Arsenical Poisoning of Fruit Trees. 
43 
an instance in which both the lime and arsenic are present and it is 
difficult to judge whether the arsenic, independent of the lime, is the 
cause of the bad condition of the tree. 
The next case is that of a Spitzenberg. The tree was small for its 
age, crown was good, bark very yellow, foliage during the preced¬ 
ing season small, scanty and of a bad color throughout the season 
and ripened too early. This tree was dug up in the spring of i 9°9 
because of its bad condition. The wood from the center of the tree 
outward for nearly an inch was brown but not deeply coloired as the 
Johathan just described. This tree showed no bleeding. A limb of 
this tree was taken for examination and the woody tissue showed as 
strong a mirror as some of the trees which had corroded crowns. 
The mirror was weighed and corresponded to 2.19 parts arsenic 
acid per million of wood. 
The soil sampled to the depth of one foot at the point where the 
tree had been pulled up showed the presence of 138 parts of arsenic 
acid per million of soil. This soil also showed that there was 
1.345 parts of arsenic acid per million of soil soluble in cold water. 
In investigating further it has been shown that the leaves of ap¬ 
ple trees which had, during previous years, been regularly sprayed 
from two to four times, but had not been sprayed this year, contained 
arsenic equivalent to 2.628 parts of arsenic acid per million parts of the 
dried leaves. 
I have examined a number of samples of apples and pears from 
Colorado and other states, namely, from California, Michigan, New 
York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois, and found them all to con¬ 
tain arsenic. Some of these samples were bought in market, 
but for others I am indebted to the officers of the respective Ex¬ 
periment Stations and it is a pleasure to acknowledge my obligations 
to them. I may state in this connection that the above fact is not the 
only one indicating that other states where spraying has been dil¬ 
igently practiced are suffering as we are but not to the same extent. 
I have stated above that" the fruit of seven states, as found up¬ 
on the market or furnished me bv their Experiment Stations, contain 
arsenic. I have weighed and calculated the arsenic as arsenic acid in 
a few cases, and the results are per million parts of fresh apples as 
follows: 0.51, 0.68. 2.30, 0.52, of pears 0.52. The total number of 
samples of fruit examined is twelve. The.se were either known to 
have been grown on sprayed trees or supposed to have been. It is 
possible that the sample showing 2.3 parts per million ought to be 
left out of consideration but I know of no reason why it should be 
except that it is very much higher than the other results. These 
samples were washed and pared and the calyx cup and ovary cut 
out; no greater care than this could be exercised to avoid getting any 
spray material into the sample. I further met this possible error 
by obtaining fruit from trees not sprayed this year and I found 
that this, too, contained arsenic. 
As the ability of the tree to take up arsenic from the soil is 
an important factor in systemic poisoning, I have endeavored to 
