does not color properly. Ammoniacal copper carbonate is practically as effective as Bordeaux mixture against this disease and leaves no deposit on the fruit to hinder coloring; it is therefore preferable to Bordeaux mixture for such use.

(7) The results of mildew control are cumulative, and with the establishment of adequate control the crops of fruit are substantially increased.

(8) These experiments have shown that the disease can be effectively controlled by spraying in accordance with the following schedule, which is recommended:

First application. Spray with lime-sulphur solution diluted 1 to 50 when the cluster buds have separated, but before the blossoms open-the "pink" spray.

Second application. Spray with the same material in combination with lead arsenate for codling-moth control as soon as the petals fall and before the calyx is closed.

Third application. Spray with ammoniacal copper carbonate in combination with lead arsenate for codling-moth control about three or four weeks after the second application.

If subsequent applications are necessary they should be made at intervals not greater than four weeks, using ammoniacal copper carbonate as a fungicide.

In spraying it is important to cover every part of the leaves and twigs, and special attention should be given to the terminals. A pressure of 200 to 250 pounds should be maintained, or sufficient to drive the spray in a fine mist through the tops of the trees. High pressure is especially important if spray materials are used which have poor spreading qualities. Eddy-chamber nozzles of the "driving-mist" type should be used.

(9) In the production of sulphur spotting of the fruit, high temperature from burning sunshine is the determining factor. It is believed that the injury is not the result of toxic chemical action of sulphids in solution at the time of spraying, but it probably is due to the heating of the spray deposits to such a degree that death of the adjacent cells occurs, the results being partly due to the physical effects of the heat and partly to the chemical effects of volatilized sulphur compounds.

(1) BESSEY, C. E.

LITERATURE CITED.

1877. On injurious fungi. The blights (Erysiphe). In Bienn. Rpt. Iowa Agr. Coll., 1876-77, pp. 185-204, 2 pl.

(2) ELLIS, J. B., and EVERHART, B. M.

1888. New species of fungi from various localities. In Jour. Mycol., v. 4, no. 6, pp. 49-59. (Continued article.) Sphaerotheca leucotricha E. and E., p. 58.

(3) GALLOWAY, B. T.

(4)

1889. Apple powdery mildew. In U. S. Dept. Agr., 1st Rpt., 1889, pp. 414 415.

1889. Experiments in the treatment of pear-leaf blight and the apple powdery mildew. U. S. Dept. Agr., Sec. Veg. Path. Circ. 8, 11 p., 2 fig.

(5) BURRILL, T. J.

1892. Sphraerotheca mali. In Ellis, J. B., and Everhart, B. M. North American Pyrenomycetes, pp. 5-6. Newfield, N. J.

(6) PAMMEL, L. H.

1894. Notes on a few common fungus diseases.
Sta. Bul. 23, pp. 918-924, 2 figs.

(7) GROUT, A. J.

In Iowa Agr. Exp.

1899. A little-known mildew of the apple. In Bul. Torrey Bot. Club, v. 26, no. 7, pp. 373-375, pl. 364.

(8) PAMMEL, L. H.

1900. Powdery mildew of the apple. In Proc. Iowa Acad. Sci., v. 7, 1899, pp. 177-182, pls. 33-35.

(9) SALMON, E. S.

1900. A Monograph of the Erysiphaceæ. Mem. Torrey Bot. Club, г. 9, 292 p., 9 pl. Bibliography, pp. 241-259.

(10) LAWRENCE, W. H.

1905. The powdery mildews of Washington. Wash. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 70, 16 pp., 1 pl.

(11) STEWART, F. C.

1910. Notes on New York plant diseases.-I. N. Y. Geneva Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 328, pp. 305-404, 18 pl. Bibliography, pp. 399–404.

(12) BALLARD, W. S., and VOLCK, W. H.

1914. Apple powdery mildew and its control in the Pajaro Valley. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bul. 120, 26 pp., 5 fig., 6 pl.

(13) EYRE, J. V., and SALMON, E. S.

1916. Fungicidal properties of certain spray fluids. In Jour. Agr. Sci., v. 7, pt. 4, pp. 473-507.

(14) HUNDLEY, J. B.

28

1917. Sulphur injury in Yucaipa, 1917. In Mo. Bul. Cal. State Comm. Hort., v. 6, no. 10, pp. 402–403.

WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1915

HOW TO MEASURE SUCCESS IN FARMING.

