SB 933

.R38
Copy

1 the Control of Cereal-and Forage
Crop Pests

eee

Copyright, 1920, by Fred Reinlein, 1751 Derby Street,
Portland, Oregon.

Circular No. 157 February 4, 1920

established in certain parts of Massachusetts and New

York, and the U. S. Department of Agriculture is trying
to arouse the public to the need of drastic action towards
“control and extermination” of this serious pest, and at the
same time has virtually no other means of ‘‘control and ex-
termination” to offer than destruction of the very large
number of food plants this pest inhabits during its period of
rest, this is a good time to throw a little light on how the
Bureau of Entomology proposes to control certain other im-
portant insect pests, especially such as affect cereal-and forage
crops, and also on means of control to accomplished this same
purpose, as had been described by me during the past 6 years.

A system of control that is claimed by me to effectively
control the European corn borer has recently been described
by me in my Circular No. 156, and the Secretary of Agri-
culture, who for the past 6 years has done nothing to make
the U. S. Entomologist do his duty in this matter—admit
that I am right, or show where [| am wrong—was once more
asked to make the little man attend to his job.

| N AS much as the European corn borer has become well

Dhee

The essential features of controlling this new pest will be
repeated here, chiefly because I shall subsequently show that
I had similar means described years ago, and because the es-
sential idea, with modifications, makes possible the effective
control of a number of other important cereal-and forage
crop pests.

The European corn borer is a moth that develops “at
least two generations annually” in Massachusetts. In the
case of this insect a female moth emerging in the spring, lays
on the average 350 eggs, and a female of the second brood,
emerging in July, 550. These eggs are laid in patches of from
5 to 50 on the underside of the leaves, and the hatching young
in a few days after feeding upon the surface of the leaves
enter the plant to develop therein to a moth.

As for natural means of control, “very few are destroyed
by them” (Farm Bul. No. 1046, p. 2). It will »readily be
seen then, that mere destruction, usually by burning, of its
host plants, which is to include “the stubble and upper part
of the root,” and which host plants include, on suspicion,
practically every plant of herbaceous growth such as annual
weeds, is necessarily inadequate, no matter at what cost in
money and loss of fertility and loss of waterholding power of
the soil it may be carried out, to prevent the survival of a
considerable percentage of larvae, and consequently is sure to
result in heavy loss the following year.

The means of control devised by me, take advantage of
the fact that the moths prefer to oviposit on corn bearing a
tassel, or just coming into the tassel stage. Most of the corn

Jp

© 61 A563576 FEB 25 1920

ed

in Massachusetts reaches the tassel stage by July Ist. The
first brood of moths oviposits during the 3 or 4 preceding
weeks. If no corn is then in tassel, and none but early sweet
corn is, the moths deposit their eggs upon other plants bearing
a green seed head. Such plants are then plentiful among
grasses and weeds. My plan provides for a patch of just such
grasses or suitable weeds. It is extremely easy to provide
such a patch, barnyard grass for instance making an excellent
trap plant. This patch is to be mowed closely, cured and

- baled before any moths are ready to emerge. The less the

brood was developed at the time of the cutting, the less neces-
sary will be the baling, since the greater will be the mortality
because of the drying up of the food supply, while the insect
is yet immature. Naturally, the less seed heads are allowed
to be present outside of this patch at ovipositing time through
mowing them off previously or subsequently to the beginning
of oviposition, and before the resulting inmature stages can

survive in spite of the cutting, the better will be the result.

We thus control the pest, simply by growing a crop of good
hay at a stipulated time.

The second brood of moths emerges during the last week
of July—2 to 3 weeks after corn has passed the pollination
stage. My plan provides for a trap patch of corn sown rather
thinly for fodder at such time that it will be just coming inte
the tassel stage by this time. This patch will then attract
most of the moths for oviposition and thus very largely pro-
tect the ear corn against infestation by the comparatively
small number of moths that have been allowed to develop on

ms

plants other than the trap patch. This corn grown for fod-
der or silage is carefully utilized during winter which reduces
the pest without any further fuss and fumble to the minimum
for spring infestation.

What is wanted now in the interest of the public weal
is that the Secretary of Agriculture give the Entomologist a
day off from other pressing duties of his office, real or fancied,
so that he may have time to define what is what in this method
of controlling what, is “probably the most injurious plant pest
yet introduced,” as described on pages 1 to 11 of my Circular
No. 156.

Sucidentally, the Entomologist has been for Si jyearns
wanting to show why such a trap patch of late cotton or corn
would not concentrate the bollworm or corn ear wcerm into .
hibernating quarters, and by plowing the ground before
emergence begins in the spring, keep the bulk of the moths
from emerging in any given locality.

If the borer finds its way to sections where it can produce
3 broods, the dates given have to be correspondingly advanced,
and an extra sowing of corn made to tassel by about August
20.

In the South, this insect can produce 4 to 5 generations.
The dates as given for Massachusetts have then to be still
further advanced and the use of trap crops, corn or other suit-
able crops has to be carried on longer in the fall.

There is every reason to believe that should this pest find
its way to the cotton belt, it would prove to be a far more
formidable pest to cotton—under the crude method of control

4

advocated at present by the Bureau of Entomology---than
either the boll weevil or the pink boll worm. In that case
the first brood of moths can be made to oviposit on a trap
patch of grasses, while the later broods, on cotton, could not be
controlled except by the means described by me in my Circular
Neeles pp. ito £6;"for the control of the boll weevil, the
boll worm and many other cotton insects, including, as ex-
plained on pages 33 to 35 of my Circular No. 152 and pages
12 to 18 of my Circular No. 154, the pink boll worm. This
method, in substance, consists in using poultry to pick on the
fallen squares containing juicy grubs such as of the boll
weevil, and concentrating oviposition of the boll weevil and
the boll worm in the late summer to a late sown trap patch of
cotton.

The European corn borer would readily breed on sugar
cane. The first brood could be allowed to develop on grasses
and weeds surrounding the cane field. These grasses and
weeds would have to be cut at such time, that no adult can
develop. The subsequent generations can be controlled the
same as the 4 generations of the sugar can moth borer, de-
scribed on pages 11 to 16 of my Circular No. 56. In essence,
this method of control consists in sowing late torn at in-
tervals and using it for silage and to trap the insect into
hibernating quarters.

There are other important insects that can be similarly
controlled. One of these is the sorghum midge. “In addition
to the many varieties of sweet sorghum, the sorghum midge
is known to infest broom corn, kafir, Johnson grass and milo.

In one instance the writer,’ (Mm W?7 Harper Dean), ceareq
a single adult from the common fcxtail grass (Setaria glauca)
and Mr. George G. Ainslie has also reared the midge from the
“orass Sieglingia sesleroides” (Ent. Buil. 85, p. 44).

