• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Main














Group Title: Report for the period ... of the State Plant Board of Florida
Title: Report for the period ... /
ALL VOLUMES CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00098574/00004
 Material Information
Title: Report for the period ... /
Alternate Title: Biennial report
Physical Description: 19 v. : ill. ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: State Plant Board of Florida
Publisher: State Plant Board of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1926/28
Frequency: biennial
regular
 Subjects
Subject: Plants, Protection of -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: State Plant Board of Florida.
Dates or Sequential Designation: 4th (1920/22)- 23rd (1958/60).
Numbering Peculiarities: Vols. for 1950/52-1958/60 also called: Bulletin.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00098574
Volume ID: VID00004
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 10989019
lccn - sn 86033752
 Related Items
Preceded by: Report for the biennial period ending ... and supplemental reports to ...
Succeeded by: Biennial report

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page A-1
        Page A-2
    Table of Contents
        Page A-3
        Page A-4
    Main
        Page A-5
        Page A-6
        Page A-7
        Page A-8
        Page A-9
        Page A-10
        Page A-11
        Page A-12
        Page A-13
        Page A-14
        Page A-15
        Page A-16
        Page A-17
        Page A-18
        Page A-19
        Page A-20
        Page A-21
        Page A-22
        Page A-23
        Page A-24
        Page A-25
        Page A-26
        Page A-27
        Page A-28
        Page A-29
        Page A-30
        Page A-31
        Page A-32
        Page A-33
        Page A-34
        Page A-35
        Page A-36
        Page A-37
        Page A-38
        Page A-39
        Page A-40
        Page B-1
        Page B-2
        Page B-3
        Page B-4
        Page B-5
        Page B-6
        Page B-7
        Page B-8
        Page B-9
        Page B-10
        Page B-11
        Page B-12
        Page B-13
        Page B-14
        Page B-15
        Page B-16
        Page B-17
        Page B-18
        Page B-19
        Page B-20
        Page B-21
        Page B-22
        Page B-23
        Page B-24
        Page B-25
        Page B-26
        Page B-27
        Page B-28
        Page B-29
        Page B-30
        Page B-31
        Page B-32
        Page B-33
        Page B-34
        Page B-35
        Page B-36
        Page B-37
        Page B-38
        Page B-39
        Page B-40
        Page B-41
        Page B-42
        Page B-43
        Page B-44
        Page B-45
        Page B-46
        Page B-47
        Page B-48
        Page B-49
        Page B-50
        Page B-51
        Page B-52
        Page B-53
        Page B-54
        Page B-55
        Page B-56
        Page B-57
        Page B-58
        Page B-59
        Page B-60
        Page B-61
        Page B-62
        Page B-63
        Page B-64
        Page B-65
        Page B-66
        Page B-67
        Page B-68
        Page B-69
        Page B-70
        Page B-71
        Page B-72
        Page B-73
        Page B-74
        Page B-75
        Page B-76
        Page B-77
        Page B-78
        Page B-79
        Page B-80
        Page B-81
        Page B-82
        Page B-83
        Page B-84
        Page B-85
        Page B-86
        Page B-87
        Page B-88
        Page B-89
        Page B-90
        Page B-91
        Page B-92
        Page B-93
        Page B-94
        Page B-95
        Page B-96
        Page B-97
        Page B-98
        Page B-99
        Page B-100
        Page B-101
        Page B-102
        Page B-103
        Page B-104
        Page B-105
        Page B-106
        Page B-107
        Page B-108
        Page B-109
        Page B-110
        Page B-111
        Page B-112
        Page B-113
        Page B-114
        Page B-115
        Page B-116
        Page B-117
        Page B-118
        Page B-119
        Page B-120
        Page B-121
        Page B-122
        Page B-123
        Page B-124
        Page B-125
        Page B-126
        Page C-1
        Page C-2
        Page C-3
        Page C-4
        Page C-5
        Page C-6
        Page C-7
        Page C-8
        Page C-9
        Page C-10
        Page C-11
        Page C-12
        Page C-13
        Page C-14
        Page C-15
        Page C-16
        Page C-17
        Page C-18
        Page C-19
        Page C-20
        Page C-21
        Page C-22
        Page C-23
        Page C-24
        Page C-25
        Page C-26
        Page C-27
        Page C-28
        Page C-29
        Page C-30
        Page C-31
        Page C-32
        Page C-33
        Page C-34
        Page C-35
        Page C-36
        Page C-37
        Page C-38
        Page C-39
        Page C-40
        Page C-41
        Page C-42
        Page C-43
        Page C-44
        Page C-45
        Page C-46
        Page C-47
        Page C-48
        Page C-49
        Page C-50
        Page C-51
        Page C-52
        Page C-53
        Page C-54
        Page C-55
        Page C-56
        Page C-57
        Page C-58
        Page C-59
        Page C-60
        Page C-61
        Page C-62
        Page C-63
        Page C-64
        Page C-65
        Page C-66
        Page C-67
        Page C-68
        Page C-69
        Page C-70
        Page C-71
        Page C-72
        Page C-73
        Page C-74
        Page C-75
        Page C-76
        Page C-77
        Page C-78
        Page C-79
        Page C-80
        Page C-81
        Page C-82
        Page C-83
        Page C-84
        Page C-85
        Page C-86
        Page C-87
        Page C-88
        Page C-89
        Page C-90
        Page C-91
        Page C-92
        Page C-93
        Page C-94
        Page C-95
        Page C-96
        Page C-97
        Page C-98
        Page C-99
        Page C-100
        Page C-101
        Page C-102
        Page C-103
        Page C-104
        Page C-105
        Page C-106
        Page C-107
        Page C-108
        Page C-109
        Page C-110
        Page C-111
        Page C-112
        Page C-113
        Page C-114
        Page C-115
        Page C-116
        Page C-117
        Page C-118
        Page C-119
        Page C-120
        Page C-121
        Page C-122
        Page C-123
        Page C-124
        Page C-125
        Page C-126
        Page C-127
        Page C-128
        Page C-129
        Page C-130
        Page C-131
        Page C-132
        Page C-133
        Page C-134
        Page C-135
        Page C-136
        Page C-137
        Page C-138
        Page C-139
        Page C-140
        Page C-141
        Page C-142
        Page C-143
        Page C-144
        Page C-145
        Page C-146
        Page C-147
        Page C-148
        Page C-149
        Page C-150
        Page C-151
        Page C-152
        Page C-153
        Page C-154
        Page C-155
        Page C-156
        Page C-157
        Page C-158
        Page C-159
        Page C-160
        Page C-161
        Page C-162
        Page C-163
        Page C-164
        Page C-165
        Page C-165a
        Page C-165b
        Page C-166
        Page C-167
        Page C-168
        Page C-169
        Page C-170
        Page C-171
        Page C-172
        Page C-173
        Page C-174
        Page C-175
        Page C-176
        Page C-177
        Page C-178
        Page C-179
        Page C-180
        Page C-181
        Page C-182
        Page C-183
        Page C-184
        Page C-185
        Page C-186
        Page C-187
        Page C-188
        Page C-189
        Page C-190
        Page C-191
        Page C-192
        Page C-193
        Page C-194
        Page C-195
        Page C-196
        Page C-197
        Page C-198
        Page C-199
        Page C-200
        Page C-201
        Page C-202
        Page C-203
        Page C-204
        Page C-205
        Page C-206
        Page C-207
        Page C-208
        Page C-209
        Page C-210
        Page C-211
        Page C-212
        Page C-213
        Page C-214
        Page C-215
        Page C-216
        Page C-217
        Page C-218
        Page C-219
        Page C-220
        Page C-221
        Page C-222
        Page C-223
        Page C-224
        Page C-225
        Page C-226
        Page C-227
        Page C-228
        Page C-229
        Page C-230
        Page C-231
        Page C-232
        Page C-233
        Page C-234
        Page C-235
        Page C-236
        Page C-237
        Page C-238
        Page C-239
        Page C-240
        Page C-241
        Page C-242
        Page C-243
        Page C-244
        Page C-245
        Page C-246
        Page C-247
        Page C-248
        Page C-249
        Page C-250
        Page C-251
        Page C-252
        Page C-253
        Page C-254
        Page C-255
        Page C-256
        Page C-257
        Page C-258
        Page C-259
        Page C-260
        Page C-261
        Page C-262
        Page C-263
        Page C-264
        Page C-265
        Page C-266
        Page C-267
        Page C-268
        Page C-269
        Page C-270
        Page C-271
        Page C-272
        Page C-273
        Page C-274
        Page C-275
        Page C-276
Full Text






STATE PLANT BOARD

OF FLORIDA







REPORT FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 1926-
JUNE 30, 1928

(Seventh Biennial Report)






With The Quarterly Bulletin, Volume XI

and

The Monthly Bulletin, Volume XII
LIBRARY
FLORIDA EXPERIMENT STATION
(AINESVILLE FLORIDA


JANUARY, 1929




10
F64 I -
AGRI-
CULTURAL
LIBRARY










STATE PLANT BOARD

of Florida

P. K. YONGE, Chairman .........---............................ ...... Pensacola
E. L. WARTMANN---............ ------..........------......... Citra
EDWARD W LANE........................................................ Jacksonville
W. B. DAVIS............................................. ....Perry
ALBERT H. BLANDING...............--------.................-- ......... Bartow
J. T. DIAMOND, Secretary and Auditor....................... Tallahassee

STAFF
WILMON NEWELL, Plant Commissioner........---.....--......-- Gainesville
E. W. BERGER, Entomologist..................--......................Gainesville
J. C. GOODWIN, Nursery Inspector.................................Gainesville
J. H. MONTGOMERY, Quarantine Inspector ----..............Gainesville
R. E. FOSTER, Apiary Inspector......................................Gainesville
....... ---...... .... --..... ...--- Plant Pathologist....... -............Gainesville
M. R. BROWN, Grove Inspector, Dept. of Citrus
Canker Eradication ......................Gainesville
Miss LENA R. HUNTER, Chief Clerk.............-............-Gainesville











CONTENTS


LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL ........................... ............. 5
REPORT OF STATE PLANT BOARD ............................................ 5
REPORT OF THE PLANT COMMISSIONER .................................... 9
SECTION I ............... .................................. ...... 9
SECTION II............................................... .. .... .... ................... 11
Departmental Reports .......----- ---................. ......--.........11
Nursery Inspection Department .......................................... 12
Summary-Nursery Inspection Department, Biennium
Ending June 30, 1928 ...........................--- ---............--- ------- 12
Department of Grove Inspection (Citrus Canker Eradi-
cation ) ........................... ........................... ..............13
General Summary Citrus Canker Eradication as of June
30, 1928 ... ..................... .. -......................14
Summary of the Grove Inspection and Citrus Canker
Eradication Department, Biennium Ending June
30, 1928 .------............-- ...... .. .......... ..... ........... 15
Citrus Canker Outbreaks ................ ..-- -............---.15
Sebring ........... ...........---......---------...... 15
Fort Lauderdale ....... -----............ ................16
Rehabilitation Work at Davie ......................... .......17
Apiary Inspection Department ............................................ 17
Summary of Apiary Inspection Work Since the De-
partment was Created in July, 1919 ........................18
Departments of Entomology and Plant Pathology .-.......-......18
Specimens Examined and Recorded Annually (April
30, 1915, through June 30, 1928) ................................19
Quarantine Inspection Department ......................................-----19
Summary of the Activities of the Department Since It
W as Inaugurated ............ ..................................-----21
Important Interceptions During Year Ending June 30,
1927 ...........---.. --........ ........-- ..--- ....................... 22
Important Interceptions During Year Ending June 30,
1928 ...........------..........-.....................23
SECTION III
Estimates of Funds Needed for Board's Work ...................................25
SECRETARY'S REPORT--Financial ----............ ----------.. ............-- 28
APPENDIX A
List of Employees.
APPENDIX B
The Quarterly Bulletin, Volume XI
The Monthly Bulletin, Volume XII
The Florida Plant Act of 1927, Volume XII, No. 1
The Florida Bee Disease Law of 1927, Volume XII, No. 5
Rules and Regulations of the State Plant-Board Passed September
12, 1927, Effective January 1, 1928, Volume XII, No. 4.







Seventh Biennial Report


LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

January 10, 1929.
To His Excellency,
Doyle E. Carlton,
Governor of Florida.
SIR:
Herewith is submitted the report of the State Plant Board of
Florida for the biennium ending June 30, 1928. Please submit
same to the Legislature.
Respectfully,
STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA,
By P. K. YONGE,
Chairman.



REPORT OF STATE PLANT BOARD
The activities of the State Plant Board have been continued
throughout the period covered by this report along the same
general lines as during previous years. The Board was created
by Act of the 1915 Legislature and under the law is engaged in
regulatory work intended to prevent or retard the introduction
into or the spread within the state of serious plant pests. This
is a recognized function of governments and is peculiarly neces-
sary in this state.
Situated as we are geographically, we are exposed to many
plant pest dangers. Climatically, we are favored from the cultu-
ral standpoint. However, the very conditions which permit of our
producing crops of a semitropical nature also make it possible
for plant pests to thrive. Horticultural inspection work is as
different here as our crops are different from those produced in
more northern areas. It is necessary, therefore, for our several
inspectional services to be highly developed and of exceptional
efficiency.







State Plant Board of Florida


To carry on the work in accordance with the requirements
the Board has organized its forces under the chief executive
officer, the Plant Commissioner. Under the Plant Commissioner
are the several departments, each with a chief.
The headquarters of the Plant Commissioner, under the law,
are at the University of Florida, Gainesville. This affords ex-
cellent opportunity for most desirable contacts with the agri-
cultural organizations of the University-the Experiment Sta-
tion and College of Agriculture.
The activities of the Plant Board are almost solely of a regu-
latory nature, although some scientific work of a special nature
is done. It is, consequently, advantageous to have available for
consultation and advice the specialists attached to the Station
and College. We are fortunate in this, as well as the fact that
these specialists have been most generous in rendering assist-
ance. The relations of the staff of the Plant Board with those of
the Station and College have been most cordial and the coopera-
tion which has obtained has been, we believe, mutually advan-
tageous.
Several lines of work in which the Plant Board is engaged
involve close relations with different bureaus of the United
States Department of Agriculture. This is particularly so with
respect to the Bureau of Entomology, the Bureau of Plant In-
dustry and the Federal Horticultural Board. The eradication of
citrus canker, which really has been the main activity of the
Board, has been carried on in close cooperation with the Bureau
of Plant Industry. But for the assistance, financial and other-
wise, rendered by the Federal Government through the Bureau
of Plant Industry, it is doubtful if this threat to our huge citrus
industry could have been suppressed. The policing of our ports
of entry to prevent entry of alien plant pests is in conjunction
with the Federal Horticultural Board. The efforts to combat the
sweet potato weevil and the celery leaf-tyer have been jointly
those of our own organization and the Bureau of Entomology.
In connection with the sweet potato weevil work we are pleased
to advise that a practical method has been developed whereby
farmers in infested areas may continue to produce sweet pota-
toes profitably.
The organization of the Board staff and field force has not
been materially changed since the submission of the last bien-
nial report. The departments operating under the general super-
vision of the Plant Commissioner are as follows:






Seventh Biennial Report


Grove Inspection
Nursery Inspection
Quarantine Inspection
Entomology
Plant Pathology
Apiary Inspection
For detailed information as to the special activities of these
departments we respectfully refer to the Report of the Plant
Commissioner for- the past biennium, which is included here-
with and made a part of this report.
There is submitted as a part of the Board's report the finan-
cial statement of the Board's Secretary for the biennium end-
ing June 30, 1928. Attention is directed to the fact that the
Board has not made use of any part of the "Emergency Fund"
of $50,000 per annum provided for in the appropriation bill as
passed by the last session of the Legislature. The Board be-
lieves that the state funds made available for its use have been
expended wisely and judiciously. The Board also feels that the
horticultural interests of the state demand somewhat larger
appropriations to be made in order that these interests be ade-
quately safeguarded.
In our last previous report we set forth the situation result-
ing from a decision of the United States Supreme Court which
in effect invalidated the Plant Act of 1915. This decision was
in the case of "The Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation
Company vs. The State of Washington." The effect of this deci-
sion had a bearing upon plant quarantine activities in all states.
The Board, in the circumstances, had prepared a new Plant Act,
which was submitted to the Legislature and passed. It became
law on May 19, 1927, as Chapter 12291 and is known by the
short title of the Plant Act of 1927. In its essentials it is like
the Act of 1915. The form of the legislation has been changed
somewhat and a number of defects in the old Act have been
cured. With the passage of the Plant Act of 1927 it became
necessary to pass rules and regulations thereunder. This was
done by the Board at its meeting on September 12, 1927. Public
notice had been given of the intention of the Board to give con-
sideration at that time to the enactment of rules and regulations.
The new rules resemble closely those formerly in effect with
such revisions as time and experience and changed conditions
indicated as necessary or desirable. The Plant Act of 1927 and
the rules and regulations thereunder have been published in






8 State Plant Board of Florida

The Monthly Bulletin of the State Plant Board, in numbers 1
and 4, Volume XII. The Le'gislature of 1927 reenacted the Bee
Disease Law of 1919 for the same reason that the plant quaran-
tine measure was passed. The chapter number is 12050.
The personnel of the Board at the end of the biennium is as
follows: P. K. Yonge, E. L. Wartmann, E. W. Lane, W. B. Davis
and A. H. Blanding. The present organization of the Board was
perfected August 10, 1925, by electing P. K. Yonge as Chairman
and J. T. Diamond as Secretary.
The reports of the Plant Commissioner and the Secretary are
transmitted herewith.
STATE PLANT BOARD,
P. K. YONGE,
Chairman.







Seventh Biennial Report


REPORT OF THE PLANT COMMISSIONER
For the Biennium Ending June 30, 1928
Gainesville, Florida, December 1, 1928.
Honorable P. K. Yonge, Chairman,
State Plant Board of Florida.
SIR: I have the honor to present herewith my report as Plant
Commissioner for the biennium ending June 30, 1928.
Respectfully,
WILMON NEWELL,
Plant Commissioner.

SECTION I
The Plant Commissioner submits herewith his report for the
biennium ending June 30, 1928. Like the immediately preceding
biennial report, the present one will deal largely with actual
performances and accomplishments rather than detailed state-
ments and a mass of statistical data. The members of the
Board, as well as other officials and the public, have become con-
versant with the activities and methods of the organization. It
seems advisable, however, to indulge in some more or less gen-
eral statements, both for the purpose of refreshing the mem-
ories of those who have read previous reports or are somewhat
familiar with our work and of placing in permanent form a rec-
ord of our work. It is also incumbent to supply this report for
the information and guidance of our law-making and governing
bodies. We here again quote a portion of the biennial report for
the period ending June 30, 1924. What was said at that time
is applicable now.
"Former reports have been somewhat detailed and elaborate.
Now that the Board has been functioning for almost ten years,
its work has become systematized and the public is well advised
as to the nature of the Board's work, it is not thought necessary
or advisable to submit a report dealing with the work in such
detailed manner as formerly. The Board members are cognizant
of the manner in which the Plant Commissioner and the depart-
ment heads have handled the particular phases of Plant Board
work assigned to them. The members of the State Legislature
and the public generally, by reason of the extensive and rather
voluminous reports heretofore submitted, have been kept ad-
vised as to the efforts made by the Board to protect the state's







State Plant Board of Florida


horticultural and agricultural industries. This report will there-
fore deal especially with the more important aspects of our
work during the biennium closing June 30, 1924. In the com-
pilation of the statistical matter here presented, an immense
amount of detailed information has been condensed. This is
particularly true with respect to the data included in the section
devoted to the activities of the Nursery Inspection Department."
The Plant Commissioner feels that the work of this organiza-
tion has been conducted efficiently and economically; that re-
sults have been secured commensurate with expenditures. We
are of the opinion, and in this we are supported by many of the
leading agriculturists and horticulturists of the state, that our
activities can be expanded to the great advantage of the state.
When it is considered that agriculture is a basic industry of the
state and that the producer is continually combating, at enor-
mous expense, plant pests it is but logical to state that pro-
tection against further introduction and spread of plant pests
is a matter of primary consideration.
The problems which have confronted us in the past still con-
front us-magnified. Traffic into and within the state has in-
creased greatly. Foreign trade and passenger movement through
Florida ports is vastly greater than only a few years ago. The
problem of pest control has become much more complicated
through the development of our road systems. A recent factor
of great importance has been the formulation of plans whereby
one of our Florida cities-Miami-will be the airport through
which air traffic to the West Indies, Central and South America
will pass. This service will be inaugurated early in December of
this year. It is understood that daily four huge planes will leave
this port for foreign ports south of us and, of course, an equal
number will arrive. These planes will have capacity for ten to
twelve passengers with baggage and will also transport mail.
The passenger traffic by steamer through Florida ports to and
from the West India Islands has increased materially and the
prospects are that this progressive increase will continue. It is
considerations such as these which actuate us in recommending
increased provision for repelling invasion and for maintaining
inspection patrols within the state. The dangers to which we
are exposed are not "figments of the imagination." They are
real. That our protective cordon is functioning with efficiency
and, furthermore, that the dangers are actual is indicated by
the frequent interception at our ports of dangerous plant pests.







Seventh Biennial Report


In the section of this report devoted to the departmental activi-
ties will be found startling confirmation of this statement.
In the last biennial report you were advised of the necessity
for reenactment of the Plant Act of 1915 or of other action in
the form of new legislation which would remedy the situation
of plant quarantine laws resulting from the decision of the
United States Supreme Court in the case of "The Oregon-Wash-
ington Railroad & Navigation Company v. The State of Wash-
ington." It will be recalled that the effect of this decision was
that all state laws passed subsequent to the enactment of the
Federal Plant Quarantine Act of 1912 and all rules and regula-
tions of a plant quarantine nature similarly promulgated were
null and void. The Florida Plant Act of 1915 was in this group.
Congress, by an amendment to the Federal Plant Quarantine
Act of 1912, made it possible for state plant quarantine legis-
lation to be passed which would not be in conflict as formerly
with the national law. The Florida Legislature, upon represen-
tations from the Plant Board, took cognizance of this situation
and passed an act known by the short title of The Plant Act of
1927. This act, it is believed, fully corrects the situation re-
ferred to above. It also remedies certain minor weaknesses and
defects which had been discovered in the Plant Act of 1915.
With the passage of the Plant Act of 1927 it became necessary,
of course, for the Plant Board to promulgate rules and regula-
tions under the new act. This was done by the Board at its
meeting held at Tallahassee September 12, 1927. The Legisla-
ture, at its 1927 session, reenacted the Bee Disease Law of 1919
and the Board validated the rules applying to the eradication of
diseases of honeybees and the inspection of apiaries. The rules
of the Board as passed September 12, 1927, became effective
January 1, 1928.

SECTION II
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
With respect to the activities of the several departments and
special projects of the Plant Board organization we submit
brief summaries including essential statistical data in this sec-
tion of the biennial report. Complete and detailed information
is incorporated in the annual reports of department heads which
are on file and available for reference in the office of the Plant
Commissioner.







State Plant Board of Florida


Florida possesses what is regarded as an exceptionally effi-
cient system for protecting its agricultural interests from dan-
gerous plant pests which threaten from both within and with-
out. Through the State Plant Board, supervision is given to all
plant movement, nurseries are inspected, imports of plant ma-
terials are safeguarded or prohibited, plant pests are suppressed
or eradicated and scientific investigations connected with such
activities are prosecuted. The executive officer of the Board is
the Plant Commissioner, with headquarters at the University of
Florida, Gainesville.

