-8- 



One group of talks which seemed especially timely was on labor-saving machinery, 

 Among these one discussion concerned a runner-cutting machine which has been 

 developed by a grower in Connecticut. This is a rather large machine and is drawn 

 behind a tractor and operated from the pov^er take-off. This machine appears quite 

 promising. 



Several growers in the northwest have developed a picking machine which 

 resembles very closely the pickle pickers used in the Connecticut Valley. These 

 are simply long narrow moving platforms on which the pickers lay face down and 

 pick the berries as the platforms are moved slo\7ly across the field by a tractor. 

 A second smaller type of picker has been developed in which the pickers sit upright 

 in a frame over the row and pick between their legs as the machine is drawn slw^ly 

 across the field. 



One of the most interesting developments in mechanization was shov^n by 

 Dr. Frank Gilbert of Wisconsin. A large grower in that state has almost completely 

 mechanized his operation except for picking which is done by the public. This 

 grower has gone so far as to have not only separate sprayers for weed control and 

 Insect and disease control, but has different types of sprayers which are best 

 adapted to each operation. 



This Wisconsin grower is one of the few who have fully appreciated the 

 difference between spraying for weed control and spraying for insect and disease 

 control and has adapted his equipment to each job. Too frequently growers forget 

 that in weed spraying, rate of application and volume of material are extremely 

 important. They make up their spray material and then do "a very thorough job 

 of spraying". This usually results in an excessive application of the herbicide 

 with consequent Injury to the crop. It can't be emphasized too strongly that 

 spraying for weed control and spraying for insect and disease control are two 

 entirely different types of operations. Attempts to combine the two have usually 

 proved to be quite unsatisfactory. 



John S. Bailey 



I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 



LEAF ANALYSIS 



High nitrogen level in Mcintosh orchards has been a consistent problem for 

 the last several seasons, even in a light crop year such as 1960. Treee which 

 have received the same fertilizer program for several years will have a nitrogen 

 level which is ,2 to .3 of a per cent lower in a light crop year than it is in a 

 heavy crop year. 



Leaf Analyses of Mcintosh Orchards 



Year 



No. of 

 Samples 



High Nitrogen 



Per Cent of Samples With ; 

 Loft7 Potassium 



Low Magnesium 



46.3 

 36.7 

 50.0 

 48.0 



15.4 



10.2 



5.6 



19.2 



38.2 

 9.2 

 8.3 

 9.2 



