SB 933

Copy 1

Pecreeeceee, @ ) qhereecrrererrrrr

INSECTS
AND FUNGI.

COPYRIGHT, 1917,

JULY 20; 1917:

ERATTA: 2

Several unfavorable conditions, largely «.iised by the war,
combined to make it impracticable for me to read proof of this
Circular. The result is, it contains considerable typograph-
icalerrors. Taking the Circular as a whole I find that these —
errors do not lead. to any misunderstanding. On page 12, par-
agraph 3, mention is made of an ‘insect, admittedly extremely
injurious.’ By this is meant the pear thrips. On page 32
you find ‘The Cain Borer’ for ‘The Cane Borer,’ also below,
on same page, ‘Sweet and sour-sweet’ for ‘sweet and non-
sweet.’ On page 35 vou find ‘large pole pines’ for ‘lodge pole
pine.’ On page 36 ‘broadly impossible’ for ‘blandly impossi-
ble.’ On page 37 ‘millions of feet’ for ‘billions of feet.’ also
‘preventative war’ for ‘preventive work.’

On page 39 ‘left us available places’ for ‘left no available
places.’ -On page 34 it reads ‘these savings’ for ‘these sow-
ings.’ Quotation marks have been left out ina number of
places where they should have appeared.

SEP 121917

ON CONTROL OF INSECTS AND FUNGI.

Copyright 1917. By FRED REINLEIN, Portland, Oregon.

Circular No. 151. July 20, 1917.

Inasmuch as anything new pertaining to agriculture cannot
be satisfactorily introduced unless it can be shown that the mat-
ter had been submitted to the Department of Agriculture for ex-
amination, and had there been approved; it follows that it is the
duty of the Bureau of Ethnology to define its position in regard
to anything new that has bearing on the control of insects.

I have been wanting the Bureau of Ethnology to define its
position on new matter for 19 years past. What the Bureau at
present 1s wanted to act on is set forth in my Circulars No. 148 to
150. There was no action of any kind whatever taken on my.
Circular No. 148, nor on those preceeding, as far back as No.
141. This was due, as explained in my Circular No. 150. to the
failure of the Chairmen of the Congressional Committees on Ag-
riculture to do their duty.

With the appearance of my Circular No. 149 Senator Geo.
E. Chamberlain of Oregon was asked to see to it that the Bureau
either admit that I am right, or else show wherein I am wrong.
As explained on page 18 of my Circular No. 150, Mr. Chamber-
lain was fair enough to give me a look at the two replies he re-
ceived, which showed that the Bureau had done neither of the
two, but had handed him out a bundle of lies in each case.

Since Senator Chamberlain did not see to it that he got any
desired information on any given point the matter was taken up
with the congressman from the district I then lived in, Hon. W.
C. Hawley, as stated on page 19, of my Circular No. 150. He
too, got first of all, a bundle of lies.

Circular No. 150 was meanwhile gotten out to explain in
handy form just what the Bureau was most wanted to take action
upon. Mr. Hawley was asked to see to it that action was taken,

(2) a

and here is the essence of the reply he got. “The suggestions
made by Mr. Reinlein in this circular (150) have been examined
by the experts of this Bureau, who are of the opinion that they
are impractical.’’

It is alla lie. If the experts had investigated the suggestions
they would not now want to hand out an opinion, forthey would
then positively say what their investigation had shown. An op-
inion, as used in law, is the formal decision of a judge or coun-
celor; not a mere claim as is the statement of the Entomologist;
but the claim is substantiated by giving the reasons upon which
the claim is based. Members of Congress can be expected to

know this.

For an illustration of how the Paratlogist s claim works
out, take the description of the control of the range caterpillar,
as given on pages 1 to 3, of my Circular No. 150. The Bureau
has virtually nothing in the way of control thatis tangible. They
expect to control the caterpillar by natural enemies—parasites
and predatory insects, saying the value of the crop is too small
to allow of the use of artificial means, in the sense this form is
generally understood, which is true.

Having nothing better to offer than the development of par-
asites and predatory insects, and expecting this to solve the
problem, or at least make this do to placate the population of the
affected territory, is equal to claiming that it would be possible
to control the codlingmoth or any other insect by this course a-
leng. Man can merely assist in establishing natural enemies,
which in turn are often decimated by enemies of their own. The
means. of control I suggested, first published in my Circular No.
146, issued Aug. 10, 1915, was calling for the systematic use of
poultry.

This suggestion was new; and the Entomologist, assisted
by his experts, could, without an investigation, right then have
handed out an opinion, showing why they arrived at that opin-
ion. They did nothing of this kind.

It had been shown to them that poultry could be made to
attack the insect the year around, and it was gait 8 to them at

©
©c1a473435 4 § Ce
ae

Pig.

t

(3)

the very beginning that poultry is not expected at all to control

the pest by attacking the full grown caterpillar, studded with
hairs.
Investigations, in this case, could have been begun at any

day of the year, hence should have been started immediately.

Or, to put it another. way for an illustration, the Entomolo--
gist wants to Say, in this case, that his experts claim that poul-
try will not attack the egg clusters of the range caterpillar du-
ring the 8 months the caterpillar exists in this form. He wants
to say that his experts claim, that as these egg clusters hatch
and each egg develops into a little caterpillar a quarter of an
inch long, poultry would not attack these young worms, that
further, that these caterpillars while young, are gregarious and
are nearly always exposed to view, poultry would not con-
tinue to eat these young worms in very large numbers. When
present as pupz this insect is greedily eaten by skunks, and the
Entomologist wants to credit his experts with the claim that
poultry would not eat these pupew. Nor. that they would eat of
the moths, usually within easy reach.

Asa field station was already established for the breeding
of parasites, this investigation of the use of poultry could have
been made in the easiest and most inexpensive manner.

As explained on pages 4 to 10 on my Circular No. 150, a
judicious use of poultry can be made to absolutely control the
bollwevil and the bollworm.

The Bureau’s chief reliance for control of the bollwevil prac-
tically from the beginning has been the early burning of the
stalks. As many farmers object to the burning, on the ground
that it impoverishes the soil, the Bureau then conceeded that it
might do to cut the plants up with the stalk chopper, plow the
trash under immediately and harrow and drag the ground “‘to
make it still more difficult for the insects to emerye,’’ You See
neither the burning nor the burying kills any appreciable num-
ber of the adults. The burning has the advantage in that it kills
the immature stages in the intected squares and bolls; while the
plowing in buries these immature stages and because of the
looseness of the soil due to burying so much vegetable matter,

(4)

many of these will mature and emerge before settled cold weath-
er to successfully hibernate.

Again. these plants had been pumping water out of the soil
very heavily for weeks, and the soil is apt to be very hard for
anything like successful burying, and the work will be slow.

I had shown an improved way of securing the desired
result, consisting in throwing the soil at the last two or three
cultivations slightly towards the plant, sowing a cover crop,
preferably a legume, vetches for instance, at the last cultivation,
then cutting the plants off with the V stalk cutter when wanted,
burning the plants, and then have thus at once the field produce
pasturage, recovering from the air all and more of the carbonic
acid and nitroyen that was lost through the burning of the plants.

Since neither burning nor burying of the plants kills any
noticeable number of the adults the Bureau at an early date sug-
gested that some of the plants be allowed to stand as traps, and
the wevil were then there to be killed withcrude oil. Itis hard
to see how such a‘scheme could work, since the adult can readi-
ly fly off and being chittinous all over, they should be able to
stand a good bit of oil. Of late years nothing was heard of it,
the idea having evidently been found to be absolutely impracti-
cable and inefective.

Up to 1913 the bollwevil was not known to feed on anything
other than cotton. Since then there was noted a decided tendan-
cy of wevils to learn to feed and breed in plants other than cot-
ton. As a consequence, as explained on page 8 of my Circular
No. 150, I soon realized that by destroying the bulk of the plants
and leaving a small part for traps, bending or rolling the plants
down to bring the wevil within reach of poultry, the wevil would
thus be exposed to attack till hibernation is fully under way,
which in warm winters in the lower cotton belt does not occur at
all, or is of very short duration.

This, as explained on page g of my Circular No. 150, led to
the suggestion of growing small patches of very late planted cot-
ton purposely for traps, and in turn it was found that such trap
patches would equally well serve to control absolutely the boll-
worm at the same time.

(5)

With these trap patches in use a farmer may safely bury
his plants if he prefers, since most adults resulting from buried
squares and bolls would find their way to the trap patches to be
picked off by poultry.

However, with a trap patch of late planted cotton on hand
to attract and hold for poultry the wevils that will yet emerge
fron infested bolls and squares on the cut off plants, there is no
need for the fertility destroying burning of the plants, nor for
the cumbersome and doubtful burying. The burning of the stalks
not only means a loss of Organic matter contained in them but it
means a much greater loss through the action of the fire on the
soil. On the other hand the stalks, if left as they were cut off,
will rot enough by becoming overgrown by the covercrop to
cause no trouble when the covercrop is plowed in. The _ stalks
thus act beneficially by lessening evaporation of water, by keep-
ing a more even temperature, preventing eorsion, especially
while the cover crop is yet small, and finally furnishing humus.

Poultry can, under the supervision of man, be forced to pa-
trol the cotton fields during the growing season as needed. Early
in the season cotton fields offer very little inducement for wild
birds to visit them: food being found much more readily else-
where, especially in woods and orchards.

If a field to be planted to cotton is properly plowed well a-
head of planting time, few if any wevils that may have been _hi-
bernating within will he able to emerge, and infestation will be
from without. As long as there are no squares, these wevils all
stay close to the edge of the field, feeding in the tips of the
plants where poultry can readily see them. By the time squares
appear, usually only about half of the wevils have yet emerged.
On pages 5 to7 of my Circular No. 150, you find explained in
detail that wevils then promptly scatter over the field because
they then want to feed and oviposit in squares, unless_ secured,
by man under my former plan, and by poultry under my new
plan, within a day or two after their arrival at the edge. . Even
then, however, infestation usually remains near the edge, grad-
ually progressing all over the field as infestation increases. Thus
it is doubtless best all around to leave the work of reducing the
number of hibernated wevils to poultry.

