Abstract
In his second report McAlpine (1913) focused on factors which he believed contributed to bitter pit, as well as the issue of most concern to the public. In regard to the latter, he enlisted the help of Dr Rothera A1 and his student R.H. Greenwood, biochemists at the University of Melbourne, to test the poison theory still supported by Professor Ewart. McAlpine supplied the biochemists with batches of pit-affected and healthy apples for chemical comparison. They found no chemical differences in starch grains from pitted and non-pitted tissue, no poisonous metals in tissue from pitted apples even in trace amounts, and no differences in the cell-wall chemistry of tissue from pitted and non-pitted apples. He also focused on looking for differences between the bitter-pit-susceptible Cleopatra and resistant Yates varieties (Fig. 12.1).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Brisley AJ (1913) Letter [May 1913] regarding condition of apple in the consignment on SS Somerset
Crathers W (1913) Letter written to W. Laidlaw [18-10-13], from the Secretary of the Advisory Committee regarding the printing of the second progress report and foreshadowing an Advisory Committee meeting for mid to late November 1913
Crathers W (1914a) Letter written to W. Laidlaw [13-1-‘14], notifying him of a meeting of the Advisory Committee meeting at 10:30 am on Wednesday 21st January at the Quarantine Bureau, 51 Spring Street Melbourne
Crathers W (1914b) Letter written to W. Laidlaw [29-1-‘14], with a draft Progress Report and concerning a baseless allegation that Burnley Gardens were established on the site of an old rubbish-tip
Lodge O (1913) A letter [8-1-‘13] sent by Sir Oliver Lodge to McAlpine regarding the possibility of detecting incipient bitter pit in apples by x-ray
McAlpine D (1912a) Letter written to Hon. Geo. Graham [4-12-‘12] objecting to Norris’s requiring monthly reports of his progress on the grounds such a requirement was not included in his
McAlpine D (1912b) Letter written to Hon. Geo. Graham [9-12-‘12] informing him that Dr. Norris was acting outside his brief by interfering in administrative arrangements and cutting across arrangements already made by McAlpine for chemical analyses to be made at the Federal Chemistry Laboratories
McAlpine D (1913) Bitter pit investigations. Second progress report – the cause of bitter pit: its contributing factors, together with an investigation of susceptibility and immunity in apple varieties. Melbourne, Government Printer 224 pp, bibliography 96 pp, and 61 plates & maps
McAlpine D (1914) Letter to Dr. Cameron [29-9-‘14] reporting on the analysis of juice from reputedly susceptible and resistant apple varieties
Whetzel HH (1912) Baldwin Spot or Stippen. In: Proceedings of the New York State Fruit Growers Association 11:28:34
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Parbery, D.G. (2015). The Second Year 1912–1913. In: Daniel McAlpine and The Bitter Pit. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09552-3_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09552-3_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-09551-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-09552-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawHistory (R0)