NURSERY INSPECTION DEPARTMENT


Personnel:
Chief Inspector
Assistant Inspectors
Clerks


Allotment 1927-1928:
$65,170.00


All commercial nurseries in Florida are inspected several
times annually to determine their condition with respect to the
presence of plant pests, that is, injurious insects or diseases. If
found to be in satisfactory condition, certificates are issued;
otherwise quarantines are imposed. According to the last an-
nual report there were in this state more than 56,000,000 plants
in the 2,152 nurseries containing 8,129 acres of nursery stock
under inspection by the inspectors assigned to the department.
Following is a brief summary showing the more important
data regarding the activities of the Nursery Inspection Depart-
ment:

SUMMARY-NURSERY INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
BIENNIUM ENDING JUNE 30, 1928


1926-1927
Number of inspection districts ..-....................- 13
Total acre inspections made (does not include
narcissus bulbs) ............................................ 36,535.3
Total acre refusals ..................-........................ 1,807.5
Total stock inspected .--....-----------.......-229,787,282
Total stock refused .................-........ .............. 15,283,021
Total number of nurseries under inspection
June 30 ............................................................. 2,345
Total number of inspections made of above ..... 8,269
Average number of inspections.......................... 3.5
Number of nurseries going out of business..... 1,149
Number of inspections before going out of
business .----...-----.............-.- -----. 1,773
Acreage in citrus stock June 30.............------ 6,707
Acreage in non-citrus stock June 30.................... 3,264
Amount of citrus stock as of June 30.............. 30,409,886
Amount of non-citrus as of June 30----................. 32,112,155


1927-1928
13
34,602.78
1,310.99
235,782,843
11,560,364
2,152
8,918
4.13
808
1,526
4,391.36
3,737.86
21,101,574
35,375,352







Seventh Biennial Report


Bulb Growers .......................------- .........- 81 100
Bulbs inspected ...... ...... .............- .. 40,500,000 58,338,800
Plumosus growers (estimated) ...............---. 200 800
Approximate acreage plumosus ................ 400 1,000

DEPARTMENT OF GROVE INSPECTION
(Citrus Canker Eradication)
Personnel: Allotment 1927-1928:
1 Chief Grove Inspector $91,560.00
32 Assistant Grove Inspectors
Florida's greatest single agricultural activity is represented
by the more than 250,000 acres of citrus plantings. To protect
this industry calls for constant inspection. About fifteen years
ago citrus plantings in twenty-two counties became affected by
citrus canker, an alien Asiatic invader. Nothing was known of
this disease. It was soon discovered that it was most malignant,
easily carried and did not respond to any known method of
treatment. In this emergency the expedient of eradication was
resorted to, notwithstanding the openly expressed opinion of
many experts that failure would attend. For thirteen years now
this eradication campaign has been vigorously prosecuted. Over
15,000 grove trees and 342,000 nursery trees infected by the dis-
ease have been destroyed. This disease which threatened the
citrus industry with extinction has been brought under control.
The many and widely separated foci of infection have been
stamped out. Occasional infections are still discovered, only to
be snuffed out by the vigorous action of the Plant Board. The
most recent was at Fort Lauderdale in November, 1927. It will
only be by means of continued and repeated inspections of all
citrus trees, coupled with destruction of infected trees when
found, that the threat to the industry will be averted. With the
thirty-two inspectors engaged in grove inspection, an inspection
of all citrus trees in the state can be made once in about three
years. Throughout the campaign investigators have continued
the study of the disease but so far no efficient method of treat-
ment has been found. Eradication must continue to be our pro-
tection. Needless to say, drastic quarantines have been main-
tained on affected areas and the state does not permit importa-
tion of citrus plants into Florida for fear of reintroduction of
the disease.


13








State Plant Board of Florida


GENERAL SUMMARY CITRUS CANKER ERADICATION AS OF
JUNE 30, 1928

Florida counties in which canker has been found............................... 26
Grove trees found infected since May, 1914.......................................... 15,243
Nursery trees found infected since May, 1914...................................... 342,260
Number of properties found infected to June 30, 1928..................... 515
Properties declared no longer danger centers.......---.............-..-...... 512
Properties still classed as actively infected, June 30, 1928................ 3
The following table shows the number of citrus grove trees found in-
fected with canker during each month from the beginning of the eradica-
tion work to June 30, 1928:

Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Tot'l

1914 ........ ........ ...... ......... 108 160 275 1313 767 565 773 366 4327
1915 306 165 444 408 1042 772 651 1345 618 214 494 256 6715
1916 86 21 49 49 338 450 349 219 124 451 131 27 2294
1917 14 4 9 169 52 45 39 30 6 2 1 1 372
1918 0 1 1 2 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
1919 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4
1920 0 0 0 0 0 0 539 1 0 0 0 0 540
1921 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1922 0 0 0 0 585 168 28 34 23 19 12 4 873
1923 1 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 11
1924 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1925 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
1926 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
1927 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 0 85
1928 0 0 0 0 0 0 ........ .......... ......... ........ ..







Seventh Biennial Report 15

SUMMARY OF THE GROVE INSPECTION AND CITRUS CANKER
ERADICATION DEPARTMENT
BIENNIUM ENDING JUNE 30, 1928

n d Number of Citrus Trees *
SU' Inspected for Citrus W
0 w Canker 0 0

___ Grove Nursery W C $.I O

1926
July .... 28 896,677 7,770,569 0 0 0
Aug .. 27 844,808 10,444,080 0 0 0
Sept.. 27 799,399 10,173,720 0 0 0
Oct. 25 880,143 12,838,057 0 0 0
Nov .... 27 815,119 8,902,684 0 0 0
Dec .... 30 413,682 7,501,6841 1 1 2
1927
Jan .... 35 899,3091 12,603,4901 0 0 0
Feb .... 38 1,014,398 8,915,8421 0 0 0
Mar. .. 39 823,558 7,217,5121 0 0 0
Apr. .... 38 1,622,257 8,860,2351 0 0 0
May .... 39 1,624,897 12,507,634 0 0 0
June ..1 39 1,137,263 9,463,234 0 0 0
July .... 32 1,157,7351 9,274,7981 0 0 0
Aug .... 32 1,258,4251 8,605,2721 0 0 0
Sept. .. 32 1,240,820 8,535,836 0 0 0
Oct .... 32 1,109,963 7,657,004! 0 0 0
Nov .... 33 500,892 6,525,675 1 2 85
Dec. ... 33 537,847 8,185,518 0 0 0
1928
Jan. .... 33 1,303,148 16,282,894 0 0 0
Feb .... 34 1,342,993 8,118,343 0 0 0
Mar. .. 35 1,555,5811 9,570,612 0 0 0
Apr .... 35 944,4891 9,057,2181 0 0 0
May .... 35 1,258,2431 8,080,4761 0 0 0
June .. 34 1,081,6371 8,705,6901 0 0 0
S25,063,283 225,798,0771
Prior to July 1, I
1926 .................. 94,125,6181 852,318,734
TOTALS ............... 119,188,9011 1,078,116,8111|

CITRUS CANKER OUTBREAKS
Sebring

On December 1, 1926, two grapefruit trees infected with
citrus canker were found on a city lot in the heart of Sebring,
in what had formerly been an old grove. The infected trees
were immediately destroyed. There was an immediate concen-
tration of inspectors at Sebring and an intensive inspection was
made of all citrus trees in that area, which failed to reveal any







State Plant Board of Florida


additional infected trees. Citrus canker was found in many
groves in the Sebring area in 1915 and many infected trees were
discovered throughout that year and in 1916. The infections
tapered off during 1917, and the last one, prior to December 1,
1926, was found in 1918.
Fort Lauderdale
At the November, 1927, meeting of the Board the Plant Com-
missioner reported the discovery of an infection of citrus can-
ker in a property about three miles north of Fort Lauderdale
and advised the Board that a concentration of the inspectional
forces had been made at that point. A total of forty field men,
including special details from both the Nursery Inspection and
Quarantine Departments, were on duty at Colohatchee. Inten-
sive inspections were made of all citrus trees in the vicinity of
Fort Lauderdale, and particularly of properties which were di-
rectly exposed to danger of infection. All citrus trees in the
area extending from Delray on the north to Hallandale on the
south were given a "slow standard" inspection. But two in-
fected properties, one the grove previously mentioned and the
other a small planting located on a lot of a subdivision adjacent
thereto, were found.
The larger grove consisted of 1,447 citrus trees. One thousand
twenty-five of these trees were located in a block east of a road-
way extending through the property. These trees were almost
entirely orange trees about six years of age. In the east block
no canker-infected trees were found. The west block, located
west of the highway, contained 422 citrus trees ranging in age
from eight to fifteen years. Most of these trees were grapefruit,
with some oranges, a few tangerines and limes, and one kum-
quat. The trees were in fair condition. In the west block in-
spectors found a total of 79 trees infected with canker. All of
these were destroyed. The local representative of the company
which owned this property rendered every assistance and co-
operation in connection with the situation. With his consent and
approval, 280 grapefruit trees in the west block which had not
shown any infection were destroyed. Sixty-three citrus trees lo-
cated about the residence were "dehorned," with the consent of
the owner's representative. That is, they were severely cut back
to stumps and then fertilized. Thus out of a total of 422 trees
in the west block 359 were destroyed.







Seventh Biennial Report


The second infected property found at Fort Lauderdale was
a town lot which was originally part of a small grove planting.
On this lot were located seven citrus trees. Six of these were
limes about fifteen years of age, while the seventh was a young,
unbearing orange tree. Canker infection was found upon all
of the lime trees and they were destroyed. The original plant-
ing of which the above trees were a part consists of forty-three
citrus trees. No infection has been found upon these trees
other than the six limes mentioned.

Rehabilitation Work at Davie
At the December, 1926, meeting of the Board the Plant Com-
missioner reported that the rehabilitation work at Davie (neces-
sary as a result of damage from the October hurricane) in con-
nection with the citrus groves at that place, had proceeded satis-
factorily. This work was undertaken by the Red Cross organi-
zation and superintended by employees of the State Plant
Board. There was a good prospect of approximately 125 acres
of citrus plantings being saved, which was in excess of the esti-
mates as first made. The citrus plantings at Davie had shown
canker infection and it was felt that the rehabilitation work was
an essential part of the canker eradication campaign.

APIARY INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
Personnel: Allotment 1927-1928:
1 Chief Inspector (full time) $8,600.00
6 Assistant Inspectors (part time)
The production of honey is an important industry in Florida.
Fortunately, serious diseases of bees are not very prevalent in
this state. In order to protect the bee industry under the Bee
Disease Act of 1927 the State Plant Board maintains an apiary
inspection service. The purpose is to prevent and control seri-
ous diseases affecting honeybees. An Apiary Inspector is in
charge of this work, assisted by a number of local inspectors.
During the year ending June 30, 1928, 19,906 colonies of bees
in 1,222 apiaries were inspected. Seventy-five of these colonies
in 18 apiaries were found to be affected by American foul brood.
These colonies were destroyed. Florida is pursuing the policy of
eradication of bee diseases, rather than control by treatment, as
is the practice followed in many states where American foul
brood is quite prevalent. It is expected by the Florida authori-
ties that destruction of affected colonies as found will ultimately







State Plant Board of Florida


result in total eradication of American foul brood. In pursuing
the policy of eradication, of course, quarantines are made use of
and shipments of honeybees and used beekeeping material into
the state are made under regulation.
There are approximately 7,500 beekeepers owning 100,000
colonies in Florida. The value is placed at $1,000,000 and the
annual revenue from the industry is estimated at $250,000.

SUMMARY OF APIARY INSPECTION WORK SINCE THE DEPARTMENT
WAS CREATED IN JULY, 1919

Apiaries Colonies
Infected Infected
Year Ending Apiaries Colony with Amer- with Amer-
Inspected Inspection ican Foul ican Foul
Brood Brood
June 30, 1920............ 366 15,007 37 I 103
June 30, 1921............ 739 17,931 21 30
June 30, 1922............ 822 22,221 17 34
June 30, 1923............ 1,012 23,883 18 30
June 30, 1924............ 785 21,857 9 13
June 30, 1925............ 670 22,566 7 53
June 30, 1926............ 697 17,617 5 20
June 30, 1927............ 855 23,754 6 34
June 30, 1928............ 1,222 19,906 18 75

DEPARTMENTS OF ENTOMOLOGY AND PLANT
PATHOLOGY

Personnel: Allotment 1927-1928:
1 Entomologist Entomology ........$ 8,760.00
2 Associate Entomologists Celery Pest Inves-
1 Assistant Entomologist tigations .......... 11,100.00
1 Pathologist Pathology (can-
1 Assistant Pathologist ker) .................... 3,600.00
The Plant Board is primarily a regulatory or police organiza-
tion, yet a certain amount of scientific work is done by special-
ists in order that the organization may function efficiently. The
Entomologist of the Board and its Pathologist, with their as-
sistants, make investigations and carry on research in the field
of plant insects and diseases. They identify and classify these
plant pests and devise ways and means for their control. Dur-
ing the last fiscal year 2,463 specimens of plant pests were iden-
tified by these specialists. The Department of Entomology also
produces and distributes a fungus which causes a disease of
and thus effects control of the citrus whitefly. The same de-
partment rears and distributes Vedalia, a predatory insect which







Seventh Biennial Report


exerts a control of the cottony-cushion scale. The chief activity
of the Department of Plant Pathology is, of course, the study of
citrus canker, an oriental disease affecting citrus trees and fruit
which threatens the very existence of the citrus industry. A
special investigation is being conducted with respect to celery
leaf-tyer.

SPECIMENS EXAMINED AND RECORDED ANNUALLY
(April 30, 1915, through June 30, 1928)

1915-1916 ...............~................... ..... 388
1916-1917 ................ ........ .......................... ... ......... .. 612
1917-1918 .. ........ .... ...... ................ .... ............... 2,593
1918-1919 ............... ................... .......-............. 1,921
1919-1920 .................. .. .. ......... .......-.......... --- .. 2,521
1920-1921 ................... .............. ................ ........ ............ 1,998
1921-1922 ............... ............................ 3,545
1922-1923 ........... ................. ............. .... ................ 3,904
1923-1924 ................................ ......... ........... 2,418
1924-1925 .. .............. ........ .......... --...------.... 2,940
1925-1926 .......................................... ................ 2,023
1926-1927 . ......................... ........................................... .................... 1,651
1927-1928 ............................... ................... .. ....... 2,463
1915-1928- Total ..................................... ... .................. 28,977

QUARANTINE INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
Personnel: Allotment 1927-1928:
1 Chief Inspector $55,740.00
13 Assistant Inspectors
1 Office Assistant
By reason of geographical location and climatic conditions,
Florida is peculiarly exposed to introduction of plant pests, par-
ticularly so from the tropics where many major plant pests are
present, as, for instance, the fruit flies. In cooperation with the
Federal Horticultural Board and the United States Customs
Service the Plant Board has a protective cordon thrown around
the state to prohibit the entry of these "undesirable aliens." All
plant material is either prohibited entry or is entered under
safeguards such as inspection and fumigation. Quarantine inspec-
tors are stationed at the ports of Key West, Tampa, Miami, Jack-
sonville, Pensacola, and West Palm Beach. During the year ending
June 30, 1928, 3,430 vessels from foreign ports were boarded
and inspected. Frequent interceptions have been made of mate-
rial actually infested with such dread pests as the Mediter-
ranean fruit fly, the Mexican fruit fly, the blackfly of citrus
and the West Indian fruit fly. Not only is the entry of foreign
plant material supervised but nursery stock from other states








State Plant Board of Florida


must be brought in under proper certification and many plant


products originating in other states are
The following tabulation summarizes
quarantine work for the biennium:

1926-27
Ships Inspected:
Foreign ........................................... 2,989
Dom estic ............... ............. .... 2,991

Total ................ ................-..... 5,980
Total number parcels inspected:
Arriving by boat, express, mail,
freight ..................................... 2,304,594
Of the total there were:
Treated and passed.................. 911,717
Returned to shipper .............. 5,2371/
Contraband destroyed .......... 3,538


subject to restriction.
very tersely the port


1927-28

3,430
2,664

6,094


Total

6,419
5,655

12,074


2,415,694 4,720,288


1,010,635
4,633
4,8441


1,922,352
9,870V2
8,3821







Seventh Biennial Report


THE FOLLOWING TABULATION IS PRESENTED SHOWING THE WORK
OF THE QUARANTINE DIVISION BY YEARS SINCE THIS WORK
WAS INAUGURATED


Year




1915-1916 ..........

1916-1917.....

1917-1918 ..........

1918-1919 ..........

1919-1920 ..........

1920-1921 ..........

1921-1922 ..........

May and June,
1922 .............

1922-1923 ..........

1923-1924 ..........

1924-1925 ..........

1925-1926 ..........

1926-1927 ..........


166

1,240

1,777

1,724

2,458

3,035

2,225


364

2,207

2,309

2,437


370

3,257

4,253

3,485

4,504

4,948

4,179


697

4,559

4,842

5,464


ft


2,705 16,668

2,989 5,980


1927-1928 ......... 3,430 6,094

TOTAL .......... 29,066 59,300 1


V2
s Z^



,Ld
z M zcd
^ilr ~;P


500

3,105

3,422

*69,985

336,059%

710,412%1

1,333,333 /2


747,972

1,827,727

1,410,860

1,633,015

2,435,470

2,304,594

2,415,694

5,235,423


18

255

485

1,521

4,936%

2,130

2,610


201

1,006

1,566

2,630

3,766

5,237 /

4,633

30,995%


0
0
umo~
Lai w riiw ,
^fQ &02 (V '


69 ..........

1,182 ........

1,0371/ ..............

1,743% .-...........

2,345 ................

1,564 ........

1,757 ............


311

2,278

4,478

3,040

3,469%

3,538

4,8441/

31,636%
I


192,707

865,927

911,717

1,010,635

2,980,986


*Prior to August 1, 1918, horticultural material inspected was reported
by shipments. A shipment might comprise 1 or 1,000 packages. Subse-
quent to above date reports were made of the number of packages and
bulk shipments were reduced to packages on basis of contents of standard
containers used for particular products.
tDecrease in number of packages arriving was due to the Federal
Horticultural Board Quarantine No. 56, prohibiting the entry of fruits
from foreign countries, except under permit, which went into effect in
November, 1923.







State Plant Board of Florida


A complete record of the plant pests intercepted during the
biennium is on file in the Plant Commissioner's office. Some of
the more important are here listed.

INTERCEPTED DURING YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1927
SNumber of
Insect or Disease From Shipments
Intercepted
Blackfly
(Aleurocanthus woglumi Ashby) Cuba ......................... 2
Blackfly
(Aleurocanthus woglumi Ashby) .. Costa Rica .................... 1
Chrysanthemum midge
(Diarthronomyia hypogaea L6w) .. Pennsylvania ................ 1
Green scale
(Coccus viridis (Green)) .............. Cuba ................................ 1
Green scale
(Coccus viridis (Green)) ........... Bahama Islands .......... 1
Masked scale
(Chrysomphalus personatus
(Comst.)) ...... --..................--- Cuba ......................... 3
Masked scale
(Chrysomphalus personatus
(Comst.)) ...................... Bahama Islands .......... 1
Rust
(Uromyces caryophyllinus) .....-... Pennsylvania ........... 1
Stellate scale
(Vinsonia stellifera (Westw.)) ..... Jamaica .................. 1
Stellate scale
(Vinsonia stellifera (Westw.)).. Bahama Islands .......... 1
West Indian fruit fly
(Anastrepha fraterculus Wied.)... I Cuba ..............---...... 1








Seventh Biennial Report


INTERCEPTED DURING YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1928


Insect or Disease

Alien scale
(Pseudischnaspis aliens
(N ew st.)) ....... ............ ..........
Alien scale
(Pseudischnaspis aliens
(N ew st.)) .....................................
Alien scale
(Pseudischnaspis alienus
(Newst.)) ................................
Argentine ant
(Iridomyrmex humilis Mayr.)........
Blackfly
(Aleurocanthus woglumi Ashby)....
Chrysanthemum midge
(Diarthronomyia hypogaea LBw)..
Green scale
(Coccus viridis (Green)) ................
Mexican fruit fly larvae
(Anastrepha ludens Loew)..............
Rufous scale
(Pseudaonidia articulatus
(M org.)) ......................................
Rufous scale
(Pseudaonidia articulatus
(M org.)) ........................................
Rufous scale
(Pseudaonidia articulates
(M org.)) .......... ...........................
Rufous scale
(Pseudaonidia articulatus
(M org.)) ....................... ............
Rufous scale
(Pseudaonidia articulates
(M org.) ) .....................................
Stellate scale
(Vinsonia stellifera (Westw.))......
West Indian fruit fly
(Anastrepha fraterculus (Wied.))


From


Cuba ..............................

Bahama Islands .....


Virgin Islands .............

Louisiana ...................

Cuba .........................

Pennsylvania ........

Cuba ..............................

M exico ........ ..... ......

Bahama Islands ..........


Cuba ...............................

Jamaica .....................

Martinique, F. W. I.....

Trinidad, B. W. I .......

Porto Rico .................

Cuba ...........................


Number of
Shipments
Intercepted








State Plant Board of Florida


During the year ending June 30, 1927, insect pests and plant
diseases were intercepted on material arriving at Florida ports
from 33 foreign countries:


Africa
Algeria
Argentina
Bahama Islands
Belgium
Bermuda
Brazil
Canary Islands
Cape Verde Islands
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominican Republic
England
Finland
France


Germany
Gibraltar
Grand Cayman
Haiti
Holland
Honduras
India
Italy
Jamaica
Mexico
Panama Canal Zone
Porto Rico
Scotland
Spain
Trinidad
Uruguay


During the year ending June 30, 1928, insect pests and plant
diseases were intercepted on material arriving at Florida ports
from 36 foreign countries:


Africa
Algeria
Argentina
Bahama Islands
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Cape Verde Islands
Cayman Brac
Chile
Costa Rica
Cuba
Denmark
England
France
Germany
Gibraltar
Grand Cayman


Haiti
Holland
Italy
Isle of Pines
Jamaica
Martinique
Mexico
Nova Scotia
Porto Rico
Santo Domingo
Scotland
Sierra Leone
Spain
Sweden
Trinidad
Venezuela
Virgin Islands
Wales







Seventh Biennial Report


SECTION III
ESTIMATES

The Plant Commissioner submits to the Board estimates of
amounts of funds believed to be necessary to properly conduct
the inspection and other activities of the Board for the bien-
nium beginning July 1, 1929:


ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF BOARD
Salaries: Per Annum
Secretary ................................... ........... .........$ 1,700.00
Stenographer ....................... ............ 200.00

Total for salaries ..................................... 1,900.00
Operating Expenses:
Traveling expenses of Board members and
Secretary and miscellaneous office ex-
penses .....................--- --........ ......... .. $ 1,500.00

Total for Administration, Board..............$ 3,400.00
Plant Commissioner's Office
(General Expenses)


Plant Commissioner ..-- --.............. ............. $
Chief Clerk .............................. ... .....
Stenographer ................ ........
F iling Clerk ......... ........ .... .. .............
Janitor ......................... ......... ...........
Special investigators, two @ $3,300.00 per
annum ................... .....................


