802 
plants; that is, cover the surface of the ground an 
inch or more deep with the same peaty material used 
to prepare the lied. Mulch as far out as the root 
can possibly reach the first, year, and he careful not 
to smother the little plants. The acidity of the soil 
and the supply of plant food should be kept up by 
heavy mulches of fresh leaves each year. After the 
first season the mulch should be 4 to 0 in. deep and 
reach as far from the base of the plant as the top 
does above it. Note especially that partially-rotted 
leaves, wood or other vegetable matter is to be used 
in the first preparation of the soil, while freshly 
fallen leaves or other comparatively sound vegetable 
matter is needed for the annual mulch. 
The RURAL NEW-YORKER 
rot as from No. 2 and homemade Bordeaux, yet it 
cost twice as much per acre as No. 2 and nearly four 
times as much as the homemade 4-4-50. The check 
row showed nearly 25 per cent loss from rot. The 
total yield per acre, including rot infected tubers, 
averaged 200 bushels. 
RESULTS.—The amount of rot per acre and the 
cost of spray material is shown in the following 
table: 
TABLE No. 1 
Cost 
Per Cent I .ate Spray Material 
Material 
Sol. No. 1*.•••••••,«•••••• 
Sol. No. 2. 
4-4-50 (homemade). 
Check (not sprayed). 
Blight Rot 
14.3 
2.2 
3.6 
24.0 
Per Acre 
.$24.27 
14.6S 
7.50 
Experience in Successful Potato Spraying 
Part IT. 
COMMERCIAL OR HOMEMADE BORDEAUX.— 
Shall the grower buy the chemicals and make his 
own Bordeaux solution, or shall he buy a commercial 
Bordeaux? One cannot improve on a well-made, 
home-prepared Bordeaux mixture. Some may he care¬ 
less in preparing their Bordeaux mixture, hut it is 
pure carelessness for which there is 
no excuse. Anyone can make a good 
Bordeaux mixture without much trou¬ 
ble. If he does not know how. lie can 
find out from his Farm Bureau office. 
Commercial Bordeaux is one of many 
different grades, particularly as to the 
amount of copper contained. A com¬ 
mercial preparation that contains cop¬ 
per enough so that when used accord¬ 
ing to directions it will equal tlie equiv¬ 
alent strength in copper of 4-4-50. 
should give just as good results as the 
homemade preparation. It is largely a 
matter of getting the necessary amount 
of copper. There are some commercial 
preparations that when used according 
to directions will equal in copper 
strength a 3-3 or 4-4-50 formula, and it 
is so stated on the labels. There is 
other commercial Bordeaux lower in 
copper content. These preparations 
when used according to directions fall 
below the standard. The equivalent 
amount of copper sulphate to .*0 gallons 
of solution some of these commercial 
mixtures give varies from 2 or 3 lbs. 
to as low as one-half pound. Will one- 
half to three-fourths of a pound of cop¬ 
per sulphate to 50 gallons of solution 
control the late blight in a blight year? 
Personally. 1 would not care to take the 
chance. 
NEW II A M P S II I R E EXPERI¬ 
MENTS.—IIow this works in actual 
practice is shown in the following re¬ 
sults: During the season of 1010. 
while in New Hampshire, arrangements 
were made with James Monahan of 
East Kingston, one of our Farm Bureau 
members, to carry on some potato 
spraying work in co-operation with the 
state College of Agriculture. The pur¬ 
pose was to emphasize the value <>f 
thorough spraying and to compare the 
results of two grades of the commercial 
Bordeaux with the homemade. The work was con¬ 
ducted under the supervision of Prof. O. II. Butler 
ot the New Hampshire State College of Agriculture. 
In this demonstration, as with others reported in this 
article, a triplex pump sprayer was used capable of 
maintaining 1 S <) to 200 lbs. pressure. The spray 
booms used were shown on first page last week, hour 
rows at a time were sprayed, using three nozzles to 
a row. Two grades of commercial Bordeaux were 
used. One, which we will call No. 1, was a combina¬ 
tion Bordeaux and arsenic paste. If was guaranteed 
to contain not less than 1.5 per cent of metallic cop¬ 
per. When this was used according to the directions 
if gave the equivalent of nearly three-fourths of a 
pound of copper sulphate to 50 gallons of solution. The 
( qher preparation, which we will call No. 2. was a Bor¬ 
deaux paste. This gave an equivalent strength to the 
homemade Bordeaux used in this demonstration. An 
average of 155 gallons of spray solution was applied 
per acre in each application. In this particular case 
four applications were made during the season. 
