148 Report op the Botanist of thb 



age of tlie field was siicli that it ought to have been in its prime, 

 but previous attacks of the rust had injured it so severely that 

 the yield was only about one-half the average yield per acfe 

 throughout the Long Island asi)aragus section for the season, as 

 the records of the Canning Company show that the average yield 

 per acre for 1900 was about 800 bunchee. In reality the yield 

 of this field w^as only about one-third what a good field should 

 yield. As an outcome, with all the precautions taken to eliminate 

 uncertain factors, the resiilts obtained as a whole were not as 

 marked as were those in 1899. Some idea of the growth of 

 asparagus on this field can be obtained from Plates XIV and XV 

 taken the middle of September, 1900. 



By giving the results as percentages the above conditions are 

 somewhat eliminated and the yields expressed in this manner 

 probably show accurately what can be done by spraying under 

 the most unfavorable conditions. These conditions w^ere: First, 

 a field with a low yielding capacity; and second, a field having 

 alternate unsprayed rows as a constant source of infection to the ■ 

 sprayed rows. In addition it should be observed that the even 

 or unsprayed rows showed a slight advantage over the sprayed 

 rows in yield previous to spraying. See Table III. 



With all these disadvantages to contend with, the increased 

 yield from spraying shows in percentages a gain in yield of 47.8 

 per ct., and in value 44.5 per ct. This amount can surely be taken 

 as representing what is to be gained from spraying alone without 

 the aid of any other measures or methods. 



It can be shown that the average yield in bunches from the 

 Long Island fields the past year was between 750 and 800 bunches 

 per acre. The records of the Canning Company also show that 

 previous to the attacks of the rust the same fields yielded be- 

 tween 1,500 and 2,500 bunches per acre. It must not be assumed 

 that from the fact that spraying gave an increased yield of 45 

 per ct. over unsprayed rows lha( tlie average yield of SOO bunches 

 can be increased that amount. This percentage sim])ly means 

 that the yearly decrease in yield from the attacks of the rust can 

 be reduced 45 per ct. Yet a study of Table III would indicate 