/

(6)

With the wevils reduced the fall before through the use of
trap patches, and such trap patches again coming into use, in
due time, the following season, and poultry on the watch virtual-
ly atall times, there is no chance for the wevil, the bollworm and
most other insects to appear in harmful numbers; all of which
the Entomologist claims he has investigated and found to be im-
practicable. This when he has nothing to offer for his plan of
hand-picking by man, after the wevils have scattered all over
the field, is only “‘guardedlv’’ recommended, so that he can
make his get-a-way. d

Cultivation destroys the natural home of wild birds. All the
protection man can give under the circumstances 1s not sufficient
to counteract the decrease in numbers thus occasioned. Again,
since cultivation destroys the fruits and seeds many of these
wild birds normally live on, they cannot increase in numbers
sufficient to at least partly protect the cultivated crops, without
being compelled to levy acorresponding toll upon the crops. The
gallinaceous domesticated birds are developed from a_ species
that was capable of ready flight, lived 10 to 15 years, the female
laying a few small eggs each spring.

The domesticated kind, evolved by selection, being unable
to fly to any extent, is thus specially fitted to work under the
supervision of man when and where it is wanted, doing thus lit-
tle or no harm, while doing good. And their number can be
regulated by man entirely corresponding to the need for their
services.

Thus, in the control of the three insects thus far mentioned,
there does not enter the use of any artificial -means, poultry, un-
der the supervision of man, doing the work. Hence, this being
a clear-cut issue, it would seem best to force the Entomologist to
talk on these first.

I have shown in my Circulars Nos. 147 to 150 that there are
many other insects where poultry can thus be used to best ad-
vantage, and quite a number where their use offers the only
practical means of control. Grain and forage crops infested by
pests, often can be similarly controled by poultry as is the range
caterpillar, also it was shown that various caterpillars affecting

(7)
timber trees can be controled by poultry when all else is im-
practicable; usually by the poultry scratching for their pupz be-
low the surface of the ground.

It is not often that an insect 1s exposed to view during all
of its life cycle as is the range caterpillar, nor that it is within
the easiest possible reach of poultry at all times.

The gipsy and browntail moth, considered as pests affecting
woodlands, because of the loss value of trees grown for timber,
call for inexpensive means of control. Farmers’ Bulletin No. 564
issued in 1914, pretends to offer such means. As explained more
in detail on payes 17 and 18 of my Circular. No. 147, and on
pages 7 and 8 of Circular No, 149, poultry can reduce the gipsy
moth in woodlands through securing part of the eggs, securing
some of the young caterpillars that tall off the trees or spin down,
scrape Out older caterpillars that hide at the base of the trees
during the day, and secure some of the females before they ovi-
posit.

In addition, since the males are strongly attracted to light,
they could be trapped with a trap such as I offer. This point is
discussed on pages 4'to 7 of my Circular No. 147. Alsoon pages
14 and 15 of my Circular No. 149, 1n discussing the control of
the leopard moth it is shown how the apparatus shown on last
page, or some similar make, can be fitted at small cost fora trap
to catch these insects in large numbers.

Farmers’ Bulletin No. 788, the leopard moth, on page ag,
gives a good idea of what Chief Howard thinks makes a trap.
He says: ‘“To what extent electric lights are serviceable .... has
not been definitely determined, .... a method frequently advised
consists in placing shallow pans around the electric light poles
to attract the moths; the pans are partially filled with water and
-a small quantity of kerosene is poured into them. The moths fly-
ing against the globes drop into the pans and are promptly kill-
ed when they comein contact with the oil.’’

As these globes are suspended about twenty feet above the
ground at the intersections of the centerlines of the streets, or
driveways in parks, I cannot see how “‘pans placed around elec-
tric light poles’’ could ever be close enough to the globe to catch

(8)

moth; and therefore, I contend that the advise is all drawn from
imagination and that nothing whatever has been determined as
claimed. ee

Also, Chief Howard does not want to talk about beneficial
and neutral insects that would also be caught. When I sent my
first catch—about 1500 insects. mostly ground beetles, which
are, on the whole, beneficial—to the Bureau, Chief Howard said
that if this is a fair sample of what the torch catches, its use
should be prohibited by law.

To use any trap to advantage the user has to know at least
approximately what kinds of insects he is catching, so that he
may use the trap only when there is a paying catch of injurious
insects being made. Assuming the Entomologist or someone else
has a trap that works satisfactorily, it is the Entomologist’s bus-
iness to encourage its use and educate the public to usiug it.
But with the Entomologist persistently claiming I am wrong all
around, it is unwise for me to push the use of atorch for a trap
and other matters, till other things not involving the use of any
apparatus has been settled. On page 5 of my Circular No. 147,
short reference is made to matter I published in regard to trap
tests, made by the late Prof. M. V. Slingerland. Cornell Univer-
sity UdicasdNi Ys These tests showed that mere pans with
water and kerosene do not catch anything worth while, and par-
ticularly nothing in the way of strong fliers, of which the leopard
moth is one, and so is the male of the gipsy moth, and _ both
sexes of the brown tail moth.

The method you find described by me admits the insects to
the red hot burner through a ring of light about 1” inches wide.
formed by two Simple corresponding cone-shaped attachments
placed at this distance apart, and because of the heat, the daz-
zling light—dazzling by comparison with the darkness outside—
and the narrow space within, they become momentarily disabled
and drop through a hole in the lower cone into a pail below. But
where bright lights interfere, or if a wider range of attraction is
wanted, as would he wanted in the case of timber insects in gen-
eral, I would use something else.

The Bureau of Ethnology has no tangible. means whatever

(y)

for controling the gipsy moth in woodlands, except the breeding
of parasites and predatory insects.

Since these parasites are admitedly equally subject to attack
by natural enemies, they cannot, admitedly, be safisfactorly con-
trolled by man.

The Bureau, because of this now proposes to give the ad-
vise to change as far as practicable the deciduous woodlands to
coniferous ones, because the gipsy moth can live only upon con-
iferous after having passed the first two stages upon deciduous
vegatation.

As explained on pages 2 to 5 of my Circular No. 148 and
elsewhere, as there quoted, the pines of New England, and ap-
parently all over the country, are now becoming infested by the
European pine shoot moth. As this insect selects nearly always
the apical bud for oviposition, if as yet uninfested, I had pointed
out that pouring some semi-liquid clay intothe apical cluster of
buds before oviposition starts would protect it, the female then
merely selectin a side shoot for oviposition.

The Bureau has no means of control. What they pass off as
such is 140 years old and consists in removing the infected
shoots. This, if the insect is at all plentiful, results in trees so
crooked and dwarfed, dwarfed through the repeated destruction
of the apical bud through successive years, as to possess no val-

ue.

This insect is night flying, and as near as can be seen a
satisfactory trap is the only feasible means of reducing the num-
ber of the adults. ;

There is no assurance whatever, in fact all odds are against
it, that it would be possible to make it pay to so keep down de-
ciduous vegetation that there would not.be plenty of food to en-
able the gipsy moth to pass through the first two stages. . But
even if this were feasible, the Bureau has no means of controlling
the pine shoot moth, and wants to condemn the plan evolved by
me.

For control of the brown tail moth in woodlands the Bureau
likewise, has nothing to offer, but claims that ‘“‘elimination of

(ro)

oak, scrub-apple and wild cherry would greatly assist in reduc-
ing the numbers of this pest.’’ (Farm Bull. No. 564, page 20).
Oak is pretty hard to eliminate, and as the female can _ readily
fly long distances, they simply would oviposit in orchards. Be-
sides the caterpillar also develops very readily on plum and wil-
low, also, for second choice, on elm and maple. In fact the cat-
erpillar feeds generally uponall deciduous trees, on many shrubs
and even upon herbage. (Farm Bulletin No. 264, page 16.)

It must be born in mind that for successful breeding little
of the preferred food plants, such as oak, 1s needed to enable all
the caterpillars hatching from eggs concentrated thereon to com
plete about one-third of their growth, after which time they can,
by migrating, complete their growth on less suitable food.

As both sexes are strony flyers and much attached to bright
lights, and because the females oviposit much more heavily in
territory adjacent to bright lights, the most feasible means of
protecting all of the valuable food plants thus affected would
consist in trapping the adults at these lights. I have very deffi-
nite ideas of how this could be successfully done, but with the
Entomologist allowed to misuse his office I want to do nothing.

In woodlands, since these caterpillars frequently spin down,
also often fall off, or blow otf by wind, poultry would keep them
at least partly under control. It is not known to what extent
poultry can eat these harry caterpillars, but there is very little
doubt that they can stand considerable of the smaller size when
taken along with other food. The trouble is, neither the Bureau
of Biological Survey nor the Poultry Division of the Bureau of
Animal Industry have any positive knowledge on this point to
otfer. If the Entomologist had wanted investigations to be made,
and the point is he claims his experts made investiyations of all
of my suggestions, he had:his own staff to do this quite easily.

