VINEYARD SPRAYING AGAINST ROSE-CHAFER. 61 



24, which was about the height of the rose-chafer season in that 

 vicinity. 



At no time during the active season did the writer's visits reveal a 

 heavy infestation of beetles upon this vineyard, although the beetles 

 were rather numerous between the dates of June 17 and July 5 in 

 adjoining pasture lands and upon the sumacs growing along the 

 edges of the vineyard. Unfortunately, the check rows ran through 

 that portion of the vineyard which proved to be least infested by 

 the beetles and but slight injury was evident upon them. Portions 

 of two rows on the worst infested side of the vineyard, however, 

 were left unsprayed, and on these untreated vines the crop was prac- 

 tically ruined. Plates IV and V show the fruit clusters on un- 

 treated and treated vines in this vineyard from adjoining rows in the 

 worst infested portion of the vineyard. 



The result in crop yield for the whole vineyard, which comprises 

 an area of about 3 acres, was far in excess of the yield for preceding 

 years when the handpicking method of control had been employed. 

 The owner stated that in the three preceding years the total annual 

 yield had not exceeded 3 tons of fruit, whereas in the season of 

 1910, when the average vineyard yield for the grape belt was notably 

 short, this vineyard yielded 5f tons, an increase over preceding years 

 of 2f tons. 



The spray applications were made with a gasoline-engine vineyard 

 sprayer, using stationary nozzles and carrying a pressure of about 

 125 pounds, and applying about 100 gallons of liquid per acre. 



Only one application was made on the vineyard of the Prospect 

 Park Fruit Farms Co., on their farm located near the vineyard of 

 Page Bros., at North East, Pa. This spray consisted of the Bordeaux 

 mixture made from 3 pounds of lime and 3 pounds of copper sul- 

 phate, 5 pounds of arsenate of lead, and 50 gallons of water, and 

 was made June 21, after some injury had been done by the beetles. 

 On account of this injury preceding the spray application it was 

 not expected that the results obtained would be worth recording. 

 Yet as the season advanced the crop of fruit in this vineyard showed 

 a great improvement over that produced in an adjoining untreated 

 vineyard only a few rods distant. Plates VI and VII show vines 

 taken at random from these two vineyards. In the former instance 

 the crop scarcely paid for harvesting; from the latter crop a very 

 good profit was secured. 



Still other indications of the value of arsenical sprays in the con- 

 trol of the rose-chafer have been observed. On the farm of Dr. R. 

 Kelly, at Moorheadville, Pa., is a vineyard Avhich for many years 

 had been badly injured by rose-chafers, and in which handpicking 

 the beetles had been only a partially successful means of control. 

 Three seasons ago at the suggestion of the writer the owner resorted 

 to the arsenical-spray method of control, using 5 pounds of arsenate 