3,300.00
2,160.00
1,500.00
1,500.00
780.00

6,600.00


Total for salaries ................................$ 15,840.00
Operating Expenses:
Traveling expenses, printing, office equip-
ment, stationery, postage, etc.....................$....$ 14,160.00

Total for Plant Commissioner's Office....$ 30,000.00
GROVE INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
(Citrus Canker Eradication)
Salaries:
Chief Grove Inspector .......................................S 3,900.00
Ten supervising inspectors at average of
$2,700.00 per annum .....................................--- 27,000.00
Fifty inspectors at average of $2,400.00 per
annum ...................-........................- 120,000.00
One stenographer .................................... 1,500.00

Total for salaries .............. ..................$152,400.00
Operating Expenses:
Travel and subsistence for chief and assist-
ants ...................... .....................$ 42,000.00
Office supplies, field equipment, labor, disin-
fectants, etc. ...................... ........... ...... 8,000.00

Total for operating expenses .................. 50,000.00
Total for Grove Inspection Dept.............$202,400.00


For Biennium
$ 3,400.00
400.00

$ 3,800.00



$ 3,000.00

$ 6,800.00



$ 6,600.00
4,320.00
3,000.00
3,000.00
1,560.00

13,200.00

$ 31,680.00


$ 28,320.00

$ 60,000.00




$ 7,800.00

54,000.00

240,000.00
3,000.00

$304,800.00


$ 84,000.00

16,000.00

$100,000.00
$404,800.00







State Plant Board of Florida


NURSERY INSPECTION DEPARTMENT

Salaries:
Per Annum For Biennium
Chief Inspector .............................................. .. $ 4,500.00 $ 9,000.00
18 assistant inspectors at average of $2,700
per annum ....................... .......................... 49,200.00 98,400.00
1 Chief Stenographer .................................... 1,920.00 3,840.00
1 Stenographer ....................... ... ........ 1,620.00 3,240.00
1 Filing Clerk ...............------.....- --------.. 1,500.00 3,000.00

Total for salaries ..........-............................$ 58,740.00 $117,480.00

Operating Expenses:
Travel and subsistence for chief and assist-
ants, field and office supplies and equip-
ment, labor, etc ....................................----------..... $ 25,000.00 $ 50,000.00

Total for Nursery Inspection Dept.....-...$ 83,740.00 $167,480.00

QUARANTINE INSPECTION DEPARTMENT

Salaries:
Chief Inspector .....-....-...................... .........-- $ 5,100.00 $ 10,200.00
6 supervising inspectors at average of $3,800
per year .............................-........................... ... 22,800.00 45,600.00
12 assistant inspectors at average of $3,000
per year ................. .................................. 36,000.00 72,000.00
Office assistant ..............................-- ............. 2,160.00 4,320.00
2 mounted patrolmen @ $3,300 per year........ 6,600.00 13,200.00

Total for salaries ....................................$. 72,660.00 $145,320.00

Operating Expenses:
Travel and expenses for chief and assistants,
fumigants, office and field equipment, etc.
(including expenses for mounted patrol-
men) ...................------------- .............------ 22,000,00 $ 44,000.00
Motorcycle equipment for mounted patrol-
men ...................-- ------------........... .............. 1,000.00 2,000.00

Total for expenses .....-..............................$- 23,000.00 $ 46,000.00
Total for Quarantine Department..........$ 95,660.00 $191,320.00

DEPARTMENT OF ENTOMOLOGY

Salaries:
Entomologist .......................... -................ $ 3,600.00 $ 7,200.00
Associate Entomologist ...................................... 3,200.00 6,400.00
Stenographer and Filing Clerk ...................... 1,500.00 3,000.00

Total for salaries ........................................----------$ 8,300.00 $ 16,600.00

Operating Expenses:
Travel and subsistence, field and office equip-
ment, labor, library acquisitions, etc.........$ 1,700.00 $ 3,400.00

Total for Dept. of Entomology-......--..-....... 10,000.00 $ 20,000.00








Seventh Biennial Report


DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY

Salaries:
Per Annum For Biennium
Pathologist ....................... ...-- .. ....... $ $ 3,600.00 $ 7,200.00
Assistant Pathologist ................................ 3,000.00 6,000.00

Total for salaries .............-... ............$....$ 6,600.00 $ 13,200.00
Operating Expenses:
Travel and subsistence, field and laboratory
supplies and equipment, labor, etc.............$ 2,000.00 $ 4,000.00
Total for Department of Pathology........$ 8,600.00 $ 17,200.00

FUMIGATION INVESTIGATIONS

Salaries:
Investigator ................... .... ................. $ 3,600.00 $ 7,200.00
Assistant Investigator .................................. 2,700.00 5,400.00
Total for salaries ......................................$ 6,300.00 S 12,600.00
Operating Expenses:
Travel and subsistence, labor, equipment,
fumigants, etc. ................ ... ........... ......... 3,700.00 $ 7,400.00
Total for Fumigation Investigations .....$ 10,000.00 $ 20,000.00

APIARY INSPECTION
(Bee Disease Eradication)

Salaries:
Apiary Inspector ................... ..................... $ 3,000.00 $ 6,000.00
Assistant Apiary Inspector ................ .......... 2,500.00 5,000.00
Local inspectors at $7.00 per day when em-
ployed -........... .... .... .............- .............. 5,000.00 10,000.00
Total for salaries ........... .....................$ 10,500.00 $ 21,000.00
Operating Expenses:
Field and office equipment and supplies,
travel, labor, etc .......................-. .. .... .........$ 7,500.00 $ 15,000.00

Total for Apiary Inspection Dept.............$ 18,000.00 $ 36,000.00








State Plant Board of Florida


Appropriated
1926-1927
Per Annum
$ 3,400.00 Bo
15,078.00 Pl1
91,560.00 Gr
65,170.00 Ni
55,140.00 Qu
8,760.00 Er
3,600.00 Pa
..-........ .... Fu
8,600.00 Al
11,000.00 Ce

$262,408.00
50,000.00

$312,408.00

*Paid from
fiscal year.


a

I

I.
I


RECAPITULATION

Estimates Expended Estimates
1926 1926-1927 1929-1931
Department Per Annum Per Annum Per Annum
ard Expenses ............$ 4,000.00 $ 2,641.51 $ 3,400.00
nt Comm. Office ........ 17,450.00 18,033.58 30,000.00
ove Inspection ............. 140,000.00 94,548.52 202,400.00
rsery Inspection ........-. 90,500.00 62,927.92 83,740.00
arantine ................ 101,400.00 54,877.10 95,660.00
tomology -..-.... 10,000.00 8,224.79 10,000.00
thology .............----. 5,500.00 3,179.37 8,600.00
migation ..... ....... ............ ............- .* 10,000.00
iary Inspection ......... 11,000.00 9,231.69 18,000.00
ery Investigations ........................ ...............
$461,800.00
EMERGENCY APPROPRIATION .............$ 50,000.00

TOTAL OF ESTIMATE...............................$511,800.00
Nursery Inspection Department funds during the present


FINANCIAL REPORT

Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1927

Tallahassee, Florida, Oct. 1, 1927.
To The State Plant Board:
Gentlemen: I herewith submit the following report of the
receipts and disbursements of the Board for the fiscal year be-
ginning July 1, 1926, and ending June 30, 1927.
Summary of receipts and disbursements together with the
balances in the different funds of the State Plant Board.


Name of the Fund Receipts
Continuing Appropriation, Chapter
6885 ........----....... .... .......--$ 35,000.00
General Appropriation, Chapter 11,332.. 229,553.13
Emergency Appropriation, Chapter
11,332, Section 2, Citrus Aphis In-
vestigation .......... .......... .. 1,504.68
Incidental Fund ...............----...-- 6,454.99
$272,512.80


Disbursements Balances

$ 35,000.00 .....
229,553.13 .


1,504.68
2,893.90

$268,951.71


$3,561.09

$3,561.09








Seventh Biennial Report


CONTINUING APPROPRIATION (CHAPTER 6885)

Receipts


Balance Brought Forward July 1, 1926...............


..................$ 35,000.00


Disbursements
Administrative:
For Salaries of Clerical Employees .....$ 1,475.00
For Traveling Expenses Board Mem-
bers .................... ........ ...--.. ....... 333.33
For Office Expenses .................... ....... 92.06

$ 1,900.39


Plant Commissioner's Office:
For Salaries ................... .--
For Traveling Expenses ..........
For Office Supplies ................
For Freight and Express..........
For Printing ................. .........
For General Supplies ...........
For All Other Purposes ..........


Entomological Department:
For Salaries ................... ....
For Traveling Expenses ..........
For Office Supplies ...............
For Freight and Express ........
For General Supplies .............


..............$ 7,550.00
-..--....... 777.42
......-.... 2,177.46
.............. 20.84
.............. 2,242.50
........... 188.63
----....... 35.00



..............$ 5,776.92
.............. 266.28
...... ...... 242.95
....... ..... 99.36
.---....... 635.79


Mosaic Disease Eradication:
For Salaries ..................-.................- 476.48
For Traveling Expenses ........................ 674.26
For Office Supplies .........-.... ......... 2.99


Citrus Canker Eradication:
For Salaries ....................................... .$ 8,455.40
For Traveling Expenses .................. 2,962.12
For Office Supplies ............................... 47.37
For Freight and Express ...................... 45.51
For General Supplies ............................ 418.13


Sweet Potato Weevil Eradication:
For Traveling Expenses --.......................$ 4.20


$12,991.85


$ 7,021.30


$ 1,153.73






$11,928.53



$ 4.20


$ 35,000.00








State Plant Board of Florida


GENERAL APPROPRIATION, CHAPTER 11,332

Receipts

Balance Brought Forward July 1, 1926 ................................... 8,348.13
Appropriation Available July 1, 1926.....................- ... .............. 221,205.00
$229,553.13
Disbursements


Citrus Canker Eradication:
For Salaries ...................-------------
For Traveling Expenses .............
For Office Supplies ..................-
For Freight and Express .-.........
For General Supplies .................


Nursery
For
For
For
For
For
For


Inspection:
Salaries ..--.----.---
Traveling Expenses ...-..........
Office Supplies ....................
Freight and Express ............
Printing ...................--.-- ..---
General Supplies ................


.........$59,146.36
......... 22,703.85
......... 81.97
..-- 21.54
......... 1,553.99


......$40,463.48
-........ 17,003.14
--...... 931.37
--. .... 87.29
..----.. 208.49
......... 1,574.43


Quarantine Department:
For Salaries .................. ------$33,516.65
For Traveling Expenses ...................... 11,146.71
For Office Supplies .................. ......... 747.08
For Freight and Express ...................... 45.43
For Printing .......................----- .------... 704.75
For General Supplies .-.......................... 714.76


Sweet Potato Weevil Eradication:
For Salaries ......................................--$ 495.00
For Traveling Expenses ........-............... 162.42
For Office Supplies ......................... 5.57


Bee Disease Eradication:
For Salaries .--..............--............... $ 5,949.01
For Traveling Expenses ....................... 3,089.35
For Office Supplies ................................ 60.64
For Freight and Express ................ 1.16
For Printing .........................----........... ---. 22.50
For General Supplies ............................ 29.65


Coconut Bud Rot Survey:
For Salaries ....................................------$ 7,593.50
For Traveling Expenses ........................ 1,383.19
For Office Supplies ................................ 70.11
For Freight and Express ...................... 18.64
For General Supplies ............................ 485.53


$83,507.71







$60,268.20







$46,875.38




$ 662.99







$ 9,152.31


$ 9,550.97








Seventh Biennial Report


Plant Pathology:
For Salaries ...............
For Traveling Expenses ...
For General Supplies--.........


Department of Entomology:
For Salaries ..........-..........- .
For Traveling Expenses ..
For Office Supplies .........
For General Supplies .....


Mosaic Disease Eradication:
For Traveling Expenses ...


Celery Disease Investigation:
F or Salaries .................. ......... .......
For Traveling Expenses .......................
For Office Supplies ............... ..
For General Supplies ...........................


Strawberry Disease Investigation:
For Salaries .................. ...... ... .....
For Traveling Expenses ......................
For Office Supplies ................. ...........
For Freight and Express ...... ..............
For General Supplies .............................-


Plant Commissioner's Office:
For Salaries ........... ............
For Traveling Expenses ......................
For Office Supplies .................. ..........
For Freight and Express ..................
For Printing ........................... ... ...


Administrative:
Salaries of Clerical Employees ..........
Traveling Expenses, Board Members
Office Expenses ....... .................. ..


..............$ 1,950.00
--........- 171.49
.... 255.84


$ 2,377.38


.....$ 1,183.32
.. 124.72
. 28.67
. 102.05



....S 100.50


S 5,555.68
502.17
92.99
345.84



S 2,995.67
1,083.85
60.54
6.13
1,530.55



$ 1,510.00
200.95
332.30
1.50
301.20



$ 300.00
795.50
4.11


$ 1,438.76



$ 100.50


$ 6,496.68


$ 5,676.74






$ 2,345.95


$ 1,099.61


CITRUS APHIS INVESTIGATION


$229,553.13


Receipts
Balance Brought Forward July 1, 1926, of the amount of the
Emergency Appropriation declared to be available..................$ 1,504.68
Disbursements


For Salaries .............
For Traveling Expenses .....
For Office Supplies ............


....................................... $ 1,458.33
-.......---- 45.99
.. ..... .... ...... .36


$ 1,504.68







State Plant Board of Florida


INCIDENTAL FUND

Receipts

Balance Brought Forward July 1, 1926.--...-......................
Receipts Collected from July 1, 1926 to July 1, 1927--......

Disbursements


....$ 1,560.09
... 4,894.90
$ 6,454.99


For Salaries ....................... -...............$ 1,760.26
For Traveling Expenses ....---. ...-..................-... 720.51
For Office Supplies .......... .. .............. ..... .... 47.80
For Freight and Express .................. ...... ........... 93.57
For Printing .................- ...... -----.. .... ...... .. 211.50
For General Supplies ................ ....... .. 6.18
For All Other Purposes ... ....... ... .... ....... 54.08
$ 2,893.90

Balance Carried Forward July 1, 1927....................... $ 3,561.09
Respectfully submitted,
J. T. DIAMOND,
Secretary, State Plant Board.






Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1928

Tallahassee, Florida, Oct. 1, 1928.
To The State Plant Board:
Gentlemen: I herewith submit the following report of the
receipts and disbursements of the Board for the fiscal year be-
ginning July 1, 1927 and ending June 30, 1928:
Summary of receipts and disbursements together with the
balances in the different funds of the State Plant Board.


Name of the Fund Receipts I
Continuing Appropriation, Chapter
12,291 ..................... ............. ....- ...$ 35,000.00
General Appropriation, Chapter 11,808.. 227,408.00
Incidental Fund ....... ... ... ........ -...... 7,746.58
$270,154.58


)isbursements Balances


$ 35,000.00
226,604.37
4,429.21
$266,033.58


$ 803.63
3,317.37
$4,121.00








Seventh Biennial Report


CONTINUING APPROPRIATION (CHAPTER 12,291)

Receipts


State Appropriation .................


..................... ......................$ 35,000.00


Disbursements


Administrative:
For Salaries of Clerical Employees ......
Plant Commissioner's Office:
For Salaries -......................................$
For Traveling Expenses ........................
For Office Expenses ..-..-.......................
For Freight and Express ....................
For Printing .............. --.. ..........---..
For General Supplies ...-.....................
For All Other Purposes ....................


Entomological Department:
For Salaries ........-..$........... ----- ----
For Traveling Expenses ....................
For Office Supplies ...............................
For General Supplies ..---........---........-


Grove Inspection Department:
For Salaries ....-..............--.. .......--..----$
For Traveling Expenses .................
For Office Supplies ...... --........----......--
For Freight and Express ..................
For General Supplies ..--......---.......-...


Nursery Inspection Department:
For Salaries .....-..........................-- ... ..$
For Traveling Expenses .....................
For Office Supplies ..............-.........-
For General Supplies ........................


...............$ 1,583.32


8,012.60
162.64
1,556.86
446.44
4,433.43
662.23
10.00



6,442.87
127.74
4.50
224.72


5,905.08
1,825.00
.25
.42
21.58



2,573.79
959.03
45.50
2.00


$15,284.20





$ 6,799.83






$ 7,752.33





$ 3,580.32


$ 35,000.00








State Plant Board of Florida


GENERAL APPROPRIATION, CHAPTER 11,808

Receipts

State Appropriation ...... ...... ............ .. .............................$227,408.00

Disbursements


Grove Inspection Department:
For Salaries ............................. ........$64,574.85
For Traveling Expenses .... -----............... 21,509.20
For Office Supplies ................ ........... 52.07
For Freight and Express .................... 87.15
For General Supplies ................ .......... 572.37
For All Other Purposes ----.......----.... .- .55

Nursery Inspection:
For Salaries ......--------............................ $42,882.91
For Traveling Expenses ..................... 15,398.20
For Office Expenses ............................. 738.44
For Freight and Express .............-....... 4.56
For Printing ........ ----.....~.~.. --......... 57.25
For General Supplies ............... ......... 266.24


Quarantine Department:
For Salaries .......... ...... ..................$41,045.52
For Traveling Expenses ........................ 11,738.91
For Office Supplies ............................... 994.85
For Freight and Express ...................... 87.62
For Printing ............................ .......... 784.50
For General Supplies ...........------................. 225.70

Bee Disease Eradication:
For Salaries ....................................-..$ 5,634.30
For Traveling Expenses ...................... 3,482.23
For Office Supplies .............-- .............-... 53.37
For Freight and Express ...................- .43
For General Supplies .......................... 61.36

Plant Pathology:
For Salaries ........................................ $ 2,548.82
For Traveling Expenses ........................ 357.16
For Office Supplies ...........-............... 6.01
For General Supplies .......-.................... 267.38

Department of Entomology:
For Salaries .......----................................$ 1,283.34
For Traveling Expenses ---.................... 46.83
For Printing .---....................... ......... 68.50
For General Supplies .......-........- ......... 26.29

Celery Disease Investigation:
For Salaries ...............--------------.....................$ 6,887.00
For Traveling Expenses ...................... 464.37
For Office Supplies ................................ 57.05
For General Supplies .............................. 531.47


$86,796.19






$59,347.60


$54,877.10






$ 9,231.69





$ 3,179.37





$ 1,424.96


$ 7,939.89








Seventh Biennial Report


Plant Commissioner's Office:
For Salaries .....................-----....$- 1,318.06
For Traveling Expenses .........-............. 24.67
For Office Supplies ............................... 103.12
For Freight and Express .................... 5.00
For Printing .... ........... -..-----......- 1,276.53
For General Supplies ........................... 22.00


Administrative:
Salaries of Clerical Employees............$ 316.68
Traveling Expenses, Board Members 520.47
Office Expenses ......................... ........... 221.04


Balance Carried Forward July 1, 1928 ...................

Incidental Fund

Receipts

Balance Brought Forward July 1, 1927.........................
Receipts Collected from July 1, 1927 to July 1, 1928.



Disbursements


$ 2,749.38





8 1,058.19

$226,604.37

- .................S. 803.63


....... -- ....... $ 3,561.09
................ .. 4,185.49

$ 7,746.58


1,143.90
132.02
300.05
30.66
517.56
847.67
457.35

$ 4,429.21

.................$ 3,317.37


I - - - -----------------S
. .-- - - - - ..-- - - -
.-- - - ..... .....
.. . . . . ... ..-.....
-- - --- ------- -- - -
-- - - - - - - - -
... .. I - - - - - -


Salaries ................... .
Traveling Expenses ........
Office Supplies ...........
Freight and Express .....
Printing ............-..-
General Supplies ............
All Other Purposes .........


Balance Carried Forward July 1, 1928.......


Respectfully submitted,
J. T. DIAMOND,
Secretary, State Plant Board.









APPENDIX A


EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA

JUNE 30, 1928



OFFICE OF THE BOARD
J. T. DIAMOND ................................ ............. .......Secretary and Auditor
MIss ELIZABETH DUREN ................................... Stenographer and Bookkeeper

PLANT COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE
WILMON NEWELL ....................................................................Plant Commissioner
MISS LENA R. HUNTER ....................................................................Chief Clerk
M RS. PAULINE M OODY........................................ ........ .. .... Filing Clerk
HENRY LLOYD (Col.) ........................................... .......................................Janitor

APIARY INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
R. E. FOSTER ........................................................................Apiary Inspector
C. F. GLENN ............................................................ District Apiary Inspector
W. H. HENDERSON ...................-.. ..-............District Apiary Inspector
CHAS. MACK ........................................................... District Apiary Inspector
J. B. NORDMAN ........................ ........................ District Apiary Inspector
J. H. BOOTH ............................ .............................. District Apiary Inspector
W. K. LOTT ........................... ................................. District Apiary Inspector

DEPARTMENT OF ENTOMOLOGY
E. W BERGER ................................................................................Entomologist
G. B. MERRILL ................................................................. Associate Entomologist
MRS. ELOISE RIDDICK ........... ........--t.................. ... .....-.. ..Stenographer

DEPARTMENT OF PLANT PATHOLOGY
-..-.. --..-......-.......... ---- - --- ----- ---------................... -- P lant P pathologist
K. W. LOUCKS ............................ ......................... Assistant Pathologist

QUARANTINE INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
J. H. MONTGOMERY ........................................................... Quarantine Inspector
ARTHUR C. BROWN ............................................. Assistant Quarantine Inspector
U. C. ZELUFF ...................................................... Assistant Quarantine Inspector
J. F. MARSH ........................ .........................- Assistant Quarantine Inspector
R. D. POTTER ..................................................... Assistant Quarantine Inspector
L. R. WARNER ......................................................Assistant Quarantine Inspector
WM. V. MILLINGTON ........................................ Assistant Quarantine Inspector
P. F. ROBERTSON ................................................ Assistant Quarantine Inspector
PAUL THOMAS ......................................................Assistant Quarantine Inspector
R. G. MILNER ......................................................Assistant Quarantine Inspector
J. V. GIST ............................................................Assistant Quarantine Inspector
H. M. WILLIAMS .......................... ...................Assistant Quarantine Inspector
J. B. BOWERS ........................................................Assistant Quarantine Inspector
REGINALD HART ..................................................Assistant Quarantine Inspector
MISS E. LOVEJoY ........................................ ..............................Office Assistant












NURSERY INSPECTION. DEPARTMENT

. C. GOODWIN............- ------......................................................Nursery Inspector
B. A. KNIGHT .........................................-------..................--Assistant Nursery Inspector
C. A. BASS ..............................------.... .... ------- Assistant Nursery Inspector
1. R. SPRINGER .........----- .---..----.................-......--Assistant Nursery Inspector
EMORY L. KELLY ........................----..-----------... --Assistant Nursery Inspector
0. T. STONE .............-..--....-. ----.... ....-..................... Assistant Nursery Inspector
I. CHAFFIN ...................----------.. ... --......-------.... Assistant Nursery Inspector
G. F. ERAMBERT .......................................................--ssistant Nursery Inspector
W. F. EBERHARDT......... ........................-............---Assistant Nursery Inspector
H. C. ARTIS ...................----.............---------------.. ------. --Assistant Nursery Inspector
RoY THOMPSON .......-.....-----......................-- .. .............Assistant Nursery Inspector
H. A. NOXTINE................ .....................-- ...-........Assistant Nursery Inspector
H. M. BETTS................................................................ Assistant Nursery Inspector
VERN W. WILSON.................................---..........-...A.. Assistant Nursery Inspector
JAB. KERR-....................................--- .---.---.--.. --......Assistant Nursery Inspector
. J. WILMOT ............................................ ......... Assistant Nursery Inspector
G. H. BLACKMON.................................................. ...... ............Deputy Inspector
E. F. DEBU K-- -......................... ................. ...................... Deputy Inspector
J. H. JEFFERIES ... ......... .- -......-...... -....................................... Deputy Inspector
HAROLD MOWRY ........ .. -----.............................................Deputy Inspector
A. F. CAMP................................................. ............ .... .. Deputy Inspector
W. A. KUNTZ...- .......-...-...... .....--........................................... Deputy Inspector
MISS L. MCILVAINE. --.... ------------------..............................Chief Stenographer
MISS PAULINE BRYAN-------....--- .........--..--- ...........---...-- ..Stenographer
MISS FLOSSIE BANKS ....................-..-- .............-.......--Filing Clerk


GROVE INSPECTION AND
CANKER ERADICATION DEPARTMENT

M R. BROWN -........... .......................... .. Grove Inspector

ASSISTANT GROVE INSPECTORS
Arthur Adams Don H. Grace W. H. Merrill
B. F. Adams J. Harvey Henderson D. H. O'Quinn
Geo. H. Baker R. C. Henderson Bradley Park
J. C. Bell H. C. Jackson J. H. Sealey
Geo. F. Burden Geo. Janes Ike M. Shriner
H. G. Carter W. L. Kersey C. S. Stephens
H. J. Dillingham Merton LeRoy Chas. Stitts
Z. V. Dyson R. W. Lindner C. R. Stokes
John Eiland O. D. Link T. T. Turnley
Harry W. Fogg J. W. McGlamery G. W. Wade
Ed Frierson B. E. Melendy H. K. Winter
J. C. Mendel

CELERY PEST INVESTIGATIONS
E. D. BALL ........-- -........ ........... .....................Associate Entomologist
J. A. REEVES.................-.. ... .. ..... ...... .. .....- Assistant Entomologist


















APPENDIX B


THE QUARTERLY BULLETIN

of the

STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA
Volume XI, Nos. 1 to 3

and

THE MONTHLY BULLETIN

of the

STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA

Volume XII, Nos. 1 to 12








THE QUARTERLY BULLETIN
State Plant Board of Florida

Vol. XI October, 1926 No. 1

THE JAPANESE BEETLE
(Address delivered by J. R. SPRINGER* before the Citrus Section, Farmers'
and Fruit Growers' Week, August, 1926)
There is present, right now, in the United States a menace to
agriculture which is almost as great a scourge as that of the lo-
custs mentioned in the Bible. This pest, known as the Japanese
Beetle, is firmly established in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and
Delaware. Through the courtesy of Mr. Loren B. Smith, En-
tomologist in charge of the Japanese Beetle Project under the di-
rection of the United States government at Riverton, New Jer-
sey, I was given an exceptional opportunity this summer for
studying the situation as it now exists in New Jersey. It is my
object to make this discussion as non-technical as possible, but
still impress upon you the dangers attending the possible in-
troduction of this insect into Florida.
The beetle was introduced into the United States prior to 1916,
but it was not discovered until that date. It probably came in
soil around the roots of iris plants which were imported into the
Riverton section by one of the large nurseries there. It was no
doubt introduced in the larval or grub stage. Both of the speak-
ers who preceded me had pictures with which to illustrate their
subject matter and, not to be outdone, I have brought some Riker
mounts which show the insect itself and the injury which it does
to the foliage of plants.
The life cycle of the Japanese Beetle in New Jersey covers a
period of about one year, twelve months. Nine months of this
time is spent in the soil as a grub, shown in the little vial in the
Riker mount. During these nine months, except for a short pe-
riod of dormancy in cold weather, it is feeding on the roots of
grasses and various kinds of plants. During the three months
when the adult emerges from the soil and is on the wing flying
actively, it attacks the foliage and fruit of practically all vegeta-
tion in New Jersey, and, I presume if it were introduced into
Florida it would attack everything here. The number of host
'Assistant Nursery Inspector.






