New York AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. rakes 
2) left unsprayed for checks. Throughout the plantation strips 
of four sprayed rows alternated with strips of four unsprayed 
rows. | 
Bordeaux mixture of the 1-to-10 formula was applied thor- 
oughly three times, namely, on May 26, June 4 and June 16. 
The spraying outfit used is shown in Plate XI. It was operated 
by two men and a boy. At each spraying about 100 gallons of 
bordeaux mixture were used and the time consumed in making 
and applying it was 54 hours. Since the area sprayed was a 
trifle less than two-thirds of an acre, the bordeaux was applied 
at the rate of about 150 gallons per acre. Both the canes and 
the foliage were sprayed thoroughly, special attention being given 
to the canes. 
From observations made on August 2 it is plain that spraying 
did not check the disease. Apparently, there were as many dead 
‘canes in the sprayed rows as there were in the unsprayed ones. 
In one sprayed row, selected at random, the dead canes were 
counted and found to number 239, while in the adjacent un- 
sprayed row there were but 172. This difference was probably 
accidential, but certainly there was nothing to indicate any benefit 
from spraying. : 
The yield of fruit, likewise, was disappointing. The fruit was 
gathered under the supervision of Dobson Bros., who also kept 
the record of the yield. Between July 14 and August 6 the plan- 
tation was picked over eleven times. The total yield of the 
twenty-four sprayed rows was 4,446 pints or 1854 pints per row. 
The twenty unsprayed rows gave a total yield of 4,070 pints or 
2034 pints per row. Thus the unsprayed rows outyielded the 
sprayed rows by 18} pints per row or about 725 pints per acre. 
As nearly as can be estimated, the loss from cane blight was 
25 per ct. of the crop. Spraying, instead of réducing the amount 
of the loss, apparently increased it. It seems unlikely that this 
difference in yield was accidental. The plantation was unusually 
uniform throughout and such inequalities as existed were mostly 
equalized by the alternation of sprayed with unsprayed rows. 
Assuming that no error was made in keeping the record the only 
way in which the difference could be accounted for is to suppose 
that the blossoms were injured by the spray. At the time of the 
