440 Kei'out of the 11 uuticultukist of the 



formula, in spring before the buds begin to open. Some advise 

 later sprayings but as the peach foliage is very susceptible to 

 injury from the use of spraying mixtures including even Bor- 

 deaux mixture, we are not prepared at present to outline a satis- 

 factory line of treatment for the foliage. 



LITTLE-rEACII DISEASE, 



This disease appears to have been first described by Taft^^ in 

 March, 1898. In October of the same year Smith^^ published a 

 more extensive account of it. It seems to have been known to 

 some extent among peach growers for many years.^^ It is con- 

 sidered to be as contagious and as fatal as the yellows.^* Dr. 

 Smith describes it as a disease in w^hich the peach fruit is from 

 one-half to one-third the diameter of healthy fruit, and it may 

 ripen from one to two weeks later than the healthy fruit. The 

 leaves average, perhaps, one-half normal size and have a sickly 

 color. The larger roots appear to be all right but the ultimate 

 rootlets appear to be diseased. ISTo fungous parasite has as yet 

 been found to be the cause of the trouble. The remedy now^ 

 advocated is the same as for yellows, viz. : Dig out and burn the 

 diseased trees. 



YELLOWS. 



The best treatment for peach yellows is to dig out and burn the 

 diseased trees. It has not been found that a healthy tree planted 

 where a diseased tree stood is more apt to have the yellows than 

 if planted elsewhere, other conditions being similar. Among the 

 characteristics of the disease may be mentioned the appearance 

 of clusters of wallowy shoots, sickly color of the foliage, prema- 

 ture ripening of the fruit and red colored spots in the flesh of the 

 fruit. 



siTaft, L. R. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 155: 303-304. 



32 Smith, E. F. Notes on the Michigan disease known as " Little Peach." 

 Pennville (Mich.) Herald. Oct. 15, 1898. 



33 Mann, W. T. Pioc. W. N. Y. Hort. Soc, 1899: 142. 



34 Robinson, F., and Morrill, R. Proc. W. N. Y. Hort. Soc, 1899: 142. 