“Tn the spring the midge appears with the first Johnson grass
and sorghum, and as this grass heads considerably before the
cultivated sorghum, it may be said that by the time the latter
has headed, the midge has become sufficiently abundant on
the grass to make the first sorghum infestation a heavy one.
In the latitude of San Antonidé, Tex., the first midges to be
found during the season of 1909, were found actively oviposit-
ing in Johnson grass on May 14. At this date the neighboring
sorghum had not headed, and it was not until June 19 that
the first brood emerged from the sorghum, which puts the date
of this first infestation at snpteximately jiunems” “(piioay
“From what has been said previously in regard to the midge
in relation to Johnson grass, it is a self-evident fact that this
grass furnishes the key to the situation (p. 55)... ~Ehewde=
struction of Johnson grass *s one of the most vital factors in
midge control” (p. 58).

Destroying Johnson grass will not control the midge, be-
cause the midge could no doubi breed in a great number of
other grasses if it were deprived of its usual food plant early
in the season. Take a similar case: The bollweevil from its
introduction into the United States in 1892 to 1913, was not
known to feed and breed on anything but cotton, but evidently
as the result of trying to starve it out by the early destruction
of all of the plants in the fall it was found feeding in 1913 hy

ay

Mr. b. R. Coad, of the Bureau of Entomology, on Hibiscus
syriacus, and actually experimentally reared on this plant by
him, and partly also on other plants. Thus “by alternating
food plants “(experimentally, which is less favorable than
would be the case under field conditions), it was found that
the weevils have a wide range of hitherto unsuspected adapti-
baer CUS. Dep. A. Bull: Nog23i, p.'3).

I had shown from this for four years past that with a cot-
tonfield totally infested by the bollweevil in the early fall, de-
struction of all of the plants, and, in fact, the mere absence
of squares suitable for oviposition would force the weevil to
accustom itself to breed in plants other than cotton, which of
course would in time render the Bureau’s old standby of con-
trol—early destruction of stalks—entirely inefficient, and make
control of the weevil al] the more difficult, and that therefore
the only sound principle of control rests in concentrating
the weevil upon its original and preferred foodplant, and
iitackine” it) there ‘by having’ poultry pick *on the ~ fallen
squares and secure adults as described in detail in my Circular
No 1h2; pp? 1 to 16.

In the case of the sorghum midge the abundant supply of
Johnson grass always present in the past simply thus far has
not forced the midge to oviposit on any grass of second
choice to any great extent. “Johnson grass being the first to
head and bloom gives the midge a good start and by the time
sorghum is headed there is a large brood of midges from the
grass to infest it” (p. 55). Exactly—if you let them mature on
it. But my plan provides for a Jarge patch of Johnson grass

os

to be cut before the immature stages therein have sufficiently
developed to emerge as adults. Of course the trappatch will
be the more efficient the more the seed heads of Johnson
grass nearby are made to serve as traps and are finally kept
down before adults can develop through pasturing or mowing.

“Johnson grass makes a heavy yield of excellent hay if cut

before the seeds are formed . . 2/ Farm Bull. No7.509) pai)
is quite possible to eradicate it in fields planted by itself “with-
out excessive labor or expense. . .. The only expense is for

the extra plowing and harrowing and that is more than repaid
by the additional crop...” (p.@). Also;see Farmers Bullen
No. 279: A method of eradicating Johnson grass. But as
Johnson grass also occurs in mixture with other grasses and
weeds where proper shallow plowing and harrowing for eradi-
cation cannot be employed, if we were to adopt the Bureau's
plan of controlling the sorghum midge by eradicating the
Johnson grass, we would have to dig all these scattered root
stocks up, simply to have new grass sown through seeds pass-
ing through the stomachs of birds and other animals and to
find that a large number of other grasses are also capable of
sustaining the midge.

That Mr. Dean does not know how to eradicate Johnson
grass is plain from the following, under heading of Destruction
of Johnson grass: “... It should be burned over whenever
discovered and such areas plowed in the spring to prevent an
early crop of heads” (p. 58). The fact is, such plowing prevents
an early crop of heads all right, but keeps the grass growing
from year to year’... The small isolated patches of the grass

—.,

in the fence corners will carry the species over winter in the
Seed)... (p. 061): Exactly. wAnd 1 these heads were. cut
in the spring before adults can develop and were subsequently
cut whenever they became nearly old enough to mature a crop
of adult midges, these same patches would constantly act as
traps and keep the sorghum clear to that extent. It will be
readily seen that the best results for a given effort are secured
by making the trap patch of Johnson grass as far as practicable
the only oviposition material for the time being.

There is every reason to believe that it will be possible to
work out a similar method of trapping for the control of the
wheat midge.

Of wheat insects the Hessian fly stands first, with the
joint worm second. The Hessian fly, on winter wheat, can be
most easily controlled by providing a trappatch in the fall,
having it sprout at the same time as volunteer wheat. This
trappatch, and other places where volunteer wheat freely
occurs, will thus attract the bulk of the insects. ‘The main
crop is sown comparatively late, the date depending primarily
upon rainfall affecting the early or late emergence of the flies
in the fall as the case may be, and the development of voltn-
teer wheat. The aim naturally is to have the flies oviposit on
the trappatch and volunteer wheat while the main crop is
sprouting. This trappatch and the places where volunteer
wheat freely occurs must be plowed under in the late fall or
anyway not later than in the spring before emergence of
the flies begins. Thus a field the previous year in wheat may
be allowed to carry winter wheat up to the time of the begii-

Cc

ning of emergence oi the flies in the spring to be then plowed
for some crop. This allows of seeding the wheat crop to grass
or clover in the late winter the year before and gives grazing
during the fall and early spring when otherwise because of .
insufficient rainfall it might not be possible to secure any
profitable returns.

The joint worm, according to official remedies discussed
in Farmers’ Bulletin No. 1006, p. 12, is to be controlled by let-
ting a stubble of about ten inches stand and plowing this down
deeply during the summer and early fall. With the ground
usually dry like a brick at this time, this is some job, however
a tractor might be said to do away with this difficulty. In any
case this with such a quantity of loose combustible matter
buried usually will cause this upper layer of soil by breaking
the capillary attraction at the depth of the plowing, anyway,
deeply, to dry out like a bone, in that case rendering it unfit
to grow anything before next spring. Moreover as it is best
of farm practice to sow wheat to clover and grass in late winter
and early spring, if this plan is followed we have a crop coming
on after the wheat is off, where otherwise we have but a pile
of trouble to bury the stubble. Why not then sow al! the
wheat fields to clover and grass and then after leaving a stub-
ble of ten inches, go over with a mower, cutting close to the
cround, fitting the mower with an attachment to catch the clip-
pings. These clippings need not be burned. They could be
spread on some low ground where the water drains during the
winter. This excess of moisture coupled with the thawing
and freezing would kill the larvae or pupae within. The less

10

cold, the more wet must be the location chosen. Also, if the
weather be hot and dry as it usually is in midsummer, the
mere clipping’ and drying of the stubble on the bare giound
for weeks is likely to kill all or most ot the larvae.

