SB V. IITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BULtETIN No. 806 Joint Contribation from the Bureau of Plant Industry. WM. A. TAYLOR, Chief and the Bureau of Crop Estimates. L. M. ESTABROOK. Chief Washington, D. C. December 8, 1919 PEACHES: PRODUCTION ESTIMATES AND IMPORTANT COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS AND VARIETIES By H. P. GOULD, Bureau of Plant Industry, and FRANK ANDREWS, Bureau of Crop Estimates CONTENTS Page Relative Importance and Ebctent of the Peach Industry 1 Estimated Production of Peaches 2 Outstanding Features of the Peach Industry * 9 Important Commercial Districts and Varieties, by States .... 10 New England States 10 M:ddle Atlantic States 12 East North-Central States . • 14 West North-Central States W South Atlantic States 18 East South-Central States 24 < West South-Central States 26 Mountain States ' 28 Pacific States 31 Index of States S5 WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1919 .^ Glass(SJ^ 07/ Book>6r(^v3 s^'"!^ ^ a^ AS UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BULLETIN No. Joint Contribution from the Bureau of Plant In- dustry, WM. A. TAYLOR, Chief, and the Bureau of Crop Estimates, L. M. ESTABROOK, Chief jTW^'^W't. Washington, D. C. December 8, 1919 PEACHES: PRODUCTION ESTIMATES AND IM- /^^ PORTANT COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS AND VARIETIES. By H. P. Gould, Biirea^i- of Plant Industry, and Frank Andrews, Bureau of Crop Estimates. CONTENTS. Page. Relative importance and extent of the peach industry 1 Estimated production of peaches 2 Outstanding features ' of the peach industry 9 Important commercial districts and varieties, ]>y States 10 New England States 10 Middle Atlantic States 12 East North-Central States 14 Page. Important commercial districts and varieties, by States — Continued. ■West North-Central States 16 South Atlantic States 18 East South-Central States 24 West South-Central States 26 Mountain States 28 Pacflc States 31 Index of States 33 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE AND EXTENT OF THE PEACH INDUSTRY. The peach, though far below the apple/ which greatly exceeds any other fruit in both acreage and crop value, is second with respect to these two standards of comparison. This is shown clearly in figure 1, which is based on the Thirteenth Census. While the last decade has witnessed some changes, it is doubtful whether those changes have affected materially the relative positions of the more important fruits. Nectarines are grouped with peaches in figure 1, but the total production of nectarines is so small as to be a negligible factor. The geographical distribution of peach trees is shown in figures 2 and 3, both of which are based on the Thirteenth Census. The census 1 See Gould, H. P., and Andrews, Frank, " Apples : Production Estimates and Important Commercial Districts and Varieties," Bui. 485, Dept. of Agr. 48 pp., 16 figs. 1917. This bulletin is obtained only from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, at a cost of 10 cents. 139075°— Bull. 806—19 1 2 <«■ BULLETIN 806, IT. S. DEPAETMEISTT OF AGRICULTimE. data, which show the distribution on a tree basis, are reduced in tliese maps to an acre basis for conA^enience of expression. As in figure 1, nectarines, which are grouped with peaches, are of such small impor- tance as to be without substantial effect on the peach data. ESTIMATED PRODUCTION OF PEACHES. The estimates of the annual production of peaches for the years 1900 to 1919, inclusive, api)ear in Table I. The estimates for the years 1900 to 1908 are based on the census re- port for the crop of 1899, while for the years 1910 to 1919, inclusive, they are based on the census figures for the crop of 1909. The variation in the size of the peach crop from year to year is shown in figure 4. ^'\'liile all census data as well as estimates based MILLIONS OF ACRES FRUIT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ,, 3 ; 1 10 20 30 ".0 SO 60 70 60 J Lnr 1 1 n^ 1 ^^ APPLES PEACHES & NECTARINES 1^ Bm ■d— ,. B ■ ^ ^^ nJ = ^^ H GRAPES 1 ■ ■ STRAWBERRIES ORANGES •em ^ PLUMS & PRUNES ■■at H PEARS Hi d CHERRIES IH RASPBERRIES & LOGANBERRIES ■ 1 BLACKBERRIES & DEWBERRIES ■ LEMONS I APRICOTS 1 POMELOS CRANBERRIES B 1 Fig, 1. — Diagram showing the relative importance, acreage, and crop values of the principal fruits of the United States for the year 1909, based on the report of the Thirteenth Census. (From the Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture for 1915.) on those data are expressed in terms of the total crop, including both home consumption and the commercial crop, the annual variation in- dicated suggests also the fluctuating character of that portion of the crop which enters "into commerce. Climatic conditions doubtless are the most potent causes of large annual variation in the size of the crop. Most important of these are adverse winter temperatures and the occurrence of spring fi-osts during the blossoming period. In addition, warm periods during the winter often cause the fruit buds to start enough to become tender. In this condition they are likely to be killed later, even by tempera- tures that are not unseasonable. On the other hand, the effect of a frost during the blossoming period is not always in proportion to its severity, but depends to some extent upon the strength and vigor of the blossoms themselves. peaches: peoductiox estimates, etc. S Fig. 2. — May of tlie United States, sliowiu^ tbe distribution and approximate acreage of peach trees of bearing age, based on tii& Tbirteentli Census. Eacb dot roproseuts 500 aci^es. The solid Wack areas indicate relatively great densitj' of planting. (From the Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture for 1915.) Fig. 3. — Map of the United States, showing the dbstributlou and approximate acreage of peach trees of nonbearing age, based on the Thirteenth Census. Each dot represents 500 acres. (From the Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture for 1915.) BULLETIIT 806, U. S. DEPAETMEI7T OF AGKICULTURE. Table I. — Estimated production of peaches in, the United States for the 21-i/ear period, 1S90 to 1919, inclusive. • [Data in thousands of bushels (000 omitted). The figures for the years 1809 and 1909 are Census estimates. The figures for other years are interpretations of tlie percentage estimates by the Bureau of Crop l^sti- mates, the Census figures being used as a basis.] Group and State. 