70 Nebraska Agricultural Exp. Station, Research Bui. 10 
Table 45 — Spray schedule 
uate 
April ou 
iviay 
June io 
July zu 
Spray 
Cluster-bud 
Petal-fall 
3-weeks 
Second-brood 
Bx-Pb 
LS-Pb 
LS-Pb 
Bx-Pb 
Plat 1 
4-6-2-50 
1.008-2 
1.008-2 
3-4-2-50 
Bx-Pb 
LS-Pb 
LS-Pb 
Bx-Pb 
2 
4-6-2-50 
1.008-2 
1.008-2 
3-4-2-50 
LS-Pb 
LS-Pb 
LS-Pb 
LS-Pb 
3 
1.01-2 
1.008-2 
1.008-2 
1.008-2 
LS-Pb 
LS-Pb 
LS-Pb 
LS-Pb 
4 
1.01-2 
1.008-2 
1.008-2 
1.008-2 
Comparison of the effect of Bordeaux and lime sulphur 
Tabulations in percentages 
Variety 
Plat 
Codling 
moth 
Curculio worm 
and sting 
Scab 
Sooty 
blotch 
Spray 
injury 
Sound 
fruit 
1 
23.02 
.07 
2.42 
.0 
1.61 
74.68 
Ben Davis 
2 
24.13 
.10 
3.16 
1.09 
4.82 
66.70 
Winesap 
3 
27.51 
.21 
1.99 
.0 
2.06 
68.47 
4 
23.29 
.13 
1.31 
.23 
2.74 
73.61 
check 
82.44 
2.06 
24.47 
.76 
9.99 
No blotch or cedar rust was present. 
At Seward (table 45), the evidence is again little in favor of 
either fungicide. No wet weather was encountered for several 
days after each application. Again lime sulphur caused more 
injury to the foliage than did Bordeaux. 
EXPERIMENTS IN 1915 
Experiments were conducted only at Beatrice this year. The 
test was primarily one of studying the effect of Bordeaux rather 
than one of comparison of Bordeaux and hme sulphur, tho the data 
afford some opportunities for comparison. 
At Beatrice (table 46), a comparison of the two fungicides for 
the cluster-bud spray favors lime sulphur as an insect repellent. 
However, this is not in accordance with previous tests. 
Here again Bordeaux did more injury when appHed early than 
when applied later in the season. Considerable Bordeaux injury 
was noted on the foliage. 