A similar case where the Bureau of Entomologyas a means
of control, recommends the eradication of an early foodplant,
and where instead the using of that early foodplan1 for a trap-
patch turns failure into success 1s to be found in what is their
solution of the problem of controlling chalcis fly infestation in
alfalfa seed. This problem and its solution, as given by, the
Bureau is discussed in Farmers’ Bulletin No. 630.

As to food plants: “The cloverseed chalcis-fly confines
its work entirely to the seeds of clover, bur clover and alfalfa
oo (po. Mr. F..M. Webster shows the distribution of
the alfalfa-seed chalcis as probably covering the entire United
Staves | (p. 3). |

The following list of means of control is given: “Har-
vesting severely infested crops “(that is, avoid trying to grow
a seed crop),” clearing fence lines and ditch banks, winter cul-
tivation, destroving the screenings, burning fences and
checkridges, planting clean seeds, cutting the seed crop “(at
such time as the most possible can be gotten out of it, what-
ever that may be),” destroying burclover, cleaning the seeds,
and necessity of organized efforts.”

As for the value of destroying burclover as a means of
control, you read on page 9: “In some localities bur clover
erows abundantly and matures its seed pods in early spring.
The chalcis-flies thus have already completed the development

ages

of an entire generation in the seeds of these plants before the
alfalfa seed pods have developed in the fields. Under such
conditions it would be well to destroy the burclover pods by
burning the fence lines in the spring. This can frequently be
done after the plants mature and before the alfalfa seed crop
comes on.”

With all vegetation then in sap, it is up to the Bureau to
show how “it would be well” to try to burn the fence lines.
Palpably what burclover would be growing in fence lines
would represent only a small part of the total in the vicinity
of the alfalfa field and burning such plants mixed with green
ones is out of the question. :

If a trappatch of burclover be sown, this will attract the
bulk of the flies and if allowed to mature seed it will as stated
by the Bureau develop an entire generation to later find its
way to the alfalfa. On the other hand if this burclover be cut
before the larvae are sufficiently developed as not to be affected
by the drying of this food supply through cutting, this will kill
them. This, especially if also surrounding volunteer burclover
be cut, will, necessarily, to a certain extent ,protect the alfalfa.
-But with the blooms and young seeds thus cut, the flies then
yet emerging from hibernating quarters or from early breed-
ing places, possibly including white clover, not destroyed
while in bloom, will oviposit on “clover,” probably including
white clover, then also inviting oviposition, and intermediate
in time of blooming between burclover and alfalfa, hence to
protect the alfalfa well, a patch of clover of a kind that is inter-
mediate in bloom between burclover and alfalfa must also be

a pe

handled the same as the burclover. Red clover just fills the
bill. This clover cut when the alfalfa begins to come well into
bloom will then serve as a second check and thus reduce in-
festation of alfalfa to the minimum.

Not only is this course of thus using a trappatch of clover
necessary if alfalfa is to be well protected against the chalcis-
fly, but it also necessary if a clover seed crop is to be protected
against the clover midge, since such cutting of the trappatch
destroys the spring brood of the clover midge and leaves the
next cutting free of infestation, offering a splendid opportunity
for a heavy seed crop.

Naturally cases where a crop can be protected by growing
a trappatch of the same or a similar plant are comparatively
rare. Take the case of the smoky cranefly, described in U. S.
pee Ent Bull. No? 85, part wa. There is a whole family of
craneflies, comprising several genera and many species, each
present as adults for a certain period of the year, varying in
pme. or emergence irom March to October There are
aquatic, semiaquatic and terrestrial species.

As to records of damage, you find among others:
eee DS. oe) borbes farses) reports: a very sen
eral and serious outbreak of tipulids (Tipula bicornis)
in grass and clover meadows throughout southern and central
Illinois, many pastures ind hayfields being almost completely
pmred@er. salsor. 1.13: Mra W. Doane ......states that
thousands of acres of wheat and grasslands and clover fields
were absolutely striped of verdure” (p. 121).

The eggs are laid into the ground. “The larvae, which

_ gee

often occur in enormous numbers, as many as 200 having been
found in an area covering a little over a square foot, feed upon
the roots of various plants. . . . In feeding, these larvae move
about in the ground quite freely, as is evidenced by the small
molehill-like ridges they leave in going from plant to plant,
just under the surface of the ground. They “(Tipula infus-
cata (a kind to appear as adults in October)” become imi
grown about the middle of July, form perpendicular cells about
three to four inches underground when they pupate (p. 127).
The pupa then by means of the abdominal spines works its way
to the surface from which it protrudes two-thirds of its entire
length” (p. 128). “The adults . . . are about in great numbers
among the tall, rank grass, clover and weeds, from which they
rise awkwardly as one approaches, flying but a few yards be-
fore alighting”’ (p. 126).

Natural enemies, at times at least. manifestly do not
amount to anything, else we would not have cases: of nearly
200 larvae to the square foot. However, the Bureau of En=
tomology on page 129 gives a list of 86 kinds of birds that, ac-
cording to the findings of the Bureau of Biological Survey
feed on Tipulidae or their eggs. Among the larger birds thus
feeding there are varieties of jays, blackbirds, cukoos, and, one
kind each of nighthawks, woodpecker, grouse, snipe and gull.
The inference then simply is that these birds, and other birds,
under primitive conditions readily hold the pest in check, but
that with most of the lands given over to agriculture the birds
do not find even at best the necessary favorable conditions to
multiply sufficiently to keep the vast areas protected.

<

ne

Of “‘remedial and preventive measures, that is, artifical
means of control, the Bureau recommends in the case of ‘Tip-
ula infuscata, “to plow infested sod under in the early fall, and
either run the fields into corn, potatoes and such crops, or to
leave the land fallow the ensuing summer. Pastures and hay-
fields, in localities where this species is known to be abundant,
should be grazed off by the middle of September, and kept so
until late in November, as the adult flies usually congregate in
rank growth of grass, clover, weeds, etc., and there lay their
eaae (p.. 131).

Thus you have at least one case where the Bureau finds
it handy to have some rank growth outside of fields and pas-
tures—growth on waste land as they call it—to serve as ovi-
position ground, anyway up to late in November. With the
pastures and hayfields kept thus grazed not many insects of
any kind will stay there—good, bad or neutral—nor will max-
imum yieds be thus secured or will these pastures and hay-
fields winter as well or hold water and snow as well as if a
heavier growth had been left on in the fall. Besides in the
case of the earlier kind this does does not work at all. - Most
species emerge from March on to past mid-summer and thus
lay their eggs where they see fit, live as larvae during summer,
pupate and emerge during the first part of the next season.
In other words, the Bureau has no remedy for these species at
all.

There is, however, a perfectly satisfactory remedy, a remedy
evolved along the line of the U.S. Entomologist’s pet hobby—
the use of natural enemies in the control of injurious insects—

—15—

a remedy I had during the past four years specifically shown to
be the best means of controlling certain highly important and
injurious insects. This remedy consists in the judicious and
extensive use of poultry.

