The beginning of our fight back against Fireblight in the USA

Frontiers in Plant Science

Sections

ArticlesResearch TopicsEditorial board

About journal

About us

All journalsAll articlesSubmit your research

PERSPECTIVE article

Front. Plant Sci., 10 September 2024

Sec. Plant Breeding

Volume 15 - 2024 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2024.1474143

Over a century of pear breeding at the USDA

  • Christopher Gottschalk

    Christopher Gottschalk 1*

  • Richard L. Bell

    Richard L. Bell 1,2

  • Gayle M. Volk

    Gayle M. Volk 3

  • Chris Dardick

    Chris Dardick 1

  • 1. Agricultural Research Service Appalachian Fruit Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Kearneysville, WV, United States

  • 2. Retired, Kearneysville, WV, United States

  • 3. Agricultural Research Service National Laboratory for Genetic Resources Preservation, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fort Collins, CO, United States

  • View less

Abstract

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has performed European pear (Pyrus communis L.) scion breeding for over a century. The breeding program started in the early 1900s by Merton B. Waite in the Washington D.C. area and the program’s main goal was to develop host resistance to the devastating disease fire blight, caused by Erwinia amylovora. Most of the historic European pear cultivars being produced in the U.S. were susceptible to fire blight, prompting a need to breed for resistance. More than six generations of USDA breeders have continued this effort to breed disease-resistant European pears. Along with fire blight resistance, the pear breeding programs sought improved fruit quality, cold hardiness, and resistance to psylla (Cacopsylla pyricola Foërster), a significant insect pest of pear. Herein, we discuss the history of the program through each generation of breeder(s). We also present breeding aims, parental selection, and releases. In total, the program has released ten named pear varieties between 1938 and 2022.

Introduction

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has led breeding efforts for many crops, and it is particularly well positioned to breed long-term, perennials such as fruit trees because researchers receive base funding and are less dependent upon short-term grants. One of the longest running breeding programs in the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is the pear (Pyrus spp.) scion breeding program. The catalyst for the establishment of a pear breeding program in the U.S. was prompted by the lack of cultivars with resistance to fire blight caused by the bacterial pathogen Erwinia amylovora [(Burrill) Winslow et al.] (Waite, 1895; van der Zwet and Keil, 1979). Erwinia amylovora is believed to have originated in North America, thus, host resistance to this bacterial pathogen was lacking in much of the European germplasm that was brought to the U.S (van der Zwet and Keil, 1979; Bonn and van der Zwet, 2000). There was a broad effort to breed fire blight resistant pears across the U.S (van der Zwet and Keil, 1979). Although all the breeding programs had this shared goal, they were distinct in approach and germplasm utilized with many documented successes (van der Zwet and Keil, 1979). That said, improvements made by one program were ultimately shared with others. Unfortunately, many of the pear breeding programs ceased operations by 1970 due to various reasons such as closure of research stations and lack of consistent funding support (van der Zwet and Keil, 1979); however, the oldest continuous breeding program was initiated and continued to be supported by the USDA.

