123 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
I!t03 
PRACTICAL ARGUMENTS FOR SPRAYING 
Suggestive Results in New York State. 
OBSOLETE METHODS.—I am sorry that such con¬ 
ditions exist anywhere, but it is a fact that there are 
still some sections where fruit growers are so far be¬ 
hind the times that they do not spray their orchards. 
Consequently they get very poor returns from them, 
and have too often rendered the verdict: “Fruit grow¬ 
ing does not pay.” The time is coming surely, in 
too many sections, however, very slowly, when all 
will realize that insect pests and fungous diseases are 
everywhere present in the orchards, but that when 
combated intelligently with modern appliances the 
orchards will again yield profitable returns. In west¬ 
ern New York, where the fruit interests are so im¬ 
portant, the growers have learned by experiments and 
experience, the necessity of spraying to get best re¬ 
sults, and would as soon think of allowing their 
horses to go unfed, as to permit their orchards to go 
unsprayed. The past season was unusually favorable 
for the development of the fungous troubles, and al¬ 
though causing much loss and damage and extra 
work, it gives another proof of the old adage: “It’s 
an ill wind that blows no good.” 
EFFECT OF SPRAYING.—Many instances have 
come under my observation where men who sprayed 
for the first time this season saw such wonderfully 
good results in comparing sprayed and unsprayed 
trees and fruit (in some instances when but one 
spraying w^as given), that in future they will spray 
their orchards thoroughly. I saw one orchard of 400 
trees, in Oswego County, with an estimated crop of 
1,500 barrels, mainly Baldwins and Greenings, large 
but so scabby that they were entirely worthless for 
barreling. Had the orchard been properly sprayed 
the crop would have sold for something like $3,000. 
Part of them were sold at 40 cents per 100 for evap¬ 
orating, some for 20 cents per 100 for 
cider, and many still lie where they 
dropped from the trees. Another man in 
a different section hired a steam sprayer 
and man with it, at $7.50 per day, and 
sprayed his orchard of 300 trees thorough¬ 
ly. As a result he sold 1,100 barrels of 
No. 1 apples at $2.07 per barrel, the pur¬ 
chaser furnishing the barrels. When 
packing he threw out every apple that 
had upon it a spot of fungus as large as 
his little fingernail; no matter how large 
and perfect in every other way it went 
into the seconds. In packing 1,100 bar¬ 
rels of No. 1 fruit he had 15 barrels of 
seconds. I saw the latter, and they were 
far better than the greater part of the 
apples I have seen offered for sale in the 
Syracuse markets either by the dealers 
or growers. The product from all the 
unsprayed orchards in the vicinity was 
practically worthless for barreling. This 
grower expressed himself as satisfied that 
his investment in spraying paid him sev¬ 
eral hundred per cent profit. The two in¬ 
stances noted above and many other sim¬ 
ilar ones that I have observed, are but ordinary cases 
that give undisputed evidence of the difference be¬ 
tween what unsprayed trees have yielded and what 
they may be induced to yield under proper treatment. 
It is a fact that a large percentage of the possible 
fruit crop of l^ie country is going to waste each year, 
and al} throng a lack of appreciation on the part of 
the growers, of proper means of saving it. This is 
particularly* true of a large part of Onondaga and 
Oswego counties. I recently saw the following state¬ 
ment from a man at Albion, Orleans County: “I 
sprayed thoroughly four times. As a result of thor¬ 
ough spraying, 90 per cent of the apples put up No. 
1. Of the remainder 8% per cent were No. 2 and 1% 
per cent were bulks. My 300 trees produced 1,908 
barrels.” You could not convince that man that 
spraying does not pay. 
TOOL REQUISITES.—I am often asked what is the 
best spray pump. That is as hard to answer as would 
be the question: “What is the best reaper or mower?” 
There are several that are very good indeed. How¬ 
ever, if a man has an orchard large enough to pay he 
will never be entirely satisfied with any outfit until 
he uses a power pump as shown in Fig. 48. A bushel 
of coal will run a horse-power boiler all day, and 
maintain an even pressure of 100.pounds. One man 
wrote me last Summer that he sprayed in 1^/^ day 
with his new steam rig what had taken him 3^ days 
to spray with hand pump, and the steam spraying 
was much more thoroughly done. By many it is 
claimed for the steamer that an orchard may be well 
sprayed with much less material than is necessary 
if applied with hand pump. One man claims to have 
saved in this way in one season $40 worth of material. 
