Title: Analyses of the Orange
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00026750/00001
 Material Information
Title: Analyses of the Orange
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Pickell, J. M.
Publisher: Experiment Station of Florida at the State Agricultural College
Publication Date: 1892
Copyright Date: 1892
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00026750
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: afe2022 - LTUF
18545346 - OCLC
001058341 - AlephBibNum

Full Text





HISTORIC NOTE



The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
(EDIS)

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida










BULLETIN No. 17

OF THE -


EXPERIMENT STATION

OF F LORID ,

A- T THE -


State Agricultural College,

L-RKI CITY, FLIt.



I, ANALYSES OF THE ORANGE,
II, HORN FLY.
III, QUESTIONS CONCERNING STOCK DISEASES.



REV. JAS. P. DePASS, Director.



JACKSONVILLE, FLA.:
DA COSTA PRINTING AND PUBLISHING HOUSE.
S 1892.

























STATION STRFP.


JAS. P. DEPASS, Director.
J. M. PICKELL, A. M. and Ph. D., Chemist
J. J. EARLE, B. A., Ass't Chemist.
SA. W. BITTING, B. S., Veterinarian.
P. H. ROLFS, M. S., Entomologist:and Botanist.
J. K. FITZGERALD, B. S., Horticulturist.














ANALYSES OF THE ORANGE.
(PRELIMINARY REPORT T.)


BY J. M. PICKEL AND J. J. EARLE.


A year ago last January we began a series of analyses of the
orange. It was intended that all the leading varieties should be
embraced. The following points were to receive attention:
Chemical composition of the orange as a whole, with reference
particularly to quantity of fertilizers extracted from the soil;
composition of separate parts (peel, seed, pulp and juice); per-
centage of peel, seed, pulp and juice; percentage of sugar and
acid in juice; average weight, specific gravity and keeping qual-
ity of each variety. It was, and still is, intended that this work
shall extend over several seasons; but as yet only one season
has been given to it, and not all the points mentioned above were
covered. We have concluded, however, to publish such details
of the work as will be of use and interest to growers. Future
analyses, covering oranges grown in different seasons and over a
greater extent of territory, variety of soil, etc., will doubtless
modify, to some extent, the figures given in this article.
The varieties and localities represented are Dancy's Tangie-
rines, Mandarins, Majorica, Jaffa, Parson's Navel, Maltese
Bloods, Imperial Malta, Double Imperial, sent on and presented
by Rev. Lyman Phelps, Sanford; True Indian River and Found-
ling Indian River, sent on and presented by ex-State Senator
Williams, of Rockledge; the common sweet, bitter-sweet and
sour orange grown in Lake City. The gentlemen mentioned
have our thanks for their kind co-operation.
EXHAUSTION OF THE SOIL BY THE ORANGE.
The following is the average approximate composition of the
orange. This average is made up from all the varieties men-
tioned above:










4
(a) (b)
Moisture ........................per cent.... 87.710 ....
Organic Matter (exclusive of nitrogen) .... 11.246
Nitrogen .................. ......... ... . 124
Silica .......... ....... ......... .... .009 1.00
Sulphuric acid ........................ .042 4.86
Phosphoric acid.. ,.................... .077 8.63
Ferric oxide ........................... .... .006 0.68
Lim e..................... ........... .... .207 0.916 22.77
Magnesia .................. .. ...... .. 045 5.01
Potash... ...... .. .... ... ......... .. .. 479 52.05
Soda............. ...... . ....... . .... .039 4.26
Chlorine ............................. .. ... 011J 1.23
99.996 100.49
Less oxygen for chlorine.................................. .28
100.21