The USDA pear scion breeding program started in earnest in 1908, led by Special Agent Merton B. Waite at the Arlington Farm, Arlington, VA (Magness, 1937; van der Zwet and Keil, 1979). The Arlington Farm, once located on the southern bank of the Potomac River, no longer exists as the site was repurposed for the building of the Pentagon. Waite aimed to hybridize the moderately fire blight resistant ‘Kieffer’ with the susceptible cultivar ‘Bartlett’ and moderately resistant ‘Seckel’, and ‘Buerré d’Anjou’ to develop segregating populations (Magness, 1937; van der Zwet et al., 1974a; van der Zwet and Keil, 1979). This material was then screened for resistance using inoculation trials. Ultimately, a few fire blight resistant selections were identified. One selection believed to be ‘Kieffer’ × unknown was introduced as a new variety by Waite and aptly named ‘Waite’ (syn. ‘Canner’) (Magness, 1937; van der Zwet and Keil, 1979). ‘Waite’ is available from the USDA-ARS National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) pear collection in Corvallis, OR, and is listed in the Germplasm Resources Information Network Global (GRIN-Global) information management system under PI 66131 (Postman et al., 2006; USDA Agricultural Research Service, 2024). ‘Waite’ is described as a large pear similar to ‘Bartlett’, with a yellow peel and smooth flesh, free of stone cells, but more acidic than ‘Bartlett’ (Figure 1A). It is not highly productive and, thus, was never widely planted as a fresh-market pear; however, it is recommended for cooking and canning (Brooks and Olmo, 1952; USDA Agricultural Research Service, 2024). Recent genotyping and identity-by-descent analysis found that ‘Waite’ is a cross of ‘Bartlett’ × ‘Buerré d’Anjou’, which could explain its similarity to its parents (Montanari et al., 2020) (Supplementary Figure 1).

Figure 1

(A) ‘Waite’ (PI 66131) released in 1938. (B) ‘Dawn’ (PI 541170) released in 1960. (C) ‘Moonglow’ (PI 541315) released in 1960. (D) ‘Magness’ (PI 541299) released in 1968. Photos retrieved from GRIN-Global.

Between 1916 and 1919, a cooperative breeding program between USDA and the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station (established by Michigan Agriculture College, now known as Michigan State University) in South Haven, MI was initiated (Magness, 1937; van der Zwet and Keil, 1979). It was led by USDA Botanists William F. Wight and Don Ward along with graduate student Stanley Johnston (later a Michigan State University professor) (Magness, 1937; van der Zwet and Keil, 1979). The aim of this program was to intercross pear germplasm with moderate fire blight resistance with high fruit quality pears. The most impactful crosses were generated from seedlings of ‘Barseck’ ([‘Bartlett’ × ‘Seckel’] × ‘Barlett’). The breeding line Mich-US 437, believed to be ‘Barseck’ × ‘Barlett’ was produced and was featured prominently as a parent in the later USDA breeding program (van der Zwet and Keil, 1979). As with ‘Waite’, genotyping analyses found that Mich-US 437 is actually ‘Vermont Beauty’ × ‘Barlett’ (Montanari et al., 2020) (Supplementary Figure 2), with ‘Vermont Beauty’ a descendant of ‘Seckel’ and ‘White Doyenné’, a parent of ‘Bartlett’ (Montanari et al., 2020). In the 1920s, W.F. Wight, who was leading the cooperative program in Michigan, moved to Palo Alto, California (Magness, 1937; The Stanford Daily, 1954). While in California, Wight continued to breed pears on behalf of the USDA-ARS while also joining Stanford University as a faculty member (Magness, 1937; The Stanford Daily, 1954). He aimed to develop high quality dessert pears, new summer pears with different harvesting intervals, and storage varieties of winter pears. The crosses by Wight were primarily crosses among a few P. communis varieties (Magness, 1937).

