight, and most delicious to the taste and los'ely to behold. I have seen an apple tree from a pippin kernel yield a barrel of curious cider, and peaches in such plenty that some people took their carts a peach gathering ; I could not but smile at the conceit of it ; they arc very delicate fruit, and hang almost like our onions that are tied ou ropes. William Penn says: The fruits I llnd in the woods are white and black mulberry, chestnut, walnut, plumbs, strawberries, cranberries, hurtleberries, and grapes of divers sorts. * * * Here are also peaches and very good and in great quantities, not an Indian planta- tion without them ; but whether naturally here at first I know not. However, one may have them by bushels for very little ;' they make a pleasant drink and I think not inferior to any peach you have iu England, except the true Newington.' According to Kobert Beverly ^ peaches grew abundantly in Virginia at the beginoing of the eighteenth century. He says : Peaches, nectarines, and apricots, as well as plumbs and cherries, grow there upon standard trees. They commonly bear in throe years from the stone, and thrive so ex- ceedingly that they seem to have no need of grafting or inoculating, if anybody would be so good a husband ; and truly I never heard of any that did graft either plumb, nectarine, peach, or apricot in that country, before the first edition of this book [London, 1705]. Peaches and nectarines I believe to be spontaneous somewhere or other on the con- tinent, for the Indians have, and ever had, greater variety and finer sorts of them than the English. The best sort of these cling to the stone and will not come off clear, which they call plum nectarines and plum peaches, or clingstones. Some of these are 12 or 13 inches in the girth. ^ These sorts of fruits are raised so easily there that ' Wm. Penn, proprietor and governor of Pennsylvania, first landed iu America in October, 1632. The long descriptive letter from which this paragraph is taken was written August 16, 1683, from Philadelphia "To the Committee of the Free Society of Traders of that province, residing in London." - The Eistorif of Vlrglma, by Robert Beverly, a native and inhabitant of the place. Reprinted from the author's second revised edition, London, 17-3'2. J. W. Randolph, Richmond, Va.. 1855, p. 259. •'In August, 1837, I received two Pnllen's Seedlings from John Buruite, of Feltou, Del., which measured respectively 9J and 9| inches: and in August, 1833, I saw a Reeves's Favorite, 10 inches in circumference. 14 SPECIAL REPORT OX PEACH YELLOWS. some i;ood liasbaiids plaufc great orclaards of them, purposely for their hogs ; and others make a driuk of them, which they can mobby, and drink it as cider, or distil it off for branfly. This makes the best spirit next to j^rapes. Ill 1733 peaches grew plentifully in Georgia, as indicated by the fol- lowing quotation:' Mulberries, both black and white, are natives of this soil, and are found in the woods, as are many other sorts of fruit trees of excellent kinds, and the growth of them is surprisingly' swift ; for .a peach, apricot, or nectarine tree will, from the stone, grow to be a bearing tree iu four or five years' time [p. HO]. They have oranges, lemons, apples, and pears, besides the peach and apricot men- tioned before. Some of these are so delicious that whoever tastes them will despise the insipid, watery taste of those we have in England ; and yet such is the plenty of them that they are given to the hogs in great quantities (p. 51). On September 18, 1740, Mr. Thomas Jones writes from Savannah to Mr. John Lyde as follows :^ As to our fruit, the most common are peaches and uectariues (I believe that I had a hundred bushels of the former this year in my little garden in town) ; we have also apples of divers sorts, cliincopin nuts, walnut, chestnut, hickory, and ground nuts. In 1741 Sir John Oldmixon writes of Virginia : ' Here is such plenty of peaches that they give them to their hogs ; f^ome of them, called malachotoons, are as big as a lemon and resemble it a little. Of Carolina he writes, quoting Mr. Archdale : Everything generally grows there that will grow iu any part of Europe, there being already many sorts of fruits, as apples, pears, apricots, nectarines, etc. They that once taste of them will despise the watery, washy taste of those in England. There's such plenty of them that they are given to the hogs. In four or five years they come from a stone to be bearing trees. In 1748 the naturalist, Peter Kalm, traveled extensively in Pennsyl- vania, Isew Jersey, and other parts of eastern North America. Kalm was a shrewd and observant man. From his interesting records, which bear the stamp of truth, I quote as follows:'' [September 17, 1748, at Mr. Bartram's country seat, 4 miles south of Philadelphia]: Every countryman, even a common peasant, has an orchard near his house, in which all sorts of fruits, such as peaches, apples, pears, cherries, and others are iu plenty. The peaches are now almost riiie. They are rare in Europe, particularly in Sweden, for in that country hardly any people besides the rich taste them. But here every countryman had an orchard full of peach trees, which were covered with such quan- tities of fruit that wo could scarcely walk in the orchards without treading on those which were fallen off, many of which were always left on the ground, and only part of them was sold in town and the rest was consumed by the family and strangers, for every one that passed by was at liberty to go into the orchard and to gather as many ^A Xew and Accurate Account of the Provinces of South . Carolina and Georgia. Loudon, 1733. Said to be by General Oglethorpe. Reprinted in CoJIections of the Georgia Historical Society. Vol. 1, Savannah, 1840. -An impartial inquiry into the state and utiUtji of the province of Georgia. London: 1741. Presumed to be by Benjamin Martin, esq. Reprinted in Collections of the Georgia Historical Society, Vol. I, 1840, p. 199. ' The British Empire in America, by John Oldmixon. Second edition, London : 1741. Vol. I, pp. 440 and 515. '^Travels into North America, by Peter Kalm; translated into English by John R. Forster, F. A. S. AVarringtou: 1770. Vol. I. EARLY HISTORY OF PEACH IN UNITED STATES. 15 of them as tbey w;inted. Nay, this line fruit was frequently jjiven to the swine (pp. 71-7i2). [Here follows a paragraph telling how the fruit is dried for winter use.] The peach trees have, as I am told, heen first planted here by the I^uropeaus. But at present they succeed very well, and require even less care tlian our [Swedish] apple and pear trees. The orchards have sjldoni other fruit than apples and peaches (p. 73). [September 21. Nine miles northwest of Philadelphia, at the country-seat of Mr. Peter Cock]: As we went on in the wood we continually saw at moderate distances little fields, which had been cleared of the wood. Each of these was afai-m. * * * Every countryman, even though he was the poorest peasant, had an orchard, with apples, peaches, etc. (p. 88). [September 22, same locality] : They make brandy from peaches here after the fol- lowing method. * » * This brandy is not good for people who have a more refined taste, but it is only for the common kind of people, such as workmcu and the like (p. 94). [September 26]: Mr. BartraiH was of the opinion that the apple tree was brought into America by the Europeans, and that it never was there before their arrival. But lie looked upon peaches as an original American Iruit, and as growing wild in thegreat- est part of America. Others again were of the opinion that they were first brought over by the Europeans. But all the French in Canada agreed that on the banks of the Mississippi and in the country thereabouts peaches were found growing wild in great quantity (p. 127). October the 27th. In the morning I set out [from Phihidelphia] on a little journey to New York, in company with Mr. Peter Cock, with a view to see the country, and to inquire into the safest road which I could take in going into Canada.^ # » • That part where we traveled at present [i. c, on the west bank of the Delaware, between Philadelphia and Trenton] was pretty well inhabited on both sides of the road by Englishmen, Germans, and other Europeans. * » * Near almost every farm was a great orchard, with peach and apple trees, some of which were yet loaded withfinit (p. 21G). Kaliu crossed the Delaware at Trenton in the evening, and continued his journey on October 28, from Trenton via Princeton, where they stopped over night. He found the country thickly settled and full of orchards : During the greater part of the day we had very extensive corn fields on both «ides of the road. * ^ >' Near almost every farm was a spacious orchard full of peach and apple trees, and in some of them the fruit had fallen from the trees in such quan- tities as to cover nearly the whole surface. Part of it they left to rot, because they could not take it all in and consume it. Wherever we passed by we were always welcoruc to go into the fine orchards and gather our hats and pockets full of the choicest fruit, without the possessors so much as looking after it (pp. 222-223). On October 29 the journey was continued via New Brunswick: Almost near every favm-house were great orchards (p. 227). In 1758 Du Pratz speaks of peaches in Louisiana as follows:^ The peaches are of the kind we call alberges ; and contain so much water that they ' Later, Avhen Kalm was in Canada, he notes the reported occurrence of peaches in the southern parts of Canada and to the southwest in the Mississippi region, but makes no mention of having himself seen them in Canada. - Tlic History of Louisiana, or of the western parts of Virginia and Carolina, trans- lated from the French (lately published), by M. Le Page Du Pratz. London, 1763, Vol. II., p. 17. 16 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELT.OWS. make a kiud of witie of it. » * * Onv colonists i)lant tlie peach stones about tbe end of February, and suffer the trees to grow exposed to all weathers. In the third year they will gather from one tree at least two bundled peaches, and double that auionut for six or seven years more, when the tree dies irrevocably. As new trees are so easily produced, the loss of the old ones is not in the least regretted. la 1756 Israel Acreliiis returned to Sweden from tbe Delaware re- gion, where he had been the resident elergy man for some years. From bis book, which is more trnstwortliy tluni that of Campanins, I quote as follows : ' Peach trees stand within an iuclosure by themselves ; grow even iu the stouii-st places without culture. The fruit is the most delicious that the month can taste, and often allowable in fevers. One kind, called clingstones, are considered the best ; in these the stoues arc not loose from the fruit as in the others. Many have poach or- chards chiefly for the purpose of feeding their swine, which are not allowed to run at large. They first bloom, in March, the tlowers coming out before the leaves, and are often injured by the frosts ; they are ripe toward the close of August. This fruit is re- garded as indigenous, like maize and tobacco ; for as far as any Indians huve been seen in the interior of the country these plauts are found to extend. In one of his chapters on the '^General state of Pennsylvania between the years 17G0 and 1770," Proud says:" In some places peaches are so common and plentiful that the country people feed their hogs with them. In 1703 Thomas Cooper spent the autumn and winter in tbe United States, and on his return to England published a book in which are the following statements, apparently in part, at least, gathered at first hand :•' Every farm home iu the Middle aud Southern States has its peach orchard and its apple orchard, and, with all their slovenliness, abundance and content are evident in every habitation (p. 51). At Norfolk, Va., peaches sold for Id. aud 2d. per dozen (p. 96). At '.. ineh( ster, Va., the price of peaches was from 2s. to 4s. per bushel, Virginia currency (p. 100). In Virginia aud Maryland peaches and apples afford peach and apple brandy ; the latter is an indifferent spirit ; the former, when well made, carefully rectified, aud kept iu a cask for some years, is as hue liquor as I have ever tasted (p. 121). At Paxton, near Harrisburg, Mr. M'Allister had several peach trees but only recently planted. This man also had a few apricot and nec- tarine trees. He gives Gd. apiece for apple and peach trees, about three or four years old, that is fit to plant out (p. 129). Peach trees [same place] grow about the thickness of one's thumb and 4 or 5 feet high in one year from the stone, aud bear fruit iu four years from the stone (p. 130). In 1705 Winterbotham writes : ^ The apples of this State [Maryland] are large but mealy ; the peaches plenty and good. From these the inhabitauts distill cider and peach brandy (p. 36). ^ 1 The Hislorji of New Sweden, or the Settlevients on the River Delaware, by Israel Ac- relius. Stockholm. 1759. Translated from the Swedish by William M. Reynolds, D. D., Philadelphia, 1876, being Vol. XI of the Memoirs of the Historical Socictt/ of Peim- sijlvania. Pp. 151,152. ".L. c, Vol. II, p. 266. ^Some Ivformaiion Eespeclind America, collected by Thomas Cooper, late of Man- chester. London, 1794. * An Historical, GcograjMcal, Commercial, and rhilosopMcal View of the American United States, etc., by W. Winterbotham. London, 1795. Vol. III. FIRST APPEARANCE OF YELLOWS. 17 In soiuo couuties [of Virginia] tLey have plenty of cider, and exquisite brandy dis- tilled from peaches, which grow in great abundance hi)ou the numerous rivers of the Chesapeake (p. 84). Little atteutioii appears to have been given to the systematic cultiva- tion of the peach even during the eighteenth century. The trees were transplanted, or grown in place from pits, and then left to themselves. Even as late as 1804 such treatment was not infrequent.' Nevertheless the peach flourished. FIRST APPEARANCE OF YELLOWS. However, in the vicinity of Philadelphia and along the Delaware, where from past experience the climate was known to be very favorable, more attention was given to peach orchards after the Eevolution; and here, prior to 1800, there began to be great complaint of the increasing degeneracy of the peach. In marked contrast with its former habit it was now declared to be very short-lived and disappointing. So general was this decay that in May, 1796, the American Philosophical Society offered the following premium, one of five: For the best method, veriiied by experiment, of preventing the premature decay of peach trees, ii premium of.|(JO. Papers on this subject will be received till the 1st day of January, 1798.- This premium was finally divided between John Ellis, of New Jersey, and Thomas Coulter, formerly of Delaware but then of Bedford County, Pa. Both men associated the trouble directly or indirectly with in- sects,^ and Mr. Ellis gives a rough but fairly correct account of the dep- redations of the borer, J^(jcria ejcitiosa. Say. There is no mention in either paper of any symptoms at all like yellows. It does not appear that the peach borer was responsible for the en- tire trouble, though unquestionably the habits of this insect have not changed during the last hundred years. Ten years later, February 11, 1806, Judge Richard Peters read be- fore the Philadelphia Society for Promoting Agriculture'' a paper "on peach trees," in which he says : About fifty years ago [between 1750 and 1760], on the farm on Avhich I now reside [Belmont, now inchuled in Fairraouut Park in the west part of Philadelphia], my father had a lai'ge iieach orchard, which yielded abundantly. Until a general catas- trophe befell it jilentiful crops had been for many years produced with very little attention. The trees began nearly at once to sicken, and finally perished. Whether by the wasp l^geria'] then undiscovered, or by some change in our climate, I know ^An Epitome of Mr. Forsi/th^s Treatise on the Culture and Manafjemcnt of Fruit Trees. By an American Farmer. Phila., 1804. '^Tr. Am. Pkilo^oplncal Soc, Phila., 1799, Vol. IV, p. 5. ^Tr. Am. Fhilo. Soc, Phila., Vol. V, Appendix, pp. 325-328, '^Memoirs of the Fhiladelpkia Society for Promoting Agriculture, Phila., Pa., 1815, pp. 15-24. 11245— No. 9 2 18 SPECIAL REPORT 0\ PEACU YELLOWS. not.' For forty years past I Lave observed tlie peach trees iii my ueighborliood to be short-lived. Farther south, in the western country, and, it seems, in some i)arts of New Jersey [apparently not in all] they are durable and productive as they had been formerly here. » * ^ The worm or grub, produced by the wasp depositinjr its progeny in the soft bark near the surface of the ground, is the most common de- stroyer. *■ » » When trees become sickly I grub theiu up. I find that sickly trees often infect those in vigor near them by some morbid effluvia. Although I have had trees twenty years old, and knew some of double that age (owing probably to the induration of the bark rendering it impervious to the wasp, and the strength acquired when they had survived early misfortunes), yet in general they do not live in tolerable health after bearing four or five crops. * * * Fifteen or sixteen years ago [1790-'D1] I lost one hundred and tifty peach trees in full bearing in the coiirse of two summers by a disease engendered in the first season. I attribute its origin to some morbid infection in the air. ** * * The disorder being generally prevalent would, among animals, have been called an epidemic. From perfect verdure the leaves turned yellow in a few [?] days, and the bodies blackened in spots. Those distant from the point of infection gradually caught the disease. I procured young trees from a distance in high health and planted them among the least diseased. In a few [?] weeks they became sickly, and never recovered. * * * After my gen- eral defeat and most complete overthrow, in which the worm had no agency, I re- cruited my peaches from distant nurseries, not venturing to take any out of those in my vicinity. I have since experienced a few instances of tliis malady, and have promptly, on the first sympton)s appearing, removed the subjects of it, deeming their cases desperate in themselves and tending to the otherwise inevitable destruction of others. Judge Peters said lie then had two hundred trees of all ages — thirty- two varieties ; Mr. Coxe, of Rurlingtou, N. J., had " double that number," and Edward Heston, a neighbor of Peters, had "seven or eight hun- dred trees * * * now in vigor, and very productive." On page 23 Judge Peters adds, in a note of later date : Mr. Heston begins to suffer by the disease I call the yellows, though he has fewer worms than common in other modes [of cultivation]. Nearly two years later, September, 1807,^ Judge Peters records in a brief note, that — As I predicted, the yellows are sceir making destructive ravages in Mr. Heston's peach plantation. I have lost a great proportion of my trees [the 200] by the same malady this year, some of them young and vigorous. We have had two successive rainy seasons. I do not recollect ever to have seen more general destruction among peach trees throughout the whole of the country. It seems that excessive moisture is one of the primary causes of this irresistible disease. Again we read : ^ I am pursuing my old plan of re-instating my peach trees lost last seasou [180G or 1807] by my unconquerable foe, the disease I call the yellows. I obtain them from different nurseries free from this i)estiferous affection. The worm or wasp [Jujcriul 'In The Niw England Farmer, or Geordiral Dictionary, Worcester, Mass., 1790, Samuel Dean .ilso complains of a degeneracy of peach trees dating back to about 17(i0. His statements are as follows: "We have room for making great improvements, it seems, in the culture of this fruit. Wliat we call the rare-ripe is almost the only sort I have seen that is worth cultivating. And this kind within thirty years seems to have greatly degenerated. I apprehend it is time that these were renewed by bring- ing the trees or stones from some other country." (P. 208. ) - Memoirs of the Philadelphia Society for Promotiny Ayricultnrc, Phila., Pa., 1815, p. 24. ^/&i(?., p. 120. k FIRST APPEAKANCi: OF YFLLOWS. 19 I hiivo ill complete subjection. I should be perfectly disinterested iu proposiug tluit the society otter a premium for preveutiug the disease so fatal ; for I shall never gaia the reward. Agaiu Jiulge Peters writes : I still thiuk [November 17, 1807] ' that the disease so generally fatal (more so this year than any other iu my memory), called the yellows, is atmospherical. ^ * * Compare this account [of thrifty orchards in Delaware] with the actual state of the peach iu our country, and Judge whether we live in a region favorable to its growth. Mr. Hestou's attempt at cultivating this tree iu the Southern manner begins already to fail. His trees are evidently infected, and many ai'e on the decline. The yellows are universally prevalent this season throughout the whole country [i. e., around Philadelphia]. It is to be regretted tbat with all bis xA'riting Jiulge Peters left no clear account of the symptoms of the disease. There is notbiug more definite than the following remark : The shoots of the last season were remarkably injured by the excessive drought, and the extremities of many limbs are entirely dead [February 11, 180C]. Tegu- ments of straw or bass [placed around the truuk to keep away the borers] maile the bark tender audit threw out under the covering sickly shoots. This incidental mention of " sicldy sboots" and dead extremities, coupled with tbe other statements quoted, render it liijely enough that the appe;irauces which he attributed to other causes were really due to what we now call yellows. So far as I know, Judge Peters was the first to apply the term yellows to a disease of tbe peach. Dr. James Tilton, of Bellevne, near Wilmington, Del., expresses him- self more explicitly and leaves no doubt tbat tbe disease which he saw was identical with the one now prevalent. In a letter to Judge Peters, November 6, 1807,^ he says : The disease and early death of our peach trees is a fertile source of observation, far from being exhausted. » * * Even that sickly appearance of the tree called the yellows, attended by numerous weakly shoots on the limbs generally, is attributed to insects by a late writer iu our newspapers. There is no mention of premature fruit, associated with the " weakly shoots " as a part of tbe disease, but, as an effect of climate, mention is made tbat '' a fine early peach, which ripened iu jS^ortbampton, Va., so early as June, did not ripen on my farm before tbe last of August or tbe first of September." In the same communication Dr. Tilton speaks of "measures proposed in our newspapers for curing the yellows," as though the disease bad become general. I havenodoubt tbat Doctor Tilton saw yellows in 1S07, and am strongly inclined to think tbat Judge Peters was talking about the same disease. Clearly Doctor Tilton thought so. This would put back the first ap- pearance of peach yellows to some time prior to 1791. Eeturning to 1800-07 we may inquire to what extent this new dis- ease was prevalent. Tbe foregoing citations show clearly enough tbe condition of orchards around Philadelphia. ' Memoirs of the Philadelphia Sociefi/ for rromot'nuj Agricidiure, Phila., Pa., 1315, p. 189. •"lUd., pp. 192-197. 20 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. Mr. William Coxe, a nnrserymau and fruit-grower who lived at Bur- liugtoii, N. J., 20 miles northeast of Philadelphia, writes to Judge Pe- ters on April 5, 1807 : ' I am perfectly ignoraut of the disease to wlilcli you give the uanie of yellows. Nothiug of this description bas ever appeared among my peach trees. For four or five years past my trees have borne well and have resisted the worms. Doctor Tilton writes to Judge Peters : ^ In my jaunt through Maryland I was attentive to the subject of your letters. I found the peach trees generally were long-lived, healthy, and bore well. In Edward Lh>yd's garden [at Wye House, near Tunis Mills, Talbot County] I observed some of these trees 15 or 18 inches in diameter and perfectly healthy. Colonel Nichols, near Easton [ Talbot County, 95 miles southwest of Philadelp-hia], abounds in the best kind of peaches.3 He is an old residenter, and particularly attentive to fruits. In reference to Delaware, Judge Peters himself says:^ I received verbally from a wealthy farmer, Mr. Bellah, who is the proprietor of a considerable landed estate in Delaware [near Dover], the following account, wliicli he says is generally applicable to the culture of peaches in the southern country: "In Kent County, Del., they cultivate the peacli without any difliculty or risk. * * * They obtain fruit in three years in i>lenty ; and the trees have been known to endure fifty years. No worms or diseases assail them. * ^ * There are orchards of 50 and 70 acres, and some larger in Accomac'"' and other parts of the isthmus l>e- tweeu the bays of Chesapeake and Delaware, farther south." Timothy Matlack, esq., writing " On Peach Trees " in 1808,*^ from Lan- caster, G.J miles west of Philadelphia, speaks of the borer, but does not mention yellows. It would appear, therefore, from these statements and from consider- able additional negative evidence, that at this date, 18O0-'07, the dis- ease was restricted to a small area around Philadeli)hia, including probably a portion of New Jersey and upper Delaware. ' Memoirs of the VMladeJpliia Society for Promoting Agriculture, Phila., Pa., 1815, p. I'^O. 'Jhiil.,]y.ldG. '"This tree was introduced at Easton, Talbot County, Md., by George Robbins, in about 1735. The stones were received by [him from] Peter Collinson, of England, to- gether with the seeds of that year." — The Soiitltern Apple conl Peach CitltHrisf, by James Fitz and .1. W. Fitz, Richmond, Va., 1872, p. 225. ■^Memoirs of the Philadelphia Society for Promoliinj Jjiriciilliirc, Phila., Pa., 1815, pp 18t», 190. ■'•In 1814 Mr. Bayley, of Accomac County, had 03,000 peach trees, the product of which he converted into brandy. He had then been in the business more than ten years. "The age of a peach orchard Mr. Bayley estimates at tweuty years. He has seen them mucb older, but thinks more profit is to be had by replanting at the end of tweuty years. A tree is nearly in perfection the sixth year, when it will yield annually at the rate of 15 gallons of fourth-proof brandy for every hundred trees. The price of this liquor before the war [of 1812 ] was $1 .50, and now 12 per gallon." Peach borers were common, but there is no mention of any disease. — Quoted from Mr. Ged- des in The Farmer^s Jsmtant, by John Nicholson, es(i., of Herkimer, N. Y., published by Benjamin Warner, Philadelphia and Richmond, 1820. >^ Memoirs of the Philadelphia Society for Promoting Agriculture, Phila., Pa., 1815, pp. 278-284. FIRST APPEARANCE OF YELLOWS. 21 From this elate the disease gradually extended into Kew Jersey, Dela- ware, Maryland, New York, and other States. Mr. Coxe, of New Jersey, who knew nothing about yellows in 1807, knew it apparently only too well in 1817,' for lie says of the peach : It is, wbeu in perfection, the tinest fruit of our country for beauty and flavor; it is deeply to be regretted tbat its duration is so sbort, and tbat it is subject to a malady wbicb no remedy can cure nor cultivation arrest. Of tlie numberless modes of mit- igating or preveutiug the diseases of tbe peacb tree, with which our public prints are daily teeming, none have yet been found effectual. The ravages of the worm, which destroys the roots and trunk of this tree, may be sometimes prevented and with care may beat all times rendered less destructive, but the malady which destroys much the largest portion of tbe trees has hitherto baffled every effort to sabdne it ; neither its source nor the precise character of the disease api^ear to be perfectly understood. In one of the consequencesof this disease every cultivator of the tree will agree, that it can not be cultivated with success on the site of a former plantation until some years and an intermediate course of cultivation have intervened ; in a nursery estab- lished on ground previously occupied by peach trees the stones may possibly sprout, but in a few [?] weeks they will assume a languishing appearance, tiie leaves will turn yellow, they will dwindle, and the greater part will perish the first season. If trees are brought from a sound nursery and planted on the site of an old orchard, or in a garden previously occupied by them, or among old trees, the young planta- tion will share the same fate with the nursery plants, it will seldom survive the first season, and it will never be vigorous or thrifty. The fine peaches which are raised for tlie Philadelphia market are cultivated in the following manner. [Here follows an account of the method of cultivation, not dif- ferent from that now in use in Maryland and Delaware.] With this management [which included search for borers in the spring, suumier, and autumn], a peach or- chard near a market, or on navigable waters, will be a ]irofitable a]iplication of land, but no precautions will insure its duration beyond two or three, or at the utmost four [bearing?] years. If it succeeds even for this short time, with a judicious selection of kinds, the product will amply remunerate the trouble and expense, beyond any other mode of employing the laud in this country. The proper soil for a peach orchard is a rich sandy loam ; I have no recollection of a very productive one on very stiff or cold land. As early as 1810, according to Darling,^ and 1814, according to Downing,^ the disease had already destroyed " a considerable part of all the orchards" in New Jersey, and had made its appearance on the banks of tbe Hiidson and in Connecticut.^ Mr. Coxe in his treatise — all the pertinent portions of which I have quoted — does not mention premature fruit. The earliest reference to this as one of the symptoms of yellows is by William Prince, of Flush- ing, Long Island, in 1828. Mr. Prince was a famous nurseryman. His extensive knowledge of theoretical and practical horticulture, together 1 A Fiew of the Cultivation of Fruit Trees, etc., by Wm. Coxe, esq., of Burlington, N. J., pp. 215-217. Phila., 1817. 2 The Yellows in Peach Trees, by Noyes Darling, New Haven, Conn., December 2, 1844. The Cultivator, Albany, N. Y., 1845, pp. 60-62. ^Fruits and Fruit Trees of America, by A. J. Downing. Revised edition, N. Y., 1865, p. 600. *See also Nil s's TVeekhi Register, Baltimore, Md., 1816, p. 262, and Farmers' Register, Petersburgh, Va., 1841, pp. 357-8. 22 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. with bis good general knowledge of botany, not oidy made liim familiar witb the disease, but fitted bim to write upon it witb some degree of exactness, altbougb be does not always distinguish clearly between tilings proved and things probable. He describes the disease which we now call "yellows," and leaves no doubt whatever that be has in mind the same disease mentioned by earlier and less explicit writers, such as Coxe and Peters. For these reasons, and because the book is seldom found, even in public libraries, I have here transcribed all that relates. to yellows: ' Tljeie are two causes that have operated aj^ainst tlie success of this tree [tlie peach], aud which seeiu peculiar to it — the oue is a worm wliich attacks the tree at the root, near the surface of the ground, and often totally encircles it; ihe other is a disease visually denominated the j'ellows. [Here follows an account of the borer. ] Yellows. — This disease which couimenced its ravages in New Jersey and Pennsyl- vania about the year 1797, and in New York in 1801, and has spread through seveial of the States, is by far more destructive to peach trees than the worm, aud is evidently contagions. This disease is spread at the time when the trees are in bloom, and is disseminated by the pollen or farina blowing from the Howers of the diseased trees, and impregnating the flowers of those which are healthy and which is (juickly circu- lated by the sap through the branches, aud fruit, causing the fruit, wherever the in- fection extends, to ripen prematurely. That this disease is entirely distinct from the ■worm is sufficiently proved by the circumstance that peach trees which have l)eeu inoculated on plum or almond stocks, though less affected by the worm, are equally subject to the yellows — aud a decisive proof of its being contagious is that a healthy tree, inoculated from a branch of a diseased one, instead of restoring the graft to vigor and health, immediately becomes itself infected with the disease. As all efforts totally to subdue it must require a long course of time, the best method to pursue towards its eventual eradication is to stop its progress and prevent its farther exten- sion — to accomplish which the following raeaus are recommended, which have bec!; found particularly successful. As soon as a tree is discovered to possess the characteristics of the disease, which is generally known by the leaves putting on a sickly, yellow appearance — but of which the premature ripening of the fruit is decisive proof— it should be marked, so as to be removed the ensuing autumn, which must be done without fail, for if left again to bloom, it would impart the disease to many others in its \iciuity ; care is also neces- sary in its removal to take out all the roots of the diseased tree, especially if another is to be planted iu the same place, so that the roots of the tree planted may not come in contact with any of those of the one which was diseased. If your neighbor has trees infected with the yellows in a quarter contiguous to yours, it will be necessary to prevail on him to remove them, that yours may not be injured by them. By being thus particular in speedily removing such trees as may be infected, the disease is prevented from extending itself to the rest of the orchard, and the residue will constantly be preserved iu perfect health at the trifling loss of a few trees annually from a large orchard. "A distant subscriber," writing to The New York Farmer in 1831 (p. 154), also mentions premature fruit. He says : Notwithstanding the wide destruction that the yellows has made, very few even at this day appear to understand the unerring symptoms of the disease. Let me say when the fruit ripens prematurely, from two to four weeks before the ordinary time, and the pulp is marked by purple discoloratious, then bewaa-e ! ' A Sho7-l Treatise on Horilciilture, by William Prince. Printed by T. aud J. Swords, 127 Broadway, N. Y., 1828, pp. 14, 15. YELLOWS IN NEW JERSEY. 23 EXTENSION OF YELLOWS SINCE 1830. The disease extcuded somewhat slowly, and its general movement appears worthy of special consideration, particularly as this may throw some light upon the nature of the disease. It may be noted, however, that it continued to prevail in the country about Philadelphia, where it was originally discovered, as shown by the following- citations: In 1838, in The Farmer's Cabinet, it is styled " that most insidious and fatal disease of the peach tree, the yellows.'" In 1839, the same journal' prints the following from the pen of a correspondent : The worm (J^f/eria) tind the yellows are two great contemporary evils, wliicL prob- ably have no necessary connection with each other. The worm does not inquire whether the devoted tree is sick or in health ; the yellows is not always followed by its ravages. Let ns therefore persevere in our investigation of these maladies, so dis- tressing to the lover of good fruit. In 1817, the following appeared in The Farmer and Mechanic:^ For many years the peach tree has been subject to a disease known as the yellows. This disease seldom makes its appearance before the tree has arrived at maturity, as its great vigor and rapid growth appear 1o preclude the development of the disease previous to the tree fruiting. Much time, and labor, and research have been spent in fruitless endeavors to eradicate the disease after it has made its appearance in or- chards, and the only result arrived at is the necessity for replanting new trees to take the place of the old ones at short intervals of time. Many applications to trees have been recommended, and potash, lime, tobacco, banking up trees in winter, etc., have had their advocates. Although individual cures may have been effected, or decay for a time have been arrested by the remedies, yet such instances are extremely rare; and when ai>plied on a large scale are shown to be without value. The disease, a true consumption, still continues and will continue, unless some radical method is adopted to eradicate it. From my own observation and experience, I am led to the belief that this formidable disease has been much aggravated and spread throughout the country by budding from trees containing in themselves the seeds of incipient consumption, not yet ex- ternally developed. A bud may be taken from a tree apparently sound, but afcer a time both trees will be affected and decay. * * * That the disease, however it may have originated, has not its origin in either the soil or climate of this latitude is pretty evident. Natural trees can now be found in gieat numbers of many years' growth, alongside fences and other neglected situations, perfectly souud and likely to remain so. In 1878 yellows was still quite prevalent near Philadelphia.^ I. Northward and northeastward movement. — In New Jer- sey, peach trees continued to decay and peaches became scarce from some other cause than the attack of borers.^ 1 The Farmers' Cabinet, Philadelphia 1838, p. 297. - Page 80. 3 Quoted in The Farmers' Cabinet, Philadelphia, Pa., January, 1848, pp. 182,183. ■• Butter on the Peach, Harrisburg, 1880, pp. 10 and 70 ^Niles's WeeMij Register, Baltimore, Md., Jntie 15, 18IG. 24 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. Dr. Sylvester' reinembers that yellows was not one-teutli as prevalent ill i^ew Jersey in 183C "as now [18G1]"; but another writer^ says: Some of the line peach districts of Jersey seem of late years [prior to 183d] to have lost their power of producing and continuing long-lived the tree that produces this * * * best of all fruits. We should like to hear from some of our Jersey subscribers if they can give us the reason why it is so, and if any clew has yet been found into that most insidious and fatal disease of the peach tree, the yellows. At this time the peach was extensively planted thronghout New Jer- sey ;^ and prior to 184G there must have been another great irruption of the disease, similar to that which took place between 180G and 1814. In a very interesting communication,'' W. E. Prince, of Flushing, Long Island, declares that an '' almost universal extermination" of the peach orchards took place in several States, and that "anj^ one who will visit the once splendid peach orchards in various parts of New Jersey will be struck [184G| by the desolate aspect of innumerable plantations of dead trees, with only here and there a sprig of verdure." The disease was so prevalent that we begin to find complaint of its importation into other States.^ Col. Edward Wilkins, who was for many years an extensive and suc- cessful Maryland grower, is authority for the statement that " fifty thousand acres planted in peach trees, in two counties only of that State [New Jersey], had been destroyed by the yellows prior to 1850." In 1858 he visited New Jersey for the purpose of becoming better ac- quainted with the disease, and in the paper from which I have already quoted'' adds that "at that time nearly the whole of the peach orchards of New Jersey had been destroyed by a disease known as the yellows." Prior to 185 1 it was found necessary, we are told, to renew the peach orchards of New Jersey and [upper] Delaware every five or six years." In fact, as early as 1839, 1 find the following statement:'* Peaches are a profitable article of culture in the country through which we have traveled. * » * The profits would be far greater if means could be adopted to prevent the early decay of the trees. The average continuance of a peach orchard is from six to eight years; and four crops of fruit are considered a liberal return. The disease which destroys the trees is termed the yellows. Would it not be coinnienda- ble in the New Jersey State Agricultural Society, which has just been organized, or even in the legislature of that State, to offer a bounty for the discovery of a cure or preventive of this disease? * » * The extent of the peach plantations will seem extravagant to .some of our northern readers. Many growers have 10,000 trees ; one, 1 Discussion before the Fruit Growers' Society of Western New York. Genesee Farmer, Rochester, N. Y., March, 1861, p. 89. - Farmers' Begister, Petersburgh, Va., August, 1838, p. 2G1. Quoted from Farmers' Cahhief. :'T. Hancock, Burlington, N. J., January, 1841. Hovey's Magazine of IJordeiiHure, Boston, 1841, p. UO. ■• The Horticulluriiit, Albany, N. Y., 1846, pp. 318,319. Uhicl, p. 237. BJ/ie American Farmer, Baltimore, Md., 1875, pp. 100-102. ■' The Plough, Loom, and Anvil, New York, 1854-'5r), vol. 7, p. :359. «Notes on New Jersey Farming. The Caltiralor, Albany, N. Y., September, 1839, p. 131. nmrnumif YELLO\YS IN NEVl^ JERSEY. 25 30,000; aud at one place in Shrewsbury [Mouiuoiith Comity], there are 50,000 trees growino- coutiguons and forming as it were one magnificent orchard. Four years previous to this Niles's Kegister coutaiiied the following note: ' A gentleman in Shrewsbury, N. J., will, it is said, realize by his peach crop this year from $10,000 to 5112,000. We should have thought that every peach tree had been destroyed, if we could have believ(^d the croakers, some time ago. In 1801 WilHam Keid, of New Jersey, writes:'^ Eight or ten years is as long as we can get peach trees to live here. They invari- ably die with yellows. In 1878 an ohl Monmouth County peach -grower, then resident in Michigan, is quoted ' as saying that yellows made its appearance in Monmouth County, N. J., about 1850, "and culminated in the destruc- tion of the peach orchards about 185G." Tiie report continues: Monmouth County and vicinity were famous in their day, having often glutted the Eastern markets with peaches. Driven from the Atlantic coast counties by the yel- lows, the prominent peach-growers of New Jersey located in Morris and other counties in the north of the State, where peaches were grown successfully nutil about 1807, when New Jersey peach-growers were again driven by the yellows to fresh fields. This man is said to have been an eye witness to both outbreaks. The disease probably appeared in Monmouth County earlier than 1850. "Generally, after bearing their second crop," saj's Mr. Barry, in 1801,-* "the JSTew Jersey orchards all die; stilly in some parts even of New Jersey, they are exempt from the disease [yellows]." Mr. Sharp warns the peach-growers of western New York that " many New Jersey trees are being sold here," and is " fearful lest we become like New Jersey."^ Later, as a matter of fact, this proved to be the case. The Transactions of the West Jersey Fruit Growers' Association, 18G4, edited, apparently, by William Parry, a noted fruit-grower, says that— Twenty-five or thirty years ago peaches were grown in this locality [east and northeast of Philadelphia, near the Delaware River] with but little^care or cost; but a change came over them, aud for many years scarcely any could be produced. Many trees that were planted out died without producing any fruit ; indeed, it was thought to be an entire waste of labor to plant peach trees. But there seems reason to be- lieve that they are again becoming a surer crop, and many are jilantiug out new orchards. The first crop of peaches at Vineland, N. J., was in 18G8, the growth of the trees being all that could be desired.*^ Yellows appeared in the 1 The Register, Baltimore, Md., 183.5, p. 70. 2 The Horlicultiinsf, 1801, p. 129. ^Annual Beport of the Michigan State Fomological Soeietg, Lansing, ld78, j). 2.56. ■* Discussion before the Fruit-Growers' Society of Western New York. Genesee Farmer, 1861, p. 89. f'Ibid. •J Vineland correspondent of The Cultivator and Country Gentleman, Albany, N. Y., 1868, p. 291. 26 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. village as early as tbe year 1870, but could uot then be found in the sur- rounding- orchards/ where it has siuce appeared. In 1873 Alexander Pnllen declared that — The peach trees cultivated in orchards here [central Delaware] usually live from twenty to twenty-iive years, and have been known to live forty or even fifty ; while in New Jersey, where peaches are cultivated extensively for sale, orchards planted live only from seven to ten years.* In 1875 Colonel Wilkius^ declared that "in New Jersey the peach be- longs to the past." In 1877 Thomas C. Haywood, of Flemington, Hunterdon County, N. J., says of peach trees : * The duration of bearing is from five to seven years from commencement. This will vary from several causes, such as variety of soil, exposure, etc., some orchards bearing for ten years, some not giving more than three or four good crops. In 1882 Professor Penhallow writes : ^ In New Jersey, where the ravages of the disease have been more seriously felt than elsewhere, the southern counties were formerly the center of the peach industry for the entire State, but, owing to the prevalence of the yellows the peach orchards have been gradually moving northward, until at the present time the counties of Morris and Hunterdon have the largest interest involved, and the prospect is that a few more years will see even these localities deprived of the industry. Again we read:^ The peach growers of New Jersey consider an orchard worth nothing after the age of nine years. At that time they root out all the trees as they would so many corn stumps, and use the land for general crops, ydantiug a young orchard of seedlings each year to make good the loss. In 1887 W. F, Stavely, of Still Pond, Md., visited Hunterdon County, and vvas told by growers at Cedar Hill that it was their custom to plant peach orchards every year, removing those already planted when five, or six years old. Yellows is very destructive, and growers consider themselves fortunate if they secure two crojjs from an orchard.' This county produces many peaches. In 1887, John W. Cox, commission mer- erchaut, bought 90 carloads for the Philadelphia trade, and thinks he did not secure over 10 per cent, of the entire crop.** In fact, the prin- cipal orchards of New Jersey are now located there. The condition of peach growing in New Jersey in 1887 is partially 'A. J. Pearson. Procefdivf/s of the Xttr Jcrsen Slaie HorlicKllurul Socicfj/, le8f), p. 182. Newark, N. J., 1887. ' Report on Peaches, by chairman of the committee, to the Central Delaware Fruit- Growers' Association, January, 1873. The Maryland Farmer, 1873, p. 77. ^ Loco cit. ■• lieporl of New Jersey State Board of A(/ricuUnre, 1877, p. 1*29. ■^ Peach Yellows. By D. P. Penhallow, B. S. Houghton Farm Experiment Dejyart- went. Diseases of Plants, 1882. Series III, No. 2, p. 27. *^ Ibid., p. 28; and Houghton Farm Experiment Department, Diseases of Plants, 1883, p. 60. See also a paper by Professor Penhallow on "Diseases of Plants," Popular Science Monthly, New York, 1884, p. 386. " Conversation at Still Pond, August .5, 1888. ''Conversation at Chestertown, Md., August 1, 1888. YELLOWS IN NEW JERSEY. 27 set forth by the statistician of the United States Department of Agri- ciiltuie iu a paper npon -' Peach Yellows."' This paper is a digest of reports by correspondents, and deals es[)ecially with the distribution of the disease. New Jersey contains twenty-one connties. Reports were received from fifteen counties, in nearly all of which the yellows is said to be present. The digest by counties appears to be sufiBciently inter- esting to be reproduced in full : Atlantic: Peach yellows liave doue much damage liero in years past. Bergcu : Very common ; few trees are grown on that account. Burlington : Few orchards without its appearance ; and as the crop is oue of the most profitable, where it can be had of fine quality, the discussion of the topic "peach yellows" attracts much interest iu our State and local horticultural societies. Camden : Very few peach orchards in this county, owing to the prevalence of the yellows. ' * * Cajtc May : In some localities quite common. Essex : Peach growing died out of this county many years ago, and it is impossible to get much information ou this subject. Gloucester : Not as common as formerly. i7H«/('rf?o» ; It is common. Mercer: In this locality there are some diseased peach trees ; whether it is the yellows or not, it is hard to tell, for if these very trees which show disease are properly treated with certain chemicals they will put on a green appearance aud bear fruit. Middlesex : No such disease reported in this couuty. Morris: It is common. Salem: It is common. Somerset: It is very common aud general. Union: It is common. TVarren : It is very common, and the only remedy is to terminate the existence of the trees. The disease has been reported to me from two additional counties, Monmouth aud Cumberland, and I have the statement from another grower that yellows is common iu Middlesex County. Concerning southern New Jersey, the following statements from growers will be of interest. In answer to inquiries concerning the existence of yellows in the vicinity of Roadstown, J. McSinalley replies :^ We have, I am sorry to say, what you are inquiring after. It is becoming general throughout southern New Jersey. I have two orchards — one set four, the other five years; one on laud highly improved, the other on poor land. I see but little difier- ence in disease. We have never been troubled much until within five or six years, but it is on the increase, attacking younger trees that are making good growth, and filling them with what we call water-sprouts on the trnnk and large limbs. Do not know of any remedy. To siuiilar inquiries respecting South Vinelaud John C. Wheeler re- plies:-' Peach yellows, having all the characteristics you describe, is present in my orchards and exists to quite an extent in this part of the country. It appeared in my orchard four years ago. I have dug out about 6 per cent, of the trees as useless and about 4 per cent, that showed premature fruit, though otherwise apparently healthy, for fear they would injure healthy trees. Concerning Greenwich, near Delaware River, Charles Miller writes: " ' lieport on Condition of Growing Crops, etc., August, 1887, U. S. Department of Agri- culture, Washington, D. C, pp. 37-2-380 -Letter of January 30, 1888. ■' Letter of January 27, 1888. ^ Letter of February 4, 1888. 28 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS The pecacli yello\YS are hi all the orchards of this viciuity. TIic fruit on a diseased tree will ]>reiiiature and rot; and a starved growth of shoots will appear on the branches or body of the tree. It has not been of much injury to us nntil the last live or six years. Our orchards now will premature one-tenth or more the first year of bearing. It will begin to show in an orchard the second year even before it begins to frnit. In some localities they do better than I have stated and in others not so well. It is apparent that the nps and downs of peach-growing in New Jer- sey have been man}'. In spite of all reverses growers have continued to phtnt peach trees. In many instances yellows has swept these away before fruiting age, while in others they have lived long enough to re- turn a handsome profit. Many growers consider the peach profitable in si)ite of yellows, and plant expecting to lose their orchards after two or three crops. Eastern New Yorl: — According to A. J. Downing {I. c.) the yellows reached southern New York prior to 1814, According to William Prince^ it was present as early as 1801. In 182G a writer in tlie New York Evening Post says,^ " The cause of the decay in our peach trees is the borer,"' but furnishes do satisfac- tory proof. In 1833 Michael Floy edited an edition of Lindley's "Guide,"^ having had thirty years' experience as a nurseryman in New York. In treat- ing of peaches and nectarines he discarded Lindley entirely and wrote a chapter of his own, from which I quote: About twenty or twenty-five years ago peaches were raised here in the greatest abundance, and with only a moderate share of attention in great perfection. That this time, however, has gone, etc. (p. 363). Aside from a possible change in climate he assigns four reasons for this decay. First, budding on peach stocks; second, the borer ; third, a too rapid growth, forming a straggling tree likely to be broken down by high winds; and fourth, the yellows. Of the latter he says. The trees of late years are subject to what has been deemed a disease, called the yellows from the circumstance that the trees have a yellow, sickly appearance. " * » In 1832, after a severe winter, some of his own trees — Ripened their fruit prematurely, without having anything of the true llavor; and, what is remarkable, every diseased tree, of whatever kind, seemed to bear the same red and red-speckled, tasteless, and insipid peach, some of them coming to maturity a mouth too soon. He says all these " were perfectly sound and healthy the summer previous," and thinks the yellows was caused by the severe winter, which injured the trees without killing their.. He says that in every instance he found the pith of such trees was black or black spotted (p. 365). ' Treatise on Horticulture, N. 5r., 182d. 2 Quoted in American Journal of Science and Arts, 1st series. Vol. XI, 1826. ^ J Guide to the Orchard and Fruit Garden, etc., by George Lindley. Edited by John Lindley. First American from the last London edition, by Michael Floy, gar- dener and nurseryman and corresponding member of the Horticultural Society of Loudon. New York, 1833. The second edition of this book was published about 1845, YELLOWS IN SOJTHEASTERN NEW YORK. 29 Somewhat later Dowuiug ' declares that — Fifteen j-ears ago [1834J there was scarcely a tree in the vicinity of Newburgh [ou the lower Hiidsou] that was not more or less diseased with the yellows. By pursuing the course we have indicated [digging and burning], the disease has almost wholly disappeared. Ill 184L ^The Cultivator distingiiisbes between the effects of the borer and the yellows, and says of the latter: Within a few years a disease called the yellows has destroyed many of the best trees or orchards in the Northern or Middle States. In the same volume, D. Tomlinson, of Schenectady, N. Y., tells how to destroy the borer, and adds : The yellows is complained of at Poughkeepsie, N. Y., and in New England. It has not appeared here. In 1840, in the paper from which I have already quoted, W. R. Prince, of Flushing, Long Island, sa^'s: In this island the malady became exhausted some years since by the utter destruc- tion of the old orchards, and the determination not to plant new oues until it became extinct. This proved most fortunate as the disease has been for years banished from Long Island, and now new orchards are^pringiug up everywhere * * * "redolent with health." In 1852 the yellows is mentioned as that disease " which for thirty years has killed off the trees by thousands."^ In 1878 Charles Downing writes from Newbuigh, on the Hudson:* We have had the yellows here at intervals lor over sixty years, sometimes con- tinuing for live or six years and then several years free from it. In 1883 yellows was quite prevalent along the west side of the Hud- son, in Orange and Ulster Counties, N". Y.^ In 1887, Col. F. D. Curtis^ of Saratoga County, N. Y., is quoted" to the effect that yellows is not common in eastern New York, but it has been reported a number of times- since 1880 from southeastern New York,'' and I have been informed that it was quite destructive in some orchards on tlie lower Hudson, in the year 1887. Connecticut. — Although yellows reached Connecticut as early as 1811: or 1815,'^ it does not appear to have immediately discouraged peach- growing, for P. M. Augur,^ the State pomologist, declares that — In the first (piarter of this century the peach was raised in Connecticut with suc- cess. The fruit was common and abundant. Since then it has been a rare fruit. 'A. J. Downing, Tlw, Hoiikultiirist, Albany, N. Y., 1849, p. 503. 2 Albany, N. Y., 1841, p. U5 and p. 131. ^The I'hnujh, Loom, and Jnril, New York and Philadelphia, 1852, Vol. V., Part I, p. 347. ''The Canadian Horticulturint, 1878, p. 173. sPeach Yellows, Peuhallow. M. F. Exp. DvpH Diseases of Plants, 1883. Appendix to Series III, No. 2, pp. 56, 57, and 58. '^Condition of Growing Crops, August, 1887, U. S. Department of Agriculture, p. 374. "I The Country Gentleman, 1884 (?); Report of Connecticut Board of Agriculture, 1884, p. 25. *A. J. Downing, Fruiti and Fruit Trees of America; and Noyes Darling, The Culti- vator, Albany, N. Y., 1845, p. 60. ^Report of the Connecticut Board of Agriculture. 1872, p. 332, and 1883, p. 14. 30 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. C. Butler, of Plyinoutli, wiiliiig on yellows says : ' Icameiuto tins country early in IriOl and liave resided here ever since. When I first came here peaches were very plenty. They were not raised for market, but tor the family to eat, preserve, and give to the neighbors aud friends, and were almost as sure a crop as potatoes. This continued to be the case until 1810. In December, 1809, there was a very extensive and severe cold freezing turn, which killed nearly all the peaches in this vicinity and as far west as to Lake Erie. Since then, for some cause unknown to me, it has been much more difficult to grow peaches in this part of the country, but no more difficult on plowed laud than on sward. Mr. Butler says he has had experience with yellows. He believes it is contagious, but has uo proof beyond the coinnion observation that " when one tree was infected other trees standing near would be, nn- less the infected tree was immediately removed, in which case the healthy trees would generally be preserved." In tlie vicinity of New Haven yellows appeared as early as 1820 and destroyed thousands of trees and nearly put an end to peach growing betw^een the years 1830 and 1840.- According to John F. Fitts, of East Windsor, peaches were plenty fifty years ago [1827J. The soil is suited to them and the}' grow well, but die soon.' From West Chester, in 18'40, David Foote writes as follows : * I have a number of trees of the yellow kind, which ripens usually about the 1st of October, but last season [1839] they bore fruit resembling the red rare ripe, and ripened about a month earlier than ever before. Now the question is, what was the cause of this change of color and time of ripening f I can not tell unless it is caused by some disease which may cause the premature death of the trees. In 1849 a committee for the State of Connecticut reported to the Second Congress of Fruit Growlers on peaches as follows :^ People in this region have become very much discouraged in regard to raising this delicious fruit. The trees have the yellows in many cases before they begin to bear, aud if they bear at all, it is only for one or two seasons; seedlings or some inferior .sorts may be an exception [ ?]