32 NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM 



similar plot in series 2 yielded only 82.08 per cent. Likewise, plot 2 

 in series i bore 96.84 per cent of sound fruit, number 2 of series 2 

 yielding only 83.45 per cent of worm-free fruit. It will be seen 

 that there was a variation of from a little over 8 to over 13 per cent 

 in favor of the plots in series i. This may be explainable in part 

 by the fact that the orchard in series i was younger and somewhat 

 cleaner than in series 2, though it would seem as if some of this 

 discrepancy must be attributed to less efficient spraying in series 2, 

 especially as the experience of last year showed that an apparently 

 minor factor, namely, a slightly less thorough spraying on one por- 

 tion of a tree, resulted in reducing the amount of sound fruit by 2 to 

 3 per cent, and it is possible that a slight difference in the thorough- 

 ness of application, accentuated perhaps by the lack of an automatic 

 mechanical agitator, was responsible for most of this discrepancy. 

 There may also have been in the case of series 2 less thorough work 

 on the trees adjacent to the experimental area than was the case in 

 series i. This was especially likely to occur on the trees lying on 

 a steep hillside to the southeast of the experimental trees, where 

 spraying could hardly be so thorough as in the comparatively level 

 orchard where the experiments in series i were conducted. Allow- 

 ance should also be made for the dift'erence in varieties. Further- 

 more, the trees in this orchard were rather close together and this 

 would be a great hindrance to the best work. It is interesting to 

 compare the side or end and side wormy between these various plots. 

 Plot I, series i, produced only 159, constituting some 8.64 per cent 

 for the entire yield, while plot i, series 2, yielded 1298 such fruit or 

 15.9 per cent of its entire product. Similarly, plot 2 of series i bore 

 84 side or end and side wormy, only 3.3 per cent of the entire yield, 

 while plot 2, series 2, produced the relatively much larger number 

 of 1084 or 14.8 per cent of the total number. Stated in another 

 way, if we take the check trees as a standard, one application in 

 plot I reduced the percentage of side or end and side wormy by 

 36.64 per cent, while a similar application to plot i in series 2 re- 

 duced this percentage only 19.45 per cent. Likewise, two applica- 

 tions in series i made a difference of 41.98 per cent of side or end 

 and side wormy, while in plot 2 there was a difference in this respect 

 of only 20.55 P^'* ^^^t- These figures all go to show that for some 

 reason there was a decidedly lower efficiency in series 2 than in 

 series i. 



Plot 3 of series 2 illustrates a totally different condition, since 

 the one spraying was not given till about June ist. We find a much 

 lower percentage of sound fruit, namely 57.35, while the tree yielded 



