REPORT OF THE STATE ENTOMOLOGIST I909 49 



Summary of plots 



I . . . . 



a . . . . 

 3 . . • 



4. . . • 



5. • . • 



6. . . . 

 Check 



TOTAL 



FRUIT 



30 



177 



10 



316 



9 



680 



20 



313 



19 



275 



7 



710 



3 



251 



CLEAN FRUIT 



WORMY FRUIT 



No. 



% 



29 818 



10 206 



9 582 



20 017 



19 084 



7 633 



2 366 



98 

 98 

 98 

 98 

 99 

 99 



93 

 99 

 55 

 01 



•2.73 



No. 



% 



359 

 1 10 



98 

 296 

 191 



77 

 885 



I .19 

 I .07 

 I .01 

 I -45 

 •99 

 I 

 7 • 27 



Range of 



% between 



trees 



Range in 



no. between 



trees 



.63 — 3 . 16 



30 — 



.61 — 2.66 



6 — 



.32 — 2.64 



4 — 



.96 — 2 .64 



36 — 



.49 — I -51 



15 — 



.59 — 2.74 



4 — 



571 — 33-57 



217 — 



III 



30 

 29 

 80 

 61 

 23 



668 



It will be observed that in these tables we have separated 

 the small fruit, the product largely of severe aphis injury. The 

 significance of this data is discussed on 'page 75. It was inci- 

 dental to the major investigation and has very little or no in- 

 fluence on the codling moth problem, aside from a probably 

 slight reduction in the percentage of wormy fruit. A study of 

 the results as a wholif, is extremely interesting. It will be seen 

 by reference to the table giving the summaries for each plot, 

 that the three sprayed with a Friend nozzle, produced from 

 98.81 to 98.99::^ of worm-free fruit, the higher percentage being 

 obtained on the plot receiving three applications. In a like 

 manner, the three treated with a Bordeaux nozzle, yielded 98.55 

 to 99'^ of worm-free fruit, the slightly higher percentage, as in 

 the preceding group, being obtained on the plot receiving three 

 applications. This apparent lack of material benefit resulting 

 from the second and third application, may be due in slight 

 measure to the fact that the plots sprayed but once produced 

 more apples than those receiving the second and third spray- 

 ings, though the difiference is not uniform and the variation 

 between the percentage of worm-free fruit docs not coincide 

 exactly with the difference in yield between the various plots. 

 For example, between plots 2 and 3 there is a difference of only 

 636 apples out of approximately 10,000, a variation hardly large 

 enough to materially influence the percentage of wonn-frce 

 fruit. This latter is only .06 of i'^ in favor of the trees receiv- 

 ing three applications. Similarly, on plots 4 and 5 there is a 

 variation of but 1030 out of approximately 10,000 and a differ- 

 ence in the percentage of worm-free fruit of but .46V in favor of 

 the trees sprayed twice. It can hardly be claimed, in view of 



