224 



Bulletin 170. 



The table sliows that, although the soap was applied twice each 

 year, inaiiy inoi*e (over twice as many the iirst year) borers attacked 

 the treated tlian the same number of untreated trees, and a larger 

 percentage of the treated trees were infested. AVe doubt if soft 

 soap would have given better results. We tested %ohale oil soaj) (-J 

 pound in 1 gallon of water) for two years with the follov*'ing results : 



1894-1895. 



June 26, 1895 

 July 16, 1895. 



June 17, 1896 



1895-1896. 



} I 



4(44^ 



9 



None. 



Thus whale oil soap gave but little more encouraging results than 

 hard soap. One application of soap will be washed off too soon in 

 most eastern peach districts, and two applications are too expensive 

 in labor. We must conclude that ordinary soap washes are 

 valueless. 



" 6^/i^j6»" a soap refuse, was recommended by Morgan in 1893. 

 In 1888, Aslimead recommended that Paris green he added to the 

 soap loash^ and since then many have added this poison to other 

 washes. Such poisoned washes had been recommended for apple- 

 tree borers nearly 15 years before. It is very doubtful if Paris 

 green or similar poisons add anything to the value of washes, and 

 such poisons may injure the trees, as pointed out by McCarthy in 

 1891, and as will be seen in our results from the use of such washes. 

 Our experience with carbolic acid in other washes leads us to believe 

 that the earholic acid soaps sometimes recommended have little value 

 as a preventive of the attacks of the peach-tree borer. 



We doubt if the Shaker wash (Lintner, 1891) consisting of Jish 

 oil, soft soap, lohale oil soap and indverized sulphur would effectu- 

 ally prevent many borers from getting into the trees. 



Whitewash. — Lime is one of the principal ingredients of a great 

 many washes. We first tested it for one year as ordinary whitewash, 



