SAVIN(} OF FOLIAOE. 



85 



Taule S. — ^l^Uurc uiul cuiaposUiun iij Hpray.t applini— ( '( ml iiiiic.l. 



Row 

 No. 



33 

 41 

 45 

 54 

 21 

 22 

 25 

 28 



27 

 30 



35 

 39 



38 

 32 



50 



56 



47 



48 

 42 



13 



44 



Classes ami formula; of sprays applied. 



- eS 



Z Of 



S3 



ft- 



o *^ - 



3 Ib.s. copper sulphate, l'> lbs. lime 



5 lbs. copper suljihate, 10 lbs. lime 



3 lbs. copper sulphate, 10 lbs. lime 



3 lbs. copper suliibate, 10 lbs. lime 



6 lbs. copper sulphate, .'> lbs. lime 



4 lbs. copper sulphate, .'i lbs. lime 



3 lbs. coi)per sulphate, ."S lbs. lime 



2 lbs. copper sulphate, 5 lbs. lime 



fiUiu celeste : 



4 lbs. copper sulphate,:; pints ammonia 



2 lbs. copper sulphate, 3 pints ammonia 



Modified eau celeste : 



4 lbs. copper sul[>hate,5 lbs. sal soda, 3 ])intsamnionirt. 



2 lbs. copper sulphate, 3 lbs. sal .soda, 2 pint.s ammonia. 

 Ammoniacal copi>er carbonate : 



5ounce.s copper carbonate. 3 pints ammonia 



3 ounces copjier carbonate, 2 pints ammonia 



Iron sulphate and lime : 



6 ll)s. iron sulphate, 10 lbs. lime 



Iron sul[.hale, sulphur, and lime : 



5 lbs. iron sulpliate, .'i lbs. suliihur, 10 lbs. lime 



Pota.ssiuni sulphide .solution : 



8 pints potassium suliihicle solutioJi 



Potassium sulphidi' solution and lime: 



12 pints potassium sulphide solution, 10 lbs. lime 



8 pints potassium sulphide .solution, 5 lbs. lime 



Lime and salt : 



20 lbs. ,ime,20 1bs. salt 



Lime: 



20 lbs. lime 



*91.9 

 87.0 

 85.7 

 82.2 

 95.9 

 94.5 

 89.8 

 89.3 



91.2 

 t92.2 



91.8 

 83.4 



70.3 

 52.5 



57.0 



75.8 



38.8 



58.0 

 41.6 



79.5 



58.8 



O Hi o 

 > 



■SOS 

 P c 



V o) « < 



So Xl 

 ftS ft^ 



.Sj; Mi: 



^ o >: 



2; 



♦604 

 666 

 556 

 529 

 6:54 

 624 

 588 

 584 



598 

 t606 



603 

 639 



438 

 302 



3:«; 



480 J 



197 



344 

 219 



509 



350 



80 



100 



90 



80 



100 



100 



80 



80 



80 

 tlOO 



80 

 80 



80 

 60 



40 



40 



40 



60 

 40 



60 



50 



* Exceptional, see p. 87. tOutslde row, next to driveway. 



The above table is planned to give for each experiment the following 

 facts: (1) The number of the row to which the spray was applied; (2) 

 the nature and amount of the iijgredi(>nts used in each ca.se; (8) the 

 average per cent of healthy foliage shown by the trees of the row 

 May 9, 1895; (4) net gain in healthy foliage above the average per cent 

 of healthy foliage produced by all of the control trees of the l)l()ck 

 (200 unsprayed trees), and which is expressed in per cent; (5) thrift 

 of uninfected leaves in color, texture, and size. The figures under 

 the fourth head were obtained in the following manner: The average 

 percentage of healthy foliage of all the trees of each control row was 

 first ascertained. These amounts were added together and divided by 

 the number of rows (20) to obtain the average percentage of healthy 

 foliage of all control trees of the block. This average was 13.06. 

 From the average percentage of each sprayed row" was then subtracted 

 the average of all control trees to obtain the gain in healthy foliage 

 of each sprayed row. This net gain was then divided by the 13.06 

 per cent of the control trees to obtain the net gain per cent of each 

 sprayed row. For example, take row 1 : 92. 3 % — 13. 06 % = 79. 24 % 

 gain; 79.24 %-^ 13.06 % shows the net gain to be ^(7^=607% of the 