Column (a) gives the percentage of the constituents in the
fresh orange as a whole, (b) those in the pure, dry ash.
Different oranges of the same species differ often very con-
siderably in composition. For example, the ash of the Navel,
as grown and analyzed in California, shows 47,5 'to 55.3 per
cent. potash, 16.4 to 26.4 per cent. lime, 9.8 to 14.2 per
cent. phosphoric acid, 4.2 to 7.9 per cent. sulphuric acid. This
difference is due to a great extent, no doubt, to difference in
soil, fertilization, climate, etc. But it is a question if oranges
from different parts of the same tree might not differ in compo-
sition. It is also a question whether or not different species, if
grown under uniform conditions of soil, fertilization, climate,
etc., would exhibit characteristic differences in the proportions
of ash constituents. Our analyses of the ashes give sulphuric
acid 3.3 to 6.8 per cent.; average, 4.86 per cent.; phosphoric
acid, 7.5 to 9.8 per cent.; average, 8.6 per cent.; lime, 13 to 32
per cent.; average, 22.77,per cent.; potash, 42 to 59 per cent.;
average, 52 per cent.; magnesia, 3.5 to 6.4 per cent.; average, 5
per cent.; soda, 2.8 to 5.5 per cent.; average, 4.26 per cent.
What proportions of the various constituents should an
orange fertilizer contain ?
Taking our average analyses as a basis, a fertilizer which is
to restore to the soil the plant food removed by the orange
should be composed as follows:










5
Fla. Cal.
PHOSPHORIC ACID, parts by weight ....................... 1.0 1.0
NITROGEN....... ... .......... . .... 1.6 3.4
POTASH .......... ........................ 6.0 4.0
Lime............. ...................... 2.7
M agnesia......... ........................ 0.6
Sulphuric acid... ........................ 0.5
Soda ....... . .... .......... ........ 0.5
Chlorine ......... ........ ...... ........ 0.14
Silica............. ..................... 0.10
Ferric oxide...... '. ... .................... .08
It is commonly accepted as true that the planter need con-
cern himself about only the four first, all the others being, with
rare exceptions, abundantly present in all soils. The rare ex-
ceptions are, perhaps, sulphuric acid and magnesia. The latter
(as also lime) is always abundantly present in acid phosphate, or
can be supplied in the form of gypsum or land plaster. Mag-
nesia is rarely absent from any fertilizer, amounting sometimes
to 10 per cent. or more. Silica never needs to be supplied;
nor do ferric oxide, soda or chlorine; or, if they do, they are
always present as incidental parts of all fertilizers, often to so great
an extent as to be a nuisance. The orange draws potash from
the soil in far larger quantity than any other constituent. This
is, however, precisely that constituent which is relatively defi-
cient in popular orange fertilizers now on sale in Florida. These
fertilizers contain from I to 2.5 times as much phosphoric acid as
potash, and 2 to 5 times as much phosphoric acid as nitrogen.
Whereas, according to our analyses, the orange takes from the
soil 6 times as much potash and 1.6 times as much nitrogen as
phosphoric acid (in case of the California orange, 4 times as
much potash and 3 times as much nitrogen). That one of these
three most important constituents of which the orange removes
the least, the one, moreover, which is most likely to be present,
and often actually is present in Florida soil in excessive abun-
dance, namely, phosphate, is the one which these fertilizers sup-
ply in excess. A fertilizer which would return to the soil the
constituents extracted by the orange, should contain about 2.7
per cent. phosphoric acid, 4 per cent. nitrogen, and 16 per cent.
of potash. These remarks have reference to old bearing trees.
Our analyses are of the orange merely, not of the leaves, trunk,
root or twigs. The leaves and new growth extract food from
the soil, but this should, by decay of leaves and burning of
prunings, be returned. (In case of burning the nitrogen would
be lost.)
Should the compounding of a fertilizer be controlled by the
composition of the crop for which it is intended? In other











6

words, should the relative quantity of each constituent that is to
go into a fertilizer be determined by the quantity that the crop
extracts from the soil ? It is undoubtedly safest to do this in
all cases where the natural capacity of the soil is unknown; also
in all cases where the soil is known to be deficient in all ele-
ments of plant food. In cases where it is known that one or
more constituents of plant food is already abundantly present
and available in the soil, or only partially deficient, that constit-
uent should either not be supplied at all or only in such quantity
as to supplement the.partial deficiency. In a word, the farmer
should understand thoroughly his soil, its deficiencies and its
excellences. In accordance with this knowledge and a knowl-
edge of the crop to be grown, he should compound his own fer-
tilizer, or else have the manufacturer compound it for him in
accordance with formulas suited to his own peculiar needs.
QUANTITY OF FERTILIZER CONSTITUENTS REMOVED FROM THE SOIL
BY 1,000 FRESH ORANGES (APPROXIMATE).



