- 

BBPR RBPBLLS#T FAILS 

-:-- TO PROPBCT PIXE SEEDLINGS 

$ 

In some parts of the Northeast, bruwsing by . - deer is one of the major obstacles to successful.. 

forest regeneration. Untold damage is done 

evary year to farm cmps, gardens, and ornamen- - 

: , t.al plantings in the region as a whole. , 

A reliable deer repellent--even though itsr 

' use in general forestry might -not be practical-- 

would be on great value for protecting research , 

,. ' plots, nurseries, Christmas-tree % plahtations,* \

: ang ornamentals, - 

' In the search for an effective deer 6- k 

.' - pellent, a commercial preparation that has been - . 

.*f reported on favorably in other re&ons was 

- tested in Nar Jersey and Pennsylvania, to find . out if it would Grotect pine seedlings over 

$ 
. . =. 

*. . - "$ 

.L 

:, u ,' cq. 

<. 

5. ' 

winter. The active ingredients of -this repellent, according to the nanufackurer, are zinc- (

dithiocarbamate-amine complex plus polget hylane \ . " 

' polysulfide. 

'\ 

The Tests - 

I 

In New Jersey, the repellent was tested. in 

the winter of 1949-50 on natural pitch andshortleaf pine reproduction on a cut-over ares. . 4 

Six l/~hcre plots were used. Average density 

of seedlings (0.1 .to 4.2 feet tall) was 5,6m' 

per acre. 

The repellent was prepared according to the 

manufacturerf s specifications :- l pound in 24 

gallons of 'water, or about 2 percent! by weight , + 

of active ingrediehts. It was applied as spray, i 

. by means of a jeep equipped with transmission . 

pump. 'Rro plots were treated once, in October& 

Two were treated twice, in October and January. 

' 'Bu mere left untreated. 

The cost was $80 per acre for material and 

labor (at $1 per man-hour). Equipment charges 

.. were not included in this figure. e 

In Pennsylvania, the repellent was tested 

in the winter of 1950-51 - on planted wMte pine 

seem-. On four 1/5-acre plots, all Wng 

sqedllngs on one-half of' each plot were sprayed 

with the repellent, in October. The total number 

of seedlings treated was 242. \ 

i The spray was used at the same strength as - 'f 

\ + - 

. f 

,*, 2. 

p 4, ," m - \ 

-fr- -. s' , 5 ' , . '*

* ' ;.-a 
JO~ intensively than. the larger ones. In the 

This deer repellent possibly my pddt? - , 

#.proteetion for a f ea weeks: we have no evldence 

.- an this. But .even if it is temporarily aPiec- i 

*.'- tive, the cost and bother of repeated appuca- 
An effective deer repellent for protectiag 

research plots and similar t~ee plantirqp in the &-. 

Northeast has yet to be found. - 

--W. E. McQUILXIN and 5. UTMiJ3 ,- + 

Sole Recent Publications 

aictford, c. dl-. me seling design used in' tlh ' -

forest survey of the Northeast, JQIEL~. Forestry $8: 296- , 

293. 1912. 

Curry, John R., and Church, Thomms W. Jr. @#s@?W~ 

tims on winter dryrng of conlfers in the Adirmdueks. ' 

S Jour. Forestry 50: 114-116, illus. 1952. 

&&ire, John R., andVray, Robert D. Forest Sttitisfor ~e?mmt. PJortheast. Forest bpt. Sto. Forest 

Statis. Series. \ 47 pp., illus. 1952. , 

Simons, Fred C. Lcmrberang equzpnrent flroblenrs. Forest prod. Res. Soc. Jour. 2 (1) : 52-55. 1912. * 

1 Westveld, Matinus. A method of evaluatzng forest site 

q~lity from soil ,- forest cover, and rndrcator pimts. 

Northeast. Forest Expt. Str. Paper 48. 12 pp. illus. + 

195 2. 

r - Wright, Jonathan W. Pollen drspcrsion of smm? fo?%st 

tt-ees. Northeast. Forest Expt. Sta. Paper 46. 42 pp., 

I illus. 1952. 

. - 

* - i 

.L *;? AORtCULTUTIE- Fb-TSERVICE - W'PBROARBY.P&. , 

<=I y"* - t * L 

r ' "