The Bulletin. 39 



. (Caldwell County) Adako, N. C. October (i, 1910. 



Dear Sir: — Your work here was very satisfactory, as the foliage is yet green, 

 while inisprayed trees have lost most all their foliage. The fruit is much larger 

 and nicer and less infested with worms. Tlie half tree that was sprayed is bright 

 and green and the fruit is good, while the side not sprayed has lost all its 

 foliage. Most every one that was here at the demonstration and have watched 

 the trees say they are going to get spraying outfits for next year. 



With best wishes, etc., S. O. Perkins (for J. T. Perkins). 



(Catawba County) Hickory, N. C, November 17, 1909. 



Dear Sir: — The apples (Limbertwigs) have been gathered, and I am sure that 

 the trees that were sprayed gave more apples and better apples than the un- 

 sprayed trees, and held a green foliage longer. The apples were almost free from 

 worms and did not rot near so bad as the apples of the unsprayed trees. They 

 were very much improved in color and size. 



Yours truly, L. J. Yount. 



(Cleveland County) Shelby, N. C, December 10, 1909. 



Dear Sib: — Your work here was very satisfactory, as the foliage on November 

 15th was green on the trees that were sprayed, while the unsprayed trees had 

 shed their foliage. The Shockley tree that was sprayed held its fruit much better 

 and it was smoother and much larger than the (unsprayed) tree near by. The 

 tree that was half sprayed showed marked difference — the fruit on the sprayed 

 side was smooth and mucli larger, while on the side not sprayed the fruit rotted 

 and was shedding all summer. L. S. Hamrick. 



(Cleveland County) Casar, N. C, November 12, 1911. 



Dear Sir: — I beg to state that the sprayed trees did not have more than a 

 dozen apples on them, but of a better quality than the unsprayed trees and un- 

 sprayed lialf-tree. Yes, quite a difference in fruit and foliage of sprayed and 

 unsprayed trees. Zero Mull. 



(Davie County.) 



(Note. — This is one of the few where no special benefit was noticed.) 



MocKSViLLE, N. C, October 23, 1909. 



Dear Mr. Sherman: — The tree fully sprayed had no fruit on it. The foliage 

 appeared to be fresher green than the unsprayed until late in September, when I 

 expected the difference to be more manifest, but I could scarcely detect any 

 difference. 



The tree half sprayed was a Winesap full of fruit. There was some apparent 

 difference in favor of the sprayed half until late in season, when there seemed to 

 be little or none. The apples on both the sprayed and unsprayed parts were good 

 and free from worms. Yours truly, J. D. Hodges. 



(Guilford County) R. D. 1, Greensboro, N. C, November 12, 1909. 



Dear Sir: — The apple trees sprayed on my place showed a decided improve- 

 ment; the Ben Davis was the finest I ever saw, so full, nearly free from rot, and 

 hung on so long, while the fruit on the unsprayed tree right by it rotted and fell 

 off' so that we got scarcely any good from them. The Winesap, however, had no 

 fruit, but the foliage was greener and more free from brown spots. The neigh- 

 bors seemed very much interested in the work all summer. 



Respectfully, D. W. Ramseue. 



(Henderson County) Dana, N. C, November 11, 1908. 



Dear Sir: — The Limbertwig apples have been gathered and marketed, and I 

 am sure that the trees that were sprayed gave double the real value that tliree 

 other corresponding ones (unsprayed) gave. More apples and better apples are 

 the result. 