State Plant Board of Florida


plants, as I have just indicated, is enormous. I am informed
that over two hundred different plants which it attacks have
now been actually counted. The adult beetle feeds on the foliage
and fruit and gathers there in immense numbers. The damage
to the foliage has a skeletonizing effect. All of the tissue between
the veins is eaten out and then the plant, having no leaf surface
to elaborate its plant food, gradually dwindles and in the course
of a few years dies. Annual plants die down right away and
never come up again.
The rapidity of increase and spread of this beetle since its
introduction defies description. In 1916, when it was first dis-
covered, the inspectors of the State of New Jersey found only
twelve beetles, and these twelve beetles were collected in an area
of less than one-half square mile. The following year, 1917, 2.7
square miles were found to be infested and several thousand
beetles were collected. In 1918 the infested area had increased
to 6.7 square miles; in 1919 to 48.3 square miles; and there were
myriads of beetles in the centers of the severely infested areas.
By the end of the season of 1925, the infested area had increased
to 6,047 square miles and the numbers of beetles in the middle
of this severely infested area were uncountable. They were
there in countless millions, and I presume that I could say count-
less billions and still be conservative in my estimate.
I have here a map published by the Quarantine Department of
the Japanese Beetle Project, which shows the present distribu-
tion of this beetle in the United States. Through the courtesy of
Mr. Smith, who had it colored for me, I can show the severity of
the infestation in the different parts of the whole infested area.
This whole section colored light green is within the quarantined
area and is the part that includes the 6,047 square miles. How-
ever, the part in purple, which is in the center, is an area
approximately twenty miles in diameter in all directions and is
the intensely infested area. In that area the beetles are present
in swarms. In the area in yellow, if an inspector could go out
and devote his entire day to collecting beetles, he could probably
collect from five to ten thousand without any trouble. Out in
this brownish area the number would probably be reduced to a
thousand, while down here there may be only a few hundred, and
so on into the quarantined green area in which no beetles have
been located. Owing to certain geographical lines, it has been
thought necessary to include it in the quarantined area. The







The Japanese Beetle


natural spread of the beetle on its own wings is approximately
fifteen miles in every direction each year.
I am frank to admit that before I visited the infested area I
had read much and had heard more about this beetle, and I was
convinced that the reports circulated were greatly exaggerated,
which is not infrequently true in regard to new pests. However,
I can honestly say now that I could enlarge on any of the reports
that I had read concerning the Japanese Beetle and still be within
the truth. I wish I were able to give you an adequate description
of the swarms of beetles that simply cover everything in this se-
verely infested area, but my powers of description are inade-
quate. The few days preceding my arrival were the first warm
days after the beetle had emerged from the ground. The beetle
is not active unless the sun is shining brightly and the air is
warm; consequently the damage up until the time of my arrival
was rather slight and one would have to get close to a tree in
order to see where any material damage had been done. The day
on which I arrived and first went out into the orchards the ther-
mometer gradually climbed to 950 and if there was any breeze
blowing we did not discover it. It was hot. Doubtless you have
been under orange trees in full bloom and have heard the buzzing
and droning of bees as they visited the flowers. Visualize it-
change the orange trees to apple trees and the bees to beetles
and multiply the number as many times as you wish and you will
have some idea of the swarms and hordes of beetles that were in
this area. During the few days that I spent at the Japanese
Beetle laboratory, I kept under observation a row of trees along
the highway which had not been sprayed or treated for control.
Four days later these trees were simply skeletons. During these
four days the foliage just melted away and there was nothing
left but skeletonized leaves hanging and fluttering in the breeze.
Apples in severely infested orchards appeared as shining balls of
beetles. The skin of the fruit was absolutely covered. I have
an apple here which I picked from such an orchard. This par-
ticular apple was covered as I have just described. I took a
wide-mouthed cyanide jar, slipped it over the apple, and after
all the beetles on the apple were dead I counted 147 of them. If
the apple had been larger I am certain there would have been
more beetles on it. The infestation on truck crops, field crops,
etc., up there was equally as severe as that on fruit. I saw bas-
kets of green corn, with the butt ends of the ears up, by the







State Plant Board of Florida


side of the road waiting to be carried to market. I believe they
had been there about an hour and a half. The protruding butts
of this green corn were just balls of beetles. I indiscriminately
picked up one ear, shook off the beetles, and found that they had
eaten off the silk. Upon husking the ear I found thirty-six of
them on the inside.
The reaction of the beetles to light is very positive. That is,
they will not stay in any dark place. For instance, while walk-
ing over heavily infested areas some of them will start to crawl
up your trousers, but as soon as they get in the dark they will
turn and go back. If they get into your pockets, they will come
right out. Because of the beetle's preference of light to dark,
the trees are attacked in a rather peculiar way. The tops and
the outer growth are attacked first, but with the melting away
of the foliage and the penetration of light to the inner portions
of the tree, the beetles gradually move inside. Only a few days
elapse before the foliage is in a skeletonized condition.
Lawns and golf greens also have suffered severely. The
grubs, during the nine months that they live in the soil, feed
voraciously. They come up to within two inches or so of the sur-
face of the ground and eat up the roots of grass. The infestation
in the ground may be so severe that it is not uncommon to find
from five hundred to a thousand grubs per square yard, and they
are so numerous that they can be raked up with the fingers.
While at the Japanese Beetle laboratory, I witnessed several
demonstrations showing control methods. It has been discovered
that the beetles are attracted by various odors, and particularly
by a compound called geraniol. Geraniol is one of the ingred-
ients in oil of geranium and other essential oils. An emulsified
solution of geraniol was sprayed onto a tall tree in one of the
orchards. Only a few minutes elapsed before the beetles on ad-
joining trees were attracted to it and as the odor spread out
farther and farther from the sprayed tree they became very
much excited, left the trees on which they were feeding and ac-
cumulated on this tree. It appeared that the beetles were being
attracted as far as a quarter of a mile. The sprayed tree was
left undisturbed only about twenty minutes, but during that time
so many beetles had come that they hung in masses and the
smaller limbs were bending under their weight. After enough
beetles had gathered on the tree, it was sprayed with a contact
insecticide called pyrethrum oleo resin. A powerful spraying






The Japanese Beetle


machine capable of delivering a large volume of spray per min-
ute is employed. As the beetles are very active and easily dis-
turbed the tree must be sprayed as quickly as possible or many
of them would escape. The tree is therefore swept machine-gun
fashion with the forceful, drenching spray in order to hit as
many beetles as possible in the shortest time. The pyrethrum in
the mixture paralyzes the beetles and they fall to the ground.
The oleo resin does the final work of killing them. The ground
under the sprayed tree was literally covered with the dying,
squirming beetles. They were simply there in myriads.
Many beetles have also been successfully trapped, geraniol be-
ing used as bait. The traps consist of cages about the size of a
gallon syrup can. Inside is suspended a shallow dish or pan
with a hole in the middle. This dish is filled with bran impreg-
nated with a solution of geraniol. In the hole in the dish is
placed the spout of a funnel. The beetles, attracted by the odor
of the geraniol, crawl into the funnel, hit the sides and fall
through the hole in the funnel down into the catch basin in the
bottom. On a day preceding my arrival the number of beetles
caught in one of these trap-cans in twenty-four hours was, by
actual count, 10,872. There were twenty-one traps in the
orchard at that time and the record for that day was over
87,000 beetles.
The beetles will not eat the common stomach poisons used for
poisoning other insects. If such poisons are sprayed onto a
tree they merely act as repellents and the beetles cannot be in-
duced to eat them. Therefore, a common practice which is now
being followed, not for controlling the beetles but for protecting
the orchards, consists in spraying the trees with a mixture of
two pounds of flour and one pound of arsenate of lead in water.
The whiter the coating on the leaf, the greater the repellent
action. Not only arsenate of lead, but practically any sort of
dust or any coating on the leaf will act as a repellent.
Several parasites of the beetle have been introduced from
Japan and these seem to be making some headway. The results
so far are at least encouraging and it is hoped that some of these
parasites will effect, if not a complete control, at least a partial
control in the future.
The beetles are very strongly attracted to each other. An
apple may have two or three beetles on it, and in five minutes
that apple will be covered about as I described the one I passed







State Plant Board of Florida


around. If some repellent is used before the beetles emerge
from the ground the prospect of getting through the season with-
out damage to the crop is excellent; but if a few beetles come in,
large numbers will follow until they fairly swarm.
The introduction of the beetle into Florida by natural spread
is still remote. The spread, as previously stated, is about fifteen
miles a year, and of course Florida is a thousand or more miles
from the present known infestation. However, the introduction
of the beetle by some artificial means is something to be pondered
with great misgivings. It is not only possible to transport this
beetle on living plants and in soil about the roots of nursery
stock, but automobiles, trains, box cars, and in fact all vehicles
that pass through the infested area while the beetles are flying
are potential means of spreading this pest. The question of car-
rying it on nursery stock is one of vital importance to us. It has
been the experience in the infested area that many of the plants
which are moved with balls of earth around the roots are in-
fested with the grubs. They are in the soil in the grub stage and
it is quite possible to carry this beetle great distances, at least as
far as the stock itself can be safely shipped, and an absolutely
new infestation started in a single season. The federal and state
authorities are giving the nurseries in the infested area as nearly
perfect supervision as human agencies can devise. The work
that they are doing is good, but they are working under tre-
mendous handicaps. The beetle can fly considerable distances
and it can be carried by other means. I am frank to admit that,
in my opinion, all efforts to keep this beetle from spreading are
doomed to failure. The authorities are doing good work and re-
tarding its spread, but it is certainly going to get away sooner
or later. The danger of introducing the beetle in nursery stock
from the nurseries in the infested area is great, and I am firmly
convinced that the horticulturists and agriculturists of Florida
could do their state and their community a worth while service
if they would order their ornamental plants from areas outside
the infested district. What the result would be should the beetles
get into Florida, we can only guess; but with our warm, sunny
climate and twelve months of food supply, it need not stretch
one's imagination a great deal to visualize a terrible scourge.
The life cycle may be the same here as it is in New Jersey, or it
may be different. We do not know. Under greenhouse condi-
tions in New Jersey adult beetles have been reared in December







Mosquito Survey of Bamboo Key, Florida


from eggs laid in June, and as our climatic conditions largely
parallel greenhouse conditions, it is within the realm of proba-
bility that we might have two swarms of these beetles a year
instead of only one, as they have in the North.


MOSQUITO SURVEY OF BAMBOO KEY, FLORIDA
By G. F. MOZNETTE*

During the month of January, 1923, Dr. Joseph Y. Porter,
President of the Key West Chamber of Commerce, wrote to Dr.
L. O. Howard, Chief of the Bureau of Entomology, Washington,
D. C., stating that he was going to send an inspector to Bamboo
Key to investigate the truth of the report that there are no mos-
quitoes there, and to find out the reason for such absence if true.
He requested Dr. Howard to send the writer with this inspector.
To the best of the writer's knowledge, Dr. Porter's proposed
plan never materialized. However, at the request of Dr. How-
ard, the writer made a visit to Bamboo Key in January and again
in October and the following is a report on the mosquito condi-
tions existing there.
About the middle of January, Dr. Raymond Turck, then State
Health Officer, visited Miami and called on the writer. Dr.
Turck extended an invitation to accompany him to Bamboo Key
relative to ascertaining as much as possible concerning the mos-
quito situation there.
In July, 1923, Dr. Howard received another letter regarding
Bamboo Key from a Mr. S. C. Singleton of Miami, Florida. He
wrote as follows regarding Bamboo Key:
"There is a small island called Bamboo Key, about a half mile north of
Key Vaca, and about midway of its length, that is immune from mosquitoes.
I am aware of the fact that this will sound a bit like a crank story, but if
you wish, what I say can be supported by affidavits from others. I took up
a homestead on Ramrod Key; I am not talking hearsay. If what I say is so,
then few matters are better worth your attention.
"Right now, when from here to Key West, the mosquitoes are plain hell,
and they swarm in the cockpit and cabin of your boat, you can anchor close
to this island and they will leave your boat and you can be out on the sand
in your bathing suit, in comfort.
"Once when sheep were pastured there, the immunity disappeared. Some
time after the sheep were taken away, the Key again became immune. This
is the reason why I think it is a problem coming under the jurisdiction of
the Bureau of Plant Industry.

*Bureau of Entomology, U. S. D. A.






State Plant Board of Florida


"If it is a plant that can be propagated, then oil or gold deposits would
not add as much to the wealth of this State as the application of the knowl-
edge of this fact. I am not able to undertake a proper investigation, I would
be very glad to give you every aid within my power. It is not a matter of
especial bleakness. Mangrove grows along this shore. Mosquitoes are not
in this mangrove. The condition has been known to exist for at least twenty
years. I trust you will investigate."
TOPOGRAPHY OF BAMBOO KEY, FLORIDA
Bamboo Key, Florida is a small island about three acres in
area, situated among the lower Florida Keys, approximately a
half mile north of Key Vaca and about midway its length. No
elevations occur, the highest point being about a foot above
the water's edge. The south, east and west shore are quite rocky
consisting of coral for the most part. The north shore is not as
rocky and a little sand beach is to be found. For the most part
the Key is of a shell and coral formation. Low depressions and
swampy places do not exist about the key to effect breeding
places for mosquitoes except for a few small crab holes along the
shore. The writer was unable to find brackish or fresh water
existing on any portion of the key during either visit there and
conditions about the key were dry.

FLORA OF BAMBOO KEY, FLORIDA
For the most part the key is devoid of trees. The few trees
that do occur are close to the water's edge, and are situated on
the east and south shore, while the remainder of the key is over-
grown with low growing plants and shrubs of various kinds.
The trees are mainly the white mangrove or button wood Lagun-
cularia racemosa (L) Gaertn. and the red mangrove, Rhizophora
mangle L. One or two Geiger trees, Sebestin Sebestina L. occur
and a single coconut stands on the southwest portion of the Key.
The writer was told Bamboo Key was a bird roost at one time,
and if so, there apparently were more trees on the key than exist
now. From reports the key was cleared and cultivated a number
of years ago and parties resided there. The dwelling, however,
was apparently destroyed by fire as parts of the foundation still
remain. Due to the fact that this key was at one time cleared
and cultivated apparently accounts for the lack of more trees,
and mangrove occurring along the shore no doubt springing up
after the key was abandoned.
During the second visit to Bamboo Key the writer had the use
of a boat generously furnished by Mr. Hugh Matheson who owns







Mosquito Sturrey of Bamboo Key, Florida


Lignum Vitae Key and also a large portion of Upper Matecombe
Key where he operates a lime plantation. Captain L. Cochron,
Mr. Matheson's superintendent on Upper Matecombe Key, took
the writer to Bamboo Key. Capt. Cochron who has lived on the
Florida Keys for a number of years, stated after the survey of
the Key that he did not see a single plant growing there that does
not occur on Upper Matecombe Key or some of the other keys.
The writer made a careful collection of all plants growing on the
Key which have been determined by Dr. John Small of the New
York Botanical Garden. The determinations for record are as fol-
lows: Aloe sp.; Gayoides crispum L.; Cyperus brunneus SW.;
Rondia aculeata L.; Spartina junciformis E&G; Galactia spici-
formis T&G; Dolichus minimus; Atriplex cristata H&K; Helio-
tropium curassavicum L. Suriana maritima L.; Wild asparagus;
Chamaesycebuxifolia Lam.; Rivina humilis L.; Melanthera tes-
tator; Heliotropium parviflorum L.; Salicornia ambigua M.;
Laguncularia racemosa L.; Monanthochloe littoralis E.; Wal-
theria americana L.; Distichlis spictata; Dondia linearis M.;
Lyolina clostus; Gyssipum lersutum and Rliloxerus cermicularis.
From the data contained in Dr. Small's volume on the flora of
the Florida Keys it appears that all the plants collected are also
growing on other Florida Keys. The writer has also observed
many of them growing on Grassy Key, Long Key, Lignum Vitae,
Key West and Upper Matecombe Key.

MOSQUITO CONDITION ON BAMBOO KEY
Col. Raymond Turck and the writer did not find any mosqui-
toes on Bamboo Key during January 1923. January is not the
month to find mosquitoes there, in fact, anywhere in southern
Florida. On the writer's second visit to the Key in company
with Capt. L. Cochron, many specimens of Aedes taeniorhynchus
the brackish water mosquito were collected and they were quite
easily found. Mosquitoes were not present on the boat while ap-
proaching the key from the north, but the minute we reached
shore by means of a small boat carried with us, we were at-
tacked. The writer's first impression on landing was not in the
least encouraging, as reports led him to believe; that is, he
would possibly find a solution for combatting the brackish water
mosquito in Florida. He was not, however, greatly surprised
when he did find plenty of mosquitoes there. The writer sur-
veyed ,the entire key and stirred up mosquitoes wherever he







State Plant Board of Florida


went. In the mangrove the mosquitoes were quite plentiful, and
in walking through the grass and shrubs, mosquitoes were en-
countered. It is the writer's belief that mosquitoes do not oc-
cur on Bamboo Key in as large numbers as on Key Vaca or
Grassy Key as well as some of the other keys in the vicinity.
Bamboo Key is more or less wind swept. The vegetation is not
so thick or as high and does not afford the harboring conditions
for mosquitoes as the other keys which are covered with man-
grove and high growing shrubs. Then again mosquitoes were
not found breeding on the key as they were on the other neigh-
boring keys. It appears that the mosquitoes occurring on the
Key migrated there from adjoining keys to the south or south-
east the prevailing winds aiding their migration from that direc-
tion. Bamboo Key might have been free from mosquitoes at one
time but this is not true at present. It may be the key is com-
paratively free from mosquitoes during short periods even car-
ing the time mosquitoes are plentiful on some of the other keys
if the weather conditions are favorable and the wind is in a di-
rection unfavorable for their migration to Bamboo Key.









THE QUARTERLY BULLETIN
State Plant Board of Florida


DEVOTED TO APPLIED ENTOMOLOGY AND PLANT PATHOLOGY
IN GENERAL, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE PREVENTION,
CONTROL AND ERADICATION OF INJURIOUS INSECTS AND PLANT
DISEASES IN FLORIDA.

Sent free to alL citizens of Florida. Offered in exchange for publications
of the Federal and foreign governments and experiment stations, entomo-
logical and mycological journals, agricultural and horticultural papers and
other publications of a similar nature.
WILMON NEWELL, Plant Commissioner...................................................Editor
ASSOCIATE EDITORS
E. W BERGER.................................................................................. Entomologist
J. C. GOODWIN ............... ............. ...... ...................... Nursery Inspector
J. H. MONTGOMERY ........................................................ Quarantine Inspector
. F. BURGER.................................. .................................... Plant Pathologist

Entered as second-class matter November 14, 1916, at the postoffice at
Gainesville, Florida, under the Act of June 6, 1900. Acceptance for mail-
ing at special rate of postage provided for in Section 1103, Act of October
3, 1917, authorized July 10, 1918.


DEPARTMENT OF CITRUS CANKER ERADICATION

REPORT ON ERADICATION WORK IN COOPERATION WITH THE
BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE, FOR QUARTER ENDING
SEPTEMBER 30, 1926

Citrus grove trees inspected .. ......................... ......... ........... 2,540,884
Citrus nursery trees inspected ......... ...............................28,388,369
Inspectors employed on citrus canker eradication............................ 27
New properties showing active infection..................................... 0
Total properties showing active infection.................................. 0
G rove trees found infected............ .. ........ .......................... 0
N ursery trees found infected................................................ 0
Counties in which active infections were found......................... 0
GENERAL SUMMARY
Florida counties in which canker has been found......................... 25
Grove trees found infected since May, 1914 ................................ 15,156
Nursery trees found infected since May, 1914 ............................. 342,260
Number properties found infected to September 30, 1926............ 512
Properties declared no longer "danger centers"............................... 512*
Properties still classed as actively infected September 30, 1926...... 0
*Two of the formerly actively infected properties are still resting under cer-
tain restrictions, which apply direct to these properties but do not affect
adjoining or contiguous properties. These restrictions refer to methods of
cultivation, etc.



