In 1938, John R. Magness led the USDA pear breeding program that had been moved from Arlington, VA to Beltsville, MD (van der Zwet and Keil, 1979). Under the direction of Magness, the focus of the pear breeding program continued to be the development of fire blight resistant cultivars (Magness, 1937). Magness recognized that many of the most resistant material was generated from interspecific hybridization of P. communis × P. pyrifolia (syn. P. serotina) but they lacked the quality of P. communis fruit cultivars. Magness also noted the need for improved cold hardiness for the Northern Great Plains production areas, the development of late ripening, and storage varieties for the West Coast regions (Magness, 1937). Magness also used new materials from the other pear breeding programs throughout the U.S. Moderately fire blight resistant European P. communis varieties such as ‘Roi Charles de Wurtemberg’ and ‘Doyenné du Comice’ (syn. ‘Comice’) were hybridized with breeding lines and three varieties were released (van der Zwet and Keil, 1979). In 1960, ‘Dawn’ (PI 541170; Mich-US 437 × ‘Doyenné du Comice’) and ‘Moonglow’ (PI 541315; Mich-US 437 × ‘Roi Charles de Wurtemberg’) were released (Supplementary Figures 3, 4). ‘Dawn’ is an upright vigorous tree with sweet, aromatic, juicy yellow colored pear with an early ripening date (Figure 1B). ‘Dawn’ is moderately resistant to fire blight, similar to its parent ‘Doyenné du Comice’ (van der Zwet et al., 1974a). ‘Moonglow’ is a vigorous, productive, and precocious tree with mild flavored, yellow fruit with an early ripening date, and strong fire blight resistance (Figure 1C) (van der Zwet et al., 1974a). In 1968, ‘Magness’ was released and named in honor of J.R. Magness (PI 541299). ‘Magness’ resulted from a ‘Giant Seckel’ × ‘Doyenné du Comice’ cross (Montanari et al., 2020) (Supplementary Figure 5). ‘Magness’ is a very vigorous tree with russeted fruit that is sweet, highly juicy, and aromatic (Figure 1D). It also exhibits strong fire blight resistance (van der Zwet et al., 1974a). However, that resistance is tissue specific with the trunk being specifically susceptible (van der Zwet and Keil, 1970, 1972). The flavor of ‘Magness’ is similar to its parent ‘Comice’. Of note, ‘Magness’ is pollen sterile.

In 1960, the breeding program was transferred from J.R. Magness to Howard J. Brooks and Tom van der Zwet (van der Zwet and Keil, 1979). Under Brooks and van der Zwet’s leadership, the USDA pear breeding program undertook a more expansive direction. They set five objectives: 1) acquisition of new germplasm from around the world for evaluation of fire blight resistance, 2) evaluate the use of Asian pear species as parents for fire blight resistance, 3) mass seedling evaluations using a 10-year rotational schedule (trees selected or removed in 10 years), 4) greenhouse inoculation trials to screen for fire blight resistance, 5) investigate genetics that underlie fire blight resistance, tree juvenility, and fruit quality traits (van der Zwet and Keil, 1979). Additionally, the breeding program developed a cooperation with the Ohio Agriculture Research and Development Center at Wooster, OH which was led by W.A. Oitto and Roland C. Blake (van der Zwet and Keil, 1979).

Many Asian Pyrus species were collected in the early 1900s and in the 1970s this diversity was expanded through van der Zwet’s germplasm explorations to Eastern Europe to source hundreds of new P. communis and interspecific hybrids (van der Zwet et al., 1983, 1987, 1989; Waite et al., 2024). These materials were screened for fire blight resistance in the early 1970s (van der Zwet et al., 1974b). P. ussuriensis Group I plants were found to have the highest resistance to fire blight in the species category (van der Zwet et al., 1974b). One of the most impactful discoveries in this screening was that ‘Illinois 76’, a Pyrus ussuriensis × P. pyrifolia hybrid, produced a number of progeny that were highly resistant to fire blight (van der Zwet et al., 1974b). ‘Illinois 76’ was a selection that originated from the Rutgers University pear breeding program. Moreover, van der Zwet’s team developed useful protocols for mass seedling resistance screening and rating systems (Oitto et al., 1970; Van der Zwet and Oitto, 1973). This team was prolific, generating more than 42,000 seedlings from 600 crosses (van der Zwet and Keil, 1979). Although productive, the USDA program failed to release new varieties since ‘Magness’ in 1968.

In 1979, the USDA-ARS opened the Appalachian Fruit Research Station (AFRS) in Kearneysville, WV and the pear breeding program transferred to the new location. With the move to AFRS, the pear breeding program leadership was transferred to Richard L. Bell and T. van der Zwet. Their primary goals were to 1) develop additional cultivars with fire blight resistance combined with high fruit quality, long storage life, precocity and high productivity, 2) identify sources of resistance to Diplocarpon mespili (Sorauer) B. Sutton, which causes Fabraea leaf spot, and incorporate that resistance into breeding populations, selections, and cultivars, and 3) develop cultivars with resistance to pear psylla.

