610 
used. The 270 pounds of wheat represent 4..^20 
ounces of jirain, .so tliat about one ounce of wheat 
makes about one ounce of white biead. Most fann¬ 
ers under the ])re.sent tixed price receive less tlian 
.'i:2.10 per busliel for wheat, but we will take tliat 
even price of cents a i)ound for our fijrures. That 
means V/2 ounces for one cent. 
ACTUAL BREAD PRICIOS.—In oider to test this 
matte]’ we bousht three loaves of luead in New York 
and one delivered by a country baker, and a j)ack- 
aj,'e of popular wheat cereal. No 1 is a loaf said to 
contain 75 per cent of white flour. It wei^rhed .iust 2.‘! 
oiinces, and co.st 15 cents. We should say that the 
• substitutes” in it were potato flour and rye or bar¬ 
ley. No. 2 was sold as entire wheat. It weighed 14 
ounces and cost 10 cents, with 75 per cent of wheat. 
No. 3 is also a 75 per cent bread. It weighed about 
IS ounces and cost 15 cents delivered. These ai’e 
aclual ])urehase.s—.iust exactly what thousands of 
families are bu.vins- The following ttible shows how 
much wheat this 75 i)er cent wheat bread contains, 
its cost and what the fanner received for the wheat: 
P(M’ of 
Oiinees of Fanner’s eonsuiner’.s 
Bread 
wheat 
Cost 
.vliare 
dolin’ 
No. 1. 
. 17.25 
15c 
3.Sc 
25 
No. 2. 
. 1().,50 
lOc 
2..3C 
23 
No. 3. 
. 13.50 
15c 
3c 
•20 
('creal . 
. 12 
15c 
2.7c 
18 
In this lij^urinjr we .liive the amount of wheat in 
each loaf—or 75 i)er cent of the total. It is really 
less than that, since :it least 2b per vent of the bnaid 
is water, .salt and other nniterial.s. Prof. Ladd's lij;- 
ni’es show the I’elatiou betwecui wheat and broad, 
one ounce of the wheat ju’oducinti just about one 
ounce of bread. The breakfast cenail is ;i poi)ular 
brand composed entii’ely of wheat, and of which 
millions of ])acka.i^es jii-e sold. The cei’eal weifrhs 
11 ounces, includiufr the box. The fai-mer's .share is 
obtained by divi<iin^ the ounces of wheat by 4.5, that 
bc'infT the number of ounces i'('(|nii’(‘d to brin;; one 
c(*nt when wheat sells at c<‘n1s p(»r jiound. or 
.$2.10 per bushel. 
Dui’ini: the jjast Wint<'r w(> have boufjht dozens of 
loaves of bread in as many different cities, and 11;:- 
ur(‘d out the farmer's share. In ever.v case it has 
come to substantiall.v the same fl;:ui‘es. Bein;i con- 
\inc(‘d that the Administrator's estimate of 45 )»er 
cent is wroiiit and misleadin;:. we told the Admini.s- 
tiator so. and received this bdter: 
Your favor of the 11th instant inclosin;: slip entitled 
‘'Fai’inei- (b'ts ^lore’’ is rec<‘iv(‘<l. T have talktal over 
with one of the men in the office here the matter of tin* 
(bffei-ent jjercent.-ises of the jirice of l)r<*ad that ^joes to 
the farmer.s. 1 learned that this table Avas worked out 
I .V some of the experimentalists at Washington, but I 
<:.nnot vo\ich for its correctness. 
I also learned that it was based on the .O.S cent, one- 
pound loaf. I feel sorry that this .stat<>ment could not 
have gone a little further and made clear that the in- 
<']’eased per cent of the price of bread which goes to the 
lai’iner between the yc'ars 1913 and 191S is not all gain. 
'I'hat is because the farmers’ expen.ses have increased 
a< a more rapid rate than his returns on the price of 
wheat. There are a good many things that we. as farm¬ 
ers' representittives. are not able to accomidish. 
.\i. T. 
Farmers’ Re])reseutative. 
Now Tilt: R. N.-Y. r(u-o.gni/.es tlu] dillicult task of 
lb(‘ F<K)d Administrat<tr ujid ha.s no wi.sh to embar¬ 
rass or Immper any useful work. We all I’ecogni/.e 
the serious condition of the food .situation. We want 
to point out that this situation is 01 dy made worse 
by such statements as that “The Farmer (Jets More. ’ 
It is admitted that the author "cannot vouch for its 
correctness.” Why then try to .g(T such .statements 
into print? What i»ossible good can be gained by 
printing tlnmi. even if they wei-e anywhei’e near the 
truth? They do not even prove anything for “pricc- 
li.xing” when they are analyzed, but, on the other 
band, go to prove the a.s.sertion that this price-lixijig 
b;is played into the hands of the middlemen. The ef- 
f('Ct of any such iniblication is vicious and offensive 
to farmer.s. The entire spirit of it is antagonistic, 
and will be :iccept(*d as such. Any similar statement 
ai.i)lied to the labor of mechanics would be hotly re¬ 
sented. One of the most unfortunate things in con- 
lUH’tion with the food administration is that most of 
the work seems to be conducted by people who have 
little or no sympathy with working fai’iners. and do 
not understand their language or thought. 