. The choice standard varieties, if they bear so much as one season, do not last. One of your committee, ten years ago, raised as tine peaches as could be desired and in great abundance, but now, on the same ground, with much pains, is unable to get any worth naming. A. J. Downing, chairman ot the general fruit committee, edited the proceedings, aud comments on the above report as follows: The explanation of the great prevalence of yellows in Connecticut lies, we imagine, in the fiict of the large introduction of later years of unhealthy trees, bought indis- criminately in the markets of New York. A little attention to destroying every tree I The Cultivator, N. Y., 1813, p. 182. -Noyes Darling : The Xew York Farmer and Horticultural Repositorii, New York, 1831, p. 9; aud The Cultivator, Albany, N. Y., 1845, p. 60, aud 1S46, p. 141. •' Report of Connecticut Slate Board of Jgricullure, 1877, p. 340. ■^The Cultivator, Albany, N. Y., 1840, p. 95. •'•Report of George Gabriel, A. S. Munson, V. M. Douw, II. Terry, aud W. W. Tur- ner. Proceedings of the Secoud Congress of Fruit Growers, convened under Ihe ;nis- pices of the American Institute, New York City, October, 1819. Trans, of the, Am. Inst, 1849. (8th An. Report). Albany, N. Y., 1850. Assembly No. 199, p. 275. YELLOWS IN CONNECTICUT AND MASSACHUSETTS. 31 already affeetctl aiul in iutiocluciuj' those of healthy coustitiition from otlier districts will very soon result in the production of the finest frnit again, as has been abun- dantly [.roved in many i^arts of the State of New York. Ill 1852, Jobu L. Yoemaiis, of Columbia, Coun., writes' : " The yel- lows are destrojiug our peach trees." He knows no remedy but to dig out. In 1855, Gurdon W. Eussel, of Hartford, writes:* The disease called yellows is very destructive and has destroyed thousand of trees throughout ihe county and will destroy thousands more, until cultivators will pro- cure their trees from healthy localities and will be willing to bestow some care and attention on them when planted and fruiting. The disease is eminently contaniuns and is capable of being propagated, we believe, from blossom to blossom by insects, and as yet we have found no etfectua! remedy. In 18GG William H. White, of South Windsor, writes that ])eai;lies are infested with yellows, and are generally " things of the past.'" The same year William C. Yoemans, of Columbia, writes of the peach : ■* Its cultivation is now nearly abandoned, and has been for a few years, in consc- i]nence of that scourge to that fruit known as yellows. In 1875 P. M. Augur'' notes incidentally, " the prevalence of yellows in Connecticut." Under date of May 25, 1887, in a comrannication to the Department, Henry J. Nettleton, of Durham, Conn., says that his peach trees have been troubled by yellows and are short-lived, especially if they make a rapid and thrifty growth. Massachusetts. — This State is less adapted to peach-growing than Con- necticut, and references to yellows are fewer. In 1833, The Orchardist, of Boston, declares that the disease is not known in New England.^ John B. Moore, a ])rominent member of the Massachusetts State Hor- ticultural Society, declared in 1S8J that yellows was unknown in the vicinity of Boston forty-five years ago — /. e., in 1837 — but says that " when it came, it swept everything." ' Samuel Hartwell,of Lincoln, in a communication on peach yellows to Professor Penhallow,** says that : Thirty or forty years ago [1842-1852] peaches were grown in great abundance and perfection in this vicinity [Northeast Massachusetts], but for the last twenty years [since 1862] have been almost abandoned. ' Eeporl of the Commiasioncr of Patents {Agriculture). Washington, D. C, 1852, p. \m. - Traniacdons Connecticut State Board of Agriculture, Hartford, Conn., 18.5.5, p. 138. "' Report of Connecticut Board of Agriculture, 186(3, Hartford, 1867, p. 169. * Ibid., p. 173. ^Report of the Connecticut Board of Agriculture, 187r, p. 248. ** Michigan Pomological Report 1873, p. 21. " Trans. Mass. Slate Hort. Society, 1882, Part I, p. 140. "Peach Yellows. Penhallow. H. F. Exp, Dep'l Diseases of Plants, 18-2. Serieslll, Z^o. 2, p. 27. 32 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. In 1818, William Kenrick writes of 3'ellows : ^ But there is another uialady, which I believe is unkuowu in New England, or at east I have never seen or heard of such a disease with us. The earliest clear account of tbe occurrence of tbis disease in Mass- acliusetts, which I have found, is that given by T. W. Harris, tbe en- tomologist, who saw yellows in his garden in 1854. He says:^ For tlie first time in eleven years the symptoms of this disease have appeared in my garden. It is confined to two branches on the north side of one peach tree, the fruit of which is becoming red some three or four weeks too soon, while a few wiry shoots, clotlied with diminutive and pale leaves, have sprouted upon the branches. Neither borers nor the Tomieus laminariiis have been discovered in the tree; and the canseof the disease remains as much a mystery to me as to other cultivators. * * * In former years peach trees have rarely snfliered from yellows in this neighborhood [Cambridge, Mass.], where now many trees are affected by it. In 1878, yellows was present at Amherst, in western Massachusetts/ The foregoiug embraces so much as I have been able to learn about the northern and northeastern movement of yellows. Siunmary. — So far as its present distribution is concerned we may in fev that the disease occurs, or is likely to occur, anywhere from the Delaware Kiver north and northeast, through i^ew Jersey, eastern New York, Connecticut, Ehode Island, and Massachusetts, to the extreme limits of peach-growing in the more northern New England States. It would seem also that the disease did not appear on the northern limits of peach-growing until many years after it had destroyed orchards in more favorable southern locations. 2. Westward and north-westward movement. — In the follow- ing pages is given the substance of what I have been able to learn con- cerning the appearance of yellows in central and western Pennsylvania, in western New York, Ontario, Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan. Pennsylvania. — In 1851, William G. Warren, of Centre County, Pa., writes:^ a majority of the peach trees in the country have been destroyed by the yellows. * * * Trees affected by the yellows ripen their fruit prematurely. In 1852, at the Philadelphia meeting of the American Pomological Society, the committee on peaches presented reports from fruit growers in dittVrent States, one of which, by a Pennsylvanian, stated that "peaches have done but ill with us for some years past. The yellows have swept off thousands of trees."^ 1 The New American Orchardist, by William Kenrick, Boston, 1848. Eighth edition, p. 203. -Remarks on some of the diseases and insects atlecting fruit trees and vines, /'roc. Am. Pomoloif'ual Society, Boston meeting, 18.')4, p. 212. Printed also in Tlie American Farmer, Baltimore, Md., 1855, pp. 231-35. 3 Traus. Mass. Hort. Sociely, 1882, Part I, p. 120. *Bcport of the Commissioner of Patents (Af/riciiltitrc). Washington, D. C, 1851, p. 242. ^Thc Plough, Loom, and Anvil, New York and Philadelphia, 1852, Vol. V, Part II, p. 38. YELLOWS IN PENNSYLVANIA. 33 In 1867, and for ^-cars previous to that date, peacli yellows was very prevalent aud destructive in the counties of York, Cumberland, and Daupbin, i. e., in the vicinity of Harrisburff. I have this statement ou the authority of J. W. Kerr, president of the Peninsula Horticultural Society, now of Denton, Md., but then resident in Pennsylvania, and personally acquainted with the disease.^ In 1875 "Casper Hiller said that the yellows was less prevalent [in Pennsylvania] than formerly."^ In 1887 I received samples of diseased trees from McAlistexville, Juniata County, Pa., with the statement that the disease was in young orchards, and was doing much injury. The peacbes ripened prema- turely aud the trees most diseased put out the usual wiry growth. The same year, William G. Smith, of Pittsburgh, Pa,, reports a gen- eral freedom from yellows,-' and Henry L. Kupp, of Cumberland County, says: "Yellows is not a common disease, but is sometimes brought from infected nurseries, not appearing in healthy orchards planted with trees not infected."* Mr. Rupp adds that in another county of Penn- sylvania on poorer soil the yellows sweeps away whole orchards. I have myself seen the disease in a number of i)laces along the line of the Pennsylvania Central Railroad, particularly in the summer of 1888, near Pittsburgh, near Johnstown, and near Harrisburg. Ohio. — Yellows was reported from Ohio as early as 1849. Between that date and 1851, an orchard of 600 trees belonging to A. W. F, Geniu, of Saint Clairsville, is said to have been nearly all destroyed by it.^ Another Ohio man, living in Richland County, says: "Our peach trees are somewhat affected with yellows."^ No symptoms are mentioned by either writer, and the injury may have been due to something else. In 1879 the secretary of the State Horticultural Society writes as follows about yellows -J The disease, which has hardly been known in Ohio except by uame, has cansed much trouble aud apprehension among the peach growers of the lake shore district of Michigan for a year or two past. It has ruined quite a large number of orchards and seems to be still spreading, in spite of the efforts to arrest it by cutting down aud burning all aficcted trees as is done by compulsory law. It appears, too, from recent accounts, that the disease made its appearance the past season and is spread- ing rapidly this summer [July, 1879] in the lake shore peach orchards of Niagara 1 Letter of April 16, 18i-<8. See, also, statement in I'rocecdiii{/s of PcninstiJa Tlorti- cidiural Society, Dover, Del., 1888. p. 47. ^Report of Pennsylvania Fruit Growers' Association. The CuUirator and Country Gentleman, Alhauy, N. Y., 1876, p. .'^lO. ^Condition of Groiiing Crops, Auyitst, 18S7, Department of Agri Ailture, Washing- ton, D. C, p. 374. *Ibid. ^Report of the Commissioner of Patents (Agriculture), Washington, D. C, 1851, p. 369. <^md., p. 378. ''Tivelfth Annual Iliport of the Ohio State Horticultural Society, Coliimbu.s, 1879, p. 106. 11245— :^^o. 9 3 34 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. County, N. Y., ISO that there is reason to fear that the lake shore regiou of Ohio will have ii visitation of the malady. I have examined these Ohio reports from 1870 to 1887, but find noth- ing more on yellows, except some denials of its presence from different parts of the State. In 1887, however, I have reason to believe that the disease was present in widely different parts of Ohio. Under date of September 10, 1887, Prof. W. R. Lazenby, of Columbus, writes: Our State fair was held here last week and the exhibit of peaches was one of the finest that I have ever seen in Ohio. In conversation with many of the growers from the northern part of the State, I find that the yellows is wide-spread and many trees are being destroyed each year. Under date of September 12, 1887, H. G. Tryon, of Willoughby, Lake County, writes of yellows: We have a full supply of diseased fruit, » * * though we aim to take out every diseased tree as soon as practicable after discovering it. I always have trees that need destroying, and suppose this will continue to be the case as long as I have peach trees left. * * * We have had the disease among our trees since 1879. Western New YorJi. — I fim not able to determine how early peaches began to be cultivated in western New York. In Ontario County they . were certainly grown by the whites considerably prior to 1821,' and were undoubtedly cultivated by the Indians at a much earlier date. Mr. J. J. Thomas thinks seedling trees were cultivated by the white settlers as early as 1800. These were rare-ripes, and Indian or blood peaches. He thinks the first budded trees were set about 1815 or 1820. His father set many New Jersey trees in 1821.'^ It was soon discovered that certain localities in western New York were quite well adapted to peach growing, and in these, if we may be- lieve concurrent testimony, the peach was grown for many years entirely free from yellows. Precisely how early the disease appeared is uncer- tain, but 1821, the earliest date assigned, is probably not far from the actual time of its appearance in the eastern portion of this district. In 1831 David Thomas, a celebrated fruit-grower of Cayuga County, writes :■' Previous to the year 1324 I had never seen a peach tree with the yellows in this part of the State of New York. The ancient trees standing in the old Indian clearings had escaped untouched by this malady, and the Au/eria cxiiiosa had only diminished their vigor by mechanical injuries. In that year the writer planted some trees from one of the Flushing nurseries, which made a feeble growth and finally died. Being rare and high priced sorts, he was very desirous of continuing the varieties, and therefore budded into a most thrifty stock in his nursery, and also inserted some buds into thrifty trees in his orchard. ' The Michigan Farmer. Niles, Mich., 1849, p. 169. The writer remembers but one failure of the peach crop previous to 1821. "Letter of November 1, 1888. •' The New York Fanner (tiid Horticitllurc.l UeponHonj, New York, 1831, p. 46. YELLOWS IN WE8TERN NEW YORK. 35 Oil tlieyomiff stock two biuls took but uever sprouted; aud in less than a year that stock dwindled like the tree whence the buds were taken and died. Every tree in my peach orchard so budded has been lon<>; since dead ; and no other peach tree has died in that orchard. From other statements in tliis article there is some doubt whether this was really yellows, bnt Mr. J. J. Thomas says it was. At all events the disease did not then have any foothold in that vicinity. lu 1838 or 1830, "J. J. T.," in The Genesee Farmer,^ speaks of "the ensy culture and rareness of disease in the peach tree in western New York." A year or two later in The New Genesee Farmer a writer upon yellows says : ^ In western New York more than thirty years passed away after the Indian had re- signed his old peach orchard to the white man before it was introduced amongst us. In 1844, J. J. Thomas writes of yellows:-' In western New York it is comparatively unknown, and great care should be used by cultivators that it be not introduced by importation. In 184(1, it is stated^ that yellows has occasionally been imported into western Xew York from New Jersey'. Tiie disease does not, however, iippear to liave become well established until after this date."^ The same year Patrick Barry, of Rochester, declares that — The peach is an inipoitaut fruit in our region. Our soil and climate are highly favorable for its culture. * » * The peach worm is the chief difficulty we have to oppose, aud that is not a serious one." He also says that — There is no i)art of the United States where the peach is more healthy or attains a greater age than in western New York. It is improper soil or culture and bad treat- ment that has cau.scd early decay where it has occurred. L In 1852 a New York fruit-grower, speaking for Eochester, declares:" It is notorious that tlie yellows mentioned was first introduced there in trees im- ported from New Jcnsey. In 1801, yellows was (luite at home in some parts of western New York, but, as we have already seen. New Jersey peach trees continued to be phi ii ted freely.^ 1 Quoted in The Fanners' IttyiHicr, Petersburgh, Va., 1839, p. 261. '^ Ibid., November, IH40, p 007). 3 The Ciiinrator, Albany, N. Y., IS44, p. 255. ■• The noiticulturist, Albany, N. Y., 1840, p. 537. s Ibid., 184li, p. 2:37, and 1848, p. 34. '^The Genesee Farmer, Rochester, N. Y., 1840, p. 94. 'Ibid., p. 242. •* Report at Philadelphia meeting, September, 1852, of a committee of Am. Pom. Soc. The Plonrjh, Loom, and Anril , New York and Philadelphia, Vol. Y, Part II, p. 38. 3 Fruit-Grower's Society of ^Vest New York. Report in The Genesee Farmer, Roches- ter, March, 1861, p. 89. 36 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. lu 1S74, iu The Cultivator aud Conntry Gentleman,' I find the fol- lowing interesting account of peach growing iu ]!siagara County: The growing of the peach for market is fast becoming a very important branch of industry in this county. This is probably one of the most favorable portions of the country for growing this fruit successfully. With ordinary care and culture the peach here grows to perfection. Until within a very few years past, comparatively few have been engaged in this business. Those few have made money. But the rest of the farmers are beginning to find out that raising peaches pays, aud the rate at which orchards have been and are being set out is wonderful. I think that fully one-half of the iieach orchards in this county have been set within the last three years. Those who a few years since thought four or five trees a plenty are now setting at the rate of 1,000 to 2,000 trees in a single spring. Peaches are nearly a sure crop here every year. The crop of the past season [1874] was unusually large. * * * As nearly as can be ascertained there were fully 100,000 crates [three-fourths bushel each] shipped from this county. * * » The average price received by farmers was about $1 per crate. In 1877 there were still further favoral)le rei)orts from this regiou. A correspondent of The Cultivator and Country* Gentleman^ says of peach culture along Niagara River: Most of the peach orchards in this region are iu full vigor. They bore good crops for the past five years in succession. This year, from some unknown cause, there are very few. It is estimated that the peach orchards of the township of Niagara con- tain 40,000 trees, and it is likely to become noted as one of the best peach regions of the State. The best peach regiou appears to be confiued to a breadth of a mile or two along the river. Farther inland this crop has not been so successful until we reach the neighborhood of Lockport. We also meet statements like the following :^ Last summer, in reporting the success of peach culture in the Niagara River [re- giou], near the falls, we mentioned the orchard of Mr. Burdett, which had borne fruit for more than twenty years, consisting of 2,000 trees, and yielding, in a favorable season, over .$6,000. Judging from these accounts, yellows was not prevalent iu Niagara County in 1874 or in 1877. Very diflerent, as we shall see, are the reports from this region ten years later. The Ohio authority already quoted states that yellows first appeared in the Lake shore orchards of Niagara County iu 1878 and spread very rapidly in 1879; but from statements by A. M. Smith^ it would appear reasonably certain that liiis disease was prevalent in several trees iu at least one orchard in Niagara County as early as 1874 or 1875. He also says that hundreds of bush- els of high colored, insipid, premature peaches were sold in western New^ York in 1877; that the Niagara orchard iu which he first saw the disease was totally destroyed by it ; and that several others in the vicinity had become badly affected. • "B. G. P." The Cultivator and Country Gentleman, Albany, N. Y., 1874, p. 820. 2 Quoted iu The Garden, London, Englaud, June, 1878, p. 474. ■^ The Cultivator and Country Gentleman, Albany, N. Y., 1877, p. 554. * The Canadian Horticnlfurisf, 1878, jip. 1.5, 16. YELLOWS IN ONTARIO. 37 In 1880, Charles W. Garfield says : ' Mr. J. S. Woodward, of Lockport, N. Y., put out 30 acres of peach trees a few years ago, aud now he is taking them all out before having got a cx-op, all being dis- eased with yellows. He thinks they must stop raising peaches there. In 1S80, Hon. T. T. Lyon is also reported as follows : ^ He had heard that Western New York was free from yellows, but last winter he had letters from Hamilton, Ontario, saying that peaches with yellows liad been imported there from New York, and the disease was spreading. Last year [1879] he saw yellows near Rochester aud saw that the couuuercial orchards there were being ruined by it. The claim that they do not have it there is false. In 18S5, judging from Dr. J. C. Artlinr's description, the disease was present to a considerable e.\;tent in orchards in two localities not many miles from Geneva.^ In 1SS7, J. S. Woodward himself says* yellows has " nearly finished the orchards." In his opinion it was first introduced in New Jersey trees. He does not think the disease is due to soil poverty. Col. F. D. Curtis, of Saratoga County, also declares^ that yellows has destroyed whole orchards in the western counties of New York where peach growing is more prominent, especially in Niagara and Ontario. It has attacked healthy orchards in vigorous condition. Ontario. — Does the disease occur in Canada! In the spring of 1878, A. M. Smith, a considerable fruit grower of Drummondville, Ontario, published in The Canadian Horticulturist (p. 15) "A word of warning to peach-growers of Ontario," in which he sajs : Perhaps it is not generally known, but it is nevertheless a fact, that the disease so destructive to peach orchards, called the yellows, has made its appearance in our midst. Quite a number of orchards on the frontier, particularly in the vicinity of Drummondville aud Stamford, have had affected trees in them the last season, and some in the great peach-growing section of Grimsby. The sym2)toms of this disease are, first, an enfeebled vitality, the foliage looks sickly ; and second, the fruit ripens prematurely, sometimes two or three weeks before its usual season for maturing, and is usuallj' high colored, red aud flecked or spotted, aud is red around the stone. This occurring in young trees newly planted has led many to think they had some new variety which was very early ; but the flavor is universally insipid aud watery, and the fruit nearly worthless. As before mentioned, Mr. Smith saw this disease in Niagara County, N. Y., as early as 1874 or 1875, and thinks there was some of it in Ontario at that time, which is very likely, considering its prevalence in 1877, 1878, 1879, and 1880. In the autumn of 1878, Linus Woolverton, another prominent fruit- grower, confirmed Mr. Smith's statements, attributed the disease to ^Annual Report Secretary Michigan State Horticultural Society, Lansing, Mich., 1880, p. 27.^); see also The C. and C. Gent., 1884, ji. 28, where the orchard is said to contain 20 acres of p;ood soil. ' Annual Bej). of the Sec'y of the Mich. State Horf. Soc, 1880, p. 274. ^ Third Annual Report of the Board of Control of Xew York Ar/ri. Experiment Station, 1884, Albany, N. Y., 1885, p. 372. * Condition of gr owing crops, August, 1887, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C, p. 374. ^Ibid. 38 SPECIAL REPORT OX PEACH YELLOWS. trees imported from the States, and drew up the following resolution, which was adoi)ted bv the i)each growers of Grimsby : Whereas wo are made aware of the presence of yellows in one or two i)eaeh or- chards about Grimsby: Therefore, Resolved, That we do most strongly advise every grower to carefully watch tbe first indications of its approach, and at once uproot every tree atfected by it ; and further to use the utmost caution in the selection of trees for planting.^ D. W. Beadle, nurseryman and fruit-grower, of St. Catherines, and formerly editor of The Cinadian Horticulturist, writes that — The peach yellows first appeared in Ontario about twelve years ago [y. e., in 1876J, almost simultaneously at Grimsby and Stamford, the first in the county of Lincoln and the second in Welland County. In Stamford it has destroyed mauy of the orchards entirely. In Grimsby up to the present time its ravages have not been 80 severe." Bj^ the year 1880, the disease appears to have become prevalent in nearly all parts of the Niagara district, /. e., in the neck of land between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. Aside frotn other evidence, the fact that in 1881 the legislative assembly passed an act to prevent the spread of yellows, and amended the same in 1884, shows clearly that the disease must have existed to an alarming extent. It is now less destructive, but still occurs in many parts of the district. Accoixling to Mr. Beadle, peaches are grown to some extent in south- western Ontario,in the counties of Norfolk, Elgin, Kent, and Essex, along Lake Erie. I am not informed whether yellows is there present, but 1 think it probable. Indiana. — In Wayne County, Ind., yellows appeared as early as 1812, if we may credit the statements made December 24, ISoO, by A. Iloover, of Centreville.^ lie says : All attempts to raise peach trees have proved unavailing for the last eight or ten years in consecinence of the yellows. There isuothing improbable in this statement, but as it stands alone without any description of the disease no special weight need be given to it. In later years, in the northern part of the State, not far from Michigan City, the disease is reported to have prevailed to a consider- able extent. Peaches are not grown very extensively, except in south- ern Indiana, and I know nothing positive about the present distribution of yellows in that State. .l//(7(///au.— reach-growing in Michigan may for convenience be di- vided into an early, middle, and later period, the first and second periods ending, respectively, with 1839 and 18GG. Michigan was settled mnch more recently than southeastern Penn- sjivania. New Jersey, Delaware, or eastern Maryland. Although a fertile soil and a favorable climate offered special inducements to set- • The Canadian HorlicuUnrist, 1878, p. 173. "Letter of .June 1, 1888. ■* Patent Office Eejmrt {A fjricull tire), Washington, D. C, 1850, p. 375. EARLY PEACH GROWING IN MICHIGAN. 39 tiers, tlie tide of immigration flowed steadily- past the State for many years, and did not set strongly into it nntil after 1830. Consequently peacb-growing for commercial purposes was begun more than one hun- dred years later than in the Atlantic coast States. Seedling peaches were grown, however, in a small way all over southern Michigan from the time of the earliest settlements. In Berrien County, prior to 1809, Mr. Burnett planted peach trees, some of which were living in 1829, twenty years after his death. ^ Two years later another pioneer, Samuel Wilson, found peaches growing in the Burnett orchard.^ At this time most of the settlers in Berrien County had a few seed- ling peach trees. In 1831 Mr. Brodiss, who lived 6 miles northwest of Is'^iles, ' brought seedling peaches by the canoe-load down the St. Joseph River to peddle in Saint Joseph."^ In 1837 peaches w^ere also brought into Saint Josei)h from the Abbe orchard, said to have been set with improved trees sent from Kochester, N. Y.^ In Van Bureu County, Dolphin Morris planted peach pits as early as 1830, and grew trees therefrom which lived many years.^ In 183G Isaac Barnum brought peacb pits from New York and planted in Van Buren County. According to Harrison Hutchins, of Fenuville, when the first whites settled in the lake-shore region of Allegan County, about 1835, they found a small peach orchard on Peach Orchard Point, on the Kalama- zoo River, supposed to have been planted by French traders.^ The growing of seedling peaches by the settlers themselves began here soon after 1810.^ Mr. Hutchins, of Allegan County, also recalls that — Before the war small "hookers" (boats) sometimes came to Sangatuck, and carried theuce small loads of peaches, half grown and fuzzy, to sell in the more northern markets among the lumbermen. Their arrival was hailed by the pioneers as a good opportunity to dispose of a few surplus peaches, although tliey usually carried ap- ples.^ In the central part of Allegan County Daniel Foster planted a small nursery of apple and peach trees soon after 1844. At this time most of the settlers in that part of Allegan had small peach orchards, grown from pits of their own planting.^ In 1849 an orchard of budded fruit was planted at Monterey and continued to be profitable for many years." ' B. C. Hoyt in L. J". Merchant's Catalogue of Fruit Growers and Shqipers, Saint Joseph, 1873; also History of Saint Joseph, by D. A. Winslow, 1869; both cited in History of Michifjan Horticulture, by T. T. Lyon, 1857, pp. 236 and 237. '^ Cat. of Fruit Growers and Shippers. Merchant. 1873. Lyon, p. 237. ^History of Michigan Horticiiltnre, by T. T. Lyon, Lansing, Mich., 1887, p. 268. Reprint from Report of Sec' y of Mich. State Hort. Soc, 1887. * History of Mich. Horticulture, by T. T. Lyon, 1887, p. 296. ''Ibid., p. 297. ^Ibid., p. 292. 40 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACtt YELLOWS. In Ottawa Coiiuty iiiauy orchards were planted between 1836 and 1855, some of which contained peaches. In 1839 Allen Stoddard, of Ottawa County, sold peaches in Grand Rapids, from trees planted by his wife in 1836, around stumps in the clearings.' And as early as 1858, according to Frank Hall, George Lovell, of Ottawa County, planted a large peach orchard for commercial purposes.^ In 1839, at Saint Joseph, in the garden of B. 0. Hoyt, grew the first peaches ever sent from Michigan to the Chicago market. These were seedlings.^ The next year Capt. Curtiss Boughton, of Saint Joseph, "bought peaches by the barrel and dry-goods box;" took them to Chi- cago on his vessel, and sold them at an enormous profit. This transac- tion induced many to plant peach trees.^ In 1842 Mr. Hoyt procured buds of imin'oved varieties from William Prince, of Long Island, and started a peach nursery ; but no improved fruit was shipped from Saint Joseph until 1844, when lie sent over a few baskets of Crawfords. After 1845 the shipment of choice fruit began to increase, begiuning with a few hundred baskets of 3 pecks each, and reaching several thousand in 1855, when a great many Crawfords were shipped.^ In 1848 George Parmelee, of Benton Harbor, who afterwards became a celebrated fruit-grower, set his first peach orchard. Tliis contained between 2 and 3 acres of budded trees. He continued planting i)each orchards as rapidly as possible, until he had nearly 90 acres. In 1850 he set his first Crawfords. In 1873, the original orchard of 1848 was yet standing and contained "some of the largest and finest peach trees in the country."* In 1849, Captain Boughton set out 130 budded trees in St. Joseph Township, south of St. Joseph river. In 1850 he shipped 250 barrels of seedlings and 150 barrels of improved varieties twice a week. The shipments for the year were bj' his vessel alone not less than 10,000 baskets. ^ In 1857, the " Cincinnati" peach orchard, containing 65 acres, was set in Berrien County. "From this time the fruit interest commenced to grow rapidly, as one after another settled here and went into the busi- ness." '^ At South Haven, Van Buren County, " during or soon after the year 1852, S. B. Morehouse and Randolph Densmore planted [peachj orchards north of the river. * * * Within t*he next few years Mr. James L. Reed planted an orchard * * * south of the village." In 1857 a ^History of Mich. RorUculture, by T. T. Lyon, 1887, p. 327. 2 Ihid., p. 329. ^Catalogue of Fruit Growers and Shippers, by L. J. Merchant, Saint Joseph, 1873, Lyon, p. 237. * History of Mieliiijan Hurtieidfiire, Lyon, p. 23; Catalogue of Fntil Growers and Shippers, L. J. Merchant, St. Josejih, 1873, Lyon, p. 238. ^Ihid., p. 238. ^Catalogue of Fruit Growers and Shippers, L.J. Merchant, Saint Joseph, 1873, Lyon, p. 238. YELLOWS IN MICHIGAN. 41 peacb nursery was established. lu 1859, Aaron Eaines planted from this nursery 4 acres of peach trees. Soon after 1861 John Williams planted a peach orchard.' Others planted orchards about this time. lu 1861 C. Engle, of Paw Paw, Van Buren County, planted 700 trees o** Crawford's Early and Snow's Orange on an elevated ridge, be having noticed as early as 1850 that peach trees on high land in his vicinity endured the winters better.'^ Peach growing for commercial purposes may be said to have begun in Michigan iu 1848, but owing to lack of shipping faciUties it did not assume proportions at all comparable to eastern interests until more than a decade later. Of this early period A. S. Dyckman, of South Haven, writss: When about the eud of the last half century Eleaziir Morton, George Parnielee, and Curtis Boughton, the pioneers of Saint Joseph peach-culture, set their respective or- chards — an airgregate area of "25 acres — people opened their eyes in auiazenieut at this exhibition of lunacy, thinking the product of such large orchards would overstock the market.^ These references concern only those counties in which peach growing was begun earliest and has always held a prominent place. However, prior to 1860, according to Mr. Lyon,^ peaches had been grown success- fully to a greater or less extent in at least fifteen other counties, for periods ranging from six years to upwards of thirty years. • lu all of these counties through all of these years, from 1800 down, the peach grew thriftily and bore good crops. When not injured oy borers or by those hard winters which every now and then killed or enfeebled some of the orchards, the peach tree was healthy, hard}-, and long lived. ^ There was no yellows in any part of the State. This disease, known for so long in the East, first appeared in Mich- igan in 1860 or 1867, in the extreme southwestern part of the State, in Berrien County. I have been at considerable pains to verify this state- ment and think it can be accepted unqualifiedly, or with only that general qualification given to all inductions which rest on a multitude of details, some of which have not been examined. In this case abso- lute proof would be nothing less than concurrent exact testimony con- cerning every peach tree ever grown in the State, but such rigid proof no one demands beyond the limits of the exact sciences. The belief that yellows did not appear in Michigan until 1800 rests upon the positive statements of hundreds of intelligent peach-growers and on the negative evidence of all the rest. Prior to 1866 the disease had destroyed thousands of acres of peach orchards in the Atlantic coast 1 History of Mich nj an Horticulture, T. T. Lyon, 1887, p. 271. 2/6id., p. 269. ^Annual Report of Michigan State Pomological Society, Lansing, Mich., 1873, p. 481. * History of Michigan Horticulture, Lansing, Mich., 1887. 5 See report of committee to Am. Pom. Society, September, 1852 ; The Plough, Loom, and Anvil, N. Y. and Phila., Vol. V, Part II, p. 31) ; A. J. Downing, Fruits and Fruit Trees of America, 1st edition and later editions. 42 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. region and was well known to fruit-growers as the worst enemy of the peacli. For years the disease had been discussed and described in local and national horticultural gatherings ; in conversations and personal correspondence ; in newspapers, journals, and books. Exact and pretty full accounts of it had also been given in standard works on horticulture as early as 1828 by William Prince, in 1833 by Michael Floy, in 1845 by A. J. Downing, and later by others. Some of the IMichigan peach- growers had seen the disease itself in various parts of the East, and all the more intelligent had the advantage of the accumulated knowledge and experience of others as detailed in the literature of a half century. Yet nowhere in the memory of individuals now living, or on the pages of our extensive and valuable horticultural literature, is there registered any recollection, statement, or inference tending to prove that the dis- ease appeared earlier than 1866;^ nor can I find any earlier account, vague or clear, of any other disease at all resembling it. In fact, a ma- jority of the statements are that the disease appeared several years later than 18GG. The general thrift and intelligence of the growers, coui)led with the fiict that many were already on the watch for yellows, renders it exceedingly improbable that this disease could have been prcvsent and unrecognized for any great length of time in a country devoted to peaches. The disease first appeared in a circumscribed area near the village of Saint Joseph, within a few miles of Lake Michigan and in the most iavored peach region of the State. According to W. A. Brown, of Ben- ton Harbor, it is said to have appeared first on the lake shore 4 miles south of Saint Joseph, in the orchard of D. In. Brown, in trees brought from New Jersey and planted in 18G2 or 18G3.'^ It extended at first slowly, being confined to the vicinity of Benton Harbor for several years. Later it spread more and more rapidly, until by 1877-'78 it was destructively prevalent in nearly every orchard in the county. The fact that at first it occurred only in a limited area, or sporadically, ac- counts for the various dates assigned for the first appearance of the dis- ease, such as 18G6,3 18G7-'G8,* 1868,^ 18G9.« It is certain that the disease was not prevalent enough to attract general attention or cause well 1 W. K. Higley, in Jm. ^safuralist, 1881, pp. 849 and 961, states tliat yellows ap- peared in Benieu County in 1857. This date is possibly a misprint for 1867. He cites no authority, and so many misstatements and inaccuracies occur throughout his paper that in any event I would not be inclined to put much confideuce in this date. The date 1862, given iu Annual Report Sec'y Mich. Stale Pom. Soc, 1878, p. 'J54, is a typographical error. -Letter of July 17, 1888. ^Nowlen. Ann. Report Sery Mich. State Pom. Soc, 1873, p. 253, and W. A. Hrown letter of July 17, 1888. ■•Cook & Bidwell. Ann. Report See'i/ Mieh. Stale Pom. Soc., 1872, p. 277. * A. K. Nowleii. Ann. Report Sec\i/ Mich. Slate Pom. Soc, 187:>, ]). 22, •'Winchester. Condition of (irowintj Croi)H. Atujnst, 1S87, Dep't of Agriculture, Washington, D. C, p. 378. YELLOWS IN MICHIGAN. 43 fouiuled alarm until after 1870. After 1875 few new orchards were planted and tbe old ones rapidly disappeared under its blighting intlu- ence. Even young- orchards prematured all their fruit within two or three years' time, and rapidly disappeared. The progress of peach-growing in Berrien County from 18GG, when yellows first appeared, to the culmination of the industry in 1874 or 1875 was almost phenomenal. Careful estimates of the number of peach trees in the fruit region of this county were made by private enterprise from time to time with the following results: Year. No. of trees. 1865 '-201,603 1869 '385,530 1872 - *594,4()7 In 1865, a canvass showed that only about two hundred and fifty per- sons were engaged in fruit-raising; in 1872 the number had increased to over efght hundred.^ In 1871, according to Charles W. Garfield, who then first saw the Saint Joseph region, the peach orchards were everywhere.^ 1872, Mr. Clubb says:^ Beuton Harbor has excellent shipping facilities and the country lor miles around is a continuous i^each orchard, interspersed with cherry, plum, i)ear, and apple orchards. In January, 1873, L. J. Merchant writes:" Only a few years ago this section of country was generally covered with heavy timber; now it is au almost unbroken mass of fruit trees and vines. Tlien there were only a few roughly constructed houses, where dwelt the hardy pioneers; now the country is thickly dotted with liaudsome residences, the abodes of wealthy fruit- growers, and millions of dollars are invested in the business of fruit culture. In 1873, J. E. Chamberlain declared the number of peach trees in the fruit region of Berrien County to be not less than (>0(),()0() by actual count.^ A. S. Dyckman made a similar statement in 1874.*^ Both ap l)arently based their statements on the careful canvass made by Mr. Merchant in 1872. The peach shipments, by water, from Berrien County in 1877 were estimated by John Whittlesey, of Saint Joseph, at 422,225 baskets. A few baskets went also by railroad." ' History of Michigan Horticulture. Lyon, p. 241. • "Accurate canvass of eight of the principal fruit-growing townships," by L J. Merchant, I. c, p. 53. Lyon, p. '240. ' Merchant, Lyon, p. 238. *» Annual Report Sec. Mich. State Hort. Society, 1880, Lansing, Mich., p. 275. "^ A Sketch of Northern Michigan, by Henry S. Clubb. Hulc-t and reynlations, etc., of the great Union Fair of Michigan. Grand Haven, 1872. " Catalogue of Fruit Growers ami Shippers. Saint Joseph, 1873. Lyon, p. 238. ''Annual Beport Sec. of Mich. State Pom. Society, 1873, p. 2G. ** History of Michigan Horticulture, Lyon, p. 48. •^Ihiil., p. 241. 44 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. From about 1870 we begin to meet frequeut references to the ravages of yellows. In 1871, by invitation of the Berrie^i County Horticultural Associa- tion, Dr. R. 0. Kedzie visited Benton Harbor and examined many trees having all the characteristics of yellows. ^ In 1872 "L.T." states that yellows has commenced its destructive work at Saint Joseph, Mich., where he has a twenty-acre orchard.^ In April, 1873, L. Collins, of Saint Josejih, says : We have the disease called yellows among our trees and tliat to an alarming ex- tent. I Lave lost one orchard of 800 trees entirely by the disease.-' In 1872, Messrs. Cook and Bidwell* found yellows more or less *' in every direction from Benton Harbor." It extended northeast 12 miles, as far as Watervliet and Paw Paw Lake, in the extreme north part of tlie county. They state that : The disease has probably existed in the vicinity five years. Tiie exact time of its advent is notlcnown. The people have tried to believe that it was not the yellows, but tlie result of ijeculiar soil or seasons. But the fact can no longer be concealed. They Lave "the yellows " in its most aggravated form. In April, 1873, A. R. Nowleu, of Benton Harbor, says:^ I think the disease made its appearance five years ago (^18t)«j for the first, time, and m various orchards several miles distant from each other iiimultuueously. In 1873 a committee, consisting of Prof. J. C. Holmes, H. G. Wells, and S. O. Knapp, were appointed by the State Pomological Society to make a report upon yellows in Michigan. During that year these gen- tlemen spent nine days, July 30 to August 7, in southwestern Michigan searching for the disease. They found it only at Saint Joseph, Benton Harbor, and South Haven. No diseased trees were seen north of South Haven, nor many anywhere; but the trip was too hasty to permit of thorough examination. They talked with many peach-growers and concluded that the disease was not widely prevalent.^ Among others the following well-known i)each-growers reported to this committee that yellows was not present in their locality: E. D. Lay, Ypsilanti; T. T. Lyon, Plymouth; I. S. Linderman, Casco; Henry S. Clubb, Grand Haven: C. .1. Dietrich, Grand Rapids; D. R. Waters, Spring Lake; S. B. Peck, Muskegon; J. D. Husted, Lowell; S. L. Morris, Holland; and C. Engle, Paw Paw. 'Yellows in Peaches, by Dr. R. C. Kedzie. liejtort of Secrelanj of Mich. State Pom. Soriefji, 1872, pp. 4G4-83. 2 The Gardeners' Motifhhi, Philadelphia, 1872, p. 118. ' Annual Report Sec. Mich. State Pom, Societjj, 1873, p. 23. *Ibid., 1872, p. 277. ^ Ibid., 1873, p. 22. On p. 253 of the same report Mr. Nowleu is credited with the statement that yellows first appeared at Benton Harbor in 1866. *• Report on peach yellows. Annual Report Sec'y Mich. State Pom. Society, 1673, pp. 11-37. YELLOWS IN MICHIGAN. 45 Four years later, in The Anmi;il Ifeport of the Secretary of the Michi- gan State Pomolooical Society,' it is stated that at Eeutou Harbor and Saint Joseph, " they are giving up peaches on account of the yellows." These vilhiges are both on Lake Michigan and only about 3 miles apart. The same year a Benton Harbor corresj^ondent of The Cultivator and Country Gentleman^ says: "We have lost most of our trees in this region by yellows." The same year the same journaP quoted from T. T. Lyon: "This violent and contagious disease has nearly destroyed the peach orchards at Saint Joseph." In 1880, says Charles W. Garfield, there were scarcely any peach orchards left at Saint J oseph. The growers attributed their destruction to the yellows.^ In 1878, W. A. Brown, of Benton Harbor, writes :^ The disease is supposed to have beeu introduced iu this viciuity about the year 1866, by means of trees imported from New Jersey, which had been grown from the buds of infected trees. But few trees were so aft'ected, and it was several years later when the disease iu the vicinity of Benton Harbor first assumed a contagious type. A feu- trees in the large orchards south of Saint Josej»h showed signs of yellows, but the character of the disease being known, such trees were immediately destroyed, and many tine crops were grown before the trees were all aflected. The area of country infected was comparatively small until the past two seasons [1877 and 1878], when the disease has assumed a more virulent character, and has spread over all of Berrieu County, excepting a small portion iu the extreme southern part. In 1887, A. O. Winchester, of Saint Joseph, writes:*' We do not know where it came from or how introduced. » * * The disease first appeared [first destructively] in the center of the peach belt eighteen years ago, and gradually spread north and south along the lake shore until there was not a healthy orchard left. This is not an overdrawn picture. No one who knows the character of the authorities cited will doubt the general correctness of the fore- going statements. Indeed, were further j)roof necessary, a great mass of additional testimony might be brought forward. The peach industry was literally swept out of Berrien County by yellows within one decade. There can be no doubt of this. From being the foremost peach county in Michigan, with an acreage more than equal to that of all the others combined, it became ninth in order, and could boast of only 503 acres. In other words, with a prospect of an expanse in peach growing which would be limited only by market facilities and the ordinary accidents of culture, the yellows appeared in destructive form, and the industry gradually fell away to about one-twelfth of its former proportions. 1 1877, p. 402. 2 Albany, N. Y., 1877, p. 72. 3 Page 765. * Annual lieport Secij Mich. Slate ITort. Society, 1880, p. 275. ^Annual Report Scc'i/ Mich. State Pom. Societi/, 1878, p. 254. ^Condition of Growing Crops, August, 1887, Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D. C, p. 378. 46 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. The exact figures for 1874 can not be obtained, but the following state- ment is approximately correct : Peach iiidiistrif in Berrien Counti/, J/(c7i.' Tear. Acres. Number of trees. 1874 G.OOO 503 034, 54, 827 1884 From the immediate vicinity of Benton Harbor and Saint Josepli, peach growing disappeared almost completely. In 1884, the townships of Benton and Saint Joseph contained only 47 acres of peach orchard, and the entire north part of the county, including these two townships and seven others, had an aggregate of barely 210 acres. Even these figures do not tell the whole truth. In the townships of Benton and Saint Joseph the hearing trees numbered at this time onJi/ 757, and in the entire nine counties, aggregating about 225 square miles, they num- bered only 6,GG8.2 Many peach orchards have been planted in Berrien County since 1884, but it remains to be seen whether these Avill e.^ca])e the disease which raged in the last decade. At present it looks as if they might. T. T. Lyon, of South Haven, states that the disease ap[)e.ireil in the central part of Van liuren County somewhat earlier than at South Ha- ven, following, as he thinks, the line of the railroad from Berrien County, northeast,^ i. e., being disseminated from nurseries. Yellows first appeared upon the lake shore, at South Haven, in 18G9, in the orchard of Eossiter Hoppin. Although it finally destroyed most of the trees in that orchard and appeared in many others, it did not spread rapidly at first. Messrs. Holmes, Wells, and Knapp (L c.) found the disease there in 1873 in three orchards only, and but to a very lim- ited extent, i. e., one orchard contained 1 tree; one, 2 trees; and one, 4 or 5 trees. In 1873 a committee was also appointed by the South Haven Pomo- logical Society to inquire into the existence of yellows at South Haven. This committee, consisting of H. E. Bidwell, H. Linderman, and John ' These fiymes are based iu part on Mr. Merchant's canvafis, in part on the State census of 1874 and 1884. The Michigan census report of 1874 does not give the num- ber of acres of peach orchard by itself, but only the combined acreage of apples, peaches, pears, cherries, and plums, which was 14,001 acres, cherries, plums, and pears being cultivated to a small extent only, as shown by the bushels of fruit pro- duced in 1872 and 1873. I have no doubt that 8,000 acres of peaches would be nearer the actual acreage of 1874, but give the smaller number to be entirely safe. The num- ber of trees lor each year is assumed to have been one hundred and nine times the number of acres, one hundred and nine being the usual number of trees set on an acre. The actual number of hcarin;/ frees given in the census report of 1884 is only 26,419. -Census of Michigan, 1884, Vol.11, Table Vll, p. 223. ^ History of Michigan Horticulture, Lyon, 1887, p. 272. YELLOWS IN MICHIGAN. 47 Williams, reported July 3, 1874, tbat, with the consent and assistance of the owners, they had removed a few cases of the disease from three orchards, and that "some traces of it" yet remained. On August 22, 1874, the same committee reported again as follows: Your commitlee, who were appoiuted to examine the peaches in this vicinity to see if auy yellows coiiUt he fomid, and if so to have thim removed, heg leave to report: That where traces of it were found one aud two years ago, aud then removed, uoue now can he fonnd; and where new trees tii'e set in their places they are growing finely, and to all appearances healthy. In one case two years ago [187<5] the owner tried to cut it out of the tree hy cutting off the affected limb, hut last season he fouud that and three adjoining trees affected. These were carefully removed, and uo traces of the disease can now be found in his orchard. A similar case was fonnd last season, where two peaches were fouud diseased on the end of a limb, which limb was re- moved as soon as the peaches were discovered to be diseased. On a recent examina- tion this tree was found to be covered with diseased peaches, and several other trees in the neighborhood were likewise found affected in whole or in part, which have all been removed.^ South Haven peach-growers knew of the existence of yellows in Ber- rien County, that village being only about 20 miles north of Benton Harbor. They were therefore on the lookout for its appearance in their own orchards, the nearness of the danger making them specially watch- ful. Under such conditions yellows could not have existed long with- out detection, and there is no reason for supposing it existed at all until 1869.2 It did not become general until considerably later. Finally, however, it destroyed many trees and some whole orchards, the Hoppiu orchard, among others. The condition of peach-growing at South Haven prior to 1800 has already been noted. During the next ten or twelve years many peach orchards were planted. In 1804 A. S. Dyckman, one of the large growers, shipped 000 baskets; in 1872 he shipped 12,000 baskets. After 1870 the planting of peach orchards increased with special rapidity, owing in part, it may be presumed, to discouragements in Western Ber- rien arising from yellows, but chiefly to the increased facilities for ship- ment due to the dredging of the harbor and to the building of a railroad.^ The disease appeared first in a few trees and in a few orchards only, gradually extending to others. According to Mr. Lyon< there was not much yellows at South Haven "until after the severe winter of 1874-'75, when about 5 per cent, of the trees were fouud diseased and ' Annual Report of the Secretary of the Mich. State Pom. Soc, 1874, p. 49, unmolested by yellows. Yellows firt>t appeared at Lawton, in southeastern Van Buren, in 1878. This village is 30 miles east of Benton Harbor and 25 miles southeast of South Haven. Here, as elsewhere, peach-growers being forewarned, were on the watch for the disease and presumably detected it very soon after its ajipearance. Peach-growing for commercial purposes began at Lawton in ISGO, when N. H. Bitley planted 500 tiees. These trees bore their first crop in 1800, soon after which several other orcliards were planted. Later occurred a very general planting, so that in 1878, when yellows ap lieared, there were about 150,000 [)each trees in the vicinity of Lawton.*^ Hon. C. D. Lawton, of Lawton, writes as follows :'' The first appearance of the yellows here was in 1878. I think it had appeared in Mr. Engle's orchard near Paw Paw [4 or 5 miles distant] the year previous to 1878, but that was the season we first recognized the disease here. Peach trees have grown here since the first settlement of the region. The first orchard for market 1 Annual Eeport of Ike Sec'y of the Mich. State Pom. Soc, 1878, pp. '249-253. ' Antiital Eeport of the Sec'y of the Mich. State Hort. Soc, 18«<2, p. 306. ^ Ibid., 1884, p. 11. ■•Letter of January 10, 1888. ^Dyckman, Lannin, Gulley, and several others, whom I met at South Haven in 1888. '^History of Mich. Hort., Lyon, p. 269. 'Letter of January 24, 1888. YELLOWS IN MICHIGAN. . 49 — 500 trees — was set by Mr. N. H. Bitleyiu 1858, and it survived aud bore finely for twenty years, until destroyed by severe winters and the yellows. No finer, healthier peach trees or peach orchards exist auj'whero than were found here up to a few years ago. We have had several very severe winters, 1884, '65, '86, during which many trees were injured or destroyed. This, added to the ravages of the yellows, has caused our peach orciiards to look somewhat ragged. In the season of ISbl there were shipped from this station upwards of 100,000 baskets of peaches, in 1883 perhaps as many, and possibly as many in 1887.' Up to about 1875 there were not many shippers. There were but few orchards. Still there were some that were proving profitable, and the success of these few in- duced others to set out trees. The yellows seems to have gradually spread here from Benton Harbor. We heard of its appearance in the west part of the county a few years before we discovered it here, and were looking out for it, anticipating its ar- rival. At Lawtou peacli-gTOwing has uot been abaudoned, althongli eiitire orcliards liavebeeu miued. Yellows does not appear to have worked as disastrously iu VauBiiren County as in Berrien, owing possibly to the timely aud rather strict enforcement of the yellows law. This phase of the problem will be con- sidered later, under " restrictive legislation." In 1884 the State census credited Van Buren County with 2,181 acres of peach orchard, a small acreage, considering its favorable situation, but enough to sbow that peaches can still be grown in spite of yellows. In 1888 Mr. Lyon says of South Haven, the best peach region iu the county, " the acreage planted is largely increasing from year to year.'"- At Douglas, Allegan County, yellows appeared in 1873 or 1871:, simul- taneously iu at least two difierent orchards several miles apart. This village is 17 miles north of South Haven aud a few miles only from the lake shore. Rev. J. F. Taylor, for six years yellows commissioner of Saugatuck Township aud for twenty years a resident, writes as follows concerning the appearance of the disease in that locality. ^ Yellows appeared here first iu 1873 or 1874. In an orchard south of mine about 2 miles [orchard of Eobert Linn] one tree iiroduced some beautiful red fruit. No one know the cause of the changed color. This orchard contained about 300 trees. After this tree had borne such fruit a year or two it was pronounced diseased with yellows. The man refused to cut it down, and in about eight years all of his trees (300) were dead by the effects of this contagious disease. The same year (1873 or 1874), 2 miles east of my orchard, another man [D. W. Wiley]' found three or four trees in his orchard of 6,000 trees which had the yellows. He did not know the ap- pearance of affected fruit and went to Saint Joseph to learn what effect the yellows had on tree and fruit. He cut and dug out these trees and planted new ones iu their places, which grew and bore [healthy] fruit. Thisorchard has suftered but little from yellows. ' Michigan peach baskets hold from one-fourth to one-fifth bushel. The honest ones hold one-fourth bushel. - Letter of January 13, 1888. 3 Letter of January 25, 1838. ■•Mr. Wiley himself says yellows first appeared iu his orchard in 1874 in six trees of Crawford's Earl}-, all heavily laden with fruit. 11215— No. 9 i 50 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. Yellows does uot appear to have spread rapidly at first. Harrison Hutchins, of a ueigbboriug village, himself a wellkuowu peach-grower, writes : ^ Peach yellows made its appearauce ou tlie lake sboie [12 to 14 miles uortli of South Haven] about ten years ago, and one or two years later [1878 or l->79] about Fenu- ville, 6^ miles east of the lake. Peaches were grown in the lake shore townships from the earliest settlement (/. c); commercial orchards were planted in 1862, and by 1872 the bnsiness of peach growing had become general.^ Two years later, 1874, Henry S. Clubb made a careful canvass and found that in two townships only, Ganges and Saugatuck, the number of peach trees in orchard exceeded 62,000.^ The name of each grower is given and the number of acres or the number of trees. There are many comments on the healthy appearance of individual orchards, and no mention is made of yellows.'' Jn other words, peaches were grown in western Allegan in constantly increasing numbers, unmolested by yellows for a period of not less than thirty years, even on the assumption that the disease appeared there considerably earlier than the earliest date assigned. G. H. La Fleur, a nurseryman at Millgrove, says that yellows first appeared in the township of Casco'^ in or about the year 1874. " From that point it gradually spread until it reached Ganges and Saugatuck. I first saw it at Fennville in 1876." Three years after its appearance at Fennville, yellows appeared iu Allegan Township'^ on a favorable ele- vation, in an orchard growing ou some of the best soil in the county.*^ Mr. La Fleur adds : I thiuk the disease prevails iu nearly every town iu the county where peach trees are growing, although some parts are aluiost exempt as yet. In answer to inquiries concerning the extent of injury done to or- chards about Fennville, Mr. Hutchins writes :" I think one-tenth of all beaviug trees has been affected Avith yellows; uot nearly as large a per cent near the lake. I am li miles west of Fennville, and out of 5,000 bearing trees 1 have lost nearly 5 per cent. ^Letter of January 27, 1888. -Hutchius, cited iu Hisionj of Michigan HordcuUtirc,]}. 297; Clubb, 1. c. ^The SaiKjatiuk and Ganges Fndl Ilegion, etc., by Henry S. Clubb. Published by the Lake Shore Agricultural and Pomological Society. Douglas, Allegan County, Mich., 1875, pp. 1-20. ■'The number of X'cach trees iu Ganges and Saugatuck ten years later (1884) was 237,391. (Census of Michujan, 1884, Vol. IL, p. 220.) ^ The townships of Casco, Ganges, and Saugatuck front on Lake Michigan for a distauce of 18 miles. They are the most important peach townships in Allegan County. Casco is contiguous to South Haven, in Van Buren County ; Ganges joins Casco on the north ; Saugatuck joins Gauges ou the north. Allegan Township is due east of Ganges, separated by two townships each G miles broad; it is about 15 miles .south east of Feuuville. •* Letter of February 6, 1888. 