1809 (Cen- sus). 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1900 1907 1008 North Atlantic States: 2 C 1 28 6 62 487 621 143 2 30 1 140 8 140 1,500 1,900 1,400 2 8 1 100 13 280 850 1,200 1,700 2 50 1 150 14 230 550 1,300 1,350 2 20 1 35 2 50 670 350 900 2 40 1 70 5 110 675 700 700 2 35 1 120 12 240 1,650 1, 000 1, 500 2 30 1 90 13 200 920 1,000 1,000 2 20 1 25 5 60 400 4,50 eOO 2 45 1 Massachusetts 100 12 220 1,470 800 1,500 Total 1,336 5, 121 4,154 3,647 2,030 2, 303 4,560 3,2.^6 l,.5.->3 4,150 South Atlantic States: 10 172 357 IS 374 129 260 92 250 1,900 1,900 700 1,550 800 5,000 190 170 1,300 1,.350 800 1,]50 650 3,310 160 185 1,140 850 250 1,050 600 3,370 190 45 600 800 180 1,100 750 2,100 110 135 950 850 700 1,350 700 5,000 180 15 600 950 330 1,200 650 3,025 IJO 100 850 800 500 1,100 700 3,720 150 35 250 300 150 550 170 1,125 80 100 750 900 West Virginia 650 1,409 South Carolina 1,100 5,020 160 Total 1,412 il2,2':0 8,920 7, 635 5,685 9,865 6,910 7,920 2,660 10,080 North-Central States east of the IMississippi River: Ohio 241 69 67 340 1.900 '900 1,600 2,200 3,800 1,600 2, 100 2,250 1,100 ISO 300 2,200 1,050 400 450 1,500 1,900 630 700 1,000 2,000 1,000 750 2,450 1,100 820 2,150 1,400 680 450 770 700 2,050 1,190 Illinois 1,750 1,800 Total 717 6, GOO 9,750 3,780 3,400 4,230 6, 200 5, 470 2,600 6,790 North-Central States vrest of the Jlississippi River: 5 61 IGO 2,250 180 2,700 50 1, 200 180 850 70 2,500 30 650 300 4,000 100 500 170 2,200 North Dakota Nebraska 9 138 80 650 120 700 60 350 30 250 200 650 30 180 180 950 170 SO 150 650 Total 213 3,170 3,700 1,060 1,310 3,420 890 5, 430 800 3,170 South-Central States: 35 78 185 252 154 1,400 305 334 2,100 1,900 2,300 2,300 520 2,900 780 1,600 2,500 1,800 1,850 1,700 410 1,5C0 710 1, .550 500 1,100 1,850 1,650 450 2,200 1,000 2, 200 6.50 900 1,250 1, 150 300 1,600 700 500 1,700 1,450 2,600 2,100 560 1,850 500 2,500 1,570 670 870 900 4S0 2,600 740 2,200 1,700 2,400 2,100 1, 500 450 1,900 1,200 2,300 550 450 650 600 250 1,700 800 2,400 1,670 1,700 2,150 1,650 510 Texas 2,300 Oklahoma 830 Arkansas 2,700 Total 2,743 14,400 12, 080 10,9.50 7,050 13, 260 10, 0."0 13,550 7, 400 13,510 Far Western States: 47 76 38 35 3 18 81 101 8,563 ISO 130 36 230 1 100 190 240 6,750 250 80 39 220 6 30 200 180 6,8:36 390 130 44 190 5 60 170 240 8,930 350 90 50 220 5 60 210 240 8,150 580 80 23 250 4 90 250 290 6,425 150 100 46 160 3 40 190 220 7,135 800 120 32 260 6 60 200 190 6,810 40 10 30 90 4 50 240 250 6,900 360 100 Arizona Utah 48 190 Nevada 2 80 270 250 Calilomia 9,146 Total 9,012 7,857 7,841 10, 159 9,375 7,992 8,044 8,478 7,614 10, 446 United States (grand total) 15, 433 49,438 46,445 37,831 28,850 41,070 36,634 44, 104 22, 527 48,146 peaches: PRODUCTION' ESTIMATES, ETC. 5 Table I. — Esthiiatcd production of peaches in the United States for the 21-year period, 1899 to 1919, inclusive — Continued. Group and State. 1909 (Cen- sus). 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 lOlS 1919 North Atlantic States: 2 23 2 92 18 270 1,736 441 1,024 New Ilampslure. . . 56 44 3 58 24 46 43 Massachusetts Rhode Island 68 18 291 1,762 810 1,533 97 22 249 1,536 410 1,096 51 16 128 1,400 638 660 105 29 263 1,742 483 922 31 14 142 530 1,140 1,541 152 29 335 2,106 1,275 2,044 66 14 134 1,238 689 1,069 144 136 Connecticut 300 4,823 9<.'0 1,848 """766' 832 720 186 1,648 New Jersey Pennsylvania 818 1,046 Total 3,608 4,538 3,440 2,893 3,588 3,401 5,999 3, 234 8,241 2,252 3,877 South Allautie States: 17 325 243 329 1,344 643 2,555 115 810 1,080 1,075 598 1,955 1,204 5,395 178 249 492 318 230 437 649 2, 1-J5 126 521 672 1,0.58 7SS 2,093 1,020 6,175 190 312 fiOS 842 1,218 1,358 1,104 1,955 864 5,330 177 346 600 6C0 520 807 515 3,510 119 324 i,a3s 928 900 1,978 1,0.30 3,668 136 235 510 6S0 1, 150 908 6,092 277 Maryland 480 312 132 598 405 1,950 112 1,032 911 886 1,863 1,166 5, 785 188 731 92S West Virginia North Carolina South Carolina 928 713 466 .5,895 Florida Total 5,571 12, 295 4,646 12,517 4,301 12,4.39 12,938 7,197 9,866 9,801 ^,938 North-Central States c:ist of the Missis- sippi River: Ohio 1,036 1,174 1,223 1,687 1 1,2.39 703 140 1,215 1,7.35 1,147 2,310 2,228 1,055 185 82 700 931 1,276 1,998 1,539 1,653 1,128 1,755 1,247 2,448 648 874 2, 300 1,350 888 780 2,010 341 518 401 744 174 "85' 723 Indiana.. 150 7C0 480 Wisconsin Total 5,121 3,297 7,420 2,022 6,744 5,783 6,330 5,028 2, 064 239 2 148 North-Central States west of the Missis- sippi River: 1 23 1,485 Iowa 16 1,440 240 2,700 24 900 632 4,320 472 3,780 112 3,300 64 1,050 3 728 828 North Dakota South Dakota N ebraska. 110 25 150 2,432 36 851 240 2,016 210 875 192 1,760 120 2,442 30 150 Kansas 80 Total 1,544 4,038 3,827 3,180 6,037 6,204 5,974 1,294 728 911 South-Central States: Kentucky 1,623 1,579 1,417 1,157 291 730 358 1,902 770 1,440 1,980 1,340 488 3,400 1,460 2,000 770 S60 840 460 190 1,204 656 2,346 1,210 2,P20 2,700 1,800 693 4,140 2,121 4, 524 1,430 1, 140 1,140 1,020 460 2,107 860 3,120 1,9S0 2,640 2,310 1,440 356 1,196 '220 3,180 1,320 2,460 2,640 1,510 456 4, 081 2,408 6,940 880 900 1,110 400 5S7 2, S()0 2.;o 759 1,100 595 1,281 110 2, 440 726 Tennessee.. 978 Alabama 1 678 MississippL Texas 1,728 798 1,824 2,333 167 217 2 760 Oklahoma 1,007 Arkansn.'? 3,039 Total 9,057 12,878 6,826 20, 068 11,277 13,322 20, 845 7,717 7, .326 6,100 10, 788 Far Western States: Colorado 692 32 50 143 3 19 84 179 9,267 346 50 42 195 2 60 348 317 9,765 363 86 51 208 10 81 320 190 7,412 1,035 84 54 323 10 112 445 292 9,308 360 52 57 284 8 92 446 311 7,150 1,025 106 60 380 9 120 486 387 10,387 650 154 60 212 7 162 666 432 9,768 405 40 56 84 1 25 415 276 11,733 1,096 124 959 34 902 New Mexico 122 Utah 1,365 1,050 1,600 Idaho 211 1,747 273 15, 72^1 51 575 93 12, 959 222 Washington Oregon 1,899 514 17,625 Total 10,469 11,125 8,721 11,663 8,760 12,900 12,011 13,035 20, 540 15,721 22,784 United States (grand total) . . 