STATE POMOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 57 



FINAE OBSERVATIONS. 



From these results we observe : 



1st. Spraying with either lime-sulphur or bordeaux vastly 

 increased the per cent of clean fruit and was decidedly a profit- 

 able operation. 



2nd. Of the five commercial lime-sulphur preparations there 

 was little difference in effectiveness. For an absolute test of 

 this point the use of these brands over a series of years would 

 be necessary. All of them this season were satisfactory as 

 fungicides. 



3rd. Leaf injury from lime-sulphur with lead arsenate was 

 so insignficant as to be entirely negligible. 



4th. Russeting of fruit and malformation was not entirely 

 avoided on lime-sulphur sprayed trees. Whether this is due 

 to the spray, to weather conditions or to a combination of both, 

 is a point still to be discovered. 



5th. Home-boiled lime-sulphur was slightly less effective in 

 scab control than the commercial preparations. We believe that 

 a part of this difference may be accounted for by the fact that 

 in rows 17 to 25 inclusive the trees were somewhat larger than 

 in those preceding, and had been pruned less severely. In con- 

 sequence, the same amount of spraying would have somewhat 

 less chance of being as effective as on trees more open to spray, 

 sun and air. Even so, the differences are not great. Other 

 experimenters have found the home-boiled solution very satis- 

 factory. 



6th. The self-boiled lime-sulphur was less effective in the 

 control of scab on fruit and foliage. This coincides with the 

 results obtained by previous experimenters. 



7th. Sulfocide combined with arsenate of lead was a most 

 undesirable spray to apply to Ben Davis trees. 



8th. Arsenate of lead was eminently effective with all lime- 

 sulphur sprays in the control of chewing insects. 



9th. A comparison of bordeaux and lime-sulphur for this 

 year shows a small balance of scab control in favor of the latter 

 and a somewhat greater balance in favor of the same in the 

 case of spray injury. 



These, be it noted, are our observations of the facts ; they 

 are not our conclusions, for the latter are not ready to be made. 

 No man in the experimental field is warranted in staking his 



