226 



Bulletin 170. 



stituted clay for the lime, while Stedman (1898) advises adding 

 common washing soda and a poison. 



We dissolved \ ponnd of hard soap in 1 pint of water and tlien 

 added \ pint of crude carbolic acid ; to this enough freshly slacked 

 lime was added to form a thick wash. We tested this wash 

 thoroughly for two years with the following results. 



1894-1895. 



When applied. 



June 1, 1894. . ) 

 June 28, 1894. f 



June 12, 1895. ) 

 July 16,1895. f 



Number 

 of trees 

 treated. 



35 



21 



When examined. 



April, 1895.. 

 May 24, 1895 



;::[ 



Number 

 of trees 

 infested. 



Largest i rj,^. . p 

 Number number ^ ^'.^^hL 

 of bor rs of borers ''■PP'ica- 



1895-1896. 



June 5. 1896. . . ) 

 June 11, 1896 . . - 

 June 17, 1896 . . ) 



17 (48^ 



6 (29^) 



found. 



in one 

 tree. 



26 



11 



tion on 

 tree. 



None. 



None. 



Apparently Hale's wash kept out from \ to \ of the borers, but 

 it required two applications each year. In New York the wash 

 began to scale ojff in two weeks, and thus lost its mechanical protec- 

 tive qualities ; and we do not believe the offensive carbolic acid has 

 any repellant effect on the moths, and certainly the soap or white- 

 wash is not protective, as our experiments, detailed above, show. 



None of the washes we have used which contained lime as a prin- 

 cipal ingredient, except the whitewash and linseed oil wash, remained 

 intact on the bark as long as it is necessary to afford protection from 

 the borers. The climatic conditions in New York soon cause the 

 lime to scale off, and thus whatever mechanical protective quality 

 (it has no other) it might have is rendered useless. 



It is a significant fact that all those who report good results from 

 the use of Hale's wash also practice "digging out" the borers, and 

 then give all the credit to the wash. We do not believe that Hale's 



