LOSSES DUE TO CROWN-GALL. 187 



then peach trees were planted. In that portion where the apple 

 trees had been diseased most of the peach trees became affected with 

 galls, and were worthless. 



Quite opposite views are expressed in the following citations, the 

 first one of wliich is from Mr. F. C. Stewart, of the experiment station 

 at Geneva, N. Y. (Proc. 53d Ann. Meeting, West. N. Y. Hort. Soc, 

 Rochester, Jan. 22 and 23, 1908, p. 98): 



In this connection it should be mentioned that the crown-gall of apple, although 

 resembling crown-gall of peach and raspberry, is an entirely different thing. « There 

 is abundant proof that the apple crown-gall is not communicable from one tree to 

 another. Moreover, in New York, at least, apple crown-gall is an unimportant disease. 

 Although common in our nurseries, it is rarely found in orchards. In 1899 C. H. 

 Stuart & Co.,& Newark, N. Y., set out an experimental orchard of 500 trees, mostly 

 Baldwins, all affected with crown-gall. The trees have now been set nine years. 

 Under date of January 20, 1908, Mr. Stuart writes as follows: "These trees to-day 

 show as good a growth as the trees planted the same time and free from crown-gall. 

 The bark is smooth, healthy in appearance, and the trees look thrifty and vigorous." 

 An experiment made by the station bears on this point. In 1901 we planted 22 apple 

 trees affected with crown-gall to determine the effect of this disease upon the growth 

 of the trees. The trees were 3 years old. The galls varied in size from 1 to 2 inches 

 in diameter and were located mostly on the taproot, but in a few cases on lateral 

 roots. Some of the trees had several galls each. We believe the galls were typical 

 of those commonly found on apple trees in New York nurseries. Five of the trees 

 were dug in 1903, 5 in 1905, and the remainder in 1907. In no instance was there any 

 evidence that the galls had increased in size or number, or that they had been in any 

 way injurious to the trees. c Probably apple trees bearing large galls should be rejected, 

 but unaffected trees from the same lot may be planted without fear of bad results. 



Mr. Barden also writes as follows to Mr. George G. Atwood, chief 

 bureau of horticulture, Albany, N. Y., concerning this same orchard: 



Referring to yours about crown-gall on nursery trees that have been planted in 

 orchard for several years, I would say that the Stuart orchard on the Bailey farm 3 

 miles north of Newark is the only one that I have had any knowledge of. In company 

 with Mr. Stuart I drove to this farm last fall [1909] and carefully studied the different 

 trees, every one of the 400 d having been planted with a large crown-gall on it. These 

 trees have now been planted eight years, and, with the exception of a few that were 

 girdled by mice several years ago, are in a vigorous and healthy condition. 



The growth has been even, no stunted trees, and it would certainly he hard for an 

 orchardist to condemn a tree on account of crown-gall after seeing this orchard. 



Doctor Hedgcock also regards crowTi-gall as of small consequence 

 to the apple, especially if the root-grafts are well made. His field 

 experiments on the apple have been extensive (mostly in the Missis- 

 sippi Valley), and cover a period of five years. Mr. Giissow has 

 expressed similar views. 



o See note under raspberry. 



b Nurserymen. 



c The location of a gall perhaps may determine its Injuriousness, i. e., whether on crown or root. Butz's 

 trees bore galls on the crown. So far as known, no comparative orchard tests have been made. 



d Five hundred in Mr. Stewart's statement. Were 100 lost durmg these years? And if so, how many by 

 erown-gall? No checks appear to have been held for comparison. 

 213 