Department of Citrus Canker Eradication (Report Continued)

The following table shows the number of citrus grove trees found infected with canker during each
month from the beginning of the eradication work to Sept. 30, 1926:

1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926
Jan. Jan. 306 Jan. 86 Jan. 14 Jan. 0 Jan. 0 Jan. 0 Jan. 0 Jan. 0 Jan. 1 Jan. o Jan. 0 Jan. 0
Feb. Feb. 165 Feb. 21 Feb. 4 Feb. 1 Feb. 0 Feb. O Feb. O Feb. 0 Feb. 1 Feb. 0 Feb. 0 Feb. 0
Mar. Mar. 444 Mar. 49 Mar. 9 Mar. 1 Mar. 1 Mar. 0 Mar. 0 Mar. 0 Mar. 2 Mar. 0 Mar. 5 Mar. 0
Apr. Apr. 408 Apr. 49 Apr. 169 Apr. 2 Apr. 1 Apr. 0 Apr. 0 Apr. 0 Apr. 3 Apr. 0 Apr. 0 Apr. 0
May 108 May 1042 May 338 May 52 May 1 May 1 May 0 May 0 May 585 May 2 May 0 May 0 Ma 0
Jun. 160 Jun. 772 Jun. 450 Jun. 45 Jun. 10 Jun. 0 Jun. 0 Jun. 0 Jun. 168 Jun. 1 Jun. 0 Jun. June 0
Jul. 275 Jul. 651 Jul. 349 Jul. 39 Jul. 0 Jul. 0 Jul. 539 July 0 Jul. 28 Jul. Jul. Jul. July 0
Aug. 131 Aug. 1345 Aug. 210 Aug. 30 Aug. 0 Aug. 1 Aug. 1 Aug. 0 Aug. 34 Aug. 0 Aug. 0 Aug. 0 Aug.
Sep. 76 Sep. 618 Sep. 124 Sep. 6 Sep. 0 Sep. 0 Sep. 0 Sep. 0 Sep. 23 Sep. 0 Sept. 0 Sep. 0 Sept.
Oct. 56 Oct. 214 Oct. 451 Oct. 2 Oct. 0 Oct. 0 Oct. O Oct. 0 Oct. 19 Oct. 1 Oct. 0 Oct. 0
Nov. 773 Nov. 494 Nov. 131 Nov. 1 Nov. 0 Nov. O Nov. 0 Nov. 0 Nov. 12 Nov. O Nov. O Nov. 0
Dec. 366 Dec. 256 Dec. 27 Dec. 1 Dec. 0 Dec. 0 Dec. 0 Dec. 0 Dec. 4 Dec. 0 Dec. 0 Dec. 0
Total 4327 Total 6715 Total 2294 Total 372 Total 15 Total 4 Total 540 Total 0 Total 873 Total 11 Total 0 Total 5
I1 I









Quarantine Department


QUARANTINE DEPARTMENT
QUARANTINE INSPECTOR'S QUARTERLY SUMMARY
QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1926

SHIPS AND VESSELS ISPECTED:
From Foreign Ports-
D direct ....... ........... ..................... ............ 535
V ia U S. Ports................. .................. ... 102
Total ........... --........ ... .... ..... 637

From U. S. Ports other than Florida ............... .5..... .... 572
From Florida Ports ............ ............. ............. 172
Total ............ ........ .. ......... 1,381

NUMBER OF PARCELS INSPECTED:
Arriving by water:
Passed .......... ...... ...................139,653
Treated and passed ... ....................................... 272.002
Returned to shipper... .......................... ....... 714
Contraband destroyed .................................. ...... 345
Total ...... ............. 412,714

ARRIVING BY LAND-EXPRESS, FREIGHT, WAGON, etc.:
Passed ...... ..... .... .. ... 5,469
Treated and passed .... ................................ ....... 361
Returned to shipper.............................. ............ 759
Contraband destroyed ........................................... 398
Total ........ ... .... .......... 6,987

ARRIVING BY MAIL:
Passed ......................-...... ... ... 117
Treated and passed ..... ...... .................. 7
Returned to shipper ... .....--... .............-- .. 7
Contraband destroyed .... ..... -- .....-............... 16
T total ............. ........ ... ... -.. .......... 147

GRAND TOTAL OF PARCELS INSPECTED................................ 419,848

Number of parcels on hand pending determination
as to final disposition .............. ................... ... .... 21



BEE DISEASE ERADICATION

REPORT FOR QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1926

Number of apiaries inspected ...................... ... .. ................. 165
Number of colonies inspected ......................... .................. 4,916
Number of apiaries infected with American foul brood.......................... 1
Number of colonies infected with American foul brood....................... 19
Number of apiaries infected with European foul brood...................... 0
Number of colonies infected with European foul brood....................... 0








THE QUARTERLY BULLETIN
State Plant Board of Florida

Vol. XI January, 1927 No. 2

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
December 13, 1926.
To His Excellency,
John W. Martin,
Governor of Florida.
SIR: Herewith is submitted the report of the State Plant
Board of Florida for the biennium ending June 30, 1926. Please
submit same to the Legislature.
Respectfully,
STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA,
By P. K. YONGE,
Chairman.

REPORT OF STATE PLANT BOARD
The continuance of the work of carrying out the provisions
of the Plant Act of 1915 has been along the same broad general
lines as in former years. The application of the law and of the
rules and regulations passed by the Board has been entrusted to
the Plant Commissioner as chief executive officer of the Board.
Under the Commissioner the activities are directed by the several
department heads or by specialists in charge of certain projects.
The departments are: Grove Inspection (Citrus Canker Eradica-
tion), Nursery Inspection, Quarantine, Entomology, Pathology
and Apiary Inspection (Bee Disease Eradication).
The Board is pleased to report that the organization has func-
tioned efficiently and with profit to the state. Without question
the spread of plant pests has been curbed and the introduction of
new pests from without the state has been prevented. In its ac-
tivities the Board has had splendid cooperation from all organi-
zations concerned in work of a similar nature or whose activities
in any way touch those in which we are engaged. The United
States Department of Agriculture, through the Bureau of Plant
Industry, has continued to support the citrus canker eradication
campaign. The Bureau of Entomology has also aided in numer-
ous ways, while the Federal Horticultural Board has engaged







State Plant Board of Florida


with us in the effort to exclude foreign plant pests. The Florida
Agricultural Experiment Station, the College of Agriculture, and
other integral parts of the University have unfailingly responded
to the Board's request for assistance. In partial return for these
courtesies, the Board rendered help and advised with cooperat-
ing organizations. The relations with other state regulatory
bodies have been mutually helpful and cordial.
The Board submits as a part of its report the Biennial Report
of the Plant Commissioner and the financial statement of the
Board's Secretary. The Board would direct attention to the
Plant Commissioner's report in that it is of a somewhat unusual
nature. The Commissioner's report in its first section indicates
not only wherein the organization has performed efficiently but
indulges in some very constructive, although frank, criticism.
The Commissioner points out weak places in our defensive war-
fare against plant pests and suggests ways in which they may be
strengthened. The Board concurs in the Commissioner's com-
ments and commends to serious consideration the Commission-
er's recommendations for betterment of the service.
The detailed information with respect to the general and spe-
cial activities of the Board may be obtained by reference to the
Report of the Plant Commissioner. There are certain matters,
however, with which the Board has been directly and immedi-
ately connected and to which attention should be directed. Per-
haps the most important of these is that of legislation. In the
Commissioner's report is told the situation arising from a deci-
sion of the United States Supreme Court which placed an en-
tirely new construction on the rights of states to impose plant
quarantine regulations. In effect this decision was that by rea-
son of the Federal Plant Quarantine Act of 1912 all such quaran-
tine measures must be imposed by the Secretary of Agriculture
of the Federal Government. The decision swept away all state
rights in plant quarantine which it was thought the states pos-
sessed. A critical situation was thus presented, which was met
by Congress taking emergency action and passing legislation
amending the Act of 1912 in such manner as to remedy the dif-
ficulty. A secondary effect is that expert legal opinion seems to
hold that state legislation enacted subsequent to the Federal Act
of 1912 is null and void. In this class would fall our own Plant Act
of 1915. In the opinion of the Board it may be desirable, at the
next session of the legislature, to so amend the present Plant Act







Sixth Biennial Report


as to remove any conflict between the Federal Law and the State
Law.
The Board has from time to time authorized attendance by
representatives at various conferences, hearings and meetings at
points outside the State. These have always been of sufficient
importance as plant quarantine subjects to justify the expense.
Notable among such have been hearings at Washington bearing
upon both foreign and interstate plant quarantines; also the
situation resulting from the court decision previously referred
to. In the latter Florida played no small part in the framing of
and passage of the necessary remedial legislation.
The Board reports that during the biennium sums were re-
leased from the Emergency Fund for two projects by joint action
of the Board and the Governor: (a) For prosecution of investi-
gations in re coconut bud rot; (b) for citrus aphis investiga-
tions. The circumstances in connection with each are as follows,
as abstracted from the minutes of the Board:

COCONUT BUD ROT
October 18, 1924.-The Plant Commissioner recommended that the inspec-
tional work in the coconut bud rot infected territory on the lower east
coast be increased very largely, but stated that unless funds could be secured
from the Emergency Appropriation he did not see how the work could be
continued. The Board agreed to present the request to the Governor on the
10th of November and in the meantime the Plant Commissioner was in-
structed to secure all the available information possible regarding the coco-
nut bud rot disease in Florida and have it ready for the consideration of the
Board and the Governor at the conference on the 10th of November.
November 10, 1924.-The Board met in conference with the Governor on
November 10 to consider the coconut bud rot disease situation on the lower
east coast. After discussing the matter at length, Mr. Davis moved that
an emergency be declared to exist necessitating the use of $10,000 of the
appropriation made under Section 2, General Appropriation Bill, Acts of
1923, between now and July 1, 1925, for the purpose of investigating the
disease known as coconut bud rot on the lower east coast of Florida. The
Governor requested the Chairman to put the motion. The motion was put
and carried unanimously. The Governor stated that he would consider the
above action as a recommendation coming to him from the Plant Board for
the release of $10,000 of the appropriation mentioned above for the purpose
as stated in the motion just voted upon and informed the Plant Board that
he would approve the recommendation.
(The 1925 appropriation bill provided funds for the continuance of this
work after July 1, 1925.)
CITRUS APHIS INVESTIGATIONS
February 16, 1925.-A special meeting of the Board was called at Talla-
hassee on February 16, 1925, for the purpose of holding a joint session with
the Governor to consider the advisability of determining that an emergency
exists in the citrus growing section of the state on account of the presence
of a serious pest known as the citrus aphis, necessitating the use of funds
appropriated under Section 2, General Appropriation Bill, Acts of 1923, to
be used by the Plant Board in the discovery of the best methods for the








State Plant Board of Florida


control of this insect. The Governor stated that he had requested a meeting
of the State Plant Board upon the request of several citrus growers who
were anxious to have funds from the Emergency Appropriation released in
order that the Plant Board might discover more effective methods of con-
trolling the citrus aphis in the citrus growing section.of the state. *
The Governor and the Plant Board determined that an emergency existed
necessitating the use of $10,000 of the appropriation made under Section 2,
General Appropriation Bill, Acts of 1923, to be used for the purpose of
research work in an effort to discover more effective methods of controlling
the citrus aphis. The Governor then stated that he approved of setting
aside $10,000 of the Emergency Fund for investigating the citrus aphis.
The Secretary of the Board was instructed to notify the State Comptroller
of this action of the Governor and to request him to place the $10,000 as
requested to the credit of the Plant Board to be used for the purpose stated.
He was also instructed to notify the Plant Commissioner to proceed with
the work at the earliest possible date.
July 11, 1925.-The Plant Commissioner requested an expression from
the Board as to its attitude regarding the continuance of the citrus aphis
investigational work. The Chairman and the Plant Commissioner were re-
quested to take up the matter with the Governor and see what could be done
regarding the release of some of the Emergency Appropriation to carry on
this investigational work. The Plant Commissioner was instructed to do
his best to continue the work until after the next meeting of the Board.
August 10, 1925.-The legislature having failed to make any appropria-
tion for the citrus aphis investigational work, a set of resolutions was
adopted by the Board in re funds to be made available from the State Plant
Board Emergency Fund for use of the State Plant Board, in cooperation
with the Agricultural Experiment Station, for continuing the investigations
previously undertaken. A copy of the resolutions was forwarded to the
Governor with the request that he approve the expenditure of $10,000 for
the purpose of these investigations. The Governor did so.
The Board has, during the biennium, passed, revised or re-
pealed rules, regulations and public notices as follows:

RULES AND PUBLIC NOTICES
1924
September
(1) Rule 11F adopted.
(Prohibiting shipment of citrus fruits originating in Cuba into
State of Florida for delivery therein, on account of Mediterran-
ean fruit fly, West Indian fruit fly, etc.)
October
(1) Public Notice declaring certain areas in Florida to be infected
with scaly bark amended, so as to include new areas in Lake,
Orange and Putnam Counties.
November
(1) Rule 49 adopted.
(Prohibiting the importation into Florida of tung-oil stock and
seed in order to prevent the introduction of injurious insects and
diseases affecting tung-oil trees.)
(2) Public Notice declaring certain areas in Florida to be infected
with the mosaic disease of sugar cane amended to include the
Counties of Baker, Duval, Columbia, Hamilton, Nassau, Suwanee
and Taylor.
(3) Rule 6, re scaly bark certificate.
(The Board rescinded its action of April 14, 1924, amending Rule
6, so that in the future the form of the scaly bark certificate tag
will read as it did under the action of the Board on April 9, 1922.)








Sixth Biennial Report 19

December
(1) Public Notice declaring certain areas in Florida to be infected
with the mosaic disease of sugar cane amended to include the
Counties of Alachua, Bradford and Union.

1925
March
(1) Public Notice declaring certain areas in the State to be in-
fected with scaly bark amended so as to include Sections 10, 11
and 15, Twp. 34 S., R. 35 E., Okeechobee County.

June
(1) Rule 15, re scaly bark, repealed.
(2) Rules 15A and 15B adopted.
(Providing for more drastic requirements as preliminary to cer-
tification of nursery stock produced in localities where scaly bark
occurs.)
(3) Public Notice declaring certain areas to be infected with the dis-
ease known as scaly bark amended by striking out detailed de-
scription of infected area, substituting therefore the names of the
counties in which the disease occurs.
(4) Rule 6 amended.
(Eliminating from the rule that portion prescribing the form of
certificate tag to be made use of in connection with shipments of
citrus nursery stock originating in scaly bark areas.)
September
(1) Public Notice declaring certain areas in other states to be in-
fested by the sweet potato weevil amended to include Baldwin
County, Alabama.
October
(1) Rule 41 amended.
(Permitting importation of sugar cane from other states and
foreign countries into sections of Florida known to be infected
by the mosaic disease of sugar cane.)
(2) Rule 48 amended.
(Applying also to shipments of green beans, peas, etc., from
areas in other states which may at some future time become in-
fested with the Mexican bean beetle.)

1926
March
(1) Rule 4C, requiring the covering of nursery stock while in transit,
was repealed.
(2) Rule 4E amended.
(Permitting the scrubbing of host plants of San Jose scale in lieu
of fumigation.)
(3) Rule 41 amended.
(Eliminating the covering requirement from first paragraph; by
permitting scrubbing of host plants of San Jose scale in lieu of
fumigation; by eliminating the requirement regarding scrubbing
of host plants of cottony cushion-scale; by making the wording in
the fifth paragraph uniform; and by changing the expiration date
in the permit certificate to conform to the wording of the permit
certificate in Rule 6.)
(4) Rule 4J was repealed, for the reason that the provisions of this
rule are now included under other rules.







State Plant Board of Florida


(5) Rule 4K amended.
(By substituting the words "fish oil soap" for "whale oil soap",
and by changing the prescribed strength of the solution to be
used in scrubbing nursery stock.)
June
(1) Rule 4 amended.
(By eliminating "banana plants" from the definition of nursery
stock; and by striking out the second sentence of the rule,
providing for the use of a permit tag issued by state of destina-
tion on shipments of nursery stock consigned to points outside of
Florida, in lieu of a Florida certificate tag.)
(2) Rule 4G amended.
(Eliminating the words, "provided, however, that banana plants
and banana bulbs shall be considered as being nursery stock.")
(3) Public Notice declaring certain insects and diseases to be public
nuisances amended by the elimination of "Banana Root Borer"
and "Panama Wilt of Banana" therefrom.
(4) Rule 4A amended.
(Adding "Banana Root Borer" and "Banana Wilt Disease" to the
list of especially injurious insect pests and diseases.)
The official actions of the Board in connection with regulations
have been given publicity through the issuance of the Board's
"Circulars", through the "Quarantine Notices" issued from the
Quarantine Department, and also through the utilization of the
News Service of the Agricultural Experiment Station. The
Board has continued to publish the "Quarterly Bulletin", contain-
ing articles on subjects pertaining to plant pest control, depart-
mental reports, Board rules, etc.
The personnel of the Board at the end of the biennium is as
follows: P. K. Yonge, E. L. Wartmann, A. H. Blanding, W. B.
Davis and E. W. Lane. Messrs. Wartmann and Blanding had
been appointed as members of the Board by Governor Hardee in
July, 1923. Dr. Yonge was reappointed to succeed himself and
Mr. Lane to succeed Mr. J. C. Cooper, Jr., in August, 1925. Mr.
Davis, who filled out the unexpired term of Mr. W. L. Weaver,
was reappointed by Governor Martin on November 13, 1925.
The present Board was organized August 10, 1925, with P. K.
Yonge as Chairman and J. T. Diamond as Secretary.
The reports of the Plant Commissioner and the Secretary are
transmitted herewith.
STATE PLANT BOARD,
P. K. YONGE,
Chairman.







Sixth Biennial Report


REPORT OF THE PLANT COMMISSIONER
For the Biennium Ending June 30, 1926
Gainesville, Florida, November 15, 1926.
Honorable P. K. Yonge, Chairman,
State Plant Board of Florida.
SIR: I have the honor to present herewith my report as
Plant Commissioner for the biennium ending June 30, 1926.
Respectfully,
WILMON NEWELL,
Plant Commissioner.
SECTION I
The Plant Commissioner presents herewith his report for the
biennium ending June 30, 1926. This report differs somewhat
from the usual stereotyped official report, in that the statistical
matter is to a large extent eliminated and much material as to
the routine activities is not included. At this point it may be well
to quote from the last biennial report as follows:
"Former reports have been somewhat detailed and elaborate.
Now that the Board has been functioning for almost ten years,
its work has become systematized and the public is well advised
as to the nature of the Board's work, it is not thought necessary
or advisable to submit a report dealing with the work in such
detailed manner as formerly. The Board members are cognizant
of the manner in which the Plant Commissioner and the depart-
ment heads have handled the particular phases of Plant Board
work assigned to them. The members of the State Legislature
and the public generally, by reason of the extensive and rather
voluminous reports heretofore submitted, have been kept ad-
vised as to the efforts made by the Board to protect the state's
horticultural and agricultural industries. This report will
therefore deal especially with the more important aspects of our
work during the biennium closing June 30, 1924. In the compila-
tion of the statistical matter here presented, an immense amount
of detailed information has been condensed. This is particularly
true with respect to the data included in the section devoted to
the activities of the Nursery Inspection Department."







State Plant Board of Florida


What was said two years ago applies with equal or greater
force now. In still another and more marked respect this pres-
ent report will be different. The Plant Commissioner proposes
to indulge in extended comment not only upon the efficiency but
upon the inadequacy of the work of the Board which is under
his direction and to offer to the Board certain recommendations
with respect to the manner in which the weak places may be
strengthened.
Much of the subject matter in this report was included in a
carefully prepared address delivered by the Plant Commissioner
before the State Horticultural Society at Cocoa in April of this
year.
Ten years ago the citrus growers of Florida were engaged in
a life and death battle with citrus canker. That enemy has ap-
parently been successfully combated-has been defeated for the
time being at least. The immediate menace to the citrus indus-
try from that source has been averted. The horticulturists of
the state seem satisfied to rest content in this belief, thinking
that the canker danger is a thing of the past and that no other
dangers threaten. They are deluding themselves.
Many changes have taken place in Florida in ten years and
many of these changes have created new conditions for the hor-
ticultural industries and have brought new dangers. Some of
these we propose to bring to your attention.
THE QUARANTINE SITUATION
The Plant Board's quarantine work was commenced in 1916
and by 1917 was regarded as quite fully meeting the needs of the
situation. Quarantine inspectors were located at all ports of
entry, including Miami, Key West, Jacksonville, Tampa and Pen-
sacola and, with the volume of traffic moving at that time, these
men were able to inspect not only all horticultural materials ar-
riving by boat, but also all freight and express shipments of
plants and plant products and the hand baggage of passengers
arriving by rail at these points. By 1918 a fairly high degree of
cooperation had been perfected with the postmasters of the state,
whereby uninspected plant material arriving by mail from out-
side the state was submitted to Plant Board representatives for
inspection.
Let us contrast the situation then with that of today. All of
the ports mentioned have become maritime shipping points with







Sixth Biennial Report


a heavy foreign commerce and greatly increased coastwise com-
merce. At all of these places the pressure of work on the inspec-
tors has required the partial abandonment of inspection of parcel
post shipments and of railway freight and express shipments.
Vessels from foreign countries, and particularly from the tropics,
present the greatest menace, hence all other quarantine work has
been curtailed in order that this greatest menace may receive at-
tention. Even the foreign commerce alone is now taxing our
quarantine force to its utmost.
During the fiscal year 1916-17, 1,240 foreign vessels arrived
at Florida ports; during the last fiscal year there arrived 2,437.
Coastwise vessels arriving in 1916-17 numbered 2,017; in the
last year 3,027. During 1916-17, 3,105 shipments (both water
and rail) were inspected; while in 1924-25 the parcel (or con-
tainer) inspections numbered 1,633,015. Out of the latter num-
ber, 3,040 were found to contain dangerous pests and were de-
stroyed, while 2,630 more were returned to the shippers as being
unsafe for delivery in Florida.
What has this quarantine service meant in the way of pro-
tection to our industries? Since it was established, the Plant
Board inspectors have intercepted, in shipments coming into
Florida-or trying to come in-the blackfly 48 times, the West
Indian fruit fly 24 times, the pink bollworm of cotton three
times, the Mexican orange maggot twice and the Mediterranean
fruit fly once.
And this is not all. The Plant Board inspectors have inter-
cepted much infested material coming to us from other states.
The Argentine ant, the gipsy moth and the yam weevil have all
been "caught" in rail, express and mail shipments, while the in-
tercepted shipments infested with less serious insects and dis-
eases have run into the thousands.
Increase in the Plant Board's funds for quarantine work has
by no means kept pace with the tremendous increase in volume
of commerce coming into Florida. In 1916-17 the Board ex-
pended $25,835 in its quarantine work; in the present fiscal year
the Board has but $44,310 with which to try to meet the sit-
uation !
Of the pests intercepted, the Mediterranean fruit fly is the
dean of them all and the terror of horticulturists throughout the
world. Florida is not directly exposed to infestation by this in-
sect but that means very little, for infested fruit has been inter-







State Plant Board of Florida


cepted. The fruit that was found infested with the Mediterran-
ean fruit fly, in this instance, came from Spain by way of Cuba
and was in a ship's stores. This experience only emphasizes the
fact that Florida is in danger of receiving any pest occurring
anywhere on the globe and the price of future freedom from
these threatening calamities is eternal and efficient vigilance.
We wish to emphasize the word "efficient". Even though the
individual Plant Board inspectors may be ever so efficient and
industrious and hard-working, there is a limit to human endur-
ance and to the amount of physical work one can do in a day or a
week or a year. When the number of vessels arriving passes
beyond a certain point the available inspectors cannot get to all
of them and the uninspected vessel or shipment may be the very
one that brings the long-feared pest that will cost the state mil-
lions of dollars. A fence is useless if it is down and broken in
many places.
The number of inspectors that the Plant Board can employ
is limited by the amount of appropriation available for this work.
We have already stated that the pressure of foreign commerce at
our ports has compelled the partial abandonment of inspection
of coastwise vessels and of freight and parcel post shipments.
A still further increase in foreign commerce at Florida ports
will bring a break-down of our quarantine against pests from
foreign countries, as our domestic quarantines have already
broken down under the great increase in the state's commerce.

