New York AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 205 
tubers were so far advanced in decay that it would have been 
impossible to determine their weight accurately. The yields 
are shown in the accompanying table: 
TaBLE I.—SHOWING YIELDS IN THE Paris GREEN EXPERIMENT, 
YIELD PER Rowl!4, | YIELD PER ACRE 





Section. Row. TREATMENT. “oe | aes 
arket- arket- 
abla Small. aiile: Small. 
Lbs. Lbs. |Bu. lbs. |Bu. lbs. 
A Pe iCheck, Notisprayed Jc. ens 5 << 215 26 |179 10/21 40 
2 |Paris green in water............. 2634 Soul lL OO 30 
3 |Paris green in lime water........ 249 34 1207 30/28 20 
4 |Paris green in bordeaux Sie sate sth ai 3854 224/321 15/18 45 
Do | Bordestuxonly a, ows ccs seveisiere ane 3693 18 |307 55/15 =~ 
B 6 |Check. Not sprayed............ 220 31 (183 20/25 50 
Paris green IN WAGED. 6 005 ce wie ves 272 30 |226 40/25 od 
815 |Paris green in lime water........ 2494) S28\207\— -5bDi2020 840 
915 |Paris green in bordeaux......... F 3754 214/312 55/17 55 
1015 |Bordeaux only..... 5 ea des oie oh 400 PAN B EB Be ON lrg 30 
Cc 11 |Check. Not sprayed............ 297 21 |247 30/17 30 
12 |Paris green in water............. 279 274/232 30/22 55 
13 |Paris green in lime water........ 2774 314/231 15|26 15 
14 |Paris green in bordeaux.......... 417 21 \347- °30)17 30 
Loe Bordesux only. cs sco ccss cs le-stea 3803) 18 |317 fay less — 
| 
D 1616 Check. Not sprayed............ 1554 3741129 35/381 15 
17_'|Paris green in water............ 271 42 |225 50/35 — 
18 {Paris green in ilme water........ 258 Srii2ls ~— 130 50 
19 |Paris green in bordeaux.......... 4024) 20 4335 9 125/16 40 
ZO er BOrdeauxOnlLyese cates elec oiele’s 4084 26 1340 25/21 40 
E 21 \Check. Not sprayed..........;. 195 87 1162 30/30 50 
22 |Paris green in water............- 255 35 |212 30/29 10 
23 (Paris green in lime water........ 245 38 |204 10/31 40 
24 |Paris green in bordeaux.......... 382 22 |318 20/18 20 
ZH OLGCAMUX ODLY;64-. cneisie.es o/s haa ose 365 | 1934|\304 10/16 15 
%4Length of rows, 290.4 feet. 
Tn the second spraying these rows were wrongly sprayed as follows: 
Row 8. Paris green in water. 
Row 9. Paris green in lime water. 
Row 10. Paris green in bordeaux. 
m Row 11. Bordeaux only. 
In a dead-furrow. 
As was to be expected from the condition of the foliage, the 
rows treated with paris green in water (Series II) and those 
treated with paris green in lime water (Series III) gave consid- 
erably larger vields than the check rows, while the rows receiving 
bordeaux mixture (Series IV and V) far outyielded all the others. 
Owing to an error made on Rows 8, 9, 10 and 11 in the second 
spraying the yields of these rows must be left out of considera- 
tion. The very low yield of Row 16 is due to its being in a dead- 
furrow, and so this row, also, should be rejected. 