"" 2. .
.- ,







Weight of 1,000 oranges m ounces ............. 6,881 4,985 7.112. 7,370
NITROGEN, ........... 8.4 7.0 6.4 7.4
.ilica.. .. 0.7 0.4 0.7 0.7

Ferric oxide, ............. 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.2
Lime, ..... . ..... 14.6 4.0 16.4 21.4
Magnesia, ............. 3.2 1.5 3.6 3.7
POTAgS, 4.1

WePOTASH, "0 o g. ............. .34.1 16.5 42.1 29.5
1--- --j------






Soda, .............. 2.3 1.5 26. 2.2
Chlorine, . ......... 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.7

Total.................................... 72.8 36.2 83.8 3.9
For quantities removed by each variety see table of analyses.
A thousand fresh California oranges (general average), remove
33.8 ounces potash, 8.5 ounces phosphoric acid, 29 ounces nitro-









7

gen. The difference in nitrogen between the California and Flor-
ida fruit is remarkable, and in phosphoric acid not inconsiderable.
The quantity of an excellent and popular fertilizer recom-
mended to be applied on old bearing trees on pine land is
such as would furnish yearly to each tree 22 to 39 ounces of
available, to say nothing of the insoluble, phosphoric acid; 23
to 39 ounces of potash, and 10.5 to 18 ounces of nitrogen. The
phosphoric acid is greatly in excess of what would seem to be
needed, and the nitrogen somewhat so.
The fertilization of fruit trees is a subject about which there
is little accurate knowledge, and greatly needs to be studied.
The formulas for orange fertilizers undoubtedly need to be re-
vised ; the quantity of potash relatively to the other constituents
needs to be increased. A fertilizer containing something like 2.7
per cent. phosphoric acid, 4 per cent. nitrogen and 16 per cent.
potash, would restore these elements to the soil in something like
the relative proportions in which the orange takes them.
About 12.5 pounds of this fertilizer would be enough for the
production of 1,ooo oranges. The orange is a large consumer
of lime, and makes no inconsiderable drafts upon sulphuric acid.
Those constituents should be looked after. And there doubt-
less are soils which would respond gratefully to an occasional
application of magnesia.
WEIGHT.
The following table shows the average weight of a single
orange of each variety. The number in parentheses after the
name of the variety indicates how many oranges were weighed.
This number in each case is small, and the average based upon
it cannot be more than approximately representative. The
weighing were made in three to nine days after the oranges left
the tree. The process of seasoning or drying out begins as soon
as the orange leaves the tree, and, of course, the weight decreases
constantly. Further on we give a series of weighing showing
this. The rate of decrease depends, among other things, on the
dryness of the atmosphere, temperature, kind of exposure, etc.
.The texture of the rind has also doubtless something to do with
it. It seems not improbable that the keeping power of an
orange is influenced by the rate at which the drying-out takes
place.











8





VARIETY. a 5


z >0

M ajorica (12)............... .......... .. ........ .... 6 7.46 466
Jaffa (6).............. .......... .. ...... 9 7.57 473
Parson's Navels (10)...... ................. ... .. .. .. ....... .. 8 7.75 484
M altese Blood (22)............... ........................................ 10 6.68 418.
Imperial Malta (22) ...................................................... ... 11 6.82 426
Double Imperial (14).... .......... ....................... ..... 13 6.74 421
Indian River (24) .................. .... .. .......................... 4 7.69 481
Foundling, Indian River (24)............................................... 6 7.61 441
Dancy's Tangerines (12)......... .......................... ....... 3 4.60 288
Mandarins (15).................... ............... ......... . 3 537 336
Sprack (2) ......................... ............ .......... ... .... ..... 6 18 386
Select (6). ......................... ..................................... ......... 2.62 164
Columbia County (22)...................................... .... .... 7.58 474
Bittersweet (22)......................... .. ...................... ..... 6 93 433
Sour (24) ........... ...... ........ ............ ............. ..... 7.80 ,488
SPECIFIC GRAVITY.
It hardly need be explained that by the specific gravity of a
solid or liquid substance, is meant how many times heavier or
lighter a given volume of that substance is than an equal volume
of water. If the specific gravity of an orange is greater than
unity (that is if the "orange," to use a popular expression, -'is
heavier than water"), it will sink in water; if less than unity, it
will rise and float; if equal to unity, it will neither sink nor
rise. The water here spoken of is pure (distilled or rain water);
and in very accurate work the temperature must be considered.
In the following table is a record of the weight and specific
gravity of ten oranges from week to week. It shows the inter-
esting fact in that, whereas the weight of an orange constantly
decrease, the specific gravity increase for a while, then afterwards
falls off. This means that for a period after plucking, the orange
becomes more and more compact, then afterwards "loosens up,"
so to speak. When the first weighing were made, the oranges
had been plucked from the trees three to nine days. The deter-
minations of specific gravity were made at intervals of about a
week, until decay of the orange was observed to have set in.
In all cases except one, the initial specific gravity was less than
unity. This case is not to be reckoned as an exception, for the
reason that the orange was three weeks from the tree at the time
the determination was made. In eight cases the specific gravity
gradually increased during the first three to six weeks, then
declined. In two cases there was a decline from the first. In