7 Letter of January 27, 1888. YELLOWS IN MICHIGAN. 51 To tlie questioD : Has peach growing beeu discouraged to any great extent by yellows "? be replies : 1 thiuk not. lu some few iustances, jierhaps, but uot generally. To similar inquiries respecting Saugatuck Township, Rev. J. F. Tay- lor makes a similar reply. In western Allegan, as a whole, peach growing is on the increase. According to Harrison Hutchiiis,^ almost every farmer has a peach or- chard, varying in number of trees from a few hundred to 5,000 or even 10,000. Eespectiug the eastern part of Allegan County, G. H. La Fleur states that yellows has reduced the number of trees 50 per cent., although many are planted each year.^ The State census of 1881 shows that peach growing is fairly prosper- ous in Allegan County, the acreage there given being more than double that of any other county, *. e., 8,367 acres, corresponding to about 900,000 trees. In remoter parts of Michigan peach yellows appeared at dates much later than 1869. Peaches have been grown in Ottawa and Kent Coun- ties for thirty years or more. In 1881 Ottawa was credited with 984 acres, containing 84,223 bearing trees; and Kent was credited with 3,362 acres, containing 161,065 bearing trees. JSTevertheless yellows did not appear in either county until within the last eight or ten years. In the vicinity of Grand Eapids the disease did not appear earlier than 1883, although peaches have been grown since 1850 and to a very con- siderable extent since 1875. Farther north, in the Grand Traverse re- gion, where peaches have been grown to a limited extent since 1805, it is said that the disease has not yet appeared. On the eastern side of the State, it was not present at Plymouth, Wayne County, in 1873,^ and has not been reported from Oakland County, where in 1884 were 1,093 acres, containing 44,320 bearing trees. In the vicinity of Ann Arbor, peach trees were planted as early as 1842, and peach-growing has beeu a considerable industry since 1875. In 1884 the number of bearing trees in the city and township was 59,592 (446 acres), and many have been planted since that date, yet the orchards have never suffered from yellows. Indeed, I can not find tliat a single case has ever appeared. I have myself examined many trees. In view of some inquiries to be made later resijecting climate as a cause of peach yellows., it will be necessary to note briefly the condi- tions under which peaches are grown in Michigan, particularly as these conditions vary somewhat from those found in the Chesapeake and Delaware region. As a whole the climate of Michigan is too severe for the peach. Bitter experience has shown that the excessive cold and the • History of Michigan Horticulture. Lyon, p. 297. 2 Letter of February 6, 1888, 3T. T. Lyon, Report of the Sccretari) of the Miehi- a total of l,8oS,U00.i A very considerable part of this total, probably over one-half, came from southern New Gastle. Mr. E. C. Fennimore, who had a landing on Delaware Eiver, was especially successful. A McDonongh correspondent of The Cultivator and Country Gentleman - says that Mr. Fennimore's i)each orchard " has not failed once since it came into bearing seven years ago with 10,000 trees ; it now numbers 9,000."^ The surrounding orchards, how- ever, never did so well. The conditions of peach growing twenty-eight years ago in the central and southern parts of New Castle County are very pleasantly set forth in a popular article by William C. Lodge.* The following paragraphs afitbrd a striking contrast to present conditions, and are not greatly ex- aggerated, judging by statements I have received from many eye-wit- nesses, and by what I have myself seen more recently in Kent County : Proceeding to Middletowu [from Delaware City], we pass through a coutiuuous orchard or a succession of orchards that seem to be one vast whole, the trees every- where beudiug or broken with their loads of high-colored fruit. Middletown is on the Delaware Railroad, and is the central station in New Castle County. On the track there is a train of 15 cars waiting for the day's pickings. "* Each car carries about 500 baskets, and although early in the morning, the peach teams are already coming in from all directions. '♦ * * From Middletown to Townsend [4 or 5 miles south], where another peach-train is waiting. The whole available country is planted with peach trees." The ordinary farm crops appear to be neglected, while the labor is wholly devoted to gathering aud marketing the fruit. In the alluvial table lands of this neighborhood the peach ree finds all the^ elements for the production of fruit. It is new soil, and the trees are exempt from disease and from such insects as render peach growing precarious in other sections equally favored by climate. The orchardist is generally satisfied with a yield of three or four baskets of market- able fruit from each tree ; but here the average is from seven to eight baskets from mature trees, and many orchards give even more. The orchards increase in size as we proceed southward. Here [between Middle- town and Townsend, apparently] they are composed of from ten thousand to one hundred thousand trees each. By a slight detour [ north] we strike the Delaware aud Chesapeake Canal, the north- ern outlet for the products of the eastern shore counties of Maryland, as well as for the farms along its course through Delaware. The plantations along the canal and those extending several tiers back, are devoted to peaches. There is a landing on every farm, besides the jiublic landings where the roads cross the canal. The boats that carry the fruit are drawn by four horses or mules and have capacities for from live to seven thousand baskets. ' The Cultivator and Country Gentleman, Albany, N. Y., July, 1868, p. 14. •^Ibid., January, 1869, p. 79. 3 Yellows first appeared in this orchard in 1865 or 1866, in spots, and gradually be- came worse. In 1369 Mr. Fennimore had about 4,000 baskets of premature ^leaches out of 34,000. Many trees were dug out, early in the seventies, on account of yellows, and the whole orchard was removed in 1874. ^ Peach Culture in Delaware, Harper''8 Magazine, N. Y., 1870, pp. 511-518. ®Iu 1875, 56 car-loads of peaches were shipped from Middletown in one day. For condition of peach orchards about Townsend, Del., in 1888, gee Photo. XII. 60 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. About 25,000 baskets -ire daily carried by the caual-boats in the flush of the season. Along the tow-palh, in our driveof half a dozen miles, we notice that the landings are covered with peaches and the attendant teams, with the parties waiting to put the fruit on board. This is the universal harvest, and brings money to the purse of every one willing to work, plenty to every home, and good cheer to every board. To the family of the planter it means many luxuries in the shape of pianos, new car- riages, and perhaps an additional farm or two. In 1870, when there were no longer any peaches at Delaware City, single growers in the vicinity of Middletown numbered their orchards by hundreds of acres.^ Ex- Governor John P. Cochran, who now has no peach trees, writes that at this time he had over 80,000.^ He saw the trouble coming and abandoned the business. In August, 1871, Charles Downing, George Thurbur, P. T. Quiuu, William Parry, Eandolph Peters, and Howard M. Jenkins, of the Dela- ware Tribune, visited this region and examined tlie peach orchards.^ They found J. B. Fennimore to be one of the largest growers. At Mid- dletown were many large peach farms ; that of the late Cantwell Clark contained 280 acres of peach orchard ; that of J. T. Ellisou, 100 acres ; the four farms of B. T. Biggs, about 350 acres, i. e., 35,000 trees. "The orchards near Middletown are in fine condition, the land being heavier and trees more productive than at points farther south." This condi- tion of things appears to have extended to the extreme southern end of the county, for mention is made of the peach farm of Samuel Townsend, near Smyrna, containing 400 acres, from which he was then shipping three car-loads of fruit per day. The transcript from Mr. Fennimore's note- book, 18Gl-'74, given later, also shows very clearly how free from disease and how profitable were the peach orchards of this region during that decade. Middletown was then the great shipping center of the peach country. Buyers flocked thither from all quarters and the peach-growers became wealthy, adding orchard to orchard and farm to farm. In 1872 the shipments by car from this place were 450,000 baskets ; in 1873 they were 300,000 bas- kets. In 1873 Mr. Seerick Shallcross alone shipped to New York 125,000 baskets of fruit from an orchard said to be the largest in the world. This covered over 1,000 acres, contained more than 100,000 trees, and was valued at $150,000.^ Other growers had nearly as many trees. Peach culture reached its maximum in this part of New Castle about 1875, since which time it has steadil}^ declined. In 1888, I found no orchards of any consequence between Middletown and McDonough, in the fine country formerl}' so thickly planted. Large farms once almost entirely covered by orchards now contain not a tree. Hon. Jobn J. 1 William Parry, in Proc. Pa. Fruit Ch'owers' Soc, 1871, p. 47. 2 Letter of March 29, 1888. 3 Horticulture on the Delaware Peninsula. The Rorticultarist, N.Y., 1871, pp. 306-308, * The Horticttllurist, N. Y., 1874, p. 287. YELLOWS IN DELAWARE. '61 Black, of New Castle, aud E. E. Cocbran, of Middletowu, agree iu es- timating the total number of peacb trees ia New Castle iu 1870 at 1,000,000 aud iu 1875 at 1,750,000.^ H. H. Appleton, of Odessa, also estimates the number of bearing trees iu 1870 at 1,000,000, equal to 10,000 acres.^ Governor B. T. Biggs "would suppose we had iu New Castle County in 1870 about 500,000 peacb trees. Most of the orchards were in our county, between Duck Creek Hundred and Middletown.'" As at Delaware City, so at Middletowu, the " glory and profit " of peacb growing have departed, and under the same blighting influence. The history of the first appearance of yellows, of its progress, aud of the gradual disappearance of the orchards, is not essentially different from that already given in some detail for Delaware City and for Saint Joseph, Mich. There was first a more or less general complaint of great losses from prematurely ripened fruit. This was followed by the appearance of disease in the tree itself. The growers sought to ex- plain the " prematuring " in every way but tbe right one ; they hoped it would disappear next year, and could not very generally bring them- selves to accept tbe unwelcome truth. Some persons dug out tbe af- fected orchards at once, believing tbe disease to be communicable; but most only later when it bad become evident that tbe unfruitful, mori- bund trees were valuable only for fuel. Probably at no time since 1850 was yellows entirely absent from tbe orchards in this section, and after 1856 it seems to have done consider- able injury.* But this first epiphytotic passed off, and, as we have seen, peaches were grown very successful!}' until tbe seventies, when there appeared a second and more destructive outbreak of the disease. Yellows was at its height in tbe southern half of this county in 1875, aud comparatively few orchards were planted after this date. Of those who persisted in planting, a majority, I am told, lost their trees by yellows within the first six years. Tbe orchards seemed to grow thriftily and do well for three or four years, and then rapidly declined. Middletowu is no longer tbe center of tbe peach region, and com- paratively few peaches are shipped from tbis point, or, indeed, from any part of New Castle. The total baskets shipped from this station iu 1875 were 632,427; iu 1888, a year of similar abundance, 125,150. The peacb center is now below Do\'er, and the evidence is very strong that it is moving southward. Last year iu tbe vicinity of Middletowu, and again this year, I saw comparatively few orchards, and yellows was present in all of these. I beard a great deal about tbe losses caused by this disease in years past, and saw abundant evidence of its de- structive work iu the way of stumps and remnants of orchards (see photo XII). Tbis year I saw peach yellows in many other parts of ' Letter of March 31, 1888. - Letter of April 3, 1888, « Letter of March 27, 1888. ■•H. H. Appleton, Odessa, letter of April 3, 1888; aiul Janes Hotiecker, Smyrna, conversation of October 8, 1887. 62 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. New Castle County. There are very few old orchards, and the younger ones just coming into bearing are nearly all so badly diseased that they will be worthless in the course of three or four years. The peach acreage of New Castle County in 1888, as compared with that in 1875, shows a great falling off. Everybody admits this. There are no official statistics, but the most reliable estimates iilace the num- ber of trees in 187o at about 1,750,000, i. c, about 17,000 acres,^ most of which were in the southern one-third of the county. The present ex- tent of peach orchard is variously estimated. It is probably about one- sixth what it formerly was, but is not one-tenth — possibly not one- twentieth — of what it would have been but for the yellows. In 1860, roughly speaking, the orchard products of New Castle County were worth twice those of Kent County and five times those of Sussex County. In 1870 New Castle still led ; Kent produced about five-sixths as much, and Sussex one-sixth. In 1880, as compared with 1870, New Castle had fallen off fi,ve-sixths, Kent had remained about stationary, and Sussex had doubled.^ During all this period the greater part of the receipts from orchard products in each of the counties was for peaches. Kent and Sussex. — The growing of budded peach trees in Kent County began somewhat earlier than in New Castle. At Frederica, Jehu Eeed planted an orchard of several hundred Red Cheek Melocotons in 1829, and within two or three years set other budded sorts to the number of 10,000, but others did not follow his example until considerably later. However, by the year 18G0, there were many market orchards, especially in the upper half of the county. In lower Kent and in Sussex large commercial orchards did not become numerous until a decade later, and in some parts of Sussex they are of still more recent date, a very large uumber of trees having been set since 1880. In 1868, according to Henry T. Williams, orchards in Kent and Sus- sex ranged from 5,000 to 20,000 trees, and in 1867 one man in Sussex- put out 60,000. Mr. Williams also mentions having seen at this time near Dover a bearing orchard of 70 acres.^ In the article already quoted,^ William C. Lodge gives a graphic picture of the extent of the peach industry in 1870 in the upper part of Kent : Kentou, iu Kent Conuty [10 miles uortbwest of Dover aucl 5 miles from the New Castle Hue], is the next jioint of particular luterest, as we are invited to inspect the fine orchard of Mr. Gercker in that viciuit3\ We drive through Smyrna, renowned for its peaches rather than its figs. * * " We pass orchard after orchard walled in by the impenetrable osage-orange hedge ' The number of acres of peaches iu New Castle iu 1879, according to uupublished statistics of the U. S. Census, furnished by the Department of the Interior, was 11,600. ■Eighlh Census U. S., Vol. on Agri., p. 1(5; Ninth Census U. S., vol. 3, p. 114; and Tenth Census U. S.,\ol. 3, p. 261. 'Zoc. cit, *Loc. cit. PEACH GROWING IN DELAWARE. 63 tliat here grows liixuriautly. The conntiy is uearly level and the roads so straiglit that we look before us away to where the lines of green converge to a point. * * * Bnt lierc is Gercker's; and the tirst siglit shows that it is a model peach farm. We take a bird's-eye view of the thousand acres and note the order and neatness of the plantation, laid out in square lields of 100 acres each. The buildhigs are located in the central part of the only field not planted with peach trees.' A silver thread of water winds about the southern boundary, towards which the ground inclines. All other parts appear to be as level as a floor. * * * The trees are planted in parallel rows about 8 paces apart, and from our perch upon the top of a high gate-post we look down upon a section of the orchard in full bear- ing, extending from near the house to the distance of over a mile. * * * In the early morning * * * we start for Dover, the State capital and the cen- ter of the finest peach district in the world. At Dover is a large distillery and three canning establishments, capable of prepar- ing 25,000 cans of peaches a day. * » * From Dover the railroad carries a daily average of 10,000 baskets, while three large steamers ply between its port at Mahon and New York City during the season and are unequal to the freight. To-doy hundreds of baskets are left on the wharf to per- ish or to be sold to distillers at a very low price. Yet the loaded wagons still come to the lauding, and a mile away we can see clouds of dust indicating the speed by which the driver hopes to get on board bis last load. Ten years later i^each growing was a great industry around Smyrna, Dover, Lebanon, Camden, Canterbury, Frederica, and in many other parts of the county. The United States Census of 1880 determined the number of acres of peach orchards in Kent County in 1879 to be 19,879, containing 1,837,211 bearing trees.^ Many thousand trees have been phinted in Kent since that date, and the most reliable estimates place the present number of acres of peach orchard of all ages at 40,000. There is scarcely a farm without its peach orchard. Many of these orchards contain from 30 to 50 acres, and not a few are still larger. Some single farms contain more than 10,000 peach trees, and where one man owns several farms he frequently controls from 500 to 1,000 acres of peach orchard. The growing of budded fruit began in Sussex considerably later. In 18G0 the total orchard products given in the United States Census reached a value of only $13,189; in 1870 the value is said to be $103,192; and in 1880, $243,132. The United States Census of 18S0 determined the acres of peach orchard to be 12,977, containing 1,230,134 bearing trees.^ 'Mr. John Taylor, of Dover, tenant on this farm from ld69 to 1872, informs me that during the entire three years he never gathered a single basket of premature fruit, and that on the whole farm he then knew of only one diseased tree. This stood in an apple orchard near the lane and bore premature peaches. The whole farm was theu set in peach orchard. In 18Sy this farm produced 1.52 (?) car-loads of peaches; i. e., 51,000 baskets. In 1870 it produced 16,300 baskets, netting $11,100. (Conversation of July 6, 1888.) Yellows is now prevalent throughout that section and many orchards are being ruined. -From unpublished data of the Tenth Census, furnished b^" the Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C. ^From unpublished data of the Tenth Census, furnished by the Department of the [nterior, Washington, D. C. 64 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. Since 1879 many peach-growers from the upper part of the State have gone down into Sussex, and numerous large orchards have been planted. The most reliable estimates j)lace the number of acres of peach orchard now set in Sussex at upwards of 20,000. In 1887 the best peaches came from Sussex and southern Kent, and the same was true in 1888. The topography of Kent is quite monotonous. The land is flat and but little raised above the sea, so that the bay front includes very ex- tensive marshes. There are no hills, save by courtesy. Square miles of the country are almost as level as a floor, and nowhere did I observe a variation in level of more than 100 feet, and rarely so much as that. The land was formerly cov^ered with a good growth of oak, tulip tree, chestnut, walnut, sassafras, sweet gum, and other deciduous trees; but the forests have given place to farms. These farms are generally larger than those of New York and the Eastern States, althougli not more carefully tilled. The soil is fertile, varying from a comparatively stiff loam to light sand. The greater portion of it is a mellow loam, the subsoil being usually a yellow, white, or reddish clay. In the ex- tremely flat land southwest of Felton the soil has a peculiar ash-color. East of Felton and north of Milford 1 saw some pine timber of small size, second growth perhaps, and there found patches of quite sandy soil, which did not appear to be very fertile. With the soil and topography of Sussex I am not so well acquainted. It is a nearly level county, of lighter soil than Kent, a very much larger portion having been or being now covered with pine forest or gum-tree swamps. There are in the county, it is said, more than one hundred mills for the manufacture of lumber. In the west part I saw much sandy scrub-pine land of small value for agriculture. It is impossible to determine when yellows first appeared in Kent County. Dr. Ilenry Kidgely, who is an extensive grower and familiar with the disease, informs uie that he saw it near Dover over thirty years ago, and John S. Jester states that it appeared in his father's orchard, near Harrington, more than thirty years ago, and killed the trees in course of a few years with precisely the same symptoms that the disease now manifests. Moreover, Hou. George P. Fisher, writing from Dover in 1852,1 describes peach yellows so that there can be no doubt of what he is speaking, and implies that it is present in Kent County. It was not so common as to attract much attention when the diseased trees were dug out and burned. He advised prompt removal and burning ; thought the disease could be prevented, but not cured. From these statements it is apparent that yellows was present in Kent at about the time the orchards were being destroyed in the vicinity of Delaware City. Two decades later, when the orchards about Middletown were de- stroyed, the disease was at Clayton, in an orchard owned by Alfred Hudson, and at CowgilPs Corners, 4 miles east of Dover, in an old or- chard owned by Dr. Henry Kidgely. Jeliu M. Eeed also informs me ' Report of Commissioner of Fafenla {Agriculture), 1852, pp. 112, 113. YELLOWS m DELAWARE. 65 that he saw it for the first time iu Keut County about ten years ago (1878) iu Mr. Bancroft's orchard, near Camden. At first only one tree was diseased. Jacob Brown also says it was present iu one of his orchards south of Dover in 1875. There bas probably been no time since 1850 when the disease was not present iu some part of Keut County. Nev- ertheless until recently the orchards as a whole remained free from its ravages. The progressive increase iu number and size of plantations ; the absence of general complaint, such as now exists ; and the large number of old and healthy or but recently diseased orchards iu all parts of the county is sufficient proof of this. There are also some in- teresting specific statements. In 18G9 Dr. G. Emerson, formerly of Dover, refers to the remarkably long life of the Delaware peach or- chards;^ so iu 1870 William C. Lodge, already quoted j^ so iu 1873 Alex. PuUeu, already quoted;^ so in 188G V. M. Augur j'^ so C. V- Hovey and others. D. S. Myer, writing from Bridgeville, Sussex County, iu 1880,^ and W. P. Corsa (?), from Milford, in Kent, iu 1883,^ state that yellows had not appeared at either place, and the iuternal evidence of their writing, as well as the present condition of the orchards, bears them out. To these published statements might be added a large amount of oral testimony from Delaware growers. I have also received a letter from Jehu M. Keed, of Frederica, stat- ing that yellows never appeared on his home farm until about three years ago, although orchards to the extent of ten thousand trees have been cultivated on this farm nearly all the time for fifty-nine years; when one orchard was wearing out, another of about the same size being set on a different i^art of the farm.* It is thus sufficiently apparent that, while the disease was certainly present in Kent at an early date, it did not occur in many orchards or do very serious injury. Why did it uot spread from these early centers? The explanations which have been suggested will be discussed later under soil exhaustion, etc. Iu 1887 I spent the last part of August, all of September, and the first part of October iu Keut County. My headquarters were at Clay- ton, Dover, and Felton, but by excursions from these points I was able to examine the greater part of the county and to obtain a very full knowledge not only of the extent and importance of the peach iudustry, but also of the present distribution of peach yellows, which in some re- spects is very interesting. I found the disease almost wherevei" I went. There was great complaint and much gloomy foreboding. The disease ^ Proceed i)i (J s of the Amencan Pomologlcal Society, 1869, p. 153. - Loc. cit. ^ Tlie Maryland Farmer, 1873, p. 77. * Twentieth Annual Report of the Connecticut Board of Agriculture, p. 345. '' The Gardeners' Monthly, Pliilatlelpliia, p. 20C, '^ The Milford Chronicle, October, 1883. ^ Letter of April IG, 1888. 11245— No. 9—5 66 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. was most prevalent from Smyrna to AV^yoming and east to the bay, but even here I was repeatedlj" assured that the trouble had not been serious until the last two years. During the summers of 1886 and 1887 the disease was observed to spread with alarming rapidity. "It spread like fire", to use a common but somewhat exaggerated expression. I made more or less careful examinations in seventy-five orchards, of all ages, on all kinds of soil, and embracing a total of several thousand acres. In suitable orchards I spent from one to several days and made the examination as exhaustive as possible. It was my special good for- tune to see the disease in all stages during the growing season, and to secure the cordial sympathy and co-operation of a great many peach- growers, without which the inquiry would have been much less satis- factory. Princiiially from my field-notes I summarize as follows : About Clay- ton and Smyrna yellows is in all or nearly all the bearing orchards. I do not recall any that were entirely free, and some are so badly dis- eased as to be of no value save for fire- wood. The orchards are numer- ous. Almost every farm has from one to a half dozen. On some farms as many as 100 or 200 acres are devoted to peach orchard. The trees are of all ages, from those set in 1887 to those over twenty years old. From evidence obtained in the orchards I judged that yellows had been present in some of them four or five years, while in others it certainly first appeared in 1887. This judgment was afterwards con- firmed by the owners. The disease occrfrs in bearing trees of all ages. AtLeipsic, southeast of Clayton, I saw many diseased trees and some fine young bearing orchards of large size which have been almost entirely ruined within the last two or three years. At Dover a number of orchards are entirely ruined, and many others are in a fair way to be at an early date. In some of these the disease has been present for several years, but in a majority it Grst appeared in 1886 or 1887. Many orchards now affected were entirely free from it until 1887. Here also I found the disease in bearing trees of all ages. Speaking for all upper Kent, the north one-third, it may be said that the disease was in four-fifths of the orchards and in many of them to an alarming extent. I do not recall a single orchard over three years of age in which I did not find more or less afiected trees. I heard of orchards free from it and I do not doubt that some such were to be found. This part of Kent produced few peaches in 1887. In middle Kent the disease was scarcely less prevalent. In this part of the county there was a considerable crop of peaches, and I heard great complaint, especially about Lebanon, Canterbury, Camden, Wy- oming, and Magnolia, of premature fruit. I also saw a great deal of this sort of fruit. In some instances from one-third to one-half the crop ripened prematurely, with great loss. In my judgment the disease was present in three-fourths of the bearing orchards. lu many it first ap- peared in 1887, and in comparatively few could I discover, either by ex- Yellows in Delaware. 67 amiuatiou or by iuquiry, that it bad existed for auy great leugtli of time. Nearly all tlie trees indicated recent disease. However, iu oue orchard at Magnolia, which 1 did not examine, the disease bad been present for a number of years, according to the owner's statement. I heard similar statements respecting one or two other orchards, but owing to lack of time did not verifj^ them. In southern Kent, the lower one-third, the disease was less frequent. Many farmers, especially those living west and southwest of Felton, had never seen peach yellows, and were entirely ignorant of its eifects. Here I saw the disease in a number of orchards, but iu no case were there many trees afit'ected, nor was there any evidence of its having been pres- ent previous to 1887. In many orchards which I could not examine I was told by the owners that the disease had not appeared; and "in quite a number of others I know from personal inspection that the disease was not present in 1887. During my stay at Felton peaches were being brought in from this region for shipment, and on several occasions I ex- amined many loads without finding any " prematures." Mr. William V. Smith and other peach-buyers then at Felton also told me that com- paratively few premature peaches had been brought iu by the farmers at any time during the season. East of Felton towards Frederica, and east, southeast, and south of that i)lace, the disease was in at least one-half the bearing orchards, but in a majority of these orchards only a few trees were yet affected. Most of these trees became diseased during the year 1887. However, east and southeast of Felton there was abundant evidence in three orchards that yellows had been present several years, probably four or five, and statements made independently by a half-dozen persons confirmed this inference. I saw well-marked cases of the disease as far south as Milford, both in the village and in orchards north and west, and from reliable men had account of its appearance iu orcliards which I did not visit. It was said on good authority to be in one-half the orchards iu that region ; but, from what I saw and heard, I have reason to believe that until 1886 this part of Delaware was almost entirely free from yellows — perhaps entirely free. I saw the disease in bearing trees of all ages; but, with one or two exceptions, I did not see many diseased trees in any one orchard. The conditions in 1888, in this part of Kent County, did not seem to be materially changed. The disease appeared, however, in some orchards previously free from it, and new cases developed in the orchards al- ready aftected. As a whole, the trees in southern Kent are still healthy, while in the north one-third of the county the reverse of this statement is true. In the center and south part of the county I saw many orchards between twenty and thirty years of age, some further account of which will be given later under '' climatic conditions." The greater number of the trees iu these old orchards are still thrifty and in good bearing condi- 68 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. tion. Both iu 1887 and iu 1888 many of tlieui were bent to the ground under their burden of healthy i)eaches. I did not visit Sussex County in 1887, but spent some days at Seaford in 1888. I am inclined to think that yellows has not yet appeared in that county, at least not to any extent, unless it be near Milford. The evidence on which I base this inference is fivefold : (1) The fact that yellows prevailed first in New Castle County and later in Kent, and that as we proceed southward through Kent the disease becomes less and less frequent. (2) The fact that the disease does not occur, at least to any great extent, in the Maryland counties to the west and the Maryland and Virginia counties to the south of Sussex, and that on the whole west side of the Peninsula in Maryland the disease first appeared in the north, and, as in Delaware, shows a general tendency to move slowly from north to south. (3) The entire absence on the part of the growers and buyers of any complaint about prematurely ripening peaches. There has certainly been no premature fruit of any amount in any part of the county, and growers have had no experience with the disease, most of them never having seen a case. (4) The explicit denial of its presence by representative growers in various parts of the county — men of intelligence and character, who have seen the disease in Kent and New Castle, and would know it at sight.^ (5) The fact that in August, 1888, 1 could not find any clearly defined cases of the disease at Seaford or Laurel, although I inspected about thirty orchards and talked with many growers. The most I could dis- cover was a few suspicious trees at Seaford in two or three young orchards, recently imi)orted from iS"ew Jersey. ^Nevertheless, the disease may be present to a limited extent in va- rious parts of Sussex; and, judging from the nature of its movement on the Peninsula, it is only a matter of time when there also it will be- come a serious hindrance to successful peach growing, unless some method can be devised for keeping it in check. Maryland. — What has been said relative to early peach growing in Maryland need not be repeated here. What has been said of Delaware applies equally to the i)eninsular part of Marylaud. The entire Chesapeake and Delaware peninsula, sur- rounded by Delaware Bay, Chesapeake Bay, and the Atlantic, enjoys a moist, equable, almost insular climate, very favorable to the growth and perfection of the peach. There is no locality on tbe globe where this tree is grown more extensively, or where, upon the whole, it has been more productive or more perfectly at home. My own inquiries relate specially to the Peninsula, and in considering the recent progress of peach growing and tbe increase of yellows in ij. H. Myer, of Bridgeville; E. L. Martin, of Seaford; Harbeson Hickman, of Lewes; Hon. Bacon, of Laurel ; etc. P^ACII GROWING IN xMARYLAND. 69 Marylaud, I shall lirst cousider this region beginning with the more northern connties. Cecil County is the most northern, bounded on the north by Pennsyl- vania, on tbe east by upper Delaware, on the south by Kent County, from which it is separated by Sassafras River, and on the west by Chesapeake Bay and Susquehanna Eiver, which separate it from Harford County. In Cecil County the first budded orchard of any consequeuce was set iu 1830,^ on the '' Cassiday" or " Feach Blossom" farm, in Sassafras Neck on the river six miles southwest of Cecilton. The "Cassiday" farm soon became famous through all that region both for the quantity ami the quality of its peaches; ami for many years this reputation was more than sustained. In 185G, this peach farm, containing 063 acres, rented for $0,600 ; and in the winter of 1856-'o7 it was sold to Anthony lieybold, of Delaware, for $51.50 per acre.^ In September of the next year, we are told, Mr. Reybold expected to realize "over $30,000" from his orchards on the Cassiday peach farm.^ By this time manj^ others had begun to plant orchards and the whole Sassafras River region was regarded as a very favorable locality for peach culture. Peaches would grow there, if not any longer at Dela- ware City. In 1862, a Cecilton correspondent of The Country Gentleman* writes in the following vein : The peach crop is fast becoming the moneyed one; hardly a farm is without its thousand or more trees. The Cassidaj'^ farm, now Reybold's, has 400 acres in peaches. There are several other orchards nearly as large. In 1874, Sassafras Neck was still a famous peach region, the most important in the county.^ This relative importance it has retained up to the present time. Peach-growing in Cecil appears to have culmi- nated some time between 1874 and 1887, and to be now -on the decline; but although I visited the county in 1888 I have not enough data to discuss the matter satisfactorily. Of the present extent of peach-growing George Biddle, of Cecilton, vice-president of the Peninsula Horticultural Society for Cecil County, writes as follows : ^ Cecil Couuty is divided into nine election districts, beginning in the south on the Sassafras River and running toward the Pennsylvania line and thence westward to the Susquehanna. This, the first district, has about a half million peach trees. Scarcely a farm that has not an orchard. The second, Chesapeake district, has per- haps half as many; and the third, Elktou, a few about Iron Hill. Tlie remainder of the couuty has scarcely any, none for market." ' George Biddle, letter of February ^I^, Iddd. - Tlie American Farmer, Baltimore, Md., 1Sj7, p. 223. 3/i»K?., 1858, p. 94. ■* The Country Gentleman, Albany, N. Y., 1802, p. 235. * The American Farmer, Baltimore, 1874, p. 179. ^ Letter of February 23, 1888. "One sees no orchards of any consequence in passing through Cecil along the lino of the Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad from Elkton to Havre de Grace, or in the fine country ou the stage line between Middlctowu and Cecilton. 70 aPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. Yellows has undoubtedly been present in some parts of the county for luan}^ years. G. Morgan Eldridge thinks he saw one or two cases on his home farm, near Cecilton, as early as 1844 or 1845. It was in the orchards of Harford County in 1801, 1802, and 1803,^ and most likely at this time, if not earlier in those of Cecil. Dr. W. S. Maxwell states that premature peaches have been coming down from Cecil County, on the Baltimore boats, since as early as 1874, and by the year 1880 as many as one-half of some shipments were of this sort, Mr. Biddle says : I have Iteen eugaged iu growing peaches since 1855. During that time there has been some yellows. As to the cause or cure I know nothing. A few years since it hegan in the orchards of my neighbor, Mr. Hurlock ; the next spring [1884] it crossed the road to one of mine, and spread like fire from row to row, so that I cat it down iu the summer. This is my only experience with it.'- Last year I was told by several peach-growers liviug on the south bank of Sassafras Eiver, that yellows had destroyed whole orchards in Cecil during the ^ast few years, but can not vouch for the entire accu- racy of these statements. It is certain, however, that the epiphytotic of 1886, 1887, and 1888, affected many orchards iu this county. Mr. William V. Smith, of Philadelphia, who has bought peaches for several years in Maryland and Delaware and is familiar with the whole region, told me in August, 1887, at Felton, Del., that he saw a great many premature peaches in Cecil County in 1880. Dr. Dunlap also speaks of the disease as having been prevalent in Kent and Cecil since " about 1886 ;" and Wesley Webb states that it is a serious obstacle to peach-growing at Iron Hill in Elkton.^ .My own observations in 1888 also convinced me that yellows is as prevalent on the north as on the south side of Sassafras Eiver. I saw the disease iu almost every bear- ing orchard, and often in many trees. Of Kent and Queen Anne, lying south of Cecil, I can speak more con- fidently, having examined many orchards in various parts of these two counties in July and August, 1887. A preliminary account of the soil and topography of this part of Maryland is necessary to a full understanding of the situation. The land of Kent and Queen Anne is somewhat rolling. The whole Ches- apeake side of the Peninsula appears to be higher than the Delaware side, and in places along the bay the land is somewhat hilly, not, how- ever, in a New York or a I^ew England sense of the term. Along the upper part of the bay, at least, there are comparatively few marshes. The first glimpse one gets of the "East Shore," sailing over from Balti- more of a July day, are peculiarly charming. One sees stretching away for miles a succession of low green blufi's and level tracts, 20 to 50 feet or more above the bay, dotted with orchards and farm-houses, and in- ^The Country aeiitleman, 1862, p. 270, and 1863, p. 209. "Log. cit. '^ Transactions of the Peninsula Rorticultural Society. Dover, Del., 1888, p. 45i TEACH DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. 71 tersi>ersed with groups of low conifers ami small bodies of deciduous forest. Nor does further acquaiutauce disenchant one. I landed at Center- ville; saw the country there; at Queenstown ; in Spaniards' Xeck on the east shore of Chester Kiver ; in Quaker Neck on the west shore 5 at Price's Station; at Church Hill; atChestertowu ; at Still Pond; at the mouth of the Sassafras River; at Locust Grove,. and in various other parts of both counties. There is some poor land, but the greater part of the country is excellent farming land, free from stones and marshes and under a good state of cultivation. The farms are larger than in the north and probably not as fertile as they once were. Originally a good portion of this region must have been a very garden of fertility. Stock- raising is not extensive. Wheat and corn of excellent quality are staple crops. In some places wheat, which was then being thrashed, yielded from 25 to 30 bushels per acre, but the average yield is less, probably considerably under 20 bushels. Commercial fertilizers are commonly used, especially for wheat. The soil varies from a rather stiff clay loam to a light sand. As a whole it is loam, with clay predominating in Kent and sand in Queen Anne. Farther south, in Talbot and Caroline, I am told that the soil is sand^^ and less productive. The subsoil in Kent is red or yellow clay; in places white clay. Land with red-clay or yellow-clay subsoil is usually selected for peaches. The white-oak land generally has a white-clay subsoil and is not considered so desirable. Chestnut and sassafras land produce the finest orchards and the best peaches. The original timber, now largely gone, was walnut, chestnut, oak (red, black, and white), sweet and sour gum, sassafras, tulip tree, locust, and other deciduous trees. I saw many red cedars, but do not remem- ber to have seen any pine in upper Kent. In Queen Anne and lower Kent there are some pine trees of two species, P. inojjs and P. Tcvda. Prom what I saw I have no hesitation in saying that both Kent and Queen Anne are prosperous and fertile counties. Peach growing is an important industry in both and the leading one of many sections. The two counties together produce more peaches than all the rest of the East Shore and nearly one-half as many as all the rest of Maryland. The tame of the East Shore peaches is almost co-extensive with that of Maryland itself. Kent is the older county and leads in the production of this fruit. The first Kentish orchards of budded fruit were set about 1839 or 1840; some along Chester River, others along the Sassafras, others on the Bay shore. Between 1840 and 1850 many small orchards were planted. Col. Edward Wilkius set his first large orchard — 200 acres — near Chestertown in lS5fi, and continued to be a large grower for twenty years. Other large orchards were planted about 185G. In 1871 Colonel Wilkins had 1,350 luives in peach orchard, i. c"., 136,000 trees.^ 1 The Hot'tioidUtriat, New York, 1«71, pp. 30e=-:3O8, 72 SPECIAL REPORT OX PEACH YELLOWS. luTlie Auiei'icaii Fanuer^ for 1872 is an iiiterestiug account of a visit to "a Maryland peach orchard," made by the editor in September of that year. This orchard belonged to Col. Ed. Wilkins, of " Eiverside," who was then believed to be the largest peach-grower in the world. On his home farm Mere about 25,000 bearing trees, an old orchard, of like number, having been dug out the previous winter.- This orchard, with the bearing ones on his outlying far;KS, brought the total up to 120,000 trees. He hall also 6,000 trees which had not fruited, and pro- posed to phmt 25,000 more in the spring of 1873. Since the first orchards were planted peach growing in Kent has steadily increased in importance. In 1870 it was a great industry, and there were thousands of bearing trees. The United States census of 1880 determined the number of acres of peach orchard to be 13,383, containing 1,232,486 bearing trees. Since that date very many large orchards have been planted, and good judges estimate the present peach acreage of Kent County, all ages, at not less than 20,000 acres. Along the Chester Elver and Sassafras Elver and largely in the coun- try between and along the Chesapeake southwest of the mouth of Sas- safras Eiver peach growing is the leading interest. There is scarcely a farm without its orchard, and many of them contain from 2,000 to 10,000 trees, or even more. Some of the larger growers own a number of farms, and thus control from 200 to 1,000 acres of orchard, i. e., from 20,000 to 100,000 trees. As in Delaware, the peach has been perfectly- at home from the first, making a vigorous growth, yielding abundantlj, and living from twenty to thirty years when not destroyed by root aphides, borers, yellows, or overbearing. The growing of budded fruit began somewhat later in Queen Anne, but is now one'of the leading industries. The total peach acreage of 1880 was 8,051 acres, containing 628,165 bearing trees,^ and the present area is at least 10,000 acres. I do not know when or where the first large commercial orchards were set, but as long ago as 1871, at Eound Top, on Chester Eiver, above Chestertowu, John Harris had a bearing orchard of 1,013 acres.' The next year I find reference to large or- chards farther south — in Spaniards' Xeck. There James Tighlnian of John, had 15,000 trees and Blanchard Emory 4,000. The writer adds: " Queen Anne is not so extensively engaged in peach growing as Kent, but most of her farmers have market orchards."-'^ In 1887, I found peach orchards in Queen Anne all along Chester Elver and well into the center of the county. Xearly every farm has an orchard, and many are of large size ; the largest I saw contains 130 1 The American Farmer, Baltimore, 1872, pp. 329-33L -Most likely the largo orchard set in 1S5G. •'L^upublishecl data of the Tenth Census of the United States. ■•From WUmiiKjion {J)eJ.) Commercial. Quoted in The American F«rmt;r, Baltimore, 1872, p. 62. ^Account of visit to Mr. Tio^hlmau. Tlic American Farmer, Baltimore, 1872, pp. 247,248. YELLOWS IN MARYLAND. 73 acreo. The oldest trees now staiidmg in tlie county were set about tweutj^-five or thirty years ago. I did not visit that part of Queen Anne lying south and east of the Centerville branch of the Philadel- phia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad, and know nothing about the extent of the orchards in the southeastern part of the county. When yellows first appeared in Kent I have no means of determin- ing. James S. Harris, of Still Pond, for many years a large grower of peaches and one familiar with the symptoms of yellows, informs me that he lost 6 acres by this disease on his home farm between 18G1 and 1869. Hon. Wm. T. Hepbron, of Kennedy ville, also informs me that the disease has been in that vicinity from 16 to 25 years. Some whole or- chards were destroyed many years ago. Across the county, at Chester- town, yellows appears to have been present in Colonel VVilkins's orchards as early as 1873, if we may judge from some statements made by him and others at that time. In 1872, as a result of the September visit already mentioned, the editor of The Farmer says : ^ Except tlie borer tlie peach seems to have few enemies in Maryland. The yellows, the scourge of New Jersey, is, so far, almost unknown in Maryland. However, in March, 1874, Colonel Wilkins contributes a curious arti- cle to The Farmer ^ on " Variation in the Season of Ripening of Peaches." He complains that a change has taken place in the time of ripening of peaches so that thej^ now ripen at the same time. He thinks a change of quality has also taken place in some of our old and most esteemed varieties. The editors, who were evidently in the same fog, comment as follows : The subject is one coming home to every grower of peaches for market. The fact of the gradual lessening and final disappearance of the intervals between the ripen- ing of kinds planted to succeed each other, is oue which has become apparent to all cultivators, and the evil has been very seriously felt for years, never, perhaps, having occasioned so much inconvenience and loss as in the year 1872. Then almost all dif- ferences of season appeared obliterated, and varieties whose period of ripening ex- tended over at least three weeks' time seemed to come in together. In the autumn of the same year^ mention is again made of the fact that Colonel Wilkins finds that varieties ripen together, when they should ripen several weeks apart. He also finds " other unfavorable symptoais in his orchards." In all probability this prematuring or ripening together was due to yellows. William Shallcross, of Locust Grove, also informs me that as long ago as 1875, near Sassafras River, he lost 15 acres of three-year-old trees by "i^rematuring," and states that the remainder of the 50-acre orchard died in a few years from the same disease. Dr. W. S. Maxwell also observed the disease iu this locality as long ago as 1875. Nevertheless, it is clear that there was at this time no very general destruction of the peach orchards of Kent County. In 1886 there was, i . _^____ 1 Loc. cit. - The America)! Fanner, Baltimore, ld74, pp. 123-125, ^Loc. cit. I). 247, 74 SPECIAL KEPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. however, a great outbreak of yellows throughout all upper Keut, aud this epiph3totic continued in 1887 aud 1888 with increasing severity. It was certainly preceded, however, by the appearance of yellows iu a number of orchards at considerable distances from each other. In fact, I am inclined to think the upper part of the county lias not been wholly free from this disease since 18G0. My own stndics in Kent and Queen Anne in 1887 consisted of more or less careful examination in about eightyhve orchards, and of dili- gent inquiry among the peach-growers, whom I found very courteous aud helpful. Landing at Centerville I examined orchards in that vicinity without finding any yellows, nor could I gather from conversation or correspond- ence with growers anything which led me to believe the disease was present in that vicinity. From peach-growers at Centerville I received the following written statements: I kuow little, if anything, of the yellows.' We have never had the i»each yellows among us to know it. Oars is a great peach country, and though we are largely in the business, and have been for twenty-five years, I have never seen in our county a case of yellows to know it as such.* Orally I received much similar testimony. The orchards lying south of Corsica Eiver, in Corsica Neck, I did not examine, but was assured that they were entirely healthy. Many l)eaches are grown in that region. From Centerville I went to Spaniards' Neck, a flat, fertile tract lying between Corsica and Chester Eivcrs. This region abounds in fine peach orchards. I explored the neck from one end to the other, and also the country north for some miles along Chester Eiver, examining twelve large orchards. In none of these did I find peach yellows. Many or- chards which I did not examine looked from a distance remarkably vig- orous. In the whole neck I saw only three bad-looking orchards. Two were old, neglected, and full of borers, and one was apparently suffer- ing from root aphides. Diligent inquiry in this neck failed to bring to light any evidence of the present or of the past existence of yellows. Of fruit there was very little, except iu the extreme end of the neck. Across the Chester Eiver, iu Quaker Neck, I examined a number of orchards at this time without finding any traces of yellows. Some weeks later I drove solith from Chestertowu and examined other orchards in the same region with a like result. One young orchard, said by the neigh- bors to have yellows if any in that region had it, was found to be stunted and unthrifty. The owner called the disease yellows, but I did not. The soil was a rather stiff white clay, inclined to bake. I talked with a number of intelligent growers in this region, whose orchards I did not examine ; none knew of the existence of the disease in this part of Kent County. Tliey had heard it was present farther north at Still Pond, 1 Edwin H. Brown, letter of July 13, 1887. s Sauiiiel T. Earle, letter of July 22, 1887. YELLOWS IN MARYLAND. 75 ■where I afterwards saw it. If this disease occurred iu Spaniards' Neck, or anywhere aloug Chester River, on either side, south of Chestertown, it was certainly very rare.^ Northeast of Centerville, at Price's Station, where I examined or- ebards and talked with growers, the disease was unknown, but I heard of it at Sudlersville and at Cruniptou, still farther north. Near Church Hill I saw many orchards, but found the disease at one place only, iu an orchard owned by Charles Weatherby. One or two small limbs on each of three large and vigorous Mountain Eose trees bore a few spotted peaches, some of which were ripe as early as July 24, i. e., about three weeks in advance of the proper time. The peaches on the other limbs were green and about one half grown. There were no other indications of disease iu these trees, nor in any other tree in this or- chard of 25 acres, then sixteen years old, nor that I could discover iu a neighboring 25-acre orchard, seven years old, although later in the season two trees were found in this orchard. The younger orchard, then full of fruit, was particularly healthy and a source of much gratification to Mr. Weatherby, who said he had never had yellows in his orchards and never kuew of any in the neighborhood. Many other peach men living iu this region assured me tliat yellows had never appeared, and some large growers of long experience, who had apparently never been very far from home, even went further and declared that there was no such thing as yellows; I w^as gravely assui-ed that yellows was due to neglect and the depredations of borers and other insects, and that no man need have this disease iu his peach orchards if he would only give them proper care. In one orchard I heard there was yellows, and a careful examination revealed some stunted and unthrifty trees, but no traces of this disease. The disease was present, however, that year, as I afterwards discovered, in two seedling trees in the garden of E. S. Yalliaut, at Church Hill, and also in two budded trees in John Evan's orchard at Eolph's Wharf. Around Chestertown, where there are many large orchards and where I spent some time, I could find no yellows, except in an orchard belong- ing to Wilber Eliason. In this were sixteen diseased trees in two groups. He informed me that the yellows first appeared in 1881 in two trees only. Each year since some trees have been dug out on account of it, perhaps twenty iu all. This orchard, containing about 3,000 trees, is twenty-two years old, but is still vigorous. On this farm are 110 acres of peach trees of various ages and all healthy. I saw no other cases of yellows, but some weeks later Mr. Eliason informed me that he had found and dug out a group of twelve diseased trees in a moist spot, in a large four-year-old orchard, around which we drove without entering, and which for vigor and beauty I particularly admired. 'Iq 188rf I re-examiuecl this region A^ery carefully, iiudiug a few affected trees at " Kiverside," 3^ miles below Chestertown, and a few also iu two orchards farther down the river, in Spaniards' Neck, in Queeu Anne, 7G SPECIAL KEPOllT ON PEACH YELLOWS. Driving north froDi CUestertown, [ began to soe indications of yellows at Lynches, and from this point to Still Pond Village, and thence to Lo- cust Grove and Sassafras Eiver peach trees diseased by yellows became more and more frequent. In some orchards along the Sassafras one- half of the trees were affected and almost no orchards were entirely free from it. Here I also heard great complaint by many growers about loss of fruit by premature ripening, and saw many premature peaches, although it was not a prolific year. The badly diseased orchards of this region can be distinguished a mile off by the unhealthy reddish and brownish yellow color of the foliage, which is in marked contrast with the beautiful dark green foliage of orchards 10, 15, or 20 miles south. Alon g the Sassafras and for several miles south the disease has cer- taiulj^ existed several years. The evidence of this is in the orchards themselves, and I also obtained confirmatory statements from many per- sons: e.g. — In a large old orchard owned by James Hurdd, near Locust Grove, I found about 200 diseased trees, and more than twice as many had been cut down in previous years on account of yellows. The dis- ease first appeared in this orchard in 1884. Some miles west of Locust Grove, and north of Still Pond Village, yellows appeared in a young- orchard, owned by J. Frank Wilson, in 1882, gradually involving more trees each year. IsTorth of this village, near the mouth of the Sassafras Eiver, in a young orchard owned by Charles H. Price, yellows appeared in 1884, gradually involving more trees each year. In a neighboring old orchard, owned by Dr. W. S. Maxwell, the disease first appeared in 1883, gradually involving more and more trees, and appearing in younger orchards on the same farm in 1884, 1885, 1886, and 1887. The distribution of peach yellows in these two counties in 1887 may be summarized as follows: It was widely and destructively prevalent along the whole length of the Sassafras Eiver. From this point it be- came less and less noticeable down to Sudlersville, Church Hill, and Chestertowu. South of a line drawn through Chestertown and Church Hill I could not find any traces of the disease,^ and I was informed that it did not occur in Caroline or Somerset Counties.- In July and August, 1888, I revisited this region and spent an entire week walking and driving in Queen Anne and southern Kent to de- termine, if possible, the exact southern limits of the disease. There can be no doubt that yellows is moving southward on the peninsula, or that on the southern limit of 1887 it is now in more orchards than it was then. Around Chestertown I heard of the disease in a number of orchards said to have been free in 1887. In the orchard of Mrs. S. A. AVilkins, at " Eiverside," I saw it in thirteen trees, in two widely separated groups. On the Aldridge farm near Pomona, I saw it in one tree. On 'This liue projected, southeast, also very nearly indicated the soiitheru boundary of the disease iu Kent, Del., the yellows being considerably farther south on the Delaware side than on the Chesapeake side of the peninsula. ■'See also statement by John Eutter, p. 35. YELLOWS IN MARYLAND. 