213 
former. The most striking difference in the results, however, is in case 
of the sulphur powder. With Professor Goff it ranked ahead of the 
potassium sulphide, and as regards amount of badly scabby apples, 
ahead of the sodium hyposulphite, while with Professor Taft it fell be¬ 
hind both. The solution of the powder which was prepared by Mr. 
Bean, although applied but three times, completely preserved 42.9 per 
cent, of the fruits from scab against 23.34 per cent, on the uusprayed 
trees, a very good showing under unfavorable conditions. With Pro¬ 
fessor Goff sodium hyposulphite succeeded better than potassium sul¬ 
phide, while the contrary was true with Professor Taft, although the 
difference is not marked in either case. 
Aside, however, from these minor differences, it is evident from the 
tables that the sprayed trees, especially those sprayed by copper com¬ 
pounds, produced a much larger percentage of healthy fruit than the 
unsprayed. The greatest difference between the perfect fruit on sprayed 
and unsprayed trees under Professor Goff’s charge was 51.68 per cent, 
and the least 6.7 per cent. The greatest difference in those under Pro¬ 
fessor Taft’s charge is 56.3 per cent, and the least 5.1 per cent., the two 
results being essentially the same. 
Besides the tabulated results there were others which are of great 
Importance but can not be estimated in exact figures. A scabby apple 
is much smaller than a healthy one, and in many cases, while the apples 
could not be placed in class one, the scab had so been held in check that 
the fruit had obtained a greater size than it otherwise would. Profes¬ 
sor Taft gives the difference in weight between perfect and scabby 
fruits as varying from .037 to .002 pound for each apple, and says the 
scabby apples are 10 per cent, smaller than the perfect ones, making a 
difference of nearly a bushel per tree in size alone, besides the fact that 
the apples that are badly scabby are unmarketable. u From the com¬ 
bined effect of the two causes,” he says “ we lost on some trees a barrel 
of apples.” 
The cost of the chemicals and labor expended varied but slightly in 
the two cases, but both gentlemen were obliged to buy chemicals in 
small amounts, and the cost per tree would be greatly lessened by treat¬ 
ing a large orchard and buying materials in quantity. Professor Taft 
used large trees requiring 3 gallons each for each application, while Pro¬ 
fessor Goff used 3 gallons for the two trees, but Professor Goff' estimates 
the labor higher than Professor Taft, and this makes the figures nearly 
alike. Both these estimates, however, are for seven applications. In 
an average season, and with the copper solutions, four or at most five 
applications will probably be sufficient. It is likely that in a large or¬ 
chard with average sized trees, when the chemicals were purchased by 
the quantity the expense could be reduced nearly one half. The expense 
of the ammouiacal solution in particular would be reduced by purchas¬ 
ing the copper carbonate instead of preparing it from the sulphate. 
14931—No. 4-3 