35,470 48, 171 34, 880 52,343 .39,707 ,54, 109 64,097 37, .505 48,765 34,133 50,446 BULLETIN 806, U. S. DEPARTMEXT OF AGEICULT.UKE. There is rarely a season in "which the crop is not materially re- duced in some of the important peach-producing regions by the oc- currence of adverse conditions of some kind, the effect upon the total crop of the country depending obviously upon the importance of the regions affected and the severity of the conditions. On the other hand, occasional seasons occur when conditions are favorable in all or nearly all of the important commercial districts, and the result is an extremely large crop, as in 1915, and correspondingly low prices for much of the fruit. The principal regions from which peaches were shipped in the fresh state in 1914 are presented on the map shown as figure 3 in De- yjsfiPs jSocs-zy^^^ ^ /o ys- ^-o es 3o 3S -i^o -^^ ^o ss eo es /399 /&00 /30/ /30P /303 /30-^ /30S /3oe /3o;^ /303 /303 /3/0 /3// /3/^ /3/3 /3/^ /3/^ /3/ff /^/7 /s,ooo,ooo ■¥■3,000,000 ■^e; OOO, OOO 3 S, OOO, OOO 23, OOO, OOO -^Z, OOO, OOO 3;^ooo,ooo ■¥^,000,000 ^3, OOO, OOO ^<3, OOO, OOO 3^,000,000 ^f>3, OOO, OOO 33,000,000 32,00c} OOO ■^0,000,000 ^-^000,000 e^ 000, 000 3S, 000,000 -^3, OOQOOO »» _ ^i^ !■■■■[* ■OH "*" 1 BUHIBq ami IklHWBN wn ■BE I ■m^m """j DUHHM 1 ""* ^ ""'"T" ^^ bbud 1 "*"' ■JIdUU- H 1 1 Lim 1 3Zj "" 1 ■"— ^H "" iHPe, ooo 3u ^ess.ooo^u Xese.ooo /3U Ysoo.ooo Si/. \ao7,oco au \ \ees,oooau. }S' XA^e'^, ooo au ' \/, '^oa, ooo au \/,4:^.9, ooo au /, -^ff/, ooo su XA^aaiOooau ]/, S7/, ooo au /,.9&B,ooo au /.99B j poo BU "Xs, e 7-0, 000/5U ^ "li?. ayy, oo o au ^ \3,so3.o doau "~ \4,^^0,OOOBi/. ■9, 6SS, ooo BO. Fig. 6. — Diagram showins tlic estimated annual average prodnctiou of peaches in the principal peach-producing States, for the u-year period from 1912 to 191G, inclusive. The production of five of the States not separately shown in the diagram, hut in- cluded under " All other," was as follows : New Mexico, 87,000 ; Marsachusetts, 81,000 ; Arizona, 57,000 ; New Hampshire, 26,000 ; Rhode Island, 20,000. however, does not show the relative commercial interests so far as California is concerned (see Table I and figure 6 for relative total production), since a large proportion of the crop in that State is used for drying and canning, and hence is not reported in fresh- fruit shipments. Furthermore, the shipments shown in figure 7 are for a single season, and the relative position of many of the States might be markedly different in other seasons, depending largely on the occur- rence in different regions of climatic and other conditions that are favorable or otherwise to the peach crop. peaches: production estimates, etc. 9 OUTSTANDING FEATURES OF THE PEACH INDUSTRY. A few features of the peach industry need special mention in the present connection. From the variety standpoint, the preponder- ance of the Elberta in most of the producing centers and the selec- tion of special varieties for drying and for canning in California are of interest. The gradual change from decade to decade in the geography of peach growing may also be noted. In certain regions where 20 O SQO rOOO. /SOO 2000 2.SOO 3000 3S00 4000 4-S60 SOOO CARS G£ORGI/^ COLOf^ADO W£ST V/^gilNfA /^£W J£R5&Y UTAH MAfiYLANQ> ARforo, Carman, Mountain Rose, Champion, Early Crawford, Foster, Belle, Elberta, Late Crawford, and Crosby. Distrihution. — Peaches are not planted commercially in Vermont. A few trees may be found in the southeastern part of Windham County about Brattleboro, and an occasional tree is growing in other peaches: PEODUcTioisr estimates, etc. 11 jjarts of that count}', as weii as about Isle La Motte in Grand Isle Count}'. This location is on an island in Lake Champlain. Varieties. — No definite suggestions concerning varieties are offered aside from the obvious fact that only the hardiest sorts should be selected,^ and even these are likely to prove very uncertain as to crop production. MASSACHUSETTS. Distrihutian. — Peaches are somewhat widely distributed in ]\Iassa- chusetts, except perhaps in the western part of the State. The prin- cipal areas of commercial production are within the more important apple-growing districts. However, not many peaches are shipped long distances even from the larger orchards, local markets absorb- ing most of the fruit. The principal localities which admit of definite designation as peach-producing centers are enumerated below. The largest production is probably in the central part of the State in Worcester County, Warren in the southwestern part of the county, Grafton in the southeastern, and Bolton in the east-central part being commmiity centers of some prominence. The Bolton section is practically a part of the Littleton and Marlboro sections- in the western part of INIiddlesex County, iii which peaches are locally im- portant. They are also grown more or less at other points in this county and in Essex County, the northeasternmost county of the State, centering in a general way in the locality of Haverhill and West Newbury. Small orchards of local importance are found at various points in all the other counties in the eastern and south- eastern parts of the State. Farther west, Wilbraham in Hampden County and Amherst in Hampshire County, with various other local points, may also be included in the present inventory of small pro- ducing centers. In some sections peaches were formerly interplanted in apple orchards, but such peach interests have now largely gone out as the apple trees have developed. Varieties, — ^The Greensboro, Carman, Champion. Belle, and El- berta constitute the principal sorts grown. KHODK ISLAND. Distrilfution. — There are no special centers of peach production in Ehode Island, but orchards planted for commercial purposes occur more or less widely throughout the State, the larger orchards occur- ring in Newport, Providence, Washington, and Bristol Counties, in. the order named. , 1 Concerning the relative hardiness of varieties, the New York AgriciiUural Experiment Station (Circular 15, revised* states that the Ave varieties of peaches most hardy la wood are the Croshy, Chili, Stevens, Ciold Drop, and Elberta. The Crawfords are con- sidered most tender in wood. The five varieties of peaches most hardy in bud are tlie Crosby, Chili, Triumph, Gold Drop, and Stevens. The five most tender in bud are the Early Crawford, Late Crawford, Chairs, Reeves, and Elberta. 