Two thing . were brought out in this work. The 
commercial Bordeaux of an equivalent strength to 
the homemade mixture gave slightly better control 
than the homemade Bordeaux. Its cost, however, 
was twice as much per acre. Where solution No. 1 
vv-as used there was four times as much loss from 
Did the above results on the farm of James 
Monahan pay? Let us see. The difference as shown 
in Table No. 1 between the loss from rot with a 
4-4-50 homemade Bordeaux as compared to the check 
rows was 21 per cent. That means a loss of 44 
bushels per acre out of the 209 bushel yield, by not 
spraying. Since potatoes were selling out of the 
field that season at, digging time at $2 per bushel, 
the money saving was $88 per acre, or a total on the 
three-acre piece of .$204. The spray material cost 
Copyright, 1921, by Joseph J. White. Inc. 
Packing tilted on a .Y etc Jersey Blueberry Farm. Fig. 311 
$7.50 per acre, or it total of $22.50. Deducting the 
cost of the spray material from $204 leaves $241.50 
to pay for the labor of spraying and the new machine 
costing approximately $200. This result on three 
acres more than paid for his sprayer the first year. 
Last Fall Mr. Monahan wrote that the sprayer was 
slid working fine, and he said: “My potatoes are 
still green and growing, while my neighbors' fields 
are dead.” Later still he wrote: “T had a yield of 
over 553 bushels per acre, and practically no rot.” 
IN CENTRAL NEW YORK.—So much for New 
Hampshire. Now let us look at some results in 
spraying in Central New York during the 1920 sea¬ 
son. In the Spring of 1020 the Onondaga County 
Farm Bureau, under the management of County 
Agent R. E. Deuel, started out on an organized cam¬ 
paign to demonstrate what thorough spraying would 
do. Two potato spraying associations were organ¬ 
ized. one of about 54 acres and another of 58 acres, 
at Baldwinsville and Little.Utica. There were from 
20 to 23 farmers in each association. The average 
acreage per farm was 2)4 acres, and varied from as 
low as one-half acre to five acres. Each association 
purchased a new sprayer of the. type described in 
the previous article. A man was hired to operate 
each machine for the season. Spraying started the 
forepart of July and ended in September. It was 
June 11, 1021 
planned to make four or five applications per acre 
at intervals of about every 14 or 15 days. This 
would make the last application come during the 
first- half of September. The way the season turned 
out it would have paid to make a sixth application 
the last half of September, as there was no killing 
frost before November. 
APPLICATION.—A 4-4-50 homemade Bordeaux 
was used for the first applications. After the middle 
of August this was increased to a 0-6-50. The drop 
nozzle boom shown in Fig. 300 was used while the 
plants were small, after which the type of boom 
shown in Fig. 302 was used. An average of a little 
over 100 gallons per acre of spray solution was 
applied for each application, and at intervals of 
about 14 to 18 days. As it turned out, only a few of 
the fields received the fifth spraying during Septem¬ 
ber. The results would have undoubtedly been better 
if more thorough work had been done in September. 
The number of spray applications made and intervals 
between applications are not for an instant sot up 
as a possible standard to follow. Every grower left 
check rows, usually four, through the middle of the 
field. These rows were not sprayed with Bordeaux, 
but were kept free from bugs by the grower. At dig¬ 
ging time a check on 30 fields was se¬ 
cured of the yield of sound and also 
rotted potatoes from both sprayed and 
unsprayed rows. These results are 
summarized in Table No. 2. 
STUDYING RESULTS.—A careful 
study of these results brings out many 
important points. The season of 1920 
was a very favorable one for all crops, 
and we know that the average yield of 
sound potatoes on the sprayed fields 
was 251.4 bushels per acre: on the un¬ 
sprayed rows it was 176.9 bushels per 
acre. This is not so good by 74.8 
bushels as where spraying was done. 
