New York Agricultural Experiment Station. 411 



the yield of the Twenty Ounce not sp-rayed in bloom, was not 

 recorded so that no comparison can be made with the corres- 

 ponding trees which were sprayed in bloom other than was made 

 August 17 as noted above. 



Two of the R. I. Greening trees which were not sprayed in 

 bloom had a light bloom. Since there were no corresponding 

 trees with light bloom in the row which was sprayed in bloom 

 these two trees were not taken into account in making the aver- 

 ages for the table. 



It appears from this table that Tompkins King sprayed in 

 hV Dm yielded 1| bushels less fruit per tree than corresponding 

 trees not sprayed in bloom, yet the amount of marketable fruit 

 was not diminished. The R. I. Greening trees which were 



Table XIX. — Yield of Tompkins King and R. I. Greening Apple Trees. 



^ot sprayed in blooiu. Sprayed in bloom. 



Name of variety -^^ ^^ ^^.^^^ Ayerage baabels No. of trees Average bushels 



under test. per tree. under test. per tree. 



Tompkins King 1 2 



No. 1 9.23 9.00 



No. 2 3.00 3.25 



Culls .75 .75 



Drops 2.00 .50 



Total yield 15.00 13.50 



H. I . Greening 2 



No. 1 9.38 9.88 



No. 2 2.50 1.75 



Culls 3.75 1.75 



Drops 2.00 3.00 



Total yield 17.63 16.38 



sprayed in bloom yielded 1^ bushels less per tree than trees not 

 so sprayed, but the loss of the marketable fruit was only one- 

 fourth bushel per tree. In these cases, as with the Baldwin trees 

 in Mr. Wilson's orchard, spraying in bloom thinned the fruit and 

 the thinning done in this way seemed to produce results in some 

 respect similar to those obtained when the young fruit is thinned 

 by hand, that is to say the total yield was decreased but the yield 

 of marketable fruit was but slightly lessened or was even some- 

 what increased. The experiment with the Hubbardston at Mr. 

 Bradley's, however, gave contrary results, and further tests are 

 needed to establish a safe general conclusion on this point. 