12 BULLETIN 806, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. Varieties. — The varieties grown are substantially the same as those planted in Connecticut and Massachusetts. CONNECTICUT. Distrihiition. — Peach growing is more or less widely distributed in most parts of Connecticut, except in Litchfield County, in the extreme northwestern part of the State, where few peaches are grown. The district of particular importance commercially, how- ever, is the central part of the State, in the Connecticut River valley from about the region of Hartford southward and including areas in most parts of New Haven County. Representative towns in this district may be named, as follows: Farmington, Glastonbury, and Southington, in Hartford County ; Durham and Middleficld, in Mid- dlesex County; Cheshire, Guilford, Milford, Oxford, and Walling- ford, in New Ha^'en County; and Greenwich, Norwalk, and other towns in the southern part of Fairfield County adjacent to the shore of Long Island Sound. In New Haven County the towns of Guil- ford and Milford, above named, adjoin the Sound. Peaches are also grown more or less in other towns similarh' located between Green- wich and Guilford. Varieties. — Many growers in Connecticut select varieties with a view to marketing peaches during as long a period as possible. The principal sorts planted are the Greensboro, Waddell, Carman, Hiley, Champion, Belle, Early Crawford, Hale (J. H.), Elberta, Frances, Stump, Late Crawford, Fox, Stevens, Iron Mountain, and Salwey. MIDDLE ATLANTIC STATES. NEW YOEK. Distribution. — Though New York is one of the large peach- producing States, the districts in which the principal interests are located are more clearly defined than in many other States. By far the largest output is from the Lake Ontario shore district from Oswego County westward to and including Niagara County. This district consists at most points of a narrow strip only a few miles wide, where the influence of the lake so modifies the climatic con- ditions at certain periods as to make them especially favorable for peach growing. At a few points this favored belt extends into the northern parts of the second tier of counties, as, for instance, in Livingston County, in which some peaches are produced. This is by far the largest commercial peach district in the State. Another district is that immediately surrounding the " finger lakes," in central-western New York, where at various points peaches are grown in limited quantities. A third district of some importance is in the Hudson River valley and comprises locations along the river in peaches: production estimates, etc, 13 Orange County and in the southern parts of Dutchess and Ulster Counties. Small quantities of peaches are also grown along the Lake Erie shore, in Erie and Chautauqua Counties, but the interests there, as in many other sections where home orchards occur, are relatively unimportant as compared with those along the shore of Lake Ontario. Varieties. — The Carman, Champion, Belle, Early Crawford, El- berta, Late Crawford, Stevens, and Salwey are the principal varie- ties grown. A very large proportion of the product consists of the Elberta variety, it being estimated to comprise 80 per cent of the crop in some localities. There is no close second to the Elberta variety in the peach industry of the State. NEW JERSET. D'istrihution. — Peach growing has long been a prominent com- mercial enterprise in New Jersey. Orchards are widely distributed in most parts of the State, but the commercial interests are more or less localized about certain centers. The centers of principal produc- tion have changed to some extent because of the incursions of peach yellows, the ravages of the San Jose scale, and for other reasons, but at present the larger regions commercially important are the follow- ing : Hunterdon County, in the locality of Lebanon and New German- town ; Monmouth County, about Freehold and Middletown ; Burling- ton County, centering about Moorestown and Burlington; Gloucester County, about Glassboro; Atlantic County, in the vicinity of Ham- monton ; and Cumberland County, with Vineland as a prominent cen- ter of production. Except Hunterdon and Monmouth, the counties named above are located in the southern half of the State. While peaches are widely gi'own outside the centers mentioned, the counties named indicate the general distribution of the larger interests. Varieties. — The principal varieties planted at present comprise the following: Greensboro, Arp, Carman, Lola, St. John, Hiley, Cham- pion, Belle, Elberta, Frances, Fox, Iron Mountain, and Krummel. While few orchards, and perhaps none, contain all of these varieties, the list is made vip of those which are variously planted in the prin- cipal peach sections. In an earlier day the Mountain Rose, Early Crawford, and Reeves were leading commercial sorts, but these are of relatively little importance in New Jersey at the present time. PENNSYLVANIA. Dist'i^hution. —Veaches are widely distributed in most parts of Pennsylvania, and the large number of good-sized industrial towns and cities in that State furnish local markets for much fruit. Though from many orchards the fruit is shipped in car lots to distant mar- 14 BULLETIN 806, IT. g, DEPARTMEKT OF AGRICULTURE. kets, tlie community interests as a rule are comparatively small, except in a few districts. Probably the most important producing section at present is the southeastern quarter of Franklin County, in which are located several rather large shipping points. This forms a part of the Cumberland \^alley — a district Avhich, as a whole, has produced many peaches in the past and doubtless is still the most im- portant peach district in the State. Besides Franklin County, Cum- berland, Perry, and Juniata Counties belong in this valley district. Adams and York Counties, located between Franklin and Cumberland Counties and the Susquehanna River, also contain peach orchards of commercial rating; likewise Xorthampton