Research on resistance to pear psylla included the determination of the major pear psylla behavioral traits associated with resistance, the use of specific resistance assays to identify resistant germplasm and study the inheritance of these modes of resistance (Bell and Puterka, 2004). In this research, Drs. Bill Butt and Gary Puterka played major roles. Modes of pear psylla resistance were identified to be ovipositional antixenosis, antibiosis (i.e., mortality), decreased development rate, and fecundity of surviving adult females. Assays characterized the resistance or susceptibility in P. ussuriensis hybrid selections and Eastern European germplasm (Butt et al., 1988, 1989; Bell, 1991, 1992, 2003, 2013; Puterka, 1997). Germplasm utilized included hybrid selections from the Cornell University and Rutgers University pear breeding programs. Several hybridizations generated seedling populations for evaluation, inheritance studies and cultivar development. Fruit quality and other traits of P. ussuriensis hybrids and Eastern European germplasm were evaluated (Bell, 2014).

Under Bell’s leadership, the USDA breeding program was highly productive, with five released varieties. The first release was ‘Potomac’ (PI 617594; ‘Moonglow’ × ‘Buerré d’Anjou’) in 1993. ‘Potomac’ is a moderately vigorous tree with medium-size green fruit similar in favor to ‘Beurré d’Anjou’ and strong fire blight resistance (Figure 2A) (Bell et al., 1996). ‘Blake’s Pride’ (PI 657922; US 446 × US 505) was released in 1998 (Bell et al., 2002). Named after R.C. Blake, ‘Blake’s Pride’ is an upright, moderately vigorous tree with juicy, russeted yellow fruit. ‘Blake’s Pride’ exhibits strong fire blight resistance and moderate resistance to pear scab (Figure 2B). Next was ‘Shenandoah’ (PI 665743; ‘Max Red Bartlett’ × US 56112-146 [US 309 open-pollinated]) in 2003. ‘Shenandoah’ is a moderately vigorous tree, with sweet aromatic, yellow-green fruit harvested late in the season, with moderate fire blight resistance (Figure 2C) (Bell and van der Zwet, 2008). ‘Shenandoah’s’ fruit flavor is acidic upon harvest but mellows during cold storage. Following ‘Shenandoah’ was ‘Sunrise’ (PI 665744; NJ 5001710820 × US 446) in 2006 (Figure 2D) (Bell and van der Zwet, 2011). ‘Sunrise’ represents the first release that has P. pyrifolia in its pedigree (NJ 5001710820 is ‘Bartlett’ × NJ 1 [open pollinated P. pyrifolia]). ‘Sunrise’ is a precocious, upright, moderately vigorous tree with large yellow fruit that is moderately juicy, sweet and aromatic. ‘Sunrise’ is very resistant to fire blight and moderately resistant to pear scab, and the fruit has a long shelf life (Bell and van der Zwet, 2011). The last release by R.L. Bell and T. van der Zwet was ‘Gem’ (PI 688121; ‘Sheldon’ × US 62563-004) in 2013 with numerous university partners (Figure 2E) (Bell et al., 2014). ‘Gem’ is a precocious, productive, tree with very attractive fruit with excellent fruit qualities and storage potential. ‘Gem’ can be eaten immediately after harvest for a crisp texture, or stored for up to five months, ripened, and eaten with a melting flesh texture. ‘Gem’ is susceptible to fire blight but is more resistant than ‘Bartlett’ (Bell et al., 2014).

