226 PEAR GROWING IN CALIFORNIA. 



illustration of this fact a very significant letter came from C. S. Cran- 

 dall, professor of pomology in the University of Illinois, which we 

 quote from as follows : 



"From 1900 to 1905 there was a craze, in the southern part of 

 the state, for planting orchards of Kietfer pears under the belief 

 that this variety was immune to blight and under the stimulus of 

 good crops produced in some orchards planted ten or twelve years 

 previously. But these orchards have gradually succumbed to blight 

 and it is my belief that the number of existing trees is very much 

 less than the number indicated in the census returns for 1910. 



"For the last ten years our Horticultural Society Reports men- 

 tion the pear only in connection with efforts to control blight and 

 during this period there has been little, if any, planting for orchard 

 purposes. Doubtless a few trees are planted every year in home 

 gardens, but, in general, there is no interest in this fruit. There 

 are, here and there, old trees that are still free from blight and 

 bearing crops and it is possible that there are a few isolated small 

 orchards still in productive condition, but as an orchard crop the 

 pear is not now receiving any attention from fruit men." 



No less striking cases of decrease in the acreage of pears in other 

 states than that given in Professor Crandall's letter are cit-ed in letters 

 from Professor L. R. Taft, State Inspector of Nurseries and Orchards, 

 East Lansing, jMichigan; and Professor Wendell Paddock, horticul- 

 turist of the Ohio State University, Columbus. We quote from Pro- 

 fessor Taft's letter as follows: 



"The general crop report of the Secretary of State gives the 

 number of trees in bearing as 909,200. During the last eight years 

 a large number of trees have been taken out owing to the injury 

 from pear blight or because they have not been found profitable. 

 On the other hand comparatively few trees have been planted." 



The census of 1910 showed the number of bearing trees in ^Michigan to 

 be 1,136,151. 



Professor Paddock states in his letter that "blight has been very 

 severe in the state of Ohio for the past three years, with the result that 

 a great many pear trees were killed and many others have been 

 destroyed by the owners, so our number of pear trees has been very 

 much depleted." * * * "I doubt very much M-hether there are 

 100,000 able-bodied pear trees of all descriptions in this state." The 

 census report of 1910 shows that at that time there were 899,019 bearing 

 pear trees in the state of Ohio. 



The only states of the Union where the pear industry is on the 

 increase rather than the decrease are California, Oregon^nd Wash- 

 ington. New York, which leads in acreage, with 2,141,596 bearing 

 trees, has apparently held its own since the census of 1910, according 

 to the best available figures. California has increased since that time 

 from 1,410,996 bearing trees to 1,894,300 and ranks next to New York 

 in the number of acres of pear orchards. While accurate figures could 

 not be secured on bearing acreage in Oregon, it is probable that she 

 ranks third, Michigan having practically the same acreage. 