and Lehigh Counties, in the east-central part of the State. A third district of considerable im- portance is the lake shore region of Erie County, in the extreme northwestern part of the State. Varieties. — Carman, Champion, Belle, Ede, Elberta, Fox, Late Crawford, Chairs, Iron Mountain, Geary, Smock, and Salwey are the principal varieties. Few, if any, orchards contain all of these varie- ties, though the growers, especially those in the Cumberland Valley and adjacent sections, usuallj' aim to plant a considerable number of varieties, with a view to shipping continuously over a long period. EAST NORTH-CENTRAL STATES. OHIO. Distmnifion. — Peach growing for home use is more or less uni- versal throughout Ohio, but the areas of commercial production are fairly definite. In its commercial aspects, Ottawa County, with its peninsulas and adjacent islands bordering Lake Erie near its western extremity, is far in the lead of any other county; but in this same general lake-shore district there are several other peach-growing counties, including Lucas, Sandusk}', Lorain, Lake, and Ashtabula. Peaches are grown in commercial quantities in some of the coun- ties in the southeastern part of the State, especially along the Ohio River. Lawrence, Meigs, and Athens Counties are mentioned as representative sections of this district. Orchards of some commer- cial standing also are found in Coshocton and Muskingum Counties, midway between the Ohio River and the geographical center of the State. Varieties. — ^^The Carman, Xew Prolific, Elberta, Lemon Free, Smock, and Salwey are the varieties most largely 'produced. Distrihution. — Though very generally distributed throughout most of Indiana, the commercial j^roduction of peaches is principally in four districts, three of which are in the southern part of the State. peaches: production estimates, etc. 15 These districts are thus defined: (1) About the junction of the White and Wabash Eivers in Knox and Gibson Counties: (2) in the hilly section in the south-central part of the State, principally in Orange and Lawrence Counties and adjacent parts of the adjoining counties, including Brown, Monroe, Jackson, Washington, and Martin; (3) in most of the counties bordering the Ohio River: and (4) in the northern part of the State bordering Lake Michigan and including parts of Porter and Laporte Counties. Vmneties. — The bulk of the crop consists of the Elbeita variety, with the Carman, Champion, and small quantities of a few others as secondary sorts. ILLINOIS. Distrihution. — Commercial peach growing in Illinois is confined to the southern third of the State, with only such exceptions as are practically negligible. Even in this area the centers of production are rather restricted. In the average season Union County, in the extreme southern part of the State, probably lead^ in production, but interests of commercial importance are found elsewhere, espe- cially in Johnson, Jackson, Marion, Clay, and Richland Counties. Peach trees are planted in considerable numbers for home use throughout practically the whole State. Yai'ieties. — The Elberta is loughly estimated by some to comprise as high as 90 per cent of the trees planted in the commercial orchards. A few Carman. Mountain Rose, Ede, Heath, and some others occur. The Hale (J. H.) has been planted in some of the younger orchards. MICHIGAN. Distrihutwn. — Peach growing in Michigan is an extensive indus- try. The area in which it has been developed is more clearly defined than in many other States. It borders Lake Michigan in a narrow belt which includes Berrien County, the soutliAvesternmost county of the State, and extends thence to Leelanau County (which lies between Grand Traverse Bay and the lake) on the north. It is largely through the ameliorating influence of Lake Michigan upon climatic conditions in the areas adjacent to it that the development there of a peach-growing industry has been made possible. As the lake's influence extends inland but a short distance, the peach belt is only a very few miles wide at most points. In the Grand Traverse region, about the bay of that name, peaches are grown to some ex- tent, and the belt extends across Ottawa County into Kent County in the second tier from the lake, though at most points its width covers only a portion of the first tier of counties bordering the lake. Peaches a4*e also produced in some other sections of the State, as, for 16 BULLETIN 806, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. instance, in Oakland County, in the southeastern part, and in Huron County, in the east-central part. The latter county forms a penin- sula between Saginaw Bay and Lake Huron, and thus is bordered by large bodies of water except on the south. However, the com- mercial peach interests outside the belt above defined are relatively small. Varieties. — While a considerable number of varieties are grown, the bulk of the commercial crop is made up of a comparatively few sort's, the principal ones being the following: Engle {^Engle's Mam- moth)^ Kalamazoo, New Prolific, Elberta, Gold Drop, Smock, and Salwey. In the northern part of the Lake Michigan belt two early sorts, the Triumph and St. John, are grown to a limited extent, while the late varieties, such as the Smock and Salwey, are not so much grown as farther south in the State. WISCONSIN. Peaches are not grown in Wisconsin except possibly here and there a tree in the southern part of the State. The winter conditions, especially as to temperature, are too severe for successful peach culture. WEST NORTH-CENTRAL STATES. MINNESOTA. Distribution. — Peach growing from a practical standpoint may be said not to exist in Minnesota. The Thirteenth Census reported only 1,571 trees of bearing age for the entire State. Of these, 334 (the largest number in any one county) were in Hennepin County. This county was also reported to have the largest number of bearing trees of both apples and plums. Varieties. — No recommendations as to varieties can be made. Distribution. — Peach growing is relatively unimportant in Iowa. The few peaches that are produced are grown very largely in the southern third of the State — that is, south of the