Another man told me he preferred to apply just as 
much material, or even more, than would be used with 
hand pump, but the work was much more thoroughly 
and quickly done, the top branches being as well 
covered as the lower ones. The material certainly ad¬ 
heres longer if applied forcibly and evenly than if put 
on otherwise. The steamer pumps water from well 
or stream when refilling the tank. The vitriol may 
be hung in a coarse sack in the opening of the tank 
and the water pumped through it. All will be dis¬ 
solved while filling tank. Excellent results have been 
obtained during the past year from experiments with 
lime, sulphur and salt spray, for leaf curl on peaches 
and San Jose scale. If anyone getting a steam outfit 
expects to use this material it would be well for him 
to have a pipe put in from boiler to tank, so that the 
mixture could be cooked in the tank. A steam outfit 
can be obtained for $150, including 200-gallon tank, 
boiler, pump, hose, nozzles (everything but the 
wagon), all set up and ready for operating. A good 
hand pump with 10 feet of hose, V connection and two 
nozzles, complete without barrel, can be bought for 
$16.50, a pump with all working parts of brass and 
patent detachable ball valves. An attachment can 
also be obtained for spraying potatoes, wild mustard, 
cabbage or any low-lying shrubs or plants. 
Berwyn, N. Y. _ l. i.. w. 
ROUP IN POULTRY; HOW TO KILL IT. 
One of our readers In Pennsylvania sends us the fol¬ 
lowing questions: “Will sulphur fumes when closely con¬ 
fined and In sufficient amount kill the germs of roup In 
houses where roupy hens have been? Is there a better 
fumigalor than sulphur, and how Is It used? My build¬ 
ings are large and numerous, and will need a large 
amount of whatever Is used and It should be reasonably 
cheap and easily used. Mr. Mapes seems to think that 
hens that have had the roup will not have It again. Is 
this so?” 
Fuiuigation, Spraying and Washing. 
The complete eradication of roup has baffled us con¬ 
siderably. We have used various disinfectants with 
more or less benefit, but completely to eradicate roup 
is extremely difficult. Sulphur has given us as good 
satisfaction as anything we have used as a fumigator. 
Carbolic acid in water has also proved beneficial, and 
we have used local antiseptic treatment with some 
degrees of success. h. h. wing. 
Cornell University. 
Using Candles ot Formaldehyde. 
I find no statement that hens having once had roup 
will not again take this disease, but on the contrary, 
plenty of assurance that hens that recover from roup 
are weaker, and usually of little worth. Sulphur 
fumes, present in a closed room to the extent of four 
per cent per volume, provided the walls have been 
well moistened beforehand, will destroy virulent dis¬ 
ease germs within 12 hours. Roup germs have not 
been tried, but there is no reason to doubt that they 
also would be killed by such treatment. Of course 
the fowls that have been exposed should be washed 
in turpentine or camphenol solution; otherwise they 
will Introduce the germs on being readmitted to dis¬ 
infected premises. Formaldehyde gas is now preferred 
by boards of health for disinfection; a convenient and 
economical mode of administration is by means of the 
Lister fumigatcrs, the large-size candles of which 
are quoted at 50 cents. One such candle suffices for 
1,000 cubic feet of space. All cracks should be stopped 
up, even the keyholes, and the room kept closed at 
least eight hours. 
Dr. Owsley in the Poultry Keeper for April, 1890, 
recommends chlorine gas produced as follows: For a 
room 12x16 feet, take four gallons of salt and two 
pints of sulphuric acid. Pour the acid on the salt in 
a stone jar or glazed pot. Keep room closed five 
hours. Best moisten the walls. After each treat¬ 
ment the room should be thoroughly ventilated one or 
two hours before admitting the fowls. Another way 
to use formalin is to dilute the 40 per cent commer¬ 
cial solution of formaldehyde with four to eight parts 
of water, and spray the walls and all objects. Keep 
room closed the usual period, then ventilate. This 
is an expensive method. julius nelson. 
New Jersey Exp. Station. 
Corrosive Sublimate ami Salt. 
