THE MONTHLY BULLETIN. 343 



STANDARDIZATION OF DECIDUOUS FRUITS. 



By C. K. Tusker, County Horticultural Commissioner, Auburn, Cal. 



The object of this discussion is. I take it, to bring out the probable effects of the 

 new Standardization Ac( as compared with the act of 1915, and also the best methods 

 of enforcing the provisions of the law. While I have been asked to speak on this 

 subject as it affects deciduous fruits in particular, some of my remarks will 

 probably apply equally to other branches. 



One of the principal differences between Assembly Bill No. 212, which was 

 passed bj the legislature in I'.HT. and the act of 1915 lies in the fact that the 

 standard under the new act applies to fruits intended for sale within the state as 

 well as to interstate shipments; while under the old act the standard applied only 

 to interstate shipments. This change is undoubtedly a step in the right direction 

 since there can be no good reason why we should not protect consumers within our 

 Own borders as well as in other states. 



Now while, as just suggested, and as part of the title of the act implies, we are 

 trying t.> protect the consumer, still from a California viewpoint, the central idea 

 is to promote the welfare of our fruit growers. In other words, we are going to be 



honest and persuad if neighbors to be honest because it pays. The point I want 



to make, however, is that this change in the law will, if we are to make full use 

 of our orchard products, necessitate the establishment of by-product factories. Even 

 in thoroughly well-tended orchards there is always some cull fruit, unfit for direct 

 consumption, which could be made use of in such factories. The percentage of such 

 fruit is proportionately higher in orchards not so well cared for as those referred 

 to in well cared for orchards. That, of course, opens up a variety of questions as to 

 ways and means of establishing such factories; but I imagine this is not the time 

 or place to attempt these questions. 



Section 5 of the new law attempts to define the word "maturity." In the past 

 the shipment of immature fruit has been the cause of much of the low prices obtained 

 for California's deciduous fruits in the East. The reasons being sufficiently obvious 

 to any one who has eaten this kind of fruit expecting to enjoy it. Realizing this 

 condition the legislative committee (with which I had the honor of meeting in 

 Sacramento last winter) spent considerable time trying to arrive at a satisfactory, 

 practicable definition of maturity, finally compromising on the definition as it appears 

 in the act, namely: "the word maturity shall mean a degree of ripeness fit for ship- 

 ment." This leaves the inspectors in very much the same position as under the act 

 of 1915, since no one will claim that this definition affords much light on the subject. 

 It seemed impossible to find an acceptable definition that would be practicable and 

 could be applied alike to the many different varieties of fruit grown under varying 

 conditions. 



In a paper read before the association tit Napa last year I made several suggestions 

 for the improvement of the act of 1915 and some of these were adopted by the 

 legislative committee and are now incorporated in the law. Section 15 now takes 

 care of the inspection in counties where the board of supervisors fail to appoint 

 inspectors The act of I'.'ll". did not explicitly forbid shipping houses to ship or sell 

 fruit which failed t.i comply with the law ; section 19 of the new act takes care of this 

 point My suggestion regarding maturity was turned down by the legislative com- 

 mittee This was embodied in a proposed new clause as follows: "All deciduous 

 fruits of the kinds specified in this act, when packed, shall have some of the color of 

 maturity" This met with considerable favor among the growers and shippers in 

 Placer County, but. as stated, it was rejected by the committee as being too drastic 

 and unworkable. Some members raised the question as to how we could handle 



„■<; nnder such a clause. This at first glance appears to be a considerable obstacle, 



but I contend that while peats can not be said to change color, strictly speaking, at 

 the stage in their development whet they will, if picked, ripen into juicy, full- 

 flavored fniit. there is a change in the appearance of the fruit, nol easily defined, 

 oerhtps bet described as a brightening effect from the dull, dead green of absolutely 

 immature fruit. Now as to the dill,,, illy of carrying out such a clause. Have you 

 noticed that the law itself is full of the word "practically"? ('an anyone tell me m 



exact terms what the word ...cans as applied to freedom fi insects and tungous 



, liseti.es. or uniformity in size, quality, etc.? I do not believe the law could be 

 enforced at all except by men of practical experience in the fruit they are called upon 

 to inspect Such men can be trusted to enforce the law in a practical manner, and 

 WOUld not for instance, demand that pears be yellow when shipped nor would they 

 ask that any other fruit have the color of complete ripeness. I can imagine myself 