latitude of Des Moines. In this area small plantings are more or less widely dis- tributed. Possibly the conditions in the extreme southeastern counties and in those in the southwest having loess soils are more favorable for peaches than in other parts of the State. Formerly peach trees were interplanted in some of the apple orchards in Fre- mont County, possibly also in some other sections, but as the apple trees have developed the peach trees have been removed. Varieties. — The Triumph, Greensboro, Carman, and Elberta occur perhaps as frequently as any varieties. Seedlings are not uncommon in some sections where budded varieties have proved very uncertain. peaches: PKODUCTIO:tT ESTIMATES, ETC. 17 MISSOUEI. Distribution. — The wide distribution of peach trees throughout Missouri is indicated on the map shown as figure 2. It is also shown by the fact that in 1910, according to the Thirteenth Census, 30 per cent of the counties each contained 50,000 or more trees of bearing age, while about 45 per cent of the counties contained 40,000 or more trees old enough to bear fruit. In most of these counties, however, the trees are in home or small local orchards which have little or no commercial importance. Commercial production is confined very largely to the Ozark region along the lines of the St. Louis & San Francisco and the Kansas City Southern Railroads, the principal commercial peach-producing counties being Oregon, Howell, Greene, Lawrence, and Newton. Interests of limited commercial extent also are found at various points along the Missoiu'i Eiver, but principally in St. Louis County in the vicinity of the city of St. Louis and in Jackson County, in which Kansas City is located. Varieties. — As in many other large commercial peach-producing sections, the Elberta variety comprises the principal part of the crop in most orchards. Relatively small quantities of the Carman, Moun- tain Rose, Family Favorite, Champion, Belle, Heath, Salwey, and a few others occur in some orchards. NORTH DAKOTA. Practically no peaches are grown in North Dakota. SOUTH DAKOTA. No peaches are grown in South Dakota except a very few in the Black Hills district, in the southwestern part of the State. Even there they are a negligible factor. No recommendation as to varieties is practicable.. NEBRASKA. Distribution. — Peach growing in Nebraska is unimportant com- mercially. Except in four counties — Cass, Otoe, Nemaha, and Rich- ardson — which border the Missouri River south of the Platte River in the southeastern corner of the State, peaches are practically negligible even in local fruit production. Adverse climatic condi- tions, particularly low winter temperatures that kill the fruit buds, or even the trees, and frosts that occur during the blossoming period constitute the chief limiting factors. Varieties. — Little attempt is made to grow other than the hardiest sorts. The Alexander, Triumph, Rivers, Champion, Crosby, and Chili varieties are among those most commonly planted. 139075°— Bull. 806—19 3 18 BULLETIN 806, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGRICULTURE. Distribution. — For home and local use peaches are planted very generally in the eastern half of Kansas. Very few are grown in the western part of the State. There are a few commercial orchards, located principally in the extreme northeastern corner of the State, especially in Doniphan County, and at a few points along the Arkansas River in Reno, Sedgwick, Sumner, and Cowley Counties. Isolated orchards of local importance are also found in a few coun- ties in other parts of the State. Varieties. — While the Elberta probably predominates, a number of the other widely planted varieties are grown, such as the Carman, Minnie {Alton), Champion Belle, and Hale (J. H.). SOUTH ATLANTIC STATES. DELAWABE. Distribution. — ^Great changes have taken place in the status of the peach industry in Delaware during the last 25 or 80 years. That portion of the Chesapeake Peninsula which consists of Delaware and the Eastern Shore counties of Maryland early became a famous peach-producing region; in fact, it was one of the first regions in the country in which peach growing became a great industry. Peach growing reached its zenith in New Castle County in the late seventies. With the extension southward of peach yellows, the center of the industry in Delaware reached the vicinity of Wyom- ing, in Kent County, about 1880 to 1885, when probably the produc- tion was greater than at any time since. Though considerable change has occurred from decade to decade, the central part of Kent County contains relatively large interests at present. It is probable that they have increased somewhat since the Thirteenth Census was compiled. The trend of the industry following the period of its greatest development is indicated by the census figures presented in Table II. Table II. — I'ciich trees of hearing age in the diff and in the entire State. crent counties of Delaware Census of— Counties. Entire New Castle. Kent. Sussex. State. 1890 588,119 37,689 58, 175 2,335,740 824,430 596, 069 1,. 597, 764 1,579,531 523, 158 4,521,623 1900 2,441,6.50 1910 1,177,402 Since the late seventies New Castle County, the northernmost county in the State, has not been prominent for peach growing as compared with Kent and Sussex Counties, and, as Table II shows, peaches: production estimates, etc. 19 there was a decided decrease in the number of bearing trees in Dela- ware during the decades included in the tabulation, though from 1890 to 1900 the decrease in Sussex County was comparatively small. This decline in the extent of the industry is probably traceable prin- cipally to three causes — ^the destruction of the trees by yellows and by the San Jose scale and the competition of the fruit with that pro- duced in other regions. During the years when peach growing in Delaware was at its height there was comparatively little competition in the industry, since extensive planting of peaches had not yec oc- curred in many sections. The areas about Camden and Wyoming in Kent County, about Bridgeville in Sussex County, and about Milford in both these coun- ties are among the more important centers of