No. 6. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 539 



The President responded briefly, thanking the Adams County 

 Fruit Growers' Association for their cordial welcome as well as 

 their hearty aid and co-operation in awakening an interest in the 

 work of the State organization. 



As Chairman of Committee on Legislation, Mr. Hiester reported 

 that an interview was held with the Governor on the question of 

 creating a Division of Horticulture and Pomology in the Depart- 

 ment of Agriculture, and that his excellency seemed to favor the en- 

 actment of such a law. In a subsequent interview his attitude on 

 the subject seemed to have changed, and no further effort in that 

 direction was made. 



In the absence of Chairman Watts, the following report was read 

 by Mr. 'McMillan : 



KEPORT OF THE GENERAL FRUIT COMMITTEE. 



As Chairman of the General Fruit Committee, we want to thank 

 all who have assisted in the furnishing of data for this report. Many 

 who have contributed full notes are not members of the Horticul- 

 tural Association, and we wish to express our special appreciation to 

 these whose services have been of great value. 



THE 1905 APPLE CROP. 



The apple crop the past season was a signal failure in about nine- 

 tenths of the counties. Adams, Dauphin, Lancaster, Franklin, 

 Bucks and York are the only counties reporting satisfactory crops, 

 and all of the correspondents in these counties do not report full 

 yields. From 75 to 100 per cent, yields are generally reported from 

 the foregoing named counties, although several growers report much 

 smaller crops. No entirely favorable report is made by any one in 

 the other counties of the State. 



Wherever the yield was good there was very little complaint re- 

 garding quality. Summer and fall varieties seem to have been less 

 generally a failure than winter sorts. 



A great diversity of reasons are given for the failure of the 1905 

 apple crop. The destruction of blossoms by late frosts is the most 

 frequently mentioned cause of failure. The light crop was attri 

 bated by many to over-bearing last year, 1905 being the "off year." 

 Neglect and poor care are mentioned frequently and the San Jose" 

 Scale gets its full share of the blame. Unfavorable climatic condi- 

 tions at various periods, too much rain for successful spraying, the 

 lack of blossoms and prevalence of canker worms for the past two 

 or three years, are also subjects of complaint. 



In reply to the question: "Is the crop profitable in your county?" 

 four-fifths of the correspondents give an affirmative answer, and 

 those who answer negatively generally attribute the lack of finan- 

 cial success to the poor care of orchards, 



