224 



Bulletin ITO. 



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

 year, many moi'e (over twice as many the iirst year) borers attacked 

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

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

 soap would have given better results. We tested inhale oil soap {^ 

 pound in 1 gallon of water) for two years v\'ith the following results : 



1«94-1895. 



June 26, 1895 . . 

 July 16, 1895. . . 



9 - I June 17, 1896. . . - 



1895-1896. 



4(44$f) 



None. 



Thus whale oil soap gave but little more encouraging results than 

 hard soap. One application of soap will 1)0 waslied off too soon in 

 most eastern peach districts, and two applications are too expensive 

 in labor. We must conclude that ordinary vsoap washes are 

 valueless. 



" C'^Zi^Jc" a soap refuse, was recommended by Morgan in 1893. 

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

 soaj) wash, 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 vahie 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 carholic 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 fish 

 oil, soft soap, 'lohale oil soap and pulverized 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 Iirst tested it for one year as ordinary whitewash, 