production at present, but in a general way peaches are grown more or less throughout these two counties in localities within easy hauling distance to ship- ping stations. Varieties. — Comparatively'^ few varieties make up the bulk of the crop. These are principally the Carman, Belle, Reeves, Elberta, and Frances, with the Elberta largely predominating. MARYLAND. Distribution. — For a century and more, peach growing in Mary- land has been a prominent agricultural enterprise. This applies particularly to certain Eastern Shore counties and to Anne Arundel County, on the western shore of Chesapeake Bay. During the late eighties and the nineties large interests were developing in Washing- ton County in the western part of the State. Probably the zenith of peach growing on the Eastern Shore was reached about 1875 to 1885, coincident with its largest extension in Delaware. Subse- quent changes have been not unlike those that have occurred in Dela- ware. These changes are suggested by the census figures presented in Table III. Table III. — Peach trees of bearing age in certain counties in Maryland. Counties. Census of— Caroline. Kent. Queen Anne. Wasliing- ton. 1890 670, 828 628.284 175,339 1,758,005 484, 249 190, 594 1,287,496 565,640 119,804 124,105 1900 828,352 1910 260,596 The figures in Table III are self-explanatory. The decline of peach growing shown was due to a combination of factors. The most potent influences were probably the prevalence of yellows and 20 BULLETIN 806, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. the competition in the markets with fruit produced in other regions where large interests were developed. The wide distribution and destructiveness of the San Jose scale during the late nineties and the first part of the following decade also caused a marked decrease in the number of trees. Even at pres- ent the industry is undergoing change, as indicated by the fact that since the census of 1910 commercial peach growing in Caroline County has practically ceased. Meanwhile, the industry has become of increasing importance in some of the more southern counties on the Eastern Shore. Of the counties which were early prominent, Kent and Queen Anne, both of which border Chesapeake Bay, con- tinue to produce considerable quantities of fruit. In addition Talbot, Dorchester, Wicomico, and Worcester Counties, all on the Eastern Shore, contain peach interests of considerable importance. Wash- ington County, in the western part of the State, continues as an im- portant factor, and extensive peach interests have been established also in Allegany County. Varieties. — In western Maryland many of the orchards contain a rather long list of varieties planted with a view to supplying the markets continuously throughout the entire peach season. Such orchards commonly are made up of about the following sorts : Greens- boro, Carman, Hiley, Mountain Rose, Champion, Belle, Reeves, Elberta, Fox, Late Crawford, Stevens, Smock, Salwey, and Bilyeu. In the Eastern Shore orchards relatively few peaches that ripen later than the Elberta are grown, though some Late Crawford and Chairs are still produced. The Ray and Hale (J. H.), ripening in the same general season as the Elberta, are found in some orchards. The Carman, Hiley, Champion, and Belle varieties make up the bulk of the fruit that ripens before the Elberta. VIBGINIA. Distribution. — Peaches are widely grown for home use throughout nearly all parts of Virginia. Commercial orchards also are found at many different places in certain parts of the Piedmont and Val- ley regions. The extent of the commercial interests has varied con- siderably in the past. In recent years the attention of fruit growers in this State has been so largely given to the apple crop that peach growing has become a relatively small factor in the fruit industry. The principal Piedmont counties, from the standpoint of commercial peach enterprises, are Albemarle, Nelson, and Amherst. In the Shenandoah Valley, Frederick and Shenandoah Counties doubtless lead in importance at present, but Rockingham, Augusta, Alleghany, Botetourt, and Roanoke Counties call for mention in this connection. PEACHES: PR0DtTCTI01out Provo, Springville, and Payson. Vm'ieties. — One estimate places the Elberta at 90 per cent of ths conmiercial product of the State. The Early Elberta, Foster, Sellers, and a few others are grown in very limited quantities. In most parts of Nevada the climatic conditions are not suited to the culture of peaches, and very little attempt is made to grow them. PACIFIC STATES. WASHINGTON. Distrihution. — The peach districts in Washington are coincident with the apple districts, though not all of the latter contain i)each interests of importance. The most prominent district with reference to peaches is the Yakima "^^illey, in which this fruit is grown at numerous points between North Yakima, in Yakima County, and the junction of the Yakima and Columbia Eivers, in Benton County; at Kennewick, located a few miles below the mouth of the Yakima Kiver in Benton County; and at Pasco, directly aci-oss the Columbia Eiver, in Franklin County. The Wenatchee Valley, centering at Wenatchee in Chelan County, is the second most important peach district; the third is the Snake River valley, especially that portion included in the southern part of Whitman County, where at various points peaches are grov\'n on a relatively small commercial basis. This valley is virtually continuous with the Lewiston district in Idaho. In the Walla Walla Valley, ay in certain other districts, peach interests have been developed on ii sufficiently large scale to produce some fruit for shipping, J>ut the two valleys first mentioned are by far the largest producing districts 32 BULLETIN 806, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. in the State. The Milton-Freewater district in Oregon is a part of the WaUa Walhi Valley. In all of these valleys most of the peach trees are interplanted in the apple orchards. As the apple trees de- velop, the peach trees are taken out. As a result, there is at present a more or less rapid and constant decrease in the extent of the peach industry in Washington. Varieties. — There