At any rate these ligures from the Food Adminis- 
ti-ator show that there was and is such a thing as a 
:;5-cent dollar. Our actual figures in buying bread 
show that the dollai- of the fai-mer is smaller than 
ever, and we can by comi)aring actual retail prices 
with farm prices show that it is smaller on the av¬ 
erage of all farm ixroduce. Mr. Philliixs says "Thei’e 
are a good many things that we as farmers’ repre¬ 
sentatives are not able to accomidish.” 'Lhat is very 
evident, but there are some things which might be 
done, yet are pot attempted. Why not stand up for 
fbe farmers, defend their interests and .see that they 
RURAL NEW-YORKER 
get a spuai’e deal, and not a scolding in the daily 
l.aj)er.s? 
The Apple Barrel Situation 
W E po.s.sess over KHt acres of beai’ing orchai’d. 
the gi-eater part being young trees that are 
just beginning to pay, iind this past year we mar¬ 
keted ji crop of some (>,900 barrels of apples. We 
expei’ienced considerable dilliculty in getting bar- 
I’els for this crop, for which we had placed our order 
months in .idvance. The prosi>cct of getting barrels 
is worse, today : in fact, there is no coop(*rage jdant 
in the State that is turning out an apple barrel as 
far jis I can determine, and there seems little hope 
that any will he i>roduce<l between now and harvest 
time. Under these conditions the apjile growers of 
this section, and pai’ticularly the large producers, 
ai’e brought face to face with a very serious condi¬ 
tion. Unless something unforeseen happens there 
are going to be niany thousand bushels of jiiiples 
that ai’e not .going to be list'd to the best advanta.ge, 
to say nothing of the iiiiantity that Avill be com- 
liletely Avasted. simply foi- lack <if bari’cls or any 
ether package in which to market them. In our 
immediate section the orchards are scattered, and 
Iti’obably for that reason there is no common barrel 
jilant. as tbere are in some of the fruit districts of 
Vii’ginia, so that Ave have to deiiend entirely on the 
manufacturer for hai’rels. We have been aAvare of 
this ap]lie-barrel shortage for some time, and have 
.simply had to be content Avith doing what fxirther 
Ave (’Ould to locate barrels, and trusting that .some¬ 
thing might happen in the meantime. IIOAvever, Ave 
have now reached the point Avhere we expect noth¬ 
ing. and AAO. feel that our iiosition should be knoAAii 
as .’1 sin,gle instance of the aiiple grower aa'Iio is not 
going to b(' alloAA’ed to dn bis full share in the ]U’o- 
■I'lre (JiiiiiiiK' Plant in fitooni. Fit/. S13 
diiction of food for the army and for home use. 
It has been argued that fruit is not an essential to 
the men that are lighting—that the more staple 
farm crojis are to have pi’eference, hut granted that 
this is true in a measure, it certainly seems short¬ 
sighted not to realize that fi’uit can and does .sup- 
])lant many stajile jiroducts in our home con.sumption 
which thereViy liherates great (piantities of the more 
needed foods for the army. Granting this, the 
necessity of fruit production is as imimi’tant an 
operation as any other agricultui’al enterprise. Wliy 
then should not the fruit groAver be permitted to do 
his part? -Vre avc to be compelled to market our 
aiijiles ii] gunnysacks? Must Ave re.sort to any old 
kind of a jiackage Ave can find or jiut to.gether on 
the farm? There is no economy in .such a course, 
and such means cannot be used on a lar,ge scale. 
It thei’cfore reduces to this: if avc can't have bar¬ 
rels we can’t market our fruit, and if our govern¬ 
ment feels that it can dispense Avith the jipple crop 
for the ju’esent avc feel that we would like to be 
formally told this, so that Ave can .give up the busi- 
ne.ss and devote our time to another work that the 
.government Avould Ix'tter appreciate. 
Realizing that The R. N.-Y. is a very public- 
spirited paper, I am making this appeal to you in 
the hope that you can aid us in our predicament, 
jind ])ossihly be the in.strument of efl’ecting re.sults 
that Avill help the apple groAver .solve the ))roblem of 
marketing his fi’uit. n. k. keixey. 
Maryland. 
R. N.-Y’.—Thei’c is no ipiestion about the serious 
shoi’tage of barrels and the high price of Avhat you 
can find. We have many stories like the above. It 
is a mistake to suppose that the government or the 
Food Administi’ator has made any di.sci-imination 
against fruit. The Avar expei’ience in En.gland and 
Fi-ance shows that as meat and grain rations are 
changed the use of fruit, and particularly of apples, 
becomes more and more necessary. The best sug- 
.gestion Ave can make is to buy the barrel stock— 
staves, ends and hoops, and arran.ge to ])ut them to¬ 
gether during the Summer. Tliis is often done by 
April 27, 1918 
large groAA'er.«. It ou.ght to he possible to employ 
some .good cooper to come and start the Avoik. and 
instruct tAvo or thi-ee AA'orkmen so they can .go on 
with it. That is the best su.g,gestion that c.-ni Ika 
ofl'ered noAA-. 