Figure 2

(A) ‘Potomac’ (PI 617594) released in 1993. (B) ‘Blake’s Pride’ (PI 657922) released in 1998. (C) ‘Shenandoah’ (PI 665743) released in 2003. (D) ‘Sunrise’ (PI 665744) released in 2006. (E) ‘Gem’ (PI 688121) released in 2013. Photo retrieved from Bell et al., 2014. (F) ‘Bell’ released in 2022, photo by Peggy Grub. All other photos retrieved from GRIN-Global and USDA-ARS.

Current status and prospectus

The USDA pear breeding program underwent a short hiatus from 2017 until 2021 following the retirement of R.L. Bell and on-boarding of the new breeding program leader Chris Gottschalk. In 2022, ‘Bell’ (‘Lucious’ × US 65003-023) was released in collaboration with Pennsylvania State University (Figure 2F) (Bell et al., 2023). ‘Bell’, named after R.L. Bell, is a vigorous tree with excellent fruit quality. The fruit are harvested early and ripen on the tree. ‘Bell’ fruit have a melting texture with high sugar and high acidity, resulting in a highly desirable flavor. ‘Bell’ is also highly resistant to fire blight (Bell et al., 2023). ‘Bell’ is well positioned for direct-to-market opportunities, due to its unique fruit quality traits and limited storage potential.

The current USDA-ARS pear scion breeding program has two project aims: 1) development of segregating mapping populations to enable mapping of important traits and 2) evaluation and release of superior pear varieties. Under the first aim, there are three main objectives. First, develop populations to target high-value traits. Currently, target traits include fruit quality traits such as acidity, polyphenolics, and sugar content, post-harvest disease and disorder resistance, novelty such as red-flesh and perry (fermented pear juice) traits, and production efficiency such as semi-dwarf and columnar growth habits. The second objective is to generate new genomic resources such as whole genome sequencing along with genotyping tools to enable accurate and fine mapping of trait genetic determinants. Under the second aim, there are two objectives: 1) to evaluate existing USDA-ARS breeding program germplasm for advanced trials and release and 2) to develop new germplasm that combines high-value and industry disruptive traits. As a result of the long-term efforts of the previous USDA breeding programs, the current program is well-positioned to release cultivars with both disease resistance and high fruit quality.

Conclusion

Even after over a century of breeding new pear varieties, there hasn’t yet been wide acceptance of new pear varieties in the U.S. Currently, 96% of the pear production is made up of four historic (>100 year old) varieties (USA Pears, 2024; Waite et al., 2024). Those four varieties are ‘Bartlett’, ‘Beurré d’Anjou’, ‘Beurré Bosc’, and ‘Red Anjou’ (USA Pears, 2024; Waite et al., 2024). Why haven’t these four varieties been supplanted by a modern release? The answer can be attributed to numerous factors such as the pear industry moving from the East Coast to the Pacific Northwest where disease pressure is lower due to the dry climate, challenges associated with complex storage and ripening requirements, stagnant productivity due to the lack of a dwarfing rootstock, and consumer acceptance. The USDA-ARS Pear Breeding Program is increasingly having an impact, demonstrated by the Pacific Northwest pear industry’s growing interest in ‘Gem’ since its release in 2013 (Odegard, 2024). Furthermore, the pear industry has expressed interest in testing other new varieties and exploring alternative marketing opportunities (e.g., direct-to-consumer), climate change threats are increasing needs for abiotic and biotic resistance in production regions that traditionally were not challenged by these factors, and consumer interest in trying new varieties of tree fruit has reshaped the marketplace (e.g., ‘Honeycrisp’ apple) (Odegard, 2024; Waite et al., 2024). The USDA-ARS Pear Breeding Program will continue to support the U.S. pear industry by delivering new varieties with traits that target these emerging industry needs.

