82 Nebraska Agricultural Exp. Station, Research Bui. 10 
Comparison of the effects of mist and penetration methods of applying spray 
materials, by percentages 
Variety 
Plat 
Insect 
injury 
Fungous 
injury 
Spray 
injury 
i 
1 
23.10 
2.42 
1.61 
Ben Davis | 
2 
24.26 
4.25 
3.16 
Winesap . . . | 
3 
27.73 
1.99 
2.06 
4 
23.41 
1.54 
2.74 
I 
check 
84.50 
25.23 
At Seward (table 53), no evidence could be found favoring 
either method of spraying. Poor pressure was maintained thru- 
out, which may account for the lack of difference in the amount of 
injury. Bordeaux nozzles were used for the petal-fall application 
on plats 1 and 3. Mist nozzles were used for the remaining 
applications. Bordeaux nozzles were used thruout on plats 2 and 4. 
Table 54 — Beatrice spray schedule 
Cluster-bud 
Petal-fall 
14-days 
Second-brood 
Plat 1 
2 
Pb-LS 
1.5-1.01 
Pb-LS 
1.5-1.01 
Pb-LS 
1.5-1.009 
Pb-LS 
1.5-1.009 
Pb-LS 
1.5-1. 009 
Pb-LS 
1.5-1. 009 
Pb-LS 
1.5-1.009 
Pb-LS 
1.5-1.009 
mist 
penetration 
Comparison of the effects of mist and penetration methods of spraying, 
by percentages 
Insect 
Fungous 
Spray 
Variety 
Plat 
injury 
injury 
injury 
Mo. Pippin 1 
1 
5.92 
32.48 
3.31 
2 
5.73 
22.84 
11.21 
check 
33.54 
210.60 
Ben Davis | 
1 
6.11 
28.19 
5.04 
2 
5.89 
23.29 
10.54 
check 
44.61 
188.15 
Mo. Pippin f 
1 
6.00 
30.66 
4.05 
Ben Davis J 
2 
5.79 
23.00 
10.97 
check 
39.46 
198.60 
At Beatrice (table 54), there was a slight difference in favor 
of the penetration method of spraying as shown by the amount of 
fungous infection controlled, but this was balanced by the greater 
