New York Agricultural Experiment Station. 85 



THE PROFIT FROM SPRAYING. 



In three of the above experiments — at Greenlawn, Deer Park 

 and Smith town Branch, spraying was certainly profitable; that is, 

 the value of the extra yield due to spraying was considerably 

 greater than the cost of spraying. At Greenlawn, the owner of 

 the sprayed field received $97.48 per acre more than his neighbors 

 who did not spray. To get this $97.48 per acre it cost only $23.74, 

 leaving a balance of $73.74 per acre, which is net 22 profit from 

 spraying. At Deer Park the net profit was $22.51 per acre and 

 at Smithtown Branch $37.00 per acre. The experiment at Matti- 

 tuck should be left out of consideration because it is perfectly 

 plain that the crop was not properly managed. Spraying cannot 

 supply fertility nor counteract the ill effects of late planting. 



From the accompanying table it will be seen that the yield per 

 acre at Greenlawn was nearly twice as great as at Smithtown 

 Branch, 23 although the two fields were treated practically alike so 

 far as spraying is concerned, each being sprayed seven times. We 

 will not attempt an explanation of this, because it is partly a ques- 

 tion of cultural methods, which is a subject foreign to the present 

 discussion, but we mention it to impress the idea that 

 spraying does not produce pickles; its purpose is to protect the 

 vines from disease, thereby giving them a chance to produce all 

 of the pickles of which they are capable under the conditions fur- 

 nished by the farmer. With this fact in mind, it is plain that the 

 farmer, himself, is an important factor in determining the amount 

 of profit to be derived from spraying. In other words, the farmer 

 who gives his crop the best care will get the most profit from 

 spraying. 



Another factor is the cost of spraying. The lower the cost of 

 spraying the greater will be the profit, assuming, of course, that 

 the spraying is properly done. The cost of spraying in these ex- 

 periments is undoubtedly greater than it would be. on larger fields 



22 This does not take into consideration the expense of gathering the increase. 

 28 Probably due in part to difference in variety grown. 