9
six cases the increase, reached a maximum of over one. In all
cases there was a constantly increasing loss of weight. If these
ten oranges fairly represent what usually takes place, the matter
may be summed up as follows: (i) The specific gravity of a
freshly pulled orange is generally less than unity, that is, it will
generally rise to the surface if placed in rain or distilled water;
(2) The specific gravity of a fresh orange generally increases for
a while as the drying-out goes on, then decreases, the maximum
often exceeding unity, that is, an orange which at first would
rise in water will after a few days or week sink, then later rise.
In making up the scale for honors and medals, weight is put
down at o1. In view of our record, it would be manifestly unfair
to compare the weights of oranges that had been pulled from the
trees different lengths of time.















WEIGHT AND SPECIFIC GRAVITY AS EFFECTED BY LENGTH OF
TIME FROM TREE.




Variety. Variety.
N 4 g n 0a a
M o .n g o Ig


Majorica ....... 7 205 ........ ... Columbia County... 7 12.. .. ....
14 292 13 6 (Small) 14 142 10 7
21 180 25 12 .9995 21 133 19 121.0099
28 168 37 181 0083 28 127 25 11.0148
5 159 46 221 0122 35 122 30 201.0174
42 152 5 26 .9805 42 119 33 22 9990
49 145 60 29 .592 49 116 36 23 .9730
56 140 65 2 .9332 56 113 39 25 .9476
68 132 7 36 9005 63 108 44 28 .9141

Jafa..............7 210. i Maltese Blood. ...- .3 20....... .9075
Jaffa ... .......... 7 210 .. ... 14 193 16 7 .919
1 617.9519
214 2 1 0 21 181 28 13 .978
21 18 2 10 .975 28 169 40 19 .9183
28 174 3 17 3.957 5 160 49 21 .0020
"3 162 21 .0 42 154 55 26 1.0024
42 154 56 27 9N9 49 150 59 281.0024
49147 63 0 .980256 14 6 31 .994
56 142 68 32 9583
63 133 77 37 .9228 Improved Malta. 2 194 .... .. .995
9 187 7 3 .....
Navels .. ... 243 .9641 14 179 1 71.0152
S224 19 8 .981 21 168 26 11 .0267
21 211 2 13 9952 2 159 35 11 0288
28 200 43 1710076 35 152 42 211.0257
35 191 52 211.0178 42 146 48 241.0054
42 18 58 241012 49 140 54 2 .9742
49 181' 62 26 00165 6 130 64 33 .8979

Tangerine..... 129.... .. .8703 Double Imperial 2I 201 ...... 3.9474
14 1211 8 6 8344 14 1 1 .9
28 109 20 15 .7597 2 18 3 16 .9864
5 10 1 19 7273 28 1568 4 21 .9881
49 93 36 28 .68o0 42 19 14 0 29 .9743
5 I l 60 29 1 .96
56 86 43 3 .6806 129 72 3 .8979

Columbia County... 7 204 .. Indian River.... 9 216 ....... .9832
(Large.) 14 192 12 6 1 210 6 .9698
21 175 29 14 .98142 23 201 15 7 .9763
28 161 43 21 .9815 80 193 23 11 .9713
35 150 54 26 9715 37 180 36 16 .9666
42 139 65 32 9338
49 10 74 36 .9778 Foundling..... ...9 207 .... .9918
56 122 82 40 8220 (Indian River.) 16 199 8 41.0089
63 109 '95 46 7652 23 189 18 91.0052
301 181 26 12;1.0092






APPROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF' FRESH OI ANGE.
BY J. J. EARLE.