On page 18 of my Circular No. 150 I stated that the alfalfa
wevil is known to be readily found (and then eaten) by poultry.
The source of information for this statement is found in Agricul-
tural Bulletin No. 107, page 57, contributed by the Biological
Survey, 1914. The rather detailed evidence there given pretty
conclusively shows that it is only a matter of getting e-

(rr)

nough of poultry on the job to make Mr. Wevil scarce. Under
date of Jan. 6, 1917, Mr. W. L. McAtee of the Biological Sur-
vey writes, in essence, that when opportunity affords, the Bureau
will be glad to make en ee on the use of poultry in de-
stroying boll wevils, although the work relating to domestic
fowls pertains to me Bureau of Animal Industry. Youthus here
see that, in common with every sane man, Mr. McAtee does not
look at such use of poultry as impractical suggestions as the
Entomologist claims his experts pronounce it to be. The adult
alfalfa wevil is of about the same size as the boll wevil.’ As: for
the immature stages, poultry forced to stay in cotton fields will
be mighty quick to pick on fallen squares and should be quick
in learning to hunt for the one containing a juicy grub. The
Bureau of Entomology had far the best means and_ biggest op-
propriations to test this out.

Since apple, pear, plum and cherry are the favorite food
plants of the browntail moth, orchards are their favorite feeding
ground. This problem of control is discussed more in detail
along with that of the gipsy moth at the passages cited. The
young caterpillars hatch after the middle of August and spend
the winter in webs in the top branches of the trees. In the spring

“if the infection is bad, the caterpillars are often numerous e-
nough to devour the leaves as fast as the trees are able to devel-
op them.’’ (Farm Bul. No. 564, page 9.) Thus since poison
then could not be used, the Bureau advocates a spraying of 6 to
to pounds arsenate of lead to 100 gallons of water, applied by
the middle of August to kill the young caterpillars soon after
hatching, a course expensive and uncertain, because there is
much vareation in time of hatching, and objectionable of danger
of poisoning fruit.

Of course a high power sprayer is required, The young
caterpillar, if not killed then, will do but little damage that fall,
and an excellent way of control would be to go over the orchard
after the most of the leaves have fallen, say after the middle of
October, with a torch outfit constructed after the principle of the
towersprayer outfit, as described on pages 11 to 13 of my Circu-
lar No. 147. Selecting a warm spell the caterpillars will be ac-

(#2)

uve and drop ott upon teeling the heat. This would not kill them,
at least not at once, but poultry might be kept handy to pick
them up. They are then only about one-half inch long. Besides
in the absence of poultry, the ground can be licked’ where they
fall, thus killing them.

This use of the torch makes for the cheapest insect killing
agent known, where chemicals cannot readily be used. Also the
flame destroys the spores of fungi. This was conceeded as far
back as 13 year ago by the State Entomologist of Illinois, a mat-
ter dtscussed at some length on pages 10 and 12 of my Circular
No. 148. Every one connected with agriculture in the Eastern
States knows of the damage done by fungi. During hot moist
weather in summer, a licking with a torch is extremely swift
and cheap, and works in wet weather, while spraying does not.

A torch outfit of the tower type, it 1s shown on page g to 13
of my Circular No. 147, is far the best means of controlling
the insect, admitedly extremely injurious, now getting a good
foothold in the East. As there explained all you have to do is
apply a mild licking with the flame while the insect is in the lar-
val stage, when upon feeling the heat they will drop, when they
can be killed through more heat applied to the ground. The Bu-
reau has nothing at all that can approach this in cheapness and
efficiency.

As near as I ever could learn, I was the first to apply heat
from a torch for the destruction of insects. JI did this first in
the late summet of 1896, with a view of trving to get rid of harle-
quin cabbage bugs. The following year this was kept up on in-
sects in general, and it was incidentally found, that the adult
harlequin bugs would fly to tassels of sweet-corn, where they
could be more easily secured. I suggested to the Secretary of
Agriculture in 1898. after publishing what I had found, that this
and other original knowledge I had published be acquired for the
public benefit. He said the government never had done any-
thing of this kind. Bad as this was the Entomologist now goes
him one better and claims I am wrong allaround, ‘Taking this
harlequin bug for example, the country must sustain needless
heavy loss. In my Circular No, 141 I had pointed out that better

13))

trap-plants for this insect could be secured by seeing to it to
have always some coneiferous plant going to seed, as_ then the
bugs would congregate on the seed stalks. Again, on page 24 of
my Circular No. 147 it was further shown that poultry given ac-
cess to these trap plants would pick off the adults, and thus the
whole matter of disposing of these highly eae cae pests. can
be made to almost take care of itself. This insect is highly in-
jurious in the Southern States. Thus the New Mexico Experi-
ment Station in one of their latest reports states that this insect
ranks first as a truck-crop pest jn that state, The Entomologist
has nothing that is practicable.

Another highly injurious sucking insect for the control of
which the Entomologist and his boasted experts have no practi-
cal means of control is the Mexican Conchucla, referred to in
various places in my Circulars No. 147 to 150, and discussed in
detail in my Circular No. 140,.pages 1 to 15. This insect feeds
on almost anything, but prefers fruits and seeds.

Poultry in quantity will keep them in check on alfalfa or
other early lowgrowing crops, and by seeing to it that suitable
trap-crops Milo-maize for instance, to concentrate them on, are
supplied later, and have them picked off there by poultry, such
crops as peaches or grapes can largely be kept free.

This application of heat is also far the best means of control
for insects hiding in the ground or about a plant during the
night and cool part of the day, of which class the hop flee beetle
and the chinch bug are good examples, Thev are discussed at
length in previous Circulars.

If the loss to Texas by the boll weevil is 27 million fallars a
year, itis about 75 million for all of the infested area. My plan
saves this whole loss since under it poultry will keep this
and other pests in check, so that the plant will be able to set all
the fruit itcan possibly mature. Taking all the evidence sub-
mitted by me, it is worth in insect-and fungus control over half
a billion dollars a year.

Representative Hawley upon getting his second batch of
lies was asked to see to it that the Entomologist be forced to

(14)

meet the issue. He did not secure any further reply. In common
with all the other members of Congress I had tried before, with
one exception, he did not want to express himself In any way as
to whether or not the evidence submitted is sound, just as if he,
in common with the rest, had no brains at all, and were not ex-
pected to have any and to use them.

The exception in the case is the representative of the 2nd
California District, Hon. John E. Raker, to whom reference is
made on page 12 of my Circular No. 148. Upon the issuance
of my Circular No. 147 his attention was called to this matter,
because Senator Gore had flatly refuse to do his duty, and _ he
declared himself ready to see to it that it becarried through for
whatever merit it might possess for the benefit of the public. In
common with everybody else, including the Entomologist, he
was unable to point out anything that was not sound reasoning.

When my Circular No. 148 appeared in March 1916, he sug-
gested, since Senator Gore and Representative Lever had taken
no action, that I take the matter up with Senator Morris Shep-
pard, he being chairman of the Committee on Expenditures in
the Department of Agriculture. This was done and the matter
was brought to the attention of many other members of Congress,
which caused Mr. Raker toremark that this should bring results.
The results wanted were, that the Entomologist be forced to
either admit that I am right, or show wherein I am wrong. Well,
it did not bring any such results. Upon the issuance of my Cir-
cular No. 149 Senator Sheppard was again kept posted and he
asked the Department of Agriculture for an explanation. The
result was that under date of August 15 he wrote me he had been
advised my plans are not practicable, and that therefore he did
not desire to push the matter further. He never gave me a _ look
at what advise he got. Thus, he wanted to hang me without a
chance of defense.

Meanwhile Mr. Raker was kept posted, and upon getting a
copy of my Circular No. 150, he wrote, ‘“Keep up your work and
results are bound to follow.’’ This was not saying much, but
was saying more than all the rest of the Congressmen I had tried

(15)

before, put together. He, being unable to see anything but
sound evidence, simply wanted me to see it through, believing
this to be best for the public weal.

The evidence submitted shows that the Entomologist is
humbugging the people with their own good money. That, there-
fore, there is not a Congressman whose constituants are not af-
fected, and that, therefore, all members of Congress are in duty
bound to have the matter sifted to the bottom.

Mr. Raker having expressed a willingness to co-operate
with Mr. Hawley to the extent of getting the U.S. Entomologist
to define his position, he was asked, while this Circular was be-
ing prepared, to use his influence to get the Entomologist to act.
As a result I receive on March 17th a copy of the reply Mr. Ra-
ker had received from the Department of Agriculture. It simply
was a bundle of lies However, unlike all previous statements it
contained specific statements which were expected to be taken
for proof by Mr. Raker that I am wrong. These statements, al!
short, refer to the control of the range caterpillar, the boll wevil
and the Argentine ant.

In the case of the range caterpillar the Department claims
that my plan of control consists in “‘that turkeys be secured in
sufficient numbers to destroy the insect. It has been shown how-
ever, that on account of the poisonous hairs born by the cater-
pillar. turkeys will not feed upon it.’’ This when it had been
pointed out to the Bureau from the beginning, nearly two years
ago, that the period when the caterpillar has poisonous hairs is
the most unfavorable time to attack it, that the insect is within
the reach of poultry the whole year around, and that the correct
time for attack is while it is present as egg, as young larva,
as pupe and as adult, as explained in detail’on pages 1 to 4 of
my Circular No. 150,-and also in this Circular.

As the adults deposit their eggs on stems of wild grasses or
on weeds, the resulting caterpillars, no matter how plentiful, find
enough food for partial development on the range, but as they
run short, they attack, as far as accessible, cultivated grasses
and grains. It would be quit impossible to protect these crops

(16)

by poisoning, since the caterpillar, being of the class of the
tussock moth, the gipsy moth and the browntail moth, or well -
known to be extremely resistant to poisons once they are about
one-third grown, hence coming as they do in hordes, they
would usually eat up the crop first before the poison could have
any possible ettect. Hence with the Bureau silent on this point
all along, the only possible means of protecting cultivated crops
consists in keeping them down to harmless numbers on the range.

