F. 1\. Petherbridge 233 



from hatching by spraying a1 this time of the year. They indicate 

 that the various kinds of lime-sulphur and lime-sail and sulphur arc 

 not effective in keeping down apple sucker; also that lime wash is 

 partially effective and lime and salt wash still more effective. It is 

 difficult to explain why the lime-salt wash which was applied on 

 March 5th (Plot D) should be more effective than that applied on 

 March 18th (Plot E) unless the heavy fall of snow which followed the 

 spraying washed off some of the deposit. 



Last year lime-salt and sulphur proved more effective than lime 

 or lime and salt. The apple suckers which hatched out were so numerous 

 that they seriously affected the crop on all the plots, and judging from 

 the whole plots no very marked benefit as indicated by the above 

 figures could be seen on Plot D. 



It is possible that more good might have been done by a later applica- 

 tion, but the buds were shooting w T hen Plots C, E, G, J, L, and N were 

 sprayed, and a later application last season injured the young foliage. 



In the Active Season. 



In this experiment most of the ordinary washes used against apple 

 sucker were tried. The plots were similar to those in the above experi- 

 ments. 



The sprays were applied on May 7th, 1915, and at this time the 

 flower trusses were opened, but the flow T ers themselves had not opened. 



Plot 1 . Soft soap ... 10 lbs 



Creosote oil (crude commercial)... 1 quart 

 Water 100 gallons. 



This wash was effective in killing the suckers but caused scorching 

 of the leaves and cannot be recommended for Keswick Codlins. 



Plot P. Soft soap 10 lbs 



Nicotine (98%) 8 ozs 



Water ... ... ... ... 100 gallons. 



This wash penetrated well and was very effective in killing the 

 suckers. 



Plot Q. Agricultural treacle ... ... 6 lbs 



Nicotine ... ... ... ... 8 ozs 



Water 100 gallons. 



This wash penetrated well and was very effective in killing the 

 suckers. 



1 Recommended by Awati, Ann. App. Biol. Vol. I, 1914-15. 



