UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
BULLETIN No. 993 
™f£r' Contribution from the Bureau of Chemistry ^^SwVAK^ 
^fr m <&JU W. G- CAMPBELL, Acting Chief JjV^^WL 
Washington, D. C. 
October 15, 1921 
THE COMPOSITION OF CALIFORNIA LEMONS. 
By E. M. Chace, Chemist in charge, and C. P. Wilson and C. G. Church, Assistant 
Chemists, Laboratory of Fruit and Vegetable Chemistry. 1 
CONTENTS. 
Page. 
The California lemon industry 1 
Purpose of investigation 2 
Investigational work - - - 2 
Method of sampling 2 
Methods of analysis 3 
Results of investigation 3 
Discussion of results 
Differences in varieties 
Seasonal differences 
Color and thickness of peel. 
Effect of location 
Conclusions 
Bibliography 
Page. 
12 
12 
14 
17 
17 
18 
18 
THE CALIFORNIA LEMON INDUSTRY. 
Beginning in 1887 with the shipment of 12 cars of fruit, the Cali- 
fornia lemon industry has increased a thousandfold, the 1919-20 
shipment being approximately 12,000 cars. The California growers 
have generally settled upon the Eureka and Lisbon varieties as the 
most satisfactory in that State, and, although there are scattered or- 
chards of other varieties, the new plantings are confined to these two. 
According to A. D. Shamel (l), 2 the Eureka variety originated in 
1858 in Los Angeles, through the planting of seeds obtained from 
Sicilian lemons. These seedlings bore about 12 years later, at which 
time several were selected as worthy of propagation. Buds from 
these trees are responsible for the present Eureka variety of lemon. 
The Lisbon variety was imported directly from Australia in 1874 (2). 
While some plantings now in existence can be traced to the original 
shipment, later importations are also responsible for the Lisbon, the 
most widely planted variety in California to-day. The Villa Franca 
lemon has been planted to some extent, but has generally been 
abandoned in favor of the Eureka and Lisbon varieties. 
1 The writers are greatly indebted to F. E. Denny for help with the calculations and for criticism of the 
manuscript, as well as to C O. Young and R. H. Keliner for collaboration in the analytical work. 
2 Figures in parenthesis refer to Bibliography at end of bulletin. 
56403°— 21— Bull. 993 1 