PARCEL POST SHIPMENTS
Under an Act of Congress of March 4, 1915, the states may
make arrangements whereby parcel post shipments of plants
entering the state may be inspected by the state officials. Ar-
rangements were made for such inspections in 1916 and for a
few years, through rather good cooperation on the part of post-
masters, a large quantity of material was examined. During the
year 1917-18, for example, the inspectors examined 5,045 par-
cels, of which 266 were found non-deliverable because of insects
or diseases. Experience in making these inspections showed
that mail shipments are accompanied by many and diverse
dangers.
But what has happened? The Plant Board has never had any
specific provision in its budget for this work. It has had to
provide for it out of the funds available for quarantine work. As







Sixth Biennial Report


the latter work has increased at the ports and as it has become
increasingly necessary to concentrate on the foreign shipments,
less and less time and money have been available for the par-
cel post inspections. The cooperation of postmasters in selecting
out the mail shipments of plants and diverting them to the in-
spection stations can be maintained only by personal contact
with the postmasters themselves and it has simply been impossi-
ble to maintain this contact. During the past fiscal year, only
2,838 parcel post packages were submitted by the postmasters
for our inspection.
On top of all this, the post offices have themselves been
swamped with mail matter far beyond their capacities, it has re-
quired the utmost effort on the part of their clerks to handle the
mails at all and under such circumstances they could hardly be
expected to watch for a certain type of mail packages and hold it
out for our inspection.
Shipment of plants by parcel post has increased tremendously,
the volume of movement through this channel probably now be-
ing comparable with the volume of express shipments. The par-
cel post presents a most grave danger to Florida horticulture,
but the Plant Board finds itself helpless to cope with the situ-
ation. This door is practically wide open for our enemies.
RAIL MOVEMENT
A few years ago the great bulk of freight and express came
into Florida through Jacksonville and Pensacola. At present it
is coming in through several other gateways and new lines of
railway are being constructed which will still further increase
the points of entrance. It is even now impossible for Plant
Board inspectors to be stationed at all the junction points where
shipments of nursery stock and other suspicious material enter
the state.
This difficulty can be met in only one way and that is by the
state requiring all shipments of plants and plant products, des-
tined for Florida points, to be sent into the state through cer-
tain designated entry stations where they will be inspected.
This, of course, requires funds for the establishment and main-
tenance of these inspection stations and their personnel.
AUTOMOBILES AND GOOD ROADS
The perfection of motor vehicles and the construction of thou-
sands of miles of paved roads has been a wonderful factor in the







State Plant Board of Florida


development of Florida but these things have, at the same time,
provided a means for the rapid distribution of insects and plant
diseases such as the world has never before witnessed.
A few years ago, the state could be quite well safeguarded by
imposing and enforcing regulations governing the movement of
plants by rail, water and express. Now, the movement by auto-
mobile and truck probably exceeds that by rail. Examples of
this new danger are all around us. Trucks loaded with oranges
and grapefruit go from Florida to adjacent states and return
with loads of sweet potatoes infested with the sweet potato
weevil. Thousands of automobiles, coming through Georgia and
Alabama, gather up stalks of mosaic-infected sugar cane and
they even reach the heart of the future sugar area of the Ever-
glades before they have used or discarded the last of it. Estima-
ble Florida citizens, when desiring to bring in citrus trees from
other states without being interfered with by the Plant Board
regulations, merely drive a truck or auto into adjoining states
and get them. Tourist automobiles driven through the heart
of the Japanese beetle territory of New Jersey and Pennsylvania
in midsummer when the beetles are flying in swarms, are in the
State of Florida within four or five days thereafter.
There are nearly five hundred miles of northern boundary
line, crossed by hundreds of roads, and it would require an army
of men to police it.
Within the state, there is now a greater movement of unin-
spected nursery stock than ever before. It is being moved in
automobiles and trucks, up and down the roads, everywhere. The
amount of uninspected citrus being moved in this way is of such
great volume as to raise a serious question as to whether it would
be possible to stamp out or control citrus canker should the dis-
ease break out in more than a very small area. Coconut palms
uninspected and taken from nurseries under quarantine on ac-
count of coconut bud rot, have been moved from the lower East
Coast to the central part of the state and to the lower West
Coast. In fact, with the opening of additional cross-state high-
ways the West Coast is in a fair way to receive all pests and dis-
eases of the East Coast and vice versa-and we can assure you
that each of these sections now has a number of important
pests not common to the other.
California's experience has shown the menace attaching to
automobile traffic. However, Nature has provided California







Sixth Biennial Report


with a wonderful opportunity for protecting herself, in that
there are but few automobile gateways to California. That
state does maintain inspection stations at these gateways and
every entering automobile is stopped and searched. Out of
84,000 such automobiles inspected, the California inspectors ap-
prehended 500 infested lots of materials!
We have no such gateways to make use of, but unless this
wholesale, unregulated movement of plants into and about the
state is curbed, the Plant Board's efforts to protect our horti-
cultural industries must become unavailing.
A continuation of this condition will mean that Florida will,
sooner or later, get citrus canker, the brown rot of citrus fruits,
the Japanese beetle and its equally destructive cousin, Anomala
orientalis, the Mexican bean beetle, gipsy moth, camphor scale
and Argentine ant. It also means that we may expect to see,
within a very few years, the sweet potato weevil and the mosaic
disease of sugar cane universally distributed throughout the
state.
In our opinion there is but one answer to this particular prob-
lem and that is the maintenance of motorcycle officers or inspec-
tors, on the public roads, whose special business it is to investi-
gate every motor vehicle carrying plants, fruits, trees or vegeta-
bles and to give proper attention to dangerous material. We
cannot expect county and city traffic officers to attend to this
duty for us: they are interested primarily in getting fees and
even were they so minded, they could not perform the duties of
"plant policemen" for they lack the necessary technical knowl-
edge. The Plant Board cannot at present place mounted in-
spectors on the roads: its inspectors do not have authority to
make arrests or to collect bond for the offenders' appearance in
court and without these weapons the inspectors would be help-
less. Likewise the Board has no funds available for supporting
this work, even if the legal authority could be found.

CITRUS CANKER
The conditions we have recited show how easy it has become
for citrus canker to again invade the state. It is also true that
the skeleton force of about twenty-five grove inspectors which
the Board now maintains in the groves of the state, can, by the
most hasty methods of scout inspection, get over the grove acre-
age in Florida only once in about four years. What an oppor-







State Plant Board of Florida
/


tunity is afforded for a little incipient canker infection to become
a wide-spread conflagration before it is detected! Our experi-
ence with the citrus canker outbreaks which have occurred in
the past six years has conclusively shown that the cost of main-
taining a larger grove inspection force would be more than met
by the reduced cost of stamping out canker infections, on account
of these being discovered before they assume large proportions.
In some instances it has cost more than $50,000 to stamp out a
single outbreak. How much more sensible would it be to pro-
vide a larger inspection force and catch the infections in their
incipiency, thereby saving not only the taxpayers' money but
averting heavy losses to the owners of the infected groves?

THE NURSERY PROBLEM
It must not be forgotten, in considering these matters, that the
horticultural nursery can be just as efficient a propagator and
distributor of insects and diseases as it is of trees and plants.
All measures of pest prevention must largely fail of their object
if the nurseries become infested and distribute these same pests
with the nursery stock. No state can in any sense consider its
horticulture protected unless it maintains a highly efficient nurs-
ery inspection service.
The nursery inspection work of the State Plant Board has
been, we believe, the most efficient of its kind in the United
States but, even so, it is not sufficient to meet the needs of
Florida.
The nursery acreage in the state has doubled in the last
three years. In 1923 there were 4,698 acres in nursery stock
and in 1925 there were 9,407 acres; the latter containing 68,-
266,000 trees and plants. To inspect these sixty-eight million
trees and plants, the Plant Board has but twelve field inspectors.
The average number of inspections per nursery a year is now
2.6. Not less than four inspections a year are necessary for a
relatively high degree of safety.


Expansion and concentration on the three major activities of
the Board appears to be the logical method of handling the situ-
ation depicted. Nursery inspection should be so organized as to
permit of four thorough inspections being made of all nurseries







Sixth Biennial Report


each year, the grove inspection force should be of such a size as
to make an inspection of all citrus trees in the state each year,
and the port quarantine inspection service should be strength-
ened so that all dangerous or potentially dangerous horticultural
material will either be barred or enter under supervision.
We do not mean by this that what might be termed the col-
lateral activities of the organization should be neglected. It is
necessary to the proper functioning of the organization that cer-
tain scientific work be carried on, as, for instance, the work of
the pathological and entomological divisions must be maintained
for the double purpose of identifying plant pests and of seeking
new information as to methods of control, suppression or elimi-
nation of plant pests. A striking example of the necessity for this
kind of activity lies in the surprising lack of information on the
subject of fumigation of trees and plants, especially under Flor-
ida conditions.
It is with these various facts in mind that we are submitting,
as a portion of this report, estimates of the funds believed to be
necessary to meet our pressing requirements. The Plant Com-
missioner and his staff have given great care to the preparation
of these estimates. We present them to the Board as represent-
ing our best judgment and as being the absolute minimum re-
quired to afford protection to our horticultural industries. Large
as the total may seem, yet it is small in comparison with other
figures which might be made use of in showing the annual toll
which the producer pays in combating, by means of sprays and
other methods, the pests which attack our orchards and fields.
Unfortunately, we do not have available accurate statistics cov-
ering this cost in Florida. Our sister state of California has,
through her superior facilities, collected reliable data on this
subject. It is shown that in considering the California citrus
crop of 1924 a valuation of forty million dollars was placed upon
the crop. The amount expended by growers for the purchase
and application of spray materials and of fumigants was four
and a half million dollars. It is also stated that the direct loss
from plant pests to the California citrus crop of 1924 was four
million dollars, thus making a total of eight and a half million
dollars, or about twenty per cent of the crop value. It would
probably be safe to say that the Florida producer of citrus fruits
alone pays an equally great toll. Contrast this figure with the
total of the estimates here submitted. The conclusion is inevit-






State Plant Board of Florida


able that what might be termed the insurance rate is low. It
must be remembered also that the great bulk of the Board's re-
sources is expended in the combination effort of excluding plant
pests of major importance, such as the fruit flies, the citrus
blackfly, citrus canker, etc., and of locating such of them as may,
by some misfortune, evade the vigilance of our port guardians.
In the latter event, that is, discovery of a new and serious pest,
there would naturally be a concentration of effort to suppress.
It is here that the necessity arises for having immediately avail-
able a relatively large sum of money for emergency use. It is
sincerely hoped that the wise policy of past legislatures in pro-
viding an emergency fund, available through joint action of the
Board and the Governor, will be continued. The Plant Commis-
sioner ventures to recommend, however, that this emergency
fund be at least $100,000.
While on the subject of having available an emergency fund,
the Plant Commissioner would direct your attention to the fact
that such a fund, although it has been available since July 1,
1923, has not been made use of except on two occasions. In one
instance the Governor and the Board, on November 13, 1924,
approved of the release of $10,000 for investigation of the situa-
tion created by the discovery of what was believed to be a very
serious disease of coconuts on the lower East Coast, namely,
coconut bud rot. In the second instance where the emergency
fund was made use of, $10,000 was released on February 18,
1925, for the investigation of a new pest which was attacking
citrus and doing enormous damage to the citrus trees; that is,
the citrus aphid. Reference will be made further in this report
to both of these situations.
That the Board may be informed as to the activities of the sev-
eral departments of the organization, we present in following
sections brief summaries giving the essential facts in regard to
each, which facts we believe should be brought to the attention
of the Board, the members of the State Legislature, and the pub-
lic. Inasmuch as former reports have, as a rule, gone into more
or less detail and as the work of the organization has become well
understood and, we hope, appreciated by officials and the public,
we deem it unnecessary to indulge in repetition and in the sub-
mission of much detailed information contained in former re-
ports.






Sixth Biennial Report


FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS
Much of the work of the State Plant Board bears a direct rela-
tion to and connection with similar work of the Federal and other
state governments. We are pleased to report that the cordial
and helpful cooperative spirit which has heretofore existed has
continued throughout the past two years. In times past the
movement of nursery stock and horticultural products interstate
has been the subject of no little friction and misunderstanding,
due largely to multiplicity of regulations and lack of uniformity
in requirements, as well as application. This situation is vastly
improved.
The improved condition and better understanding is, in large
measure, the result of the various states and the Federal Depart-
ment of Agriculture being drawn closer together through con-
tacts of officials and by organization for exchange of views and
ideas pertaining to regulatory work. There has been formed a
group of conference bodies which, in turn, through selected rep-
resentatives, form a national organization. The state groups
consist of plant quarantine officials of the several states com-
prising the four regional organizations, or so-called Regional
Plant Quarantine Boards. With the approval of the State Plant
Board, the Plant Commissioner and the department heads hold
membership in the Southern Regional Board. The Plant Com-
missioner is one of the two representatives of the Southern Plant
Quarantine Board on the National Board.
The National Board consists of two representatives from each
of the four Regional Boards. This Board is, of course, unofficial
but is recognized by the United States Department of Agriculture
as an advisory board to act with the Federal Horticultural Board
in the effort to coordinate, correlate and systematize plant quar-
antine activities, state, interstate and national. It is expected
that much will be accomplished through the activities of these in-
terlocking organizations.
The necessity for closer relations and better understanding
between states and between the states and the Federal agencies
became so evident that the Secretary of Agriculture called a con-
ference of state and Federal officials at Washington in April of
1925. This was attended by your Plant Commissioner and Quar-
antine Inspector. After a two-day meeting, a formula was
worked out as a "basis of agreement" between state and Federal
officials. This formula, based largely on the opinions of the







State Plant Board of Florida


legal advisers of the Department, set forth the rights of state
quarantine and of Federal quarantine authorities and by so do-
ing cleared up much misunderstanding formerly existing, espe-
cially with respect to interstate movement of material which
had been the subject of Federal quarantine action. This national
conference also had the effect of crystallizing in the minds of
many officials the idea of organization and without doubt hast-
ened the creation of the Regional and National Plant Quarantine
Boards previously referred to.

NATIONAL LEGISLATION
In March of 1926 the Plant Commissioner's office was apprised
of the fact that a decision handed down by the United States
Supreme Court placed an entirely new interpretation on a por-
tion of the Federal Plant Quarantine Act of 1912 with respect to
the rights of state authorities to impose restrictions on interstate
movement of plants and plant products. It had been believed
that in such matters the states were at liberty to impose such
restrictions as were thought necessary when the Federal authori-
ties had not acted. The nature of the decision rendered by the
nation's highest tribunal in the case referred to-i. e., The Ore-
gon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Company vs. The State
of Washington*-was such as to practically invalidate all state
quarantines regulating or prohibiting movement into or through
a state of plants and plant products. It was evident that the
scope of this decision was far-reaching and of great moment.
Under authorization of the Board, the Quarantine Inspector pro-
ceeded to Washington and there joined with Mr. Lee A. Strong,
Assistant Director of Agriculture, State of California, in a series
of conferences with officials of the Department of Agriculture
and others as to ways and means of correcting the critical situa-
tion resulting from the court decision. Remedial legislation was
drafted and presented to Congress. This proposed legislation
amended the Act of 1912 so as to restore to the states the rights
of which they had been deprived through the court decision. The
Plant Commissioner later went to Washington and appeared
before the Senate Committee on Agriculture in support of the
amendment and otherwise interested himself in furthering its
passage. At the regular monthly meeting of the State Plant
*--U. S.-, 70 L. Ed. (No. 187, October Term, 1925, U. S. Supreme Court.)







Sixth Biennial Report


Board held at Gainesville on April 12, 1926, the Plant Commis-
sioner formally reported to the Board regarding the status of
Federal legislation on plant quarantines and commented as
follows:

"Under date of March 29 the Plant Commissioner submitted by mail to
the Board members a report covering the situation with respect to the
enactment of federal legislation intended to restore to the several states
certain rights and privileges with respect to handling interstate movement
of plants and plant products, which rights and privileges the states had
been deprived of through a decision handed down on March 1 by the United
States Supreme Court. As of March 29 the remedial legislation had been
passed by the United States Senate. Subsequent to the date mentioned the
joint resolution was considered by the Agricultural Committee of the House
of Representatives, was favorably reported to the House, and on April 7
was passed without amendment. Without doubt the legislation will receive
the approval of the President.*
"It is worthy of note that the Federal Plant Quarantine Act, as now
amended, not only restores to the several states the authority which it
was formerly thought they possessed but greatly extends the states' author-
ity. Briefly, the amended legislation permits the states (a) to have state
quarantines or regulatory measures on interstate movements of plants and
plant products when such quarantines or regulations are not in conflict
with existing federal quarantines or regulations; (b) authorizes the Sec-
retary of Agriculture to cooperate with state officials; (c) provides that
states may inspect while in transit interstate shipments of plants and
plant products, even though under federal certification, and if such mate-
rials are found to be dangerously diseased or infested or if the shipment
is made in violation of the federal quarantine, to dispose of the material in
accordance with the regulations promulgated by the state authorities. Un-
der the Federal Plant Quarantine Act the federal authorities have no means
of disposing promptly of contraband material. Under the amended legisla-
tion the states do have this right. Prosecutions for violations of quaran-
tines, however, may be instituted by the federal authorities."
The amendment (for parliamentary reasons) was in the form
of a "Joint Resolution" and as passed reads as follows:

"JOINT RESOLUTION
"For the amendment of the Plant Quarantine Act of August 20, 1912, to
allow the States to quarantine against the shipment therein or through
of plants, plant products, and other articles found to be diseased or in-
fested when not covered by a quarantine established by the Secretary
of Agriculture and for other purposes.
"RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTA-
TIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN CONGRESS AS-
SEMBLED, That the Act of August 20, 1912 (Thirty-seventh United States
Statutes at Large, page 315), as amended by the Act of March 4, 1917
(Thirty-ninth United States Statutes at Large, page 1165), be, and the
same is hereby amended by adding at the end of section 8 thereof the
following:
"PROVIDED FURTHER, That until the Secretary of Agriculture shall
have made a determination that such a quarantine is necessary and has
duly established the same with reference to any dangerous plant disease or
insect infestation, as herein above provided, nothing in this Act shall be
construed to prevent any State, Territory, or District from promulgating,
enacting, and enforcing any statute, quarantine, order, rule, or regulation
prohibiting or restricting the transportation of any class of nursery stock,
*The President signed the amended Act and it became law.







State Plant Board of Florida


plant, fruit, seed, or other product or article subject to the restrictions of
this section, into or through such State, Territory, District, or portion
thereof, from any other State, Territory, District, or portion thereof, when
it shall be found, by the State, Territory, or District promulgating or en-
acting the same, that such dangerous plant disease or insect infestation
exists in such other State, Territory, District or portion thereof: PRO-
VIDED FURTHER, That the Secretary of Agriculture is hereby author-
ized, whenever he deems such action advisable and necessary to carry out
the purposes of this Act, to cooperate with any State, Territory, or District,
in connection with any statute, quarantine, order, rule, or regulation enacted
or promulgated by such State, Territory or District, as specified in the
preceding proviso: PROVIDED FURTHER, That any nursery stock, plant,
fruit, seed, or other product or article, subject to the restrictions of this
section a quarantine with respect to which shall have been established by
the Secretary of Agriculture under the provisions of this Act shall, when
transported to, into, or through any State, Territory, or District, in viola-
tion of such quarantine, be subject to the operation and effect of the laws of
such State, Territory, or District, enacted in the exercise of its police
powers, to the same extent and in the same manner as though such nursery
stock, plant, fruit, seed, or other product or article had been produced in
such State, Territory, or District, and shall not be exempt therefrom by
reason of being introduced therein in original packages or otherwise."
STATE LEGISLATION
The passing of the Joint Resolution by Congress remedied the
immediate and pressing critical situation, but the effect of the
Supreme Court decision was much greater and more far-reaching
than was at first anticipated. After the passage of the Federal
remedial legislation time and opportunity were afforded for
more careful study of other aspects and effects. The conclusion
was reached both by the solicitors of the United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture and by Attorney Generals of a number of
the states that all state quarantine rules and regulations apply-
ing to plant movement which were promulgated during the pe-
riod between the passage of the Federal Plant Quarantine Act of
1912 (August 20, 1912) and its amendment in April, 1926, were
without force and effect, and furthermore that such state legis-
lation bearing on plant quarantine subjects or creating Plant
Boards or similar bodies enacted during this same period was
null and void, inasmuch as the Federal legislation, as interpreted
by the Supreme Court, had precedence. The general effect of
this opinion would be that state laws passed prior to August 20,
1912, were in abeyance until the recent amendment became law,
that rules and regulations passed during this period must be
again promulgated in order to be legal, and that Boards created
by state legislation subsequent to August 20, 1912, were without
power to function, for the Act creating them was in conflict with
Federal law. In the latter class would fall our own Plant Act
of 1915.







Sixth Biennial Report


If these opinions are correct, and we believe they are, it be-
comes necessary for the State of Florida to take the proper ac-
tion in the premises; that is, re-enact the Plant Act of 1915,
followed by re-promulgation of the Plant Board rules and regu-
lations, or for the state to enact new legislation covering the
subject. The Plant Commissioner suggests that this is a matter
which should receive most serious consideration. He takes the
liberty of observing that the present Plant Act has been found to
be weak in a number of respects and is susceptible of improve-
ment.
SECTION II
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
With respect to the activities of the several departments and
special projects of the Plant Board organization we submit brief
summaries including essential statistical data in this section of
the biennial report. Complete and detailed information is in-
corporated in the annual reports of department heads which are
on file and available for reference in the office of the Plant Com-
missioner.
GROVE INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
(Citrus Canker Eradication)
The Grove Inspection Department is concerned chiefly in the
prosecution of the citrus canker campaign. In the last biennial
report an account was given of the discovery for the second time
of canker at Davie. Intensive inspection was continued at Davie
and the general inspection of citrus trees throughout the state
was likewise continued. The only canker infection found during
the period covered by this report was at Boynton in March of
1925 when five old neglected trees located on two city lots were
found to be diseased. There was an immediate concentration
of inspectors and vigorous measures were instituted in coopera-
tion with the city authorities to dispose of the large number of
old abandoned trees which presented such a menace. After the
"clean up" at Boynton state-wide inspection was resumed, al-
though the whole area from West Palm Beach to Homestead was
and still is under closer supervision. No other infected trees
have been found.
The tabulations submitted herewith present some very inter-
esting information when analyzed. For instance, it is shown







State Plant Board of Florida


that the total cost of canker eradication has been $1,873,770.53,
of which the state supplied $773,255.50 the Federal Government
$1,015,495.41 and $85,019.62 was supplied by individuals, corpor-
ations and organizations. Again, it is shown that through this
expenditure practical results have been obtained, inasmuch as
only six trees have been found infected in the past three years
and none since March of 1925. At this time there are no known
active infections.
The number of inspectors engaged in the field work during
the biennium has ranged from 23 to 28. These men inspected a
total of 8,272,298 grove trees. This does not mean that that
number of trees were inspected, for many trees in especially ex-
posed areas were inspected a large number of times. It is the
practice in actively infected groves to inspect at weekly inter-
vals. It is a pleasure to report that at the close of the biennium
no properties are classed as actively infected and only two such
formerly infected groves are under limited restrictions.
With the limited number of inspectors engaged in grove in-
spection work, it is impossible to inspect all citrus trees in the
state even as frequently as once in three years. It is earnestly
hoped that this condition will be remedied.
The outbreak of citrus aphis in 1924 complicated the inspec-
tional work which was being carried on at Davie very greatly.
The curling of the citrus leaves, due to the aphis infestation,
made inspection very difficult. As the organization was gravely
concerned at this time over the canker situation at Davie, it was
deemed advisable to engage in an effort to control the aphids.
Little was known with respect to this insect or its control. Never-
theless, with the knowledge available, we undertook the task.
We not only succeeded in controlling the aphid to a very marked
degree, but, by reason of our work and the observations made,
contributed in no small measure to the amount of knowledge on
citrus aphis control.
The following tabulations show in detail the work which has
been done by the Grove Inspection Department in the canker
eradication work during the biennium.










SUMMARY OF THE GROVE


No. of trees inspected*


No. em-
ployees
on can-
ker
force


INSPECTION AND CITRUS CANKER ERADICATION DEPARTMENT
YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1926


Found infected
Nursery from May 1, 1914,
to date


12,877,540
8,335,392
10,445,463
11,512,075
8,503,952
10,700,355

10,832,533
11,303,130
10,683,375
10,101,263
7,690,821
11,081,473


OTAL NUMBER OF PROPERTIES
Declared no Resting under
longer danger certain restric-
tions as to
centers cultivation, etc.

510 24



i


Still classed
as infected


2

it
ft
tt
it
tt


8,272,298 124,067,372
Prior to
July 1, 1925..| 85,853,320 728,251,362
TOTALS .... 94,125,618 I 852,318,734 -
No infections of citrus canker found during year ending June 30, 1926.
*Number of trees inspected for citrus canker. Nursery trees were reinspected several times during year; above figures include such reinspections.
Trees in Boynton and Davie sections inspected twice, all other grove trees once.


Grove



162,480
180,433
436,218
502,653
615,417
664,197

829,127
876,284
906,430
1,041,085
920,587
1,137,387


1925
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
1926
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June








38 State Plant Board of Florida

The following summary supplies the essential information
concerning the eradication of citrus canker in Florida up to
June 30, 1926:
SUMMARY

Total number of properties found infected in the state........................ 512
Total number of properties declared no longer danger centers.......... 512
Total number of properties still classed as active infections, June
30, 1926 ................................................................................................ 0
Number of properties declared "clean".................................................... 510
Number of properties still under partial or full quarantine, June
30, 1926 ................................................................................................. 2
Total number of grove trees found infected from May 1, 1914 to
June 30, 1926.---............-- ............------ ..... --......-- .........-- ..-............ 15,156
Total number of nursery trees found infected from May 1, 1914 to
June 30, 1926 --............................................-------------.. -- 342,260
Total number of "exposed" grove trees destroyed from May 1,
1914 to June 30, 1926 --.......--... -- ---.................................... 242,209
Total number of "exposed" nursery trees destroyed from May 1,
1914 to June 30, 1926.............-------..........---- ................-- 2,721,850
The sums expended in this work in Florida from its inception
are shown in the following tabulation:
Federal State Other
Funds Funds Sources
Prior to May 1, 1920..............---.......$ 860,973.51 $362,258.63 $85,019.62
May 1, 1920 to April 30, 1921...... 38,577.04 61,587.66 ....
May 1, 1921 to June 30, 1922 ........ 16,944.42 81,555.32 ..................
July 1, 1922 to June 30, 1924........ 83,786.61 127,334.64 ..................
July 1, 1924 to June 30, 1925........ 7,997.08 66,121.83 ...
July 1, 1925 to June 30, 1926........ 7,216.75 74,397.42 ....

