10 



SUMMARY. 



In coiisidoriii.u (lio liiuil results of this cxperiiiuMil, several imiioi-- 

 tant fjiets sliould be borne in mind: 



Fii'st. The orchard had never before been systematically treated, ;iiid only a 

 ])artial effort had heen made to contnd tliis insect. 



Sei-ond. The cDp was very small, thus giving the fruit very little opportunity 

 to escape attack. The same conditions as to the crop prevailed in an adjoining 

 orchard and although systematic spraying was applied, as has been the case for 

 several years, the number of wormy apples was iinusually large. 



Third. The weather late in May and early in June was very wet, and this may 

 have caitsed the second spraying to have done a minimum amount of good. 



Fourth. In th(; light of the results which .show a very large amount of damage 

 bj- the second brood of moths, it may be that more effective work w<mld have been 

 accomplished if the third spi-aying had ]).'en lUiule a week <^arlier in July. 



July i:!, the date on which the spraying was made, is about as early as it is usual 

 in this latitude to apply the third spraying. According to Riley, the sei'ond br(K)d 

 of the moth emerges in the latitude of St. Louis alxjut July 8. As Delaware is 

 about 1 '-'.■» miles north of that latitude, an application of poison on the 18th should 

 1k' in sufficient season to protect the fruit from this brood. Unfortunately I was 

 unable to determine the exact date of emei'gence of the second brood, but I am 

 informed by Mr. Lowell Rondebush. one of the progre.ssive horticulturists of 

 Clermont County, which is in tlie southern part of the State, that he observed 

 specimens of the second brood in his orchard at Nicholsville on July 7, 1!)02, and 

 on July 1-2, T.»(i:5. 



The materials used by us were of known strength, but the arsenate of lead" 

 applied by Mr. Hudson depended on the purity of the raw materials that were 

 obtained. This will always be the case with homemade preparations unless a 

 definite ^laranty of the chemical purity of the ingredients is required. 



COMPARISON OF RESULTS. 



It will bo ob.serv(!(l that on the cheek row 40 per eent of the fruit 

 was ruined by the first brood and 47 per cent by tlio s<'cond brood of 

 the codling niolh. The remaining 7 per cent amounted to about 2 

 bushels and was small and imperfect. Had no spraying been done in 

 this orchard scarcely any marketable fruit would have been harvested. 



A comparison of the percentages of perfect fruit on the i-ows whicli 

 were treated three times and tho.se tliat were treated twice shows a 

 slight increase in favor of three treatments. In this experiment tlie 

 diderence is not mai-ked enougli to wan-ant the expense of an addi- 

 tional treatment. The ijrevailing wet weather immediately following 

 May J- may have been responsible for this state of alfaiis. 



It will be noted that the ju'r cent of wormy fruit was consideialily 

 greater in each case where Uordeaux mixture was added. The results 



"An analysis of the acetate of lead and arsenate of soda used by Mr. Hudson, 

 and also by the owner of the adjoining orchard. Mr. Vergon, in preparing this 

 material, was made by the oflBcial chemi.st of the Ohio State lM)ard of agriculture. 

 His rpix)rt. which was received .since the ]n-esentation of this paper, states that 

 Mie arsenate of soda contained 2.").!) per cent of salt: hence it was very impure. 



