24 THE CONTROL OF APPLE BITTER-ROT. 



Plot 2 received, in addition to these three treatments, one on June 

 12, after an interval of 33 da3'S, and a tifth application on June 27, 

 with the result that 67.8 per cent of the crop was saved. 



Plot 3 received, in addition to the foregoing- treatments, one appli- 

 cation on July 10 and another on July 25, making seven in all, with 

 the result that 96.5 per cent of the crop was saved. (See PI. Ill, fig. 1.) 



Plot 1 received eight treatments, the dates being the same as in 

 Plot 3, with an additional application on August 7. The percentage 

 of sound fruit was 96.8. 



Plot 5 received an additional treatment August 22, making nine 

 applications in all, with the saving of 96.6 per cent of the crop. 



Plot 6 was sprayed as in Plot 5, with an additional treatment on 

 September 1, thus receiving an application on every spraying date, or 

 a total of ten, the largest number given any plot in the experiment. 

 The .result was a saving of 98.9 per cent of the crop. (PI. IV, tig. 1.) 



Check A, which consisted of one untreated tree, yielded only one 

 sound fruit and 10 bushels of rotten fruit. (PI. Ill, iig. 2, and 

 PI. VII.) 



Plot 7 received the first three applications, namely, on April 8, May 

 1, and May 9; and the last four, namely, on July 25, August 7, August 

 22, and September 4, leaving an interval of about two months and a 

 half during which the trees were not sprayed. This interval was too 

 long, as indicated by the yield of only 80.1 per cent of sound fruit. 



Plot 8 was sprayed on the same dates as Plot 7, with the omission of 

 the application on July 25, so that the interval during which the trees 

 were not sprayed was alwut three months, resulting in a saving of only 

 51.7 per cent of the crop. 



Plot 9 received applications 5, 6, 7, and 9, namely, on June 27, July 

 10, July 25, and August 22, 82.6 per cent of the crop being saved. 



Check B, consisting of one untreated tree, yielded 17 bushels of rot- 

 ten fruit and only six sound apples. 



Plot 10 received applications 5 to 10, namely, on June 27, July 10, 

 July 25, August 7, August 22, and September 4, 90 per cent of the 

 fruit being saved. 



Plot 11 diflered from Plot lo in that the treatment of June 27 was 

 omitted. As a result of these five applications, 86.6 per cent of the 

 crop was saved. 



Plot 12 received one application less than Plot 11, the first treatment 

 occurring July 25. Only 53.5 per cent of the crop was saved. (PI. V, 



fig. 2.) 



Check C, which consisted of one unsprayed tree, had 13 bushels of 

 rotten fruit and no sound fruit, the entire crop having been destroyed. 



Check D, one untreated tree, yielded 20f bushels of rotten fruit 

 and only two sound apples. (PI. IV, fig. 2.) 