There was an average increase, due to 
spraying, of practically 75 bushels. 
This increase was obtained at an actual 
cost of $13.50 per acre. This includes 
the cost of spray material, labor and 
that part of the cost of the new spray 
machine chargeable to the above crop. 
This cost does not include such assist¬ 
ance as the grower gave in preparing 
the spray solution and help in filling 
the spray machine tank. Potatoes from 
these fields have been sold from .$2 per 
bushel down to 35 cents per bushel. 
Even at 35 cents there is something left 
besides the cost of spraying, and we are 
only speaking in terms of the average. 
These results are not startling or un¬ 
usual. They would have been better in 
many cases if more thorough spraying 
had been done in September, as 
planned, the September spraying being 
the most important. It is interesting 
to note that the summary by the New 
York State College at Cornell of 50 
potato spraying demonstrations through¬ 
out the State in 1920 showed an aver¬ 
age increase of 71 bushels per acre. 
That is very close to the 74.S increase 
in Onondaga County. 
VARIATIONS IN INCREASE.— A 
little further study of the table shows 
the increase due to spraying varied from 10)4 
bushels all the way up to 205.3 bushels per acre. 
TABLE No. 2 
Onondaga County, N. Y.. Potato Spraying Pemonstrations 
Season 1920 
Rotted 
Yield Per Acre 
Cheek 
Sprayed 
Sound Potatoes 
Field 
Bn. per 
Bu. per 
In- 
No. 
Acre 
Acre 
Sprayed 
Cheek 
urease 
1 . . . 
222 ft 
191.8 
30.5 
O 
. 13.2 
5.25 
183.8 
120. 
57.8 
3... 
. 13.0 
3.53 
441.3 
230. 
205.3 
4... 
. 0.9 
1.8 
253.3 
222.9 
30.4 
. 12.5 
4. 
270. 
195. 
75. 
6... 
. 20. 0 
13.3 
185.7 
157.2 
28.5 
. 78.3 
12.1 
274.8 
197.2 
77.(5 
8. . . 
. 17.3 
2.8 
283. 
190. 
93. 
ft. .. 
. 10.2 
2.5 
280.1 
105.2 
120.9 
10. . . 
. 12.0 
2.5 
141.4 
113.1 
28.3 
11... 
. 33.7 
1.1 
195.0 
130.4 
05.2 
12.. . 
. 27.0 
13.0 
234.3 
195.2 
39.1 
18... 
. 33.0 
1.2 
285.7 
194.7 
91.0 
14. . . 
. 33.3 
1.7 
308. 
lftft.8 
1118.2 
Id. . . 
2.7 
323.4 
178.2 
145.2 
10. . . 
0.4 
327.0 
234.0 
93.0 
17. . . 
. 10.5 
3.5 
294.(5 
257.7 
30.8 
IS. . . 
. 40.3 
2.4 
297.2 
237.0 
59.7 
19. 
. Oft.4 
2,2 
344.(5 
242. 
102.(5 
20. . 
.*155. 
*132.0 
118.1 
59.1 
59.1 
21 . . . 
. 37.0 
.3 
307. 
191.8 
115.2 
o*> 
. 24.3 
8.1 
283.5 
100.9 
122.0 
23. . . 
. 33.8 
1ft. 3 
281. 
200.2 
30.8 
24 
175.5 
150. 
19.5 
23. 
. 0.7 
1.7 
255.3 
177.0 
77.7 
20. . . 
274.4 
159.3 
115.1 
27 . 
. 4.4 
0.7 
101.3 
126.5 
84.8 
28. . 
_ 20.8 
17.0 
125.3 
71.0 
53.7 
‘>9. . 
. 18.7 
10.5 
240.4 
108. 
78.4 
30... 
. 7.1 
2.9 
214.2 
103.8 
50.4 
Average. 
. 20.7 
9.5 
201.4 
170.9 
74.8 
* Last spray 
made August 27. Field 
on low 
ground. 
Had no 
, t , 
j . i li 