In the case of the smoky cranefly you have an insect,
which as adults, spend their their time in low-growing vege-
tation. While more or less hidden during day time, poultry, if
given access would stir up many and be able to secure these
“awkward flies.” Also the larvae, through the small ridges
they leave attract the attention of poultry, they being razorial
birds. Further, the transformation from pupa to adult takes
place with the pupa two-thirds protruding above the surface
_of the ground, and seems to require a day or two at least, thus
the helpless pupa also becomes exposed to attacks by poultry.
If a gull, with its large size and rather clumsy habits on land,
finds it feasible to include the cranefly in one form or the other
in its menu, why should not poultry do so likewise?

It was four years ago in an effort to evolve a practical
method of controlling the New Mexico range caterpillar that
I first came to realize the great economic good that would
result were the inherent possibilities of poultry as insect de-
stroyers more fully developed. I pointed out in my Circular
No. 146 that the New Mexico range caterpillar exists as egg,
laid in clusters around the stems of weeds and grasses from
about October 1 till June 1, being thus exposed to attack by
poultry during all of this long time in this form. As the eggs
hatch the young caterpillars up till they are about an inch
long do not carry anv decidedly poisonous hairs and may be

==t6!=

eaten by poultry in quantity with impunity, in as much as
_robins are known to be able to eat them.

“Robbins . . . seem to feed only on the smaller larvae.
The spines of the large larvas are capable of producing much
greater urticating effect and are possibly disagreeable to the
birds on that account Ent. Bull. No. 85, part V, p. 93). Of
course poultry and other birds are expected, and as a matter of
fact are, under usual conditions, compelled to eat of these and
similar caterpillars only as a part of mixed diet.

The period when the insect is from an inch to two and a
half inches long is only about six weeks, when it changes to
pupa, usually congregating in clusters among the stems of
grasses, in which stage it is known to be greedily eaten by
skunks. Why not then also by poultry? And these pupae
change to moths that hang during day time in plain view on
stems of grasses, simply waiting to be picked off by poultry.
These moths, I had pointed out in my Circular No. 146, taken
in great quantities alone, might be also injurious because cf
their hairy covering, but taken with plenty of seeds and, grit,
as would be the case on the range, it is most likely poultry
will find them beneficial eating.

The Bureau of Entomology, instead of aiming to live up to
its purpose of promoting entomological knowledge in the
broadest sense, did not want to meet the various pending is-
sues, but finally, in 1917, told Hon. John E. Raker, member of
Congress from California, who aimed to get at the true facts,
that my “plan of control consists in that turkeys be secured in
sufficient numbers to destroy the insect. It has been shown,

eg.

however, that on account of the poisonous hairs borne by the
caterpillars, turkeys will not feed upon it.”

When Mr. Raker was told that | had expressly disclauned
that poultry would eat the insect in the nearly grown and full
grown caterpillar stage, and that what the Bureau was wanted
to define its position on was whether or not poultry will attack
the insect in all other stages which take up ten months out of
the twelve in a year, the Bureau declined to do so, but said
I am wrong on this and all other points I wanted them to de-
fine their position on.

That the position is sound is shown by the fact as stated
mgre in detail on page 12 of my Circular No. 155, from D. A.
Bulletin No. 124, p. 28, that Mr. Charles Springer of Cimarron,
N. M., hires a boy to herd an immense flock of turkeys on the
range, so that they may feed upon the grasshoppers, destroying
the grama grass and other range grasses. Cimarron is in the
center of range caterpillar infestation.

As grasshoppers live during the cool part of the year,
about seven months, as eggs in che soil, it is plain that the
turkeys must live during this time on something else and I had
pointed out for four years past that the egg clusters of the
range caterpillar on weed stems are that the most ‘easily
available thing to eat there is. Efforts to have the State Dele-
gation to Congress from New Mexico do something to have
the Bureau of Entomology to go into details in these matters
were futile. Also as explained on payes 7 to 9 of my Circular
No. 154, the State Biologist-Entomologist of New Mexico out-
right claimed he wanted to be shown that the use of poultry

—_ ia

is practical, said, that the whole matter was in the hands of the
Bureau of Entomology and that he considered their proposed
plan of control—relying on the work of parasitic insects to be
better. In practice, apparently, we find Mr. Springer finds my
plan pays, and pays big

Parasitic insects are not under the control of man. All
that man can do is to introduce stric hinsects. Naturally, when a
foreign, injurious insect is intreduced without the parasites
that keep it in check at home, the introduction of such para-
sites is highly beneficial and such action is a simple matter of
common sense. But such parasites would become extinct were
not their host or hosts be kept from becoming extinct.

Among other points at issue Mr. Raker had also asked
them to define their position in regard to my method of con-
trolling the bollweevil. I hac pointed out, that inasmuch as
the bollweevil is adapting itself to go without cotton for a
long time and feeding and breeding in plants related to cotton,
apparently as the result of the Bureau’s plan of control by try-
ing to starve it out by destruying the stalks as early in the
fall as no more cotton can be produced because of the ravages
of the pest, if the weevil be thus forced to adapt itself to new
food plants, it would be indefinitely more difficult to control it
on cotton, at least, if restricted to the means of control the
Bureau has to offer, since it could breed then earlier in the
spring through breeding now on other plants, aggravating
subsequent infestation of cotton and could also breed later in
the fall on plants other than votton, causing a heavier sur-
vival than if it were confined to cotton as a food plant and

oe

cotton had been left standing till frost thus finally destroying
all of what value there originally was in early destruction of
the plants as a means of control.

My plan of control provides for an occasional patrol of
the surroundings of the cottonfields in the spring by poultry
for weevils, and of course also other insects hibernating out-
side and working into the field, it provides for the occasional
examination of these borders and the edges of the field by
poultry for weevils and giving poultry the run of the field as
squares would begin to fall, the claim being made that poultry _
would thus both secure adults and pick on fallen infested
squares each representing a juicy grub; it further provided
for leaving in the center of the field a patch about the hun-
dredth part'of the whole to be planted late to cotton, the ob-
ject being to concentrate the adults in the latter part of the
growing season to the abundant squares there produced and,
by feeding poultry a little grain there, keep them sufficiently
employed to keep down the number of the adults and the
grubs in fallen squares, resulting in absolute control of the
bollweevil. But Mr. Raker was told my plan consists in that
chickens be provided in sufficient numbers to destroy all or
most of the weevils as soon as they made their way into the
fields.

We were then at war and, in my opinion, if any one thing
agricultural was more essential than another to prosecute it,
it was an abundant supply of cotton and, as part of doing my
bit, I descrbed in detail my system of control in comparison
with the Bureau’s plan on pages 1 to 16 of my Circular No.

208

152. The Secretary of Agriculture claimed his department
was putting forth every pound of its strength to win the war,
but they were deaf to any request on my part to either admit
that I am right or show what is wrong.