Totals ...........................................$1,015,495.41 $773,255.50 $85,019.62
Total, all sources ..... ................... .. .... ......................$1,873,770.53
The following tabulation shows the total number of grove trees
found infected with canker by months and years since the work
began in May of 1914:
1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926
January ....... 306 86 14 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
February ...... 165 21 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
March ............ 444 49 9 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 5 0
April ..._....... 408 49 169 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 O 0
May ................ 108 1042 338 52 1 1 0 0 585 2 0 0 0
June .............. 160 772 450 45 10 0 0 0 168 1 0 0 0
July ............ 275 651 349 39 0 0 539 0 28 0 0 0
August ..........1313 1345 219 30 0 1 1 0 34 0 0 0
September .... 767 618 124 6 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0
October ....... 65 214 451 2 0 0 0 0 19 1 0 0
November .... 773 494 131 1 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0
December ...... 366 256 27 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0
Total 4327 6715 2294 372 15 4 540 0 873 11 0 5

QUARANTINE DEPARTMENT

The first and greatest purpose of the Quarantine Department
is to prevent the introduction into the state of dangerous plant
pests. The movement of plants and plant products is therefore







Sixth Biennial Report


safeguarded through restrictive or prohibitory regulations.
These regulations of the Plant Board are applied by the inspec-
tors of the Quarantine Department, who are likewise collabora-
tors of the Federal Horticultural Board and administer federal
regulations applying to the entry of plants and plant products
from foreign countries through Florida ports of entry. The
salary and expense items of this work are borne by the state. The
holding of federal appointments, however, permits of our men
possessing greater authority to pass upon the horticultural mate-
rial entering through our ports.
As heretofore, quarantine inspectors are stationed at Pensa-
cola, Jacksonville, Miami, Key West and Tampa as our chief
ports. Part time men are at West Palm Beach and Fort Myers.
During the biennium these men boarded and inspected more than
12,000 vessels. Of these approximately one-half were from for-
eign ports. The great bulk of the foreign ships came directly
from tropical countries, although every part of the world con-
tributed tonnage.
The following tabulation summarizes very tersely the port
quarantine work for the biennium:
1924-25 1925-26 Total
Ships inspected:
Foreign ......... ............................ .... 2,437 2,705 5,142
Domestic coastwisee) ......................--.. .... 3,027 3,963 6,990
Total .................... ...... .. ........ 5,464 6,668 12,132
Total number parcels inspected:
Arriving by boat, express, mail, freight......1,633,015 2,435,470 4,068,485
Of the total there were:
Treated and passed .......................... 192,707 865,927 1,058,634
Returned to shipper ............................... 2,630 3,766 6,396
Contraband destroyed ........................ 3,040 3,469 6,509










THE FOLLOWING TABULATION IS PRESENTED SHOWING THE WORK OF THE
DIVISION BY YEARS SINCE THIS WORK WAS INAUGURATED


QUARANTINE


1915- 1916- 1917- 1918- 1919- 1920- 1921- May& 1922- 1923- 1924- 1925-
1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 June, 1923 1924 1925 1926 TOTAL
|_______ I ______i_ I1922 __ _

Foreign boats 166 1240 1777 1724 2458 3035 2225 364 2207 2309 2437 2705 22647
Total boats.... 370 3257 4253 3485 4504 4948 4179 697 4559 4842 5464 6668 47226
No. packages
arriving by
boat, ex-
press,
freight,
mail .......... 500 3105 3422 *69985 336059% 710412% 13333335 747972 1827727 1410860t 1633015 2435470 10515135
No. packages
returned .... 18 255 485 1521 49361% 2130Y/2 2610 201 1006 1566 2630 3766 21125
No. packages
destroyed .. 69 1182 1037% 1743% 2345A 1564% 1757 311 2278 4478 3040 34691 23254%
No. packages
treated
and passed _192707 865927 1058634
*Prior to August 1, 1918, horticultural material inspected was reported by shipments. A shipment might comprise 1 or 1,000 packages. Subsequent
to above date reports were made of the number of packages and bulk shipments were reduced to packages on basis of contents of standard containers
used for particular products.
fDeerease in number of packages arriving was due to the Federal Horticultural Board Quarantine No. 56, prohibiting the entry of fruits from
foreign countries, except under permit, which went into effect in November, 1923.








Sixth Biennial Report 41

A complete list of the plant pests intercepted is presented as
an appendix to this report. Some of the more important are
here listed.
Intercepted During Year Ending June 30, 1925
Insect or Disease From Number Ship-
ments Intercepted
Aleurocanthus woglumi Ashby
blackflyy) ............................ ... Cuba .............................. 8
Aleurocanthus woglumi Ashby
blackflyy) ............................. ...... Jamaica ................ .-- 2
Anastrepha fraterculus Wied.
(West Indian fruit fly).............. Cuba .......................... 1
Anastrepha ludens (Loew.)
(Morelos fruit fly)...................... Mexico ......... ........ 2
Aonidia lauri (Bouche)
(scale) ........................ ........................... Spain .... .......... 1
Aonidia lauri (Bouche)
(scale) ........ ........... ..... .. Cuba ................ ........ 2
Aspidiotus destructor Sign.
(destructor scale) ........ ......... Cuba ... ........ ........ 6
Aspidiotus destructor Sign.
(destructor scale) ........................ Porto Rico .................... 1
Ceratitis capitata Wied.
(Mediterranean fruit fly).......... Spain .. 1
Coccus viridis (Green)
(green scale) ......................... Cuba -............................ 1
Diplodia natalensis Ev.
(fungus) Cuba.... ........................ Cuba ........... 1
Eriococcus araucariae Mask.
(Araucaria eriococcus) .............. Spain ........................... 1
Lepidosaphes crotonis (Ckll.)
(scale) ..................................... Porto Rico ... ........... 1
Lepidosaphes lasianthi (Green)
(scale) ....................... ...... Santo Domingo .......... 1
Pectinophora gossypiella (Saun-
ders) (pink bollworm) .......- China ............................ 1
Pectinophora gossypiella (Saun- I
ders) (pink bollworm).............. Cuba .............................. 1
Phthorimaea operculella Zell. I
(potato tuber moth) .................... Germany .................... 1
Phthorimaea operculella Zell.
(potato tuber moth) ................... Island of Malta............ 1
Pseudaonidia articulatus (Morg.)
rufouss scale) ........................... Cuba .............................. 8
Pseudaonidia articulatus (Morg.)
rufouss scale) ............................ Bahama Islands ......... 1
Pseudaonidia articulatus (Morg.)
rufouss scale) ....................... Jamaica ....................-- 2
Pseudaonidia articulatus (Morg.)
rufouss scale) .......................... Mexico ........ -......------- 1
Pseudaonidia articduatus (Morg.)
rufouss scale) .............................. Spain .......................... 1
Pseudaonidia articulatus (Morg.)
rufouss scale) ........ .............. St. Lucia, B. W. I....... 1
Pseudaonidia tesserata (de
Charm) (scale) ............................. Cuba ..................... 1
Targionia hartii (Ckll.)
(yam scale) ......................Cuba..............I 1
Targionia hartii (Ckll.) 1
(yam scale) ......................... Santo Domingo ...-------. 1







State Plant Board of Florida


Insect or Disease From Number Ship-
I_ ments Intercepted
Tyloderma fragariae Riley
(strawberry crown borer).......... Arkansas .................. 1
Tyloderma fragariae Riley
(strawberry crown borer).......... Alabama ...................... 1
Uromyces caryophyllinus (Schr.)
Wint. (carnation rust)............ Pennsylvania ..............1

Intercepted During Year Ending June 30, 1926
Insect or Disease From Number Ship-
Sments Intercepted
Aleurocanthus woglumi Ashby
blackflyy) ...................................... Cuba ............................ 8
Aleurocanthus woglumi Ashby
blackflyy) .................................... Bahama Islands .......... 1
Aleurocanthus woglumi Ashby
blackflyy) .................................... Jam aica ......................-- 1
Anastrepha fraterculus Wied.
(W est Indian fruit fly) .............. Cuba ............................. 1
Aspidiotus destructor Sign.
(destructor scale) ...................... Cuba ..............................1 10
Aspidiotus destructor Sign.
(destructor scale) ........................ Porto Rico .................... 1
Aspidiotus destructor Sign.
(destructor scale) ........................ Santo Domingo .......... 1
Aonidia lauri (Bouche)
(scale) .......................................... Italy .................. ....... 1
Coccus viridis (Green)
(green scale) ................................ Cuba -................ ......... I 1
Diarthronomyia hypogaea 'Loew.
(chrysanthemum midge) .......... Pennsylvania .............. 16
Iridomyrmex humilis Mayr.
(Argentine ant) ..---..................... Alabama ...................... 1
Iridomyrmex humilis Mayr.
(Argentine ant) .......................... Louisiana .................... 1
Parlatoria sp.
(scale) ......................................... Trinidad ........................ 1
Phthorimaea operculella Zell.
(potato tuber moth) .................... Virginia ..................... 1
Pseudaonidia articulatus (Morg.)
rufouss scale) ............................ Bahama Islands .......... 4
Pseudaonidia articulatus (Morg.)
rufouss scale) ......------....- British West Indies..... 1
Pseudaonidia articulatus (Morg.)
rufouss scale) .............................. Costa Rica .................... 1
Pseudaonidia articulatus (Morg.)
rufouss scale) --------............................. Cuba ..............................--------- 7
Pseudaonidia articulatus (Morg.)
rufouss scale) ............... Guatemala ...............Guatemala.. 1
Pseudaonidia articulatus (Morg.)
rufouss scale) ............................. Jamaica ........................ 1
Pseudaonidia articulatus (Morg.)
rufouss scale) .............................. Trinidad ........................ 1
Pseudaonidia articulatus (Morg.)
rufouss scale) ........................ West Indies .................. 1
Uromyces caryophyllinus (Schr.)
Wint. (carnation rust) .............. Pennsylvania .............. 9
Vinsonia stellifera (Westw.)
stellatee scale) ............ .... Bahama Islands .......... 2
Xylostodoris luteolus Barber
(royal palm bug) ......... Cuba .............................I 1







Sixth Biennial Report


During the year ending June 30, 1925, insect pests and plant
diseases were intercepted on material arriving at Florida ports
from 42 foreign countries:
1. Africa 2 Grand Cayman
2. Algeria 23. Greece
3. Argentina 24. Holland
4. Bahamas 25. Honduras
5. Barbados, B.W.I. 26. India
6. Belgium 27. Island of Malta
7. Bermuda 28. Italy
8. Brazil 29. Jamaica
9. British West Indies 30. Japan
10. Canal Zone (Panama) 31. Mexico
11. Canary Islands 32. Norway
12. Cape Verde Islands 33. Porto Rico
13. Chile 34. Santo Domingo
14. China 35. Scotland
15. Costa Rica 36. Spain
16. Cuba 37. Spanish Honduras
17. Dominica 38. St. Lucia (B. W. I.)
18. England 39. Trinidad
19. France 40. Uruguay
20. Germany 41. Virgin Islands
21. Gibraltar 42. Wales

During the year ending June 30, 1926, insect pests and plant
diseases were intercepted on material arriving at Florida ports
from 39 foreign countries:
1. Africa 21. Guatemala
2. Algeria 22. Haiti
3. Argentina 23. Holland
4. Austria 24. Honduras
5. Azores 25. Is'e of Pines
6. Bahama Islands 26. Jamaica
7. Barbados (B. W. I.) 27. Italy
8. Belgium 28. Mexico
9. Bermuda 29. Panama
10. Brazil 30. Porto Rico
11. Canada 31. Santo Domingo
12. Chile 32. Scotland
13. Costa Rica 33. Spain
14. Cuba 34. Sweden
15. Denmark 35. Trinidad
16. Ecuador 36. Tunis
17. England 37. Venezuela
18. France 38. Wales
19. Germany 39. West Indies
20. Grand Cayman

NURSERY INSPECTION DEPARTMENT

Inspection of nursery stock has been a practice followed in all
states where horticulture is of importance. Such service is ren-
dered in practically every well organized government. On ac-
count of the magnitude of the horticultural interests of Florida
demanding protection and the semi-tropical conditions existing







State Plant Board of Florida


in this state, the nursery inspection service may be regarded as
of prime importance. Of recent years this service has been
highly developed and from the standpoint of efficiency may well
be compared with similar services in wealthier commonwealths.
And yet we are far from feeling that suitable or adequate service
is rendered. As an illustration, we may say that our goal, since
the creation of the State Plant Board ten years ago, has been to
make four inspections annually of all commercial nurseries. We
have never done so. In 1924-25 we averaged 2.4 inspections per
nursery. In 1925-26 the average was 2.6.
The Nursery Inspector, in his annual reports for the fiscal
years 1924-25 and 1925-26, has presented a mass of statistical
matter pertaining to the activities of the Nursery Inspection De-
partment. This material is of value as a permanent record for
reference and is available to officials and citizens desiring to ob-
tain special information. It is so voluminous, however, that we
do not deem it wise or necessary to publish it in full in this
report. What may be termed the "high-lights" are here pre-
sented:
During 1924-25 there were eleven assistant nursery inspectors,
while in 1925-26 the department had available thirteen such at-
taches. These men had 4,568 nurseries of all kinds under in-
spection in 1924-25 and 3,059 in 1925-26. In 1924-25 these
nurseries contained 68,004,635 trees and plants, while in 1925-26
there were a total of 81,746,963 trees and plants under inspec-
tion. The acreage in nursery plantings was as follows:
Citrus Non-citrus Total
1924-25 ............... ................. 5,843 3,187 9,030
1925-26 ....................... ................. 6,390 3,035 9,425
The two outstanding objectives in nursery inspection are:
(a) to discover and prevent distribution of plant pests particu-
larly of a major nature, such as citrus canker, blackfly, etc., and
(b) to see that the orchard planter does not begin his operations
laboring under the handicap of pest infested trees. In the prose-
cution of its activities the Nursery Inspection Department has
not during the biennium discovered any nurseries affected by
major pests. On the whole, the nurseries have been well main-
tained. This is especially true of the larger operators. That we
have been instrumental in protecting the orchardists, however,







Sixth Biennial Report


from receiving trees affected by the minor pests is evidenced by
the fact that during the biennium 3,233 certification withdrawals
or refusals of certification were handled through the depart-
ment. Some small nurseries repeatedly failed to pass inspection,
which increases the total considerably.
Compliance with the requirements of the Board upon the part
of nursery stock producers has been excellent. There seems to
be an appreciation by nurserymen of the necessity for state su-
pervision and of the benefits thereof both to producer and con-
sumer of stock. It has only been necessary to file information
four times for violation of the Board's rules.
Following is a brief summary showing the more important
data regarding the activities of the Nursery Inspection De-
partment:

SUMMARY-NURSERY INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
BIENNIUM ENDING JUNE 30, 1926
1924-1925 1925-1926
Total number nurseries under inspection................ 4,568 3,059
Total acreage in nurseries under inspection.......... 9,030 9,425
Total amount of stock in nurseries under inspec-
tion ................... ... .................... ....... ......... .68,004,635 81,746,963
Total amount of stock in nurseries refused certifi-
cation .................... ....... .............. ........ 14,189,934 24,395,585
Total acreage in citrus stock as of June 30 .......... 5,843 6,390
Total acreage in non-citrus stock as of June 30...... 3,187 3,035
Total amount of citrus stock as of June 30............54,432,832 52,711,485
Total amount of non-citrus stock as of June 30 -......13,571,803 29,035,478*
Average number of inspections per nursery per
annum -............... ................. ...-...... ........ 2.4 2.6
As in the past, the Department has issued so-called "Permit
Certificates" for use on stock to be shipped into this state. Dur-
ing 1924-25, 36,942 such certificates were issued to 298 concerns
and in 1925-26, 37,552 certificates to 346 nurseries. In all cases
where shipments are made into Florida an invoice containing
certain essential information is required. This is also required
for stock produced in Florida and handled under certificate. The
object sought is to have a permanent record so that in the event
of a serious outbreak of a plant pest it would be a relatively easy
matter to run down all suspicious shipments or shipments orig-
inating in the nursery in which the pest was discovered.
*The marked increase in 1925-26 over 1924-25 due partially to the Department placing
ferneriee under inspection.







State Plant Board of Florida


DEPARTMENT OF ENTOMOLOGY
As has been repeatedly stated, the State Plant Board is pri-
marily a regulatory or police organization, yet a certain amount
of scientific work must be done by specialists in order that the
organization may function efficiently. In the entomological field
this phase of Plant Board work is performed by the Board's En-
tomologist and an Associate Entomologist. These officials make
necessary investigations, carry on research in a limited way and
identify and classify insect pests attacking plants. In regulatory
work the latter activity is a very important one indeed. The fol-
lowing table indicates the volume of this kind of work which
the Department performs:

SPECIMENS EXAMINED AND RECORDED ANNUALLY
(April 30, 1915 through June 30, 1926)
1915-1916 .................................................. ... -... 388
1916-1917 .. ........................... .. ---...- ....--.--.... --------- 612
1917-1918 ........................................ 2593
1918-1919 ........................-. .. .....-.............- .- - --------- ...------ 1921
1919-1920 ....................................... ................ .. .... ................. 2521
1920-1921 ............................ .............. ....... -------------- 1998
1921-1922 ..................................... ....... . ..---.- --- ------....------ 3545
1922-1923 ............. ...................... --........... ...... ......... ...... 3904
1923-1924 ......................................- ........-.. ..............-......... 2418
1924-1925 ........................... ............... ... 2940
1925-1926 ................................................ .... 2023
1915-1926- Total .............................................................................24,863
The Department has continued to produce and distribute fun-
gus for the control of the citrus whitefly. A nominal charge is
made to growers who apply for this fungus. The same is true
in connection with the collection, rearing and distribution of
Vedalia, a predatory insect which preys upon and materially as-
sists in the control of the cottony cushion-scale. During the bien-
nium 1,0131/2 cultures of whitefly fungus and 4571/4 colonies
of Vedalia were sent into the field by the Department.

CITRUS APHIS
In connection with the routine work of the Department the
Entomologist and Associate Entomologist have participated in
the investigations regarding the new (?) pest attacking citrus
commonly called "the citrus aphis", for which an allotment was
made from the Emergency Fund of the Board. This work has
been conducted cooperatively by the Plant Board and the Exper-
iment Station. Special investigators have been employed in






Sixth Biennial Report


addition to the regular members of the entomological staffs of
the Board and the Station. Research has been conducted along
entomological lines as to the biology of the insect and methods of
control. In the pathological field efforts have been made to learn
of diseases affecting the insect and ways of disseminating these
diseases to the end that natural control measures may be used in
conjunction with sprays and (or) fumigants. At the same time
predatory insects are being sought. Progress has been made
and it is hoped that ultimately a relatively cheap and effective
control will be developed.

CELERY INSECT INVESTIGATIONS
For some years past the celery growers in the Sanford area
have sustained serious loss and damage through insect depreda-
tion. The last session of the legislature included in the appro-
priation for the State Plant Board an item for prosecution of an
investigation of this situation to the end that the damage might
be alleviated. The Board was fortunate in securing for this pur-
pose the services of an eminent entomologist, Doctor E. D. Ball,
who had just resigned as Director of Scientific Research, United
States Department of Agriculture. Doctor Ball was appointed
Associate Entomologist, provided with a laboratory and the
necessary equipment at Sanford, and supplied an assistant. He
has been engaged in carrying on special investigations particu-
larly into the life history and habits of the celery leaf-tyer, the
insect which has occasioned the most damage to the celery crop.
Doctor Ball has not by any means overlooked the more practical
aspect of the project, i. e., control, and has engaged in a field
study of this in conjunction with the Sanford growers. It is
sincerely trusted that provision will be made for the continuance
of this work either as at present or under the auspices of the
Agricultural Experiment Station.

DEPARTMENT OF PLANT PATHOLOGY
The Plant Board does not maintain a separate and distinct
pathological organization as such. In cooperation with,the Ag-
ricultural Experiment Station, however, much investigational
and identification work in connection with plant diseases has
been made possible. The chief of the Department of Plant.Path-
ology of the Station holds appointment as Pathologist on the
Plant Board staff. In the several special pieces of work which







State Plant Board of Florida


are under way assistant plant pathologists are appointed and
paid by the Board. Special investigations are thus being con-
ducted with respect to citrus canker, citrus aphis, scaly bark,
coconut bud rot and diseases of strawberries. The canker in-
vestigations and those of scaly bark and coconut bud rot are con-
tinuing activities from previous years. The others have been
undertaken during the present biennium. Reference has been
made to the aphis under the report on the Entomological Depart-
ment. The strawberry disease work was instituted as the result
of a special appropriation being made for that purpose by the last
legislature. A laboratory has been equipped and this work is
being carried on chiefly at Plant City.
Laboratory facilities for carrying on special research in con-
nection with coconut bud rot and scaly bark have been provided
at Gainesville. The coconut bud rot situation is one which had
occasioned special concern at the time of presentation of the last
biennial report. It now seems that this affection does not do
the enormous damage in Florida as elsewhere, nor does it ap-
pear to be as infectious. The general situation is being handled
through quarantines on affected nurseries imposed by the Nurs-
ery Inspection Department and seems to be well in hand. In the
Annual Reports of the Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
may be found statements as to the progress being made in con-
nection with the scientific investigations being carried on co-
operatively.
MOSAIC DISEASE OF SUGAR CANE
Although no special work of an investigational nature has
been carried on in connection with this disease, reference should
here be made to what has been done to prevent the spread. Pre-
vious reports have told how this cane disease was introduced into
Florida and the efforts to at first eradicate and later to prevent
spread. As was predicted, the disease has gradually spread
throughout the whole northern tier of counties and has been
found as far south as Alachua County. It is only a matter of
time until the whole cane growing area will be involved. Un-
questionably the quarantine regulations of the Board have re-
tarded the spread and afforded the unaffected areas opportunity
to prepare for the invasion. The outlook for continued produc-
tion is good if growers will use only varieties of cane which are
tolerant, resistant or immune to the disease.







Sixth Biennial Report


APIARY INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
Under the Bee Disease Act of 1919 the State Plant Board has
maintained an apiary inspection service. The purpose is to
prevent and control serious diseases affecting honeybees. An
Apiary Inspector has been in charge of this work, assisted by a
number of "local inspectors". The Apiary Inspector is a trained
specialist, while the local inspectors are practical beekeepers who
are familiar with bee diseases. The Board has adopted the policy
of "eradication" in handling the most serious of the bee diseases,
American foul brood. There has never been a great quantity of
this in the state and it was felt there was a very fair prospect
of success. During the year ending June 30, 1925, 53 colonies in
7 apiaries were found infected with American foul brood, while
for the year ending June 30, 1926, but 20 colonies in 5 apiaries
(in four counties) were found affected.
The progress of the work of eradication is best shown by the
following table.

SUMMARY OF APIARY INSPECTION WORK SINCE THE DEPARTMENT
WAS CREATED IN JULY, 1919


Year Ending


June
June
June
June
June
June
June


1920.......
1921.......
1922.......
1923........
1924.......
1925......
1926......