The Control of Peach Scab by Dusting 
An Experiment in New Jersey 
F.virr I. 
OMPARISON WITH SPRAYINH.—The sprajing 
of fruit trees to control insect pests and fun¬ 
gous diseases is noAv such a common practice among 
successful fruit groAvers. that spraying demonstra¬ 
tions and experiments are limited to trials of ncAA' 
materials and improved methods of application. On 
the other hand the apjiliciition of insectic’ldes and 
fungicides in the form of dust is still in the experi¬ 
mental stage. The majority of the experimental 
work Avith dusting thus far re])orted has been in 
connection Avith aiiple trees Avith only an occasional 
reference to the peach. In vicAv of this fact the 
results secured in dinsting peaches in New .Ter.sey 
during the Rummer of 1917 should be of interest 
to commercial peach growers. These results Avere 
secured from exiieriments conducted by the NeAv 
.Jersey Agricultural Experiment .Rtation, in a large 
orchai’d located in Camden County. This orchard 
six years old, has been heavily fertilized and well 
cultivated; the trees are (juite large for their age. 
having produced their third crop this year. Four 
A’arieties are included in the planting, namely: El- 
berta, Frances, Edgemont and Krummers October. 
MATERIALS USED.—Tavo combinations of dust 
Avere used, one consisting of (55 parts of sulphur, 25 
l-'arts hydrated lime and 10 parts poAvdered arsenate 
of lead to make a hundred, and the other consisting 
of 45 parts sulphur. 45 parts hydrated lime, and 10 
parts of arsenate of lead to make a hundred. As 
eheck on the.se mixtures, one plot Avas sprayed Avith 
.self-boiled lime-sxilphur and two Avere left unsprayed 
with the exception of the dormant application of 
(imeentrated lime-sulphur, applied to all. plots to 
control San .Tost* scale and leaf curl. Three appli¬ 
cations AA’ore made to each plot as folloAA’.s: Fir.st. 
May 23. or immediately after the husks had fallen 
from the small fruits; second, .Tune 1.3, and third 
.Tuly 5. ’Phese apiilications Avere in accordance Avith 
the spraying schedule recommended by the New 
.Tersey Exiieriment Station and folloAved by the ma- 
joj’ity of the commercial peach groAvers in the State. 
('LASSING RESULTS.— In making these counts 
scab Avas the only blemish considered, all other.s 
being so sli.ght as to IniA'e no effect from a commer¬ 
cial .standpoint. In order to determine accurately 
the relative amount of scab pre.sent on the fruit pro¬ 
duced on the various plots, three grades Avere made 
as folloAvs: Clean fruit. All specimens Avhich Avere 
absolutely free from .scab. Slightly scabby. All 
specimens having from one to six or eight .small 
spots of scab Avhich did not materially disfigure the 
fruit. Badly scabby. All specimens having suf¬ 
ficient .scab to materially reduce their market value. 
This might mean a large number of small spots or 
a small number of large prominent spots that .ser¬ 
iously disfigure the fruit. The following table shoAvs 
the comparative effect of lime-sulphur-arsenate of 
lead dust and self-boiled lime-sulphur, plus ar.senate 
of lead on the development of peach .'^cab. 
Variety Elberta. 
Picked September 10, 
1917. 
Tot*I No. 
Percentage I’eneiitage 
Percentage 
Treatment of fruit* 
Free from 
.slightly 
badly 
counted 
scab 
n'shhv 
tcabby 
Du.st 
45-4.5-10. . . . 2797 
94.70 
1.43 
O..S5 
Dust 
■05-25-10. . . . 3000 
98.36 
1.46 
0.16 
Self-Boiled 
Liine-sulpliur 2940 
Uu.spi’jiyed . . 2312 
98.60 
56.40 
1.15 
28.63 
0.23 
14.90 
Variety Frances. 
Picked September*17. 
1917. 
Dust 
45-4.5-10. . . . 3212 
80.41 
17.15 
2.42 
Dust 
65-2,5-10 .... 4091 
91.64 
6.13 
•J 22 
Self-Boiled 
Lime-sulphur. 361.5 
Unsprayed . . 2737 
98.17 
18.74 
1.60 
5.5.79 
.22 
25.46 
Variety Edgemont. 
Picked Seiitember 19. 
1917. 
Du.St 
45-25-10 .... 38-25 
98.69 
1.17 
.13 
Dust 
65-25-10 .... 3.338 
99.25 
.71 
.03 
Self-Boiled 
Lime-sulphur. 3014 
Unsprayed . . 2284 
99.93 
71.62 
.07 
22.81 
.00 
5.56 
Variety Krummel’s October. Picked 
October 
4, 1917. 
Dust 
45-45-10 . . . 16.56 
72.28 
19.92 
7.78 
Dust 
65-25-10 . . . 2899 
83.92 
11.07 
5.00 
Self-Boiled 
Lime-Sulphur. 2830 
Unsprayed . . 2696 
83.07 
22.81 
14..34 
42.21 
2..57 
34.96 
N. .1. Expei’inieiit Staticii. 
.AKTIITR J. FARLEY 