As the Argentine ant is spreading rapidly over the South-
ern States, the Bureau had been invited by Mr. Raker to define
its position, and they did it in this way: “The Argentine ant
is an insect that makes its nests in buildings ... Mr. Rein-
lein’s plan is to use a plumber’s torch to drive the ants, which
he believes will carry their eggs and larvae with them into the
open, where it will be devoured by poultry.” Every word is a
lie. The natural home of the Argentine ant is outside. In-
vasion of houses takes place chiefly during the periods of
scarcity of food outside, and they can be easily killed or driven
away inside by the use of poisoned sweets, the more quick act-
ing the better, I claim, which is also contrary to the teaching
of the Bureau. Slow-acting poison will kill a larger number
before the ants get wise, and leave for more healthy surround-
ings, which is outside where, under my plan, poultry can be
made to attack them. These ants prefer the excretions of
aphids and coccids to all other food, and spend much of their
time fostering these injurious insects and protecting them
against their natural enemies. I never advised the use of a
torch against this ant in buildings of any kind including green-
houses. Outside, poultry given the chance in quantity, so that
they can tackle the big undertaking, will subdue them, since the
nests of the ants in summer are very shallow, merely deep
enough to exclude light and water. I had pointed out, how-

_ ae

ever, that poultry can be helped in getting a start by using a
suitable hot air blast torch, something of the kind shown on
last page, not a plumber’s torch. The vibrations siven forth
by the torch will drive the ants out of their nests, together
with the eggs, larvae and pupae.

To refresh the Entomologist’s memory of what his assistants
have found in this matter, I quote: “In case of danger the
workers’ first instinct appears to be to remove the young
(eggs, larvae, pupac) to a place of safety and they rearily
sacrifice their own lives in order to accomplish this” (Een
Bull. No. 122, p. 40). . |

I had shown for the past four years that inasmuch as
Louisiana is the original breeding ground of this ant in this
county, and this ant very greatly increases the numbers of the
mealy bug on sugar cane, and the Bureau of Entomology has
no tangible means of control at all against the ant on sugar
cane or growing crops in general, the use of poultry is the
only available solution of the problem. Every insect tnus
eaten not only means food saved for man, but also means
poultry produced.

In the control of insects affecting cereal-and forage crops
poultry grown on an extensive scale has a very wide range of
usefulness. This point is pretty well discussed on pages 8 to
15 of my Circular No. 155. I had shown as far back as my
Circular No. 147 that there 1s no better way to control the
Rocky Mountain locust at large than by maintaining flocks of
poultry to patrol the large stretches of low-priced and usually
nonagricultural land, also subsequently pointed out the possi-

Dae

bilities of poultry in the control of many highly injurious tim-
ber insects, including the gipsy and brown tail moth of New
England.

There is another class of insects affecting cereal and forage
crops made up of sucking insects. Of these the spring grain
aphis is a good representative. It is now well understood that
if nothing 1s done in the southern-most points where this pest
starts in the spring, it does its greatest damage by producing
there a progeny that spreads in vast numbers to the North.
As was pointed out by me in detail in my Circular No. 144,
pp. 12 and 18, the Bureau has nothing in the way of direct con-
trol other, than plowing infested patches of fields under
spreading straw over the patches affecteed and burning it, or
use a 10 per cent kerosene emulsion that kills admittedly only
about 50 per cent, according to the Bureau’s claims, at a cost,
years ago, of $4.00 per acre. None of these means of control is
satisfactory.

I had shown as far back as 21 years ago that for sucking
insects there is nothing more feasible as a means ot control
than the use of heat by a gasoline torch, and in my Circulars
No. 140, 141, 147 and subsequent Circulars how torch outfits
might be constructed that furnish a blast for sucking insects
on any kind of vegetation.In the case of the grain aphis, for
instance, some such wheeled frame as that of a hayrake could
be fitted with a tank holding gasoline and having any desired
number of leads to blow a hot air blast through the grain
plants. An automobile truck is better. Morevover, I pointed
out as far as 21 years ago that such a blast also destroys the

pO

spores of fungi that may be on a plant. This use of a blast thus
offers the only feasible means to attack fungus diseases on a
erowing grain and forage crop. The Bureau of Plant Industry
was wanted all along to investigate this.

I had shown in my Circular No. 147 how these same fit-
tings could be used to help make up an outfit applying a hot
air blast too tall trees. Thus, for instance, we now have the for
pearthrips seriously threatening the orchard industry. The
use of a hot air blast is moreover not only feasible against the
adults of the pearthrips as they appear at the blooming time,
but also for the destruction of the larvae several weeks later.
These, by being given a slight licking, drop to the ground,
where a licking at close range kills them. This matter is fully
explained in my Circular No. 147, pp. 8 to 18.

However, during the past 30 years certain other sucking
insects have come into prominence as plant pests in general
and fruit-and seed pests in particular. The most important
of these are found in the group of bugs known as stink bugs.”
Their increase in damage is traceable to bringing large tracts
of pasture lands under cultivation, with the consequent in-
crease in succulent food supply and the incident curtailment
of the breeding places of birds, probably the most important
natural enemies of theirs. Of these bugs only two have thus
far done great damage, while others may do so at any time if
not checked by suitable means of control.

The two bugs in question are the Mexican conchuela
(Pentatoma ligata) and the grain bug (Pentatoma) Chloroch-
roa sayi). The first of these, with reference made to the grain

24

bug, is described in Entomology Bulletin No. 64, part I, 1911,
and their habits were discussed and, better means of control
than given by the Bureau were pointed out by me on pages
1 to 16 of my Circular No. 140, 1914. :

Of the two pests the grain bug was the first to come to
notice with a record of having destroyed in 1895 40 acres of
peas and two acres of lima beans in Reeves County, Tex.
(Ent. Bull. 65, p. 2), but subsequently the conchuela attracted
the more attention of the two. The grain bug has recently
been described in U. S. D. A. Bulletin No. 779.

In making tests to control the conchuela Dr. A. W. Mor-
rill, the agent of the Bureau of Entomology making the tests,
also incidentally made use of a gasoline torch After saying
that the bugs had in a certain test case in Mexico, for the time
being congregated in a vineyard of about 10 acres, and tha
each cluster of grapes was attacked by several bugs, and that
the maximum number noted on a single cluster was 25, he says
the grapes were picked by the owner without consultation with
him. “This step was, however, inadvisable, since the fruit,
which was of comparatively small value, would have served
as a trap at which the bugs could have been easily destroyed
when so thickly concentrated. As it was, the bugs gathered
in groups of hundreds on the trellis posts and on the vines,
principally at the forks, where they were destroyed partly by
spraying and partly by the use of a gasoline blast-torch. The
last mentioned method, while effective in its destruction of the
pest, injured the vines to a certain extent in nearly all cases.”

tp. 7.)

a

Admittedly the grapes were picked prematurely. If
sprayed, this quite likely interferred with their eating quali-
ties. The expenses, | pointed out in my Circular No. 140, p. 8,
were many times that of using the torch. I also pointed out
that there was no need to injure the vines or fruit, if present,
since the application of heat could have been made lighter, but
be made repeatedly. These bugs, moreover, readily drop dur-
ing the cool part of the day. The application could have been
given during the night, or anyway early or late in the day
when the dew is on, with the bugs sluggish and more liable to
drop, to be killed at the ground at close range.

