Table 1^{^a}.

Condition of elms^{^b} injected with MBC-P during the period of chemical effectiveness.

Year treated	Injection method	No. of elms treated				No. of elms lost ^{^c} to DED during period of chemical effectiveness^{^d}
		Healthy	Diseased		Total no.	Healthy	Diseased
		DI=0	DiX50	DiX50	no. of treated	Di=0	DiX50	DiX50
1971	(a) root	12	—	1	13	0	—	1
1972	(a) root	—	31	49	80	—	0	18
1973	(a) root	40	80	23	143	0	8^{^e}	18
	(b) flare	—	10	—	10	—	7	—
1974	(a) root	29	8	1	38	0	1^{^f}	1
	(b) flare	145	9	—	154	0	4	—
Totals		226	138	74	438	0	20	38

↵^a Table reproduced from Kondo (1977).
↵^b Dafa from Central Ontario.
↵^c ”Lost” means the elm had little aesthetic value, owing to DED; however, the elm was not necessarily dead.
↵^d Period of chemical effectiveness (a) Root injection-2 years (year of injection plus the following year), (b) Flare injection-1 year (the year of injection only)
↵^e The eight losses were traced to poor chemical distribution resulting from poor injection techniques employed by one crew during a three-day period.
↵^f Loss resulted from little or no chemical uptake because of the site on which the elm was located.