-5- 



a low nitrogen level apparently increased the susceptibility of apple fruits 

 to bitter pit. Injections of urea into single limbs resultsd in increased 

 susceptibility. These nitrogen applications increased the osmotic concen- 

 tration of the leaves more than they did that of the fruits, (2) Ringing 

 seemed to markedly increase susceptibility to pitting. It increased the 

 osmotic value of the leaves proportionally more than it did that of the 

 fruits, (3) Defoliation vms the only orchard treatment that seemed to re- 

 duce susceptibility to pitting. This treatment removed leaf-fruit competi- 

 tion for viater. (4) Partial girdling of the fruit stems during the summer 

 increased the susceptibility of the fruits to pitting. This treatment pre- 

 siomably increased the osmotic concentration of the leaves at the expense of 

 the fruits. (5) Fruits on heavily thinned limbs and on naturally light-crop 

 trees were more susceptible to pitting than were other fruits. These con- 

 ditions also were accompanied by an increase in osmotic value of the leaves 

 at the expense of the fruits. (6) Oh an unthinned limb, the lateral fruits 

 in a cluster were more likely to pit, both on the tree and in storage, than 

 were the terminal f ruits, (7) Shading of limbs during the growing season 

 resulted in increased susceptibility of the fruit to pitting. (8) Delayed 

 storage is likely to result in a hastening of the appearance of bitter pit. 

 The appearance of the disease may be significantly delayed by prompt storage, 

 (9) Controlled-atmosphere storage delayed the appearance of bitter pit but 

 did not reduce the final amount. (10) The use of high relative humanities 

 in storage materially checked the rate of development of bitter pit. (11) 

 There is a suggestion that,, at least under some conditions, the use of 

 shredded oiled paper may increase the amount of bitter pit on fruits in 

 storage. (12) Waxing of fruits with certain emulsions seei:ied to materially 

 delay the appearance of bitter pit. 



BRUSH PUSHERS 



A simple device for gathering and transporting prunings in an orchard 

 is being used successfully by several Massachusetts growers. No two brush 

 pushers are exactly alike although the principle is always the same. In 

 these days of labor shortages a little time spent this winter in construct- 

 ing a brush pusher will return a good profit next spring. In its simplest 

 terms, a brush pusher consists in a number of wooden teeth so arranged that 

 they may be pushed along in front of the tractor. The construction is such 

 that any farmer should be able to build one successfully. Here is a quota- 

 tion from a recent Connecticut publication on this subjeoti 



"The teeth of the brush pusher — which slide along just toudhing the 

 groiind at their front ends--slip under brush that has been thrown into the 

 strip between two rov;s of trees. As the pusher moves along, brush is picked 

 up until the teeth cannot gather or hold any more. Since the simplest 

 brush pushers have no device to raise the teeth when a full load is accumu- 

 lated, the operator must estimate how long a strip will make a load. The 

 operator drives up a clear strip and turns into an uncleared strip at a 

 point v/here he can just get a good load on his way back to the edge of the 

 orchard. If he takes too long a strip, he will be overloaded before he 

 gets to cleared ground. Brush is pushed out of the orchard to a location 