The Bureau’s only proposed plan of control consists in re-
lying on artificial introduction of parasites and of predatory bee-
tles. This is also the course that has been followed for the con-
trol of the gipsy moth in woodlands. But the Bureau frankly
admits that these parasites may in turn be decimated at any
time by hyper-parasites preying upon them, and for this reason
the Bureau pointed out that a surer means of avoiding damage
consists in changing the easily injured deciduous woodlands
to less easily injured coniferous tracts; a proposition that
holds out no chance of financial success.

In regard to the possibility of growing grain for poultry in
the range caterpillar belt. Mr. H. N. Vinall, of the Bureau of
Plant Industry was sounded for an opinion. He said in substance
that while rainfall is lisht even for sorghums it is possible to
grow fair crops of Dwarf milo and feterita. For details see Far-
mers’ Bulletin No. 322, and Circular, No. .122C.

In regard to my plan for controlling the boll weevil the De-
partment says: ‘Mr. Reinlein’s suggestion is that chickens be
provided in sufficient numbers to destroy all or most of the wee-
vils as soon as they make their way into the fields.’’

On page 7 of my Circular No. 150 you find explained why
I had previously claimed that, by giving poultry, raised in suff-
cient quantities to do the work, the run about the fields ,during
the period of emergence this “‘would certainly result in material
reduction at small cost.’’ Ask the Department what they have
to attack the weevil with at this period. They have nothing. They
deliberately want to convey the inference that it would be quite
impracticable to have poultry in sufficient quantity handy, be-

(17)

cause, there being no use for it at other times, it would be im-
possible to have them ready during the period of emergence.
They deliberately keep silent on the evidence shown on pages 8
to 10 of my Circular No. 150, which describes in detail the feas-
ibility of the use of poultry practically the year around, not on-
ly for the control of the boll weevil, but also of the boll worm,
the cotton catterpillar and several other important cotton in-

ects. They also want to convey the inference that there would
not also be plenty of work for poultry on other crops, thus mak-
ing it possible to economically sustain large flocks the year a-
round.

As explained on page 8 the Bureau’s plan of plowing out the
plants in the fall, impracticable as it is on the whole, or the cut-
ting off of the plants, forces the weevilto hunt for food, and,
finding none, causes it to adapt itself to feed and breed upon
plants other than cotton. As shown there, it is manifest that if
tais habit is allowed to become fixed, control by the destruction
of the cotton plants in the fall, what there is of it now, will lose
its value, and control will be made indefinitel more difficult. To
counteract this tendancy, I showed there, as alsoin this Circular
that the best thing that can be done, is to provide trap patches
of very late planted cotton. The Department wants to keep quiet on
this point, also wants to keep silent on how these trap patches
incidentally make possible the complete control of the boll worm.
Nor do they want to admit that poultry would pick on the fallen
infested squares and destroy the grubs within, keeping up this
work through all of the fruit setting season.

This habit of poultry of picking on fallen infested fruit I
had shown can be taken advantage of 1n many other cases. Since
the Bureau wants to keep silent I wish to point out that this
habit is of very great value in the control of fruitflies, such as the
apple-maggot or the Mediterranean fruit-fly, (Ent. Cir. No. 160)
because, it will be shown, this course is the only really feasible
means of control.

Admittedly, for this group of insects, ‘no very successful
mz2ans of control have been found.’’ The Mediterranean fruit-fly

(18)

has not yet invaded this country, so far as known, but it is in
Hawaii, found there in 1910; and in Bermuda, supposed to be
there for about 50 years. Hence, since it infests practically ev-
ery kind of fruit, including the tomato, egg-plant, string bean,
prickly-pear and pumkin, may have been brought into this
country years ago, but by having plenty of chance to diffuse and
by being similar in its work to the apple-maggot, may not yet
have been noticed.

Because of the great range of food plants, wild and cultiva-
ted, little good can be expected from the collection and destruc-
tion of fallen infested fruit. As a result “in regions where the
pest is well established, as in Australia and South Africa, much
attention has been given to devising effective remedies, other

than the collection and destruction of fallen fruit. A plan ... was
the covering of the trees with netting and ... was thougnt to be
practical. .... This plan apparently has not been followed to any

great extent.”’

The only other known means that has any chance of success
is the more recent use in South Africa of a potsoned bait spray-
ed over the trees for the destruction of the adult flies, evolved
by Mr. C. W. Mally (Ent. Cir. No. 160, page 18). -The results
were surprisingly good. To get these results, however, it was
necessary that the bait was evenly distributed over the trees,
prickly pears, bush, etc., around the orchard.... Practically all
the flies present during any one day found it very quickly and
fed on it to their destruction...’’ (p. 19) 14 applications were
thus made and the cost for material was about 8c per tree. What
it cost with the labor added is wisely left out. Again, rains
might interfere, and the application of the spray to fruit as it 1s
approaching maturity might prove objectionable.’’ Nothing is
said as to what effect such continued poisoning would have on
other insects, beneficial or neutral.

‘*...When (the larva are) fully developed. which usually re-
quires a fortnight or three weeks, they leave the fruit, which has
as arule fallen several days previously, and enter the ground,
seldom going deeper than one inch, depending on the nature of
the soil. There they soon change to pup#ia and remain for 12

(19)

days to three weeks, depending on the season....(p. 13).. Pupe
were present under some of the decaying peaches.,..(p. 18).

Thus poultry going about cultivated or wild vegetation in-
infested, would simply have to pick on fallen fruit and thus
either find larvawithin, or would, upon turning the fruit, often
find pupz in full view, while those not feasible will be found by
scratching, usually within an inch of that very point, Hence,
economical control of this insect, or of the apple maggot, clearly
calls for the widest possible use of poultry; this is simply making
a systematic use of a domesticated kind of natural enemy. “ult
(the Mediterranean fruit fly) is without question the most de-
structive fruit pest on record in the world today.’’[p. 10]

“The Argentine Aut,’’ the Department tells Mr. Raker, “ds
and insect which makes its nest in buildings.... Mr. Reinlein’s
plan is to usé a plumber’s torch to drive the ants, which he be-
lieves will carry their eggs and larva with them, iito the open
where it will be devoured by poultry.”’

Every word is a lie.

In Entomology Bulletin No. 122 you read: “At all the in-
fested points the levee is found to be teeming with the ants and the
batture itself is a constant breeding place... Here the ant colo-
nies are found under every particle of driftwood and trash and
during almost the entire year they are in attendance upon Coc-
cide and Aphidide upon the willows.”’ Ask the Department
what means they have to control the pest there or on crops.
whereby attending lice and scale insects they make, it is estima-
ted by the Department, on the average 5 specimens grow where,
in their absence, one formerly was found before.

The Department has nothing, absolutely nothing that is at
all feasible. Just the same they want to deliberately fool the pub-
lic by refusing to even admit that poultry raised ina systematic
way to cope with such an enormous proposition has a chance to
be of any value. This when they, in Bulletin No. 122 state that
the ants, when unmolested, very greatly interfere in the rais-
ing of chicks, from which it follows that poultry is by nature an
enemy of this pest.

(20)

In summer time the ants appear to do as_ little excavating
as possible and seem ‘to limit their efforts to excluding light and
water, etc. [E. B. No. 122, p. 56.] In case of danger the work-
ers’ first instinct appears to be to remove the young [egg, larva,
pupz] to a place of safety, and they readily sacrifice their own
lives in order to accomplish this. [p, 40] Thus poultry, given a
chance, will simply scratch the whole combination up and eat
them up. Fora beginning, however, to get a flock established at
this work in a badly infested locality, I had pointed out that it
might be of benefit to assist them some. One way would consist
in accelerating their destrucfion by the use of a blast torch, the
kind shown on last page being a good type, and another way
would consist in exposing quick acting poisoned sweets to the
ants, which latter kills a limited number and drives the rest a-
way from that particular place, giving poultry an undisturbed
roosting place.at night.

It is manifest that there is much wild land that needs clear-
ing, and a man wishing to rear poultry there should be welcomed
by any owner to do so, and this would result in a self-sustaining
well paying business, but if this work could not be made to pay
for itself, it would have to be done just the same, since there 1s
no more feasible way known, and since without it the ants would >
be masters of the land, and stay masters.

On page 11 of my Circular No. 150 I made reference to Ax.-
riculture Bulletin No. 377, giving the results of poison experi-
ments to control the ants in houses. I showed on pages 11 to
14 that the most feasible means to obtain this consists in first of
all giving the widest possible use to poultry outside, and _ then
control the ants that have gone to nest in the houses by exposing
quick acting poisons, which kills a few and drives the rest away
quickly, stating expressly on page 13 that, “‘the use of poisoned
sweets for control in houses is a necessity.’’ No talk about any
torch at all. You probably did not look for any such skillful ly-
ing on the part of any Executive Department.

‘“The experts of the Department are of the opinion that Mr.
Reinlein’s plans are entirely impracticable....’’, the Department

(ir)

winds up its yarn. Then just let them point out what plans de-
scribed in this circular are impracticable.

The Bureau makes no attempt to point out any means ot
controlling any invasion of cultivated crops by the range cater-
pillar. There are no means that can be pointed out. Neither
they nor anyone else has any, except it be continued hand pick-
ing. How entirely futile the use of arsenicals would be can be
gathered {rom a record of an outbreak of the yellow-bear cater-
pillar given in Entomology Bulletin No. 82, part V. ‘Judging
from the results of these experiments, the arsenicals [applied to
larva one-fourth to three-fourths grown, whereas the rang cater-
pillar invades the crop when nearly full grown, and is much
larger] cannot be depended on to control.’’[p. 66] °“‘On reach-
ing maturity the larva crawl under heaps of dead weeds, tufts of
grass.... In such quarters, which offer but slight protection they
construct frail cocoons.... There is no better method of fighting
this species than to burn the weeds, grass etc., under which the
pupz, Lof the hibernating brood, ] find protection....”

