New YORK AGKICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 99 
There was no rot. The yield of small potatoes was 724 bu. 
per acre for the sprayed rows and 8 bu. per acre for the unsprayed. 
Summary.— Combining the results of the three tests gives an 
average gain of 42 bu. 19 lbs. marketable tubers per acre. The 
market price of potatoes being 40 cents per bushel at the time of 
digging the test rows the gain would have a value of $16.92. Sub- 
tracting $3.24, the expense of spraying, there remains a net profit 
CJ $13.08 per acre. | 
THE PERU EXPERIMENT. 
This experiment was conducted by D. Clark, Peru, Clinton 
County, who made similar experiments for the Station in 1904 and 
1905. One field of four acres was sprayed four times and another 
of five acres five times. The four-acre field was planted June 14 
and 15, the other June 8. In both fields the variety was Green 
Mountain. — | 
The sprayer was the same as that used in previous experiments; 
namely, an “Aroostook” potato sprayer which is drawn by two 
horses and covers six rows at each passage with one nozzle per 
row. The bordeaux used was of the usual 6-4-50 formula. About 
25 gallons per acre were applied in each spraying. Water was ob- 
tained from a well near the smaller field and about 50 rods from 
the other one. 
The checks consisted of one unsprayed strip of three rows in 
the four-acre field and two unsprayed strips of three rows each in 
tiie five-acre field. In the four-acre field the check rows were 
treated once (July 31) with paris green in water, while on the 
sprayed portion of the fieid poison was used with the bordeaux in 
all four sprayings. In the five-acre field the checks received two 
applications of paris green in water for “‘ bugs” while the sprayed 
rows received poison in all five sprayings. ‘‘ Bugs” were plentiful 
and caused considerable injury in both fields. The check rows, not 
being properly protected, were more injured than the sprayed rows, 
so that a part of the difference in yield between the sprayed and 
unsprayed rows is due to “ bugs” and cannot be credited to spray- 
ing. It is a question whether this experiment should be included 
in making up the averages. 
Early blight, late blight and flea beetles were all factors in this 
experiment, late blight being the most destructive of the three. 
_However, there was not at any time a very marked contrast between 
the sprayed and unsprayed rows. 