77 the Thomas place, uear Fairlee, I saw it iu one tree. On the farm of James L. Beck, near Tolchester, I saw it in thirty trees. With one ex- ception all of these trees were young, and with the exception of some in the Beck orchard all became diseased in 18SS. The orchards in this region are numerous and profitable. I must have seen more than one hundred, and almost all of them were very green and thrifty. In Queen Anne County I found the disease much more prevalent than in 1887. Diseased trees were not at all difficult to find. 'No one knew of the disease last j'ear, but this year the farmers were all talking about it. I saw it at Eolph's Wharf, at Churcli Ilill, at Sudlersville, and also, to a very limited extent, in Spaniards' Neck. In the north part of the county it is in many orchards. I saw it in at least a dozen, and heard of it in others. Charles Clements, of Sudlersville, who traveled all over the north part of Queen Anne in 1888 buying peaches, told me that he found premature fruit in nearly every orchard, although, as a rule, only a few trees in an orchard were yet affected. The most I saw . in any one orchard was thirty trees. This was on the farm of Findley Eoberts, near Sudlersville. The orchards of Queen Anne were green and thrifty, and at a distance gave no indication of disease. I believe the disease does not now occur anywhere on the "East Shore " south of Centreville and Denton, although 1 have not traveled in any of the southern counties, but have to depend entirely on the state- ments of others (see Map YIII). According to " T. E. B.," peach yellows was in orchards at Falston, in the western part of Harford County, as long ago as 1861-'G2.i /jj^g next year the same writer says : Peaclies liave generally failed iu this ueit^bborhood. [He ascribes this failure to yellows.] The yellows, as it is called, * * * is coutagious, and a single diseased tree -will, in a few yciirs, destroy an orchard. Every one that looks sickly, and especially one that ripens any of its frnit prematurely, should immediately be dug up.^ Dr. W. S. Maxwell, who visited Harford County in the fall of 1887, and again in July, 1888^ saw yellows in several small orchards between Aberdeen and Churchville. Along Deer Creek peaches grew well twenty years ago, according to Dr. James McGraw, but now the yellows destroys them before they reach bearing age. According to statements made by others, peach orchards were formerly plentiful in Harford, along the Bay Shore, from Spescutie Narrows down to a point opposite Poole's Island. Yellows destroyed these orchards. The disease now attacks young orchards when they first come into bearing, and soon destroys them. Peaches are now grown in Harford County only to a limited extent.^ ij/ze Countrij Gentleman, 18G2, p. 270. ^Ibid., September, 1863, p. 209. 3 James S. Harris, letter of January 31, ISsS ; W. S. Maxwell, M. D., letter of Feb- ruary 12, 1888. See, also, Map VIII, 78 SPECIAL REPORT OX PEACH YELLOWS. In Baltimore County, wliicli joins Harford on the west, peaches have been grown for market many years. As long ago as 1834, near Balti- more, liicbard Cromwell grew peaches to such an extent that he was commonly called "the peach king."^ His first orchard must have been set as early as 1810 ; and for several decades he supplied the city of Baltimore " with peaches of the best quality and on a large scale/' According to Robert Sinclair, yellows was present in Mr. Cromwell's orchards prior to 1810, and it was his custom to dig out such trees with a view to preventing the spread of what he believed to be a communi- cable disease- Concerning the appearance and nature of yellows, Mr. Sinclair says: I am fully satisfied tbat the complaint exists. Some persous saj- that the worm at the root is the cause of the yellows. I acknowledge that any disorder that destroys the trees -will cause the le.ives to turn yellow; hut the complaint I call yellows will kill a whole orchard, without any visihle wounds, on or hefore the third or fourth full crop. I think where any neighborhood abounds with peach orchards it will be nearly impossible to keep clear of the disease. * * * i think I have seen evidences of its being in some degree contagious. His attention had been called to this disease occasionally '' for about thirty years" — /. e., since about 1810. In 1887 S. H. Wilson, of Baltimore County, writing on " Peach Yel- lows in Maryland,"^ says that forty years ago trees "rarely, if ever, failed to grow and produce large crops for years," even when neglected. Some years before the civil war his neighbor set out 10 or 12 acres of peach trees, which did well. Seven or eight years later this man set out two additional orchards of about the same size. " Before they came into bearing, the yellows, a thing heretofore unknown, attacked the old orchard and spread to the two young plantations; and I do not think his last two plantations produced a peck of fruit." When he came upon his own place, seventeen years ago (1870), " it was nearly all planted with peach trees just coming into full bearing." Yellows was then present, and it gradually spread until now but one tree is left, although he has dug out, cultivated, and boned heavily. Of four trees set in 1870, one contracted the disease the third year ; the rest after two crops. In 1882 he set twenty-seven first-class trees and kept the ground cultivated. " I have applied yearly kainit, high-grade muriate of potash, bone, and wood ashes ; look for worms a dozen times a year; head back one-half of every branch, and now a good share of these trees have the yellows. My soil is a heavy loam ; subsoil, vellow clay." In 1887 1 saw the disease in the following places on the " west shore : " In Harford County, at Havre de Grace and Edgewood; in Baltimore 'Transactions of the American Institute, 1849, Albany, N. Y., 1850, p. 292. -Robert Sinclair, Clairmout Nursery, near Baltimore, March 18, 1841. Magazine of Horticulture, VII, p. 210. Quoted in Farmer's Begister, Petershurgh^ Va., 1841, pp. 357, 358. ^ Tlie American (iarclen, New York, 1887, p. 72. YELLOWS IN GEORGIA. 79 County, ill the twelfth district; in Anne Arundel County, at Odenton. I have also been informed that the disease occurs in Prince George County', and believe this statement to be correct. The disease also occurs in the mountains of Washington County and in other parts of west Maryland, The yellows also occurs in the District of Columbia. In 18SG I saw several trees evidently diseased by it for a number of years, and then in a dying condition. In 1887, in yards and gardens in various parts of the city of Washington, I found no less than twenty trees showing unmistakable signs of yellows, /. e., bearing the pale, puny, much- branched summer shoots. In all but one or two of these trees the disease had evidently developed that year or the preceding. Virginia. — The disease occurs to some extent on the west bank of the Potomac, in the vicinity of Washington, where I saw it in*i886. It has also been reported from other parts of the State,' and was present as long ago as 1849, if we may credit the following statement made by Yardley Taylor, of Loudon County, in his report to the second congress of fruit growers convened in New York City : Peaches succeed well here. It is no uucommon thiug to see trees thirty or forty years old. The yellows occasionally are seeu, and where no efforts are made to ex- tirpate those that are affected, the disease has in some places destroyed many trees.'^ Similar statements w'ere made in 1852 by a committee of the American ■Pomological Society at the Philadelphia meeting of that year.^ South Carolina. — In 1877. The Southern Cultivator published some curious statements as to the "wide variation in timeof ripening of peaches in South Carolina. This variation was attributed to locality and ex- ternal influences,'' but is a suspicious indication. It would not, there- fore, be surprising if yellows were found to exist in that State,^ Georgia. — The first orchards, as we have already seen, were set as early as 1730, perhaps earlier, soil and climate both appearing to be congenial. Budded peaches were not, however, planted very exten- sively until after the civil war. This State now grows peaches for com- mercial purposes, and there are some very large orchards in the middle west part. That yellows exists anywhere in Georgia has never been clearly es- tablished. Eepeated inquiries during the last thirty years of prominent peach-growers living in this State have always elicited such responses as the following : " Yellows does not exist in Georgia." " It has never appeared here." " It is a disease of northern climates." The published evidence in favor of its occurrence in Georgia is very meager. ' Report on Condition of Growing Crops, August, 1887, Washington, D. C. 2 Trans, of the Am. Inst., 1849, pp. 294,295. ' The Plough, Loom, and Anvil, Vol. V, part II, p. 38. * The Cultivator and Country Gentleman, Albany, N. Y., 1877, p. 413. sSee Condition of Growiug Crops, J i(^!(s<, 1887, United States Department of Agri- culture, p. 375. 80 SPECIAL EEPORT OX PEACH YELLOWS. In 1877, T. T. Lyon, of South Ilaveu, Micb., received a imiuber of young trees from P. J. Berckmaiis, of Augusta, Ga. One of these trees developed that season, on Mr. Lyon's grounds, a very characteristic wiry growth on the stock below the graft, and the next season the top of this tree also became diseased with what he considered to be unmistak- able yellows.' Mr. Lyon believes the disease was dormant in the tree when it was removed from the Georgia nursery, but as peach yellows existed in other orchards at South Haven at that time, the evidence that this tree became diseased in Georgia is not entirely conclusive. I know of one other reason only for suspicion. There is a disease of peach trees in middle G»eorgia, in and near Griffin, which is entirely dis- tinct from the effects of borers or of starvation, and is said to kill the trees in two pr three years. I have not visited that locality, but have received numerous specimens gathered at different times of the year, and judging from these and from accounts of the disease furnished by J. D. Husted, of Vineyard, Ga., and by James N. Harris, of Griffin, I am inclined to think it is yellows. Mr. Husted's description is as fol- lows:* The whole tree usually assumes a sickly appearance ; the leaves are very small and slender, Tvith a yellow death-like look. Late in the season or second season of the attack the tree ceases to make terminal growth, and a bunch or rosette of leaves forms at the tips of limbs, making the tree conspicuous at a distance. ^ Trees thus attacked are sure to die the second or third year. The symptoms difler from the yellows as known in Michigan. So far as I can learn, it is not infectious, as single trees are often allowed to stand in the orchard until they die (which they are certain to do), and the nearest trees remain healthy. The small wiry shoots do not appear on the main branclies, as they do in the North, and I believe (though not quite sure) the dis- eased trees are barren of fruit from their first attack. In 1888, Mr. Husted wrote again as follows:* The lot in top of box * * * is from a small tree just attacked this summer, and is the only case I have found where the whole tree was not attacked at once with the disease. You will notice that some of the branches are apparently healthy although the whole of the base of the tree appears affected. The second and last specimens * » * are from a strong tree, six years old, and every part is diseased like the specimens I send you [same as Photo. XVI]. This last tree, as well as the first, showed no symptoms of disease last summer that I no- ticed, but from the fact that it shows so complete development of the disease now, it is quite probable that it escaped my notice last season. I am of the opinion the first symptoms of disease, in this locality at least, are not so manifest as in the Xorth. I have found no person yet who has ever seen a tree with the disease in beaiing, and although several trees have fruited prematurely this season with fruit of large size, yet the flavor was good — a little more astringent than usual; the surface was not high colored, and the flesh of the fruit was of the usual color in sound fruit. » * • In my orchard of 6,000 trees, from three to six years old, I dug tip last season three [such] trees, and this season have taken out two, and have two more to dig out. 1 Conversation of May 1, 1888; see, also, Ann. Kept, of ihe Secy of Ike Mich. Slate Pom. Soc.,1878, p. 258; 1880, p. 273, and 1884, p. 177. « Letter of September 20, 1887. 3 See Plate No. V of Washington tree, and Plates Nos. XVI, XVII, XVIII, photo- graphed from Georgia specimens. ■* Letter of June 18, 1688. YELLOWS IN GEORGIA. 81 Some old ami ueglectcd orchards are diseased still more. It is tlie opiuiou of several of the fruit-growers that the disease is oa the iucrease. Peach trees here grow along the hedge-rows and streams and the woodlands, and trees [thus] diseased are occasionally found iu these i)laces. June 6, 1888, I received specimeus from J. iST. Harris, of Griffin, Ga., which proved identical with those sent iu May and Jiuie by Mr. Husted, of Vineyard. Tlie letter accompanying these says : There are a good many trees in this section uow in this condition. They grow one year this way and the next they die. I don't know one that has ever recovered. In answer to my in; Tlir nardenerii' Month I j. riiiladeli.liia, I'a., IS.t'O, pp. 20()-207, iiiid 1H84, ].. :!0;5, 96 SPECIAL REl'OKT ON PEACH YELLOWS, in. LOSSES DUE TO YELLOWS. DESTKCCTIVE NATlHli OK THE MALADY. This may be shown in various ways, but perhaps in no better way than by a detailed statement of the condition of some of the many orchards visited in 18S7, representative ones being selected for that pur- pose. The force of the following statements will also be enhanced if it be remembered that with one exception these are all young orchards, and that, in this same region, peach orchards unmolested by yellows re- main healthy and productive for periods ranging from fifteen to thirty years. (1) Orchard of Dr. W. >V. Maxwell, Still Pon(l,Md. — Examined at va- rious dates in August, 1887. Ee-examiued August 7, 1888, This orchard is situated in Kent County, on a neck of land near the mouth of Sassa- fras Eiver, in the heart of a very important i)each district. It is known locally as the " Gunnery Point" orchard. The trees were set in the au tumn of J882, the field beingspecially selected for peaches on account of its situation and fertility. They were procured from a neighboring nursery, were carefully planted, and received each year thereafter clean culture and all necessary attention. The trees made a smooth, thrifty growth, and did not exhaust themselves by overbearing, the orchard having never produced a full crop. Yellows first appeared in 1886, when a few of the trees bore premature peaches, but did not send out the diseased shoots. When I examined the orchard in August, 1887, it contained 518 trees, 210 of which were healthy, 279 diseased by yellows, and 20 doubtful (see Map J). Some of the 279 trees bore premature peaches, others were barren. Many of them bore great numbers of the diseased shoots, and presented a very yellow and languishing appearance. Some of them were nearly dead. Those that were healthy appeared to be as thrifty as any peach trees. See Tabic I for per cent, of loss and distribution by varieties. Table I.— Orchard of W. s. Alcuivell, Still I'oiid, Mil. Variely. Number Number '^1::^^' plante.1. ^ggc ami 1887. Percent. of dis- eased. G9 :_!G : G3 51 190 13C 222 i-O 1110 o:i : Kceves' Favorite Tot;il 518 27;) In 1S8S, 170 of the remaining healthy trees became diseased, /, c, 74 per cent. In autumn the whole orchard was removed and the field sowed to wheat. LOSSES DUE TO YELLOWS. 97 (2) Orchard of Charles H. Price, Still Pond, i¥(Z.— Examined August 16, 1887. This orchard is about 1 mile west of No. 1, on higher, lighter ground. The farm lies in part on the Sassafras River, in part on Ches- apeake Bay. The trees were set in the spring of 1881, and have received clean culture an«l careful attention, the orchard having been liberally fertilized and plowed and harrowed each year like a cornfield. Yellows appeared in 1881, when some of the trees first bore premature frnit. The disease has increased in extent and severity until it is now in all parts of the orchard. Many trees have been removed, and many more are badly diseased and valuable only for fuel. Until it became diseased this orchard made a good growth. It has borne several crops. In August, 1887, its condition was as follows : Table II.— Orchard of Charles H. Frice, Still Fond, Md. Variety. Mountain Rose . . Crawford's Early Reeves' Favorite Old Mixon Stump tbe World. Crawford's Late ., Beers' Smock Total Number of trees planted. Number dugout on account of yellows prior to 1887. Number diseased by yel- lows in 1887. 129 312 474 269 542 5C8 680 52 87 93 47 103 79 99 2,974 560 45 100 81 14 33 53 C7 393 To;al dead and diseased. 97 187 174 61 136 132 166 Per cent, of dead and dis- eased. 953 N'o account is here taken of 130 Beers' Smock planted in a low spot in the southwest corner of the orchard, all of which have been removed, and about 100 of which were taken out on account of yellows. In 1888, 257 became diseased, i. II). Many of these trees bore the spotted, prematurely ripe peaches; others were barren. The limbs of some were grown up quite thickly with the diseased shoots; others bore few such shoots. None of the trees, aud not even any of the large limbs, were yet dead, and in most instances the spring foliage was of full size aud good color. The last statement also applies to the trees which became diseased in 1888. This orchard, like No. 14, was of special interest because the trees were very thrifty, and yellows appeared in them without any complications due to borers, aphides, or other injuries. The effects which I saw were clearly at- tributable to one disease. The following table shows the loss by varieties: 100 tSPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. Table Y.— Orchard of F. H. Harper, Still Pond, Md. Varietv. Variegated Free Crawford's Early Reeves's Favorite Old Mixon Christiana Crawford's Late (some Harker's Seedlings mixed in) , Mary's Choice (some Harker's Seedlings mixed in) Beers' Smock Harker's Seedling (five rows), Mountain Hose (two rows), and a few Reeves's Susquehanna or Brand.ywine Smock and a few Crawford's Early, Total Number of trees planted. Number gone, 318 of which were removed in 1887 on account of Yellows. Number diseased by yel- lows in ]8S8. 53 107 ;o7 260 289 406 335 666 308 216 15G 2,903 405 Total Per cent, dead and of de.id-aud' diseased, diseased. 28 138 46 i I 47 I 39 I I 21 25 8 21 24 (7) Orchard of William ShaUcross, Locust Grove, Md. — Examined August 2, 1887 ; rcexauiiued August 4, 1888. This orclianl is on fertile upland about 1 mile from the south bank of the Sassafras Eiver and 3 ruiles east of No. C. It contains about 1,000 trees; was set in 1881, and until recently has received careful attention. The trees have not been exhausted by overbearing. In 1887, this orchard was affected with yellows from one end to the other, fully one-half the trees showing marked signs of the disease, and only here and there one bearing full-grown, dark-green foliage. Many of the trees are stunted, and 1 am inclined to think root aphides had been at work, though I did not observe them. In fourteen rows on the north side of the orchard scarcely a tree was exempt from the disease. The leaves were scattering, small, and yellowish, and many trees bore l)lentilul growths of the wiry witchbrooms. The crop of 1880 pre- matured badly. In 1887 most of the trees were barren. I saw only here and there a peach, but all of these were premature. As a whole, the south part of the orchard looked healthier than the north part, in which Mr. Shallcross says the disease appeared w-hen the trees had been set only two years. This orchard is practically ruined, and for this reason received little attention in 1887. In 1888 the whole crop prematured. There remained only thirty-seven healthy trees, nearly all of those which were healthy in 1887 having become badly diseased. (8) Orchard of William Hudson, Clayton, Del. — Examined October 5 and G, 1887; revisited iu August, 1888, but examined only in part. This orchard is on the norlh side of a fertile farm, lying midway be- tween Clayton and Smyrna, The trees were set in 1880, and made good LOSSES DUE TO YELLOWS. 101 growth. They have received yearly cultivation and other necessary atteutiou. Mr. Hiulsou thiuks there were some diseased trees in this orchard when he moved upon the place in the spring of 1883, but says he har- vested from it two good crops of peaches, i. e., in 1883 and 1884. Two years ago he observed many "prematures," and last year (1887) it seemed as if all the peaches in the orchard were premature. Beginning on the south side, I went through this orchard by double rows, carefully inspecting each tree. In all there were 3,520 trees, in- cluding missing ones and stumps to the number of one hundred or more. Of this total, 2,G10 were diseased by yellows, about forty of the trees being entirely dead. In other words, three fourths of all the trees in this orchard were diseased. Mr. Hudson's own estimate prior to the examination was three-fifths. Many of these trees were badly affected a ,d ready to die (see Photo XI). The largest number of diseased trees found in any full double row of IGO trees was 142, and the least was 105. The record beginning on the south side of the orchard, is as follows: Table VI. — Orchard of JVilliam Hudson, Clayton, Del. Variety. Mountain Eoso, includes thirty- three trees of Late Heath Cliug. i I York's Early ami Troth's Early Crawford's Early (three rows) f Moore's Favorite and Variegated j Free (seven rows). "j I Reeves's Favorite I PiiUen's Seedling (three rows) and J Crawford's Late (live rows). | I Ward's Late Free (three and one- f half rows) and Beers' Smock (one- -J half row). I f Sliipley 's Late Red •{ Donble Number row. I of trees. Total 124 124 124 124 124 152 ICO IGO 160 160 ICO 160 ICO 160 160 160 160 160 ]C0 160 119 104 91 78 61 30 lit y. J-0 Number found dis- eased by yellows in 1887. Percent, of dead and diseased. 84 80 93 111 130 142 137 127 131 117 115 113 106 1U8 li 123 i 120 I I 120 \) 76 105 77 68 i^ C3 j 49 I I 27 ' I 11 J 2,616 75 66 75 65 73 74 102 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. Ill 1SS8, this orchard bore ii small crop of peaclies, but most of them were premature, iusipid, and small. {'.)) Oi'chard of John Hudson, Clayton, Del. — Examiued October 7, 1887 ; re-examined August 14, 1888. This orchard is 1 mile northwest of Claytou, ou nearly level saudy loam. It was set in the spring of 1883, for the most partou ground which had previously been in peaches. Tlie old orchard was removed eight years before this one was set, the land, meanwhile, being two years in pasture and the rest of tbe time in corn, wheat, etc. A triangular portion on the south side was never before in peaches, and this ground is said to have been in past- ure i)revious to planting. There is a slight rise on the southwest side, but not over 8 feet. No part of the orchard is wet. I could see no (liifiMence in any part, either as to quality of soil or kind or quantity of weeds. Mr. Murphy, the tenant, says he observed the disease in this orchard in 1S8G. It existed ijrevious to that date in an old orchard on the same farm. In 188S this orchard prematured badly. The following table shows the condition of the orchard by varieties : Table VIL — Orchard of John Hudson, Cluyton, DeL Variety. Number Number disea.sed of trees by yel- plauted. lows iu 1887. Xumber diHua.sed by yel- lows in 1888. Remark .s on condition in 1887. Mountain Rose Old Mixon (?) Stump (0 192 32 192 35 192 47 36 51 63 23 52 58 19 68 35 80 45 110 ; 57 1 Planted eight years after the re- iiioviil of an old or- J- chard. Total trees 1 in block, 1,216; total disea.sed, 232, i. e., less than one-flfth. J ) Short rows plant- ed on ground never [before in peaches. Total trees, 307; to- tal diseaseil, 115, i. e., over one-third. 1 lleeves' Favorite... Crawfoid'sLate(l) 192 192 160 96 80 180 47 23 43 30 22 46 95 88 41 49 103 27 21 49 55 43 61 57 57 stump (!) Beers' Smock Christiana (?) Smock and some other yellow sort. 27 22 73 30 15 12 Total 1,523 317 3S6 | 713 \ 47 i . 1 I (10) Orchard of ,L Frank De7iney, Leijjsic, Del—^xRimwd Septem- ber *J aiul 10, 1887. This orchard is about 1 mile northwest of Leipsic, and 4 miles from Delaware 13ay, on level, fertile soil. The trees were set in the spring of 1881, and grew very thriftily, so that four years ago the orchard was acknowedged to be the finest iu the neighbor- hood. It received careful attention, being cultivated frequently each year until July. The orchard has not been exhausted by overbear- ing. It bore a few peaches in 1884, about 200 baskets in 1885, 3,200 in 1880, and none in 1887. Yellows may have appeared in 1884, but was 6rst noticed in 1885, in a few trees in two groups ou the east side of the orchard (see Map III). LOSSES DUE TO YELLOWS. 103 Some uf these trees were removed. In 188G many trees became af- fected, and many peacbes ripeued prematurely, particularly on the north end of the orchard. Many of these trees were pulled out, but not all of them. In 1887 the disease spread rapidly, involving nearly all the remaining healthy trees (see Map III). At the time of my visit Mr. Denney was thoroughly discouraged, and talked of cutting down the entire orchard. Having harvested one moderate crop he thought if he removed the trees at once and put the ground to other uses the debit and credit of the orchard would very nearly balance. Many of the trees were very yellow and presented a most miserable languishing appearance. The following table exhibits more completely some of the results of my examination : Table VIIL — Orcliard of J. Frank Denney, Le'q)dc, Del. Variety. Number of trees plauted. Number gone, chiefly ou account of yellows. Number found dis- eased by yellows in 18S7. Per cent. of dead and diseased. 300 200 200 3C0 200 200 200 300 200 *4G 96 100 95 49 70 70 81 45 42 7 184 83 84 195 114 112 96 203 128 30 90 92 90 81 92 91 89 83 85 80 Foster Crawford's Early Stump the World Steveu's Late Rare-ripe Total 2, 146 655 1,229 88 *There were 300 trees of this variety, but for want of time only 46 were examined, amincd appeared to be equa lly diseased. Those not ex- (11) Orchard of William B. Morris, Dover, Del. — Examined Septem- ber 20, 1887. This orchard, of 12 to 15 acres, is ou thin, sandy land, about 1 mile south of Dover and 20 or 30 feet above St. Jones' Creek, which surrounds it on three sides. The trees were set in the spring of 1880. This orchard received careful attention and thorough cultivation each year. It has also received great quantities of chicken bones and some commercial fertilizers, but has never returned much in the way of l)eaches. Yellows first appeared in 1885, or possibly in 1884, in a few trees. Up to this date the orchard presented a healthy appearance, although it had not made a large growth. In 1886 the disease spread rapidly, and in 1887 I found nearly all the trees affected, at least three-fourths of them. The foliage of this orchard was of a sickly reddish or yellow- ish green and was much dwarfed, as were also the terminal shoots. The orchard was also suffering from root- aphides. 104 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. Some trees were gone, and the yoiiug ones which had that spriiif,^ been set in their place were diseased in the same way, as were a few trees in the neighboring, otherwise thrifty, orchard of 10 acres or more, also set that sjjring (see Photo. YI, which well represents the appearance of these young trees). (12) Orchard of William Brothers, Dover, Del. — Examined September 16, 1887. Ee examined August 16, 1338. This orchard is on mellow loam, such as one would naturally select for a peach orchard. It is 3^ miles west of Dover. The trees were set in tlie spring of 1881, re- ceived careful attention, and made a good growth. Yellows first appeared in 1887, and none of the trees were then badly diseased. The following table shov/s the condition of the orchard by varieties : Table IX.— Orchard of fViUiam Brothers, Dover, Del. Variety. Anisden's June Early Alexander Early Hi vers Old Mixou Eoeves' Favori te Mixed varieties, cbiefly Stump tb World 01lino^3e Cling Crawford's Lato Sahvay (?) Probably Beers' Smock . Bilyeu's October Beers' Smock Total Nurabe;.' of trees planted. 50 50 50 50 50 74 25 350 50 25 230 1,024 Ifurtiber diseased by yellows in 1887. Niimber diseased by yellows in 1888. Total diseased. Per cent, of diseased. 18 24 8 4 2 12 12 5 42 0.4 * Mostly smock. (13) Orchard of M. Hays, Dover, 7>c/.— Examined September 24, 1887. lie examined August 19, 1888, This small orchard stands near the west side of the highway one-half mile south of Dover. It contains 220 trees, which were selected with great care for t^imil}^ use. They were set in the spring of 1881^ and have received particular attention. Yellows first appeared in 1887. The orchard was barren when exam- ined, but no less than 36 trees, 16 per cent., bore the diseased shoots, although none of them were then badly affected. In 1888 I found 47 additional cases, i. e., 26 per cent. (14) Orchard of James W Green, Magnolia, Del. — Examined Septem- ber 5, 14, 17, and 19, 1887. Ee-examined August 17 and 18, 1888. This orchard stands on level, fertile land, on the east side of the highway, about 7 miles south of Dover, and a mile or two west of Magnolia. This orchard was set in the spring of 1882, with trees procured in the neigh- borhood. During the first three years it was cultivated in corn, and LOSSES DUE TO YELLOWS. 105 siuce then has beeu tilled without crop.s. It received great care, grew thriftily, aud became a source of much gratitication to the owuer, who expected to receive many crops therefrom. Owing to its unbroken rows and clean thrifty growth it specially attracted my attention. In fact I did not see a finer orchard anywhere in Delaware. It contains about 33 acres, to 30 of which I paid special attention (see Map lY). This orchard is situated in the heart of a very productive peach region, but has never exhausted itself by overbearing. It bore no peaches the third year, only 1,500 baskets the fourth year, none the fifth year, and only from 1,500 to 2,000 in 1887, quite a good many of which were premature. The healthy trees bore a good crop in 1888. Yellows first appeared in 1880, in a few trees only. Mr. Green says four trees, near each other on the west side, had been sickly for several years. In 1880 he dug about them and made longitudinal slits in the bark of the trunks, and early in the spring of 1887 cut back two of them to the stump. The stumps of these two trees sent out nothing but the diseased shoots, which grew up into a tufted mass. One of the other two trees also showed the disease. From a very careful examination I am inclined to think some of the trees on the east side of the orchard may also have been affected in 1886, and been overlooked because the orchard was barren. However, I am confident that not more than ten trees in the whole orchard could have been so diseased in 1886, and probably not that number. Even the four trees mentioned by Mr. Green as sickly were not known to have the yellows, and one of them certainly did not have it, for it was healthy in 1887. The condition of the orchard by varieties, exclusive of 250 Amsden's June not critically examined, is shown in the following table: Table X. — Orchard of James TV. Green, Magnolia, Del. Variety. Number of trees planted. Number diseased by yellows in 1886 a:id 1887. Number diseased by yellows in 1888. Total diseased. Per cent, of disea.'*ed. 353 155 109 211 729 171 374 264 210 340 77 14 2 4 37 2 25 12 20 51 15 14 3 82 17 46 23 28 3;- ■ 128 29 10 119 19 71 35 5t OG 36 19 15 3 16 11 19 13 26 2S Wilkins' Cling Fox's Seedling Crawford's Late OldMixon Troth's Early Total 2, 922 260 314 574 20 (15) Orchardof D. P.Barnard, Bislng Sun, Del, — Examlued Septen:ber 7, 1887. Ke-examined August 21, 1888. This orchard stands on warm, sandy loam, on the east side of the highway, in a great peach region, 106 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. aud nol more tliau oiicbalf mile from tbe celebrated " Aisbcraft" form. It contains about 25 acres, but only tbe west part was examined. Tbe trees were set in the spring of 1885, and have received yearly cul- tivation in corn and tomatoes, fertilizers being used. Tbe orcbard first bore peaches in 1888. Yellows first appeared in 1887, chiefly in six rows on the west side (see Map V). Out of about 1,000 trees 34 were diseased. East and southeast of this orchard, on the same farm, stood two other orchards, both of which became quite badly diseased in 188G or earlier. (16) Orchard of Br. Henry RidgeJy, Dover, Del. — Examined September 23, 1887. Tliis orchard is on deep, fertile sandy loam, at Cowgill's Cor- ners, 4 miles east of Dover and 3 miles from Delaware Bay. It was set in the spring of 1855, and originally contained about 2,000 trees. It re- ceived careful and often prolonged cultivation each year, aud has been a very productive orcbard, but has never received much return in tbe way of fertilizers. During the thirty-two years quite a good many trees had disappeared from effects of injury by freezing, by over-bearing, by borers, etc., but yellows did not appear until 1877, and then in a few trees only. These were dug out and removed. Each year since then the dis- ease has appeared in some trees, and each year they have been removed. It is not possible to determine exactly how many trees have been taken out on this account, but certainly a number of hundred. In 1887 the disease attacked more trees than any previous year, and these were stand- ing at the date of my visit. Out of the original 2,000 trees I estimated that 800 were remaining, and of this number at least 500 were then en- tirely free from yellows, and appeared likely to continue productive for another ten years if not molested by that disease. (17) Orchard of Joseph McDa7iiel, Dover, Del — Examined September 27, 1887. Ee-examined August 20, 1888 (see Map VI). This orchard stands on the southwest side of the highway, 2 miles northwest of Dover. Tbe nearly level field consists of light sand or loam, worn out thirty years ago and brought back to a state of fertility by recent very heavy mauur- ings. The orchard has also received commercial fertilizers. It was planted in tbe spring of 1884. It received careful culture ; made a thrifty growth; and bore no peaches until 1888, when it was planted to corn. When first examined, those trees not diseased bore full-grown, bealtby foliage, and in every way appeared to be vigorous. The tops of many of the diseased trees were also of a healthy green, indicating recent disease. Some of the trees in this orchard probably became diseased in 1886, but did not attract attention. Most of them, undoubtedly, first became af- fected in 1887. Out of about 1,800 trees, 504 were diseased, the greater number being on the southeast side of the orchard (see Map VI on which the arrow points south). Photographs I and II are of shoots taken from this orchard. On the limbs of many trees were numerous pale, feeble shoots. In 1888, 383 out of the remaining 1,300 trees became diseased. (18) Orchard of Dr. W. S. Maxicell, Still Fond, ilW.- Examined Au- gust 14, 1887. Ite-examined August 7, 1888 (see Map VII). Tbis or- PEACH INDUSTflY OF THE UNITED STATES. 107 chard was set iu 1885 aud 1880. It lies south of No. 1, at the foot of ;k high hill on which are also diseased orchards. The soil of the '' bottom " is deep, mellow loam , which receives the draiuage of the hill and is fertile. The higher parts of the orchard contain more clay. In 1887 it was cul- tivated without a crop. In 1888 it was planted in corn, both trees aud corn making a vigorous growth, especially in the low part. The outer four rows of trees on the east side are one year younger. None of these are diseased by yellows, but some on the south end are badly " Frenched " (see Photo. XXVII). The orchard bore fruit this year for the first time (sparingly), but some of the trees blossomed last year, and set a peach or two. The trees which I found diseased in 1887 were all in the southwest corner. Xone bore fruit; some looked yellow, and some had put out a scanty, wiry, branched growth from the stock near the earth or from the top, or in both places. In August, 1888, 45 per cent, of the older trees, previously healthy (!), showed unmistakable evidence of the yellows, either in premature fruit or diseased shoots, or in both. EXTENT OF THE PEACH INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. The peach is, by common consent, the choicest fruit of middle lat- itudes, and is cultivated in both the north aud south Temperate Zones the world over ; but nowhere else in such enormous quantities as in the United States. Notwithstanding this, since facilities for drying and canning on a large scale have become general, there is a demand for the entire product of even the most prolific years, and iudirectl}' the indus- try has thus become one that interests all parts of the country. The districts of the United States and Canada now chiefly interested iu the production of this fruit are the following : Southern Connecticut, southeastern New York and western New York, southern Ontario, New Jersey', eastern Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, middle Georgia, Tennessee, northern Ohio, southwestern Michigan, southern Illinois, southern Kansas, parts of Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas, and nearly all of California. The accompanying map (IX) will indicate these areas more definitely. This map also shows the area north of which peaches are an uncertain crop, owing to the severity of the winters, and also that area south of which they are not much grown for commercial purposes, owing to the moisture and heat of the climate or to the long distance from large markets. The areas of greatest productivity lie (1) along the Atlantic coast between New York and Norfolk and (2) on the Pacific slope in California. The accompanying map also roughly indicates the present distribution of peach yellows in the United States and Canada, so far as known. The total peach product of the United States, as determined by the Tenth Census, was never published and can not now be ascertained. But though it can not be determined for the whole country, it can be de- 108 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. termiued approximately, and for a serie.s of years, lor the Delaware aud Chesapeake i)eiiinsnla, which Las been one of the most productive areas. The followinj;' table gives the shipments over the Delaware Division of the Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Kailroad for a series of years; and if one third be added for years prior to 1880, aud one-half for years following, to make up for peaches dried, canneil, aud consumed on tlie peninsula, or marketed by water, the total will very ue.arly represent the actual product of the entire peninsula, or at least will uot be in excess of that product. Table XL — Peach shipmenls from the Delaware and Chesapcalce Peninnula over the Pliil- adclphia, Wilminf/ton and Baltimore Railroad. (Copied from office records bi/jjcrmission of Superintendent I. X. Mills, Clayton, Del.) Year. Baskets (five-eighths bushel) . 1 Tear. Basliets (tive-eijihlhs bushel). 1867 18G.^ 1869 1870 1, 086, 530 12, 267 2, 143, 467 1, 443, 733 2, 668, 800 2, 18), 807 1,521,600 675, 200 4, 536, 000 1, 058, 500 •-', 001, 500 434, 500 2, 185, 500 1880 1881 1882 1883 1, 708, 500 270, 500 2, 731, 770 1, 783, 477 1,930,017 1, 870, 4S0 1,099,738 848, 378 3, 177, 477 37, 350, 417 1871 1872 1873 1884 1885 . . 1886 1874 1887 1875 1876 1877 1888 Total for twenty-two 1878 1879 VALCE OF PEACH PRODUCTS. Skill and industry are required in peach growing. Isot every man who sets an orchard becomes a successful i^each-grower. There are many obstacles to be overcome, and failures are not infrequent. Never- theless, in the peach districts no other crop can be grown with anything like the same amount of profit. Many farmers have become rich in the business, and very often a comparatively small peach orchard has yielded a larger money return than all the rest of the farm. Some idea of the profits of successful peach growing may be gained from the fol- lowing statements : A 70-acre orchard belonging to James Hurdd, of Locust Grove, Md., and now nineteen years old, has borne twelve crops at an average yearly value of about $6,000. An orchard of 2,700 trees owned by Thomas D. France, of Chester- town, Md., is said to have netted its former owner over $40,000. The trees are between twenty-one and twenty-six years old and appear to be healthy enough to bear peaches for another live years. During a series of years the tenant on tiie Ashcraft farm, near Mag- nolia, Del., made enough out of his share of the peach crop to buy a VALUE OF PEACH PRODUCTS, 109 valuable farm of his own. The same is true of the tenant on the neigh- boriii:^' M;;Bri(le farai, and is true also of other tenants in IMaryland and Delaware. In 187-1, Dr. Henry Uidgelj, of Dover, Del., paid $11,000 for the Slaughter fiirni, southwest of Dover. This was over 870 an acre and was at that time considered an exorbitant price. Between 1871 and 1887 this farm yielded over 83i),000 worth of peaches. The orchard also bore a large and valuable crop in 1888. To say nothing of other products, this farm has paid for itself in peaches alone three times over in lifteen years. On this farm in 1880 the produt^t of IG acres of early peaches, then three years old, sold for over $1,800. Dr. llidgely kindly furnished me with records from other farms which are of equal interest. About twenty-five years ago he raised 30 acres of line wheat, which he sold for $3,800. The same year from 10 acres of Trotli's early peaches he realized nearly $2,G00, L e. ; over $250 per acre. In 1863, 1804, or 18G5 (he is now uncertain which year), the peach crop from Ins Cowgill's Corner farm sold for $1,2G0, i. c, $€13 per acre, al- though some peaches were lost by the equinoxial storm. In 1873, from 70 acres of peach orchard, he sold peaches to the amount of $10,209, although the Early Yorks, which were very fine and hung full, were all lost by a cloud-burst or very heavy rain-fall. That year one tree bore $20 worth of peaches ; another tree, $25 worth ; and a third tree, $20.50 worth. From this third tree, by mistake, the men picked 15 baskets of green fruit two weeks too soon, and this was lost. But for this accident a single tree would have produced over $30 worth of fruit. In 1884, from 400 trees (4 acres) of Fox's Seedlings, he realized $830 ; i. e., $205 per acre. This fruit was sold in four days, the highest iirice I)aid for any of it being 05 cents iier basket. T. 0. Crookshank, of Cecilton, Md., sold $1,200 worth of peaches in 188G from 12 acres. Eichard Hollyday's orchard of SOacresin Spaniard's Neck, set in 1806, netted him an average of $30 per acre for ten consecutive years. The trees were dug out at the age of twenty, having borne for about sixteen years. From the farm of William Hudson, near Clayton, Del., $10,000 worth of peaches were sold in the two years 1883 and 1884, the orchards at that time containing about 100 acres. In 1870, according to William Parry, a INIiddletown, Del., peach- grower, formerly from New Jersey, cleared $38,000 from 400 p.cres of peaches. Mr. Parry also declared that he could name several fruit- growers who in 1809 sold from 20,000 to 00,000 baskets each, at a clear profit of from $10,000 to $3'J,0f)().i He is also authority for the state- ment that the Peach Blossom farm in I\Iaryland, which sold some years prior to 1871 for $31,000, yielded the buyer the first season peaches ^ ProceediiKji of Ihc FennsyJiHDua Fniil Groircra^ Society, 1871, pp. -17,48. no SPECIAL REPORT ON rEACII YKEEOWS. eiiougb over aud above all expenses of i)icliiug and marketing to entirely- pay lor the farm. Mr. Parry's conclusion is that "so far as peacli growing ou a large scale is concerned, tbc net profits may very safely be set down at from 8100 to 8175 per acre, while in many instances they jield right through from $175 to $250 per acrc".^ If grof:;s profits be substituted for " net profits," this conclusion does not diflcr materially from my own. It re- lates, of course, to bearing years. The profits of large orchards /or a series of years have in some in- stances been very remarkable. I cite two cases : Table XII.— Orc/^a^^ of E. C. Fennimore, Odessa, Del., 100 acres.'' Tear. Bask els. 1831 (first crop ; orch aid two years old) 1802 18C3 18Gi 1865 1866 1867 ISCS 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 Total, fourteen years 191 1, 8D4 18,423 25, 004 2?, 124 13,075 27, 500 4,230 34, 000 10, 029 19, COO 6,957 ],4:o C74 Value. $206. 24 868. 34 15, 051. 81 18,443.98 23, 070. 25 29, 206. 07 18, 551. 40 15, 281. 68 14, 464. 27 15,007.76 0, 432. 55 2, 9^-1. 61 1, 341. 83 696. 35 192, 718 162, 224. 14 This is equivalent to an average annual return of $110 per acre for fourteen years. Table XIII.— 0/-c/ia)cZ of Col. E. C. Wilkins, Chestertown, Md., 325 acres.' Tear. 1862 (orchard planted four years) . . . 1803 1864 1863 1866. 18G7 1868 1869 1870 Value of brandy made during these nine years Total Gross receipfs. $12, 32 32, 48, 16, 9- 1, 30, GOO. CO 340. 00 399. 00 042.98 804.00 989. 00 350. 00 429. 00 000. 00 15, 150. 00 231, 043. 98 ' Proceedings of the Pennsylvania Fndt Groioers' Scciet;/, 1871, pp. 49, .^O. '■' Copied from the yearly record by permissinTi of Mr. Fi^nnimore. ■< The UorticuUurist, N. T., 1871, p. 308. PEACH GROWING AND KEAL ESTATE VALUES. lU Michigan peach orchards are not less profitable than those of the Atlantic coast. About 18G8, in a letter to D. A. Wiuslow, George Parmelee stated that in 18G5, on his Berrien County farm, " forty-five early Crawford trees produced a few baskets over 1,100 [peck (?) baskets] and sold for $2 per basket, amounting to $2,20 0. The trees were 20 feet apart each way, which puts 109 trees on an acre, and makes the yield at the rate of $5,848 to the acre. This, of course, is given as an extreme re- sult, but if any man thinks that peach -growing in this region is not profitable, let him call on our fruit-growers and get facts." ^ In 18G5 or 1866, S. F. Heath, of Heath's Corners, Berrien County, Mich., purchased 5 acres of bearing peach orchard for $1,350. His first crop sold for $1,800. He then sold the 5 acres to William Gates for $7,000. Mr. Gates sold his first crop for $2,000 and his next one, 1868, for $4,000, and had " good prospects for a greater crop the following year."^ In 1874, after correspondence with one hundred of the largest peach- growers, H. E. Bidwell, of South Haven, Mich., stated the average profit on peaches in Van Buren County, for the three years, 1872-'74, to have been $343.89 per acre, i. e., $300 in 1872, $431.68 in 1873. and $300 iu 1874.^ In 1879, George T. Lay, of Allegan County, Mich., sold $1,000 worth of peaches from less than 4 acres, and another man is said to have sold $4,700 worth from 10 acres. The average value of the peaches from Mr. Lay's orchard for five years, 1876-'80, was $213 per acre.'* At Lawtou, Mich., in 1880, the peaches from 10 acres of five-year- old trees sold for $250 per acre.^ I have no data concerning the profits of California orchards, but pre- sume an equally good showing might be made. •value of peach fabms. When on the Delaware and Chesapeake Peninsula I made careful inquiry as to the value of peach farms in districts unaffected or but re- cently affected by yellows. Eeal estate is dull and sales are slow, but peach farms bring more than any other. The ''Cassiday" or "Peach Blossom" farm, on Sassafras Eiver, in Cecil County, contains about 663 acres, and has been sold several times within the last thirty years, each time for about $50 per acre. In Sas- safras Neck, good farms with buildings are worth from $40 to $70 per acre. In some instances offers of $100 an acre would be refused. About Chestertown good peach farms are worth from $70 to $100 per acre. Plenty could be bought for $70. Recently, in the upper part of Queen Anne County, a farm brought $73 per acre at a forced sale, and ' Historij of Saint Joseph, by D. A. Winslow. -I hid. ■^Annual Report of the Secretary of the Mich. Pom. Soc, 1874, p. 511. * Ann. Rep. of the Secretary of the Mich. State Hort. Soc, 1880, p. 27G, '^History of Michiyan Horticulture, T. T. Lyon, p. 270. 112 SPECIAL KEPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. good peach farms will readily bring that sum, while maoy peach-growers would not sell for less thau $100 per acre. In Spaniard's 'Sack the well-established peach farms are worth from 170 to $100 per acre. Land at some distance from the river and not well adapted to peaches is worth much less. The peach farm now occupied by William Hudson, at Clayton, Del., contains 222 acres, and was bought in 1883 at $130 per acre, 100 acres being in bearing orchard. Good peach farms, situated within a few miles of Dover, are worth from $75 to $100 i^er acre. A few might be bought as low as $50 or $G0. Peach farms in the vicinity of INIagnolia are worth from $75 to $100 per acre. DEPRECIATION OF REAL ESTATE DUE TO YELLOWS. This has been marked in some sections. Real estate is undoubtedly dull the country over, owing to various causes ; but that there has been a marked depreciation in values in upper Maryland and Delaware, due solelj' to the ravages of yellows, can not be denied. It is too patent. In places where the disease has prevailed most destructively it would now be hard to sell a peach farm at any price. Buyers do not care to invest; the risk is too great. Owing to the prevalence of this disease many farms will not now sell for over one-half or two-thirds as much as they would have brought five years ago. In sections where yellows has entirely destroyed the orchards or rendered peach-growing preca- rious and unprofitable, farms are now worth on an average about one- half what they were formerly. Farms about Middletown, Townsend, McDonough, and Odessa arc now^ worth from $50 to $80 per acre. Fifteen or twenty years ago, when peach-growing was at its height in this section, real estate brought fabu- lous i)rices, but usually paid for itself in peacfces within a few^ years. In October, 18GG, near McDonough, 170 acres of poor land, without fences, brought $120 an acre at public sale. In 1807 Mr. G. W. Karsner's farm of 300 acres, near McDonough, was assessed at $150, and valued by some at $250 per acre. This farm was bought in 1832 for $14 per acre. In 18G7 a farm of 150 acres, 2 miles east of Odessa, sold for $199 an acre, and at that time the upland portion (150 acres) of Mr. E. C. Feu- nimore's farm would undoubtedly have sold for over $300 per acre. This farm, lying on Delaware River, contains 800 acres, G50 being marsh and the rest sandy upland with red clay subsoil. It was sold in 1832 as part of a tract of 2,800 acres for 93 cents an acre, and again in 1853 to Mr. Fennimore, when its value for peach-growing was understood, for $25 an acre, marsh and all. In 1874 the peach fiirm of j\Ir. Serrick Shallcross, near Middletown, containing over 1,000 acres, was valued at $150 per acre. At about the same time Mr. Shallcross bought three farms to put into peaches, paying $15G, $127, and $120 i)er acre. At that time, about PROSPERITV DIMINI8IIED BY YELLOWS. 113 Middk'town iiiitl McDoiioiigli, land of any sort suitable for peaches sold readily, even witboiit buildings, at from $100 to $125 per acre. The depression of real-estate values in Berrien County, Mich., subse- quent to the loss of the orchards was also very great, and many persons were tinancially ruined, but I have not euougli data to render it worth while to consider it at length. During the flush peach times real es- tate in southwest Michigan changed hands at prices fully equal to those which prevailed in Delaware. Should peach yellows sweep away the maguiiicent orchards of the middle part of the Chesapeake and Delaware peninsula, as it did those of New Castle County, Del., and Berrien County, IMicl)., the effect, not only on the price of lands, but also on railroad and steam boat traftlc and on the general prosi)erity of the peninsula, n)ust be very great. Growers whose farms are mortgaged would be tinancially ruined and life would be harder for every inhabitant. Tiiis would be true es- peciall}' of the poorer classes, man}' of whom are supported almost en- tirely by the peach industry. The single item of the carrying trade amounts to thousands of dollars annually, as may be seen from the table of shi[)raents by railroad, and this is only one of many items. In a word, the prosperity of nearly every business interest on the peninsula hinges on the peach industry. That the peach orchards are really in danger of being destroyed must be apparent to any one conversant with the facts, or to any one who will carefully examine the data presented in this report. In the cele- brated Sassafras River region, and al5>o in all the upper part of Kent County, Del., there will not in five years be a single productive orchard over six years of age if yellows continues to spread as rapidly as it has done for the last three years. I have no desire to present a sensational or gloomy view, but I give this as my deliberate judgment, after six- teen mouths' continuous study of the subject, with every opportunity to examine peninsular orchards. Either of two things may possibly avert this dreaded result: (1) The application of some remedy or preventive. (2) The disappearance of the virulence of the disease from unknown natural causes. In my judgment we are already in possession of knowledge available for a partial sui)pression of tlje disease, but, from a wide acquaintance with the peninsular peach growers and some knowledge of human na- ture, I am inclined to think it can be reduced to practice only in sec- tions but recently invaded, /. c, toward the lower part of the peninsula (see Prevention). 1124.J— Xo. 8 114 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. IV. CONDITIONS KNOWN OR SUPPOSED TO FAVOR THE DISEASE. CLIMATIC CONDITIONS. The NGN ADAPTATION OF THE PEACH TO OUR CLIMATE. — From the foregoiug section upon history and distribution, and especially from that part devoted to the early history of the peach in the United States, it mnst be apparent that portions of this country are well suited to this fruit. Otherwise it never could have gained such an early strong foot- hold or flourished in the open air unprotected as it has done. The peach is undoubtedly of Asiatic origin, but neither in China nor on the table-lands of Persia does it appear to be more at home than in parts of the United States; and this might be expected from the fact that we are in the same zone and under climatic conditions not mark- edly different from those existing in the middle latitudes of Asia. From the recent suggestion by Professor Budd,^ and the earlier one by Dr. Emerson,^ that yellows may be a disease of non acclimatization, it is worth while to inquire (1) what constitutes acclimatization? (2) what indicates that Asiatic peaches are hardier than our own? It ought not to be difficult to determine whether a cultivated tree takes kindly to a climate. I know no more certain proof than that it makes a vigorous growth, is productive, attains the usual longevity of its species, and is capable of maintaining itself to a considerable extent outside of cultivation, in fence-rows, hedges, and other neglected places. Ill the more favored parts of this country the peach fulfills all these con- ditions, and has done so far for more than two centuries. In my exam- inations on the Delaware and Chesapeake peninsula in 1887 and 1888 I saw at least fifty orchards of ages ranging from twenty to thirty years, and 1 saw a few still older. Such orchards are by no means infrequent, except where yellows has prevailed for a long time. Even in the rela- tively severe climate of Michigan orchards have lived twenty-five and thirty years. The average age of the orchards in JNIaryland and Dela- ware is only about sixteen years, but tliis is to be attributed to over- production and neglect rather than to climate. If our trees were pruned as carefully as European trees they would undoubtedly live as long. Even without special care they sometimes reach a great age. There are well-authenticated cases on the Atlantic coast of peach trees which have lived forty or even fifty years, and George Thurbur mentions one in Virginia which reached the age of seventy years. That Chinese peaches are more hardy than our own is a belief rather than a well-established fact. They are certainly inferior in flavor aud probably not hardier than the commonly cultivated "■ Persian " sorts. I have myself this year seen well-marked yellows in Xorth China peaches growing in Delaware, and have no doubt that Chinese peaches will prove, subject to all the diseases incident to other races, and on a priori I ropnhtr (lar(le:iiiitj, BidiUlo, N. Y., July or August, 1«8S. -' I'loc. of the Am. Pom. Soc. 1869. CLIMATE AND YELLOWS. 115 groiuuls, in tbc absence of sufficient well-authenticated information, I Lave no doubt that in China itself they are subject to various diseases, especially where grown in quantity. Certain, at least, is the fact that in the North Island of New Zealand the peach has been nearly exter- minated within tlie last ten years by some mysterious blight. • Nevertheless, with some show of reason, peach yellows has been at- tributed to various unfavorable climatic conditions. The relation of these conditions to yellows will, therefore, be discussed in the following pages. Four theories have received most frequent mention by writers on this subject, and as no proofs or valid arguaients have been ad- vanced in favor of any others it will be sufficient to restrict attention to these four, with a view to determine, if possible, just what relation these supi)0sed causes bear to the disease. Supposed general change in climatic conditions. — This the- ory may be dismissed with a word or two. It is easy to propound and difficult to establish. In reference thereto it may be said : (1) There is no evidence of any marked change in the climate of the United States during the last one hundred yoars ; and (2) if tliere were, there is no evidence that the outbreaks of peach yellows have conformed to any such change. We may, therefore, set aside this theory until evidence is adduced in proof of both propositions. • Early autumn frosts. — This theory has been urged with more show of reason. When we reflect upon the function of the leaves, and on the nice balance between roots and foliage which is necessary for the health of a growing tree, it is evident that an}- premature destruction of the foliage must not only affect the maturing wood, but also more or less seriously injure the whole plant. With this fact in mind, I have given careful attention to the subject, the more because some very con- siderable authorities in horticulture have favored this theory, and have stated by way of proof that this disease never occurs in the South or when the peach is grown under glass. After careful inquiry my conclusion is that early frosts have nothing wluitever to do with yellows. This conclusion is based, in i)art, upon the following facts: (1) In the peach districts ot Michigan severe frosts sometimes occur in August and often in September, i. e., before the leaves have fallen ; yet there are localities where peach trees have been grown continuously fur thirty years, and where yellows has not yet appeared. (2) In the region of the Great Lakes early frosts have not been con- fined to recent years, yet peach yellows did not appear there until quite recently, i. e., in southwestern Michigan in 18G0 ; in northern Ohio in 1878; in Ontario in 187G. (3) On the shore of Long Island Sound, in the vicinity of New Haven, Conn., peach yellows was very prevalent between 1831 and 1810; yet, during the entire period of sixteen years, at Midclletown, in the interior lie, SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. of the State but not far removed, there was but one severe frost as early as September. The record for twenty-four years is as follows: Table XIV. — An fuDUi frosts ul Middhlown, Conn. L. 1840... November 1. 