Germplasm availability

All released varieties from 1938 through 2013 (‘Waite’ through ‘Gem’) are available for research, breeding, and education from the USDA-ARS pear collection. Efforts are ongoing to ensure that remaining varieties developed by the program (e.g., ‘Bell’) and vital genetic resources such as founder varieties and historic breeding lines (e.g., Mich-US 437 and Illinois 76) are made publicly available through the NPGS.”

fpls-15-1474143.pdf (5.2 MB)

6 Likes

Good old fire blight. Found some shoot damage on a Dorsett Golden and trimmed it back hard. Took out half the tree.

5 Likes

Found a canker I missed - cut it out today. Then, sprayed strepto on pears (all in full bloom) and 1 blooming apple at 9pm…it’s either that or 6am before work.

It’s perfect fireblight weather. High 70s low 80s all day and then supposed to have some rain tomorrow afternoon…

5 Likes

luckily fireblight is very rare up here but i still make sure to grow resistant stock just for good measure.

3 Likes

I had a hard strike on my Airlie two years ago and it left me phobic. It would be great to see strains sequenced and compared regionally. As many have mentioned in previous threads, some resistant varieties seem to resist better in different regions. It may be the conditions vs strain but only one way to tell. Sequencing is getting cheaper/faster…

1 Like

It seems long duration bloomers struggle more.

Some apples like the Ark Black bloom briskly and move on. Very resistant variety

Starkspur Golden D. Long duration bloomer. Heavy bloom years are nothing but trouble. I would give a resistance rating 4-5 out of 10. 3 week bloom bracket.

Williams Favorite is a long duration bloomer. I would rate this one as a 2-3. It’s late starting and lingering.

Williams Pride is a long duration bloomer. I’m having some issues with it.

The Stayman and Summer Banana don’t linger. Both seem to do well.

The Swiss Limbertwig is fiddle-farting about.

5 Likes

Is there a correlation with higher acidity in the fruit and overall FB resistance with pears? Are most/all the European perry pears super susceptible? I realize they didn’t have FB to deal with while they were breeding the buttery/melting sweet European pears a hundred plus years ago, but it seems like they bred out resistance (if any existed).

1 Like

I looked for a correlation with acidity and did not find it. The strongest level of FB resistance appears to be from stacking resistance traits from European pears with complementary traits from Asian pears. If you read through the linked article above carefully, you will see that early breeders recognized this synergy.

While fireblight did not affect breeding work done over 120 years ago, there was natural resistance present in the breeding lines. Seckel is one very good example of an older variety that has significant FB resistance.

I’ve attempted to analyze the inheritance pattern of fireblight and can see evidence of at least 4 different traits that convey some level of resistance. I can’t resolve the traits to individual genes.

10 Likes

Fireblight or something else? blossom blast?

If it is FB, what to do about the one on the trunk? It’s about 6" diameter trunk (at about 4 feet) so not a small tree.


more pics in this thread: Image layout - #3 by benthegirl

This tree had one fireblight strike at the top last year that I cut out. The tree next to it had a big strike too. I had another tree that got blossom blast this year. It froze here a week ago but has been 70s and 80s ever since.

This tree started blooming 5-6 days ago and I sprayed streptomycin 4 days ago. It rained the next day. Temps have been perfect for fireblight with high humidity every day, but I didn’t spray again because I have a job and couldn’t find time.

I was hoping for less of a fireblight drama this year…

1 Like

That is what I call a fire blight bomb. The tree lives on but contaminates the world. That should go in a burn pile.

I met an apple grower from NY who decided to grow apples commercially in the Uwharries of NC. Not ideal. He was a race car motor builder and was extremely anal about everything. He had Cripps Pink, GSs and one other variety. Even though he sprayed the heck out of his trees, he continued to get strikes. There was one old apple tree on the property he did not remove. He thought he’d properly inspected the tree, but after a second inspection, he found FB canker in a limb crotch. After removing the tree, he had no more issues.

It hurts to cut down trees. I had to chainsaw a Williams Favorite last year. Now that it’s gone, I haven’t seen any on my GD yet. The WF was infected down to the ground, and the blight would travel about 16 inches a week on this variety.