Peel, per cent...................... .... 22 2 23.49' 25 23 92 17.30 24 23 18.10 18 49 41.36 41.73 29 .... 2 .8.0 24 45 18 15 -7 24.49 25.97 20.41
d.............. .76 95 1 2 75 5 63 3.62 2.8 1 08 .11




Pulp and juice, per cent............... .._ 76.74 7558 75.13 81 45' 75.34 79 54 78.75 55.10 51 9 66 12 75. 71.93 78.74 84.87 73 50 72 03 77.56


Moisture, per cent....................... ... .46 ,7 I6 90 86 68 88.62 88.20 87 06 87.72 .86.82 86 82 89.47 -89 80 0 87 71 87 33 89 69
Nitrogen, ". ............. .... .08 .085 .100 .109 083 .112 .097 .173 .20 .176 .16 111 ... ..... 124 .121 .16
Organic mat'r, exclusive'of nitrogen, per cent. .. 11 54 11 70 11 84.12.02 10.25 il 00 11 60 1 12 1W 251 12 9.70 959 1.. 1 24 11.55 9.64
Silica, ....: 0175 .024 .008 00 .001 00 .0 .00 .010 0i8





Sulphuricacid. .................... .......0507 .054 .056 .065 .046 .024 .039 .048 02 .035 046 .026... .0420 .043 .086
Phosphoric acid ........... ............ " .. .0777 94 .09 .11 0881 058 .097 .080 .)05 6 08 2 05 .048 0770 .08 04510
Ferrie oxide. ..... .. 003 .005 0 01 .0 1 .00' .004 0 ... 0060 .005 00






Potash, 3..... .040 50.0 .680 1 .571 .499 .498 .284 .4 .380 .89...... .. 470 .508 .8 6
Soda, .. 0430 .046 .047 .056 028I .022 047 042 .026 04 037 .. .041 0
Chlorine, o ..n..... ...... .... "0 ....... o0921 .0132 018 .0158 .81 011 .018 .007 .004 .016 81 .0081 ...... 0110 011 00

QUANTITY OF FERTILIZER IN 1,000 ORANGES.
Silica, in ou nces... ..................... .... 4 1.50 1.55 067 0.076 0.05 1 1401 5 0.47 076 0.37 ...... ..... .68 .78 .40







8.60 8. 3.0 .3'
SuPel, per ce intounces .......... .... ... 24 3.4 26 392 17.30 314 1.8 4 4033 41.78 2 2.0 10 85 16 2 3.10 170
Phosphoric acid, .... ........ ........ .... 1 7 7 5.54 6 30 6. 1 23 2.. 0 2 0 .08 2
Pulpand juice, p cent ...........I ....... 76.66 76.74 6 75. 4 79 3 78.5 6. 1 71.93 78.74 84.37 3 72 77.1






TotaFerri oide, ................... ..... 0. 0 .01 8 0.0 7 1 0.70 0 .81 0.14 0.41 0.1 .0 9 0.6 0. .08 .41 .
moisture, r ent. ....... ...... 1 871.0 1.0 1 8 6.20 25.20 16.20 18.20 10.t>0 4.40 89 40 ...... ....1456 16.60 89 6
Magnesiatroge, ....... ........ ........ 8 100 .1 .1091 2.70 3.097 3.46 .04 4 541 1.84 1.. .. 8.1 1.
Oanic ma'rexclusvof nitrogen, r et... 11 64 11 70 11 84,12.0 0.25 11 00 11 61 11 1 25 121 .70 9 59 .. ..... 11 24 11.56 9.64
Silica, .... 0176 .024 .0081 .001 .001 004 .022 .008! .1W .010 008 .008 ..... 0097 .010 Cos




Potash, ...... .............. ..... ........ 060 46 50 4350 45 83.10 2.50 4. 70 3.39 .08 3.0 17.20 15.30 ...... ....84.07 73 1.
hSoda, ci ......... ..... .0 87 3.84 4.01 2. 1.5 3.52 77 8.05 808 184 1.07 ........... 1.70 .08 1.4
Ferric oxide, 003 011 .04 00 004 .00 .00





