BENEFICIAL EFFECTS OF SPRAYING. 25 



Plot 15 was .sprayed on rluly 10, July 25, Aiioust 7, and August 22, 

 and yielded 90.8 per cent of sound fruit. 



Plot 16 received the same iuunl)er of treatuieiits as Plot 15, but the 

 spravino- was ])eo-un and cudcd two weeks earlier, the lirst application 

 being" made on June 27 and the last August 7. As a result U3.3 per 

 cent of sound fruit was obtained. (PI. VI, tig. 2.) 



Plot 17 also received four applications at intervals of two weeks, 

 but the treatment was begun two weeks earlier than in Plot 16, the 

 spraA'ing dates being rlune 12, June 27, July 10, and July 25. The 

 yield of sound fruit was 88.8 per cent. 



Check E, one untreated tree, yielded one-fourth bushel of sound fruit 

 and l<i| l)ushels of rotten fruit, the ])(>i-centage of sound finiit IxMug 1.5, 



HENEFICIAL EFFKCTS OF SPRAYIN(;. 



In analvzing the results as shown in Table 11 it is not difficult to 

 conclude that in Plots 1 and 2 spraying was stopped too early, that in 

 Plot 12 spraying was begun too late, and that in Plots 7 and 8 the 

 interval between the early and late api)lications was too long. From 

 Plots 3 to 6, as compared with Plots 1, 2, 7. 8, and 12, and the checks, 

 it is also plainly evident that l)itter-n)t can ])e completely controlled 

 by coating the fruit with Bordeaux mixture before infection takes 

 place and keeping it thoroughly coated throughout the season. More- 

 over, Plots 10, 11, 15, 16, and 17 seem to indicate that, so far as bitter- 

 rot is concerned, spraying before the trees bloom and within a uionth 

 after the blooming period is not absolutely necessary. It is clearly 

 seen by comparison, however, that the three early applications (April 

 8, May 1. and :\Iay 9) had a decidedly beneficial eti'ect in all the plots 

 that received them. Compare Plot 1, which received only these three 

 applications and yielded 37.9 per cent of sound fruit, with the unsprayed 

 trees, A to E, which yielded practically no sound fruit. Plot 12, 

 which received four late applications {July 25, August 7, August 22, 

 and September 4), gave only 53.5 per cent of sound fruit, while Plot 

 7, which had the same treatment and in addition the three early appli- 

 cations, gave 80.1 per cent of sound fruit. The three early applica- 

 tions thoroughly coated the branches and leaves, as well as the very 

 young fruit, and it is probable that protection from infection was pro- 

 longed by the action of the rains in washing the copper from the leaves 

 to the fruits. Of the several plots receiving only four applications 

 each. No. 16, which received its first application on June 27, gave the 

 best results, yielding 93.3 per cent of sound fruit. However, Plot 

 17, which had its first application two weeks earlier and yielded 88.8 

 per cent of sound fruit, would perhaps have shown up as well as No. 

 16 but for the fact that the upper side of one of the trees could not be 

 properly reached with the spray. It appears, therefore, from this 



