15 



July 31st. Sprayed both apple aud pear trees in Plots No. 1 and 

 No. 3 with A. 2 ; aud Plot No 5 with mixture A. 1. 



In the following table giving the results the pears are left out, "as 

 the trees fruited so uuequally it was impossible to make any compar- 

 ison. The foliage, however, was seriously injured upon all of the 

 pear trees as well as the apple trees. 



This injury was especially noticeable during moist cloudy weather 

 from June 12th to the 24th, in which time many light showers occurred 

 which, with the cloudy weather kept the foliage almost continually 

 wet. No difference was noticed as to the amount of injury from 

 solutions A. 1. and A. 2. 



NAMES OF VARIETIES. 



No. 1 

 No. 2 

 No. 3 

 No. 4 

 No. 5 



Greening- 

 Baldwin 

 Greening 

 Baldwin 

 Greening 

 Baldwin 

 Greening 

 Baldwin 

 Greening 

 *Bal(lvvin 



H ^ 



343 



166G 



172 



580 

 382 

 215 

 177 

 349 

 102 



SO 1^ 



189 



1197 



17 



183 



2H7 



154 



469 



155 



397 



95 



82 133 



15 162 



50 299 



49 53 



♦Tree small, no Fruit. 



RESULTS. 



It will be seen by comparing the per cents given in this table that 

 in Plot No. 1 vphich was treated there was only 38% of wormy apples, 

 while in Plot No. 2 which was not treated there was 79%, and taking 

 the average of the three plots treated we have only 43% of wormy 

 apples where the applications were made, while in the plots untreated 

 we have 84%, a saving of 41% by the use of the Paris gre(en. 



The use of the fungicide, however, has given us no results, although 

 the same solution applied without the Paris green is reported to have 

 given remarkable results at other stations the previous season. 