1838. October 8. 1850... October 14. | 1839-- October 5. 1851.-. September 25. 1840.. October 16. 1852 .. October 16 and 17. 1841.. October 14. 18.-)3... (0 1842.. October 7. 1 1854... October 21. * First ligbt frost September 14. (4) On the upper part of the Delaware andChesapeakepeiiinsula peach yellows has appeared within the last three years in a great many young orchards, often affecting hundreds of trees in a single orchard in one year. In 18S7 and in 1888 I saw it repeatedly in trees sot only three or four years, and occasioually in still younger trees, most ot which were health}' in 1887. In connection with these facts I made inquiries to determine (1) the exact dates at which early frosts have occurred in recent years, and (2) whether usually, or occasioually, the peach is Jable to lose its foliage prematurely, i. e., while its buds and wood are immature. In 1887 and ]888 I supplemented these inquiries by obser- vations of my own. At Dover and Clayton weather records have been kept for a number of years, and these show that there have been no severe early fio.sts, certainly none that serve in the least to explain the sudden widespread devastation of the orchards by yellows. Below is a synopsis from these records: 1 Trans, of the Conn. State Agric. fiocictij, I'ibA, p. 13L VELL0W8 AND AUTUMN FROSTS, 117 Table XV. — Autumn frosts at Dover, Del Latitude 20"^ IV. [From a coutimious recoril by Jolin S. Jester. Obspfvatioi.s at 5 a. m, 12 m., 2 p. m , and 9 p. m. Tlie thermometer is exposed at about 5 feet from tbo ground. lu low places in orcharda the temperature would be a few degrees lower.] Date. Lowest tempera- ture. ; Eemarks. 1«85. Degrees. Aug 4G No frosts. Sept. 24.. 40 First frost, light. Oct. 7.... 40 Frost. Oct. 10... 38 Do. Oct. 11... 40 Do. Oct. 22-26 38-40 Five frosts. Oct. 31... 38 Frost. Nov. 1... 36 Do. Nov. 16.. 3i Do. Nov. 22.. 18SG. 32 Tem))eratnre first reached freezing. ! Aug 52 No frosts. Sept. 20.. 38 First and oulv frost, light. Oct. 2.... 36 t Light frost. Oct. 3.... 38 : Do. j Oct. 4.... 40 Do. ; Oct. 17... 30 Hard frost. Oct. 22... 38 Prost. Nov. 5... 32 Freeziugweatbersetin. Date. Lowest tempera- ture. 1887. Aug Sept Oct. 13... Oct. 14... Oct. 15... Oct. 10... Oct. 22. .. Oct. 23... Oct. 31... Nov. 1... Nov. 2... Nov. 3 .. Nov. 5... Nov. 6. . . Nov. 9 .. Nov. 10.. Nov. 11.. Nov. 12.. Nov.13-14 Nov. 18-23 Nov.28-30 Degrees. .00 4G 40 42 31 30 40 32 34 42 28 38 32 26 32 40 34 40 Kemarks. No frosts. Do. First frost, light. Light frost. Hard frost. Do. Light frost. Hard frost. Do. Light frost. Hard frost. Light frost. Hard frost. Do. Do. Light frost. Hard frost. Light frost. Two hard frosts. Six hard frosts. Three hard frosts. 118 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. Table X\I.— Autumn frosts at Claijtou, Del. Lalilude 39-^ . [From records kept iu the office of the superintendent of tlio Dol;iwaro divi.siou of llie Pliiliid' Ipliia, "Wiiiuinfrfon and ISaltiinore Kaihoad. Observations at 6.30 to 7.30 a. ni., 9 a. ni.. 12 in.. 3 p. m., 5 or 6 p.ni , and 7.30 to 9 p.m. Sunday records of teraperaturo mostly wantinj;. Metallic bo.\ tlicim'onieter esposetl at north window about 7 feet from ground. J Date. Lowest tempera- ture. Remarks. Dale. Lowest tempeia- turo. Eemarks. 1885. Aug ... Sept. 24.. Oct. 10... Oct. 22-28 Nov. 11. Nov. 14.. Nov. 15.. Nov. 16.. Nov. 17-. Nov. 20.. 1886. Aug.... Sept Oct. 2.... Oct. 3.... Degrees. 51 45 40 38-44 36 36 *36 32 32 30 63 54 43 No frosts. May have been a light frost. First bard frost. Seven hard frosts. Hard frost. Do. Clear and very cold. | Clear and cold. ! Do. ' No frosts. I Do. Clear and cool ; first float. Clear and cool ; may have been another | light frost. Sunday ; probably an- other light frost. 1886. Oct. 17... Degrees. Clear and cool ; prob- ably a frost. Clear: probably a frost. Judging from tempera- ture records, fieezing weather set in at this date. No frost .s. Possibly light frosts. Do. Probably light frost. Frost. Do. Do. Do. Probably a frost. Hard frost. First ice observed. Oct. 22... Nov. 5 . . 1837. Aug.... Sept. 24.. Sept. 25.. 44 33 55 44 Oct. 12... Oct. 13... Oct. 14 . . Oct. 15... Oct. 16... 44 47 45 37 Oct. 22 .. Oct 23 1 40 Oct. 4 Nov.' 2... 32 'At 6 p. m. t Cloudy and rainy nearly all the rest of the month ; temperature 33°-57°. At Still Pond, Md., the entries in the journal of Dr. W. S. Maxwell agree substantially with the Dover and Clayton records althougli ther- raometric readings are not given. A daily record by Dr. Henry Ridgely, of Dover, also agrees substantially with that of Mr. Jester, although not SO complete. From these records it is clear that during the three years 1885 to 1887 there were no frosts iu August and none of any consequence in Septem- ber. In 1885 the first severe frost was on October 10 j in 188G it was on October 17; in 1887 on October 15; in 1888 on October 10. The first point raised is whether the shoots of the season were in such an immature condition at the time of these frosts as to be seriously in- jured by loss of leaves, assuming for the sake of argument that the leaf function was entirely suspended after these dates. The second point is whether the severest injuries of this sort can develop peach yellows, or anything resembling it. In the autumn of 1887 I paid particular attention to the ripening of foliage on deciduous trees, especially on the peach, and to the effects of the October and November frosts. Leaves in some orchards, especially about Chestertown, Md., began to fall in considerable quantities as early as August 25, but this was, 1 think, abnormally early. YELLOWS AND AUTUMN FROSTS. 119 At Dover, in the McDaiiiel orcbard (see Map VJ), by September 27 from one-third to two thirds of the lea res on all the lower branches had already fallen, and those remaining on these branches (except the ter- minal ones) detached very readily when the shoots were seized at the base and drawn gently throngh the half closed hand, thus showing that though still green their work was very nearly completed. Someof tlie smaller branches had already lost all their leaves. The branches on the tops of the trees were yet tliickly covered with green leaves, but tlie buds were well developed and the twigs had an appearance of ma- turity. On an average the trees in this orchard had lost about one- fourth of their leaves. At Clayton, in an old orchard owned by Alfred Hudson, and consid- erably injured by yellows, the leaves had nearly all lallen by October 4. The early varieties shed first. Smocks and some other late sorts re- tained quite a sprinkling of green. On many trees in this orchard there was not a leaf, and on an average about four-fifths of all the foliage had fallen. Such was substantially the condition of other bearing orchards examined at that time in that locality. The young orchards were greener. Three days later I found that the trees in the four year old orchard of John Hudson (No. 9 of this report) had lost from two-thirds to nine tenths of their leaves. On some varieties there were more leaves than on others. A one-year old orchard on the same farm looked very green and retained most of its foliage. This was healthy in 18S8, but No. 9 was badly diseased. On October 8 near Smyrua I examiued two orchards, each about three or four years old. They had shed from one-half to two-thirds of their foliage, but the tops of many of the trees were still quite green. From my window at Clayton I could also see another young orchard of many acres. The lower two-thirds of what foliage remained was red- dish brown, the upper third was green. On October 10, near Clayton, in a very thrifty three-year old orchard belonging to John Gault, 1 found that the trees still retained from one- third to one-half their leaves. Fully one-third were yet entirely green and doing duty. They were entirely gone from some shoots and from the lower one-half to two-thirds of most of the shoots. The ends of many shoots still retained all their leaves, although the buds in their axils would probably have grown if taken for inoculation in August. My memorandum on this orchard was : If frost occurs before October 20 it will catch the terminal leaves, but I question whether the trees will suffer appreciably thereby. On a partial examination at that time I found in this orchard twenty-five trees with yellows, and many addi- tional cases developed in 1888. Speaking for a majority of the young orchards about Clayton, in which many new cases of yellows appeared in 1888, it may be said that from one-half to three-fourths of the foliage had fallen by October 10, and in older orchards a much larger proportion, although there had been no frost. 120 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YlCLLOWS. Variety, age, situation, kind of fertilization, time and manner of cul- tivation, and the production of fruit all have mucli to do in determining how early the leaves shall fall. In 1887, judging by the number of leaves which had fallen, and by the appearance of the young wood, it is reasonable to suppose that peach trees on the Delaware and Chesapeke Peninsula were well out of harm's way before the first frost. If this is true of 1887, it is uudoubtedly true also of 1885 and 1880, and these frosts can not have been the cause of this outbreak of yellows. Indeed, on general princii)les it may well be doubted whether even very early and killing frosts will produce peach yellows. The burden of proof is all on the side of those who support this theorj'. In Washington, D. C, especially where somewhat shaded or protected by buildings, peach trees retained their foliage much longer than in the open field. The first severe frost occurred October 16, at which time many of the trees were yet in nearly full leaf. Between this date and October 30, especially after a heavy rain, the leaves fell rapidly, but were not all gone or all yellow^ until about November 7, although there were a number of severe frosts. Cold Winters.— The winter of 1880-'S1 was unusually severe. On the Delaware and Chesapeake Peninsula in January the temperature fell to 12° below zero P., a very unusual occurrence. The fruit buds were nearly all destroyed. Many trees were killed outright. Thousands more were badly injured and have not recovered to this day. Many per- sons have attributed the recent alarming increase of yellows to this severe winter. It has also been asserted that in New Jersey and upper Delaware a corresponding increase of yellows followed the severe winter ol' 185G-'37. In Berrien County, Mich., the increase of yellows was also ascribed to the severe winters of 1872-'73 and 1874-'75. This theory appears more tangible than the preceding, because the effect of hard freezes is very apparent in injured bark and discolored wood, and because dark heart-wood is not infrequent in trees suffering froi.i yellows. It has been a favorite theory with many writers. They have insisted that yellows is very strictly a disease of northern climates, naturally unsuited to the peach, the fact or supposed fact that the dis- ease did not prevail in middle Delaware or in the Southern States being cited as ample proof of this. Dr. Emerson and Mr. Hovey, in particu- lar, cite the very part of Delaware now badly affected as proof that a mild climate is a safeguard.^ It is probable that anything which reduces the vitality of a tree will render it more susceptible to disease, and in this way severe winters may have exerted an evil influence ; but that any degree of cold, or any sudden change of temperature, can of itself cause peach yellows is, I think, imi>ossible. The following reasons seem to be conclusive : (1) If peach yellows is due to severe freezes it ought not to have I Proc. of the Am. Pom. Soc, 1869, p. 153 ; and Trans. Mass. Uort. Soc, 1862, Part I, p. 142. YELL0W8 AND SEVERE WINTERS. 121 appeared first in centers of cnlti ration, but rather on northern border regions, where severe winters are of more frequent occurrence. The whole history of tlie disease shows the reverse of this to be true, (2) On such an assumption, peach yellows ought not to a])pear at all in mild southern climates, yet it has been present for a number of years in Georgia, on nearly the southern limit of the successful culture of the peach, at least of the so called "Persiau" peaches, the only race yet grown to any great extent in this country. In this connection it is also well to remember that the peach is not indigenous to a warm climate, as some writers have taken for granted. It flourishes best in the middle latitudes of either hemisphere, i. c, between the thirtieth and fortieth parallels, and only exceptionally north or south of these boundaries. (3) During the winter of 185G-'57, at Grand Rapids, Mich., many peach trees were killed to the ground or greatly injured. Since that date there have also been freezes which much injured peach trees. Yellows, however, did not appear until about 1883 and has never been very prevalent. In other parts of the State, c. ^., in Washtenaw County and Ionia County, peach trees have suffered repeatedly from cold win- ters, being killed back more often than not upon low grounds, yet I have never seen a single case of yellows resulting therefrom. At Sirring Lake, near Grand Haven, a succession of severe winters between 1870 and 1880 greatly injured peach trees and practically put a stop to the planting of orchards, but yellows did not become prevalent in con- sequence, and has never proved a serious evil. JSTevertheless, in Berrien County, near the same great body of water and 70 miles farther south, the orchards were entirely destroyed by yellows during the same period. Here are two localities subject to the same rigors of climate. When the supposed cause has been acting in both localities why has the disease prevailed only in one? (4) Sussex County, Del., is almost or entirely free fro.n yellows, un- less it be that portion in the immediate vicinity of Milford, yet it was as much subject to the severe winter of 1880-'81 as Kent County. Seaford is only about 35 miles south of Dover, and the difference in elevation is so trifling that they may be said to be subject to the same temperature, especially during cold waves. Dover has suffered severely from peach yellows for three years while Seaford has been entirely free. In August, 188S, I visited Seaford, talked with many growers, and ex- amined about thirty orchards, some of them very carefully. I did not see a single premature peach or any well-defined case of yellows, and did not hear of any. Most of the growers are entirely ignorant of the symptoms and effects of this disease, so far as personal experience goes. The only suspicious trees I saw were a few in thrifty young orchards recently imported from New Jersey. About Seaford are many old orchards which were seriously injured by the hard winter and which still show its effects in discolored or dozy heart-wood and partially dead limbs and trunk. 122 SPECIAL KEPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. One of the orchards of William E. Cannon was of special interest, because it was very badly injured by the winter in question. The orchard was then three years old. Some of the trees died, and none of them have entirely recovered. The trees lost large patches of bark from trunk and limbs, and the year's wood was frozen brown, and has since become dozy or rotten, frequently involving all the annual rings except those laid down within a year or two. There is much dead wood, and a slight pull breaks down large growing limbs. Neverthe- less, the foliage was green and full grown, and the orchard bore peaches and looked as if it might continue to bear for a number of years. This orchard now contains five or six hundred trees; originally, seven hun- dred. I carefully examined each one, but found not a trace of yellows. An orchard twenty-four years old, belonging to Charles Wright, was also badly injured by the winter and has never entirely recovered. It contained, originally, about eight hundred trees, seventy-five of which are now missing. There are many partially decaj^ed branches and some dead trees, and all are lichen-covered. The orchard bore peaches, and will, no doubt, continue to bear for a number of years. I carefully exam- ined every tree, but found not a trace of yellows. On the same farm is an orchard of one thousand seven hundred trees .now fifteen years old. This was also badly injured by the winter, and looks more ragged and broken than the older one, but yellows has never appeared in it. Col. E. L. Martin also has two orchards, one eighteen years old and the other fifteen, which were badly injured by the winter of 188^^-81. Yel- lows has never appeared in either, and the younger one has Iwrne four good crops of fruit since 1880. I saw both. The history of these orchards is tlje history of all the old orchards about Seaford — all suffered from the unusual winter, but none develo[)ed yellows. Excessive eain-fall.— As long ago as 1807, Judge Peters observed that yellows was unusually prevalent during two successive rainy sea- sons, and concluded that excessive moisture had something to do with the disease. Since his time many have held the same view, although not much evidence appears to have been brought forward to sustain it. Mr. Ruttor, however, states that yellows was very prevalent in West Chester during the rainy season of 1878. Whether the former great outbreaks in Upper Delaware, in New Jersey, Connecticut, New York, Ontario, and Michigan occurred during rainy seasons is uncertain. I have found no trustworthy evidence of such coincidence. On the con- trary, Charles W. Garfield states that yellows was much worse at Saint Josepli, Mich., in two excessively dry seasons, 1871 and 1872.^ Careful rain-fall records in inches are not kepton the Chesapeake and Delaware Peninsula, so far as I know ; but from general entries in sev- eral weather records and from newspaper paragraphs and the state- ments of many trustworthy persons, it is beyond question that in the M«H. Re^. of the Se&y of the Mich. State Pom. Societtj, 1872, j>. 278. YELLOWS AND EXCESSIVE RAIN-FALL'. 123 vicinity of Dover and Still Pond, and in fact over all tbo upper part of tbe Peninsula, there was excessive rain-fall both in 1880 and 1887. As regards 1887, my owu observations contirni these statements. It was very rainy— hay was a large crop ; corn-fields could not be properly cul- tivated ; wheat spoiled in the shock ; weeds grew amazingly ; and the peach tree itself made a much larger growth than in 1888. According' to Dr. Henry Ridgley's daily record the exceedingly rainy months of 188G were May, June, and July ; and tlie months in 1887 in which most rain fell were April, June, July, and August. In 1887 the last one-half of April, the whole of July, and the first two-thirds of August were especially wet, the July rain-fall being enormous. In a general way the rain charts of the Signal Service confirm these statements, and would undoubtedly be shaded still more deeply iu this region were they based on a larger number of observations. Coincident with these two rainy seasons was a marked increase of ]>each yellows, which seemed attrib- utable thereto and was so attributed, very commonly. One could not help noting* such a striking coincidence or avoid being- influenced by it. Until this year, therefore, T held the view that excess- ive rainfall, while not the cause of the yellows, w^as a necessary factor iu its rapid dissemination. It seemed wise, however, to follow the prog- ress of the disease another year before making very positive assertions. It was, therefore, with unusual interest that I waited the season of 188 S, lioping it might be dr^^ Fortunately, it was dr^^ ; but a careful study of the disease in five counties ^showed uo marked diminution in the num- ber of newly infected trees. If some orchards showed fewer new cases than in 1887, others in the vicinity showed more, and still others de- veloped the disease for the first time, often in many trees (see record of examinations iu numbered orchards). Many other orchards might be cited. I also found that all trees diseased in 1887 continued to be dis- eased in 1888, and that the disease had invaded contiguous territory which was free iu 1887. It can not, therefore, be said that the excessive rain-fall of 188G and 1887 was especiallj' favorable to the spread of the disease, unless, as is quite likely, the conditions then produced remained and continued their injurious activity in the dry year of 18S8. It may, however, bo stated ivithout qualification that, contrary to expectation, a dry year following the two wet ones did not check the spread of the disease. Eainy weather may have some influence in orifjinafing a widespread epiphytotic, which is then capable of holding its owu during succeeding dry weather. On the other hand, too much influence may have been ascribed to wet seasons from the fact that diseased trees put out a more abundant growth of secondary shoots iu such years, and are therefore more easily detected by ordinary observers, or rather not so easily overlooked. In this particular I noticed on the Delaware and Chesa- peake Peninsula a very marked difference between 1887 and 1888. In 1 Cecil, Kent, and Queen Anne in Maryland, and New Castleand Kent in Delaware. 124 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. 18S8 the diseased trees seut out a scanty growth of the abnormal shoots ; iu 1887 such growths were very abundaut. All thiugs considered, the question of the effect of excessive rain-fall must be left an open one. Certainly it can not of itself cause yellows, because districts only a few miles south of the infected areas suffered from veritable floods of rain and yet entirely escaped the disease. Another season may throw more light upon the subject. It certainly will if it is dry. EARTH COXDITIOXS. Exhaustion or Infertility of Soil. — The belief that peach yel- lows is in some way related to poverty of soil is not a new theory. As long ago as 1839 a correspondent of The Farmer's Cabinet stated that in earlier volumes of that journal he had found no less than eighteen papers recommending " alkaline substances for the prevention or cure of the premature decay of pear and peach trees." ^ Two years later Littleton Physic, of Ararat Farm, Cecil County, Md., highly recommended nitrate of potash for peach trees, his experiments having begun as early as 1830.^ In 1848, J. W. Bissel, of Rochester, N. Y., stated that there is a loss of lime and potash in soils where many peach trees have been grown, and suggested that yellows might be due " to the absence or small quantity of these alkalies." He had never seen any analyses of the wood, but suggested that such be made. The next year Professor Emmons, of Albany, N. Y., published analyses of healthy and diseased tissues (see Appendix A). At this time New Jersey peach-growers were also at- tributing yellows to bad treatment and jjoverty of soil.^ They then held, as some of them still hold, that the exhaustion of the land by ex- cessive and unintermitted cropping is a sufficient explanation of the disease. An analysis of healthy branches was also published in L851 by Mr. Kirtland. In 1871, Dr. R. C. Kedzie, of Lansing, Mich., visited Benton Harbor, examined many diseased orchards, and made analyses of healthy and diseased tissues (see Appendix A). He found in the diseased tree a deficiency of carbonate of potash and phosphate of lime, but in view of the fact that the composition of the ash of the same plant varies much according to the age of the plant, the kind of soil on which it grows, and the degree of vigor of its development, he declares that " perhaps it might with justice be said that the results of chemical analysis, like those of microscopic examination |Dr. W. J. Beal's], are merely nega- tive."* At about that date Thomas Meehan, of Germantown, Pa., stated that Dr. Wood, of the Philosophical Society, had found that potash benefited peach trees attacked by yellows.^ ^ Genesee Farmer, August 31, 1839. ^The Cultivator, Albauy, N. Y., 1841, p. 128. ^Tbe American Farmer, Baltimore, Md., 1848, p. 87. '^Ann. Bep. of the Se&ii of the Mich. State Pom. Sac., 1871, p. 476. ^The Gardeners' MonlhJij, 1872, p. 17. YELLOWS AND SOIL EXHAUSTION. 125 In 1882, Charles Black, a well-known niirserj'mau of Higlitstowu, N. J., declared that crowding was one of the causes of yellows, and made the following remarkable statement : " If your trees are to3 thick, [tull out every other row, and as a rule you will cure the yellows." Trees are sometimes set as close as 8 or 10 feet, but should be 18 or 20 feet apart.' The same year Dr. Goessman, of Amherst, Mass., published his four analyses (see Appendix A) in connection with a paper by Prof. I). P. Penhallow on the microscopic characteristics of the disease.^ Dr. Goess- man found in the diseased fruit an excess of lime and pliosphoricacid and a deficiency of magnesia and potash ; and in the diseased branches an excess of iron, lime, and magnesia, and a deficiency of potash and phosphoric acid. Both gentlemen took the ground that the yellows was due to a lack of necessary food elements in the soil, and cited the four analyses in proof. A remedial treatment based on this theory-, and con- sisting of liberal doses of phosphates and of sulphate and muriate of potash, was begun at Amherst, by Professor JMaynard, in 1878, and the results of this treatment were also offered in proof. This treatment was repeated by Professor Penhallow, at Houghton Farm, New York, the results there obtained being embodied in a special report of that experiment station, which was published in 1883.^ In 1881, at the request of P. M. Augur, State poraologist, the Con- necticut Experiment Station also made analyses of diseased and health^'' peach twigs (see Appendix A), from which it appears that the ash of the diseased tissue contained no excess of lime, but an excess of silica and other insoluble matters, and a deficiency of nearly all the other constitu- ents. So far as I know these are all the analyses yet published, but some interesting additional ones, made at my request, will be found in Ap- pendix A. In recent years Professor Penhallow is the one who has insisted most strenuously on the correctness of this soil-exhaustion theory, and among practical peach-growers who have given more or less sanction to his views may be named H. H. Appleton, Odessa, Del. ; John P. R. Polk, Wilmington, Del. ; Eli Miueh, Sbiloh, X. J. ; and J. H. Hale, South Glastonbury, Conn. His treatment, as given in a Houghton Farm Bulletin, Series III, Nos. 1 and 2, and in a more recent communication to the author,** consists in the application of G25 pounds per acre of a mixture, by weight, of 1 part of kieserite (crude epsom salts), 6 parts of muriate of potash, and 18 parts of dissolved bone-black (bone black in sulphuric acid). This to be applied, one-half spring and fall, just before and after leafing ; and, if marked evidence of the disease is pres- ent, an additional 2 pounds of muriate of potash must be given to each 'Yellows and Peach Culture, Tlie Gardeners' Montlilij, Phila., Pa., 1882, pp. 111,11-i. -Tra))s. of the Mass. Hort. Soc, 188-i, Part I. ^Experiment Orchard and Peach Yellows, Series III, Xo. 3. '' Letter of September 19, 1887. 12G SPECIAL liEPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. tree in spring and fall. The orchard must also first be pruned severely, to cut out all the noticeably diseased wood. If peach yellows can be cured in this simple manner every peach- grower ought to know it, for hundreds of orchards in New Jersey, Dela- ware, and Maryland are being ruined, entailing great financial loss. Even if thistieatment can be depended on as a reasonably certain pre- ventive, it is one of the most important horticultural discoveries of jnoderu times. The fact that the ingredients here supplied in a concen- trated soluble form are found naturally in considerable quantity in the ash of healthy [teach trees is certainly au argument in their favor. If yellows, therefore, is only synonymous with starvation, the results of this treatment ought to be speedy and unmistakable. Six yiears have passed since the publication of Dr. Goessman's analyses, and mauj' faithful trials have been made by peach growers. What have been the results ? When I began mj' field-work, in July, 1887, 1 had no favorite theory to advance, but gave very careful attention to this one, among others, hoping, for the sake of the fruit-growers, to be able to confirm it. This I have not been able to do. In the first place, there appears to be an error of logic in deriving conclusions from premises. In the diseased tissues Dr. Goessman found a deficiency of potash, and with this fact for one premise, and for the other the knowledge that potash is procured by the plant only from the » arth, he and Professor Penhallow assumed a lack of this substance in the soil. Even a-sumiug a constant deficiency of this sort in diseased trees, the conelusion which they reached by no means logically follows, any more than it follows that the leanness of a consumptive or a dys- peptic is attributable to a want of appetite or of sufficient food. If in diseased tissues there is a constant deficiency of potash, such as the analyses seem to indicate, why may it not be an effect of the disease ratiier than the cause ? The amount of this substance is believed to be proportionate to the vigor of growth. In weak and feeble growths, such as are characteristic of the later stages of yellows, we might consequently expect to find less (;f this element. In my judgment the amount of as- similable material in the soil has little or nothing to do with the deficien- cies said to exist in diseased tissues. Again, it would seem that four analyses, however carefully made, are an insufficient basis for so important an assumption. On this grouiyV alone the fact of any characteristic disparity of chemical compos. • might very properly be denied, or held in question, until established many careful analyses. Up to this date only a few have been mad' and these are not altogether consistent (see Appendix A). At leasi\ half a hundred analyses ought to be made, under various conditions of growth, if anything like exact information is desired. At present we do not even know that trees stunted by borers, by root aphides, or by starva- ation would not yield chemical results identical with those given by trees suffering from yellows. The probabilities are that they would. YELLOWS AND SOIL EXHAUSTION. 127 Moreover, kuowiug from personal experience how easy it is to make mistakes, I am inclined, witb all dne respect to those who advocate this theory, to think there may also be a possible error of fact as to the alleged cures. Tlie Amherst trees were set, in 1870, only 12 feet apart; were neg- lected for hve years, and did not receive treatment for yellows until 1878. Only the trees least affected were treated. These became green, bore fruit, and were pronounced cured at the end of three years. We are not told who identified the disease, or whether the trees in question (the identical ones treated) bore the premature red-spotted peaches and the characteristic shoots. Is it not possible that these trees may not have had genuine peach yellows, such as has destroyed the orchards in Michigan and Delaware? I have frequently seen yellow, starved- looking trees which were not suffering from yellows, and these, too, in orchards where the real disease was present. It is easy 'to mistake something else for yellows if one has had but litthi experience with the disease. The statements that these trees were on an im[)overishe(l hill ; tliat they were set only 12 feet apart; that they were eight years old when the disease was discovered, and that the trees in the richer bot- tom remained healthy, all lead me to think that some or all of them may have been simply starved trees, in which case they would naturally resi)ond (]uick]y to suitable food. On any other assumption I am at a loss to harmonize my own observations with the statements of Dr. Goess- man and Professor Penhallow, unless, indeed, there should exist a dif- ference in judgment as to what constitutes a cure. My own criterion is that the restored tree must again bear healthy fruit, ripening at the normal time. Any substance which accomplishes less than this is not a remedy, but at best onl}' a palliative. Professor Penhallow's held work at Houghton farm in 1883 woald also ai)[)ear to offer insufficient data for judgment as to the real merits of the muriate of potash. One tree only was cured of yellows. This had nev«n" borne fruit, but was one of a few youug trees procured that year fi om Rochester, N. Y. Is there not a possibility that this tree was suffering from a cause or causes other than that which produces yellows, although manifesting symptoms somewhat resembling if? This cure was effected in 1883. I am unable to say what has been the subsequent his- tory of this tree. It would be interesting to know if it continues healthy and is i)roductive. Has this remedy given any more detinite and satisfactory results in the hands of practical peach- growlers? After two years of observa- tion and inquiry in Michigan, Marylanl, and Delaware, I must say I can not find that it has. So far as my own observation goes the most that can be said in favor of any phosi)hato or potash treatment is that the trees become greener and in some cases produce premature fruit for a year or two longer than otherwise. v)n the Delaware and Chesapeake Peuinsula it is the rule rather than the exception to use 128 SPECIAL KEPOKT ON PEACH YELLOWS. commercial fertilizers, and some of the orchards which I have examined have received very hirge doses of fertilizers containing potasli, phos- phoric acid, sulphuric acid, chlorine, etc.; but it is almost tlie universal testimony that as a remedy for peach yellows, or even as a preventive, they are of no value w^hatever. A few raeu hold a contrary oi)inion, and in some instances I took special pains to visit their orchards, learn the treatment and note the condition of the trees. In September, 1887, learningby newspaper reports of some trees near Smyrna, Del.; which had been cured of yellows, 1 visited the place and examined the trees. They are on the farm of J. Scout, near the village. Mr. Scout himself did not assert that the trees had been cured, but said " There they are. You can judge for yourself I found a row of fifteen trees, ten years old, of several varieties. They were on level ground, next a gooseberry patch, and near a prolific vine- yard. The treatment began four years i)revious and was at first acci- dental. At that time the ground under the trees on the side next the berry patch received the same dressing as the latter— /.c, a veiy heavy coating of privy manure. Since then in the si)riiig of each year the trees have received a dressing of ground bone at the rate of GOO pounds per acre, and of kaiuit at the rate of 400 i)ounds per acre. The condition of these tifteen trees, nuaibered from soutli to north, was as follows : 1. DoubtfuL 2. Badly diseased by yellows. 3. Healthy. 4. Badly diseased liy yellows, t). Diseased by yellows. 6. Badly diseased by yellows. 7. Diseased by yellows. 8. Badly diseased by yellows. D. Healthy. 10. Badly diseased b^- yellows. U. Healthy. 12. Dead,— by yellows(?). 13. Diseased by yellows. 14. Diseased by yellows. lb. Badly diseased by yellows. In other words, three of these trees were healthy ; one was dead ; one was doubtful, and ten had yellows, six of them being full of the charac- teristic shoots and badly diseased, while the other four showed unmis- takable signs of it. In thirteen and fourteen there were some indica- tions of recovery, but nothing definite. Mr. Scout thinks that all had the disease four years ago, but of this I do not feel certain. H. H. Appleton, of Odessa, Del., has boned and potashed his orchards very liberally for years, but trees upon his place were badly diseased by yellows in 1887 and 1888, and although his shrewd neighbors are losing their young orchards by the wholesale, as I know from personal inspec- tion, they have not confidence enough in his treatment to ai)i)ly it to their own trees. One of tlie most striking failures of this treatment is on the ''Cassi- day" or " reach-Blossom " farm, on the north bank of the Sassafras lliver, in Cecil County, Md. Tlie farm is now managed by Jolin P. R. Polk, of Wilmington, Del. He has been a firm believer in the elficacy of this treatment, and for four years, i. c, since the disease began to be- YELLOWS AND SOIL EXHAUSTION. 129 come serious ia that regiou, has given the youug 50-acre orchard very heavy dressings of au excellent peach-tree fertilizer, prepared for hiiu by I. P. Thomas & Son, of JMiiladelphia, after the Penhallow formula, at a cost of $33 per ton. I visited and examined this orchard August 29, 1888. It contains r.O acres ; the front 15 is six years old ; the back 35 is eight years ol 1. The whole farm has been in peacli orchard, but in this field ten years inter- vened between the removal of the old orchard and the planting of this one. The soil is nearly level ui>land — mellow clay loam with a yellow clay subsoil. The trees are set 108 to an acre. Yellows first appeared in the older part about 1881. The history of the treatment of this or- chard I and of the progress of the disease, by years, as given by Joseph A. Rickards, the tenant, is as follows : 188 1. Kaiiiit was sowed broadcast iu the spring on the entire 50 acres at the rate of 300 to 400 pounds per acre [about 50 pounds of potash per acre]. 1885. This year there were many premature trees, nearly one-third of the back 35 acres, i. e.,the older trees. That fall from 5 to 25 pounds of I. P. Thomas's Peach Tree Fertilizer was put around each diseased tree [about one-half pound to two pounds of potash and the same amount of phosphoric acid per tree]. In all, 4 or 5 tons were thus used. 1880. There were more premature trees this year. The orchard got worse rather than better, and Mr. Rickards wished to dig out all diseased trees, but Mr. Polk ob- jected aud desired to continue the treatment. That fall from 300 to 400 pounds per acre of oi'dinary phospbatc, part of it made by Mr. Thomas, was sowed broadcast ou the entire 50 acres [0 to 8 pounds of potash aud 20 to 30 pounds of phosphoric acid per acre]. 1887. The younger, front part of the orchard showed many diseased trees. Notlr iug was put o-n the back 35 acres, but on the 15 acres of younger trees the Thomas mixture was applied at tlie rate of 300 to 400 pounds per acre. This was put on iu March or April aud j)lowed under later. The orchard showed no improvement. 1888. No treatment, save the ordinary careful culrivation which has been given each year. I drove the entire length of the orchard and. along one end, and walked through the middle. It is very badly diseased in all parts, and many of the trees are entirely worthless. The boss of the picking gang, who has been on the place live years, and was then at work in the or- chard, told me that 20 acres of the 33 was "good for nothing," and would becut down as soon as time could be found to do it, Mr. Polk haviug given orders to that eflecf; in fact 5 acres had already been cut down (see Photo. XXIY made in November). He estimated that about two thirds of the eight-year-old trees were diseased, and I saw nothing which led me to doubt his statement. Of the six-year old trees, he thought u'oout one-fourth were premature. FollowiDg Mr. Polk's direction the tenant began to cut these down, but found so many of them, that he preferred not to execute the order until he should again see the manager and in- form him morefullyof the exact condition of the trees. The diseased trees were very yellow and sickly looking, some were barren, and others bore premature fruit and the characteristic shoots. The healthy trees, espe- 11215— Xo. 9— !) 130 SPECIAL KEPOliT ON PEACH YELLOWS. cially iu the younger part of the orchard, bore considerable fruit; tbey were large, and the foliage was green and vigorous. Evidently tbey bare bad good care and plenty of suitable food. So far as I could judge, assuming for a basis tbe recent progress of the disease in all tbat part of Maryland, tbe fertilizers bave bad no ef- fect whatever iu retarding its spread. It bas gone on increasing from year to year until now tbe orchard is very badly diseased. It is cer- tainly as bad as any untreated orchard within a radius of 10 miles, and mucb worse than several orchards on tbe south side of tbe Sassafras Eiver, on similar soil, and on land which bas been "peached "once and bas received no special treatment. In my judgment it would bave been better to have removed tbe diseased trees, from year to year, as fast as tbey appeared. If I bave not been misinformed, Mr. Polk is now also of this opinion. Orchard No. 1 of this report received 200 pounds of ground bone and 200 pounds of muriate of potash per acre when three years old. Orchard No. 2 has also received a good deal in the way of phosphates, potash salts, and barn-yard manure for a series of years. Orchard No. 14 received kainit broadcast iu tbe spring of 1885, at the rate of 400 pounds per acre. Phosphates and barn-yard manure were used on the held for other crops previous to setting the trees, but not since. Tbe level 30-acre field lying south of this orchard produced be- tween 29 and 30 bushels of wheat per acre in 1888. I saw it fallowed in 1887, and the soil appeared to be identical with that of tbe orchard. Orchard No. 10 bas been remarkably productive, but bas received very little in the way of fertilizers. It is thirty-three years old, and never suffered much from yellows until recently. This orchard may be compared ^vitb No. 2, which is on mucb tbe same kind of soil; or with No. 18, which was not old enough to bear until 1888, and then produced only a sprinkling of peaches, mostly premature; or with No. 3, which made a vigorous growth, and bore only one or two light crops before succumbing. Again, on tbe supposition that yellows is due to exhaustion of soil, ought it not to appear in old rather than young trees, in trees which have produced excessive crops of fruit for many years in succession rather than in those which have borne only one or two light crops or even none at all 1 The reverse of this is true. I have found yellows more rapidly destructive in young than in old orchards. I know a number of instances where very productive old orchards have been en- tirely spared for the first fifteen or twenty years, while young orchards on tbe same farm, or iu the immediate vicinity, have become very badly diseased during the first six years of their orchard life. In some cases where soil, location, method of cultivation, etc., appeared to be tbe same, I have found that old and young trees were attacked at about the same time, both being injured alike, or the young suftering worse; in other cases the young orchards bave been attacked a year or two sooner YELLOWS AND SOIL EXHAUSTION. 131 than the old oues. The reverse of this, i. e., old orcbards attacked first, is sometimes true, but ou tbis tbeory it ougbt to be true alwiiys. or at least very commonly. Tbis is certainly far from being the case. Of the eighteen orchards specially mentioned in this report only four are over nine years old, and a number of them have been set only three, four, and five years. A general consideration of the way in which the disease spreads appears also to be opposed to the view that it results from soil-exhaus- tion. Within five or six years it has appeared in nearly all the orchards on the upper part of the Delaware and Chesapeake peninsula, and for the last two or three years it has affected tree after tree very rapidly. In that region it is now ou all kinds of soil, clay, clay -loam, sandy-loam, and light sand; ou the richest farms and on tbe poorest; on new and old lauds; on impoverished hill tops or hillsides, and in rich bottoms; iu young and old trees; in budded fruit and in seedlings ; iu transplanted trees and in those which have never been moved ; in trees crowded, set 20 feet apait, and even 40 feet apart ; on moist fields and dry ones; on liighlyfertilized soils and on those which have received a minimum of fertilizers or none whatever. These statements, every one of which 1 have verified repeatedly in Maryland and Delaware, have also all proved true in the experience of Michigau peach growers, as I know from correspondence and conversation with many of them. Is it prob- able, or even within the bounds of possibility, that suddenly all the orchard lands in whole counties should become exhausted and incapa- ble of growing the peach; capable still, however, of growing excellent corn aud wheat, aud fiue vineyards and pear and apple orchards? The chemical analyses of the peach reveal no peculiarity of composition that would warrant any such belief. Moreover, in some of the lower counties of the Chesapeake and Dela- ware peninsula, which have been settled as long and have grown peaches nearly or quite as long, yellows has not appeared, at least not so as to be noticed, although the soil is lighter and less fertile. Sussex County, Del., in particular, contains large tracts of very sandy laud, and is noticeably less fertile than Kent County. Indeed, from Sea- ford to Delmar, along the line of the railroad, it is almost a barren waste of sandy, scrub -pine country. Corn and wheat will not grow. Melons and small fruits are the principal products, blackberries being the crop which thrives best. Peach trees planted on this land are yellowish, small, and starved, and the orchards seldom live more than ten or twelve years ; yet, iu the whole region I did not see or hear of a case of yel- lows. The trees sometimes starve, but do not die of yellows. In many orchards it is also the practice, and has been for years, to double-crop the land by planting four or five rows of strawberries or of blackberry bushes between the orchard trees. These strong-feeding plants take from the soil much jiotash, phosphoric acid, and other mineral matters, and the peach trees evidently feel the loss; but not even iu any of these 132 SPECIAL REPORT OX PEACH YELLOWS. orcbards could I find yellows, altliougU I tramped patiently over many acres aud examined hundreds of trees. In driving from Seaford to Laurel I passed tbrougli au especially dreary country. I have seen nothing like it except in the pine barrens of Michigan. The timber was chiefly second growth scrub-pine {Finus inops, Ait.) or old-field pine (P. Tceda, L.). Cassia chamcccrista, L., Comp- tonia anpUnifolia, Ait., and similar plants of barren land were common. The roads were of dee[>, loose, yellow sand. The wheels settled in over the felloe, and it was not possible to drive faster than a walk. All along the road — in soil, crops, orchards, houses, fences, and inhabitants- there was every indication of poverty, and sometimes of a hand-to- mouth fight with starvation ; yet no indication of yellows. Now, in the name of all ihe chemists, if yellows and starvation are synonymous, why does the disease [U'evail on the rich loams of Kent and New Castle and not in Sussex ? The better soil north of Seaford is a flat, shallow, gray sand, capable of growing 10 or 15 busliels of w heat per acre, but not nearly as fertile as the clays and clay loams of Kent County. There I saw no yellows, and could not learn that it had ever been in that vicinity, the only sus- picious trees being recent imports. In Maryland a similar parallel might be drawn between the sandy pine lands of Caroline County and the loams and clays of Kent ('ounty. Kent is much the richer county, but, so far, Caroline has almost entirely escai)ed the yellows, while Kent has suffered very severely. The more southern counties of Maryland, such as Dorchester, Somerset, and Wi- comico, also contain much poor, sandy land, but yellows has not been reported from that part of the State. Again, my observation has been that thrifty trees on fertile soil are quite as likely to be attacked as any. In orchards Nos. 2^ 10, 14, 15, aud 17 of this report the largest, most rapidly growing trees, on the richest parts of the field, i. e., those receiving the drainage, were the first to be attacked. In Nos. 3, G, 10, and 14 aJl the trees had made a remarkably fine growth. Orchards Xos. 1, 5, G, 7, 8, 10, aud 14 are on good clay-loam soil, capable ot growing from 20 to 30 bushels of wheat per acre and 40 to 50 bushels of shelled corn. Many other affected or- chards which I have examined are on excellent soil, judging from its ap- pearance, from the growth made by the trees previous to becoming dis eased, aud from the character of the wheat, corn, aud other farm crops growing in the immediate vicinity. The same fact has been observed by others repeatedly in Delaware, Maryland, aud Michigan. A. S. Dyck- mau, one of the largest growers at South Haven, Mich., told me that he had a saudy bluff the soil of which had beeu blown away to tlie depth of 1 to 2 feet by the winds of Lake Michigan, so that nothing but the sandy subsoil remaiued. Peach trees were set in this sand, and made almost no growth for a number of years, but grew and bore peaches when manured. In a rich bottom in the same orchard trees YELLOWS AND SOIL EXHAUSTION. 133 suffered from yellows, but none were attacked on the blnfif, altbough the soil was too poor to grow peach trees, or even grass or weeds, nn- til it was heavily manured There is a general impression that peach yellows is more destructive in oichards planted on huid previously occupied by peach trees. This has been ascribed to impoverishment of soil. The belief, no doubt, arose from the common observation that in districts long infected and where, so to speak, the disease has become endemic, second plantings decay speedily. In such places I am inclined to think this speedy decay is in some way connected with locality, but do not believe it to be the direct result of impoverished soil. At Odessa, Del., I bad good opportunity to observe this. That region was formerly very thickly planted with large peach orchards, which disapi)eared in the seventies, largely on a(;count of the prevalence of yellows. The more enterprising farmers set new orchards, and in 1888 I had an opportunity to examine them. They are from one to eight years old, and almost without exception tho-e which have been planted over three years are badly diseased ; but the orchards set on the site of former orchards do not seem to be worse alfected than those set on ground never before in peaches. One of the worst orchards seen is near the Utilaware River, on the farm of E. C Fennimore. The trees are six and eight years old, set on sandy land, clay subsoil, pre\ iously occupied for sixteen years by the very productive orchard already mentionetl. The old orchard suifered badly from yellows toward the end, and was entirely removed in 1874 — seven years before the tield was again planted to trees. At the time of my visit Mr. Fenni- more was pulling out orchard trees with a span of mules, and I saw lar^ie 8tri[»s from which the trees had been removed in 188G and I8S7. Many of rhe trees were badly diseased, and a natural inference was that the previous orchard had exhausted the soil. However, the or- chard is not more badly diseased by yellows than Nos. 1, 3, 7, 8, 11, and 17 of this report, which are on land never before in peaches; nor is it worse than others which I have seen in Maryland and Delaware on " unpeached" land. Somewhat farther south in Delaware, where the disease is now ob- taining a strong foothold, it does not attack orchards on " peached" land any sooner or any more destructively than those on land never before in i)eaches. I have observed the same fact in Maryland in a number of instances. Some cases may be cited : About four-fifths of orchard No. 9 of this report is on laud i)ro- viously occui;ied by a peach orchard, but this portion has not snffered worse than the rest of the orchard (see Table VII). A portion of or- chard No. 10 was formerly in peaches, the tiees being removed Jiine years before the present orchard was set. Ne\ ertheless, this part of the orchard was not attacked any sooner, and has not suffered more severely than other parts (see Map III). Two orchards near Still Pond, Md., 134 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. on "peached" land have suffered much less than Xos. 1 and 2 of this rei)ort, although they are not far from the latter. Dif^eascd irees also occur in fence-rows and by roadsides at a distance from the orchards, near ash-heaps and piles of stable refuse, the drain- age of which they have received, and in gardens, lawns, and city lots. In short, in the badly-infected areas I have found the disease wherever 1 liave ionnd peach trees. In the uninfected areas I have found the disease in none of these situations. Between badly infected vlistricts and uninfected ones there is also a middle ground in which may be found some affected trees or orchards. These facts areall opposed to the Goessmau Penhallow^ theory. There is, however, a still more serious objection. If yellows is due to soil exhaustion, the most convincing proof should be found in localities where the action of other presumptive causes, e.g., contagium, freezing, etc., have been reduced naturally or artificially to a minimum. Manifestly it will not do to accept afiQrmative evidence on this point from sections of the country where several supposed causes are acting unrestrainedly at the same time, and any one of which may be the true cause. For this reason the whole Alan tic coast may be ruled out, and also a large part of the Northwest. In all this region either the winters are severe, or the disease is not present, or it is al- lowed to spread without any general, systematic effort to check it. The only localities really suitable for such an inquiry are (1) those parts of the South where the climate is mild and the disease has never appeared, and (2) the peach belt of western Michigan, close to the lake shore, in the vicinity of South Haven, Van Buren County, and in the townships of Casco, Ganges, and Saugatuck, Allegan County, where the yellows law is enforced and where the lake tempers the severity of the winters. The soil in many parts of the South was "exhausted " years ago, and yet peach trees continue to be coniparatively free from yellows, and often live twenty or thirty years. However, as I am more intimately acquainted with conditions in Michigan, I will confine the discussion to that region. The four Michigan townships named border Lake Michig;iii I'ov a distance of 24 miles, and comprise the most important peach disirict in the State, the only one at all comparable with the peach regions of New Jersey, Maryland, or Delaware. The country has not been well settled more than thirty or forty years and there is still considerable virgin forest of pine, hemlock, beech, and maple. The character of the soil varies from a light sand to heavy clay loam. At South Haven, and generally near the lake, it is sandy. Some miles inland, at least in Allegan County, the soil is heavier and more fertile. In accordance with State law, supported in this region by a very strong public sentiment based on a nearly universal belief in the communicable nature of yellows, diseased peach trees are cut down or dug out and burned as soon as discovered. In this way, on the theory of spread by YELLOWS AND SOIL EXHAUSTION. 135 contaginiu the iufectivc umtcriai, whatever it may be, must presumably be kept at a minimum. If it is developed iu the tree it cau never be very abundant, for there are never very many diseased trees in exist- ence at any one time. The proximity of Lake Michigan also tends to prevent injuries by freezing. neie, then, the influence of two supposed causes is reduced to a mini- mum, and the effect of soil exhaustion will, if anywhere, be freed from complications, and in condition to be estimated more nearly at its true value. The fact that cases of yellows still appear in this region, year aft3r year, in spite of the modifying influence of the great lake, and in spite of the comparatively strict enforcement of the law, would, at first, seem to favor the theory of soil exhaustion, but really does not. Some very stubborn facts stand in the way of the accei)tance of this theory. These are : (1) Yellows is much less prevalent where the law has been strictly enforced. This phase of the question will be considered later at some length under "Influence of legislation," and need only be mentioned here. Of the fact itself I tliink there can be no doubt. (2) Yellows has appeared in this region on productive virgin soil, /. t-., on land cleared of the original forest within less than a decade, and never exhausted by cropping. This statement is so important that I have been at great pains to verify it, by extensive correspondence, and later by a visit to the region. There seems to be no doubt^whatever about it. (3) Healthy trees can be grown without lapse of time and without fertilizers iu the places previously occupied by diseased ones. In this region it is the custom, and has been for ten years or more, to set peach trees in the place of those dug out on account of yellows, and tiiese resets are not more liable to the di.sease than other trees in the orchard. In fact, from many reliable peach-growers iu southwestern Michigan I have received straightforward independent testimony show- ing that trees set in place of those unmistakably diseased by yellows have come to maturity and borne healthy fruit, and are now healthy. Such a state of affairs could not possibly exist, not generally, if soil ex- haustion were the cause of yellows or one of the necessary factors iu its production. Granted this fact alone and it would seem that the theory of poverty of soil must necessarily fall to the ground, for if one tree has exhausted the soil so as to become diseaseil how cau another tree be set imme- diately in the same i)lace and come to a healthy maturity ? So imi)or- taut is this matter that I desire to introduce abstracts from some of the more important statements received. (Ju March 24, 18S8, and again April 9 and IG, I sent the following questiou, or modified forms of it, to peacli-growers in southwestern Michigan : 136 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. QUESTION. In your cxperieuce have you ever succeeded iu growing beallliy peaches from trees set in the phice of those dug out on account ot unmistalxoble yellows ; i. c, set iu place of trees w hich bore the prema- ture red-spotted fruit, or the starved wiry branches, or both ? If you have done so, when was it and under what circumstances, and how long did the trees remain healthy ? To these questions I received the followiug replies : ANSWERS. (1.) South Haven, Mich., March 26, 1888. I have little persoual expotencc bearing upon the question of soil-starvation as a cause of yellows, and I have never planted a tree in place of one diseased; but this has bien done to a considerable extent iu orchards here, and I have not heard of disease traceable to this cause. — T. T. Lyox. (2.) South Haven, Mich., April 2, 1888. I have taken up peach trees tha., had the yellows, au-d reset in the same places, and have picked peaches from eaid trees two years and they are perfectly healthy yet.