256 Report oF THE HorTICULTURAL DEPARTMENT OF THE 
In the orchards where there was no injury the formulas used 
were as varied as those in which spraying was harmful. The 
proportion of 4-4-50 formulas was high in the cases where there 
was no injury, but without doubt this is a coincidence. From the 
statements made in these reports one cannot conclude that either 
the amount of copper sulphate —in no case. was there less than 
3 pounds to 50 gallons of water — or the amount of lime, materially 
influences the amount of bordeaux injury. One point is made very 
clear, an excess of lume does not prevent injury. 
There were 95 answers in regard to arsenites. In 42 cases of 
these paris green was used; 37, arsenite of soda; 8, arsenate of 
lead; 7, green arsenoid; 1, disparene. Most of the men answer- 
ing were satisfied from observation or experience that the injuries 
in their orchards were not due to the arsenite used. 
3. Did spraying do more harm than good m 1905?— Ten of 
the 69 men who had suffered losses from bordeaux injury reported 
that spraying had done more harm than good for them in 1905; 
all will continue spraying, however. In nearly all of the replies 
to this question, only the fruit was considered for the current year. 
It is certain that in orchards where the foliage was badly injured 
early in the season, succeeding fruit crops have suffered. 
4. Experience with bordeaux injury in previous years.— There 
were comparatively few direct answers as to injury in previous 
years, but the tone of the most of the reports indicated that those 
who suffered losses in 1905 had had similar losses in past seasons. 
The letters published in the previous pages give some information 
on the point and are fairly representative in this regard of all the 
letters received. 
5. The cause of the injury—In 41 of the 69 cases of injury, 
the copper sulphate was mentioned as the cause, or the probable 
cause; in 9 cases the arsenite was considered the harmful in- 
eredient; in 5 others, too much lime; in the remaining cases, those 
replying confessed to having no opinion as to what caused the 
injury or gave an indefinite answer; several ascribed the injury 
to’one or another phase of the weather. When definite answers 
were given, the information in many cases was based on experi- 
ments with the several spraying substances. 
6. Does the manner of spraying have anything to do with “ spray 
imjury?’’— The answers to this question can hardly be classified 
because of their great diversity. There were 67 answers and with - 
a somewhat liberal interpretation we may consider 24 of them 
negative and 43 affrmative. The trend of the affirmative answers 