Alfalfa is given by Dr. Morrill as the crop the conchuelas
are most likely to congregate on in largest numbers in the
spring, and he points out that with no means of control prac-
ticed, the bugs will multiply there unchecked. As a means of
control, he suggests leaving a border of alfalfa all around at
cutting time, on which the immature forms will congregate,
to be killed by kerosene emulsion. ‘This, of course, is awfully
expensive on such a bulky crop; also may make this alfalfa
nearly or entirely unfit for feed. The use of a knapsack torch,
as shown on last page, or a mounted outfit having several
burners, would be much better. Moreover, the adults will not
stay there, not only because other crops will offer as good or
better food, but also because this permits of a much more free
distribution of their eggs.

Thus is the case cited: —“Shortly after the: 10th oiegiiis
coincident with the cutting of the alfalfa, the bugs were no-
ticed on the fruit of these (peach) trees, which was just be-

a

ginning to ripen. The trees soon became very heavily in-
fected, and on July 20 it was not uncommon to observe from
10 to 15 on a single peach, and in one instance 20 were
Bounted.. . . (E. B. No. 64, p..6.) For control on peaches
Dr. Morrill recommends fumigating the trees with tobacco
under tents, since “jarring is likely to shake off the fruit, and
many of the bugs will escape by flying.” The aim of this
fumigation is not to kill the insects, for tobacco smoke does
not kill them. “It stupifies them, causes them to fall to the
ground, where they can be easily and quickly killed” (p. 14).
This, be it understood, is merely a proposed means of con-
tro!. The U.S. Entomologist is not anxious to have it made
clear that this is merely dishing up a theory. In practice it is
well known that peach foliage is very sensitive to fumigation,
especially during daytime, when the foliage is dry, and the
smoke is then especially likely to cause the fruit to drop pre-
maturely. Even during daytime, when the ground under the
trees is “neat as a pin,’ there will be trouble finding the
dropped bugs to be killed, supposedly by crushing with the
foot. Suppose you have 100 trees to fumigate—and the fumi-
gating must be done, usually, repeatedly— how many tents
will you need to have a ghost of show to kill any appreciable
part of the whole? Then again, these bugs may attack vegeta-
tion, wild or cultivated, too tall to be covered by a tent, or at-
tack shrubbery and plants growing wild, where the use of a
tent is not feasible, aside from the cost, thus multiplying un-

checked.
On pages 13 and 14 of my Circular No. 140, I pointed out

yy

that the use of a torch of some such type as shown on last page,
is the most feasible means of control to clear vegetation oi all
kinds. The particular type of torch shown can be hooked from
branch to branch in a tree, thus enabling the operator to treat
tall trees after removing the shoulder straps. However, for
tall vegetation on a large scale, such as commercial orchards,
I pointed out, on pages 10 to 14 of my Circular No. 147, some
torch outfits with a tank mounted high on a wagon and hav-
ing 4 leads, which thus permits of having one of two men lick
the side of a row each; the bugs, during the cool part ofthe
day will drop, to be killed by a licking at close range on the
ground by the two other men. As far as possible, of course, it
is better in the case of these bugs, to use some specially attrac-
tive trap crop, such as grain sown in rows at such time as to
head just then and attract the bugs.

For control on alfalfa, Dr. Morrill suggests the construc-
tion of a hopperdozer on page 13. But the insects are either
liable to drop off or to fly off when disturbed by a machine. I
had pointed out in my Circular No. 140, p. 3, as a better way
that some high-wheeled cart could be fitted with a tank to feed
several burners to lick the field over. But I shall later show
that giving poultry, on a large scale, the run of the field, is far
the best all-around means of control on alfalfa.

According to observations made by the Bureau at Bar-
stow, in West Texas, in 1905, the conchuelas were most plenti- |
ful on Milomaize during the first week in August, as many as
25 of the insects frequently being noted on a single seedhead
(p. 5). Evidently a tank mounted on some light motor truck

=

to supply several gasoline burners with hose and pipe to take,
say 4 rows at a sweep, involving the use of 5 persons, would
make quick work. If this Milomaize were rolled down so that
poultry could pick the bugs off, this would be the most advan-
tageous way. Evidently what is wanted is some suitable trap
crop that would concentrate the bugs as they leave the alfalfa,
and where the seedheads are low enough that poultry can
readily get at the bugs. Strips of dwarf millet, sown at inter-
vals so as to have some of it heading in succession during the
season, would probably be an excellent trap crop of this kind.
Such a course is especially advantageous where attractive
fruit, such as peaches or grapes, is to be protected.

“The principal natural food plants of the conchuela are
the mesquite and related leguminous plants, the beans being
the object of attack” (p. 8) “under conditions in Western
‘Texas . . . with the mesquite-covered surrounding districts
as a stronghold, these insects probably will become established
Pmeraiiana elds each year’. .. (p.12). This.is a hon-
est admission that it is at least doubtful that much can be ac-
Eeplisned by . . . destruction of weeds in the fall and
otherwise hindering the successful hibernation . . .” (p. 11).
As these bugs hibernate mostly under trash on the ground,
giving poultry the run of the surroundings of the fields is
manifestly the most feasible means of control at this period of
fae year.

The grainbug seems to be hardier than the conchuela,
having been reported from as far north as Montana and East-
ern Idaho, indicating that the insect can stand much cold, if

ee

the precipitation is limited. It does not occur along the 217
coast of Texas, which would indicate that in a territory wiiu
a mild winter but a high rainfall, it is held in check in summer
by fungus diseases. The insect appears to be at present most
troublesome, per capita wealth, in New Mexico. The insect
occurs in Eastern and Western Washington, and Northern
Oregon, indicating that a mild, wet winter does not hurt it.
“The vital damage is caused by the piercing of the newly-
formed heads of cereals and the feeding on the liquid contents,
by which the formation of the grain is prevented, or its weight
greatly reduced” (U.S. D. Ay Bulletin 779, p. 1)> Jiasteee

ce

samples: in May, 1903, one farmer in Arizona wrote
that there was an average of about 10 bugs to each head of
barley in his 40-acre field . .+.’ (p..2) “In July, 1903 }aegms
respondent wrote from Cloudcroft, N. Mex., that the grainbug
had ruined 12 acres of rye on his ranch . >,” (p. 3). Miagaee
E. Smith records that at Roswell, N.. Mex., im 1913 Jails
two-thirds of the barley heads were ruined in a field that nor-
mally would yield from 40 to 60 bushels per acre. At Porters-
ville, Texas, in 1913, the wheat in a 150-acre field which prom-
ised a yield of from 50 to 60 bushels, threshed only 22 bushels
of. very inferior grain per acreg.,... .,. impone instagie.

a carload of oats averaged only 18 pounds per bushel.”