— D. C. Leisening. (3.) Fennville, Mich., April 11, 188d 1 have done so suecess/iiUy. I planted an orchard on new ground, and out of that orchard one year I cut twenty trees, adjoining, all of which had uiimifitakable yellows — which showed .spotted fruit and wiry fungus growth. The trees planted in the places of those taken out have borne nothing bnt the best of fruit, showing no signs of yellows, and are still bearing. — J. P. Wade. In response to a letter asking for more explicit information on certain points Mr. Wade replied again, under date of April IG, as follows : The twenty trees were dug out in 1882, and young trees planted in same places in 1883. The forest timber was beech and maple. I had one crop only after clear! ug before the trees were planted. The trees were five years old when the yellows was first discovered, with the excep- tion of one tree the year previous. (4.) South Haven, Mich., April 12, 1888. Perhaps to answer your question simply by saying "Yes," would not be as satis- factory as to give you some brief examples. I came into this country iu 1852, when it was one vast wilderness. After the tirst two years, having some iniprovemeut, and knowing that our neighbors south, at Saint Joseph, were raising peaches, we thought we would try it, and up to this date have raised peaches; have set five different orchards at various times on my farm, and in the tirst three never saw any yellow?. Irom 1875 have had a few cases, of the yellows, but with ax and spade soon cured them. Then the question arose, "Can we set trees in the place where those with the yellows have been taken out?" The question was discussed very thoroughly iu our pomological meetings. By some it was thought to be dangerous, but the experiment was made and found successful; and for the last seven or eight years we have taken out the aliected trees and the spring following have set iu the same place, and have raised as fine peaches as we ever raised, free from any blight. — S. G. Shkffer. (5.) Fennville, Mich., April 11, 1888. We have no trouble in making trees grow m the place where we have taken out trees that had the yellows. I have an Early Crawford tree that I set in the place of YELLOWS AND SoIL EXIIAUoTION. 137 one that had the yellows seven years ago, aud it has borne fruit for the last four years, and shows no signs of the disease yet. Last season I picked three baskets from it of nice marketable fruit, and it bids fair to have on a good crop the x^resent year. As far as my experience goes a new tree will grow just as well where you take out a tree that has the yellows as it would if the tree had been in the best of health. Yon can't set a tree in an orchard of old trees and have it do as well as it would if the trees were all young, as the old trees shade the ground with their wide-spreading tops, keeping oft' the rain aud dew, and with their long roots sap the ground of the nourishment that tha young tree needs to make it grow. I think the young ti'ee starves to death. Two years ago I put in new trees in place of those taken out on account of the yel- lows. I gave the ground a liberal dressing of leached ashes, and you never saw tiner looking trees than these are at the present time — full of fruit-buds and capable of holding from one to two baskets of peaches. — W. H. McCormick. (().) South Haven, Mich., April — , 1888. The first case of yellows in our orchard was in 1872, but I think it was discovered in Rossiter Hoppiu's orchard, and perhaps in one or two other places, a year or two earlier. My attention was first ijarticularly directed to it in 1872. I have practiced setting trees in the places where they have been cut out on account of yellows, some of them badly aiiected. Have trees in such situations now several years' bearing. Several of our neighbors likewise. The main thing is to watch vigi- lantly, cut out promptly, aud without mercy. Stamp out the disease and guard against infection. Some of our best citllivators have large bearing trees in place of orchards destroyed by yellows. But they are thorough men. Our careless men have gone out of the busi- ness. — A. S. Dyckmax. (7.) Gaxges, Mich., April 12, 1888. Last season was the first time the yellows ever appeared on my place. I bad a few cases in my old orchard. I am satisfied, however, that as healthy trees may be grown where diseased trees are taken out as could be grown on the same ground in places where healthy trees of the same age had been grown, provided there is no part of the diseased tree left growing. No one here, so far as I know, hesitates about planting new trees in the places from which diseased trees have been taken, unless it might be for tbe reason that the ground had become exhausted. Hon. D. W. Wiley, of Douglas, Mich., i^lanted five trees in the places from which as many diseased trees were taken, twelve or fifteen years ago, aud these five trees are still living, aud beariug as well as if no diseased trees had ever occupied the ground. Cupt. Robert Reid, of Douglas, Mich., Rev. A. C. Merritt, of South Haven, and himdreds of others have -thousands of trees growing and bearing well on laud that was once occupied by trees that had the yellows. — A. Hamilton'. (8.) Gaxges, Mich., April 14, 1888. I have succeeded iu growing healthy peaches on trees set in place of trees removed which showed the first stages of the yellows, namely, the premature ripening and spotted appearance of the fruit. My first experience with yellows was eight years ago. I had one tree which iin- mistdkablij had yellows. I cut it down as soon as discovered, which was in August, and late iu the fiiU pulled out the srurap, aud removed both stump and branches, and tlie following spring set another tree iu the same place, which commenced bearing the third year, and has borne a crop every year since, aud still remains healthy. I have had from one to a dozen trees diseased with yellows every year since, and have 138 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. continued the practice as stated above, mauy of the trees bearing now. Have never yet bad a tree show yellows where set in the place of one removed. I always cut down as soon as the first syniptoins appear ; seldom have one showing the wiry growth. Have never used any preventatives; always give thorough culti- vation through the fore part of the season until about the Ist of August. — A. W. FiSHEK. (9.) South Haven, Mich., April 17, 1888. In answer to your first question I can say, yes, most emphatically, with this quali- fication, not " or starved wiry branches." The trees that I have cut out with yel- lows have nearly always been thrifty and vlyoroas, showing the disease only in the fruit aud sometimes only in two or three peaches, while all the rest would be healthy, and often only one or two limbs would be visibly aifected. Thorough cultivation has been my practice, and also to take out a tree as soon as it shows the disease. I have bought and set a few trees that never showed anything hut the "starved wiry," fungus growth, but took them out and burned them as soon as discovered. Had I carried over yellows trees to bear the second season, doubtless I could say yes to the last clause of your first question. Question 2. [When was it ?] I first discovered unmistakable yellows in the fruit of one limb of one tree in my peach orcharding some fifteen years ago. I dug the tree out aud burned it before the crop matured. Do not remember as I reset the follow- ing spring in this particular case, but did very soon thereafter. Have had yellows ever since, reaching as high as seventy-five bearing trees in a season, and it has beeu my practice to reset the following spring, all these years. Question 3. [Under what circumstances ?] I had read of the disease. The fruit was getting color weeks ahead of the rest of the tree, or others. I believed it to be the yellows, invited my friends to see it, the first of whom unhesitatingly denied its being the yellows, but couldoniy say it was getting prematurely ripe for some reason. He was as inexperienced as myself, aud that I was right my subsequent experience proved. A few trees followed the same fate the next year, and for several years I took out and reset from thirty, forty, fifty to seventy-five, and then ran down to fifty, forty, thirty, ten, one, one; and last fall, with four thousand trees set and two thousand bearing, I lost six trees. You will notice that two falls I had but one case each. Question 4. [How many trees were thus reset?] I cannot give the exact number reset, but I till every vacancy every spring, and the most of these trees are in bear- ing, aud many of them have been until they are past their prime. Question 5. [How long did the trees remain healthy ?] I am not certain that I have lost a tree with yellows the second time in the same place. Since the orchard reached a large growth, filling vacancies has beeu, of course, at a great disadvantage to the newly-set trees, but evidently the fact that yellows trees preceded them has nothing to do with it. I apply ashes aud a little manure to the soil where the old tree grew for the sustenance of the new ; and for years, and last fall, the tree occupying the ground where I lost my first tree with yellows was heavily laden with healthy peaches, aud that is only one among many like it. Question 6. [What reason have you for thinking that the trees dug out were diseased with yellows ?] I need only say that from observation and experience I know the yellows at sight as readily as I do the most familiar varieties of fruit or the diftVreuce in different species of trees. The best written description of the yellow^s is as nothing (in conveying an idea or knowledge of it to a person who has never seen it) in comparison w^ith the certainty of knowledge and ability to detect it (when there are visible signs) that come to some who have a practiced eye by long and in- terested familiarity with it. — A. C. Meuiiitt. (10.) Douglas, Mich., April 18, 1688. My own experience aud that of some of my neighbors has, I think, fully established the fact, with us, at least, that healthy fruit has beeu and can be grown upon trees planted in the i)lace where trees diseased with ycllowii have been removed. YELLOWS AND SOIL EXHAUSTION. 139 My first; experience iu this directiou occurred the siuiiiiu>r of 1874, wlicn, in an or- chard of some four thousand trees, I discovered six trees of the Early Crawford vari- ety, all heavily laden with fruit and standing quite near to each other, showing un- mistakable signs of yellows. A part of the fruit on each of these trees was spotted with red spots, the red streaks extending from the surface to the pits. I had those trees dug out at once and burned, and the following spring planted trees iu the same places. These trees cams into bearing the third and fourth year from planting, and produced fine, healthy peaches, and continued in so doing during the life of the trees. At the present time I have one tree that bore its first fruit last season, being four years old this spring from setting. The fruit was perfectly healthy. This tree was set in the place of one taken out that had the wiry growth of wood, and had yellows, and no mistake. From my own experience, and with quite extensive observation as connnissioner of yellows for four years, I am strongly inclined to the belief that where trees having yellows are promptly removed and destroyed there need be but little cause for alarm but what we shall be able to furnish healthy and fine peaches for many years yet. — D. W. Wiley. (11.) Douglas, Mich., Apiil 18, 1888. In reply t > your first q uestiou, yes. For three years have been gathering peacht-s from those reset. Those dug out bore the spotted fruit and had the wiry growth. 2d. [When was it f] In 1878 — ten years ago. 3d. [Under what circumstances?] Condemned by the yellows commissioner. 4th. [H )W many trees were thus reset f] Three hundred. 5th. [How long did these trees remain healthy I] Those reset are healthy to-day. 6th. [What reason have j^ou for thinking that the ti'eesdugout were diseased with yellows?] Because the fruit was spotted, insipid, and some of the trees had wiry growth, and were condemned by the yellows commissioner. The three hundred trees were taken out of an orchard of two thousand trees. I lost an orchard of five hundred trees, which I reset two years ago, and the trees are doing well. — Robt. Ri:id. I luade additioual inquiries and ^fr. Reid replied as follows, under date of April 26 : In answer to your first (luestiou [How long after yuu dug out the three hundred yellows trees before you reset ?] The next year, 1879. 2d. [When you reset did you manure these trees or give them any other treatment very diti'erent from the rest of the orchard ?] Used no manure, but put air-slaked lime ou all my orchard. Have manured since. The soil is gravelly — wheat soil. 3d. [In the other orchard of five hundred trees destroyed by yellows, and reset two years ago, how long a time intervened between the digging out and the resetting, i. e., what year did you dig them out and what reset ?] Three years. Dug out the last in 1883 ; reset in 1886. 4th. [Have you used potash or any special fertilizer on the trees reset two years ago in place of the five hundred, so that this might possibly account for their healthy appearance?] Have used air-slaked lime on them also. I followed, as near as I could, the directions found in John Rutter's book on Peach Yellows. (12.) Douglas, Mich., March 16, 18S8. I have trees growing, that were planted where trees having the yellows were taken out, that have borne healthy fruit three years and show no signs of disease. James F. Taylou. Finally, the recent admission by Professor Penhallow that restored trees are liable to a relapse; the statement Dy Henry Race, of Pitts- town, X. J., that trees can be reclaimed only when the disease is in an 140 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. <' incipient" state; the stateineut by Charles Bhick, of Hightstown, X. J., that badly diseased trees can uot be cured, and the universal Xew Jer- sey practice of removing diseased orchards when they are only six or eight years old, would seeiu to warrant the belief that the potash and phosphate treatment, which has been most vigorously championed in tbat State, does not really cure peach yellows, or even prevent it. In regard to "incipienf'yellows, I must acknowledge that I can notde- tectitwith any degree of certainty. Others are probably as helpless. I am sure of my diagnosis only when 1 find the symptoms previously recorded as characteristic of yellows, and then the disease is no longer "incipient." If we are to discuss tbis subject intelligently, we must know beyond any question that we have in mind the same malady. I have given more attention to the Goessman-Penhallow treatment than to any other because it has been more prominently before the pub- lic, and because it seemed to offer more reasonable hope of success than any other. However, there is no end to so- called remedies. If we may believe published statements, peach yellows has been been cured by stable manure, urine, house slops, lime, gas lime, woodaslies, potash, chlorate of potash, saltpeter, ground bone, bone-black, hot lye, hot soap, hot water, fishbrine, fish compost, and various other commercial fertili- zers, especially those compounded of muriate of potash and dissolved bone-black, and sold under the name of " Peach Tree Fertilizer," or " Peach Yellows Remedy." Some manufacturers have also advertised such fertilizers as possessing the property of germicides. All such state- ments are false and misleading, and are not made in the interest of peach growers. Wet and rich soils.— In some orchards which 1 have examiued the disease was unquestionably worse in bottoms and sags, which receive more or less drainage from other parts of the field and are naturally richer and moister, as shown by the appearance of the soil and by the larger growth of weeds and trees (see Map lY, Spots I, III, and lY, where this was particularly noticeable). It is less apparent on Map YII, but this may be owing to the fact that on two sides of that orchard in the near vicinity are older trees badly diseased forsome years, and from which this orchard may perhaps have been infected, if it did uot bring its-infection from the nursery. However, the disease does not always start in tiie low- est part of an orchard, and is by no means confined to sags and bottoms, as the maps show clearly enough. Even in the same orchard, where it affects bottoms, one may be taken and the other spared. Orchard iSTo. 12 of this report affords a striking illustration of this. It contains two shal- low sags of about the same area, and of the same general character, as de- termined by soil, moisture, weeds, and the growth of trees. If anything, the northwest sag is a little moister and less fertile. The same weeds grow in both, but in 1888 the weeds were observed to be a little ranker in the south sag. The northwest sag is planted with the Beers' Smock. The south sag is planted with trees purchased for Saiway, but which NEGLECT OF CULTIVATION AND PRUNING. 141 seemed to ?ue ideutical with Beers' Smock. The northwest sag contained no diseased trees in 1887 and only one appeared in 1888, that one being on the onter edge. In the sonth sag, in 1887, which was the first year of attack, I found eleven trees badly diseased by yellows, and eleven months later, when the orchard was re examined, I found ten additional cases in that sag and ou the dry ground immediately surrounding it. Most of the Crawfords which became diseased in 1888 were also near this bottom. Bad the disease first appeared in the nortliwest sag, I have no doubt the conditions in 1888 would have been reversed (see the marked tend- ency toward grouping exhibited on the maps). The general o[)inion among prominent peach growers, both on the Chesapeake and Delaware Peninsula and in Michigan, is that the disease is more likely to appear first in bottoms and rich places. This coincides with my observations. The etiect of moist spots, as well as of excessive rains, has been as- cribed to the dilution of mineral constituents in the earth fluids, whereby the tree starves in the midst of plenty. Another explanation is that root-fungi and various micro organisms thrive better in such situations I have at present no theory to offer. AKTIFICIAL oil CULTriJE COXDITIONS. IS'EGLECT OF CULTIVATION. — Tliis was oncc a favorite explanation of the disease, particularly with writers who never went abroad, but evolved truth from their inner consciousness. In recentyears, however, I have heard it asserted that trees left in sod and otherwise maltreated were the only ones free from disease. There is no truth in either asser- tion, or rather each is only a half truth. Many orchards in Maryland and Delaware are kept entirely free from grass and weeds and are cul- tivated more thoroughly than the corn-fields; but cultivation from early s[)ring to middle summer, or oven all the year round, has not been able to prevent the appearance of yellows, or to hold it in check. Many orcliards which have received the utmost attention have become badly diseased. On the other hand, neglected orchards are by no means free from the disease. I have seen it in a number of such orchards ; e. g., iu 1887, at Still Poud, Md.- in a small old orchard owned by J. Frank Wilson. This had been in sod and used for a sheep pasture four years, but contained quite a number of recently-diseased trees. Again, iu 1888, on the farm of G. M. Eldridge, near Cecilton, Md., I saw many diseased trees in an old orchard used as a pasture. This orchard has been i)lowed only once in six yeiirs, and that was some time ago. The disease also occurs frequentl}^ on lawns and grass plots never plowed or otherwise disturbed (Photo. V), and I have moreover seen it in trees on soil entirely free from vegetation and packed hard by the daily tread of many feet. Neglect op pruning. — This was a favorite theory with A. J. Down- ing. He advised the shortening-in of the bearing wood one-half every spring. If the trees came from an originally healthy stock he believed this 142 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. ■would keep them healthy. There is, however, uo good reason for be- lieving it wonld. S. H. Wilson, of Baltimore County, Md., claims to have tried it faithfully with no success.^ I can not from my own obser- vation fnrnish any testimony on this point. Excessive use of nitrogenous manures. — The belief that the spread of yellows is favored by the use of animal manures is quite prev- alent, and appears to have some basis in fact. One of Dr. Henry Ridgely's orchards which blighted most lapidly ^vith yellow\s was very highly manured. The McDaniel orchard. Map YI, was also twice very heavily manured soon after being set. The Price orchards, Nos. 2 and 3 of this report, have also been freely and re])eatedly manured. In par- ticular a narrow strij), of perhaps one-half acre, on the northeast side of No. 2, which contains some stones and was believed to be less fertile, received great quantities ot dung, and there I found nearly every tree diseased by yellows. Orchard No. 1, however, has received no manure, except two loads on the spot indicated on Map I. Moreover, in uninfected localities, I have seen orchards which have been heavily manured, and they were healthy. The general tendency of nitrogenous manures is toward the excessive production of wood and foliage. Summing up the evidence, I am inclined to think that, in infected districts, nitrogenous manures have a bad influence, but to what this is due I am unable to say. Degeneracy due to continued propagation by budding. — A sufificieut answer to this is the statement that yellows affects seed- ling trees no less destructively than budded ones. This I liave verified repeatedly. Seedlings are not exempt, and I have not even been able to show that our oldest varieties are any more subject to this disease than those but recently originated. My examinations in over two hun- dred orchards have led to no positive result. All varieties appear to be subject in like degree when all other conditions are the same. In some orchards, indeed, certain varieties were much worse affected than others; but often the very next orchard would furnish contradictory evidence— e. (J., in No. 1 of this report Christiana was most badly diseased, while in No. 4 this variety had suffered very little. In No. 2, Mountain Eose is badly diseased; in Nos. 4 and 5, this variety is scarcely at all afl'ected. In No. 5, Early liivers suffered much in 1887 and previous years; in No. 12, not at all until 1888. Even in the same orchard other things than variety control the spread of the disease (see west sag and east bottom, on Map IV). This is quite different from what occurs in many diseases due to fungi, where the limiting effect of variety is very sharply marked. In peach yel- lows, no matter which variety is first diseased, all become affected alike in the course of a few years (see Maps I and III, and Tables VI and VIII). Neither is it true, as some have asserted, that the variety ' The American Garden, N. Y., 1887, p. — . ON PROLONGED KEPEODUCTION BY BUDS. 143 which shows the disease first is always the first to become badly affected. In orchard No. 5 yellows first appeared, ia 1885, in one tree in the Mountain Rose variety. This was removed in the fall, and no more affected trees appeared in that variety until 1888 — then only three. Other varieties, however, were affected in 18SG and 1887, some quite badly, as may be seen by consulting Table IV. Knight,' Von Thiimen,^ and some other European writers have in- sisted that continued propagation by buds, cuttings, etc., leads to de- generacy, and there is a very general impression among farmers and fruit-growers that varieties "run out." This theory is not wholly un- reasonable, and yet a vast amount of careful experimenting must be done before it can be said to rest on any broad basis of well-established facts. Propagation by budding secures the continuation of a variety for an indefinite period, but this is the ordinary method of reproduction in some of the lower plants, and is something quite different from in- hreeding. We know by direct experiment that the latter is injurious, but our knowledge of the effect of continued budding iiropagation is largely guess- work. It may produce deterioration, but there is no un- impeachable evidence that it does. In the higher animals there is a distinct individuality, but in some of the lower animals and in plants it is difficult to decide what constitutes an individual. Strictly speak, iug, we can not take an analogy from the animal world and say that bu'Idiug perpetuates an individual indefinitely, and must therefore lead to superannuation. If we are to use this term at all, it would probabl}' be best to restrict it to eacli new-formed bud, in which case there cer- tainly could be no such thing as superannuation. The other logical extremity is that taken by Prof. Huxley in his discussion of the non- sexual re production of aphides, etc. According to this view all the Craw- ford's Early or Old Mixon trees in existence are parts only of one individual. These opposing views appear to be about equally absurd. Propagation by means of impekfeot ok diseased pits. — There is undoubtedly some reason for believing that the disease is prop- agated by diseased pits. 1 can not state positively that trees growu from premature peaches will develop yellows, but I think it likely. There can be no doubt that such seeds have an enfeebled vitality, and it is not likely that they will give rise to robust trees. How great the danger may be from this source I am unable to say. Some experiments of my own lead me to think it is overestimated. Exact experiments to determine this point have not been very numerous. Some years ago G. H. La Fleur, a well-known nurseryman at Mill Grove, Mich., made a number of trials to determine this. In his first experiment he obtained a few sickly-looking seedlings from pits taken from trees having the yellows. The growth was not to exceed 10 inches. > Tram, of the Hort. Soc. of London, flrdt series, Vol. V, 1824, p. 384 ; ami secoud series. Vol. I, 1835, p. 147. *J)ie Bcldmpfiing der Pihkraiikliciten nnacrer CuUarrjcwaohse. Wiea, 1880, p. 7. 144 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEAC:iI YELLOWS. They had the appearauce of uuhealthy trees, and were pulled and burned. In his next experiment he planted in the fall, without crack- ing, a peck of pits taken from trees havinj^ yellows. None grew. The next season, 18S1, he obtained a peck of pits selected with great care from fruit showing yellows plainly. These were placed in sand in the fall, in the same manner as he treated healthy pits. In the spring he cracked them himself, and found only one in a normal condition. All the others had rurned black or dark colored, and were mostly decayed. The one pit which had the appearance of being sound was planted, but never came up.' Premature pits also failed to grow fcr Mr. H. E. Bidwell and Dr. J. C. Arthur, In August, 18S7, on the farm of T. J. Shallcross, Locust Grove, Md., I saw about thirty seedlings planted by themselves in a garden and said to have grown from i)remature peaches. Mr. Shallcross himself gathered and planted the pits. The trees were somewhat smaller and seemed of a lighter green than those in the nursery rows, but were ap- parently healthy. The uiidersize was thought to be accounted for by the fact of a late spring planting, pits being usually put out in the fall. Part of these seedlings were inoculated in my presence with diseased buds, part with healthy buds, and the rest were left unbudded. In the spring of 1888 some of each sort were sent to me at Hubbardston, Mich., along with several hundred other trees, and set upon my father's place. The packing was admirably done, and all the trees were in excellent condition, except those which grew from the diseased pits. These did not appear to have suffered in transit, but were, nevertheless, in a ver3" feeble condition, having not wintered well. Twenty-three of these trees were received, and IJ) were carefully set under my own di- rection, but when examined in June all of them were dead. Three were not considered promising enough to set. Of the other trees set at this time only an exceedingly small i)er cent, had died. From field examinations I am also reasonably confident that seedlings sometimes grow from premature peaches, having seen them under dis- eased trees so many times as to make it improbable that all of them grew from chance healthy i)its. Nevertheless, froui my own experiments, I think it is certain that a great part of the premature fruit will not produce seedlings. In the autumn of 1887 I carefully selected the pits of 2,070 premature peaches. Thomas J, Shallcross, of Locust Grove, Md,, and Smith & Brother, of McAllisterville, Pa., also collected for me, making a total of 3,104. These pits were sent in small lots to trustworthy persons to determine what per cent, would develop into diseased trees. Most of these pits were planted out in the fall, as in ordinary nursery culture. The fol- lowing is a synopsis of results : ' Letter of September 20, 1887. DISEASED PITS. 145 a S 4> p. o .9 f'-S S-i C3 ^ ■'-'CO 'go*' .« ^ g o ♦' S o -d a cd « ca ^ a cs-g la .2 5 P.- o CJ -a o a o «'3 a p. .9 s © © ga^ a "j:; ■§ s o— © "1 ^ "3 © > e3 a - a; a J3 3 5^ a cs CS-- J 1-1 p<- <^'il %% -Sis — 3 3 H fl^ « S c o CM tC ^ tc 4J -3 " Hg t§ P^ ^ § ^" n += o CO a o o a a P, « . .-a ^1 3^3 ij5 . a . si e =3 pj fee be "•^^ » . o" i4 I! ©t: © « S n -a o o 3 ^4 ..a o = © ^ a ■S cj^o - © In 1^^ "£a © o 05 M o w M ■n a ._ .. — M ^ ^ = a o a o tr^ ID <^ h O tj O i^ CJ i^ r^ ^ 1- S O eS O cS 2 3 cS oT ? ■»» J^ lt^ a o 02 '-^ a ^ © ^ t'2 u a a rS-g -d^ tS 03 O OS 5 o p §5 g=s ^« o Ul ■- £ .. i, "p " -gi" •3 ■- ?: 2 00 ? £ 01 ■^ S .■^"3 -iS c8 o >> hJ ^:l h:) H « ^ "> . 00 . t-' ©' © — i* .%m 3M 43:3 ||5 a'E = 00 ._ t^S'** ^S^ = = --a "_• sl gaa ill ©p o ^'g - ..'" ^ '-^ - .y^ 1-^ = = 3 o 5 1~-" T iibC o.a © ^ ^ u 11^' t(S „ca r: rH 1-1 a r-ilH ©^ ''I ■< - s ■ft .a c p a ce 5 ca p o a c S o p. R R o s IE d a ■d p P. -.a -S go sa 3 fe-^' fe'S J d e! s a if CO '"^ -<■ |MO !15 D2 rt 1^ .2«5 g bC p- ^ P^fH- CS TSd .,&^ ^^M 3.n ;:^ 00 is 5f^ t/3 0^ ^ ^- 5 cj ' a ^ o -d 5 a- o g a^ ft . .9 ® 2 'P. ag 5 « a « ill i 28 .*^ 2-2 2 « ,a> cs a 1 =s »® ^•93 a ■^•S O beg -aa.E; •d 2i3 .§2^ "CI J So« £ 1-. o ■%>^ 07: a s u o ■^ ii'-a r^c: a CD a-d -^l o q a o c3 ^ ?; o « ^/^ tb 2 htS ^ I' £ aH 2 m p^ -C -2 — -3 o . ffl g a S ^ a a S S " > ■E2-» ^j ^ te a o a o^ a I SI ^ o s 148 SPECIAL EEPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. My owu collectings and transmissions were nnulc with tbc utmost care, so that no mistake might occur. None but premature red-spotted peaches were gathered, and in most instances these were of normal size, and from trees which manifested no symptoms of disease till 1887. The collections by Mr. Shallcross and Smith & Brother were from young trees recently diseased, and were made, I believe, very carefully. It seemed, therefore, that these pits must be in the best condition for growing. The results show th-at only about five-tenths of 1 per cent, grew. Of my own collecting only two grew, i. e., less than 1 in 1,000. Judging from these experiments a majority of premature peach-pits will not grow. I also infer this from the fact that many which I have cracked and examined, especiallj'^ those from trees diseased more than one sea- son, either contained no kernel, or one with a dead embryo. If this holds good for all localities and seasons, then one supposed source of danger is greatly lessened. However, it will not do to base a sweep- ing conclusion on the experiments of a single year. They should be repeated several seasons on a large scale. It is also possible that enfeebled seedlings may grow from peaches borne on the yet apparently undiseased portions of affected trees. Ko experiments have been made to determine this point, but in the present state of our knowledge it is certainly wisdom to procure pits from un- infected districts or at least from orchards containing no diseased trees. In this way one possible source of danger will be avoided. Many nurserymen now j^rocure seed for nursery stock from infected districts. In such cases there is always a liability of getting pits from diseased trees, even vhen the greatest care is used, and this liability is largely increased when the seed is bought indiscriminately from dry -houses and canning establishments, with no previous inspection of the fruit. There can, I think, be little doubt that a majority of the diseased orchards in Isew Jerse}', Maryland, and Delaware, were budded on seedlings grown from pits collected in districts where yellows prevailed. I know this to be true of many orchards. A portion of even the so called " nat- ural" or '' Tennessee" seed is grown on the Delaware and Chesapeake Peninsula and fraudulently sold to nurserymen for the genuine article. Sometimes this spurious seed is shipped to Tennessee and then reshipped to points farther north ; sometimes it never gets any farther south than Philadelphia or Baltimore. I have this information from several reliable sources. I do not know how one can be certain of procuring genuine Southern pits from unbudded trees unless he collects them himself, or deals directly with Southern men of well-established character. More- over, in recent years, the demand for this kind of seed has probably ex- ceeded the entire available product of the small unbudded orchards of Tc-nnessee and other Southern States. In the South as well as in the North the large orchards are of choice budded fruit. Finally, granting that some pits are genuine and come from Tennessee there is in this fact no absolute guaranty of safety, because yellows probably occurs to ON PRODUCTION OF YELLOWS BY INOCULATION. 149 some extent iu that State, and is nowhere restricted to bntlded fruit. Nurserymen will probably do best by personally inspecting orchards iu fruit season and selecting pits from such as are entirely healthy. If these orchards are in regions where yellows has not appeared, so much the better. Nurserymen hare received much harsh criticism, but as a rule I believe them to be an enlightened and honorable class of men, ready to adopt any methods likely to be for the interest of their patrons. Quite ofteu I have found them better informed on horticultural ques- tions, yellows included, than any other persons in the community'. Diseased buds. — Can yellows be transmitted by budding? This question has an important bearing on the aetiology of the disease. If it can be answered in the afiBrmative, I do not see how it is possible to avoid the conclusion that yellows is a contagious disease. So far as I know, William Prince was the first to assert that peach yellows can be spread in this way. That was in 1828. He states ex- plicitly that a healthy tree when inoculated froiti a diseased one becomes itself diseased, but he does not state when, where, or by whom this was observed.^ In the spring of 1831 Noyes Darling, a most careful observer, inocu- lated a healthy young tree with a bud from a diseased one. The bud died and the stock remained healthy.^ The evidence in this case is simply negative. In 1811 Robert Sinclair, another careful observer, states that on one occasion, before he had a nursery, he inserted into healthy jieach stocks twelve buds from a favorite, early purple peach, which he suspected of yellows but desired to preserve. The buds were taken from the healthiest branch, but when they had grown about 3 feet they showed the disease so plainly that they were pulled and burned.^ In 1842 or 1843, discussing yellows in his " Catalogue," A. J. Downing states that it may be transmitted from infected trees by grafting or budding, but we are not told whether this statement was a result of his own observation. Mr. Downing often appropriated and digested the statements of other men without credit, and this may have b*ien an instance of that kind. In December, 1811, Noyes Darling, who had been making additional observations and experiments since 1831, reported again as follows : If a bud. from a diseased tree is inoculated into a healthy stock, v/hetber peach, apricot, or almond, the stock will become diseased and die. * » » i took some buds from a tree having symptoms of yellows, and inserted part into peach, part into apricot, and part into almond stocks. Some of the inoculations took well, but ail showed marks of disease next season. The peach and almond stocks with their buds died the second winter after inoculation. One apricot stock lived five years, but its peach top grew in that time to be only about 3 feet high.* 1 Loc. cit. ^ New York Farmer and Horticultural Ileiyository, N. Y., 1831, pp. 1) and 10. ^Magazine of Horticulture, 1S41, p. 212; see also Farmer's Eeijit^ter, 1841, pp. 357, 358. *The Cultivator, Albany, N. Y., 1845, pp. GO-62. 150 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. It is to be regretted that some account of the symptoms whicli pre- ceded the death of these trees was not given. This would have made a more complete case. Two or three years later a writer in The Farmer and Mecliauic states that from his own observation and experience he is led to believe thai the disease has been aggravated and spread by budding fmm trees con tainiugincipient seeds of the disease not yet externally developed, A bud may be taken from a tree which is apparently sound but not really, and after a time both trees will become affected.^ In 18i9, S. W. Cole, an unusually careful writer, states that " healthy trees, luoculated with buds from diseased trees, soon become affected also. " He speaks guardedly on most points, but dogmatically on this one— says it is a " well-established fact."^ In 1853, J. J. Thomas, another careful writer, says of peach yellows, " It is quickly induced by inserting the bud from an affected tree into a healthy stock." ^ Dr. F. S. Dunlap states that from experiments in his garden and on his farms, principally^ between 1805 and 1S8G, he is perfectlj^ sure that yellows can be transmitted b^ budding. lie has inoculated from twenty- five to thirty trees in different years, " with buds taken from yellows trees with the result, invariably, of giving yellows to the l;ree budded." The inoculated trees grew from pits of " natural " fruit procured in North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and Kentucky.* Dr. Henry Eidgley is also anthority for the statement that yellows may be produced by budding. Many years ago, when not so well ac- quainted with yellows, he inoculated quite a large number of seedlings with buds procured from a tree which bore choice-looking prematures. All these trees died of yellows within a few years. None lived long enough to bear fruit.^ Hon. T. T. Lyon also states that wlicn yellows wcis first introduced into Michigan it was budded into seedling trees and distributed in this way. At Benton Harbor, an Early Crawford tx*ee, imported from New Jersey, ripened its fruit in advance of the u-viial season of that variety. '- In ignorance of such disease this was tre^tted as a sport, and the tree was literally cut in pieces to supply bnds for propagation."** In 1882, G. H. La Fleur, of Millgrove, Mich., undertook to settle the infectious nature of yellows by experiment. Concerning his experi- ments he writes as follows, under date of September 30, 1887 : The following August (1882) I budded thirty-two soimd stocks to buds taken from a tree showing yellows in the fruit bat not in the tree itself. Eight of the buds started the following spring. Four ouly started one-half inch to one inch, and then 1 Quoted in Farmer's Cabinet, 1848, pp. 182, 183. 2 American Fruit Book, Boston ar,d New York, 1849, p. 18.3. » American Fruit CuJturist, Aul-urn, N. Y., 1853, p. 285. Mr. Thomas repeats this statement in the last edition of nis book, N. Y., Wm. Wood & Co., 1885. * Letters of September 2, 188/, and January 17, 1888. * Conversation, August, 18:^8. « Letter of January 19, 1S88, ON PEODUCTION OF YELLOWS BY INOCULATION. 151 /ailed to grow and soon diud ; ouo bud grew 3 iucbus; oue a little over 4 iucbes ; two buds grew 8 and 10 iuclies high ; all turned yellow and looked sickly-. In August of the same year I pulled up tbc trees and burned them. After doiug this it occurred to luo that the stonks should have been left in the ground to grow, to test the question as to whether yellows could be communicated to healthy stocks by inserting diseased buds. I hope you will test thoroughly this last point, as that is of great importance to know. If the disease can be communicated to healthy stocks by inserting diseased buds, that fact would prove yellows to bo a contagious disease and not the result of starvation or anj' lack of elements in the soil. Ill this case an opportiiuity was certainly lost. Had Mr. La Fleur left the trees for a few years, he would have learned beyoud question whether yellows can be communicated to the stock by the insertion of diseased buds. This is the very gist of the inquiry. A diseased bud could not be expedited to make a very healthy growth, and yet it might not transmit disease to the stock. If it did, it would, as Mr. La Fleur states, be good proof of the contagious nature of yellows. I have presented as strong an array of testimony in favor of this be- lief as I could find, yet, in a scientific sense, it must be confessed to be stronger by virtue of the names cited than by the circumstantial nature of the statements. In studj'ing these statements critically it seemed to me there were broken links in the chain of evidence, and chances for error. Most of the statements left much to be desired in the matter of detail, as to when, where, and under just what circumstances these re. suits were obtained. I was the more inclined to doubt some of these statements from the well-known fact that errors often pass current from writer to writer, unchallenged for decades, especially when first ex- pressed dogmatically b^" some strong man. My own experiments were begun with a view to throwing light on some of the uncertain points, especially on the question of whether the disease could be transmitted from inserted buds to healthy stocks. I had no well-established belief that the inoculations would succeed, but had a strong desire to confirm or invalidate the statements already made. Every precaution was taken to avoid sources of error. I col- lected the buds myself from trees which bore premature red-spotted peaches and the characteristic diseased shoots; carried them to the nurseries; watched the operation of budding; and staked ofl' and re- corded the location of the trees. The nurserymen on whose grounds these trees were budded also made proper entries in their books so that when the trees were removed there could be no possible mistake. The examinations in 1888 were made by myself unless otherwise stated. The inoculations were made in August and September, 1887, in Mary, land and Delaware. jSfearly one thousand healthy trees, five or six months old, were inoculated with the diseased buds as in ordinary bud- ding, and five hundred similar trees were reserved unbudded for compar- ison. In the spring of 1888 i)art of these trees were sent to experiment stations or private individuals, and the rest were left in the nursery rows. The following table gives the result of these experiments up to date, so far as observed or reported : 152 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. .is C-- '■tL o o •", 3 4d t: .;:: y. f^ k - «^ fs ■B =5 / & Q; 3 O c X .5 c a o -^ CC i a tl > ■- _ a > n o ::: <1 > o ^ 5 " s ■s " b' g >- 5 c ? o cr = s O h ■^ — ■;:: a; "^ a ^, o o -i ^ ■s s ^ t g -3 S' cs p 5, ^ ^ o 1) 0) o a; o 5 2 s £"0 u — '-',5 t. c— ^ crSa o :;: = a5 = " = ^ 5^,5.. i;= -'S; = ,a g-3 ;5S^:5§^ 2 X 00 r" i. .^^ "^ S S " g OOC-Sgofi h = 5 r Sis«'5 ■pii s ■OrSj b. E- rt rt o " a: ^ O C « J J - ^ jHHhI-5 •3 a °5<) ^ ** ii oi 'r^ w-j= ,— :C .:: c3 O S T* r; ;g c r! t-< o s — :^ *-• ^ "^ r— CO rn '-' o c ^c-( iJBoH 0^3 ■J- S o o 0-3 • ^ o a o — r _r? « 5 — ! <-. — S ■*" ; 43 ;3 o a 4i „• S ^ -= [^. ?? -00 pr"^ • o O p - - •/ ® 0-0 Sog -od'^H - - 5 fcj..r sf. a; i '^ (U C " .. . . • cj ci Q^ r^ a 5 ■^ p^^ p; S ■r o - J B "^ — ^ —• -2 o-»* t. « +i - rt „ <5 «|f Ib o--^'^'^ " — =^ ° — =" c =-2 E^BtHVi O ft — ,B i;^ C Bl-I O S i ^^ >£ gi 5" ^ •= "^ f^' S So.a--S'5 *D^*^ B s o ^ "S o o-.g -r a O 'n c a m 5H B 6 1-1 'A 2 -J3 'S V.' TS V) - 5 t^ a ^- ■St > W ^ m fct w o s ^ *a i-= 01 03 = rH qObf fi •- £ "^ r^- B 3 STL S ■ ■ - t< " - ■" c « *^ %-, ./ 2:^ = o«-=?.2 3° • ' = i-=5^:sa .— c - ■"■ ^' 3 '^ ^ •-- •'.« •- » i: a ^_ j^.tS S 5 3 a- H So 5 73 O ■^_^^ *- — " 'ir Q ^ y po'- -3 P^' o c3^ l>i: "t: a a ; 33 bi- B ^ ;g.2 )^ a El, =s •; o - c- -^ .S^ X"^' is ,;:! &^ ^ X! ?■ X ,= (SOW a iilld CS5 BOi ^ 'i SI'S - ^ £ «-• £ ui :SS5 i H^ j; ^^ja|H, -- o * B _ "^- B.5 ^ ?"3 '. = ft « -! iD ^n > 154 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. When examined in June lot III gave evideuce of disease, but owing to the fact that all of the trees were badly dried iu transit and had made but a feeble growth, I did not feel like using this lot as the basis for argument, unless further developments should fully warrant me in doing so. Not having seen these trees since June, I am unable to re- port exactly their present condition. The same remark applies to lots IV and VI, which I have not seen since they were budded. Neglecting, therefore, all trees which were unfortunately dried iu transit, or were not personally examineil, or iu which the disease may have been derived from the stock, we have left for special consideration in this connection lots I and II. These give unequivocal results. Lot I, inoculated with buds from characteristic shoots of robust young trees in the first year of the disease, was left in the nursery where budded. The trees were budded in August, 18S7, and were examined in August and November, 1888. Most of the inserted buds "took," but only about one-fourth of them grew. Some of these buds developed into shoots which appear to be healthy, and some into diseased shoots. In a feAv cases the inserted bud developed in a normal way, but the stock became diseased. This was also the case with some stocks on which the inserted bud "took" but did not grow. The infection, what- ever it may be, was transmitted from the bud to the stock in about forty per cent of the inoculations, i. assage of microorganisms from one part of the tree to another, if, indeed, there are any bacteria small enough to pass at all in this way without destruction of the tissues. On such a theory it must therefore take considerable time for a germ to penetrate to all parts of the tree, since there is no breaking down and decay of tissues such as occurs in pear blight and other plant diseases known to be due to bacteria. The only destruction of tissues I have observed was due to "gummosis." In the wood of diseased shoots I have found closed gum-cavities, due to the metamorphosis of fibers and vessels, but I do not yet know how constant a symptom this may be, or just what relation it may bear to the disease. Gummosis is known to occur in plums and cherries, which are not subject to yellows.^ The almost universal statement of the books is that yellows can not be cut out of a tree, no matter how slightly affected. At first I was dis- posed to accept this statement as true beyond question ; but having heard counter statements, and having seen in Delaware one perfectly > See Frank, Die Eranklieiten der Pflanzen, Breslau, 1880, p 80, and Sorauer, Hand- luch der Pflan-cnkrankheitcn, Berliu, 1883, 2(1 ed., Part I, p. 871. Consult also some notes on gummosis in the peach by Dr. J. C. Arthur, Third Ann. Re^. N. T. Agri. Exp. Station, 1884, p. 375. EXCISION EXPERIMENTS. 169 healthy tree from which the disease is said to have been removed three years ago by a severe excision, and having seen in another orchard some indication of recovery after similar excisions, I determined to repeat this experiment. Two trees were selected in orchard No. 12, eighteen in orchard No. 14, and three in the orchard from which Photo. X was taken, that tree, however, not being one of the three. The excisions were made in September, 1887, with the utmost care. The trees were all young and vigorous, and were only slightly diseased ; i. e., they bore premature peaches on one limb only, or on a few small branches, the rest of the tree bearing healthy peaches and fnll-grown dark-green foliage. In most cases the diseased limbs also bore spring foliage of normal size and color, and had not yet sent out many of the character- istic shoots ; in some instances not any. In every case I removed not onlj' the diseased branches, but also the large sound limbs which bore the affected parts, taking away from one-third to one-half the tree. These trees were previously selected with great care, as being those in which such an experiment was most likely to succeed. After the excis- ions each one was again carefully scrutinized in all parts, so that by no possibility should any portion be left which bore external manifesta- tions of the disease. I did not use a disinfected saw, but the stumps were carefully painted with red lead, and this was rubbed in, especially .in the vicinity of the cambium. In August, 1888, these trees were re-examined. All of them bore pre- mature peaches, and most of them also showed the diseased shoots. Moreover, they were so badly diseased — i. e., bore the shoots or prema- ture peaches on so many branches — that a new or secondary infection in 1888 seemed entirely out of the question. This also seemed improbable from the condition of other trees in the orchards (see Map IV). On the theory of a new infection in 1888, 100 per cent, of these trees became re-infected in one year, whereas in the orchards as a whole the new cases did not much exceed 10 per cent. Fearing I might not have cut early euough in the season, I repeated this experiment in 1888, in August, in several orchards, particularly in orchard No. 6 (see Map II). This time my excisions were still more severe. Many large limbs, clothed with healthy foliage and bearing a great many sound peaches, were removed for the sake of getting rid of small diseased limbs and making assurance doubly sure. In most cases I removed from one-half to two thirds of each tree, that part remaining, as well as a large per cent, of what was removed, appearing to be per- fectly healthy. The results of these experiments will be awaited with interest. If they agree with those already detailed, it may be conceded as reasonably certain that the disease can not be cut out, and it may also be concluded that the trees are not infected through the blossoms, at least not the same year that the premature peaches appear. Another way of testing the validity of this theory would be to remove all the blossom buds from healthy trees in infected orchards and note 170 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS, the results for a series of years. This experiment ought to bo under- taken in the spring of 1SS9 in several orchards and in a sufficient num- ber of trees to give unequivocal results. V. RESTRICTIVE LEGISLATION. WHERE IT HAS BEEN TRIED. Michigan. — The first yellows law ever enacted was by the legislature of Michigan, in 1875 (see Appendix B). This was in response to an urgent demand from all the peach-growers in the State, exclusive of those living in Berrien County. In this county at that time there were hun- dreds of badly diseased orchards, and the passage of a law meant the entire destruction of some of these. Naturally, the opposition to the j)assage of such a measure was extremely violent. There was great bit- terness of feeling, and every effort was made to conceal the exact state of the orchards and to defeat the bill. Even Mr. Bidwell's carefully- prepared report on the condition of orchards in southwestern Michigan in 1873, which was the result of personal inspection and would be inval- uable now, was suppressed, apparently lest it should give offense. The final result of this feeling was a compromise. A local act was passed making the law apply only to the three counties of Van Buren, Allegan, and Ottawa, in which the orchards were not yet seriously diseased. The orchards of Berrien County were not molested. In 1879 this law was repealed, and one embracing the whole State took its place. There was then no opposition from Berrien County, but some hearty support, the destruction of the orchards by yellows being then nearly complete. This law of 1879 (as may be seen by consulting Ap- pendix B) was a very cumbrous document, and proved difiicult of exe- cution. In fact, the delays and vexations incident to its enforcement rendered it practically inoperative, or would have done so but for a strong public sentiment in its favor. The framers of this law evidently had more consideration for the property rights of owners than for the safety of surrounding orchards. They were certainly not alive to the necessity of dealing promptly and thoroughly with a disease believed to be communicable. The benefit of the doubt was given to the owner, whereas it should have been given to the public. So many were the defects of this law that in 1881 an entirely new and much more efficient law was placed on the statute book (see Ap- pendix B). This law met with very general approval, and is still in force, although in most localities public sentiment is strong enough to secure the prompt eradication of diseased trees without recourse to the law. The most important provisions of this law are as follows: (1) It is unlawful to keep, sell, or ship trees or fruit when diseased by yellows j (2) both are public nuisances which maybe destroyed in due form with- out liability for damage; (3) it is the owner's duty to destroy as soon as known; (4) when any member of the township board knows or believes ON KESTRICTIVE LEGISLATION. 171 yellows is preseut, or is likely to be imported or to appear, it becomes the duty of the board to appoint three yellows commissioners; (5) these commissioners must file acceptance within ten days, and the township clerk must keep a formal record of their proceedings; (6) on suspicion, with or without comj)laint, one of the commissioners must examine all doubtful trees and fruit, and mark such as are found to be diseased ; (7) the board of commissioners must then at once, personally or in writing, notify the owner or person in charge to destroy them; (8) if this is not done within ten days, the commissioners shall immediately destroy them in person, or by others, having right and power to enter upon all premises for this purpose ; (9) i)ersons ignoriug such notice are guilty of a misdemeanor, and subject to fine or imprisonment, or both, in the discretion of the justice court; (10) all expenses of such removal are recoverable by the township from the owner. The principal defects in this law are (1) that it does not make all the commissioners in the State responsible to some one executive head, whose sole business shall be to keep records, disseminate information, and see that the work is well done, and (2) that it does not pay them suf- ficient to make the strict enforcement of the law an important personal matter. As the law now stands it is enforced in some places and not in others, and no careful records are kept so as to determine the per cent, of trees annually destroyed. The law has been in force in Michi- gan lung enough to have furnished the strongest kind of statistical evidence in its favor if such records had only been systematically pre- served. Ontario. — The first Ontario law was i)assed in 18S1, being modeled after that of Michigan (see Appendix B), This law was amended in 1884, so as to be practically worthless, for the following reasons : (I) A petition of fifty rate-payers is necessary to secure the appointment of an inspector, if the council is not disposed to appoint without; (2) the inspector can act only on written complaint ; (3) the fine for neglect to destroy trees and for sale or shipment of fruit is trifling ; (4) no pro- vision is made for the immediate and complete destruction of trees and fruit in case of neglect or refusal on part of owner to comply with the law. New YorL—The New York law was passed in 1887. It is almost identical with that now in force in Michigan (see Appendix B). WHAT HAS BEEX ACCOMPLISHED. Long before any laws were enacted many peach -growers had come to the conclusion that prompt removal and destruction was the only proper way to deal with yellows. As long ago as 1828 William Prince earnestly advised this course. Since that date ^SToyes Darling, Eobert Siaclair, A. J. Downing, Charles Downing, J. J. Thomas, T. T. Lyon, Charles W. Garfield, and many other prominent writers on American pomology have also advocated prompt removal and destruction. The 172 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. opposition, with few exceptious, has been on the part of persons less competent to judge and has had its main root in pecuniary and private interest. Naturally the first question to be asked is, Whether these laws have accomplished the desired result ? Has the removal of these trees stopped the spread of the disease 1 If so, where ? If not, why not ? First, how- ever, it may be well to inquire whether individual efforts in this direc- tion have accomplished anything-. In the badly infected districts of Maryland and Delaware I could not see that removal of trees in 1887 or failure to remove them made much diflerence in 1888. In orchard No. 6 of this report (see Map II) 11 per cent, ot the trees became diseased in 1887, and were removed that fall or early next spring, with the exception of a very few which were over- looked. In 1888, 11.4 per cent, of the remaining healthy trees became affected. In orchard No. 14 of this report (see Map IV) 9 per cent, of the trees became diseased in 1887 and were not removed. In 1888, 11.4 per cent, of the remaining healthy trees became diseased. These two orchards are of about the same size, age, and condition ; are in districts about equally affected, became diseased the same year and to about the same extent, and are on similar soil. So far as I know, they may in all respects be taken for comparison. However, on almost any theory of infection the removal of diseased trees can not be expected to yield very marked results when all the surrounding orchards are badly affected and the destruction of trees is entirely neglected. A fairer test was found in localities less affected. There, in a half dozen or more orchards, where the owners had re- moved diseased trees systematically for a series of years, e.g., Nos. 4, 5, and IG of this report, I thought I detected a tendency of the disease to spread more slowly than in neighboring orchards. Yet this may have been due to other causes than the removal of contaglum. Several person have reported more convincing results. In 1843 A. J. Downing declares,^ " It is absolutely necessary to destroy all trees having the yellows, in order to insure a sound condition in a young plantation yet healthy ; " and in 1849 he states that by pursuing this course the disease had been almost entirel^^ eradicated at Newburgh, N. Y.2 In 1878 A. A. Olds, of Decatur, Mich., states that— The orchards of Saint Joseph where no means were taken to check the disease ■were used up pretty thoroughly iu four or five years. In others where radical meas- ures of extermiuatiou were adopted the length of time was doubled.' The prompt removal of 102 out of 3,300 four-years-old trees in 1876, in an orchard on the " Henry Walker Farm, " in Thoroughfare Neck, on Smyrna Creek, near Flemming's Landing, Delaware, is said by Dr. Dunlap,^ on the authority of John Carrow, of Saint George's, to have 1 The Cultivator, AH>auy, N. Y., 1S43, p. iU3. 