3 Likes

Well, I’m not really shy about removing trees. I’ve cut down about 30 apple and pear trees this year (all around 20 years old). But at some point I hope I can stop removing trees. Otherwise, I’m going to get down to zero apple and pear trees pretty soon…

2 Likes

Fire blight is interesting. Pear fire blight does not seem to crossover to apples. Perhaps the strains of FB are different. IDK.

About 15 years ago, all of the full-grown Bradford pears in my neighborhood were completely black with fire blight. I thought for sure my apple trees would be toast. If anything, it was a light year for the apples.

I have a parcel with a Bartlett and a few apple trees where my wife grew up. The Bartlett has had pretty rough cases for the last 3-4 years. It has not affected the apples. The pear tree keeps on bearing, and the blight really doesn’t have huge impact on production capacity. The blight actually helps prevent the tree from becoming overloaded. This pear tree is 45 years old now and has been seeing episodes of blight for decades. It has never been sprayed. I have no plans to remove it.

The problems with full-size apple trees are numerous. Untended black rot is actually worse than fire blight is some cases. I’ve sawed more trees from black rot issues than blight, but black rot is so much easier to manage with smaller trees. Large apple trees are a near certain fail in the SE.

3 Likes

@KPS you’re totally correct. I had what I thought was some fireblight on an apple, but it was a few years ago and never again, so I’ve wondered if it really was.

I took out apple trees because I bought a house with 2 overgrown, tightly planted orchards. There were a lot of dead or partly dead trees. Many were so close together I couldn’t prune or spray. They weren’t getting good light.

I took out pear trees because they got fireblight (and were also too closely planted). I do think pears are more susceptible in general though. It seems to be the consensus.

All my trees were old, but I just put in a few young apple trees. I know young trees are more susceptible. I’ve seen pictures of commercial apple orchards completely decimated by fireblight. My area used to be prime apple growing territory, but it’s so much cheaper/better to grow them in eastern WA with dry climate and lower disease pressure… I totally know why now! I think apples and pears are harder than peaches.

2 Likes

2024 was an exceptional year. This type of event only occurs about once in every 10-15 years. It was also a bad year for apple blotch.

As for 2026, I have not seen any fireblight yet. That being said, I’ve used up all my lime sulfur and H oil and have upgraded to copper. The vulnerable trees at my house have been sprayed and will continue to be sprayed with Serenade. The stronger trees will not receive spray. The three larger trees at the farm do not see spray for blight.

So many heritage trees are reportedly prone to blight. York Imperial, Williams Favorite, Red June, Horse, Golden Russett, Spitzenburg, Newtown Pippin, Blue Ridge King and the list goes on. I’ve grown most of these and they’re challenging. I’m of the opinion if all unknown and marginal trees are removed and you started fresh with known resistant varieties, your apple growing experience would be much more pleasant.

2 Likes

Question: Does anyone know if a tree gets fireblight on the trunk, and then you cut it below exterior canker and graft over it, what happens?

I did this on two trees and tried to cut below the fireblight. I definitely cut below the visible exterior canker, but the sapwood still had a wet looking blotch and I didn’t want to cut any lower. If the tree is just going to die, that’s fine. However, I don’t want it to be somehow acting as a source - though I don’t know how it could.

Re tree removal: I do think I am down to only reasonably resistant apple trees in my mystery/older apple trees.

I am down to 9 mature apple trees which are around 20 years old and standard/semi-standard in size. None of these seem to be affected by fireblight while the pear around them drops dead. I have guesses about what some of them are, but most I don’t. I’m slowly working over some of them.

I’m hesitant to remove every mature pear tree. However, I might end up removing all the Asian pear, which seem more susceptible. There is fireblight on roadside trees in my neighborhood. Fireblight would have to travel further to get to me but it still could. I’m not totally isolated, so it seems pointless to remove everything when I’ve never seen a strike on these giant old pear trees.