Apiaries
infected
Apiaries Colony with Amer-
inspected inspections ican foul
brood
366 15007 37
739 17931 21
822 22221 17
1012 23883 18
785 21857 I 9
670 22566 7
697 17617 5


SECTION III
ESTIMATES
The Plant Commissioner submits to the Board estimates of
amounts of funds believed to be necessary to properly conduct
the inspectional and other activities of the Board for the bien-
nium beginning July 1, 1927. The estimates are as follows:


ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF BOARD
Salaries: Per annum
Secretary ............................ ........... .... $1,500.00
Stenographer .. ............................................. 1,000.00
Total for Salaries .......................................... $2,500.00


For biennium
$3,000.00
2,000.00
$5,000.00


Colonies
infected
with Amer-
ican foul
brood
103
30
34
30
13
53
20







50 State Plant Board of Florida

Operating Expenses:
Traveling expenses of Board members and Sec-
retary and miscellaneous office expenses........ 1,500.00

Total for Administration, Board ..............................$4,000.00

PLANT COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE
(General Expenses)


3,000.00
$8,000.00


Salaries: Per annum For biennium
Plant Commissioner ...........................................$3,300.00 $6,600.00
Assistant Plant Commissioner (supplementing
salary of department head designated to act) 500.00 1.000.00
Chief Clerk .................................... ..... 2,400.00 4,800.00
Stenographer ............................. .... 1,800.00 3,600.00
Filing Clerk ...................................... 1,500.00 3,000.00
Janitor .............................----..--- 750.00 1.500.00
Total for Salaries................ .................. $10,250.00 $20,500.00
Operating Expenses:
Traveling Expenses ........................................ $1,500.00 $3,000.00
Printing of Quarterly Bulletin, Circulars, etc.,
Office Equipment, Postage, Stationery, Tele-
phone and Telegraph, Miscellaneous Expenses 5,700.00 11,400.00
Total for Expenses .................................. .. 7,200.00 14,400.00
Total for Plant Commissioner's Office......................$17,450.00 $34,900.00

GROVE INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
(Citrus Canker Eradication)
Salaries: Per annum For biennium
Chief Inspector ..................................$4,000.00 $8,000.00
10 Supervising Inspectors (foremen) at aver-
age of $2,700 per annum................................... 27,000.00 54,000.00
30 Inspectors at average of $2,400 per annum..72,000.00 144,000.00
1 Stenographer and Filing Clerk........................ 1,500.00 8,000.00
Total for Salaries ......................................$104,500.00 $209,000.00
Operating Expenses:
Travel and subsistence for chief and assist-
ants .....................----...... ---.............. .--. $ 30,500.00 $ 61,000.00
Office Supplies, Field Equipment, Labor and
Miscellaneous Expenses ........................... 5,000.00 10,000.00
Total for Expenses ..................... ........$ 35,500.00 b 71,000.00
Total for Grove Inspection Department..............$140,000.00 $280,000.00


NURSERY INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
Salaries: Per annum
Chief Inspector ................................................. 4,000.00
20 Assistant Inspectors at average of $2,700
per year ........... .... ........... 54,000.00
4 Stenographers at average of $1,500 per
year .................................. 6,000.00
1 Filing Clerk ...................................... 1,500.00

Total for Salaries .................................... $ 65,500.00


For biennium
$ 8,000.00
108,000.00
12,000.00
3,000.00
$131,000.00








Sixth Biennial Report


Operating Expenses:
Travel and subsistence for chief and as-
sistant inspectors ........................................ $ 20,000.00
Office and Field Equipment and Supplies,
Stationery and Miscellaneous Expenses.... 5,000.00

Total for Expenses......................................$ 25,000.00
Total for Nursery Inspection Department..............$ 90,500.00

QUARANTINE INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
Salaries: Per annum
Chief Inspector ...................... ....................... $ 4,000.00
22 Assistant Inspectors:
6 at average of $3,600 per year.................... 21,600.00
(Supervising inspectors in charge of ports)
12 at average of $3,000 per year........................ 36,000.00
4 at average of $3,000 per year-................... 12,000.00
(Mounted motorcycle patrol)
1 Stenographer and Filing Clerk.................... 1,800.00


Total for Salaries .......


..........$ 75,400.00


Operating Expenses:
Travel and subsistence expenses of chief and
assistants (not including mounted in-
spectors) ......................... ...........................$ 15,000.00
Fumigants and other supplies and equipment,
office and field expenses ............................. 5,000.00
Travel and subsistence expenses and equip-
ment for mounted patrol................................ 6,000.00
Total for Expenses.. ----------.............................. $ 26,000.00
Total for Quarantine Inspection Department........$101,400.00

DEPARTMENT OF ENTOMOLOGY
Salaries: Per annum
Entom ologist .................... ..................... $ 3,500.00
Assistant Entomologist ...................................... 3,000.00
Stenographer and Filing Clerk ........................ 1,500.00

Total for Salaries ......................................$ 8,000.00
Operating Expenses:
Laboratory and office equipment and sup-
plies, library acquisitions, travel and sub-
sistence ............................................................$ 2,000.00

Total for Department of Entomology......................$ 10,000.00

INVESTIGATION OF CELERY PESTS
Salaries: Per annum
E ntom ologist ................................... .............. $ 4,000.00
Assistant Entomologist ...................................... 2,400.00

Total for Salaries ....................................$. 6,400.00
Operating Expenses:
Field, office and laboratory equipment and
supplies, labor, travel and subsistence........ 4,000.00
Total for Celery Pest Investigations........................$ 10,400.00


$ 40,000.00

10,000.00

$ 50,000.00
$181,000.00


For biennium
$ 8,000.00

43,200.00

72,000.00
24,000.00

3,600.00

$150,800.00



$ 30,000.00
10,000.00

12,000.00

$ 52,000.00
$202,800.00


For biennium
$ 7,000.00
6 000.00
3,000.00
$ 16,000.00



$ 4,000.00
$ 20,000.00


For biennium
$ 8,000.00
4,800.00
$ 12,800.00


8,000.00
$ 20,800.00








52 State Plant Board of Florida

DEPARTMENT OF PLANT PATHOLOGY
Salaries: Per annun
Pathologist (in cooperation with Agricul-
tural Experiment Station)...........................$ 500.00
1 Assistant Pathologist
(Citrus Canker Investigations) ................ 3,000.00
1 Assistant Pathologist
(Palm Disease Investigations) ...................... 3,000.00
1 Assistant Pathologist
(Strawberry Disease Investigations) .......... 3,000.00

Total for Salaries .....................................$ 9,500.00
Operating Expenses:
Field, laboratory and office equipment and
supplies, labor, travel and subsistence, fer-
tilizer, etc.
For Plant Pathologist.......................... $ 500.00
For Citrus Canker Investigations................ 1,500.00
For Palm Diseases Investigations................ 1,500.00
For Strawberry Disease Investigations........ 2,000.00

Total for Expenses ..................---- ..................$ 5,500.00
Total for Department of Plant Pathology-.............$ 15,000.00


SFor biennium

$ 1,000.00

6,000.00

6,000.00

6,000.00

$ 19,000.00




$ 1,000.00
3,000.00
3,000.00
4,000.00

$ 11,000.00
$ 30,000.00


FUMIGATION INVESTIGATIONS
Salaries: Per annum For biennium
Special Investigator ........................................$ 4,000.00 $ 8,000.00


Operating Expenses:
Field and laboratory supplies, travel and
subsistence expenses, fumigation, etc........... 1,000.00

Total for Fumigation Investigations........................$ 5,000.00

APIARY INSPECTION
Salaries: Per annum
Apiary Inspector ...............................................$ 3,500.00
Local Assistant Inspectors at $7.00 per day
w. a. e. (500 man days).................................... 3,500.00

Total for Salaries ......................................$ 7,000.00
Operating Expenses:
Field and office equipment and supplies,
travel and subsistence expenses, etc.............$ 4,000.00
Total for Apiary Inspection Department................$ 11,000.00


2,000.00

$ 10,000.00


For biennium
$ 7,000.00

7,000.00

$ 14,000.00


$ 8,000.00
$ 22,000.00








Sixth Biennial Report

RECAPITULATION

Salaries
Administration, Board .................................. 5,000
Plant Commissioner's Office
(General Expenses) .............................. 20,500
Grove Inspection Department
(Citrus Canker Eradication).................... 209,000
Nursery Inspection Department............... 131,000
Quarantine Inspection Department........... 150,800
Department of Entomology ........................ 16,000
Investigation of Celery Pests .................. 12,800
Department of Plant Pathology-............... 19,000
Fumigation Investigations ................... 8,000
Department of Apiary Inspection
(Bee Disease Eradication) ................ 14,000
Totals .................. .................. .... $586,100
Emergency Fund ......................................


For Biennium
Expenses


Total


$ 3,000 $ 8,000
14,400 34,900


71,000
50,000
52,000
4,000
8,000
11,000
2,000


280,000
181,000
202,800
20,000
20,800
30,000
10,000


8,000 22,000
$223,400 $809,500
...........................$100,000
$909,500


FINANCIAL REPORT
FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1925

Tallahassee, Fla., October 1, 1925.
To the State Plant Board:
GENTLEMEN: I herewith submit the following report of the
receipts and disbursements of the Board during the fiscal year
beginning July 1, 1924, and ending June 30, 1925:
Summary of receipts and disbursements together with the
balances in the different funds of the State Plant Board.


Name of Fund Receipts
Continuing Appropriation,
Chapter 6885 ........ ...........$ 70,000.00
General Appropriation
Chapter 9121, Section 1...... 150,000.00
Controlling the Boll Weevil and
other Cotton Insects, Chap-
ter 9187 .... ............-- ..- 19,886.63
Emergency Appropriation
Chapter 9121, Section 2
Coconut Bud Rot Disease
Investigation --............-- 10,000.00
Citrus Aphis Investigation 10,000.00
Incidental Fund ....................----. 4,697.72
Total ........................-........... .$264,584.35


Disbursements Balances

$ 35,000.00 $ 35,000.00

150,000.00 .. ......


19,886.63


10,000.00
9,115.77
3,409.60
$227,412.00


884.23
1,288.12
$ 37,172.35








54 State Plant Board of Florida


CONTINUING APPROPRIATION (CHAPTER 6885)

RECEIPTS:
Balance Brought Forward July 1, 1924.----............----.......................$- 35,000.00
Continuing Appropriation Available May 1, 1925............................ 35,000.00
$70,000.00
DISBURSEMENTS:
Administrative:
For Salary of Secretary ...........................................$ 1,250.00
For Traveling Expenses Board Members.................. 457.26

$ 1,707.26
Plant Commissioner's Office:
For Salaries ................................................................. $ 6,760.00
For Traveling Expenses ................................................ 301.59
For Office Supplies ........................................................ 879.94
For Freight and Express ......-............................---- 20.62
For Printing ..---....................................... 2,768.93
For General Supplies .................................................... 7.00

$ 10,738.08
Entomological Department:
For Salaries .............-----.....---- ........................ 5,165.74
For Traveling Expenses ............................................ 216.42
For Office Supplies .......................-- ------....... .... 637.69
For Freight and Express ............................................ 8.40
For Printing ........................... .. ..... ............. 79.45
For General Supplies ......... .................................... 123.98

$ 6,231.68
Mosaic Disease Eradication:
For Salaries ....................----.. -------..---...----- $ 12.00
For Traveling Expenses .............................................. 710.59
For Office Supplies ...................................................... 7.40
For General Supplies .................................................. 42.40

$ 772.39
Citrus Canker Eradication:
For Salaries ......................... ..... .... .............. $ 5,989.99
For Traveling Expenses .............................................. 2,776.80
For Office Supplies ..................................................... 18.15
For General Supplies ................................................... 114.72
For Miscellaneous Expenses ........................................ 10.00
$ 8,909.66
Quarantine Department:
For Salaries ---.................... ...--- ...............----- 4,573.32
For Traveling Expenses ............................................ 1,826.82
For Office Supplies ...................................................... 210.49
For Freight and Express ........................................ 7.30
For Printing ................................. ...... ............ 23.00

$ 6,640.93

Total .................................... ... .............. ............................. $ 35,000.00
Balance Carried Forward July 1, 1925..............................................$ 35,000.00








Sixth Biennial Report 55

GENERAL APPROPRIATION, CHAPTER 9121, SECTION 1.
RECEIPTS:
Appropriation Available July 1, 1924........................... ........... $150,000.00
DISBURSEMENTS:
Citrus Canker Eradication:
For Salaries .. .. ............................... .......... 35,979.53
For Traveling Expenses .............................................. 13,652.92
For Office Supplies ...................................................... 686.00
For Freight and Express ............................................ 53.24
For Printing .................................................................. 10.65
For General Supplies .................................................... 6,749.83
For Miscellaneous Supplies.......................................... 80.00

$ 57,212.17
Nursery Inspection:
For Salaries ....-----.---------- .------- $26,321.34
For Traveling Expenses ........................................ 15,639.46
For Office Supplies ............................. .. ........... 1,557.83
For Freight and Express ............................................ .48
For Printing .................................. .................... 302.01
For General Supplies .................................................... 9.50

$ 43,830.62
Quarantine Department:
For Salaries ................ ............ ...................$22,378.46
For Traveling Expenses .............................................. 8,951.43
For Office Supplies ...................................................... 256.30
For Freight and Express ........................................ 163.57
For Printing .................. ........................................ 831.96
For General Supplies ........................................... 605.56
$ 33,187.28
Sweet Potato Weevil Eradication:
For Salaries .................................................................. $ 901.15
For Traveling Expenses .......................................... 565.38
For Office Supplies .................................................... 1.99
For Freight and Express .......................................... 39.00
For General Supplies .................................................... 341.87
$ 1,849.39
Bee Disease Eradication:
For Salaries ..................................................................$ 4,618.62
For Traveling Expenses ..................................... .. 2,158.49
For Office Supplies .................................................... 33.03
For Freight and Express ............................................ 4.36
For General Supplies .......................................... ..... 55.94
$ 6,870.44
Mosaic Disease Eradication:
For Salaries .............................................................$ 1.00
For Traveling Expenses ............................................ 100.50
For General Supplies ............................................... 133.00
$ 234.50
Department of Entomology:
For Salaries ...................................................... ........$ 766.65
For Office Supplies ............................................. 890.72
For Printing ...... ....... .... ............................. 150.50
For General Supplies .................................................. 187.19

$ 1,995.06








56 State Plant Board of Florida

Boll Weevil Investigation:
For Salaries .................. ...... .............................$ 1,650.00
$ 1,650.00
Administrative:
For Salary, Secretary Plant Board............................$ 250.00
$ 250.00
Plant Commissioner's Office:
For Salaries .................................. ......... ...................$ 1,225.00
For Traveling Expenses ............................................. 205.53
For Office Supplies ..................................................... 636.57
For Printing ........................................................... 562.44
For General Supplies .................................................. 291.00
$ 2,920.54

$150,000.00

EMERGENCY APPROPRIATION, CHAPTER 9121, SECTION 2.

Coconut Bud Rot Disease Investigation:
RECEIPTS:
Amount declared to be available by the Governor and the State
Plant Board ............ ....... ...... ..... ........... ........... ....................$ 10,000.00
DISBURSEMENTS:
For Salaries .......................... ... ............................ $ 4,511.34
For Traveling Expenses ......................................... 2,859.34
For Office Supplies .............................................. 215.94
For Freight and Express ................... ...... 21.19
For Printing ... ........ ....-.. .........-....--... ....... 5.00
For General Supplies ....................................... 2,387.19
$ 10,000.00
Citrus Aphis Investigation:
RECEIPTS:
Amount declared to be available by the Governor and the State
Plant Board ....... ............................. .................. ............. $ 10,000.00
DISBURSEMENTS:
For Salaries .............................. ......... ...... .$ 1,805.57
For Traveling Expenses ....................................... 2,884.67
For Office Supplies ................................. ........ 622.11
For Printing ....................... ................................. 63.45
For General Supplies ............................................... 2,739.97

$ 9,115.77

Balance Brought Forward July 1, 1925 .............................$ 884.23








Sixth Biennial Report


SPECIAL APPROPRIATION CONTROLLING THE BOLL WEEVIL AND
OTHER COTTON INSECTS, CHAPTER 9187.
RECEIPTS:
Balance Brought Forward July 1, 1924..................................... .$ 4,886.63
Appropriation Available July 1, 1924........................ ............ 15,000.00


DISBURSEMENTS :
Boll Weevil Investigation:
For Salaries ............................. .. ..... ..................... $
For Traveling Expenses ........................................
For Office Supplies ...........................................
For Freight and Express ..................................
F or Printing .................................................................
For General Supplies ................................. ......
For Miscellaneous Expenses ................................

Cotton Disease Investigation:
For Salaries ........... .---. ---------....................- - $
For Traveling Expenses ..........................................
For Office Supplies .............--...... ..........-............
For Freight and Express .........................................
For Printing .....................------................... .......
For General Supplies ..........................----.............---

Fertilizer and Variety Tests:
For Salaries ..........--- --......-------------....................... $
For Traveling Expenses .................................
For Office Supplies ............................................... ...
For Freight and Express ...............................
For General Supplies ..-..............- ------.-- -...
For Miscellaneous Expenses ....-................................

Administrative Expenses:
For Freight and Express .........................................$.


$ 19,886.63


4,666.86
1,351.20
279.62
66.86
25.18
1,115.98
100.00


4,311.75
473.70
713.42
134.70
17.50
2,634.41


1,746.67
189.44
232.11
29.84
1,327.14
468.27


1.98


INCIDENTAL FUND


$ 7,605.70






$ 8,285.48






$ 3,993.47


$ 1.98
$ 19,886.63


RECEIPTS: I ', "
Balance Brought Forward July 1, 1924-.............. ... .....................$. 2,158.97
Receipts Collected July 1, 1924 to July 1, 1925....-............................ 2,538.75
A n rnn


DISBURSEMENTS:
For Salaries ................... ....... .....--.....-.--------$
For Traveling Expenses ...........-- ...-......
For Office Supplies .. ------------------
For Freight and Express ....... .................
For Printing ...............- ........
For General Supplies ....................... .- --.........
For Miscellaneous Expenses ...........................


1,653.28
243.02
371.24
51.09
225.36
565.61
300.00


$ 3,409.60

Balance Carried Forward July 1, 1925....................................... .$ 1,288.12
Respectfully submitted,
J. T. DIAMOND,
Secretary, State Plant Board.








58 State Plant Board of Florida

FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1926.
Tallahassee, Florida, Oct. 1, 1926.
To the State Plant Board:
GENTLEMEN: I herewith submit the following report of the
receipts and disbursements of the Board for the fiscal year be-
ginning July 1, 1925, and ending June 30, 1926.
Summary of receipts and disbursements together with the
balances in the different funds of the State Plant Board.

Name of the Fund Receipts Disbursements Balances
Continuing Appropriation,
Chapter 6885 ..----.. --..........$ 70,000.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 35,000.00
General Appropriation,
Chapter 11,332 ........................ 221,205.00 212,856.87 8,348.13
Emergency Appropriation,
Chapter 11,332, Section 2
Citrus Aphis Investigation.. 10,884.23 9,379.55 1,504.68
Incidental Fund .........-................... 4,913.06 3,352.97 1,560.09
Total .......................................$307,002.29 $260,589.39 $ 46,412.90

CONTINUING APPROPRIATION (CHAPTER 6885)
RECEIPTS:
Balance Brought Forward, July 1, 1925.......................... ..........$ 35,000.00
Continuing Appropriation Available May 1, 1926............................ 35,000.00

$ 70,000.00
DISBURSEMENTS:
Administrative:
For Salary of Secretary ......................................$ 1,250.00
For Traveling Expenses, Board Members................ 640.49

$ 1,890.49
Plant Commissioner's Office:
For Salaries .......... ....................................................... $ 7,400.00
For Traveling Expenses .............................................. 592.19
For Office Supplies ..................................................... 2,293.30
For Freight and Express ............................................ 10.38
For Printing ---........ .................................... ...... ....... 992.01
$ 11,287.88
Entomological Department:
For Salaries ........................- ..................................- $ 5,846.60
For Traveling Expenses .............................................. 74.93
For Office Supplies ...................................................... 593.01
For Freight and Express ............................................ 11.93
For Printing .................................................................. 41.25
For General Supplies .................................................... 703.69
$ 7,271.41
Mosaic Disease Eradication:
For Salaries .......................... ..... ................................ 77.50
For Traveling Expenses ............................................ 749.54
For Office Supplies ...................................................... 2.20
$ 829.24







Sixth Biennial Report 59

Citrus Canker Eradication:
For Salaries ............ ........... ......................... 9,771.99
For Traveling Expenses .............................................. 3,623.72
For Office Supplies .................................................. 61.08
For General Supplies .................................-........ 239.19
$ 13,695.98
Nursery Inspection:
For Office Supplies ................................................ $ 25.00

Total ........................................ ............................... ................ $ 35,000.00
Balance Carried Forward, July 1, 1926........................................$ 35,000.00

GENERAL APPROPRIATION, CHAPTER 11,332.
RECEIPTS:
Appropriation Available July 1, 1925. -... ....... ............ .........$221,205.00
DISBURSEMENTS:
Citrus Canker Eradication:
For Salaries ................ .................. ................$42,045.16
For Traveling Expenses .......................................... 17,071.63
For Office Supplies .................................................... 281.27
For Freight and Express .......................................... 54.10
For Printing ..................................... 17.25
For General Supplies ................................................ 1,187.03
For All Other Purposes ............................................. 45.00

Nursery Inspection: $ 60,701.44
For Salaries ..........................................................$37,949.75
For Traveling Expenses ................................... 14,887.36
For Office Supplies .................................................... 3,521.07
For Freight and Express ...................................... 7.86
For Printing .................... ........................................... 566.18
For General Supplies ............................................ 7,903.69

Quarantine Department: $ 64,835.91
For Salaries ........................................ ....... ............ $32,607.28
For Traveling Expenses .............................................. 11,666.91
For Office Supplies ...................................................... 764.88
For Freight and Express .......................................... 98.32
For Printing .............................................................. 219.98
For General Supplies ................................................ 2,395.03
$ 47,752.40
Sweet Potato Weevil Eradication:
For Salaries ...............................................................$ 330.65
For Traveling Expenses ............................................ 377.88
For Office Supplies .................................................... 1.13

Bee Disease Eradication: $ 709.66
For Salaries .................................................................... $ 3,313.30
For Traveling Expenses .......................................... 2,089.18
For Office Supplies .................................................... 5.74
For Freight and Express .......................................... 1.24
For Printing .................................................................. 25.00
For General Supplies ............................................... 44.98
For A Other Purposes .............................................. 17.50
$ 5,496.94







60 State Plant Board of Florida

Coconut Bud Rot Survey:
For Salaries ...........................................- .$ 8,038.32
For Traveling Expenses ..................................... 1,709.88
For Office Supplies .................................................... 272.01
For Freight and Express ....................................... 13.82
For General Supplies ................................................ 3,375.45

$ 13,409.48
Plant Pathology:
For Salaries ...................... .... ..........................$ 1,949.98
For Traveling Expenses ......................................... 78.15

$ 2,028.13
Department of Entomology:
For Salaries ....................... .................... ......... $ 1,202.82
For Traveling Expenses ................................... 20.95
For Office Supplies .................................................... 442.48
For Printing ............................................................ 485.00
For General Supplies ................................... ..... 242.57

$ 2,393.82
Mosaic Disease Eradication:
For Traveling Expenses ......................... .... .........$ 90.00

$ 90.00
Celery Disease Investigation:
For Salaries ..................................................$-- 4,183.33
For Traveling Expenses ............................................. 518.46
For Office Supplies ............................... -- .. 399.72
For Freight and Express ...... .................. 1.00
For General Supplies .........-...................- ....... 639.08

$ 5,741.59
Strawberry Disease Investigation:
For Salaries ............................. ......... .............. 2,241.79
For Traveling Expenses ................................. .. 797.08
For Office Supplies ................................... ....... 168.08
For Freight and Express ................................... 23.18
For Printing ............ ........... ........ 1,313.66
For General Supplies .............................. ...... 690.22

$ 5,234.01
Plant Commissioner's Office:
For Salaries .................... ................................ .... $ 1,500.00
For Traveling Expenses .......................................... 312.60
For Office Supplies ...................................... 865.93
For Freight and Express ................................. 53.16
For Printing .............................................. 1,481.80

$ 4,213.49
Administrative:
For Salary, Secretary Plant Board ................... ...$ 250.00
$ 250.00

$212,856.87
Balance Carried Forward, July 1, 1926..................................$ 8,348.13




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