New York AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 85 
THE PROFIT FROM SPRAYING. 
In three of the above experiments — at Greenlawn, Deer Park 
and Smithtown Branch, spraying was certainly profitable; that is, 
the value of the extra yield due to spraying was considerably 
greater than the cost of spraying. At Greenlawn, the owner of 
the sprayed field received $97.48 per acre more than his neighbors 
who did not spray. To get this $97.48 per acre it cost only $23.74, 
_leaving a balance of $73.74 per acre, which is net profit from 
spraying. At Deer Park the net profit was $22.51 per acre and 
at Smithtown Branch $37.00 per acre. The experiment at Matti- 
tuck should be left out of consideration because it is perfectly 
plain that the crop was not properly managed. Spraying cannot 
supply fertility nor counteract the ill effects of late planting. _ 
From the accompanying table it will be seen that the yield per 
acre at Greenlawn was nearly twice as great as at Smithtown 
Branch,” although the two fields were treated practically alike so 
far as spraying is concerned, each being sprayed seven times. We 
will not attempt an explanation of this, because it is partly a ques- 
‘tion of cultural methods, which is a subject foreign to the present 
discussion, but we mention it to impress the idea that 
spraying does not produce pickles; its purpose is to protect the 
vines from disease, thereby giving them a chance to produce all 
of the pickles of which they are capable under the conditions fur- 
nished by the farmer. With this fact in mind, it is plain that the 
farmer, himself, is an important factor in determining the amount 
of profit to be derived from spraying. In other words, the farmer 
who gives his crop the best care will get the most profit from 
spraying. 
Another factor is the cost of spraying. The lower the cost of 
spraying the greater will be the profit, assuming, of course, that 
the spraying is properly done. The cost of spraying in these ex- 
periments is undoubtedly greater than it would be on larger fields 

22 This does not take into consideration the expense of gathering the increase. 
23 Probably due in part to difference in variety grown. 
