238 



Report of the Horticulturist op the 



Table II. — Yield op Raspbkrries Diffkuently Sprayed During the 

 Season of 1894. 



DATES OF PICKING. 



July 13. 

 Jiilv 16- 

 July 18. 

 July 20. 

 July 23. 

 July 25. 



Total 



Average per row- 



Sprayed once before 

 li af butls opent-d 

 with coppei- Mil- 

 jihate solvition 

 C.lL.wpd by Qv 

 sprn\ iDgs with 

 Boiiii-aux mixture. 

 18 rows. 



Quarts. 



158 

 41 

 57 



109 

 33 



22 



Sprayed once before 

 leaf bttds opeued 

 wi'h iron siilplial" 

 solution folli'wed 

 bv fivw spKiyiuus 

 ■witli Bor<lt)'aux 

 mixture. 15 rows. 



Quarts. 



137 

 52 

 67 

 99 

 47 



402 



26 4-5 



Unsprayed. 

 15 rows. 



Quarts. 

 109 

 225 

 99 

 83 

 75 

 27 



618 



41 



The record of yields tends to prove nothing except that the 

 treatment seriously injured the fruiting canes in the treated rows. 

 It should be boi'ue in mind, however, that this injury was due to 

 the fact that the Bordeaux mixture used in a single application 

 was improperly made. The almost entire absence of anthracnose 

 on the treated rows ascoimparedto the considerable amount found 

 on the unsprayed rows at the close of the season goes to show that 

 the treatment was effective. 



Experiments in 1895. 



The plantation was given the same treatment throughout the 

 season of 1895. 



Dates of spraying. — The first spraying, when the diflerent solu- 

 tions were applied, was given on April 26, just as the leaf buds 

 began to swell. The second treatment was begun May 11, but 

 on account of rain it was not completed until May 13. At this 

 time the new canes had just begun to grow. On May 24, a third 

 spraying was given, when the largest of the new canes were 

 twelve to fourteen inches high. At this time it was noticed that 

 the two rows that had been sprayed with the sulphuric acid solu- 

 tions had been seriously injured by the application. A fourth 



