-10- 



technologists have difficulty in evaluating spray progracos as to effectiveness on a 

 particular farm. In the iteantime^ farmers must make decisions which affect returns. 



Hr. i^ishop of .'/ellsraont Orchards, Shelburne Falls, indicates hcfVT a decision 

 on one part of the farm affects others. He says: " It 1«- interesting to note that a 

 clean crop can be graded in half the time of a $0% scabby cr wormy one. Ten cents a 

 box off your grading buys a lot of spr^ materials ." He finds it "good psychology 

 to buy spray materials in the vfinter >fhen the money is coming in" and he is grading 

 apples. 



Several readers felt the analysis shcvred selling costs greater than producing 

 costs, ilore study of selling icethcds was proposed vdth a suggestion of less vrtiole- 

 saling and more retailinc^. Even this alternative is subject to question. For example, 

 llr. Bishop, in his careful analysis of the case noted the high storage, sorting and 

 selling costs, Ke comments r "If he (the farmer) had sold his apples field run for 

 ;?1,75^ the price virhich he got for his cookers, he v/ould have netted about the same 

 and saved his o\m time spent on grading, if any. Perhaps he could have sold for ^2,00 

 field run and paid a tax on ^^2500 more," The weighted average price the fanner re- 

 ceived vras 'v2,39 a bushel. Storage, sorting and selling costs averaging .^,6? a bu- 

 shel, left yl,72 to cover other costs. Therefore, had a field run price of [?1,7S to 

 ■ij>2,00 a bushel been available it might have been more profitable. 



The response to this article is gratifying. It indicates ^j^ importance of 

 using carefully selected cases as a base for projecting farm adjustments, iir, Aines 

 will present other farm adjustments in the future, indicating ho\/ a particular change 

 may affect the vifhole farm business, 



— -3,D,Crossmon 



•«• ^f- ■«• ■«• -J'r ■>^ -ii- ^ ^ ■^- "ti^ ^.i- ^ 



"General Purpose" Home Orchard Spray Schedule, The 19Sh pest con-, 

 trol program for the home orchard is a decided improvement over 

 those of the past fevf years. The various bud stages and the var- 

 ious fruits are arranged in such a way that the importance of each 

 spray application for each fruit is indicated. For example, in- 

 stead of applying the same number of sprays on each fruit in the 

 hoif.e orchard the chart shoves that while apples may require 9 sprays, 

 certain other fruits Tiill get along nicely -v/ith it or ^, This new 

 schedule will be ready for distribution soon, Grovrers of fruits 

 other than apples, peaches and pears, for wiiich special charts arc 

 available, may be interested in looking over and using the "Gen- 

 eral Purpose" schedule, 



■ji- ■}«• -js- if ■?(■ --;- ii- -> ■«- -X- -«■ ■^s- •;;- 



Are These of Interest? "Fertilizer Applicatior^ 

 for Cultivated Blueberries" (Pomology Department 

 Sheet No, 2), "Summer Sprays for Brush Control in 

 Lowbush Blueberries" (Pomology Departiient Sheet No, 

 3), "acre Profits froK V/ild Highbush Blueberries" 

 (Pomology Department Sheet Ho, U), A postcard 

 vd.ll bring any, or all three, of these brief 

 vfrite-ups, prepared by Professor John S, Bailey, 



■«■ -j;- •;;- -it- % -;;■ -if -;s- 

 Publication Approved by George J, Cronin, State Purchasing Agent #19 