are no varieties that are in any way character- istic of these districts. The most important sorts are the Triumph, Carman, Champion, Early Elberta, Early Crawford, Elberta, Late Crawford, and Salwey. The Elberta is the principal variety in most localities. OREGON. Distrihution. — Peaches are grown in Oregon to a considerable ex- tent as fillers interplanted in apple orchards. To this extent, there- fore, peach growing in this State is a temporary enterprise. In some sections, however, peach trees have been planted on a somewhat per- manent orchard basis. This is the case in The Dalles district in Wasco County, in the Ashland and Merlin districts in the Rogue Eiver Valley, and in the vicinity of Salem in the Willamette Val- ley. Important valleys where many peaches have been interplanted in apple orchards include such localities as the Milton-Freewater district in Umatilla County, this being a part of the Walla Walla Valley, the Hood River Valley, the Umpqua Valley, and various 23oints in the Willamette Valley in addition to Salem, which is men- tioned above. Varieties. — A large number of different varieties are grown in the various districts, the more important and widely distributed of which include the Alexander, Early Crawford, Early Charlotte, Elberta, Late Crawford, Muir, Phillips, and Salwey. In most in- stances in the districts where peaches are of special commercial value the problem in selecting varieties is more largely that of se- curing, sorts that ripen at a desired time or are suited to the pur- pose for which they are to be used than of choosing varieties that will develop well. CALIFORNIA. Distribution. — The peach interests of California surpass those of any other State in both quantity and value of the product. Ac- cording to the Thirteenth Census, there were nearly 1,500,000 more trees not of bearing age in California in 1910 than in any other State, though in number of trees of bearing age Texas and Georgia each surpassed California. Moreover, the industry is highly special- ized. While large quantities of fruit are marketed in the fresh state, the planting of varieties intended especially for canning as peaches: production estimates, etc. 33 well as of varieties particularly adapted for drying is extensively practiced in some districts. The relative importance of peaches for canning, compared with the rest of the country, is indicated by the following figures from the Thirteenth Census. (Table IV.) Table IV. -Quantity and value of canned peaches in California and in the United States in 1909 and lOl'i. States. Number of cases canned. Value. 1909 1914 1909 1914 1,149,590 317,623 2,922,637 485,209 $3,013,203 740, 495 ?8, 085, 831 899,942 All other States Total for the United States 1,467,213 3,407,906 3, 753, 69S 9,585,773 A comparison of the figures presented in Table lY emphasizes the great imx^ortance of the canning industry to the peach growers in California. Wliile the proportion varies more or less from year to year, depending largely upon crop and market' conditions in the different States, the actual quantity canned in any year in other parts of the country is always small in comparison with the California product. Practically the entire commercial output of dried peaches in this country is produced in California. It is estimated that about 90 per cent of the crop, as a rule, is either dried or canned and about 10 per cent shipped in the fresh state. There are two main districts in •R'hich a large proportion of the peaches are produced, viz, the Sacramento and the San Joaquin Valleys. In the latter, the peaches are grown largely for canning and drying. In the Sacramento Valley along the foothills the ship- ping varieties predominate, but in the valley areas large quantities of fruit both for canning and for drying are produced. According to the report, of the California State Commission of Horticulture ^ Fresno County now has about 35,000 acres of peach trees of bearing age — nearly five times the acreage reported for any other one county. The principal counties from the standpoint of peach growing in the Sacramento Valley and foothills are Placer, Sacramento, Solano, Sutter Tehama, and Yolo; in the San Joaquin Valley, Fresno, Kings, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare; in other parts of the State, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego, and San Bernardino. Orchards are more or less widely distributed throughout various other districts. • Weldon, G. P. The acreage of fruits, bearing and nonbearinj In Mo. Bui. State Com. Hort. [Cal.], v. 5, no, 3, p. 105. 1916. by counties, in 1915. 34 BULLETIN 806, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. Varieties. — A large niiniber of varieties are grown in California, but the bulk of the crop consists of comparatively few sorts. For canning, the firm-fleshed yellow clingstone varieties are largely used. The principal cling varieties grown for canning are the Tnskena {Tuscan)^ Hauss, Johnson, Walton, Albright Cling, and Phillips. Of freestone varieties, the M'uir and Lovell are canned to some extent, and for drying they are by far the most important. The Eiberta is dried in relatively small quantities. Those grown for shipping fresh are the Alexander, St. John, Early Hale, Early Crawford, Foster, Susciuelianna, Eiberta, McKevitt, McDevitt, Salwey, Levy, and some others. INDEX OF STATES. Alabama 25 Arizona 30 Arkansas 2G California 32 Colorado . 29 Connecticut 12 Delaware IS Florida 24 Georgia , 23 Idaho 28 Illinois 15 Indiana 14 Iowa 16 Kansas 18 Kentucky 24 Louisiana 26 Maine: , 10 Maryland 11) Massachusetts 11 Michigan 15 Minnesota 16 Mississippi 26 Missouri 17 Montana 2S Page. Nebraska 17 Nevada 31 New Hanipsliire 10 New Jersey 13 New Mexico 30 New York 12 North Carolina 22 North Dakota 17 Ohio 14 Oklahoma , 27 Oregon , 32 Pennsylvania , 13 Rhode Island 11 South Carolina 22 South Dakota 17 Tennessee 'lA Texas 27 Utah 31 Vermont 10 Virginia 20 Washington 31 West Virginia 21 Wisconsin 16 Wyoming 29 35 ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PEOCUBED FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D. C. AT 10 CENTS PER COPY LIBRARY OF CONGRESS DQDmi7Tb77