I have no faith in fumigation except in small and 
tight apartments. In large and numerous buildings 
spraying will be found much more efficacious and 
just as cheap. At any rate, in such a case as yours, 
efficiency should not be made of secondary import. 
The following formula will be found not only com¬ 
plete death to roup, or other disease germs, but also 
to lice, nits, etc. It is a perfect cleanser, as well as 
annihilator: Corrosive sublimate, four ounces; com¬ 
mon salt, four ounces; dissolve in two to four quarts 
of water. When completely dissolved dilute to 25 
gallons. With this carefully spray every crevice, 
nook and corner of the house. As the solution is 
highly poisonous, care should be observed in hand¬ 
ling it. Increase proportions as required. Apply with 
a fine spray pump. All movable woodwork should 
be removed and thoroughly drenched, or if easily and 
cheaply replaced, burned. It takes complete and care¬ 
ful work to annihilate disease germs, but this will 
do it. If the walls of the houses are first sprayed with 
soapy water, made from good brown soap, it will make 
the effect still more potent. Mr. Mapes is likely to be 
correct, but I would not breed from a bird from which 
roup germs had been eradicated. Better say it this 
way—a fowl which had been at one time affected by 
roup germs. My own opinion is that a bird which 
has had roup is liable to take it again. Much of 
course depends upon the length the 
germs have been permitted to go, before 
action was taken. I should like to know 
result of the spraying. a. g. gilbebt. 
Ontario, Canada. 
Dampness Needed Tor Sulphur. 
So far as I know, the particular organ¬ 
ism which causes roup has not been dis¬ 
tinctly separated with certainty from 
others of a similar character. Unless it 
is a much less resistant species than cer¬ 
tain bacteria which cause other diseases, 
dry sulphur fumes as they can be used in 
ordinary buildings will not destroy it. 
Sulphur fumes are most efficient in the 
presence of excessive moisture, a condi¬ 
tion to be particularly avoided in poultry 
houses, but good results In a general way 
so often accompany thorough fumigation 
with sulphur that the practice is prob¬ 
ably warranted. Formaldehyde is a much 
better germicide, for it will destroy not 
only the vegetative forms but the spores 
of most bacteria. There are different 
forms of apparatus in use for either gen¬ 
erating the gas or evaporating commercial formalin. 
A method which has been suggested and used is to 
spray a hanging sheet of coarse material with forma¬ 
lin, leaving it to evaporate in the closed room. Two 
quarts of formalin evaporated from about 100 square 
feet of cloth in a room of over 2,000 cubic feet was 
more than sufficient. I suspect that chlorine gas 
might be found useful but do not know how efficient 
the dry gas is. The use of fresh chlorine water was 
once found an apparent help in treating diphtheretic 
roup. Poultry buildings, however, are very seldom 
tight enough for successful fumigation. I cannot say 
regarding immunity from the second attack of roup. 
Personally I am not inclined to let a bird survive the 
positive development of the first attack unless of 
special value. h. p. wheeler. 
Geneva Exp. Station. 
DOESN’T LIKE MULCHING.—I was deeply inter¬ 
ested in the grass mulch for the orchard, but I think 
it must all depend on the kind of soil. Four years ago 
last Fall we built a nice henhouse and fenced off a 
park adjoining where we might shut in the hens when 
desired. In this the next Spring we set nearly 100 
trees of kinds that fruit here; one-half are apple, 
with pear, peach, plum and apricot in rows between. 
One end of the lot comes to a line fence where 
the soil has never been plowed, and the sod was thick 
and heavy. There were five trees set in this sod about 
one foot from the fence and kept mulched witn the 
mown grass, manure, etc. The sod is perhaps five 
feet wide, and contains five trees. The remaining 
trees are cultivated. The first two seasons potatoes 
were planted, the next two beans, and well cultivated 
and hoed, about four hills around each tree left va¬ 
cant. The cultivated trees have done well in growth 
and borne some fruit. The trees in the sod are about 
two-thirds in size; do not look nearly as vigorous 
and are more troubled by worms. Next Spring I 
shall spade it up on outside of the fence. The soil is 
a sand and gravel with a good hardpan. I should 
like an easier way than plowing and cultivating 
among them, but wili have to keep at it a. b. 
South Lyon, Mich, 
A MODERN STEAM SPRAYING OUTFIT. Fig. 48. 
