32 N. H. Agricultural Experiment Station [Bulletin 257 



all the other orchard work together with many other farm tasks dur- 

 ing: the year. But when the farm orchard i-equires two teams to do 

 the spraying, this extra team is not needed for any other orchard work, 

 and maintaining it for spraying only becomes expensive. 



Farm 2 uses two teams in spraying the 2,835 trees, equivalent to 991 

 mature tree units ; but in this case the teams can be used on other 

 productive work, other crops, lumbering, etc. In the case of Farm 7 

 with 4,315 trees, equivalent to 1,625 mature tree units, only one team 

 is used. In this case, the orchard is liighly specialized, and there is 

 little other productive use for a team. To maintain an extra team just 

 for spraying would be very expensive. As previously noted, the opera- 

 tor of this farm has been able to get along with one team by using a 

 dusting machine. Without a duster an additional spray machine and 

 another team would probably be needed besides the additional crew 

 previously discussed. This operator might rig up an old truck for 

 power for one sprayer and thus avoid the expense of maintaining the 

 extra team for a whole year, but such an arrangement is not alto- 

 gether satisfactory. 



Farm 9 with 663 horse hours per 1,000 mature tree units had the 

 highest requirement in spraying, and Farm 7 which used the duster 

 had the lowest with 161 hours. 



Cost of Maintaining Spraying Machinery 



The several farms were equipped with a variety of machines. A 

 specific example taken from Farm 2 may be of interest. The equip- 

 ment consisted of two 5-horse power spraying machines, valued at the 

 outset at $930 (Table 11). During the period of the study labor used 

 in repairing the machines amounted to $97.20, and the repair parts 

 cost $80.56. At the end of the period the machines were valued at 

 $731.80. Their actual spray efficiency was probably equal to that at 

 the beginning of the periotl since the new jiarts installed had main- 

 tained them in perfect operating condition. Interest for the period 

 amounted to $124.64, bringing the total cost of maintenance for the 

 two machines over the 3-year period, including depreciation of ap- 

 proximately $200, to $500.60. From the record of man hours in spray- 

 ing it is indicated that each machine is operated approximately 12 

 days per year. Records of gas and oil were not kept accurately but 

 are estimated to amount 1o $42. Hence the cost per day of actual 

 operation for the use of the machine without man or horse labor and 

 without the materials was roughly live tloUars a day. 



With a crew of three men and a team tlie total cost of operating the 

 machine amounts roughly to $20 jx'i- day. Under ordinary circum- 

 stances with reasonably convenient watei- supply, each machine ap- 

 plied 2,000 gallons per day and sometimes more. The actual cost of 

 putting on the material is, therefoi-e, in the neigld)orhood of one cent 

 a gallon, which on the whole is a very reasonable figure. 



The average investment in spray eciuipment was $356 per farm in 

 1926. The two large outfits on Farm 2 valued at $930 represent the 

 maximum and Farm 9 with a hand outfit on a wagon had the minimum 

 investment of $60. Three farms had on the average less than $100 in- 

 vested in spray outfits, and four had over $400. 