To be successful as a business, a farm should earn a fair rate of interest on the investment and return to the operator fair wages for labor and management after paying all expenses, including depreciation. In the locality under consideration in this bulletin 5 per cent is assumed to be a fair rate of interest on invested capital. It is just about what 68 landlords in this locality averaged from rented farms, and is about what the average reliable real-estate loans would net the investor.

Wages for labor and management are commonly known as labor income. The average labor income of the 342 farms studied was found to be $356.55. The following is a business statement of the average of these farms showing how labor income is derived:

Total capital (wner's and tenant's capital combined) $17, 029. 00
Working capital

3, 494. 00

In addition to the labor income of $356.55, this average farm furnished a part of the family living and a house to live in, the value of which is estimated to be $500. Besides, an average of $81 for unpaid labor was charged in expenses, which should be regarded as a part of the income of the family. Thus the total net income of an average family owning their farm might be summarized as follows:

Labor income is commonly used to measure the business success of one farm as compared with another. It does not always show whether an individual is a successful or unsuccessful farmer.

FACTORS WHICH MAKE SOME FARMS MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN

OTHERS.

Two definite objects should be kept in mind when considering successful farming, namely, obtaining profits and maintaining soil fertility. The ordinary diversified farm to a large extent must depend on crop rotations and a proper system of live-stock farming to maintain the fertility of the soil. On nearly all farms in the part of Kentucky studied, however, lime and commercial fertilizers are used to great advantage.

The factors which most directly affect profits are: Size of business, crop yields, returns from live stock, type of farming, diversity, and the selection and proportioning of crops and live stock.

SIZE OF BUSINESS.

A matter of first importance in farming is the size of the business. However skillful or energetic a farmer may be, or however fertile his land, he can not hope for business success if his business is not on a large enough scale. In the area studied 29 farmers on farms under 100 acres in size made an average farm income of $370 and a labor income of only $81. Such an income, in addition to what the farm may furnish for the family living and a house to live in, could not be counted as more than a wage. Sixty farms averaging 286 acres in size made an average labor income of $356, while 46 farms averaging 715 acres in size made a labor income of $1,133.

The extent to which a farmer may enlarge his business depends on the capacity of the operator to organize and operate a large business, and on available capital and labor. Among the 342 farms studied, $134,000 was the largest amount of invested capital handled

by any individual farmer. The large diversified farms require a heavy investment in live stock, and experience has shown that handling live stock involves considerable risk, so that farmers hesitate to use their own capital too freely in live-stock investments; for the same reason, it is difficult to borrow large amounts for such ventures.

On the farms studied the most common way of enlarging the farm business is by renting additional land. Of the farmers visited, those who rented additional land almost invariably made higher profits than those who farmed only the land they owned. Fifty-five farm owners out of 342 farmers rented additional land and made an average labor income of $552, while the average labor income of farm owners without additional rented land was $222. Sixty-eight were tenant farmers, and these made the highest labor income, $656.13.

The good farmer will aim to make the net earnings of his farm as high as possible. as possible. Net earnings are what is left after subtracting from receipts all expenses excepting a charge for rent of land, but including a charge for management.1 Net earnings as thus defined would be what a farmer could afford to pay a landlord for rent. The average of 342 farmers made the land earn $3.14 per acre, net. The average of 140 more successful farmers made the land earn $6.14 per acre. The average of all others, representing the less profitable farms, was $1.05 per acre. Difference in quality of soil only partly accounted for the difference in land earnings, since all these farms are located on land similar in kind and topography. Neither did the prices of land vary widely on the different farms. The differences evidently were due mainly to farm practice and organization. The farms showing highest earnings per acre were better stocked, had greater diversity, less idle and waste land, and better economy in the utilization of horse labor. Farms over 400 acres in size averaged about 120 productive days' work per horse, while farms under 100 acres in size averaged but about 80 days. The cost of man labor was also lower on the large farms.

CROP YIELDS.

Next in importance to size of business in profitable farming is crop yield. While low crop yields in large measure account for the very low profits on many of these farms, a good many farmers were able to make fair profits in spite of low yields. It is even possible to secure high yields at too great expense. It must always be kept in

1 When taking the farm records each farmer was asked to estimate the value of his services as manager, not including the labor he performed. The average of these estimates was $459. The average cost of labor on the farm, including an estimate of the value of the operator's actual farm labor, was $782. Thus the cost of management was 38 per cent of the labor cost.