But there is a better way: Poultry given the run through
such weeds, grass etc., will be able to get many of these pupe.
Besides there is alsoa Spring brood with insects in the pupael
stage during summer even still lighter protected. This course of
control I had shown in previous circulars to be applicable in
many other cases; especially inthe control of certain timber in-
sects.

Whatever would burn is intended by nature to serve as pro-
tection for the plants and tor the animal life subsisting under
their protection, for providing breeding ground for ground dwell-
ing birds, for increasing humus, retaining moisture, preventing
erosion. Hence, such burning, often recommended by the Bureau
in similar cases, cannot be too strongly condemned.

Details for meeting the conditions that will be encountered
in carrying on poultry raising on a large scale in the range cat-
erpillar territory are given in my Circular No. 146, pp. 9 to 14.
I may add that, since the succulent plants in that area are usual-
ly protected by strong spines, hence are not available for food,
it is feasible, where they are available, to render daily a small

(22)

patch of them fit for nourishment, since they then provide both
food and drink. This can be done through the use ofa cactus
burner or a hot air blast torch. A suitable type is shown on the
last page of this Circular. A little grain scattered through that
patch will attract all of the poultry to that spot. A supply of
feed can as readily be provided on the range as anywhere,
through the raising, in suitable valleys, of grains adapted to
semi-arid areas. It is also practical to raise green feed for win-
ter feeding, since at least the necessary breeding stock has to be
carried over, by the raising of root crops, hardy and not hardy,
and of vegetable plants, hardy in that territory, such as kale
and Brussel sprouis.

It is true that on page 12 of Bulletin No. 443 the Bureau
claims cultivated cereal crops can be protected against the range
caterpillar by spraying witha solution of one pound of powdered
arsenate of lead to 50 gallons of water. But where are the tests
to prove such an idiotic claim? The Bureau has found it neces-
sary to recommend the use of 3 to 5 pounds of arsenate of lead
to 50 gallons of water for the destruction of newly hatched larva
of the browntail moth, then what can you expect from a third
and fifth strength solution of this where ‘“‘the full grown larva
frequently measures 2” inches in length, with the diameter of a
man’s index finger,’’ (Bull. No. 85, p. 78) and where there is a
continual stream coming in from the surrounding range?

All the essential features of this, and much other matter be-
sides, was explained to Mr. Kaker by the use of marked and an-
notated copies of my Circulars No. 146 to 150, and Mr. Raker
was asked to hand this up to the Nepartment for action, after
having examined same. This he did, and he got the following
reply: ‘“The experts of this Department are of the opinion that
Mr. Reinlein’s plans are impractical. Apparently he is writing
theoretically and without any first-hand knowledge of the insect
concerned.’’

Thus seeing that Mr. Raker was giving me a chance at
making a defense, they did not want to make any specific state-
ment this time, and did expect Mr. Raker to let the matter rest
upon their word that I am wrong, this when they had been asked

(23°)

to show whv their previous letter had not been a bundle of lies.
Naturally Mr. Raker was asked, under date of April 13th, to
prosecute the matter further.

The far-reaching evils of erosion, their cause, their. effect
and tieir prevention, are described in Yearbood Separate No.
688, Farms, Forests, and Erosion. ‘‘In general anything that in-
creases surface run-off, increases erosion... As a rule it is only
when the natural protective cover of forests, brush, yrass and
other plants is disturbed that serious and long continued erosion
results’? (page 8)

This is all new to the U. S. Entomoloyist and his experts,
judging by what they write. A good sample ot what they write
appeared recently in Agricultural Bulletin No. 416; The Red
Spider on Cotton. Under heading of Remedial Measures, you
read on page 60: ‘Too much emphasis cannot be placed on the
importance of ridding all field borders, ditch banks, terraces,
etc. of all vegetation as far as possible....”’

Since cotton is only one of the 183 kinds of plants the red
spider is known to feed on, employing this means in this and
in other cases as advocated by the Bureau, for instance in the
destruction of hibernating quarters for the chinch bug and the
boll weevil, would, a perusal of Separate No. 688 will convince
you, in the course of a comparative short time, turn the country

into a desert.

But aside from this I had shown throughout my Circulars
No. 139 to 150 that such destruction of host plants is all wrong,
and that the correct way of control consists in using the prefer-
red host-pants for traps if they are to be used at all as a means
-of control. Since the Entomologist has been talking for about a
year to the effect that I am wrong all around, without offering a
particle of proof, I now prove them to be wrong once more, from
the latest available evidence. :

On page 59 the authors state that the red spiders hibernate
on several of the native and door-yard plants. ‘These hosts
serve as sources of dispersion.’’ Of course, what else could they
do if not treated. ‘By destroying during winter and early spring

(24)

polkweéed, Jerusalem oak, Jamestown weed, wild blackberry,
wild geranium and other plants which breed the pest, much good
will be done. This plan has been tested by the writer in several
instances and has given complete immunity the following sea-
son...’ How these plants were destroyed is not stated, proba-
bly by burning and grubbing out. How about the next season?
Has that work to be done over again every season? Of course
with first choice food plants removed, the spiders will subsist on
second, third and last choice plants. True, there is no practical
way toitreat the plants, especially in out of the way places, ex-
cept by the way shown by me as far back as 1898, by using the
hot air blast, for which work the type of torch shown on last
page is very suitable, These weeds are very often not on the
owners land and, anyway, if on waste places; should be left there
except to give something better a chance, which in turn, will al-
so harbor spiders,

‘*....In several instances of past severe annual infestation,
violets’? (probably the most favored winter food plant) ‘‘adjoin-
ing fields have been thoroughly sprayed, with the result that no
red spider appeared in these fields.<.’’ Therefore you see if you
only did treat these plants, they would act as traps instead _ of
sources of dispersion. And hot air furnished by a torch is ex-
tremely cheap. Then again, since these plants may not be on
the owners land, he can keep his crop clean by giving the plants
near the source of infectation an occasional slight licking with
a torch.

With a practical means of controlling them on the crop at
hand, there is some very good reason why the winter host plants
should be left to themselves. Anything that kills the spiders
kills also, as a rule, the natural enemies that are present. If the
host plants are not treated, they usually become heavily infested
and in turn*much sought after by natural enemies of the spider,
causing the latter to increase in number. As the spider does not
spread fast the use of a torch near the edge of the field makes it
possible to absolutely control invasion.

Again, taking cotton for a sample, this crop is attacked by
many Other enemies. Suppose infestation by red spider had

(25)

been prevented through destruction of host plants, but the cot-
ton aphis were taking a hold. Repeated slight swift lickings
with a torch are far the best and cheapest means of control for
this insect, and for aphis in general. On the other hand if noth-
ing was done and red spider is invading the crop, the spider is
thus being taken care of without extra work.

In thus using a torch other larger insects present will be
noticed, because they start to run when they feel the heat from
the torch, when they can be killed. A large part of these would
require hand picking or expensive contact insecticides. However,
as will be shown later in discussing boll weevil control, poultry
can be made to take care of these.

It has been suggested to Mr.‘Raker that the matter had
_ reached a stage when it would be specially opportune to have
him call the attention of Mr. Lever, Chairman of the House
Com nittee on Agriculture, to it. Asa result a letter was received
from him May 8, containing the following: ...“‘It is my purpose
to work with Mr. Raker or any other member of Congress that
can and will give their assistance to this matter. The Department
claims there is nothing in your idea, that you are wrong on all
points.”’

Thus Mr. Raker himself has found no evidence that I am
wrong. On the contrary wants to be shown if there is anything
wrong about it. As for assistance, Mr. Lever is bound under
the law to make the Department meet the issues. admit that I
am right or else show what is wrong.

That poultry raising as a means of controlling certain insects
can be made to pay, and pay big, is pretty conclusively proven
by evidence presented in Year-book Separate No. 700: The
Thanksgiving Turkey. There on paye 4 you find an account of
successtul turkey-ranching carried on “‘in the unsettled foot-hill
region of California, and in certain sections of Arizona and other
western states.’’ If turkey can thus be profitably raised on a
large scale in semi-arid, mountainous and very thinly settled
sections, it is not clear why there should be any barrier to the
systematic raising of chickens for both meat and eggs in the re-
gion infested by the range caterpillar, or elsewhere over low-

(26)

priced land, for that matter.

Beginning with the melting of the snow after mid-winter,
with insects then as yet completely inactive, and wild seeds
scarce or absent, stems of grasses or weeds carrying the promi-
nent egg-clusters of the hemilenca become the object of favorite
attack by poultry. The insect is exposed to attack in this form

as a rule, till June rst.

The larval period in the largest number of cases extends
from June 1st to September 1rst—three months. That the poultry
would effectively attack the insect in the larval form is proven in |
Ent. Bull. No. 85, p. 93: On July 27, 1909 two robbins were
seen, each with a hemilenca larva in its bill By this date the

majority of the larva are half grown. ‘The Died flew away with
these..—apparently only of the smaller ones—as 1f intending to
feed the caterpillars to their young.’’ Thus if young birds can
stand such young larva, it is safe to say that poultry ‘can eat
great numbers of the newly hatched and partly grown ones. And
-of course it is all a matter of the number of poultry on the job,
whether any young larva would be left to. grow big. There is
nothing objectionable about the pupe. Skunks eat them greeily,
although according to Chief Nelson of the Bureau of Biological
Survey there is at present no evidence to show that they eat of
the larva, big or small. The adults are in plain uiew, resting on
stems of grasses during the day, hence subject to attack. Egeg-
laying begins early in September, the species in this stage thus
being subject to attack from then on till covered by snow.