Chlorine, .................... ... ...... 0 .75 77 .267 1.02 0.2 4 77 1.41 0.436 0.37 1 51 0.46 0.48 ...... ..... .70 22 .4040
Magnesia, .. .. 6.10 6.20 6..0 7.801 5.0 8 50 .0 11 6 0 15.6 1.20 7 0 ...... ..... 6 .758
Potash, ...................... 5040 6 659 .680 571 296 .499 493 284 .41 1 2 .47 33t
Chlorine, .. .......... ..... :590 .010 .0181 .007; .004 016 0 .008 ............. .0110 Oil 009
QUANTITY OBF FERTILIZEB IN 1,000 ORANGES.
Silica, in ounces ........................ 77..~~' 1. 1.55067 0.071 0.| 031 141 05,1 04.47 "0'76 "037 ~7437:.~.... (." .78 .
Sulphuric acid. in ounces...:*.................. :..... 3.80 3.90 3.7& 4.30, 3 10 1.80 2.70; 330 1.80: 2.60 2 10 1 30 .. 3 86 3.10 1 70
Phosphoric acid, .................... 6.10 7 10 63 7 80 5 4.40 6 70 6.50 4 2 36 0 2.0 ...... 5 42 6.02 2 4
Ferric oxide, 0.28 0.67 4 0. 0.3l 0. 0.41 0.31 061 0.2 4 ...... 1:.41
Lime,........ ...... ..... ...... 1.00 21.70 14.90 15 30| 16. 16.60' 25.30 16.20 18.30 10.t0 4.40 40 ...... .. 1 90
Magnesia, ......... .... 3.78 3.10 3.34| 4.09 2.70 3.071 4.33 3.41 3.04 4 54 1.84 1.07 ....... 3.19 353 l-G
Potash, ........... .. 37 00 46 50 43 60 45 80 38.10 22.60. 34.70 33.80 38.00 36.40 17.30 15.30 ...... .. ... 34 07 37.68 16.26
Soda, .... ... .... ...... 3.03 3 87 3.34 4.09 2.02 1.5: 3.52 2.77 3.04 3 03 1.84 1.07 2.7B 802 146
Chlorine, .................I... ... ...... 0 76 0 7 0.67 1.021 0.4 0 77 1 1.41 0.48 0.48'...... .76 82, 44
Nitrogen, ........... ....... .70 1180 15.60 8320 7 0 5.80 88 8.76 9US













THE HORN FLY.
(Hcematobia Serrata.)
This fly made its appearance in Florida some time last year
or late in 1890.
As far as we have learned it was not troublesome in this
State until last fall. Then it was abundant enough to annoy
milch cows. This year it made its appearance as early as the
first week of April. It may become a severe pest before the





















THE HORN FLY. FIG. I. The hair-lines show natural size: a,
egg; b, lava; c, puparium; d, adult fly. (From blocks kindly loaned
to us by officers of division of Entomology, U. S. Department of
Agriculture.)
end of this year. Florida cattle running in hammocks and pine
woods will suffer severely before the trouble will attract attention.
This fly is about a fourth of an inch long. In appearance it
resembles the house fly, excepting that it is much smaller and
little lighter in color. A rather sluggish insect in that it does
not fly much.
When disturbed by a switch of tail or shake of horn it rises
a foot or two above the cow and settles almost as quickly again.










13

When alighting to feed it parts the hair of the cattle and
works its way down to the skin, making it appear as though it
were standing on its head."
Wings are constantly spread for flight, making it quite diffi-
cult to catch.
The name horn fly has been given to it from the habit of
clustering on the base of horns while resting. It does this only
when very abundant. It has also been called dog fly in this
State.
The damage it has done has been variously estimated. In
some places east it caused milch cows to loose one half in milk ;.
others found it unprofitable to keep fattening steers.
It was first noticed near Philadelphia in 1887; from there it
has spread rapidly southward. Last year it was taken in Geor-
gia. It seems that it was imported from Europe about six years
ago.
The eggs (see a fig. I) are deposited in cow dung while it is
still fresh, usually not later than a minute after its dropping.
Most of then are deposited during the day between 9 and 4, and
mainly between 9 and noon.
LARVaE.
The eggs hatch in twenty-four hours after depositing. The
larve (see b fig. I) then descend into the dung, remaining, how-
ever, near the surface.
PUPARIUM.
When ready to transform, the larvae descend into the ground
from one half to three-fourths of an inch; here they transform
into a puparium. (See c fig. I.)
In about two weeks from the time the eggs were deposited
perfect flies emerge. (See d fig. I.)
REMEDIES.
Most greasy substances will keep flies off cattle, and that
which is cheapest and not harmful to cattle would be preferable,
providing it would be lasting.
Train oil or fish oil with a little sulphur and carbolic acid
added has been recommended. Fish oil seems to be the most
lasting substance used.
These remedies simply keep the flies off the cattle treated.
"X. O. Dust" will kill flies when brought in contact, but
lasts only two days.