2 The HonieulturUt, Albany, N. Y., 1849, p. 503. ^ Ann. Ecpt. of the Sec. of ike Mich. State Pom. Soc., 1878, p. 2G9. ■* Letter of September 5, 1887. ON RESTRICTIVE LEGISLATION. 173 checked the spread of the disease at that time. la 188C this orchard is said to have beeu in good bearing. Unfortunately I had no oppor- tunity to verify these statements. Michigan and Ontario are the localities where we must look for the most satisfactory answer to this inquiry. The first Michigan law took effect in 1875. and from that time to this, some yellows law has beeu in force. Fourteen years ought to be long enough to decide on the use- fulness of such a measure. I write the following paragraphs with considerable hesitation, not because I question the general accuracy of the statements, but because I have not made exhaustive studies in the orchards of southwestern Michigan, and shall have to depend almost entirely on the statements of other meu — men, however, who are peach growers, and for whose opinion I have much respect. The evidence that prompt destruction of all diseased trees checks the progress of the disease lacks scientific accuracy, but is nevertheless quite full and reasonably conclusive, as much so perhaps as circumstantial evidence and general impressions can ever be. My own belief is that the Michigan law is capable of ac- complishing the desired result, and that it has accomplished it very satisfactorily in the places wheie it has been strictly enforced. I regret that I can not furnish something in the nature of exact proof. As it is, I can only give impressions and general statements of the growers. Some of these are as follows : (1) That dreadful scourge of the peach-grower, yellows, has made slow but marked progress during the year iu this locality. The law has not beeu observed as closely as it should be in the matter of cutting and burning the trees at sight, nor yet in the shipping of partially diseased fruit. After all, a great majority of the leading fruit-growers fully believe that as a rule those who have cut out their trees at once as soon as discovered, have not only got the most trees left, but have for a term of years lost a much less percentage than those who have allowed their trees to stand through the season in order to pick what fruit they were able to obtain before cutting the tree down. A large majority also believe that the disease can be kept in check if all fruit-growers would dig out and burn all trees as soon as they discover the disease. — Secretary J. G. Ramsdp:ll, South Haven, Mich.^ (2) We think we are holding the disease iu check by promptly destroying the trees ou the first manifestation of the disease. — Joseph Lannix, South Haven, Mich.^ (3) By prompt measures the disease, which promised to sweep everything before it, has been stayed, and the hope is born that soon we shall be able to resist its fur- ther encroachments. The advent of that paralyzing disease, the yellows, introduced anew epoch in Mich- igan peach culture. It swept the industry from Berrien County before its power was known, and invaded the counties northward ; but a careful study of the habits of the disease and protective legislation have assisted the growers to meet the destroyer in successful combat. And although to-day little more is known of the cause of the disease than when it first invaded our soil, its symptoms are so well understood, and the most approved methods of warfare so thoroughly taught to growers, that its prog- 1 Ann. Bept. of the iSec'y of the Mich. State Sort. Soc., 1882, p. 306. -Hid., 1884, p. 11. 174 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. ress is not feared. — Address on Michigan horticulture, by Hon. Chas W. Garfield, of Grand Rapids, Mich.^ (4) We can control the disease perfectly among thrifty orchardists because they will dig out every infected tree as soon as the disease develops. The malady is not now spreading in our State. — Charles W. Garfield. - (5) G. H. La rieur, of Millgrove, Allegan County, writes that yellows first appeared in Casco Township in 1874, and gradually extended northward into Gauges and Sau- gatuck, and eastward into Allegan Township. He first saw the disease in the summer of 1876, i. e., ten years after it was discovered at Saint Joseph. " By this time most growers became convinced that the ax and fire were the only remedies, hence the disease spread not so rapidly as in the southern part near the point of its origin." Mr. La Fleur also says that in the east part of Allegan County, where the law has not been enforced, the disease has reduced the number of trees 50 per cent, and greatly discouraged peach growing, while in the west part of the county, where the disease first appeared, but where the law has been enforced, the number of peach trees has increased annually. Many instances have come under his observation where, by the prompt removal of the diseased trees, the yellows has been kept in check ; and also where, with little or no attention paid to the removal of diseased trees, whole orchards soon became dis- eased and are now dead.^ (6) We have h. . .28 3.39 .56 43.76 3.04 10.29 1.91 5.02 .65 Trace. 31.20 43.94 2.80 10.04 1.87 4.99 .63 Trace. 31.02 Total .28 3.39 .56 43.85 2.92 10.17 1.89 5.01 .64 Trace. 31.11 99.82 APPENDIX A. CHEMICAL ANALYSES. 191 Excliuling COi and refiguring', we get — Table XYIII. Ash constituents. TTnburnt carbon Silica, SiOo Oxide of iron, TcoOa . . Lime.CaO Magnesia, MgO Potash, K„0 Soda, Na^O Pbo.spboric acid, P0O5 Sulphuric acid, SO3. . . Chlorine Mean. .41 4.92 .81 63.70 4.24 14.77 2. 75 7.28 .93 Trace. Total . 99.81 The beigUt of this tree was about 12 feet, and its spread of branches was about 15 feet. This tree looked very sick, but was not worse than many others iu the same orchard. Diseased shoots to the number of several hundred grew from all parts of the tree, except the trunk and the base of the lower limbs. These pale shoots varied iu length from 1 to 2 inches to 1 to 2 feet, the longer ones being considerably branched, but not tufted. Scarcely a branch on the tree was free from these shoots, and on several limbs they grew out numerously, erect, along the whole length, giving to the limb a very peculiar appearance, such as one might expect to see if a tree had been entirely defoliated. Most of these shoots grew from obscure buds in June, July, or August. None of them were stocky, like healthy "water-shoots." The leaves they bore were small, narrow, and unhealthy, being light green or pale, as if etiolated. Many of these leaves were exceeding small, and none were full size or healthy color. The spring shoots, i. e., those from the winter buds, had made an excellent growth of 1 to 2 feet, and bore full-grown dark-green leaves, except a few in the center of the tree. Even the bases of these terminal branches were beginning to develop weak etiolated shoots one-half an inch to 2 inches long from their leaf axils. With the exception of some quite small branches and a few short twigs iu the interior, there were no dead branches in any part of the tree. The fruit prematured iu 1887, but was gone at the date of my examiuation, except two or three peaches which were uudersize, overripe, and nearly tasteless. Mr. Price said the tree would die next season. I was inclined to think this the second year of attack, but was not certain. The bark on the trunk and limbs was smooth and perfectly sound. The diameter of the collar was 6 inches. It had been injured by borers, but not seriously. Farther down, and well under- ground, borers had worked narrow i)assages under the bark on the upper side of four roots, aggregating a total bark destruction of as much as 7 square inches, but not seriously affecting any one root. Except on one root, the wood under these injuries was sound. In this root, a nar- row strip one-quarter to one-half an inch wide by one-quarter of an inch 192 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. deep and 4 inches long was dry-rotted, the rot extending up to and for a short distance into the collar, there being a slightly darker ring between the sap and heart wood on that side. This root was 2 to 3 inches in diameter and otherwise sound, as were all the other roots branching from it, and the collar itself. From this tree there grew fourteen main roots, varying in diameter from 1 to 3 inches, and all perfectly sound, except as before mentioned. After removing the trunk section I pulled the bark from the collar and main roots, but found no other injuries. The bark and cambium seemed normal, but some of the rootlets were dry and dead. This tree stood on level ground on the north side of the orchard. Soil, loose sandy loam (8 to 10 inches); sub- soil, a coarse yellow sand, with only a slight admixture of clay. The soil is not muddy after the heaviest rains. The subsoil compacts and retains shape in the fingers, but falls apart easily. Table XIX. Analysis of a section of the trunk of a badly -diseased tree of Christiana from orchard of Dr. W. S. Maxwell, Still Pond, Md. — No. 1 of this report. Collected August 17,1887. Trunk diameter, i^ inches ; age, five years. A all constitaeDts Unbiirnt carbon Silica, SiOz Oxido of iron, FejOi .. Lime, CaO Magnesia, MgO Potash, K2O Soda, Na20 Phosphoric acid, PzOs- Snlphnric acid, SO3 ... Chlorine. Carbon dioxide, CO2 . . Total First determina- tion. .21 3.49 .69 42.31 4.51 11.20 1.63 6.43 .56 Trace. 30.24 Second determina- tion. .67 42.14 4.iJ0 10.91 1.54 6.30 Trace. 30.00 Mean. .21 3.49 .68 42.23 4.36 11.06 1.59 6.37 .56 Trace. 30.' 12 100. 67 Excluding CO2 and refiguring we get : Table XX. Ash constitnents. Unburnt carbon Silica, Si02 Oxide of iron, Fe203 . . Lime, CaO Magnesia, MgO Potash, KjO Soda, Na^O Pho.sphoric acid, PjOs Sulphuric acid, SO3 . - . Chlorine Total Mean. .30 4.97 .97 60.26 6.22 15.78 2.27 9.09 .80 Trace. 100. 66 The height of this tree was about 12 feet, the well developed top being composed of three main branches of nearly equal size. On this tree APPENDIX A. CHEMICAL ANALYSES. 193 many of the terminal shoots ^vere 2 feet long, stocky, and supplied with full-grown, good, green leaves ; but on the bases and lower and middle parts of the limbs (where ordinarily are no tender growths) were several hundred pale-green shoots of recent appearance; these were 1 to 8 inches or more in length, were mostly unbranched, and grew oat singly here and there; they bore small, pale-green leaves more or less inclined to roll inward (upward). There were no dead branches and very few dead twigs, and the tree could not have been diseased prior to 18SC. The tree bore two peaches, one an overripe premature and the other a haril, dwarfed, woolly fruit. Many peaches started to grow, but rotted or dried up during the summer. The trunk was smooth and sound. On one limb were two slight abrasions, from which gum exuded; the other limbs were perfectly sound. After the tree was dug out I scraped the outer bark from the collar and main roots ; the bark on both Avas bright looking and entirely sound, except for a few slight injuries by borers. On one side of the lower cut of the section between the third and fifth annual rings, was a narrow discolored band — the wood was not dozy, and yet not perfectly sound. On splitting open the stump in several directions the discolorations were found to pass out of the tree as seams between the main roots directly under the crown, i. e., the in- cipient decay did not extend into the roots. For location of this tree, which was not more badly diseased than many others in the same or- chard, see Map I. Soil, mellow clay-loam (8 inches) ; subsoil, yellow clay. Table XXI. — Analij>leasure of said board, and such order of ap- pointment and revocation, when revoked, shall he entered at large upon the records of the township. Sec. 4. It shall be the duty of said commissioners, within ten days after appoint- ment as aforesaid, to tile their acceptance of the same with tbc clerk of said town- ship, and said clerk shall be ex officio clerk of said board of commissioners, and he shall keej) a correct record of the i^roceedings of said board in a book to be provided for the purpose, and shall file and preserve all papers pertaining to the duties of said commissioners, or either of them, which shall be a part of the records of said town- ship. Sec. 5. Any one or more residents of the same or adjoining township may make complaint on writing and on oath, addressed to said commissioners, delivering the same to either of them, setting forth that said disease exists, or that he has good rea- son to believe it exists, upon lands within the township in which said commissioners reside, designating the same with reasonable certainty, or that trees or fruit infected with such disease are offered for sale or shi^jment, or have been introduced therein, designating the person in whose possession or under whose control such trees or fruit are believed to be. ^Public Acts, Michigan, session of 1879. Lansing: W. S. George & Co., printers. No. 32, p. 27. APPENDIX B.— LAWS. 201 Sec. G. It shall be the duty of tbe commissioner to whom such complaint is deliv- ered to proceed without unnecessary delay to examine the trees or fruit so designated, and if he shall become satislied that the contagious disease actually infects such trees or fruit he shall, without injuring the same, fix a distinguishing mark upon each of the trees so infected, and immediately notify the person to whom such trees belong, personally or by leaving a written notice at bis usual place of residence, if he be a resident of the county, and if such owner be a non-resident ot such county, then by leaving the same with the person in possession of such trees, requiring him, within fifteen days, Sundays excepted, from the date of the service of said notice, to effect- ually remove and destroy, by fire or other means, the trees so marked, and in case of fruit so infected such notice shall require the person in whose possession or control it is found to immediately destroy the same or cause it to be done. Sec. 7. If any person neglects to destroy, or cause to be destroyed, such diseased fruit, after such examination and notification, but sells, ships, or disposes of the same to others, such person shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and punished by a fine not exceeding a hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not ex- ceeding three months, or both, in the discretion of the court; and any justice of the peace in the township where such fruit is sold, shipped, or disposed of, as aforesaid, shall have jurisdiction thereof. Sec. 8. Whenever any person shall refuse or neglect to comply with the notice to remove and destroy the trees marked by the commissioner as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of said commissioner forthwith to notify the other commissioners to assem- ble with himself on the premises on which said trees shall be, on the fifteenth day, Sundays excepted, after he shall have made service of such notice, and then and there personally to examine the trees in question, and the evidence bearing on the exist- ence of said disease ; and if said commissioners, or a majority of them, shall, after a proper examination of the matter, decide that said trees are infected with said disease, they shall, in case such trees so infected do not exceed six in number, order the same to be removed and destroyed forthwith, or cause it to be done, employing all neces- sary aid for that purpose, if the person in charge thereof refuses or neglects to do so; and in case the trees found to be infected shall exceed six in number, and the owner thereof shall, upon the serving of said notice, refuse or neglect to remove the same in accordance with the provisions of the act and terms of such notice, then and in that case the said commissioners shall petition the circuit court of the county for an order directing and empowering said commissioners to remove or catise to be removed such infected trees, and the courts shall direct the defendant to be summoned and an issue joined therein, and the cause to be tried in a summary manner, and if it shall appear on said trial that said trees are so infected, he shall grant the order prayed for, with costs of prosecution against the owner of such trees; but in case such trees are found not to be infected, he shall dismiss said proceeding, with costs to be taxed against the township in which such commissioners reside. Sec. 9. Every person who shall wilfully refuse or neglect to comply with the notice of the commissioners, as hereinbefore provided, to remove and destroy said diseased trees, shall be liable for all the costs, charges, and disbursements made upon the pro- ceedings of said commissioners and of the board of commissioners to eftect such re- moval and destruction, together with a penalty of five dollars for each and every day, but not exceeding one hundred dollars in all, such trees remain uuderstroyed, which costs, charges, disbursements, and penalty shall be recovered of him in an action of trespass upon the case, in the form of assumpsit, brought and prosecuted by the super^ visor, in the name and for the benefit of the township, and before any justice of peace therein in the same manner and with like proceedings as are ajiplicable in civil cases before such courts, and upon judgment being rendered in favor of said townshiii, the said justice of the peace shall issue execution against the defendant iu said action- which may be stayed, as in other cases, but when collected, he shall pay the amount thereof forthwith to the treasurer of said township to the credit of the general fund. 202 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. Sec. 10. The form of the dechiration in any suit instituted as aforesaid may be a8 follows, to wit: In justice court before A B, justice of township, county , the township of , said county, complains of C D in an action of trespass upon the case, and says that C D justly owes the said township dollars, being the amount of expenses incurred by said township in the removal and destruction of trees infected with the yellows, from (designating the premises with reasonable cer- tainty), and the penalty incurred by said C D for not removing and destroying said trees pursuant to an act entitled "An act to prevent the spread of yellows, a conta- gious disease among peach, nectarine, and other trees, and to extirpate the same," wherefore the said township brings suit. A B, Supervisor. Sec. 11 The commissioners shall be allowed for their services under this act $2 for each full day, and $i for each half day, and their other charges and disbursements, hereunder to be audited, as well as any other charges and disbursements under this act, by the township board. Sec. 12. In all suits and prosecutions under any of the provisions of this act it shall be necessary to prove that such trees or fruit were diseased or infected. Sec. 13. [Repeals act 379 of local laws of 1875.] Sec. 14. This act shall take immediate effect. Approved April 4, 1879. This law was iu force two years, being superseded by the present law, which is as follows: YELLOWS LAW OF 1881.' AN ACT to prevent ttie spread of the yellows, a contagious disease among peacli, almond, apricot, and nectarine trees, and to provide measures for tlie eradication of the same, and to repeal .act 32 of the session laws of 1879. Section 1. The people of the State of Michigan enact, That it shall be unlawful for any person to keep any peach, almond, apricot, or nectarine tree infected with the contagious disease known as the yellows, or to offer for sale or shipment, or to sell or ship to others any of the fruit thereof; thfit both tree and fruit so infected shall be subject to destruction as public nuisances, as hereinafter provided, and no damages shall be awarded in any court in this State for entering upon the premises and de- stroying such diseased trees and fruit, if done in accordance with the provisions of this act ; and it shall be the duty of every person, as soon as he becomes aware of the existence of such disease in any tree or fruit owned by him, to forthwith destroy or cause the same to be destroyed. Sec. 2. In any township in this State in which such contagions disease exists, or in which there is good reason to believe it exists, or danger may be justly apprehended of its introduction, as soon as such information becomes known to the township board or any member thereof, it shall be the duty of said board to appoint forthwith three competent freeholders of said township as commissioners, who shall hold office during the pleasure of said board, and such order of appointment and revocation shall be en- tered at large upon the township records. Sec. 3. It shall be the duty of said commissioners, within ten days after appointment as aforesaid, to file their acceptance of the same with the clerk of said township, and said clerk shall be ex officio clerk of said board of commissioners, and he shall keep a correct record of the proceedings of said board in a book to be provided for the pur- pose, and shall file and preserve all papers pertaining to the duties and actions of said commissioners, or either of them, which shall be a part of the records of said township. ^Public acta, Michigan, sension of 1881. Lansiug: VV. S. George &, Co., State printers. No. 174, p. 210. See also HowelVs Annotated Statutes, Michigan, 1662, Vol. I, chapter 66, p. 587. APPENDIX B. LAWS. 203 Sec. 4. It shall be the duty of the couiraissioners, or auy of them, upon or without complaint, whenever it conies to their notice that the disease known as yellows exists or is snpposed to exist within the limitsof their township, to proceed without delay to examine the trees or fruit snpposed to be infected, and if the disease is found to exist, a distinguishing mark shall be placed upon the diseased trees and the owner notified, personally or by written notice left at his usual place of residence, or, if the owner be a non-resident, by leaving the notice with the person in charge of the trees or fruit, or the person in whose possession said trees or fruit may be. The notice shall contain a simple statement of the facts as found to exist, with an order to etiectually remove and destroy, by tire or otherwise, the trees so marked and designated within ten days, Sundays excepted, from the date of the service of the notice; and in case of fruit so infected, such notice shall require the person in whose possession or control it is found to immediately destroy the same or cause it to be done. Such notice and order to be signed by the full board of commissioners. Sec. 5. Whenever any person shall refuse or neglect to comply with the order to remove and destroj' the trees marked by the commissioners, as aforesaid, it shall be- come the duty of the commissioners»to cause said trees to be removed and destroyed forthwith, employing all necessary aid for that purpose, the expense for such removal and destruction of trees to be a charge against the township; and for the purpose of said removal and destruction the said commissioners, their agents and workmen, shall have the right and power to enter upon any and all premises within their township. Sec. 6. If any person neglects to remove and destroy, or cause to be removed and destroyed, as aforesaid, such diseased trees or fruit, after such examination and notifi- cation, and within the time hereinbefore specified, such persons shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and punished by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding three months or both, in the dis- cretion of the court, and any justice of the peace of the township where such fruit is sold, shipped, or disposed of, as aforesaid, shall have jurisdiction thereof. Sec. 7. The commissioners shall be allowed for services, under this act, two dol- lars for each full day and one dollar for each half day, and their other charges and disbursements hereunder to be audited, as well as any other charges and disburse- ments under this act, by the township board, all of which costs, charges, expenses, and disbursements may be recovered by the township from the owner of said diseased fruit, or from the owner of the premises on which said diseased trees stood, in an action of assumpsit. Sec. 8. [Repeals act 32 of 1879.] Approved May 31, 1881. In 1881, the legislative assembly of the proviuce of Ontario passed the following yellows law :' FIRST ONTARIO LAW. AK ACT to prevent the spread of yellows among peach, nectarine, and other trees. (Assented to 4th March, 1881.) Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the legislative assembly of the province of Ontario, enacts as follows : 1. It shall not be lawful for any person to keep any peach, nectarine, or other trees infected with the contagious disease known as the yellows, or to offer for sale or ship- ment, or to sell or ship any of the fruit thereof; and it shall be the duty of every person, so soon as he becomes aware of the existence of the said disease in auy trees or fruit owned by him, to burn the same forthwith. ^Statutes of the province of Ontario, Canada, ^\th Victoria. lt<8l, Toronto, Ont. Printed by John Notraan. 1881, chapter 28, p. 283, 204 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS, 2. AVbeu the said disease exists, or there is good reason to believe it exists, or when there is good reason to apprehend its introduction, any five or more free-hohlers residing in the same or an adjoining municipality may petition the council thereof to appoint an inspector to prcvei't the spread or introduction of the said disease. 3. On rrceipt of such petition it shall be the duty of the clerii of the municipality to call a meeting of the council within ten days thereafter for the consideration of the same, and it shall be the duty of the said council, if satisfied of the truth of the facts stated in the i^etitiou, to appoint an inspector for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this act and to provide for his remuneration. 4. It shall be the dutj' of the inspector to examine the peach and nectarine orchards of the municipality once between the middle and end of July and once between rho middle and end of August every year, and he shall keep a correct record of the con- dition of each orchard and of the time spent in the performance of his duty, which time shall not exceed six days during each period of inspection, and shall, after each such inspection, file the said record with the clerk of the municipality. 5. In case written complaint is made to the inspector that the said disease exists, or that there is good reason to believe it exists, within the municipality in any locality described in such comiilaint with reasonable certainty, or that infected trees or fruit are otfered for sale or shipment, or have been imported into the munici]Jality by auy person named, such inspector shall, without unnecessary delay, proceed to examine the trees or fruit so designated. G. The inspector, if satisfied that the disease has actually infected any tree or fruit, shall afiix a distinguishing mark upon each tree so infected, and shall immediately give notice in writing to the owner or occui)ierof the laud whereon the said infected trees are growing, requiring him, within seven days from the receipt of said notice, to burn the trees so marked as hereinbefore directed ; and in case of fruit so infected, such notice shall require the person in whose possession it is found to immediately destroy the same. 7. In case auy owner or occupier refuses or neglects to destroy such diseased trees or fruit after such examination and notification he shall, upon conviction, be liable to a fine of not less than five dollars nor more than twenty dollars, for every such offense. 8. Every offense against the provisions of this act shall be punished, and the penalty imposed for each offense shall be recovered and levied, on summary conviction, before any justice of the peace, and all fines collected shall be paid as follows: One-half to the person laying the information or complaint, and the residue to the treasurer of the municipality in which the oft'euse is committed, for the use of the municipality. This act was repealed in 1884, tbe followiug taking its place : ^ •* SECOND ONTARIO LAW. AN ACT to prevent the spread of noxious weeds and of diseases affecting fruit trees. (Assented to 25th March, 1884.) 1. [This section repeals former acts.] 2. It shall be the duty of every owner of land, or the occupier thereof, if the owner is not resident within the local municipality wherein the same is situated, (I) to cut down or destoy all the Canada thistles, ox-eye daisies, wild oats, rag-weed, and burdock growing on his land to which this act may be extended by by-law of the municipality, so often each and every year as is sufficient to prevent the ripening of their seed ; (2) to cut out and burn all the black-knot found on plum or cherry trees on his land, so often each and every year as it shall appear on such trees; and (3) to cut down and burn any peach, nectarine, or other trees on his laud infected with the disease known as the yellows, and to destroy all the fruit of trees so infected. ^Statutes of Ontario, Canada, 47th Victoria, 1884, chapter 37, p. 119. Toronto, Printed by John Notman. APPENDIX B. LAWS. 205 3. The council of any city, town, township, or incorporated village, may by by- laws extend the operation of this act to any other weed or weeds, or to any other dis- ease of fruit trees or fruit which they declare to be noxious to husbandry or gardening iu the municipality ; and all the provisions of this act shall apply to such noxious weeds and diseases as if the same were herein enumerated. Any such council may, and upon a petition of fiftj'or more ratepayers shall, appoint at least oue inspector to enforce the provisions of this act in the municipality, and fix the amount of remuneration, fees, or charge he is to receive for the performance of his duties; and iu case a vacancy shall occur in the oliice of inspector, it shall be the duty of the council to fill the same forthwith. [Paragraph 3 provides that the council of any township may exempt waste or un- occupied lauds.] [Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 relate entirely to weeds.] 9. If written complaint be made to the inspector that yellows or black-knot exist within the municipality, or in any locality described iu such complaint with reason- able certainty, he shall proceed to examine the fruit-trees in such locality, and if satisfied of the presence of either disease he shall immediately give notice iu writing to the owner or occupant of the land whereon the atiected trees are growing, requir- ing him within five days from the receipt of said notice to deal with such trees in the manner provided bj' section 2 of this act. 10. Any owner or occupant of laud who refuses or neglects to cut down or destroy any of the said noxious weeds, after notice given by the inspector, as provided by section 4, or who knowingly sutlers any of the said noxious weeds to grow thereon and the seed to ripen so as to cause or endanger the spread thereof, or who suiters any black-knot to remain on plum or cherry trees, or keeps any peach, nectarine or other trees infected with yellows or the fruit of trees so infected, shall upon conviction be liable to a fine of not less than five or more than twenty dollars for every such offense. [Paragraph 2 relates to weeds.] Any person who knowingly offers for sale or shipment, or sells or ships the fruit of trees infected with yellows shall, upon conviction, be liable to a fine of not less than five nor more than twenty dollars. Every inspector, overseer of highways, or other officer, who neglects to discharge the duties imposed on him by this act shall, upon conviction, be liable to a fine of not less than ten nor more than twenty dollars. 11. Every offense agaiust the provisions of this act shall be punished and the pen- alty imposed for each offense shall be recovered and levied, on summary conviction, before any justice of the peace; and all fines imposed shall be paid to the treasurer of the municipality in which the offence is committed, for the use of the municipality. 12. The council of every municipality in Ontario shall require its inspector, over- seer of highways, and other oflaceis to faithfully discharge all their duties uuder this act. 13. [This section relates to weeds.] The State of CaliforDia in 1885 enacted the following law, which by a somewhat free interpretation of the term " disinfection," might per- haps be made to apply to yellows should there be any occasion, and by a very slight amendment, or perhaps without any change, could cer- tainly be used to prevent the introduction of nursery-stock from in- fected di.stricts.^ » Statutes and amendments to the Codes, California. Extra session, 1884-'85. Sacra- mento, 1885. James J. Ayers, superintendent State printing. 206 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. THE CALIFORNIA FKUIT LAW. AN ACT to prevent the spreading of fruit and fruit-tree pesta and diseases, and to provide for their extirpatiou. Aitprovetl March 9, 1885. The people of the State of California, represented in Senate and assembly, do en- act as follows : Section 1. It shall be the dutj* of every owner, possessor, or occupier of an or- chard, nursery, or laud where fruit-trees are grown within this State, to disinfect all fruit-trees grown on such lands infested with any insect or insects, or the germs thereof, or infested by any contagious disease known to be injurious to fruit or fruit- trees, before the removal of the same from such premises for sale, gift, distribution, or transportation. Fruit-boxes which have been used for shipping fruit to any des- tination are hereby required to be disinfected previous to their being again used for any purpose; all boxes returned to any orchard, store-room, sales-room, or any place used or to be used for storage, shipping, or any other purpose, must be disinfected within three days after their return ; and any and all persons failing to comply with the requirements of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. All packages, known as free jiackages, must be destroyed or disinfected before being again used. Sec. 2. It shall be the duty of the owner, lessee, or occupier of any orchard within this State, to gather all frnit infested by the insects known as the codlin moth, peach moth, red spider, plum wevil, and kindred noxions insects, their larvie or pupie, which has fallen from the tree or trees, as often as once a week, and dispose of or destroy the same in such a manner as to efi'ectually destroy all such insects, their larvje or pupie. It shall be the duty of the inspector of fruit pests,' or quarantine guardian, to inspect fruit packages, and all trees and plants, cuttings, grafts, and scions, known or believed to be infested by any insect or insects, orthe germs thereof, or their eggs, larvic or pupa', injurious to fruit or fruit-trees, or infected with any dis- ease liable to spread contagion, imported or brought into this State from any foreign country, or from any of the United States or Territories, and if, upon inspection, such fruit, or fruit packages, are found to be infected or infested, it shall be a misdemeanor to offer the same for sale, gift, distribution, or transportation, unless they shall be first disinfected. Sec. 3. Every person shipping fruit-trees, scions, cuttings, or plants, from any orchard, nursery, or other place where they were grownor produced, shall place upon or securely attach to each box, package, or iiarcel containing such fruit-trees, scions, cuttings, or plants, a distinct mark or label, showing the name of the owner or shiji- per, and the locality where produced. And any person who shall cause to be shipped, transported, or removed from any locality declared by the State board of horticulture to be infested with fruit-tree or orchard pests, or infected with contagious diseases injurious to trees, plants, or fruits, unless the same shall have beeu previously disin- fected, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Disinfection shall be to the satisfaction of the State board of horticulture, or the inspector of fruit pests. Wheu disinfected, the fact shall be stamped upon each box, package, or separate parcel of fruit-trees, scions, cuttings, or plants ; and any person who shall cause to be shipped, trans- ported, or removed, any such box, parcel, or package from a quarantine district or locality^ not bearing such stamp, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and may bo pun- ished by fine, as provided in section six of this act. Any person who shall falsely cause such stamp to be used, or shall imitate or counterfeit auy stamp or device used for such purpose shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Sec. 4. It shall be the special duty of each member of the State board of horticult- ure to see that the provisions of this act are carried out within his resjiective hor- ticultural district, and all offenders duly punished. ' This inspector receives a compensation of $200 per month and liii* traveling ex.- penses, which must not exceed |l,000 annually. APPENDIX B LAWS. 207 Sec. 5. All fruit-trees iufestecl by auy iusect or inaects, their genus, larvise or pupii-, or iufected by disease known to be iujurione to fruit or fruit-trees, and liable to spread contagion, must be cleaned or disinfected before the tirst day of April, eight- een hundred and eighty-five, and on or before the tirst day of April of each succeed- ing year thereafter. All owners or occupants of lands on which fruit-trees are grown failing to comply with the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined as provided for in section six of this act. All fruit, packages, trees, plants, cuttings, grafts, and scions that shall not be disinfected within twenty-four hours after notice by the inspector of fruit pests, or a duly appointed quarantine guardian, or any member of the board of horticulture, shall be liable to be proceeded against as a public nuisance. Sec. 6. Any person or corporation violating any of the provisions of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, on conviction thereof, be punishable by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than one hundred dollars for every offence. The yellows law of New York, passed at the last session of the State legislature, is as follows :^ LAW OF XKW YOKK. AN ACT to prevent the spi-ead of the disease in peach trees liuowu as the yellows. [Passed May 19, 1887.] The people of thi State of Xew Yorl-, npreseiiied in vciiait and assemlhj, do enact as foUows : Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any one to knowingly or willfully keep auy peach, almond, apricot, or nectarine tree infected with the contagious disease known as the yellows, or to offer for sale or shipment, or to sell or ship to others, any of the fruit thereof; that both tree and fruit so infected shall be subject to destruction as public nuisances, as hereinafter provided, and no damages shall be awarded in any court in this State for entering upon premises and destroying such diseased trees and fruit, if done in accordance with the provisions of this act; and it shall be the duty of every person, as soon as he becomes aware of the existence of such disease in any tree or fruit owned by him, to forthwith destroy or cause the same to be destroyed. Sec. 2. In any town of this State in which such contagious disease exists, or in which there is good reason to believe it exists, or danger may be justly apprehended of its introduction, as soon as such information becomes known to the supervisor thereof, it shall be the duty of said supervisor to appoint forthwith three competent freehold- ers of said town as commissioners, who shall hold office during the pleasure of said supervisor, and such order of appointment and of revocation shall be entered at large upon the town records. Sec. 3. It shall be the duty of said commissioners, within ten days after appoint- ment as aforesaid, to file their acceptance of the same with the clerk of said town, and said clerk shall be ex-officio clerk of said board of commissioners, and he shall keep a correct record of the proceedings of said board in a book to be provided for the jturpose, and shall file and preserve all papers pertaining to the duties and actions of said commissioners, or either of them, which shall be a part of the records of said town. Sec. 4. It shall be the duty of the commissioners, or any one of them, upon or with- out complaint, whenever it comes to their notice that the disease known as yellows exists or is supposed to exist within the limits of their town, to proceed without delay to examine the trees or fruit supposed to be infected, and if the disease is found 'Xa«s of Neiv York, 110//t session, 1887. Albany, N. Y.: Banks & Brothers, pub- lishers, 1887. Chapter 403, p. 504. 208 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. to exist, adistiuguishiug mark shall be i)laced upon the diseased trees audthe owner notified personally, or by a written notice left at his nsual place of residence, or, if the owner be a non-resident, by leaving the notice with the person in charge of the trees or frnit, or the person in whose possession said trees or fruit may be. The notice shall contain a simple statement of the facts as found to exist, with an order to elfectually remove and destroy, by fire or otherwise, the trees so marked and designated, within ten days, Sundays excepted, from the date of the service of the notice; and in case of fruit so infected such notice shall require the jjerson in -whose possession or con- trol it is found to immediately destroy the same or cause it to be done. Said notice and order to be signed by the full board of commissioners. Sec. 5. Whenever any person shall refuse or neglect to comply with the order to re- move and destroy the trees marked by the commissioners, as aforesaid, it shall become the duty of the commissioners to cause said trees to be removed and destroyed forth- with, employing all necessary aid for that purjiose, the expense of such removal and destruction of trees to be a charge against the town ; and for the purpose of said re- moval and destruction the said commissioners, their agents and workmeu, shall have the right and power to enter upon any and all premises within their town. Sec. 6. If any owner neglects to remove and destroy, or cause to be removed and destroyed, as aforesaid, such diseased trees and fruit after such examination and no- tification, and within the time hereinafter specified, such person shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and iJunished by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, or bj' imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding three months, or botb, in the discretion of the court ; and any justice of the peace of the town where such fruit is sold, shipped, or disposed of, as aforesaid, shall have jurisdiction thereof, and all such fines so collected shall be turned over to the supervisor of the town, to be placed by him in the contingent fund of said town. Sec. 7. The commissioners shall bo allowed for services, under this act, two dollars for each full day and one dollar for each half day, and other reasonable charges and disbursements, hereunder to be audited, as well as auj'^ other charges and disburse- ments under this act, by the board of town auditors, to be paid to said commissioners as other town accounts are paid. Such fees and all reasonable charges and disburse- ments of said commissioners, in each case, may be recovered by the town, in the name of the supervisor, from the owner of the diseased fruit or trees on account of which such fees, charges, and disbursements became payable or were incurred. Sec. 8. This act shall take effect immediately. EXPLANATION OF PLATES. ENGRAVINGS FROM PIIOTOGIJAPIIS. L Diseased slioot from maiu limb. This sliould have remained uubrauched, but under the iufliienceof yellows it branched repeatedly, the ninch ramified apex of one branch being cut away. Nearly all buds on the main axis and most on the secondary axes germinated in autumn. McDaniel orchard, Dover, Del. (No. 17 of this report), September 27, 1887. About one-fifth natural size. XL Terminal shoots badly diseased, many branches cut away from the interior to give a clearer view. Strictly comparable with No. XEV, such shoots almost always remaining entirely uubrauched in healthy trees. McDaniel orchard, Dover, Del., September 27, 1887. About one-eighth natural size. III. Yellows tuft from main limb of a moribund tree — all the growth of one season. Orchard of E. P. Selmser, Dover, Del., September 3, 1887. Photographed Novem- ber 5, from dried specimen. One-third natural size. IV. Diseased terminal shoots from a tree which had been cut down. South Haven, Mich., May 1, 1888. Strictly comparable with No. II, and with Fig. 4 of No. XXXVII, colored. About one-half natural size. V. Peach tree suffering from yellows. The shoots of the season are branched con- siderably and many terminal buds have pushed, forming rosettes. Tree stood in lawu on west side of Thirteenth street, near Boundary, Washington, D. C, Nov. 2, 1887. Nearly all the leaves of the normal or spring growth had fallen. VI. Diseased trees ; set six months. Roots badly infested by aphides, but growth of top not clearly distinguishable from yellows shoots. One-eleventh natural size. Orchard of William R. Morris, Dover, Del., September 28, 1887. VII. Healthy trees ; set five months. Strictly comparable with No. VI. Orchard of R. M. Richardson, Rising Sun, Del., August 27, 1888. About one-elev- enth natural size, i. e., tree was G3 inches high. VIII. Tree on south side of orchard No. 14 of this report (see Map IV). Second year of the disease ; tree barren ; foliage much dwarfed ; base of limbs grown up with diseased shoots. The foliage on the right edge of the picture belongs to a healthy tree. In the upper left corner are healthy branches on a diseased tree ; lower are some diseased branches from the same tree. Photograph shows clearly the very marked contrast in size of leaves. The contrast in color was equally marked. Magnolia, Del., August 27, 1888. Reduced to about one-fortieth natural size; i. e., tree about IG feet high. IX. Poach trees by the highway near Rising Sun, Del., orchard of E. H. Bancroft in background. Right tree healthy; left one iu second year of the disease. August 27, 1883. Reduced to about one fifty-fourth ; i. e., diseased tree about 14 feet high. X. Tree seven years old ; first diseased in 1887 ; cut back severely to remove yel- lows. Whole top covered next season with a dense growth of much branched, dwarfed, and badly diseased shoots. Orchard of George H. Gildersleve, Rising Sun, Del., 6. D. Jackson, tenant. August 27, 1888. Reduced to about one-twentieth natural size. 209 11245— No. 9-^^14 210 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. XI. Last stage of peach yellows. Tbe tree in the foreground died in the fall of 1886 or spring of 1887. The branched wiry shoots on the larger limbs are often the last indication of vitality. Trees in backgronnd were all badly diseased. nn?.? *?'iJ.t' ^"^"'* ^^' ^^^^- ^''^^^'^ ^*'- ^ ^'^" *^'« ^-^P^rt. Reduced to about one thirty-fifth ; t. c, tree about 18 or 20 feet high. XII. East side of an eight-year old orchard of 65 acres entirely ruined by yellows, rhe trees on 15 or 20 acres (foreground) were cut down in August, 1888, preparatory to plowing the fiehl for wheat. I did not see one healthy tree in the whole orchard. August 28, 1888, farm of Samuel Townseud, near Townseud Del XIII. Stump the World, or Old Mixon, peaches from orchard No. 17 of this report (see Map III). ' The left-hand peach (1) was green and healthy. The right-hand peach (2), from a S A?" *''"' '^''' ^^^-«P«««d ^"d prematurely ripe. Dover, Del., August 20, 1888. About natural size ; i. e., the longest diameter of the right-hand peach was ^"^ inciiGs. XIV. Healthy peach shoot. Strictly comparable with No. II. Orchard of C. C Clark, Ann Arbor, Mich., March, 1888. Reduced to about oue-tifth natural size. TT ; ™ '^ terminal shoot. Strictly comparable with right-hand branch of Nos. II and XIV, with 1 of No. IV, and with 1, .3, and 4 of No. XXXVII. From a healthy heo m the orchard of Joseph McDaniel, Dover, Del., August 20, 1888 (see Map III) Reduced to about seven twenty-fourths natural size, the largest left-hand leaf being 8 inches long and 2 inches broad. XVI. Terminal peach shoots collected May 8, 1888, from a strong growing five-year- old tree at Vineyard Ga., by J. D.Husted. Photographed May 13. Believed to be yellows. In each tuft or rosette from four to six very small secondary branches were pushing from the base of the shoot-axis. The buds on the naked parts of the two stems were dead. Reduced to one-third natural size. XVII. Same as No. XVI, but collected one mouth later. From J N Harris Grif fiu, Ga., June 15, 1888. Photographed June 17. Reduced to about one-third natural " vlriT''^ ^^t? *^' '"'''" ^^*'' including the terminal shoot, was 15 inches. XVIII Same as No. XVII. Terminal shoot-axis stripped of n.ost of its leaves and enlarged (to twice natural size) to show manner of branching. Primary, secondary, and tertiary branches developed within three months, although during that time the primary shoot-axis only elongated 2i inches. XIX. Diseased shoots. Same as XVI and XVII, but late in the season and entirely dead, rhe main axis, as far as (a), grew in 1887. The entire growth of 1888 is repre- sented by the feeble terminal and side shoots: 1 and 2 are parts of the same shoot- axis. From J. D. Husted, Vineyard, Ga., November 13, 1888. About two-thirds nat- nral size. XX. Diseased shoots from a New Jersey tree set two years in Georgia. The vellows appeared the second year, most of the winter buds pushed in October or No;ember and the foliage was fresh and plentiful when first received, but was withered and follen in great part when photographed. No spring foliage remained. From J. D. Husted, Vineyard, Ga., November 13, 1888. About two-thirds natural size XXI. Same as XX, but from another tree in the same orchard. The leaves are all from winter buds, which pushed in October or November and were fresh when first gathered I r„m J. D. Husted, Vineyard, Ga., November 15, 1888. Not quite two- thirds natural size. ^ XXII Diseased shoots from an apricot. Believed to be of the same nature as the diseased grow hs of the peaeh. The branches grew out separately, erect, from the ame mam limb Garden of John R. Nicholson, Dover, Del., Septemb r 28, 1887. Re- duced to one-third natural size. ^o, loo/. ne of^J^,]!n" U'T'I '\""' ^T ^ '""'''' '"^"'"'- Comparable with No. XXII. Garden EXPLANATION OF PLATES. 211 XXIV. East part of an orcliard on the " Cassiday" oi- " Peach Blossom" farm in Cecil Connty, Md., 6 miles southwest of Cecilton, on Sassafras River. The trees are only eight years old, hut were cat down in the summer of 1888 on account of yellows, having become entirely worthless. Photographed November 7, 1888. XXV. East side of " Cassiday " orchard, looking west. Trees ruined by yellows, but many yet standing (see text). XXVI. Peach tree set two years and entirely healthy. From same orchard as VI. Strictly comparable with No. XXVII. This tree was not larger than other healthy trees in- same orchard or than similar trees in the orchard from which XXVII came. Eeduced to about one-fifteenth natural size. Dover, Del., November 6, 1688. XXVII. Same as XXVI, but badly dwarfed b> root-aphides. Tree set two years ; foliage badly "Freuched" in August. From southeast corner of orchard No. 18, Map VII. Reduced to about one-fifteenth natural size. Still Pond, Md., November 1, 1888. Uninjured trees in this orchard were as large as XXVI. XXVIII. Healthy seedlings which were inoculated with diseased buds August 12, 1887, and developed yellows in the summer of 1888. Photograph made November 3, 1888; (. e., fifteen months after the inoculation. Trees unmistakably diseased. 1. Diseased growth from the inserted bud (a). The top part of the growth was cut away in the nursery some time between August and Noteuiber. 2. Diseased growth from the inserted bud (a). Tree entirely dead. 3. Diseased growth from the inserted bud («) and also from the stock (6 b h). Top part of growth from inserted bud was cut away in nursery some time between August and November. Reduced to five-sevenths natural size. XXIX. Healtby seedlings which were inoculated with diseased buds August 12, 1887, and developed yellows in the summer of 1888. Photograph made November 3, 1888; i. e., fifteen mouths after the inoculation. Trees unmistakably diseased. 1. Inserted bud (a) dead. Five diseased growths from the stock. 2. Diseased growths from the inserted bud (a) and also from the stock (i h). The top part of the branched growth from the inserted bud was cut away in the nursery some time between August and November. 3. One diseased growth from the inserted bud (a) and also five or six from the stock. The inserted bud made a feeble growth (1 inch) and died early. Reduced to about seven-eighteenths natural size. XXX. Healthy seedlings which were inoculated with diseased buds August 12, 1887, and developed yellows in the summer of 1888. Photograph made November 3, 1888* i. e., fifteen mouths after the inoculation. Trees unmistakably diseased. 1. Inserted bud dead, no growth (a). Two diseased growths from the stock (6 h). 2. Inserted bud dead, no growth (a). Two diseased growths from the stock, the foliage of which was not wilted or fallen away when the tree was taken from the nursery. 3. Two buds inserted, the growth from one («) apparently healthy but not ro- bust ; the growth from the other (a') diseased and dead. Six diseased growths were also found on the stock below the lowest inserted bud, four of which are here shown. Reduced to about seven-fifteenths natural size. XXXI. Healthy and diseased tree from the same nursery. Stocks of the same age and quality and budded at the same time ; i. e., August, 1887. Photograph made No- vember 3, 1888. 1. Inserted bud healthy. Tree heallhy. Like its fellows, but smaller than the av- erage. Many trees budded at same time had twice as great a diameter. 2. Inserted buds diseased. Tree diseosed. One of the two inserted buds (a, a') failed to grow ; the other grew into a diseased shoot. The growths from the stock (ft, 6', h") were diseased; but fc" was apparently healthy until autumn, when most of its win- ter buds began to grow under the influence of the disease (compare with I, XX, XXI, and Fig. 2 of XXXVII). The branching diseased tops of a' and b' were cut 212 SPECIAL REPORT ON PEACH YELLOWS. away in the nursery some time between August and November. Reduction about one-half. Only about one-third of entire length is here shown. LITHOGRAPHS OF PAINTINGS FROM NATURE. XXXn. Healthy, ri])e Beers' Smock, with folinge. Orchard of Daniel Faulkner, Saugatuck, Mich., October 10, 1H88. XXXIII. Healthy ripe Beers' Smock, from orchard No. 14 of this rej ort. Septem- ber 17, 1887. XXXIV. Beers' Smock peaches ; 1 and 2 prematurely ripe; 3. Section through the same, but the flesh is not quite orange enough for this variety ; 4. Green peach taken at same date from a neighboring healthy tree. Dover, Del., September 2, 1887. Healthy Beers' Smock peaches were ripe at Dover about September 17. XXXV. Stump the World or Old Mixon peaches. From orchard No. 17 of this report. Collected August 27, 1888; 1, 2, and 3 prematurely ripe; 1 aud 2 showing appearance of flesh when cut radially and tangentially ; 4. Healthy green peach picked at same time from a neighboring tree. Natural size. XXXVI. Crawford's Early peaches. From orchard of Thomas D. France, Chester- town, Md., August 3, 1888 ; 1 and 2 prematured by borers {JEgeria exitiosa, Say.) ; 3. Green peach from a neighboring uninjured tree. The tree from which 1 and 2 were taken had been almost completelj^ girdled by borers. The dark spots on Fig. 1 and on right-hand peach on Plate XXXII are due to Cladosporium. XXXVII. Healthy and diseased shoots. Natural size and color. Fig. 1. Section from a healthy terminal shoot. Stump the World ; 2. Portion of diseased shoot from a tree in advanced stage of yellows, showing terminal bud and axillary bud beginning to grow in autunui after the ordinary foliage has fallen; 3. Section of terminal shoot from a tree badly diseased in all parts, second or third year of disease. This is strictly comparable with Fig. 1; 4. Terminal shoot from same tree as Fig. 3. Dead since spring. The shriveled appearance is not clearly shown in the flgure. This figure may also be compared with Fig. 1. All from Washington, D. C. September 28, 1888. The leaf-spots are due to the Cercospora (?) mentioned in the text. INSERT FOLDOUT HERE i Report on Peach Yellows.— Sec. Veg. Pathology, U. S. Dep't Agriculture. PLATE I R. C. HoliHcs, Phologra|iliir. I)i,>er. U.1 M. Joyce, Eng., Waslin. U. C. DISEASED PEACH SHOOT FROM A MAIN LIMB. ( Delaware. ) Report on Peach Yellows.— Sec. Veg. Pathology, U. S. Dep't Agriculture. PLATE II. R. C. Holmes, Photngraplicr. Dover, Dp M. Joyce, Eng.. Wash'n. D. C. DISEASED TEIi:\IIXAL PEACH SHOOTS, ( Delaware, j Report on Peach Yellow.?.— Sec. Veg. Pathology, U. S. Dep't Agriculture. PLu\TE III, Chas. Il„|ikiiia. Photographer, \\a.l,ii.glon. D (; >' '"SC^. Eng , Wash'ti, D. C DISEASED TUFT FROM A MAIN EIJIB. ( Delaware. ) Report on Peach Yellows.— Sec. Veg. Pathology, U. S. Dejj't Agriculture, PLATE IV. Gibson, Ph.itogTapher. Ann Arhor, Mich, M. Joyce, Eng,, Wash'n, D. C. DISEASED TERMI^TAL PEACII SHOOTS, ( Michigan. ) Report on Peacli TfUow, — S r Veq Pathology U S Dep't Agricultiii PLATK V. Report on Peach Yellows.