All this, with much other matter, was in essence pointed out
in my Circular No. 146, August 10, 1915. As the Entomologist
has done nothing to satisfy himself astothe value of the evi-
dence submitted, it will be well to see what. he says about birds,
as enemies of the gipsy- and brown-tail moth. The latter of the
two seems to be the worst of all important hairy caterpillars as
regards the nature of the hairs.... The presence of caterpillars of
the brown-tail moth in large numbers was actually unbearable
on account of the poisoning... (Yearbook Separate No. 706. p, | =
Birds have some importance as enemies. of the gipsy-moth..

7)

pothunters.. .,have destroyed great numbers of insectivorous
birds. Teper of the increase in the number of the pest is attrib-
uted to this.’’ The caterpillars are preyed upon by the cuckoos,
the Baltimore oriole, the yellow-throated vires and the blue j jaye
No destinction 1s here made between big and small caterpillars.
‘The moths are eaten by many birds,’’ which is pretty good ey-
idence that poultry would eat the minene of the range caterpillar,
‘‘and the eggs are eaten by several species.”’ (Farm Bull. No.
275, page 15.) Again, “birds are important in checking the
spread of the brown-tail moth. The caterpillar, like other hairy
species, are not so much eaten by birds, except certain ones.....
The moths...are preyed uponto a great extent by birds....”’
(Farm. Bull. No. 264, p: 18.)

In regard to controlling such insects by means of natural
enemies, the Entomologist says in Year-book Separate No. 704,
page 9: ‘*..,with other kinds,.,,which may exist in the egg stage,
ina Ping larval stage, in a quiesent pupzl stage, andas a
flying adult, and which in their native homes are parasitized by
whole series of species of parasites, some attacking them in one
stage and some in another, and still.others in a third, it is not
such a simple thing to introduce and acclimatize the parasites
necessary to reconstitute the normal environment.’’ And admit-
tedly these parasites are subject at any time to decimation by
hyper-parasites.

Since the gipsy- and brown-tail moth are, principally tree-
feeding insects, they are usually out of reach of poultry. But
they are also often within reach. ‘Tt is a common habit with
the larva (of the gipsy-moth) if nee are disturbed, to spin silk-
en threads which are attached to the trees, and in this way low-
er themselves to the ground.”’ (Yearbook Separate 706, page 5)
Thus if a larva lowers itself a few times with poultry on the
ground, the lowering is apt to be stopped for good. “*...,Of
course the brown-tail moth is carried in the caterpillar stage just
asis the gipsy moth” (through their lowering on silken threads) -
“upon vehicles of different kind passing through the infested re-
g¢on and upon the persons of pedestrians as well,...(Farm Bull.
264, p. 13) ...small caterpillars [of the gipsy moth] immedi-

(28)

ately after hatching may be blown long distances by ‘the wind.
It has been proved that spread ofte occurs froma _ distance of
from 12 to 20 miles in this way. [Y-Sepr. 706, page 5]. How to
get rid of such scattered caterpillars the Bureau has not the
slightest suggestion to offer. With the woods patrolled by poul-
try for this and other pests, such as the brown-tail moth and the
tussock-moth, this would keep the incipient pest in check.
There is no means of extermination. The gipsy moth has been
discovered as far west as Cleveland, O. Being an isolated case,
everything humanely possible has beenand is being done to
stamp out the pest. But with young caterpillars having been
blown 12 to 20 miles it cannot be told for years with any degree
of certainty whether the attempts at extermination have been
successful.

‘Over half a million dollars is the yearly expenditure [for
the control of the gipsy moth] in Massachusetts at the present
time.’’ LY. S. No. 706, p 8,] This is for work by towns and
cities. In the woodlands the gipsy moth multiplies unhindered.
It will be seen then, that unless the moth there is kept in check
—and poultry is the only means in sight, the Bureau having
nothing to offer but parasites and elimination of favorable food
plants, such as oak—-with the young capable of being blown for
miles, there will be a constant reinfestation of cleared areas from
this cause alone. This alone explains why “‘it is inevitable that
new colonies will be found from time to time outside the region
now known to be invested,..’’ Thus in Dep. Agr. Bulletin No.
273, p. 18 it is estimated that the wind blows 210 million small
larva annually into the ocean, and the number is probably much
greater. It also emphasizes the necessity of keeping this moth
confined to New England territory if rapid and general spread
over the United States is to be prevented.”’

In Year-book Separate No. 704, p. 14, the U. S. Entomol-
gist says: On the whole, the work [of importing parasites of
the gipsy- and brown-tail moth] has been very successful, and
has helped in bringing about infinitely better conditions in New
England so far as these pests areconcerned, and while it is prac-
tically certain that both the gipsy moth and brown-tail moth will

(29)

gradually spread westward,-it is equally sure that the imported.
natural enemies will go with them, and that none of the long
continued disastrous outbreaks ariel we Saw in Wiacaclin ceric
in the years prior to 1905 willoccur further west.”

Let us see: ‘*...A large part of the funds expended by towns
and cities (in M Mace tiusettc over half a million dollars a year)
has been used for the protection of shade and ornamental trees,
it having been found impossible to carry on extensive work in
woodlands, Owing to the extreme cost of these operations. The
beauty mae attractiveness of most cities and residential sections
depend on the trees....’’ (Y. S. No. 706 p. 10) That means that
no funds were spent in woodlands except a little for experimen-
tal work to find out that such work as is done in cities and
residential sections involves their “‘extreme cost.’’ The fact is
the woodlands are not accessible to spraying machinery, and
moreover represent far too low a valuation for this and all ofher
artificial means of control, hence the insect there is left to breed
unchecked. The “‘long continued disastrous outbreaks” have
_ been and are existing there right along. “‘Enough pressure was
brought to bear, however, in the fall of 1894, to cause the dis-
continuance of State appropriations for the control of these in-
sects...Matters became so serious in 1905 that work was resumed
by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts...’’ Thus you see the
‘disastrous outbreaks”’ this humbugologist speaks about refer-
red to conditions in towns and cities during a period when the
State spent no money for 5 years.

The ‘‘infinitely better conditions’ thus leaves the country
at large without control, and as for work of the parasites, the
insect does sufficiently well in spite of those to require the use
of half a million dollars in towns and cities in Massachusetts a-
lone. Poultry is a natural enemy of these and other insects, the
only natural enemy that can be definitely controlled by man in
its work, hence should for control in woodlands and farms, form
the chief reliance in control.

As for control in cities and residential sections this could be
simplest secured through trapping the adults, in the case of the

(30)

gipsy moth of the male only. If woodlands and farms are con-
trolled by poultry the number of brown-tail moths congregating
in cities will correspondingly decrease, and thus greatly reduce
the necessity for control there. If you will see to it that your
Congressman uses hls influence to see to it that action
is taken on the matter in hand, I propose to show you how these
moths can be trapped in vast numbers at surprisingly low cost.
Until this is done you will have to look to the Secretary of Ag-
riculture and his experts to show you how this trapping is done.

Mr. A. S. Weiant, the author of Year-book Separate No. 700
was asked to tell what he knows about poultry as a means of
controlling insect pests. He said to do this one should be an en-
tomologist. Speaking of turkeys as largely occupying his at-
tention, Mr. Weiant says: “As a means of keeping down grass-
hoppers I can vouch tor them.’’ There is no good reason why
chickens should not answer as well. If so, this then simply
proves that I was right when I said as far back as in my Circu-
lar No. 147, p. 15, that the correct means to control grass-hop-
per outbreaks consists in judiciously using poultry: that since
their stronghold is in the high, dry, rocky lands, dangerous in-
vasions from that source can be prevented by having large flocks
of poultry roam over these otherwise nearly idle lands. Over
further on Mr. Weiant says: ‘Turkeys are naturally great ran-
eers and when given the opportunity can pick up the most of
their food in meadows, grain fields, pastures, alfalfa fields, etc.’

Then why not raise enough of them to utilize all of the ex-
isting opportunity? And why should chickens not do as well?
I have noticed in the South that turkeys spend very little time
in the cotton fields provided there are any pastures or grain
fields to roam in. This is just what one would expect. Meadows,
erainfields and woodlands offer far better feeding than cotton
fields early in the season when poultry will be wanted to be kept
in cotton fields on purpose as needed, the shortness of food sup-
ply forcing them to hunt for weevils and attack fallen infested
squares, pick up Argentine ant workers to keep them from fost-
ering aphis infestation, during which they render far more _ val-
ue in spite of requiring more grain and more attention, than
they would by consuming food where it 1s more plentiful.

(31)

“An insect must become quite common before it can form
an appreciable portion of the food of (wild) birds...’ Bul. 107,
page 2. If so, you cannot expect wild birds much to reduce the
boll weevil, since being multi-brooded, reduction in number of
hibernated adults is what is most needed, and a small number is
admitedly easily able to produce an off-spring large enough to
destroy the crop.

**The natural food of the turkey consists of insects, green
vegetation, seeds and nuts of various kinds.’’ On page 4 of
Year-book Separate No. 7oo Mr. Weiant points out that tur-
keys greatly relish acorns and that where these are plentiful but
little grain need be used for fattening them in the fall, which fits
in nicely with turkey raising in the woodlands of New England,
consisting as they do largely of oak, as a means of keeping
down gipsy- and brown-tail moth infestation. “‘Of the insects
turkeys seem to prefer grass-hoppers toall others, but they will
also eat circkets, grubs and worms of various kinds, flies, but-
ter-flies, moth, etc.’’ There is no reason why they should not eat
of the hemilenca moth (range caterpillar). These being on the
grass-stems in plain view, simply waiting to be picked. As at
that time, late fall, there are hardly any grass-hoppers, they
represent the food most easily available. ““Some insects they
appear to let strictly alone. For example I have never seen a
turkey eat an ant. a caterpillar, or a potato bug.’’ Now ants may
be too small, besides they might eat themin the form of larva
and pupa, if not as adults. As to caterpillars, if fully grown
hairy ones are meant by this, it is correct enough. How about
the small and spineless ones? Only careful tests can tell.

