180 PEACH LEAF CUEL: ITS NATUEE AND TEEATMENT. 



Spraj^ed rows showinji' a trace of sooty mold: Nos. J:2 and 44 (sul- 

 phide of potassium Avas applied to row 4!^ and simple milk of lime to 

 row -44) — total, 2 rows. 



Unspra^^ed rows showing- the presence of sooty mold upon the trees 

 August lb: Nos. 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29, 34, 37, 40, 43, 46, 

 49, 52, 55, and 58 — total, 19 rows. 



Unsprayed trees showing no sooty mold, none. 



Rows sprayed in 1894, but not sprayed in 1895: No. 4. no mold 

 apparent; No. 24, some mold present; No. 53, a little mold present — 

 total, 3 rows. 



Rows for which no notes on sooty mold were obtained: Nos. 9, 30, 

 31, and 32 — total. 4 rows. 



The aboye notes show that records of the sooty mold were obtained 

 from 32 rows of sprayed trees 5 months after treatment. Of these, 

 30 rows showed no soot}' mold, while 2 showed a yery little. Neither 

 of these exceptional I'ows was spra3'ed with a generally recognized 

 fungicide. On the other hand, of the 19 unsprayed rows examined, 

 all showed sooty mold. The record for rows sprayed in 1894 but left 

 unsprayed in 1895, shows that the trees had but little mold upon them 

 17 months after spraying. 



The preceding facts show the disinfecting value of a single winter 

 spraying, even where the whole tree surface is covered with fungous 

 mAX'elium and spores. 



ANIMAL PARASITES OF THE PEACH TREE. 



Among the insect pests of the peach tree now prevalent in many 

 parts of the United States, the San Jose scale {Asjndiotus j:>erit/c/'(Mus 

 Com.) is probaljly the most injurious. This pest, as is already well 

 known on the Pacitic coast, can be controlled by winter spraying with 

 the sulphur sprays considered in this bulletin. Where the insect is 

 known to be present, the strongest of these sprays described should be 

 used, and it would be well to apply it somewhat earlier in the spring 

 than where weaker sprays are used. 



All leaf -eating insects depositing winter eggs upon the .tree may 

 be largeh' controlled by the winter use of sulphur sprays. There 

 is also a mite {Phytoptus sp. ?) infesting the peach leaves in Califor- 

 nia, which the writer believes may be destro3'ed in this manner, 

 from the fact that experiments conducted in 1895 in the Sacramento 

 Valle}^ showed that the same line of treatment is effective in the 

 destruction of a related mite {Phytoptus 2>y'i^'^ Sor.) upon the pear. 



Mr. William N. Runyon, of Courtland. Cal., makes the following 

 statement respecting the peach moth, which may also prove of value 

 to growers suffering from this pest^ "Incidentally I would state that 

 experience shows that peach trees spra^^ed with lime, sulphur, and 

 salt are not subject to the attacks of the larva of the peach moth. 

 Some growers claim a saving of 90 per c("nt of affected fruit.'"' 



