eT" 
THE PEACH BUD MITE. tS 
REMEDIAL CONSIDERATIONS. 
There is but little information available bearing on the control of the 
peach bud mite. Prof. Waite, in conversation, informed the writer 
that when the trouble was present several years ago in his nurseries, 
he was able to prevent injury by thoroughly spraying, during the 
dormant season, the trees subject to injury with lime-sulphur wash. 
It was not learned, however, whether trees were left untreated for 
purposes of comparison. The known effectiveness of sulphur, dry 
or in soluble compounds, against mites in general is ground for the 
belief that sulphur sprays would be effective in this case. It is 
uncertain, however, whether the mites winter exclusively on the 
peach nursery stock. The value of dormant treatments would 
depend upon the extent to which the mites hibernate on the trees. 
There is some evidence that they hibernate elsewhere. In the instance 
of serious injury in the Delaware nursery, earlier mentioned, all of the 
block of peach stock, save one row, was sprayed with lime-sulphur 
wash during the spring of 1906 (dormant buds). Examinations by 
the writer during the following summer did not show any difference 
between the sprayed and unsprayed trees, and the infestation was 
uniformly quite prevalent. 
It has been the practice for some years of one large nursery firm to 
spray blocks of their peach trees during the dormant period witha 
miscible oil used at full winter strength. Notwithstanding this 
practice the trees have been seriously injured by the mite, and in one 
large block thus sprayed during the dormant period of the spring 
of 1910 the mite was especially prevalent in one portion during the 
summer of 1911. These results suggest that the mites also winter 
in other places than on the peach trees. 
In the experience of Mr. Phillips, already quoted, (p. 106), con- 
siderable benefit resulted from prompt attention to pruning the injured 
plants, so as to correct the trouble as much as possible, by the selec- 
tion and forcing of one of the best lateral shoots. He treats this 
question at some length (loc. cit.) and his table of results from prun- 
ing tests is herewith quoted: 
Data in regard to pruning peach trees in the nursery affected by ‘‘stop-back.”’ 
Xf > Ja 79a 
Total | Number] », Number | Number of | Percentage 
Ein. ein Bera eiiired Number Btaraoked injured of pruned 
Varieties. Biirese a; pruned tree oe trees that | trees that 
is ae Ja, | May 8. Sa aie grew up grew up 
ij ay 18. : J cos irs cclabsas 
inrow. | May 1 aug: 15 straight. | straight. 
SCE ae, ere 1, 259 147 147 | 46 101 68 
RMLFINU IONS voc Sots aE ones | 1,010 150 150 40 110 73 
Dh) Se So aee See ee eee eee | 1,130 133 Check. EU | eeteete aon ww ia | asin an ote 
(1) 5 eS a ie ah ae Pe 160 225 225 | 3 22 88 
| | | as 
1 Some time after this row was decided upon as a check, it was learned that one of the laborers had pinched 
a number of trees at one end. This accounts for there being fewer crooked trees than had been injured 
May 18. 
2 June 22. 