The insect is well established in Utah and Colorado, in
Colorado among many other points reaching an altitude of
9,300 feet at Silverton. No reason, then, why it should not
find favorable conditions to exist permanently in Oklahoma,
Arkansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Wyoming, Tennessee and Ken-

Ee ()

tucky, agricultural states supposed to be now free. Conditions
for getting established seem right, also, in other states now
free as long as the winters are comparatively mild and the
summers rather dry, hence the need of effective means of con-
trol. .

The foodplants, mentioned in U. S. D. A. Bulletin 779, p.
4, include wheat, barley, rye, oats, milomaize, kaffir corn, cot-
ton, buckwheat, peas, beans, cabbage, tomato, lettuce, Russian
thistle, mallow, sheepweed and many others, showing the in-
sect to be able to feed upon plants far apart botanically. The
list there given fails to specify two important food plants,
namely, alfalfa and mesquite. The insect produces 4 genera-
tions in such locations as the Imperial Valley, in California, to

3 generations or less in its northern range.

The fact that the grainbug has the mallow (Malva parvi-
flora) for one of its original foodplants, indicates that this pest,
in cotton fields, is able to become a first class pest, and prob-
ably is so already in the Imperial Valley, judging from what
the U.S. Entomologist says in his report for 1918, p. 11 “Other
work on cotton insects (other than the boll weevil) has been
farmed off at « . . E1 Centro, Cal: the recent developments
of cotton in the last locality, in the Imperial- Valley, necessi-
tating careful watch for cotton pests.”

Of course, it is not necessary to “watch for cotton pests”
after once there “were developments.” But it is up to the
Entomologist to carefully watch whether there are not better
means of control than he is now dishing up. If it is not his

=) |(—

business to also watch what | am dishing up, I want to be
shown.

The conchuela is already officially admitted to be a first
class pest of cotton. My plan of controlling the cotton boll-
weevil, and also the bollworm, provides for the use of poultry
the year around, and includes the use of a trappatch of late-
sown cotton. These plants in the latter part of the season, be-
cause of their succulency, concentrate the weevils, and will
also concentrate the conchuela and allied bugs, where poultry
can pick them off. This, then, usually obviates the need, of
attacking the bugs on the older plants with a hotairblast torch.

Much is said on pages 28 to 32, about natural enemies.
The cold fact is, the pest has persistently, rapidly increased, in
spite of them, calling thus for more efficient means of control
by man. The means of artificial control given on pages 32 and
33 are all impracticable.

‘The obvious method for controlling the grain buk is the
destruction of their adults when they are concentrated in their
hibernating quarters. This is best accomplished in the late
autumn, during the winter or in the early spring by plowing
under or burning all weeds and rubbish in and about culti-
vated fields . . . In many instances, however, the grain bug
adults migrate-from considerable distances, and this circum-
" stance necessitates a systematic clean-up community campaign -
in badly. infested areas... “.#e (p.o2)e

Nothing doing, and for several reasons: Dr. A. W. Mor-
rill admits that mesquite is a stronghold to the conchuela.
Why not, then, such and similar growth also to the grain bug?

_

Where the flight of insects to hibernation quarters has beer
carefully studied, as it has been, for instance, in the case of the
bollweevil, an insect normally not much given to flying, it has
been found that specially suitable hibernation quarters, such
as woods, exert influence to distances of miles, hence mere
destruction in and about the cotton fields will not amount to
very much. In the majority of cases the fields affected by the
grain bug are surrounded by land that is not and usually can-
not be farmed. Were the hibernation quarters, not covered by
shrubby growth, as far as possible be plowed us, this would
destroy the natural] and usually at best rather scanty cover of
vegetation, consisting mostly of native drouth resisting
grasses. It has never soaked into the thick skulls of the En-
tomologist and such of his men as are willing to side with him
in saying | am wrong on every point, that nature abhors bare
ground, and covers it with such vegetation as is suitable, called
usually weeds. In truth these plants try to remedy the harm
done by man in destroying the better plants that formed the
original covering, and which are more slow in establishing
themselves than the plants called weeds. The lands affected
at present by the bugs in question are mostly grazing lands,
cultivated fields being operated either under irrigation or dry-
farming methods. If the range has been kept grazed too close
by overstocking, this also in a lesser degree than plowing and
burning, superinduces the establishment of less desirable
plants. Thus in reference to sheep weed (snakeweed,
Gutierrezia) you read on page 23 of U. S. D. A. Bulletin No.
211: Factors affecting range management in New Mexico: “In

33am

.

response to the often-repeated question of how to get rid of the
snake weed, there is but one method economically possible,
and that is to give the grama grass a chance and it will crowd
out the snake weed.” In reference to the Russian thistle. you
read on page 24: ““. . . Ordinarily it does not seem to be able
to crowd out the native grasses, but in the dry-farming areas,
where the sod has been broken or the land deserted for any
reason, it usually takes the ground completely. It also takes.
badly overstocked places on the range, especially where sheep
have been held too long. Whether the native grasses will be
able to crowd their way back into such areas or not, still re-
mains to be seen. If they-are not, then the importance of this
pestis increased many times.” . >. '.» “Whatever may beeane
of the undesirability of weeds on a range, there 1s one thing to
be said in their favor. Any vegetable covering in an arid re-
gion is better than none, since such a covering prevents, to
some degree the removal of the’soil”’ . / = “Po theebsemeg
from a humid climate perhaps no one characteristic of the arid
regions of the Southwest is so startling as the evidence on all
sides as the forceful action of water as an erosive agent. And
this in a land where water is the one thing that is everywhere
lacking.” . . . “showers are mostly torrential in chataepenss

“Let such a downpour occur on what seems to be a fiat
plain, and in a few minutes the lower levels are flooded, and
the roadbed of any obstructing railroad is apt to suffer severely

no one factor is so efficacious in producing erosion on
the arid grazing lands as the more or less complete removal of
their already scanty cover of plants by overstocking it a

aA

{p. 25). Yes, except, of course, the plowing up or burning
over, as recommended year in and year out by the learned
men of the Bureau of Entomology.

The grain bug, hibernating as it does largely in shrubby
growth needed as a soil covering, can be effectively fought dur-
ing hibernation by encouraging the expanse of the poultry in-
dustry. “The hibernating adults . . . generally are found
directly underneath the material composing their hibernating
quarters or in loose material on the surface of the ground”
eee. Ss. DA: Bulletin, 779; p. 27). ‘Thus’ poultry will
find them just where they look for other food, both animal and
vegetable.

“The adults of the grain bug are very numerous locally
during the time of their emergence from hibernation in April
and May. In one instance 30 adults were found under a single
"cow chip’ about 6:inches square; and a total of 175 adults
were found under the dead weeds along a 20-foot space of an
i@igation ditch” . . . “A half grown chicken devoured 8
adults during a single day when placed in a large outdoor cage
with these insects. It has been commonly reported by farmers
that a diet of grain bugs often kills barnyard fowls, but these
reports have not been verified” (p. 32).

Poultry are not expected to live on a diet of grain bugs, or
of range caterpillars when in the larval stage, or any other
one animal food, or a mixture of them, since that is clearly
contrary to their nature, but they normally want a mixed diet,
animal, vegetable and mineral. Cage a man without food, ex-
cept horseradish, and he will live longer if he leaves the horse-

—35—

radish alone. But give him water to drink, and meat and ot}ier
food that is not flavored, and he will want to eat of the horse
radish in preference to eating his food unflavored. A chicken
forced to be without food excepting grain bugs might live
longer by leaving them alone, but taken with other food ,ai.i
including grit, the grain bugs can be expected to form a heaith-
ful part of the whole.

_ “Early in the season the immature stages of the first gen-
eration of the grain bug are concentrated on the tender plants
of Russian thistle and other native plants growing in the waste
areas of cultivated fields. At this time the multiplication of
the species may be restricted greatly by spraving these areas
with a strong insecticide or chemical, thus killing insects and
other obnoxious food plants in one operation” (p. 32).

Such a plan is not at all practicable or desirable. A chem-
ical that would destroy the food plants would also injturiousiy
act upon the soil, and thus either prevent the growth of all
plants, or permit only those of poorest food value to gain a
foothold. Moreover, the insects emerge irregularly, hence
could not be killed all in one application, with the result that
those emerging subsequently would be forced to congregate
upon the cultivated crops. But the large areas that would
have to be treated and the comparatively small yield usually
secured on fields in arid regions render the incidental expense
utterly prohibitive. On the other hand, poultry given the run
will keep on picking these insects off right along, with other
kinds. Besides, if natural enemies are to be a factor at all,
they must have a place to hibernate and breed.

|

pidand picking; . . may provespractical?) (5) (p.3).
Assuming any hand work is practicable, which in general it
decidedly is not, the use of a hot air blast would do this work
many times faster. A number of torches operated from a
vehicle work relatively still faster, with less damage to the
crop. But with poultry kept going the year around, they will
usually take care of the bugs as a matter of course.

“It has often been suggested that a hopperdozer might
be employed to collect the adults and nymphs of the grain bug
while they are feeding on the heads of the grain. An opera-
tion of this kind, however, would be complicated by the fact
that the insects generally drop to the ground when closely
approached. Then, too, at the time when most of the injury
by the grain bug occurs, the condition of the grain is such that
the passage of any collecting machine would result in con-
siderable damage to the crop” (p. 33). “In grain fields the
feeding is confined to medium sized and rapidly growing heads
of immature seed. After the grain reaches the “dough” stage
aiesmiscct ceases to feed upon it «= .” (p23). “The grain
bug adults are very conspicuous objects in the field, owing to
item large size and tendency to seek the upper part of each
plant when feeding or resting on the grain heads. On clear
Seagsen, . sat least 95 per centrof the-adults present im the
vicinity may be seen without moving any part of the plants.
When disturbed, however, most of the adults immediately
drop to the ground and seek cover” (p. 24).

All this shows that the most feasible way to attack the
grain bug on grain consists in the use of poultry on an ample

Se

scale to handle the work, and do this the year around. To
have poultry thus available in a paying way it 1s necessary to
give poultry the run of the surroundings of the fields, that they
may be able to pick up most of their sustenance in the winter,
a matter that may have to be regulated by law, since these
surrounding lands may belong to somebody else. ‘This kept
up in the spring and, if necessary, during the summer, as long
as bugs in quantity feed on the forming heads, holds the pest
in check.

When the grain crops are harvested the bugs go to other
food plants then forming heads, such as late grain, milomaize
and volunteer grain. As near as feasible, poultry can be used
to pick them off. The use of a gasoline outfit on a truck is
naturally far the most feasible artificial means of control where
youltry cannot reach them. With steps taken to have trap
crops heading up till frost, where poultry can get at them, this
will greatly decrease their chances for damage the following
year. Probably some suitable variety of millet, sown at suc-
cessive periods, will answer well for traps. The aim must be
to concentrate the bugs upon low growing vegetation for at-
tack by poultry or the torch, and thus keep tall vegetation,
such as peach trees or grapes, free of them.

Indications are strong that this pest will rapidly become
of great importance in California—unless soon checked by
proper measures, as here outlined—the mild winters, the dry
summers and great variety of food supply being specially fa-
vorable to its multiplication. At present the pest is reported
from southern and central California.

_395

There is also danger that a new wheat thrips, described in
the Journal of Agricultural Research, Vol. No. 3, or other
related species, may become very plentiful and widely dif-
fused, and become first class pests of wheat and other grain
crops. Ihe species in question, while preferring wheat, can
readily subsist and reproduce on several strong growing
grasses. These, indeed, seem to be the original food plants of
the species, and under primitive conditions the insect seems to
have been readily kept in check both by parasitic insects and
a lesser supply of succulent food after midsummer. This
thrips occurs in all parts of Kansas, and in some adjoining
territory. There are 4 to 5 generations a year.

“Yhrips were common . . . appearing in swarms on
young wheat in early March, 1914. By the first of April the
larvae, now nearly grown, were cutting the shoots severely.

By the middle of May, when the wheat was heading, the
second brood of larvae readily infested the young heads, feed-
ing upon the stamens, pollen and pistils, and later attacking
the integument of the grain . . . as soon as volunteer wheat
pushed up in early September the thrips were found in all
Mirtsorthe field. . . .”-(p. 222).

These insects, if numerous enough, can completely destroy
a grain field. The official means of control proposed are not
worth anything; and, if so, there is now the door open for
their unlimited increase.

Burning of the stubble is suggested as being of value.
But the insect is then present in large numbers as pupae in the
ground, to emerge with the fall rains, similar as does the Hes-

EK

Wi A

sian fly, and attack the wheat. Besides, the wheat, for best
results as to soil conditions and rotation, should have been
seeded at the close of the preceding winter to clover or grass.
Also, the insect can feed and breed in the grasses surrounding
the field.

Instead of following the Bureau’s plan in this and other
cases by trying to control the insect by producing conditions
as unfavorable for multiplication as possible by the destruc-
tion of food plants, it will be found infinitely better to fight
the insects by the use of a trap patch,,same as described for
the Hessian fly, and, if necessary, by attacking the hibernated
adults as they oviposit on the young wheat tn the spring with
a multiple torch. Such useof heat is the only contact’ in-
secticide cheap enough to be used on a grain or forage crop.

Upon the issuance of my Circulars No. 155 and 156, Hon.
Gilbert N. Haugen, Chairman of the House Committee on
Agriculture, had been asked to guard the interests of the pub-
lic by having the Department of Agriculture define its position
in regard to the points at issue. If the Department of Agricul-
ture made any reply of any kind, I have not heard of it.

The Reinlein
Knapsack
Gasoline Torch.
Patent No. 739,221
sept. 15, 1903 aa

|

|
|