TRE CONTROL OF THE CODLING MOTH AND 

 APPLE SCAB. 



INTRODUCTION. 



The codling moth or apple worm and the apple scab have no direct 

 relationship, except that both attack the apple and are, respectively, 

 the chief insect enemy and, in the Northern States, the chief fungous 

 disease of this fruit. Both are, however, subject to practical control 

 by sprays, which, being necessary at the same dates, in the main, can 

 be combined in single applications, and it is for this reason that they 

 are considered together in this bulletin. A brief life histor}" is given 

 of the codling moth, with a description of the sprays and other reme- 

 dies for it, followed by similar matter on the apple scab. The bulle- 

 tin concludes with a joint consideration, for both pests, of spraying 

 outfits and methods, with directions for the combination of the spray 

 mixtui'es, and a spray calendar. 



THE CODLING MOTH. 



( Carpocapsa pomonella L. ) 

 LOSSES DUE TO THE CODLING MOTH. 



The codling moth or apple worm is a familiar pest to every grower 

 or consumer of apples, and a wormy apple, the result of its work, 

 scarcely needs description. The larva, living most of its life within 

 the fruit, throws out through its entrance hole, which it enlarges from 

 time to time, or through its exit hole in the side of the fruit, the 

 characteristic mass of f rass or excrement which is the sign of infesta- 

 tion. Such an apple is practically unsalable or, at best, fetches a 

 ver}^ small price, either for consumption or for working up into cider. 

 The monetar}^ loss thus occasioned by this insect is greater than that 

 due to any other insect pest affecting fruits. 



It has been shown by careful estimates in various apple-growing 

 States that this insect may cause a loss of from 20 to 40 per cent of 

 the fruit which would otherwise be sound and merchantable. With- 

 out going into details, this loss, on the lowest or 20 per cent basis, 

 amounts annually to $11,400,000 in the United States, and this does 

 not include the expenditures for spraying trees with arsenicals, which 



247 



.(7) 