As to what birds do in the way of destroying the Argentine
ant you read on page 73, Ent. Bull. No. 122: ‘On one occasion
Mr. G. A. Runner observed an English sparrow industriously
picking up the Argentine workers from a trail which crossed a
wide roadway at Baton Rouge. This habit is not, however, a
common one with this bird.’”’ If this sparrow could get at noth-
ing else, a condition that can be imposed on poultry, the habit
would become common at once. ‘

‘The flicker, or yellowhammer, Calaptes auratus, has of-

(33)

ten been seen industriously digging up shallow ant nests in
lawns and grass plots, evidently for the purpose of obtaining
the pupa and larva, and should doubtless be credited with being
the most important natural enemy which this ant has in the
South.,.’’ What the Entomologist was wanted to show all along
was why poultry would not also dig up these nests.

Speaking of poultry catching moths, it should be borne in
mind that the adults of some borers most difficult to control are
moths.

Take the sugar cane moth borer. This tnsect is, in Ento-
mology Circular No. 139, p. 2, conceded to do enormous dam-
age. Figures there given place the loss on plant cane alone used
in one factory in three years previous to 1912 at $145,445.

Since the U. S. Bureau of Entomology has published very

little in regard to the life history of this insect, I asked Gover-
nor Pleasant of Louisana for the favor to request his State Ex-
periment Station to send me a_ copy of their Bulletin No. 70,
second series: The Cain Borer. This was done. The remedies
there given consist in substance in planting the cane as near as
possible i in the fall, burning all trash, and of culling cane and
corn in the spring. The borers in the buried fall-planted cane
are not able to emerge as adults through anything as thick as
one-half inch of loose soil. ““The windrowed areas should be
systematically gleaned after removal’of cane for spring planting
and all pieces of cane destroyed by fire or carefully buried..
[p. 923] ‘‘ all trash [cane tops] should when cut be so jaceneed
upon the cane rows as to hasten drying and whenever dry should
be fired....’’ (p. 924) The borer’s “‘only tood in Louisana has
been foand to be sugar cane, corn, Johnson grass, Guinea corn,
sorghum, (sweet and sour- sree) and possibly wo other large
grasses.”’ (paye 927.)

But to burn or bury all waste is a pretty big job, besides
burning any kind of vegetation means a loss. The Department
of Ayriculture fathers the statement that ‘‘the burning of a wheat
stubble deprives the land of as much fertility as the producing
of five crops of; wheat.’’ If so the main loss is sustained through
the action of the fire upon the soil.

(33
“Everybody [with but few exceptions] burns the trash....
yet with this only known effort practiced alike in every commu-
nity, the borer multiplies to a destructive extent in one section
and is practically subdued in another.’’ (p. 902)

Thus you see the need for something better, or at least for
some effective additional means of control. “‘If fall planting on-
ly be made... the enclosed borers must remain until the cane is
scraped in the spring and the few which will then escape would
be hardly enough to produce much harm during the summer...”’
(page yo4). |

Let us see: On page 925 is given the record of a cane cul-
ling bee. 420 acres were culled in the early spring, filling 120
sacks, each having 333 borers, or a total of 39960, this makes a
catch of 95, say 100 borers tothe acre. A female lays on the av-
erage 300 eggs. Thusone female emerging fromevery 3 acres
of scraped cane might do all this damage. Suppose 1o infested
stalks per acre of first brood were missed. This gives us five re-
sulting females, at 300 eggs each, or 1500 borer of second brood
during say, June-July. 750 females will result, at 300 eggs each
you have 225,000 borers of the third brood during August-Sept-
ember: and 3,375,000 per acre for the 4th brood during October-
Nove nber. While such numbers do not occur, more likely be-
cause ot cannibalism than of all other causes combined, it shows
that the insect has the faculty to increase to such numbers as
can subsist under such competition.

‘‘Corn is more succulent, more rapid in development and
thus in the economy of the borer assures the development of ma-
ny more specimens than if cane were the only food plant of the
first two broods...’ (page 912). Infestation of youngcorn is
shown to be about ten times heavier than cane. (p. 912)

Investigations have shown that 87 per cent of the moths e-
merge prior to April 15th. Moths come from the pupa cases at
night and after expanding their wings remain hanging to some
plant or other object during the entire following day. The second
night mating takes place and a few eggs may be deposited.. The
moths are not shy and unless vigorously disturbed will not take

flight during the day...,(p. 910).

(34)

Since windrowed areas produce the largest number of moths,
a stand of young corn there, with the moths hanging on the
plants can be made to serve as a trap, since, the poultry given
access: the moths can be largely secured. In the past the advice
given was that “’...limited tracts of corn badly infested with the
borer in close proximity to cane should be completely destroyed
to protect the cane crop from succeeding broods...”’ (p.. 925.95
now with poultry at work there is no need of reducing the acre-
age of corn, or abandoning corn for a year or more, as recorded
on page 914 to have been found beneficial in preventing heavy
infestation of cane.

‘* ..few if any moths emerge during the colder months of
winter...(p, 910) ...the moths while existing in small numbers
confine their attacks to the ends of the rows and to the ditch
bank rows...’’ [p. 903]. This either means that the earliest e-
merging adults have wintered outside of the fields hidden, away
under some heavy vegetation, or else it means that the insect
has hibernated as larva on plants on the ditch bank and more
adults have developed there early than did in the fields; or it
means both. At any rate the thing to do is, instead of planting
no corn, to plant corn by preference in the ditch bank rows and
as near as possible at the ends of the rows, and to protect also
the interior cf the field by strips of corn, kept patrolled all
through the season by poultry. It is obvious that there must be
always corn on hand thatis young. To this end two crops of
corn are grown on these strips, some corn, beginning on March
1st. being planted at intervals of one monthupto September Ist.
While harvesting of cane is going on and before there is frost,
the borer, with corn present, planted August 1st and September
rst, will virtually confine oviposition to these savings. These
should be left standing. A legume can and should be sown be-
tween at the last cultivation. Stock may -be admitted after frost
and the whole thing must be plowed down nicely before the be-
ginning of emergence, say beiore Match roth.

If poultry be not used, it will be readily seen that the nor-
mal requirement of corn could not be produced without endan-
gering the cane crop unless a great deal of care is used culling

(35)

the corn. It would not seem feasible to cull millet by hand,
hence under the old system millet must be left out of the crop
rotatian.

As practically all of the cane growing area is overrun by the
Argentine ant, poultry is needed all through the summer to pick
up the workers to prevent undue multiplication of the measly
bug and of aphids. Besides there are numerous other insects af-
fecting corn and cane, and other crops necessary~to allow at
least of some diversification, which poultry can be more or less
successfully used to control.

Another highly injurious day-flying moth is the adult of the
peach-tree borer, which deposits her eggs at the base of the trees.
Poultry allowed to roam through the orchard with a view ot
keeping down insects in general, would secure a certain number
of these, reducing the need for other means of control.

A day-flying moth that does very similar work, ovipositing

t the base of the trees, is the sequoia pitch moth. It1is at pres-
ent the most destructive insect to the large pole pines in certain
parts of Montana. Poultry made to roam the woods in sufficient
quantity for controling insects in general would increase the use
of the land and to a cartain extent keep this pest in check.

In his report for 1916 the Entomologist makes the cla
that tests are being carried on by the Bureau of Entomology that
hold out the possibility of a chance of discovering successful
methods of preventing the establishment and spread of the pine-
shoot moth, and of the European pine-saw fly, both “‘introduced
shortly before the plant quarantine act foe operative.’’ [p.
16]. re first named insect has been introduced, as stated in
Agr. . No. 170, as far back as 1911, was found in 1914 in
20 meee in nine states, in one case, the work then being 4
years old. Both sexes are strong fliers, laying their eggs in the
apical and other terminal buds of pine trees, thus offering not
the slightest chance of extermination as explained in detail in
my Circular No. 145 and 146. Yet even as late as this the Ento-
mologist wants to humbug the people into believing that its es-
tablishment can yet be prevented, when for means of control it
has nothing but the removal and burning of the infestedshoots,

(36)

In the case of the European pine-saw fly, extermination is,
if possible, even more broadly impossible. The adult is a fly.
The eggs are laid in the needles on the tips of the trees. The in-
sect was discovered in August 1914 1n Connecticut. It has two
broods, which means rapid dissemination. This insect, together
with the larchworm, it was shown on pages 16 and 17 of my
Circular No. 149, has been decribed rather minutely in the re-
port of the Connecticut State Entomologist for 1915. Mr.
S. A. Robicer of the Bureaa of Entomology at Washington, is
there quoted as saying that “....it has a large number of host
trees’’ [in Europe] “‘and would no doubt adapt itself readily to
the conditions in America..... (Rep. Conn. Ent. 1915, (p, 1Eede
Thus extermination if attempted, would involve examination of
pines and other conifers for many miles around the original in-
festation means of extermination there are none. As to means
of control. “It is eivdent that Diprion simile is freely attacked
here by American species of parasitic Hymenoptera and Diptera,
but it is not known as yet whether any Europeean species were
brought into this country in the cocoons of the sawfly’’. Other
practical means, necessary when the parasites fail, the Ento-
mologist has none. The use of poultry makes it possible to
secure the larva as they spin down or fall down occassionally,
or when they migrate over the ground to other trees. The larva
being hairless should make choice eating for poultry. “In
Europe raking up and destroying the leaves and other rubbish
under the trees in the fall is recommeded to distroy the cocoon.’’
[p. 123]. A far better way would be to have the cocoons
scratched up and eaten by poultry.

The larchsaw fly is single brooded, spends the winter in a
cocoon beneath rubbish on the ground and thus can easily be
controlled by poultry, besides the caterpillars are subject to at-
tack when on the ground.