t4
Professor Garman, entomologist, of Kentucky Experiment
Station, recommends the use of finely powdered tobacco
sprinkled about the horns and over the backs of cattle.
Wherever cattle congregate during the day thedung could
be gathered into piles every three or four days, and the whole
treated with lime or land plaster, or a spadefull of lime spread
on each separate pile. In this way the larve would be killed.
We are indebited to Dr. Riley and his assistants for the
complete knowledge of the life history of this insect.
P. H. ROLFS,
Entomologist.













QUESTIONS CONCERNING STOCK DISEASES.

The estimated value of the live stock in this State is placed
at about five and three-quarter millions of dollars, of which
three millions are represented in horses and mules and a little
more than two million in cattle. Supposing the annual losses
from disease to be no greater here than elsewhere, the amount
must aggregate several thousand dollars. There are condi-
tions present which add much to the loss occasioned by disease.
In places the rearing of horses and cattle is attended with much
difficulty, it being necessary to make importations to supply the
necessities. These importations, as a rule, are of a cheap grade,
and do nothing toward the improvement of the common stock.
The acclimation of the finer breeds is attended with uncertainty,
often resulting in much loss.
It is for the investigation of these unfavorable conditions and
local diseases that the veterinary department has been instituted.
Thatthe department may most effectually serve this purpose, it is
desired that the farmers will respond to the questions asked.
The two diseases on which we desire special information are
"big-head and "salt-sickness."
Big-head," osteo porosis, is a bone affection of the horse and
as its common name implies, is characterized by an enlargement
of the head. The disease is not confined to the horse but is
seldom recognized in other animals. Age does not confer im-
munity to an attack. Animals under seven seem to be much
more susceptible to the disease than those that are older. Post
mortem examinations show that the disease is not confined to
the head, but all the bones of the body are affected. The greater
apparent enlargement of the bones of the head is due to the
close proximity of these bones to the surface and the enlarge-
ment due to the pressure exerted by growing teeth. Being a
disease involving the entire skeleton there can be nothing to
warrant the treatment now practiced and as often unsuccessful, of
cutting into the jaws and inserting strong caustics.
The symptoms of this disease are noticed in about the following
order: Weakness in the back, sluggish usage of the hind parts,
inability to raise the fore-feet over an obstacle, difficulty in ris-
ing, thickening of the lower jaws and enlargement of the bones
of the face. Finally the animal loses power of locomotion, lies
down and usually dies. If the disease is slow in its course the












appetite remains unimpaired and the coat unchanged in appear-
ance until near death. Should recovery take place the enlarged
bones remain a permanent mark. About twelve per cent. re-
cover.
The questions desired to have answered regarding the disease
are as follows:
When and where did you first observe the disease in this
State ?
What was the age of the animal?
What sex ?
What season of the year?
What breed?
Was the animal of local raising or imported ?
Have you ever observed an animal to have a second attack ?
Have you observed the disease to appear in the offspring of
animals used for breeding purposes ?
What was the source of the water supply and character of
the water?
Give data regarding the history of the animal, work, etc.
How many cases have you known to recover?
How many to die?
We desire a description of the disease called "salt sickness "
as it exists in your locality. The many descriptions given make
it seem probable that several diseases are being called by this
misrepresentative term.
What are the most common diseases of the domestic ani-
mals in your locality ?
The department will be glad to receive reports on any disease,
and expresses a willingness to assist in controlling the same.
Prescriptions will be given applicants where the symptoms
are clearly enough described to make a diagnosis.





University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs