export market is an uncertain factor. Thus we have an apple crop to bj sold in 

 this country v/hich compares favorably with the heavy crops of 1935 and 1937. 

 In both of those years altogether too many apples were throvm on the domestic 

 market and as most grovi/^rs remember, pricos were disappointing. 



There is rt;ason to believe that apple grov^ors in the United States 

 would gut as much for 75,000,000 of the bost appl&s as they would if tn^ ontiro 

 crop is offered for sale on tho frush fruit nkirkdt . In othar Vifords, if evory 

 grovjur could be induced to discard about one-fifth of his tot^ti crop (lov;jr 

 gryidos in each case) thui domestic markut would be stabilized aiid the remainder 

 of thu crop should sell at fair prices. But such a miracle is not likely to 

 occur. 



There is a general feeling in the apple industry that the grov^ers them- 

 selves should take definite steps to improve the market situation resulting 

 from excessively large national crops. This year for the first time v/e have 

 not only a large apple crop to be disposcid of but also a large citrus crop. 

 This combination, according to the economist, is unique. We have had plenty 

 of apples and of oranges in previous years but not such a bumper crop of both 

 to be marketed at the same time and to the same individuals. This brings to 

 the attention of the grower the urgent need for finding other outlets. Among 

 the possible non-fresh fruit outlets are feuding to stock, canning, drying, 

 juices of various kinds, dumping and not harvesting. If the apple industry 

 is to do its pa.rt in reducing the national surplus, each individual grower 

 should do his part in diverting lower grades of fruit wherever possible. 



The F.S.CC. program is based upon grower cooperation in that every 

 bushel of apples sold to the corporation will have to be matched by a bushel 

 of a^ipa-cs diverted into one of the non-fresh fruit channels. Thus, if the 

 F.S.CC buys 10,000,000 bushels and the growers divert 10,000,000 oushels more, 

 it will mean a reduction of about one-fifth in the amount of fruit on the do- 

 mestic market. This interesting experiment in industry cooperation marks a 

 real advance in the direction of better marketing and a stabilization of the 

 national crop. Growers in eastern and central U. S- are largely responsible 

 for the fluctuation in the nationd apple crop since our yields vary by as 

 much as 100/ from year to year while the yield in thu Northwest varies by not 

 more than 10/i. Marginal orchards which producj a crop only v;hen weather con- 

 ditions >_ru fuvorable contribute largely to the crop surplus. Apple growers 

 throughout the country should give serious thought to the national inspects of 

 the problem. It is not enough for the F.S.CC to s^-lv^ge a few million bushels 

 of surplus apples. Growers ci-.n cooperi-tte vt;ry effectively to help themselves. 



Feeding Apples to Livestock 



In the September issue of Virginia Fruit there appeared two articles 

 written by farmers on this subject of using cull apples as stock feed. This 

 word of caution is in orders In beginning the feeding of fresh apples to live- 

 stock, particularly milk cows, start very gradually. Stock will eat apples very 

 readily, but don't begin by feeding them all they will eat. S. R. Hurst of 

 Winchester, Virginia, relates his experience as follovifSi "V/e have experimented 

 with the feeding of fresh apples in several ways. V/e started with young hogs 

 by giving thorn a small quantity of apples at each feeding, gradually increasing 

 the quantity of apples and decreasing the ground feed until thoy were fed apples 

 entirely with pleniy of fresh water available at all times. They remained 

 thrifty and grew rapidly. We h-j.ve also fed apples to dairy cQws and horses. 