This insect “‘invariably chooses the young, green, terminal
twig in which to insert the eggs.., When the apical terminal
shoot is atfected... a permanent kink may be caused... It is -an
injury which cannot be prevented...’”’ page 127. Poultry, by
keeping the insect down to limited numbers will prevent the in-

a7)

sect from laying any great number of eggs into any one shoot,
and thus prevent any great injury to apical shoots.

This saw-fly ‘‘during several extensive outbreaks since 1880
has killed from 50 to 100 per cent of the mature larch over vast
areas in the north-eastern United States and south-eastern Can-
da.,.aggregating many millions of feet.’’ (Rep. Conn. p. 60)
The chief factors in the control of the larch saw-fly are its nat-
ural enemies, which consist of birds, mammals, a large number
of parasitic and predaceous insects, and a fungus disease.’’
(Rep. Conn, Ent. p, 130). But since outbreaks do occur with
this and many other insects of similar habits, why not use poul-
trv when and where it is needed?

Since the Entomologist talks about half of his time about
what great good parasites, native and imported, are doing as
the result of the work of his Bureau, itis well to see what the
pine shoot moth has done in iaecoe in spite of its parasites,
and “‘in spite of continued preventative war against it.., If the
attack is slight, it results in the branching of the tree,’’ (since,
it uninfected, the moth selects the apical bud for Sie

‘but if the attack is severe and continued for several years, as
we have seen it, then hardly any bud is spared and the pines be-
come stunted into miserable small bushes...’’ (Dept, of Agr, Bul.
NO. s70,.p. 2.)

‘‘It is reasonable to suppose that some of the native para-
sites on some of the native species of Hvetria will in time also
attack Hvetria buoliana (the imported pine shoot moth) in this
country —in fact parasitized larva have already been observed —
but these native parasites cannot be relied upon to keepin check
their natural bosts, the American pine shoot moths, which spo-
radically become very abundant and very injurious, in spite of
the parasites and presumably will be less effective in controlling
the newly introduced host.’’ (p. 9.) ‘“None of these native spe-
cies (of pine shoot moths) can, however, even with this advan-
tage [of having two broods annually] be compared in destruct-
iveness to the European species just introduced...’’[p. 8]

Since chiefly young trees arechosen for oviposition, I had
shown in my Circular No, 145, page 7, that the sensible thing

(38)

to do is to protect, if possible, the apical budin some way when
the adults are about laying their eggs, the most feasible way ap-
pearing to me to be the pouring of some semi-liquid clay over
the apical bud, causing thus the moths to oviposit on a side
shoot, which serves just as well. I also described in my Circulars
No. 145. 147 and 149, pages 13 to 15, how these. moths and
cther night flying insects might be. trapped.

Virtually all this and more was shown in my Circular No.
145, June 7, 1915, The Chairman of the Congressional Commit-
tees on Agriculture, Senator Thomas P. Gore and - Representa-
tive Asbury -. Lever were urged to have the U.S. Entomolo-
gist either admit this to be correct, or else show why it should
not be correct. Pouring semi-liquid clay over the apical bud el-
ther protects it or it does not protect it. “‘Early in August [in
Europe) the eg ggs ate laid singly on the new buds of the next
years growth...’’ page 5. The adult will not of course, oviposit
on hardened clay, when she has plenty of side shoots® serving
fully as well. The Chairmen mentioned therefore should have
forced the Entomologist to define his position. And this applies
to all issues involved.

Protecting the apical bud by an application of semi-liquid
clay may be a simple enough idea. On thé other hand this insect

“has been the subject of much study and of an extensive litera-
ture from the time it was first described by Schiifermiller in
1776 to the present day.’’ The U. S. Entomologist frankly says
his Bureau is the best thing of the kind on earth. The fact re-
mains, no one has pointed out-this simple idea before; and now
the Entomologist wants to pretend to be unable to see any good
in it. And Messrs. Gore and Lever thus far, have wanted me
to be hanged on that pretense.

The apparatus shown on last page was designed with a
view to meet the needs for an apparatus, that will enable the
man having a limited amount of vegetation, ranging in size
from big trees down to grasses, to keep same free of insects and
fungi. Ina few cases, with the codling moth for instance, the
proper use of arsnicals is the best thing at present known, but in
the case of all sucking insects, and in any case where poison is

(39)

for one reason or another not satistactory against biting: insects,
with the exception of where they can be controlled by poultry,
or by trap crops, or by the torch used as a trap at night, the
use of heat is far preferable to employing the contact insecticides
now officially recommended.

It may be weil to mention here that now flour mills and
other buildings infested by insects are being fitted. as the best
means known for control, with heating apparatus of such capac-
ity that insects may be killed simply by giving so much heat
that they will die purely because of high temperature, doing a-
way with the many objections incident to using poisonous gases.

The use of heat from a torch, was first described by me in
in 1898 and was first used by me in 1896 as a means of controll-
ing the harlequin cabbage bug. In his report for 1916 the Ento-
mologist on page 18 says: |...Such remedies as trap-crop plant-
ing and the destruction of the bugs with special burners are a-
mong the most successful,’’ in combating the harlequin bug. As
for the trap crops, I had shown as far back as 1898 the adult
bugs congregate on thetassels of sweet corn. More recently I
have shown that by seeing to it to have at all times some cruci-
ferous plant going to seed, the bugs will congregate on the seed-
stalks and can be kept down by poultry, doing away with the
use of heat, special or otherwise. But oid or new, according to
the Entomologist I am wrong either way.

_ The adult harlequin bug lays her eggs on the underside of
the leaves of cruciferous plants, which leaves are mostly invert-
ed spoonshaped; hence the young bugs usually cannot be seen
without moving the leaf. Because of this the simplest means of
control consists in concentrating the adults in plain view upon
tassels of sweet corn or seedstalks of cruciferous plants. They
then can be picked off by hand or by the use of poultry.

On page ty of his report the Entomologist speaks about the
control of the spinach aphis by lady beetles in the truck district
of tidewater Virginia. He says ‘‘the extensive cutting down of
trees and removal of underbrush for planting of truck crops left
us available places for the ladybirds to hibernate...’’ Then how

(40)

does he expect these ladybirds to become and stay plentiful in
the fields, since, moreover, they go to feed on lice on most of the
crops and since all these crops need treatment as to insects and
fungi, which treatment of necessity also kills the ladybugs. He
says the plants cannot be reached, even with an underspray. I
claim there is an ‘underspray’’ that reaches them, that is,
reaches the lice hidden in the hollows of the inverted spoon-
shaped leaves, especially when the plant is growing nicely in
the spring. And this spray consists in the use of heat as ap-
plied by a torch. Some kind of knapsacktype torch is the thing
to use and the essential feature in its use is to uSe it early, oft-
en, and swiftly, letting the heat blow slantways upon the ground
a few inches from the plants as they are approached. ‘The heat
waves will then roll in between the leaves.

Without thus controlling the aphids, on the spinach, this
crop will act as a winter host ona large scale for this and var-
ious other kinds of aphids, resulting in abnormally heavy in-
festation of succeeding crops.

The special features of the apparatus shown consists in that
the handle of the pistonrod of the pump located in the center
serves also as a hook, making it possible, after remoying the
shoulderstrap, to hook the apparatus from branch to branch in
a tree. This does very well with the man having but few trees,
making him independent in his work, since the official recom-
mendations call for something else in many ditterent cases.

For big trees in large numbers_I have described on pages
11 to 13 of my Circular No. 147 how suitable apparatus furnish-
ing heat can be gotton up. Heat thus applied is far the best
means to destroy the stem mothers of aphids and the adult
pearthrips as they congregate upon the bursting buds of fruit

trees and fruit bushes.

I had also shown how apparatus applying heat to lowgrow-
ing vegetation, such as oats infested with the spring grain aphis,
can be constructed, using, -if desired, as far as practicable fit-
tings from the outfit used for orchard work.

(41)

The spring grain aphis is usually held in check by natural
enemies—for details see Ent. Circular No. 93, Revised. The
natural enemies rather often fail. The latest occurrence was
right in 1916, as recorded on page 12 of the report. On pages
12 and 13 of my circular No. 144 I had shown at some length
- that the Entomologist has no tangible means of control. The
use Of heat does destroy the pest and should come into effect as
soon as the danger of an outbreak becomes apparent.

The Reinlein
Knapsack
Gasoline Torch

Pat. No. 739,22
Sept. 15, 1903

e ® s Rs LIBRARY oF CONGRESS»
ay ean
BS Oe ae maa fe 015 793 6906 @
: ike y <i 4
eS rs : 2 ' ;
Yo ‘ *
= 5 4 . }

A ' by
8 a
y
B 5
J
: .
y 4 - =
+ ‘ ~
? *
i a ‘g
*
™ x
: X
an) zi by
f . ‘s - .
2
> : 2
“ pi ce J
: 5 =
a. , E
ee inane ‘ i
: i ~ x : y =
y mens : Me
* 2 <
pets
x /
h f
_ fine
r Z at
& ’ ¥
ese ‘ ,
; we nm
“7. ~
~
'
a PA »
. at ‘
" x!
: seas p
~~ =
.- ao ~
ig 7 :
a 4 {
r oh =
ey os + ¥ - 3 :
x - *
Va
f - re one
) =
~ we
:
ran rs -
See / 3
<s- _ - Med
ress: 7 _ 4 “sy r
> +
oF +
‘ oo” bs i
= ral
-
aa;
~ - SA,
+ ths
«
. 23 -
* 4 .
3 :
= ee
" —- “a
7 =
* ra .
‘ ; 5 as — Ns
~ a7 A Fe
t :
rs rs t <7,
emt ie f : :
hy
. ? 7
3 <I ' 5 .
—<-. 2 are ve
7 ~ ft pty
Sy a . Pas
LS wile ae , oa