— See. Veg. Pathology, U. S. Dep't Agriculture. PLiATE VI. U. C. Holmes. Pb(j:ogra|ilicr, D.ncr, UtI. M. Joyce, Eng., Washn, D. C. DISEASED TBEE.-SET SIX MOXTHS. * ( Delaware. ) Report on Peach Tellows.— Sec. Veg. Pathology, U. B. Dep't Agriculture, TLATE VII. R r. Holmes, Photographer. Dover. Dr M Joyce, Eng., Wasl.n, I' HEALTHY TREE.— SET FIVE MONTHS. ( Delaware. ; Report on Feach Yellows — Sec. \'ea. Patholosy, U. S. Dep't A'-'rirultuv PLATE A^III. Report on Peach Yellows.— Sec. Veg. Pathology, tJ. S, Dep'L Agriculture. PLATE IX. ^-«> Report on Peach Yellows.— Sec. Veg. Fatbolosy. U. s. Dep't Atrriculture PLATE X. Report on Peach Tellows.-Sec. Veg. Pathology, U. S Dep't Agricultur PLATE XI. Report on Peach Yelloxr?.— Sec. Yej. Pathclo,:ry, U. S. Dep't Agriculture. PLATE XII. Report on Peach Yellows — Sec. Veg. Pathology, U. S. Dep't Agriculture PL^VTE XIII. Report on Peach Tellows.— Sec. Veg. Pathology, U. S. Dep't Agriculture. PLATE XIV. A. L ColloD, PliotOKraiihtrr. Ann Arbor, Midi M. Jujce, Eng.. Wish'n, U. C. HEALTHY TERMIXAL PEACH SHOOTS. ( Michigan. ) Report on Peach Yellows.— Sec. Veg. Pathologr, U. S. Dep't Agriculture. PLATE XV K. C Holmes, Photo;raiilier, Dover, Del M Joyce, Eng., Washn, D 0. HEALTHY TERMINAL SHOOT. ( Dela-u'are. ) Report on Feacla Tell:.ws.— Sec. Veg. Pathology, U. S. Dep't Agriculture. PLATE XVI. A. L. CoUon, Photographer, Ann Arbor. Mich. M. Joyce, Enj., Wash'n, D. C. DISEASED PEACH SHOOTS. ( G-eorgia. ) Report on Peach Tell;.ws.— Sec. Veg. Pathology, U. S. Dep't Agriculture. PLATE XVTT OibsoD, Photographer, Ann Arbor, Mich M. Joyce, En^., WasL n, D, C. DISEASED PEACH SHOOT. ( Georgia. ) Report on Peach Yellcws.— Sec. Veg. Pathology, U. S. Dep't Agriculture. PLATE XVIII. UibsoD, Photographer, Ann Arbor, Mich M. Jujce, Enj:., \V.n,h n, D, C. DISEASED PEACH SHOOT. Enlargement of one tuft of Plate XVII { Georgia. ) Report en Peach Yellows^-Sec. Veg. Pathology, U. S. Dep't Agriculture. PLATE XIX. J. E. She|iberd, Photographer, Washingfon, D. M, J.iyce, Eng., Wash'n, D. C. PEACH YELLOWS. ( G-eorgia. ) Keport on Peach Yelio-^.-.-Sec. Veg. Pathology. U. S. Dep't Agnciilture. PLATE XX. J. E. Shepherd, Photographer, Washingluii, I) M- Joyee, Etig,, Wash'n, D. C. PEACH YELLOWS. ( Georgia. ) Report en Peach Yello-ws.— Sec. Veg. Pathology, U. S. Dep't Agriculture. PLATE XXI. J. E Sliupherd. Pliotnii-apher. Wishinjlon, D C. M. Joyce. Eng , Washn. D. C. PEACH YELLOWS. ( Georgia. 1 Report en Peach Yello-ws— Sec. Veg. Pathology, U. S. Dep't Agriculture. PLATE XXTT. R. C. Holmes, PhotogiaplK r, Dover, Del. M. j„;,.e, Eng., « Mhn, D. C. DISEASED SHOOTS FK0:M AX APSICOT. ( Dela-ware. ) Report on Peacli Yellows.— Sec: Veg. Pathology, TJ. S. Dep't Agriculture. PT^ATE XXIIT. R. (• ir„lme,. Photographer, Dover. Del >'■ '"y"- ="8- ^a^l.'-. D- «■ HEALTHY SHOOTS FRO^^I AX APRICOT. ( Delaware. ) 1 ^ \ V IK ulture. PLATE XXIV Heporr on Tecir \ 'TT^ ulture PLiATE XXV. Report en Peach. Teliows.— Sec. Veg. Pathology, D. S. Dep't Agriculture. PLATE XXVI. R C. Il.ilme., I'hotojrapher, Dover. I), !. j,, j„j-„ j;„„ ,^ .,.,|,.„^ p (• hea:^thy peach tree.— set two years. ( DelaTrare. ) Report en Peach. Yello-ws— Sec. Veg. Pathology. U. S. Dep't Agriciilture. PLATE XXVII. R. C. Holmes, Photographer, Dover. Del. nr Joyoe, En; , Wasbn, D. C PEACTT TEEE.— SET T^TO YEARS. Stunted by Root Aphides. ( ^Maryland. ) Report on Peach Yellows.— Sec. Veg. Pathology, U. S. Dep't Agriculture. PLATE XXVIII. B. C. Holmes, Photographer, Dover, Del. M. j^j.^, Enj., Washn, D. C. PEACH YELLOWS.— RESI^LT OF IXOCrLATIOXS. Report on Peach Yellows.— Sec. Veg. Patliology,'U. S. Dep't Agriculture PLATE XXTX. ■Report on Peach Teliows.— Sec. Veg. Pathology, U. S. Dep't Agriculture, PLATE XXX. R- C. Holmes Photographer, Dover, Del M j„j.ee, Eng., Wash'n, D. C. PEACH YELLOAYS.— RESULT OF IXOCULATIONS. Report on Peach Yellows.— Sec. Veg. Pathology, U. S. Dep't Agriculture. PLATE XXXI. R. C. Holraes, Pbolographer, Dover, Del M. Joyce, Eng., Wash'n, D. C. V'E.A OH YELLOATS.— RESULT OP TXOCULATIOX. 1.— Healthy. 2.— Di.seasecl. IJepovl on Pencil \'ell()\vs Sec Wd Palliolo^jv, U. S Dej) Agn't Plnlo XXXII Drawn from nalure & colored "by W^H.IVe.stele^Ariist . Bl-IERS' SMOCK (from MICHlGANl A.Hjea* C>^. [h'Dz^a-.'uz, BaiTirr Kepoi-loii Pcn.li^MldWS ScMvVt'cj Palholoov V S Dr|. A>n( IMalc XXX l\' PEACHI-:S PRFMATURP: AND HEAI,TH\'. iBKERS" SMOCK J Repoi'l (,.1 Peacli ^■^>ll XKXV. Ralx-rl:, Cow,,... IWil PEACUKS PREMATURE AND HEALTHY (OLD MIX0N(2) i Ivepi.i-I (Ml PciiclAMIows S.u-Vci: Pall. oJo-v, lis. De'i) Ao IMmIc wxv Di-HWd fi-oiri hhIui-p S- colored % WTH.FV<}.slelp^i\rli.sl PEACHES HRAI.THVAXD PRHMA'l'lJRKD BY BORERS (CRAWFORD'S EARLY) i;('|)(>rl on l\>;i(li\rll(>\\s SiH-Vrv ]>:illi()l()i.y, [' S Dep Aoi-u l^lntc XXXV Kc.berhirovviu-j (I'lil PKACH SHOOTS HKAI.rH>i' Pr- DISKASKO HY N'K I.I.O VV s i'_.. Ifrh.i .;.. ^.: 3dlr: INDEX. Page. Aberdeen, Md., yellows near 77 AcclimatizatioQ and yellows 114, 115 Accomac Conuty, Va,, peach orchards in '^0 Acrelius, Israel, on peach growing in Delaware 16 ^geria exitiosa, Say {see aho Borers): Injuries due to 94 Eefereuces to 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 28, 34, 35, 55, 56, 158, 160 Agaricus 165 Agricultural College of Michigan : Analyses made at • 183 Diseased pits i^lauted at 145, 146 Albany, N. Y., Analyses by Professor Eiuuious at 181 Aidridge, J. K., yellows appears in orchard of 76 Alkaline substances for diseased trees 124 Allegan, Mich., first appearance of yellows in 50 Allegan County, Mich. : Decrease of peach growing in 51 Extent of peach growing in 50 First orchards in 39 Healthy orchards of < 50 Increase of peach growing in 51 Present peach acreage of 51 Prevalence of yellows in 50 Profitable or(;hards in - Ill Yellows appears in 49 Yellows severe in east part of 174 Yellows in, period of immunity from 50 Almond, yellows in 9 Almond stocks, peaches budded on 22 American Farmer : On large orchards in Maryland 72 On yellows in Maryland 73 American Philosophical Society : On decay of peach trees 17 Reward offered by 17 Amherst, Mass. : Analyses made at 125, 184 Yellows at 32 Amsden's June. (See Peach, varieties of.) Analyses : Conflicting results of 126 Necessity for further , 126 Reference to results of 124, 125 Anguillula sp. in peach roots 95 213 214 INDEX. Anu Arbor, Mich. : First orchards at 51 Number of trees uow at 51 No yellows at '. 51 Hill orchards of 52 Anne Arundel County, Md., yellows in 79 Ants, yellow species associated with root aphides 161 Aphides, supposed relation to yellows 162, 163, 164 A phis on peach roots, description of 164 Aphis chrysauthemi, Koch 94, 160 Appendix A: Table I. Analyses by Professor Emmons 181 Table II. Analyses by Professor Emmons 182 Table III. Analyses by B. Kirtland 182 Table IV 183 Table V. Analysesby Dr. R. C. Kedzie 18;i Table VI 184 Table VII. Analyses by Dr. C. A. Goessmann 184 Table VIII. Analyses by Dr. C. A. Goessmann 184 Table IX. Analyses at Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station 185 Table X. Analyses at Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station 185 Table XI. Analyses by L. Murbach 186 Table XII 187 Table XIII-XXVII. Analyses by A. E. Knorr 187 Appendix B, — Laws 198 Appleton, H. H. : On peach acreage of New Castle County, Del 61 On yellows in 1856 61 Apricot, yellows in 9 Archdale, on peaches in Carolina 14 Arkansas : Reference to peach growing in 107 Root rot reported from 95 Arthur, Dr. J. C. : On gumraosis in peach 168 On peach disease near Geneva, N. Y 37 Ashcraft farm 108 Ashes. ( -See Wood iishes.) Asia, peach in 114 Atlantic coast : Longevity of peach on 114 Yellows first prevalent along 83 Atlantic County, N. J., yellows reported from 27 Augur, P. M. : Collects peach twigs for analyses 185 On longevity of Delaware orchards 65 On yellows in Connecticut 31 On yellows in Tennessee 82 Peaches formerly successful in Connecticut 29 Bacon, Hon. , statement that yellows is not at Laurel, Del 68 Bacteria as a cause of yellows 166 Bailey, Prof. L. H, : Inoculated trees set by 153 Plants, diseased pits 145, 146 Baltimore, former large orchards near 78 INDEX. 215 Page. Baltimore County, Md. : Yellows loug present iu 78 Yellows now in 78 Former longevity of trees in 78 Bancroft, E. H., yellows iu orchard of 65 Bark, supposed effect of yellows on color, etc., of 92 Baruard. D. P. : Orchard of (see also Orchards) 105 Trees inoculated by 153 Barnard, Norris, trees inoculated by 152 Barnum, Isaac, pioneer peach-grower 39 Barn-yard manure and yellows 130, 142 Barrat, M. D., J., on frosts iu Connecticut 116 Barry, Patrick: On peach growing in western New York 35 On yellows in New Jersey 25 Bartram, peaches near the estate of 14 Baskets, size of 40, 49 Baxter, , yellows in orchard of 174 Bay ley, Mr., early large orchard of, iu Virginia 20 Beadle, D. W. : On first appearance of yellows in Ontario 38 On results of Ontario yellows laws 176 Beal, W. J., references to microscopic examinations by 124 Beck, James L., yellows appears iu orchards of 77 Beers' Smock (see Peach, varieiies of). Bcllah, Mr., on peach-growing iu Delaware 20 Bellevue 19 Belmont 17 Benton Harbor, Mich. : Committee find yellows at 44 Destruction of orchards at 45 Effect of yellows at , ] 76 First budded fruit .nt 40 Former extensive orchards at 43 Healthy trees at - 40 Present extent of orchards at 46 Yellows, first appears near 42, 44, 45 Great prevalence of yellows around 44 Berckmans, P. J., peach trees from 80 Bergeu County, N. J., yellows in 27 Bernard, Mrs. Bayle, yellows not in England 10 Berrien County, Mich. : Depreciation of real-estate values due to yellows 113 Early peach-growing iu 39 Large orchard iu 40 Opposition to enactment of yellows law 170 Former extent of peach-growing in 43 Peach statistics of 43, 46 Profitable orchards in Ill Recent orchards planted iu 46, 178 Severe winter in I'-0, 121 When yellows became destructive iu 44 Yellows destroys the orchards iu 45, 176 Yellows first appears in 41 216 INDEX. Page. Be%'erly, Robert, on peaches in Virginia 13 Biddle, George : Ou peach-growing in Cecil Connty, Md 69 On yellows in Cecil County, Md 70 Bidwell, H. E. {see Cook) : On profits of peach-growing in Michigan Ill On yellows at South Haven 46 Report on yellows 170 Biggs, Hon. B. T. : On peach acreage of New Castle County, Del 61 Orchards of 60 Bilyeu's October (see Peach, varieties of). Bissell, J. W., lime, potash, and yellows 124 Bitley, N. H. , early orchard of 4d Black, Charles: Crowding and yellows 125 Ou curing yellows 140 On root-aphides 161 Black, Jno. J., and Cochran, E. R., on peach acreage in Now Castle County. 61 Black, Dr. Jno. J., on advent of yellows into Delaware 57 Black heart-wood in the peach 120 Blight, New Zealand peach orchards much injured by 115 Bombay Hook, peach orchards at 56 Bone for yellows 78,128,130 Bone-black for yellows 125 Borers cause yellow foliage 84, 94 Borers, (see a7so JEgeria): Reference to 20,21,94 Trees, injured by 72, 74, 160 Worse ou sandy soil 158 Yellows not caused by 158, 160 Boston, vicinity of, formerly free from yellows 31 Bottom lands and yellows 132, 140, 141 Bottoms not suited to peach trees 81 Boughton, Curtis : Pioneer peach-grower 41 Ships peaches to Chicago in 1840 40 Bowen, Col. James, on yellows in orchards of Isaac Reeves 56 Branching of shoots in yellows 87, 88 Brandy from peaches 14, 15, 16, 20 Brandywine (see Peach, varieties of). Bridgeville, Del. : Root aphis at 161,163 Yellows not at 65,68 Brodiss, Mr., pioneer peach-grower 39 Brothers, Wm., orchard of (see, aJso, Orchards,) 104 Brown, D. N., yellows at Saint Joseph, first in orchard of 42 Brown, Edwin H., no yellows at Centreville, Md 74 Bro wu, Jacob, yellows in orchard of 65 Brown, W. A., on first appearance of yellows in Michigan 42, 45 Budded orchards : First in Cecil County, Md 69 First in Kent Couuty, Md 71 First in Queen Anne County, Md 79 INDEX. 217 Page, Bndding: Effect of continued propagation by 142, 143 Yellows may be produced by 149, 152, 154 Badd, Prof. J. L., on climate as a cause of yellows 114 Burdette, Mr., profitable orchard of 36 Burlington, N. J. : Orchards at 18,20 Present condition of orchards iu 27 Yellows first appears at 21 Burnett, Mr., pioneer peach-grower 39 Burnite, John, mammoth peaches grown by 13 Butler, C. : Peaches formerly plentiful in Connecticut 30 Reports yellows from Connecticut 30 Calcium oxide (see lime). California: Condition of peach-growing in 177 Fruit law of 206 Ho w to keep yellows out of 177 Reference to peach-growing in 107 Yellows not in 9, 177 Cambium cylinder, prolonged activity of, in yellows 92 Cambridge, Mass., yellows at 32 Camden, Del. : Great peach country around 63 Yellows at 65, 66 Camden County, N. J., yellows in 27 Campanius, Thomas, finds peach trees along the Delaware 12,13 Canada : Enforcement of yellows law in 176 Reference to peach growing in 107 Yellows in 37 Canuon, William E. : Orchards injured by winter 122 Yellows and winter kill 122 Canterbury, Del. : Great peach country around 63 Yellows at 66 Cape May County, N. J., yellows in 27 Capuodium elongatum 165 Carbon dioxide. (*S'ee Carbonic acid.) Carbonic acid, analyses (Appendix A) 181 Carolina : On yellows in 79 Orchards in the colony of 13, 14 Caroline County, Md. : Contrasted with Kent County 132 On yellows in..... 70,77 Soil of.... 71 Carrow, John, on restriction of yellows 172 Casco, Mich. , first appearance of yellows in 44,50, 174 Cassiday farm : Orchards on 69 Yellows treated on 128 218 INDEX. Page. Cayuga Couuty, N Y., yellowsin 34 Cecil County, Md. : First appearance of yellows in 70 First budded orchards in gg Many orchards set iu 57 Much premature fruit from 70 Present extent of peach growing in 69 Yellows now destructive iu 70 Cecil ton, Md. : Orchards near 69 Profitable orchard at 109 Census of Michigan : Fruit statistics 46 Peach trees in Allegan County 51 Peach trees in Ganges and Saugatuck 50 Peach trees in Ottawa County and Kent County 51 Peach trees in Washtenaw County 51 Peach trees in whole State 53 Census of the United States: Orchard products of Delaware 62 Peach acreage of Kent County, Md 63,72 Peach acreage of New Castle County, Del 62 Peach acreage of Queen Anne County, Md 72 Peach acreage of Susses County, Del 63 Centre County, Pa., yellows in 32 Centreville, lud., yellows reported from 38 Centreville, Md. : Great peach country around 74 Yellows not at 74 Yellows not south of 77 Cercospora (?) 91,165 Cercospora Persicae 165 Chamberlain, J. E., peach trees in Berrein County, Mich 43 Chemical analyses (Appendix A) 181 Chemical elements, deficiency of most, iu yellows 125 Chemical theory of yellows, objections to 126 Chesapeake and Delaware Peninsula (see Delaware and Chesapeake) : Climate of, adapted to the peach 68 Excessive rains on 122, 123 General movement of yellows on 63 Imperfect rain-fall records of 122 Increase of yellows on 123, 131 Peach adapted to 72 Root-aphis on 160,161 Chesapeake Bay, oichards in vicinity of 17,72,97 Chester River, Maryland, orchards along 72, 74 Chestertown, Md.: Early fall of peach leaves in orchard at 118 Increase of yellows at 76 Large orchards near 71,72 Profitable orchard at 108,110 Root-aphis at 161 Value of peach farms around Ill Yellows rare at 73, 75, 76 INDEX. 219 Page. China, peach iii • 114 Chinese Cling. (5ee Peach, varieties of.) Chinese peaches, supposed hardihood of 114 Chloride of sodium, analyses. (Appendix A.) 181 Chlorine, analyses. (Appeudix A.) 181 Chrisfield, George ir)2, 153 Christiana, Del., peach orchards formerly at 56 Christiana. (See Peach, varieties of.) Chronicle, the Gardeners', on yellows in England 10 Church Hill, Md. : Increase of yellows at. 77 Yellows in 1886 in village of 75 Yellows rare at 75, 76 Churchville, Md., yellows near 77 Cladosporium carpophyllnm 165 Clark Brothers, orchards of 55 Clark, Cant well, orchards of 60 Clark, John C, prevalence of yellows at Delaware City 57 Clayton, Del : Autumn frosts at 118, 1U> Large orchards at 66 Orchards and yellows at 64,60, 100,102 Profitable orchards at 109 Value of peach farms at Hg Clements, Charles, on yellows in Queen Anne County, Md 77 Climate and yellows 51, 114 Climate: Mild in Delaware 120 Of Maryland and Delaware 68 Of United States, peach adapted to 114 Supposed change in 115 Clingstones. {See Peach, varieties of.) Clubb, Henry S. : Census of peach trees by, in Ganges and Saugatuck 50 On orchards at Benton Harbor, Mich 43 Yellows formerly not at Grand Haven, Mich 44 Cochran, E. K. {See Black.) Cochran, .lohn P., former orchards of 60 Cock, Mr. Peter, peaches near estate of 15 Cole, S. W., on transmission of yellows by budding 150 Collins, L.. reports yellows from Saint Joseph, Mich 44 CoUiuson, Peter, sends peach pits to Talbot County, Md 20 Columbia, Mo., diseased pits planted at 145 Columbia, Conn., yellows at 31 Columbus, Ohio, diseased pits planted at 146 Commercial fertilizers, use of, in Maryland and Delaware 127 Commissioners of yellows: Duties of, in Michigan 171 Not now required at Douglas and South Haven, Mich 174, 175 Cost of maintaining 175 Connecticut: Autumn frosts in 116 Peaches ouce plentiful in 29 Reference to peach-growing in 107 Yellows in 10,30,31,32,115 220 INDEX. Connecticut experiment station, analyses made at 125 Contagium and yellows 135, 155 Cook and Bidwell find yellows around Benton Harbor 44 Cooper, Thomas, on peaches iu United States 16 Cork patches on diseased shoots 93 Corsa, W. P. (?), on yellows at Milford, Del 65 Corsica Neck, Md., yellows not in 74 Coulter, Thomas, on premature decay of peach trees 17 Country Gentleman on yellows at Delaware City 57, HS Cowgill's Corners, Del., yellows at 64 Coxe, William, reference to orchard of 18,20,21 Cox, John W., on peach crop of Hunterdon Countj", N. J 26 Crawford's Early. (See Peach, varieties of.) Crawford's Late. (.See Peach, varieties of.) Cromwell, Kichard, orchards of 78 Crookshank, T. C, profitable peach crop of 109 Crowding and yellows 125, 131 Crumpton, Md., yellows at 75 Cultivation and yellows 30, 129 Cultivator and Country Gentleman on peach-growing in western New York . 36 Cultivator, The Albany, on yellows iu New Jersey 24 Cumberland County, N. J., yellows iu 27 Cumberland County, Pa., yellows in 33 Cure of yellows 23,127,128,129 Curtis, Col. F. D., on yellows in New York 29,37 Darling, Noyes: On color of premature peaches 86 On first appearance of yellows in Connecticut 29 On loss of elasticity in diseased branches 92 On restriction of yellows 171 Ou transmission of yellows by budding 149 On yellows at New Haven 30 On yellows in apricots 9 On yellows in Eurojie 11 Reference to papers by 21, 29, 30 Yellows in peaches on plum stocks 167 Dauphin County, Pa., yellows in 33 Day, Dr. R. H., on loss of peach orchards in Louisiana 82 "Dead spots" 102 Dean, Samuel, on degeneracy of the peach 18 Deer Creek, Maryland, yellows along 77 Delano, John, reports yellows in orchards of Isaac Reeves 56 Delaware : Blackberries, strawberries, and melons much grown in south part of 131 Condition of farming iu 55 Cultivation of orchards in 141 Depreciation of real estate due to yellows in 112 Early methods of cultivation in 55 Early peach-growing iu 53 First budded orchards in 54, 62 Great orchards of 58, 62, 63 Long life of trees in 26 Marshes of .. 64 Orchard products of 62 Peaches shipped from 58, 108 INDEX. 221 Page. Delaware — Coutiuued. Profits of peach-growing in 60 Reference to mildness of climate of 120 Reference to peaches growing in 107 Report ou peach-growing in 60 Restriction of yellows in 172 Result of treatment for yellows in 128 Root aphis in 94,160,162 Severity of yellows in upper part of 82, 113 Short life of peach trees in parts of 24 Supposed restriction of yellows in 172 Wheat and corn staple crops in upper part of 54 Yellows iu 10,21,56 Delaware and Cheasapeake Canal, orchards along iu lb70 54 Delaware and Chesapeake Peninsula (see Chesapeake): Autumn frosts on 115, 1'20 Fii st appearance of yellows on 57 Longevity of peach ou 114 Severe winters on 120 " Tennessee" seed grown on 148 Use of commercial fertilizers on 127 Delaware City : First appearance of yellows at .. 56 First orchards near 54 Former long life of orchards at 58 •Great success of orchards arouud 55 Present condition of peach-growing at 58 Rey bold orchards at 57 Yellows destructive at 56, 57, 58 Delaware region, early orchards in 16, 17, 19, 20 Delaware River: Peach-growing in vicinity of 25,27,32,56,59, 112 Yellows aloug 133 Deuney, J. Frank, orchard of (see also Orchards) 102 Densmore, Randolph, pioneer orchard of 40 Denton, Md. : Root aphis at 161, 163 Yellows not south of 77 Department of Agriculture: Analyses made by A. E. Kuorr at 187 Diseased pits jilanted at 145 Derby, S. H., did not escape yellows by using healthy seed aud sound buds.. 156 Destruction of infected trees, persons advocating 171 De Vries finds peach trees iu Virginia in 1633 11 Dietrich, C. J., yellows formerly not at Grand Rapi Js, Mich 44 Disastrous spread of yellows 24, 37, 45, 65, 66, 76 Diseased buds 149 Diseased pits 143 District of Columbia, yellows in 79 Dodge, J. R., statistics of yellows in New Jersey 27 Douglas, Mich. : Distance from South Haven 49 First appearance of yellows at 49 Restriction of yellows at 175 Yellows aud soil exhaustion at 137, 138, 139 222 INDEX. Page. Douw, V. M., on yellows in Connecticut 30 Dover, Del. : Autnmu frosts at 117, 119 Excessive rains at 123 Great peach country around 63 Hard winter and yellows at 121 Orchards and yellows at 103,104,101; Peach center now below 61 Profitable orchard at 109 Root aphis at 164 Value of peach farms at 112 Yellows at 66 Yellows in old orchard near 156 Yellows not a new disease at 64,65 Downing, A, J. : On terminal growths in yellows 89 On extermination of yellows 29 On first appearance of yellows in Connecticut 29 On first appearance of yellows in southern New York 28 On neglect of pruning 141 On restriction of yellows 30,172 On transmission of yellows by budding 149 On yellows in Connecticut 30 On yellows in Europe 11 Reference to book by 42 Reference to statements by 21,29,30 Urges prompt removal of diseased trees 171 Downing, Charles: On yellows at Newburgh, N. Y' 29 On yellows in Europe 11 On appearance of yellows in trees imported from France 167 Urjjes prompt removal of diseased trees 171 Downing, Charles, et al., on peach growing in New Castle County, Del 60 Drought, efi'ect on yellows 122,123 Drummoudville, Ontario, yellows at 37 Dunlap, Dr. F. S. : On early orchards at Delawaie City 55 On location of New Castle orchards in 1870 58 On nature of peach disease at Delaware City 57 On prevalence of yellows at Delaware City 57 On prevention by removal of diseased trees 172 On recent endeavors to grow i)eaches at Delaware City 5S On restriction of yellows 172 On transmission of yellows by budding 150 On yellows in Kent and Cecil, Md 70 Du Pratz, M. le Page, on introduction of peach into Louisiana 13, 15 Duquoin, 111., yellows near 82 Durham, Conn., yellows at 31 Dwarfed trees 94,159,161 Dyckman, A. S. : On early peach growing in Michigan 41 On first appearance of yellows at South Haven 46 Peach trees in southwest Michigan 43 Quantity of peaches shipped by 47 Yellows and soil exhaustion t t-- -r •• ■ l^'^i 137 INDEX. 223 Page. Eanies, Aarou, early orchard of 41 Earle, Samuel T., uo yellows at Centerville, Md 74 Early Alexander. {See Peach, varieties of.) Early Louise. (See Peach, varieties of.) Early Rivers. (See Peach, varieties of.) East shore of Maryland : Appearance and character of 70 Yellows on 77 East Windsor, Couu., peaches formerly abundant at 30 Eastern United States, yellows believed to be confined to 9 Easton, Md., peaches at 20 Edgewood, Md., yellows at 78 Edwards, John T., yellows in peaches on plum stock 167 Eldridgo, G. Morgan : On early appearance of yellows in Cecil County, Md 70 Yellows in old orchard of 141 Eliason, Wilbur, yellows in orchards of 75 Elkton,Md., peaches in 69 Ellis, John, ou premature decay of peach trees 17 Ellison, J. T., orchards of 60 Emerson, G. : On climate as a cause of yellows 114, 120 On longevity of Delaware orchards 65 Emmons, Professor, analyses by 124, IHl Emory, Blanchard, orchards of 72 Emory, E. B., borers and yellows in orchard of 159 Endicott, Capt. John, wants peach pits for New England 11 England, William H., yellows in old orchard of 157 Enc^le, C. : Early orchard of 41 Yellows formerly not at Paw Paw, Mich 44 Yellows in orchard of 48 Essex County, N. J., on peach growing in 27 Europe, yellows not in 10 Evans, John, yellows appears in orchard of 75 Excision experiments 168, 169 Fairlee, Md. : Thrifty orchards near 77 Yellows near 77 P^iirmount Park, Belmont now a part of 17 Farmer and Mechanic, on yellows 23 Farmers' Cabinet, on yellows 23 Faulkner, Daniel, peaches from orchard of 212 Feitou, Del. : Healthy peaches grown at 67 Large peaches from 13 Soil and timber in vicinity of 64 Yellows in old orchards of 157 Yellows of recent occurrence southwest of C)7 Fenuimore, E. C. : Farci of, former value of 112 Very productive and profitable orchard of 53, 60, 110, 133 Yellows in orchards of , 133 224 INDEX. Pago. Fenuville, Mich. : Extent of iujury by yellows at 50 First appeuraace of yellows at ,. 50 Yellows aud soil exhaustion at 136 Ferric oxide. (5ee oxide of iron.) Fertile soil and yellows 132 Fertilizers and yellows 128, 129, 130,131 Fish, T. D., on yellows in England 10 Fisher, A. W., yellows and soil exhaustion 138 Fisher, George P., on early appearance of yellows in Kent County. Del 64 Fitts, John F., reports premature decay of peach trees in Connecticut 30 Fitz, James, on yellows in Europe 11 Fleuiington, N. J., premature decay of peach trees at 26 Florida, root-knot in 95 Floy, Michael : On cause of decay in peach trees 28 Reference to book by 42 Flushing, L. I., yellows at 21,24,29 Foliage in yellows, color and size of 88,89, 91,92 Foliage : Healthy in first stage of yellows 88,89 Size of, on healthy trees 88 Foote, David, on premature peaches in Connecticut 30 Forsyth, reference to treatise by 17 Foster. (See Peach, varieties of.) Foster, Daniel, early peach nursery of 39 Fox's Seedling. {See Peach, varieties of.) France, Thomas D., profitable orchard on farm of 108 Frederica, Del. : Early budded orchard at 62 Exemption from yellows on farm at 65 Great peach country around 63 Yellows around 67 Yellows in old orchard at 157 Yellows for some years southeast of 67 Freezing : Effects of, on peach trees 121 , 122 Not a cause of yellows 120, 121, 122 "Frenched" trees 94,107 "Frenching " 161 "Frenchmen" 94 French traders, jicaches planted by 39 Frost : Efi'ect on foliage in autumn 118 Not a cause of yellows 115 Frosts : In Connecticut 116 Of autumn, yellows not caused by 115, 120 On Delaware and Chesapeake Peainsula 116 Fruit buds, winter destroys 120 Fungi : Injuries by 165 Limiting efi'ect of variety on 142 " Fungus growth " 87, 138 Gabriel, George, on yellows in Connecticut 30 INDEX. 225 Ganges, Mich. : First appearance of yellows in 50, 174 Number of peach trees in 50 On yellows iu 175 Yellows and soil exhaustion in 137 GarlieUl, Charles W.: On orchards at Saint Joseph, Mich 43 On results of Michigan yellows law 173 On yellows at Saint Joseph 45 Ou yellows iu western New Yorlv 37 Plants diseased pits U6 Urges prompt removal of diseased trees 171 Gary's Hold On. (See Peach, varieties of.) Gault, John, time leaves fell in orchard of 119 Geddes, Mr., ou peach growing in Virgiuia 20 Genesee Farmer on tardy appearance of yellows in west New York 35 Geneva, N. Y'., yellows near 37 Genin, A. W. F., yellows reported from Ohio orchard of 33 Georgia : Early orchards in 14 First orchards of 7y Horticultural Society of 81 Present location of peach orchards in 79 Reference to peach growing in 81, 107 Yellows iu 10,79,80 Y'ellows in mild climate of 121 Gercker, Mr. , large peach farm of G2, 63 Germicides 140 Gibson, Charles, on appearance of yellows at South Haven 47 Gloucester County, N. J. , on yellows in 27 Goessmanu, Dr. Charles A., analyses by 125, 126, 184 Grand Rapids, Mich. : Diseased pits planted at 146 First appearance of yellows at 51 Hill orchards of ,52 Late appearance of yellows at , 44, 121 Winter inj ures trees at 121 Grand Traverse, Mich., no yellows in 51 Great Lakes, frosts in region of 115 Green, James W., orchard of (see a?sa Orchards) 04 Greenwich, N. J., jellows at 27 Griffin, Ga., yellows at 80,81 Grimsby, Outario: Appearance of yellows at 37, 3S Restriction of yellows at 176 Ground bone for yellows 78, 128, 130 Groups of diseased trees 47, 141 Gulf States, yellows thought to be absent from 84 Gulley, A. G. : Ou restriction of yellows 176 On terminal growths in yellows 89 On yellows iu Van Bureu County 48 Gummosis in yellows 168 Hale, J. H., yellows and soil exhaustion 125 Halstead, , yellows iu orchard of 174 11245 -No. 9 15 226 INDEX. Page. HainiltoD, A., yellows and soil eshanstiou 137 Hamiltou, Ontario, yellows reported from 37 Hamiuoud, John, early orcbaids in Maryland and Virginia 12 Hancock, T., on extent of peach orchards iu New Jersey '24 Harford Conuty, Md. : Few orchards now in 77 Orchards formerly plentiful in 77 Yellows long present in 77 Yellows now in 78 Barker's Seedling. (.S^ort on yellows iu jNIicliigau 44,46 Hoppin, Rossiter, yellows in orchiird of 46, 47, 137 Houghtou Farm, experiments made at 125, 127 Hovey, Charles M. : Ou climate as a cause of yellows 120 On longevity of Delaware orchards G5 Ou yellows in Europe 10 Howard, L., ou restriction of yellows 175 Hoyt, B. C. : Sends first Michigan peaclies to Chicago , 40 Sets, budded varieties 40 Ships first budded fruit from St. Joseph 40 INDEX. 227 rage. Hiibbanlfttou. Mich. : Diseased pits planted at , 145 luoculated trees set at 152^ 15:3 Hudson, Alfred : Time leaves fell in orchard of ,.„.. 119 Yellows in orchard of Gl Hndsou, John : Orchard (^f {see also Orchards) 102 Time leaves fell in orchard of ,^ 119 Hudson, William: Diseased orchard not troubled hy borers 159 Orchard of {sie also Orchards) KJO Profitable peach crops of 109 Hunterdon County, N. J. : Chief peach region o f Ne \v Jersey 2G Orchards of 2G Yellows in 26,27 Hurdd, Janies : Profitable orchard of 108 Yellows in orchards of 7C,^ Ifig Hurlock, Samuel, yellows in orchard of 70 Husted, J. D. : On yellows in Georgia. gO Yellows former! j^ not at Lowell, Mich , 44 Hutchius, Harrison : On early orchards in Michigan 39 On extent of orchards in West Allegan r,j^ On first appearance of yellows at Fennville 50 On inj ury done by yellows 50 Reports yellows less prevalent on light sand I75 Hypertrophy not a symptom of yellows tj(3 Illinois : Peaches not grown in north part of 52 Reference to peach growing in 107 Yellows in 10 53 S2 Incipient yellows 140^ 150 Indian peach orchards 13 kj 34 35 Indiana : Peaches little grown in iiorth part of f,2 Yellows in 10, 3S 53 Individuality in plants I43 Infertility and yellows - 1-^4 Injury by borers, how distinguished from yellows 94 Injury by root aphides, how distinguished from yellows 94 95 Inoculations, result of , 22 34 151 Insects, decay of peach trees ascribed to 17 1^ Insipid peaches 36,37,86,102,157 Iron Hill, Md. : Peach growing at (59 Yellows at _ 70 Jaundice of peach 1q Jenkins, E. H., analyses under direction of 185 Jenkins, Howard M. (See Charles Downing.) Jersey stump. (See Peach, varieties of.) 228 INDEX. Pago. Jester, John S. : Dover temperatui'e record 117 On first appearance of yellows in Kent County, Del 64 Johnson, Dr. S. W., analyses under direction of 1^5 Johnstown, Pa., yellows near :?:? Jones, Mr. Thomas, on peaches in Georgia 14 Journal of Horticulture, The London, on yellows in Eughiud . 10 Juniata County, Pa., on yellows in 33 Kainit for yellows 78,128,129,130 Kaliu, Peter, on peaches in Pennsylvania aud New Jer?- ey 14 Kansas : Eefereace to peach growing in li)7 Yellows said not to be in 9 Karsner, G. W., valuable peach farm of 112 Kedzie, Dr. R. C. : Analyses by 124 Finds yellows at Benton Harbor 44 Kenrick, William: On early treatment of New Castle orchards 55 Yellows not in New England in 1848 32 Kent County, Del. : Commercial orchards in, when planted 62 Early seedling orchards of 20 Field studies in 65 First appearance of yellows in 64 Great orchards in north part of 62 Healthy old orchards in south part of 67 lufrequency of yellows in south Kent 67 Large orchards in 62 Orchards only recently diseased in 66, 67 Orchard products of 62 Present distribution of yellows in 66, 67 Present large peach acreage of 63 Soil aud subsoil of 64 Timber of 64 Topography of <'4 Yellows not disastrous till recently , 65 Kent County, Md. : Distribution of yellows 76,77 Extent of peach growing in 71 Field studies in 74 First budded orchards of 71 First yellows in 73 Many orchards set in 57 Premature peaches in 76 Present peach acreage of 72 Soil, topography, and timber of 71 Thrifty orchards in 77 Yellows recently very destructive in 74,76 Kent County, Mich. : Extent of orchards in 51 Yellows in, period of immunity from 51 Kenton, Del. : Orchards at G2 Y'ellows at 63 INDEX. 229 Page. Kerr, J. W., on yellows in Pennsylvania 33 Kentucky, yellows in 10,82 Kieserite 125 Killeu, George W., yellows in old orcbaid of 157 Kirtland, B., analysis by 182 Kuapp, S. O. {Sec Holmes.) Kniglit, Thomas A., ou eftect of contiuiied propagation by buds, etc 143 Knorr, A. E., analyses by 187 Krusen, Henry, yellows and root aphides ou farm of 164 La Fayette, Ind., diseased pits planted at 145, 147 La Fleur, G. H. : Experiments with diseased pitii 143 Inoculation experiments of 150 On advent of yellows into Casco, Fennville, and Allegan, Mich 50,174 On neglect of yellows law 174 On prevalence of yellows in Allegan County 50 On restriction of yellows 174 On severity of yellows in eastern Allegan 51, 174 Lake County, Ohio, yellows in 34 Lake Michigan : Effect on orchards 52 Peach belt on .' 50,52 Lancaster, Pa., jieach diseases at 20 Lannin, Joseph : On restriction of yellows 173 On spread of yellows at South Haven , Mich 48 Large orchards 20, 25, 40, 54, 57, 59, 60, 62, 63, 71, 72 Lasins claviger, Eogers 161, 162 Laurel, Del. , yellows not at Gti Law of New York 207 Laws: Argument in favor of 178 Enactment of, to cover portions of a State 178 Objection to 177 Of Michigan 198,200,202 Of Ontario 203,204 Lawton, Mich. : Commercial orchards planted at , 48 Distance from Benton Harbor 48 First appearance of yellows at , 48 Hill orchards of 52 Peach shipments from 49 Profitable orchard at Ill Restriction of yellows at 174 Severe winters at 49 Some orchards destroyed at 49 Lawton, Hon. C. D. : Ou first appearance of yellows at Lawton 48 Ou results of Michigan yellows law 174 Lay, E. D., yellows formerly not at Ypsilanti, Mich 44 Lay, George T. , profitable orchard of Ill Lazenby, Prof. W. R. : On yellows in Ohio 34 Plants diseased pits 146,147 230 INDEX. Pago. Leaf-spot fuugns 91, 1135 Leaves of the peach : Conditious that control ripeuingof 120 Size wheu full grown 88 Time of fall of Ill) Lebanon, Del., yellows at CG Legislation on yellows, results of 17 1 Leipsic, Del., orchards and yellows at (>(), 98, 102 Leiseniug, D. C, yellows and soil exhaustion 136 Light soil and yellows 1:31, 132, 175 Limbs, yellows causes death of 91 Lime: Analyses, Appeudix A 1>^1 Excess of, in yellows l'J5 Deficiency of, in yellows 125 For yellows 23 Lincoln, Mass., peaches once abundant at 31 Lincoln County, Ontario, yellows in 38 Linderman, I. S., yellows formerly not at Casco, Mich 44 Linn, Robert, yellows in orchard of 49 Lloyd, Edward, very large peach trees in garden of 20 Lockport, N. Y". , yellows at 37 Locust Grove, Md. : Early appearance of yellows near 73 Experiments with diseased pits at 144 Orchards and yellows at 1()0 Profitable orchard at ' 108 Yellows in old orchard at 15(5 Y'^ellows now destructive at 7G Lodge, William C. : On former extent of New Uastle, Del., orchards 59 On former extent of peach growing in Kent County, Del 02 On longevity of Delaware orchards (i5 Loudon County, Va., yellows in 79 Longevity of peach 26, 39, 40, G'), 114, 1 57, 175 Long Island, yellows on : 29 Louisiana: Decay of orchards in 82 Early orchards in 13,15 Lovell, George, early commercial orchard of 40 Lynches Station, Md., yellows at 76 Lyon, Hon. T. T. : On advent of yellows at Sou th Haven 48 On early peach growing iu Michigan 41 On fii'sl appearance of yellows in Van Buren County 46 On increase of peach orchards in Michigan 49 On transmission of yellows by budding 150 On yellows and soil exhaustion 13G On yellows at Saint Joseph, Mich 45 On yellows iu Georgia 80 Reports increase of yellows after a severe winter 47 Reports yellows from western New York 37 Urges prompt removal of diseased trees 171 Yellows formerly not at Plymouth, Mich 44,51 INDEX. 231 Page. Madisou, Wis., peaches wiuter-kill at 52 Magnesia, analyses, Appendix A 181 Magnesium oxide. {See magnesia.) Magnolia, Del. : Orchards and yellows at 104 Profitable orchards at 108 Value of peach farms in vicinity of 1 12 Yellows at GG Martin, Hon. E. L. : On immunity from yellows in Sussex County, Del G8 Orchards injured by winter, but not by yellows 122 Root aphis in orchards of 10:3 Maryland : Appearance of yellows in 73 Color of some premature peaches in 86 Cultivation of orchards iu 141 Orchards formerly healthy iu 20, 73 Peach growing in 69, 107 Result of inoculations iu 151 Result of treatment for yellows in 128 Root aphis iu 94,160, 162 Short life of orchards iu some parts of 77,78 Value of peach farms iu 111,112 Yellows iu 10,21,68 Yellows iu mountains of 79 Yellows moves southward in 76 YelloWs rare or absent in south part of 82 Yellows very prevalent iu north part of 82 Maryland and Delaware, length of peach season iu 85 Mary's Choice. (.See Peach, varieties of. ) Masliu, E. W., official statistics of California 177 Massachusetts, yellows in 10,31 Massachusetts Agricultural College, analyses by Dr. C. A. Goessmanu at 184 Massachusetts Bay, records, etc., of 11 Matlack, Timothy, on peach trees iu Pennsylvania 20 Maxwell, Dr. W. S. • On early appearance of yellows iu Kent County, Md ' 73 Ou yellows iu Cecil County 70 On yellows in Harford County 77 Orchards of (see also Orchards) 96, 106 Weather record of 118 Yellows in orchards of 76, 96, 106 Mayuard, Professor, results of treatment by 125 McAllister, peach trees planted by 16 McAlisterville, Pa., yellows ;it 33 McBride farm 109 McCook, Dr. Henry C, 161 McCormick, W. H., on yellows and soil exhaustion 137 McDauiel, Joseph : Nitrogenous manures and yellows 142 Orchard of (s< e, also, Orchards) 106 Time leaves fell in orchard of 119 McDouough, Del. : Former profitable orchard near 59 232 INDEX. Page. McDonougli, Del. — Continued. Orchards once nuiueroas but now gone at CO Value of farms about 112, 113 Yellows ouce destructive at TjS McGraw, Dr. James, on yellows in Harford County, Md 77 Mechanical injuries, yellows not due to 158 Meehau, Thomas : Cites Dr. Wood on use of potash 124 On yellows in Mississippi S2 Melocoton. (aScc Peach, varieties of. ) Mercer County, N. J., peach disease in 27 Merchant, L. J. : Canvass of orchards made by 43, 46 Ou extent of fruit-growing in southwest Michigan 43 Merritt, A. C, yellows and soil exhaustion 137, 138 Michigan: Climate of 51 Conditions under which yellows appeared in 134 Early peach-growing in 39 First appearance of yellows in. 41 Frosts in 1 15 Hills of, peaches grown on 52 Localities free from yellows in 1873 44 Longevity of orchards in 39, 40, 114, 175 Mr. Lyon on early orchards in 41 Orchards formerly very thrifty in 41 Peach belt of 52 Peach regions of 52 Present extent of peach-growing in .53 Profitable orchards in Ill Reference to peach-growing in 107 Restriction of yellows in 173 Result of treatment for yellows in 127 Year yellows appeared in 41 Yellows in, references to 10, 41,r3, 130 . Yellows in, period of immunity from 42,53 Yellows law in 170 Yellows laws of 198,200,202 Yellows not now spreading in 174 Michigan Agricult'.iral College, aualj'ses raade at 183 Michigan City, yellows reported from 38 Michigan University, analyses made at 180 Micro-organisms, passage through trees 108 Middle Georgia : Peach-growing in 81 Yellows in 80,81,82 Middlesex County, N. J., yellows in "27 Middletown, Conn., table of frosts at 110 Middle town, Del. : Few orchards now set at 01 Few peaches now shipped from 01 Former great ami tliri fty orchards at 58, 59, GO Former value of orchards at 58 INDEX. 233 Page. MiddletovFD, Coun. — Continued. Orchards destroyed by yellows at 61 Peach shipments from 59, 60 Value of farms abont 1 12 Yellows now destructive at 58 Miles, Dr. Mauley 106 Milford, Del. : Soil aud timber north of 64 Yellows formerly not at 65,67 Yellows at 67 Yellows iu old trees at 157 Millgrove, Mich., esperimeuts at 143, 150 Miller, Charles, on yellows in southern New Jersey 27 Mills, Superintendent I. N. : Clayton temperature records from 118 Peach statistics from 108 Minch, Eli, yellows and soil exhaustion 1' 1^6 Product of a single 1*^'9 Very profitable - ^1 Peach trees: Ashes for 78,134,137 Die early in New Castle County, Del 57, 58, 02 Die early in New Jersey . .'. 24, 25, 26 Early degeneracy of 17, 18, 19 Formerly very thrifty in Delaware 19, 58, 60 Longevity of I 18, 20, 23, 26, 35, 41, 53, .58, 67, 75, 79, 106, 175 Naturalized iu Georgia 81 Number in Allegan County, Mich 51 Number in Cecil County, Md 69 Number in central Georgia 81 Number in Kent County, Del 63 Number in Kent County, Md 72 Number in New Castle County, Del 62 Number in Queen Anne County, Mil 72 Number iu Sussex County, Del 63 Number set per acre 46,53,55,63, 111, 129 Sickly shoots upon 19, 87 Soil suited for 21,30,35 "Peached" land, yellows on 129, 130, 133 Peach, varieties of: Alberges 1"^ Amsdeu's June 104,105 Beers' Smock 97,98.99,100,101,102,103,104,105,195,196 Bilyeu's October 85,98,104,195 Brandy wine 100 Chinese Cling (so called) 104 238 INDEX. Pago. Peach, varieties of— Coutinued. Cbristiaua 96, 99, 100, lOJ, 105, 192 Clingstones 13, 16 Crawford's Early. ..40,41, 49, 85, 97, 100, 101, lO:?, 105, 111, 131), 139, 150, 1^4, 1^7, 190 Crawford's Late t5, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, le6, 193 Early Alexander 104 Early Louise '. 85, 98 Early Rivers , 85,97,99,104 Foster 10:5 Fox's Se(dlinra, Peach tree) 17,21 INDEX. 239 Page. Peaches — Continued. lied spotted in yellows 86 Time when they are in blossom 16 When ripe 16, 85 Peaches iu the United States: Early great abundance of 12, 13, 14, lu, 16,28 Early price of. 16, 85 Formerly*not budded 13 When introduced into 11 Pearson, A. J., ou yellows iu Vineland, N. J 26 Peck, S. B., yellows formerly not at Muskegon, Mich 44 Pedder, James, ou the Rey bold orchards 55 Penhallow, Prof. D P.: Houghton farm e>;periments by 127 Microscopic examinations by 125 Ou discolored bark iu yellows 'J2 Ou restored trees 139 Ou yellows aud soil exhaustion 125, 126 Ou yellows in New Jersey 26 Ou yellows in southern New York 2'J Peuu, AVilliani, iiuds peach trees along the Delaware 12,13 Pennington, E. B., ou yellows at Port Peuu, Del 58 Pennsylvania : Early orchards iu 14, 15, 16 Refereuce to peach growing iu 107 Yellows iu - 10,22,32,33,53 Yellows said to be introduced from 57 Perrotet orchard planted close, but not subject to yellows 175 Perry County, 111., yellows in 82 Persia, peach in •. 114 " Persiau race " of peaches 114, 121 Peters, Judge Richard : Ou premature decay of peach trees 17 Ou yellows aud rain- fall 122 Peters, Randolph. ( See Charles Dowuiug.) Philadelphia: Earlj^ orchards near 14, 15 Peach trees short-lived at 17 Yellows first at 17,1^,19,83 Y''ellows first restricted to vicinity of 20, 21 Yellows in vicinity of 23 Philadelphia Society for Promoting Agriculture 17 Phosphoric acid analyses, Appendix A 1-;1 Phosphates : Deficient in yellows 124 Excess of, in yellows 125, 194, 195, 196 For yellows 128, 129, 130, 140 Phosphates aud phosphoric acid analyses, Appendix A 181 Physic, Littletou, potash for peach trees 124 Pittsburgh, Pa. : Reported free from yellows 33 Yellows near 33 Plough, Loom, aud Auvil: Ou destructive nature of yellows , 29 On early decay of New Jersey aud Delaware orchards 24 240 INDEX. Page. Plums : Not subject to yellows ...«, 9 On peach stock - lijti Plum stock, peaches on 2'2, l()6 Plymouth, Conn., yellows at 150 Poland, Ohio, analysis by B. Kirtlaud at 182 Polk, John P. R. , yellows and soil exhaustion 125, 128 Pollen, supposed .spread of yellows by #. . . . 168 Polycladia in yellows 87,90 Polyporus versicolor , 165 Pomona, Md. : Thrifty orchards near 77 Yellows near 76 Port Penn, Del., yellows at 58 Potash: Analyses, Appendix A 181 Deficient in yellows 124, 125 Excessive in yellows 194 For yellows 2:5,78,124,125,127,128,129,134,140 On supposed lack of, in yellows 126 Potassium oxide. (/See Potash.) Poughkeepsie, N. Y., yellows reported from 29 Premature fruit : Description of 85 First mention of 21 Inferiority of , 85 Kernel abortive in 90, 144, 145 Much inferior in yellows the second year 90 Sometimes caused by borers 94 Variability of ripening 85 Premature peaches : Distribution on tree 86 Exceptional color of 86 First symptom in yellows 8:1 Flavor of 8l) Great loss from 66 In Cecil County, Md 70 In Georgia 80, f-2 None or very few, iu Sussex, Del 68 Eare at Felton, Del., in 1887 67 References to 22,28, 30, 32, 33, :56, 61,75, l(il Premature pits: Dead embryos in. 144, 145, 146, 147, 14 S Diseased seedlings from 143, 144 Trees which grew from ; 144, 145, 147, 153 Prescott, Dr. A. H., analysis made under direction of 186 Price, Charles H. : Nitrogenous manures and yellows 142 Orchards of (see also Orchards) 76, 97 Yellows in orchard of 76,97 Price's Station, Md., yellows not at, in 18i7 75 Prince George County, Md., yellows iu 79 Prince, William : On first appearance of yellows in southern New York 28 On transmission of yellows by budding 149 INDEX. 241 Page. Prince, William — Con tinned. On yellows in 18:38 21 Reference to book by 42 Urges prompt removal of diseased trees 22 Yellows in peaches on plnm stock 167 Prince, W. R. : On destrnctive nature of yellows 24 On csterminatiou of yellows 29 Profits. {Sec Peach growing.) Prolepsis in yellows - 87, 90 Proud , Robert, reference to peach in history by 12,16 Pruning: As a means of disseuiinating yellows 155 Neglect of . . , 141 To remove j'ello ws 47, 168 Public sentiment necessary to secure enforcement of law 178 Puccinia pruni-spinos.'e 165 Pulaski County, 111., yellows in , 82 Pullen, Alex.: On early decay of peach trees in New Jersey 26 On longevity of Delaware orchards 26,65 Pulleu's Seedling. (See Peach, varieties of.) Quaker Neck, Md. : Orchards in 74 Yellows not now in .„ 74, 75 Queen Anne County, Md. : Distribution of yellows in 76, 77 Extent of peach growing in 72 Field studies in 74 Large orchards of 72 Old orchards in 73 Peach acreage of 72 Soil, topography, and timber of 70,71 Thrifty orchards in 77 Value of real estate in Ill Quiun, P. T. (See Charles Downing.) Race, Henry, incipient yellows 139 Raiu-fall on the Delaware and Chesapeake peninsula 122 Rainy seasons and yellows 18, 122 Ramsdell, .J. G. : On effect of Michigan yellows law 173 On spread of yellows at Sou th Haven 48 Raum, O., reference to peach in history by 12 Real estate : Depreciation in value due to yellows 112 Peach growing enhances value of 58 Red Lion, Del., orchards in 55 Red Rare-ripe. (See Peach, varieties of.) Reed, James L., pioneer orchard of 40 Reed, Jehu, sets a budded orchard in Kent County, Del., in 1829 62 Reed, Jehu M. : On immunity from yellows 65 Ou yellows in Kent County, Del 64 11245— No. 9 16 242 INDEX. Page. Reeves, Clement : Oil prcniiiture decay of trees at Delaware City 56 Ou yellows in tlie orchards of Isaac Reeves 56 Reeves, Isaac : First New Castle orchards planted by 54 Yellows in orchards of 56 Reeves's Favorite. (See Peach, varieties of.) Reid, Robert, on yellows and soil exhaustion 1:57^ 139 Reid, "William, on early decay of jieach trees in New Jersey 25 Remedies for yellows 2:5, 140 Removal of diseased trees : Results of trial in Maryland and Delaware 172 Results in Michigan 173 Replants not in special danger 135, ]36 Restored trees 139 Restriction of yellows 176 Reybold, Anthony, i)rice paid for the Cassiday farm 69 Reybold, Major Phillip, New Castle orchards of 54,55 Reybold, jr., Phillip, early lurije nursery of 55 Reybold, William: On nature of Delaware City disease 56 Yellows in orchards of 57 Rhode Island 32 Richland County, Ohio, yellows formerly reported from 33 Rich soil and yellows 141 Rickards, Joseph A., on yellows and use of fertilizers 129 Ridgely, Dr. Henry : Nitrogenous manures and yellows 142 On first appearance of yellows in Kent County, Del 64 On transmission of yellows by budding 150 Orchard of (see also orchards) 106 Profitable orchards of 109 Weather record of 118,123 Yellows in orchard of 64 Ridgeway, Jacob : First New Castle orchards on farm of 54 Great success of orchards of 55 Yellows on farm of 56 Rising Sun, Del., orchards and yellows at 105 Riverside Wharf, Md.: Yellows at 75, 76 Reference to peach growing at 72 Roadstown, N. J., yellows at 27 Robbins, George, introduces peaches into Talbot County, Md 20 Roberts, Findley, j'ellows in orchards of 77 Rochester, N. Y.: Success with peaches at 35 Yellows at 35,37 Rolph's Wharf, Md.: Ap])earance of j'ellows at 75 Increase of yellows at 77 Rosa, J. J. , yellows in very old trees ou farm of 157 Root aphides: Cause stunting and yellow foliage 84,94 "Dead spots" attributed to 162 INDEX. 243 Page. Root aphides— Continued. Description of .• 164 Destructive nature of 95 Habits of 1(31 Injuries duo to ". 1(50 In nurseries 94 Recovei'y of trees attacked by 163 References to 1U3, 160 Symptoms denoting presence of 94, IGl Trees injured by 72 74, 94 Where common 94 Young trees especially subject to 161 Root fungi 165,166 Root hairs, dead, in yellows 166 Root knot of peach 95 Root jiruning, effect of 103 Root rot in peach 95 Round Toji, Md. , former largo orchard at 12 Rupp, Henry L., on yellows in Cumberland County, Pa 33 Russel, Gurdou W., on yellows in Connecticut 31 Rutter, John : Lime for yellows 139 On yellows at West Chester, near Philadelphia 23 Yellows and rain-fall 122 Saint Clairsville, Ohio, yellows formerly reported from 33 Saint George, Del. , orchards in 55 Saint Joseph, Mich. : Committee find yellows at 44 Destruction of orchards at 44, 45 Early orchards near 39 Effect of yellows at 176 Former extensive orchards at 43 First budded fruit aet at 40 Peach shipments from 40 Present extent of orchards at 46 Yellows appears near 42, 45 Yellows becomes destructive at 44 Saint Mary's, Md., early peach orchards near 12 Salem County, N. J., yellows in 27 Salway, {See Peach, varietiea of.) Saratoga County, N. Y., yellows not common in 29 Sargent, H. W., on yellows in England 11 Sassafras Neck, Md., orchards in 69, 70, 128 Sassafras River, Maryland : Orchards near 69,71,72,96,97,99,100,106 Severity of yellows along 113 Value of peach farms along Ill Yellows very prevalent along 70, 73, 76 Saugatuck, Mich. : Appearance of yellows in 49,50, 174 Extent of injury at 51 Number of peach trees iii 50 On restriction of yellows in I75 Scharf, J. Thomas, on early orchards in Maryland 12 Scolytus 158 244 INDEX. Page. Scout, J,, yellows treated by 128 Seaford. Pel. : Borers prevalent at 159 Hard winter does not cause yellows at 121, 122 Peach-root apliis at , 1G3 Yellows not at 68 Secondary growths in yellows 8S Secondary- infectious 169 Seedling peaches, early orchards of 39, 53 Seedling trees with yellows 142 Sharp, Mr. , ou danger of importing yellows from New Jersey 25 Shipley's Late Red. (Sec Peach, varieties of.) Shipments of peaches 60,63, 108 Shallcross, Seerick : Former large orchards of 60 Former value of peach farms of 112 Shallcross, T. J. : Diseased jiits collected by 144, 145,148 Experiments with diseased pits 144 Trees Inoculated by 152, 153 Shallcross, William: On early appeal auce of yellows in Kent County, Md 73 Orchard of {see also Orchards) 100 Shefter, S. G., on yellows and soil exhaustion 136 Shoots : Black-hearted 92 Brittle in yellows , 92 Diseased above and healthy (?) belo-iv 89 Shrewsbury, N. J., former great orchards aud large peach crop at 25 Signal Service, rain charts of 123 Silica : Analyses, Appendix A 181 Supposed excess of, in yellows 125 Sinclair, Eobert: Ou nature of yellows 78 On transmission of yellows by budding 149 On yellows near Baltimore 78 Urges prompt removal of diseased trees 171 Sillman, jr., Benjamin, yellows in garden of 167 Smalley, I. M., on yellows in southern New Jersey 27 Smith, A. M. : On first appearance of yellows iu Ontario 37 On yellows in western New York 36 Smith, R. K. : Inoculated trees set by 152, 1.53 Plants diseased pits 145 Smith, "\Villiam G., ou yellows at Pittsburgh, Pa 33 Smith, William V. : Finds few premature peaches at Felton, Md • 67 On yellows iu Cecil County, Md ~0 Smith & Bio., diseased pits collected by 144, 145, 148 Smock. (See Peach, varieties of. ) Smyrna, Del. : Autumn frosts at 119 Large orchards at 58, 60, 62, 63, 66 INDEX. 245 Page. Sniyrua, Del. — Coutiuiied. Orchards aud yellows near „„„ 100 Yellows at (56 Yellows treated at 128 Soda analyses, Appendix A 181 Soil and season, peach disease ascribed to 44, 123 Soil exhaustion and yellows 124 Soil moisture and yellows 140 Soil : Character of, in Michigan 134, 139, 18G Of Delaware 54,55,59,64,131,132,1.33 Of Georgia 81 Of Maryland 71,188,190, 192,193 Yellows in trees on all kinds of 131 Somerset County, Md., no yellows in 76 Somerset County, N. J., reference to yellows in 27 South'Caroliua, irregular ripening of peaches in 79 Southern States: On yellows in 10, 82 Symptoms of yellows in 80,89 South Haven, Mich. : Committees find yellows at 44, 46 Distance from Benton Harbor 47 First appearance of yellows at 47 First orchards at 40 Gradual spread of yellows at 47, 48 Many orchards planted at 47 Present enforcement of yellows law at 175 Present extent of peach growing at 49 Restriction of yellows at 173, 175 Yellows and soil exhaustion at 136,137,138 Yellows at, period of immunity from 48 Yellows, statistics from 177 South Viueland, N- J., yellows at 27 South Windsor, Conn., yellows at 31 Spaniards' Neck, Md. : Doubtful cases in 159 Orchards in , 72,74 Profitable orchard in - 109 Value of peach farms in 112 Yellows appears in 75,77 Yellows formerly not present in . ^ 74, 75 Sphterotheca panuosa 1(35 Spring Lake, Mich., severe winters at 121 Stacy, Mahlon, finds peach trees in New Jersey in 1680 12, 13 Stamford, Ontario: Restriction of yellows in 176 Yellows at 37, 38 Starvation aud yellows 124-140 Starvation of peach, symptoms of 95 Stavely, W. F., on yellows in New Jersey 26 Stevens's Late Rare-ripe. (See Peach, varieties of.) Still I'ond, Md. : Autumn frosts at 118 Excessive rains at 123 246 INDEX. Page. Still Poud, Md.—Cou tinned. First yellows at , - 73 Orchards and yellows at 74, 76, 96, 98, 99, 106 Orchards on " peached land" at 133 Root aphis at 160, 164 Yellows iu old orchard at 156 Stocks, yellows communicated to healthy 1G4 Stoddard, Allen, pioneer peach-grower 40 Stokes, John, yellows and root aphides in orchard of 164 Stump the World. (See Peach, varieties of.) Stunted peach trees : Reference to 74, 75 Root aphides frequently a cause of 94, 161 Succession of varieties ^5 Sudlersville, Md. : Increase of yellows around , 77 Yellows at 75, 76 Sulphuric acid analyses, Appendix A Icil Summary of history and distribution 82, 83 Susquehanna. (5ce Peach, varieties of. ) Sussex Conutj', Del. : Commercial orchards in, when planted 62 Infertility of parts of 131 Large orchards in 62 Orchard products of 62, 63 Present peach acreage of 64 Severe winter in 121 Soil, tojiography, and timber of 64, 131, 132 Yellows likely to appear in 68 Yellows not now prevalent in 68, 131 Sylvester, Dr., on yellows in New Jersey 24 Table I (Maxwell) .' 96 Table II (Price) „ 97 Table III (Wilson) 98 Table IV (Wilson) 99 Table V (Harper) 100 Table VI (Hudson) 101 Table VII (Hudson) 102 Table VIII (Denuey ) 103 Table IX (Brothers) : 104 Table X (Green) 105 Taft, Prof. L. R. : Inoculated trees set by 153 Plants diseased pits 145, 146 Talbot County, Md. : Peaches iu .,... 20 Soil of 71 Tai)hrina deformans 165 Taylor, James F. : On first appearance of yellows at Douglas, Mich 49 On injuries done by yellows 51 On results of Michigan yellows law 175 Yellows and soil exhaustion 139 Taylor, John, on Mr. Gercker's peach farm 63 Taylor, Yardiey, on yellows iu Virginia 79 INDEX 24 t Page. Tennessee : Refcreuce to peacii growing in 107 Yellows reported from ' 0, 82 "Teuuessee" seed 148 Teruiiual shoots, diseased branching of 89 Terry, H., on yellows in Connecticut .* 'M Texas: Reference to peach growing in 107 Root rot refiorttd from 95 Yellows recently reported from 82 Yellows said not to be in 9 Thomas, David, on yellows in western New York 34 Thomas, J. J. : On early culture of peach in western New York 34 On easy culture of tlie peach in western New York 35 On inl'requency of yellows 35 On avoidance of yellows 35 On transmission of yellows by budding 150 Urges prompt removal of diseased trees 171 Thomas & Son, I. P., peach-tree fertilizer of 129 Thompson, James W. : On destructive nature of yellows 57 On early treatment of New Castle orchards 55 On peach acre ige in Now Castle County 55 On speedy decay of ])eaeh trees in New Castle County 57 Thompson, James W., and Eyre, Manuel, large orchard of 54 Thurber, George. {See Charles Downing.) Tighlmau, James, large orchard of 72 Tilton, Dr. James, on premature decay of peach trees 19, 20 Timber of Delaware 54,64,132 Timber of Maryland 71 Timber of the Michigan peach belt 134, 130 Tolchester, Md. : Thrifty orchards near 77 Yellows near 77 Tomicns 32 Tomliuson, D., reports yellows at Poughkeepsie, N. Y 29 Topography of Delaware 54, .55, 63, 04 Topography of Maryland 70 Town send, Del. : Former great orchards at 59 Present condition of orchards at 59 Value of farms about 112 Yellows de.structi ve at 58 Townsend, Samuel, orchards of 60,210 Transplanting and yellows 131 Troop, Prof. James : Inoculated trees set by 153 Plants diseased pits 145, 147 Troth's Early. (Sie Peach, varieties of.) Tyron, H. G., on yellows in Ohio 34 Turner, W. W., on yellows in Connecticut 30 Ulster County, N. Y., j-cllows in 29 Underground examinations 162 Union County, N, J., yellows in 27 248 INDEX. Page, " Uuioii Farm " Delaware, orchards on 54 Uuited States : Adaptability of peach to parts of 114 Areas of greatest peach productivity in 107 Quautitj^ of peaches grown- in 107 Kipeniug of peach in middle latitudes of 8f> Value of peach products 108 Valliant, E. S. , yellows appears in gardens of 75 Van Buren County, Mich. : Early peach growing in 39 Present peach acreage of 49 Profits of peach growing in Ill T. T. Lyon on appearance of yellows in 46 Yellows destructive in 48, 49 Varieties, yellows attacks all 142 Variegated Free. {Ste Peach, varieties of.) Viala, M. Pierre, yellows not in France 10 Vigorous trees, yellows in 132, 138 Villa Ridge, Ill.j yellows near H2 Viueland, N. J. : First peaches grown at 25 Peach trees formerly vigorous at 25 Yellows at 25 Vineyard, Ga. , yellows at 80 Virginia : De Vries finds peach trees in 11 Early orchards in 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 Longevity of peach in 114 Yellows iu 10, 79 Yellows rare or absent in 82 Virgin soil, yellows on 135, 136 Von Thiimeu, on effect of continued propagation by buds 143 Wade, J. P., on yellows and soil exhaustion 136 Ward's Late Free. (-See Peach, varieties of.) Warren, William G., on yellows in Pennsylvania 32 Warren County, N. J., yellows in 27 Washington, D. C. : Autumn frosts at 120 Yellows iu •• 79 Washington Couutj", Md., yellows in 79 Washtenaw County, Mich. : Cold winters in 121 Yellows not in 121 Water-courses, peach growing near 36, 72 Waterloo. (