134 TWENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY REPorT. 
and the Station made arrangements to put it to the test. The first 
experiment™ was made at Woodbury, Long Island, in 1896. Ona 
field of one and one-half acres seven sprayings increased the value 
of the crop at the rate of $173 per acre. The expense of the treat- 
ment being $9.50 per acre, there was a net profit of $163.50 per 
acre. The following year two more experiments were made,’® and 
in 1898 cooperative experiments with farmers were made in three 
localities.“ In the later experiments no checks were left. The 
object was to determine what could be accomplished when entire 
fields are sprayed under ordinary farm conditions. The disease 
was kept well under control at a total cost of from $2.43 to $3.39 
per acre. Judging from the condition of unsprayed fields in the 
same localities the spraying was highly profitable. Farmers seeing 
the excellent results of the experiments soon began spraying. At 
the present time the spraying of cucumbers is practically universal 
on Long Island. It is generally conceded that the Station experi- 
ments saved the Long Island pickle industry. 
Other cucumber diseases mentioned in the Station publications’$ 
are: (1) Powdery mildew on field-grown cucumbers; (2) dodder 
on cucumbers under glass. 
CURRANT. 
The Station has under way a rather comprehensive work on cur- 
rant diseases, but as yet only three diseases have been treated at 
length in the Station publications, viz., anthracnose,” cane blight%® 
and-rtustS* 
Attention was directed to anthracnose at the time of an epidemic 
of this disease in the Hudson Valley in 1901. It causes the leaves 
to become specked with brown spots of pin-head size, then turn 
yellow and fall prematurely, The only really new fact discovered 
was that the anthracnose fungus attacks the wood of the new canes 
as well as the leaves. However, it was thought best to publish a 
compilation of what is known about the disease and its treatment 
for the information of fruit growers who were deeply interested 
in it. 
® Bul. 119 (1897); same in Rpt. 16:345-375. 
Bul. 138:636-644 (1897); same in Rpt. 16:425—-433. 
“Bul. 156 (1898) ; same in Rpt. 17:67-80. 
S Bul. 164:213-215 (1899); same in Rpt. 18:174-176. 
” Pseudopesiza ribis (Lib. Kleb. Bul. 199 (1901) ; same in Rpt. 20:123-141. 
* Fungus undetermined Bul. 167:292-294 (1899); same in Rpt. 18 :200-202. 
* Crenartium ribicola Fisch. de Waldh. Tech. Bul. 2 (1906). 
: 
