• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Report of state plant board
 Report of the plant commission...
 Report of board’s secretary














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/UF00098574/00005
 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: 1928/30
Frequency: biennial
regular
 Subjects
Subject: Plants, Protection of -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
Periodicals   ( lcsh )
 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: VID00005
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 1
        Page 2
    Table of Contents
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Report of state plant board
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Report of the plant commissioner
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
    Report of board’s secretary
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
Full Text




STATE


PLANT BOARD


OF FLORIDA







REPORT FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 1928-
JUNE 30, 1930

(Eighth Biennial Report)


FEBRUARY. 1931




102
F6 4 I
AGRI.
CULTURAL
LIBRARY








STATE PLANT BOARD
of Florida
P. K. YONGE, Chairman. .............. ---. Pensacola
FRANK J. WIDEMAN ............................................. West Palm Beach
R. F. MAGUIRE-.............................................. ........ Orlando
W B. DAVIS............................................................ Perry
ALBERT H. BLANDING ..........................................B.Bartow
J. T. DIAMOND, Secretary and Auditor................Tallahassee

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







CONTENTS
PAGE
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL ...................... ......... ............... 5
REPORT OF STATE PLANT BOARD............................... ........... 5
REPORT OF THE PLANT COMMISSIONER..................... ........ 9
INTRODUCTION ..................... ..................... ....................... .. ... .. 9
SECTION I ...................................... .......... .........- ......-... 10
Mediterranean Fruit Fly Report-.................... ...................... 10
Introduction ......................... ................................... ......... 10
Early Developm ents ................. .. ................. .. .............. 11
Florida Legislative Committee ................................. ................... 15
Eradication Campaign .............................. ...... ... ------- 16
Plan of Cam paign .................. ................................... 16
Inspection ................................ .... ...... ........ .. 17
Identifications --..... ...... ...... .................. ........ ..... -- 17
Prevention of Spread... ...... .. ............. ..... ................. 18
Host-free Period ........------------............................... 20
Spraying ................. .... ..... .... ........ 20
Trap Survey ........................................ 21
Official Committee Reports ................................. .... .... .. 21
Report of Committee of Seven.................... ......... ......... 22
Report of Committee of Five.................................... ........ 26
Publicity ............. ........................... ........... ........ 29
Organization ................................................ .......... 30
Concentration of Inspectors.................... ....................... 31
Labor and Equipment...-.... ...... ........ .......... ....... 32
Research Section ........... ....... ......... .............. 35
Degree and Extent of Infestation-...................... -----..-- .. 36
Infestation Count in the Hamlin Grove............................---. -----37
Citrus Not Only Host Infested Under Field Conditions-... 39
Infestations Found by Growers ........................ ................. 40
Infestation Count Not Made in Every Grove...................... 40
Extent of Infestation.................. .. ... .. .. ......... 41
The Eradication A rea ........................................ ............... 41
Orlando the Original Place of Establishment...................... 43
Not Previously Present for a Considerable Period.............. 43
Host Fruits and Vegetables......... ................... ...... ....... 45
Progress of Eradication Campaign.............. .... ................... 49
Spray Program .................................. ...................... 53
Summary and Conclusions of Citrus Growers' Investiga-
tional Committee on the Use and Effect of Arsenical
Bait Spray Against the Mediterranean Fruit Fly...... 55
Traps ........................................ ........... ....... ......... 57
Analysis of Results ................................... ............ ......... 58
Developments Since Fall of 1929........................................... 58
Federal Fruit Fly Board.................................. ------ 59
Developments Since June 30, 1930......................................... 60
Extent of Infestations Summer and Fall of 1930.............. 61
Cooperative Spray Activity .................................................... 61
Removal of Guards on Eradication Area Boundaries........ 62
Identification of Specimens .................---.....--..............-- 63
Revisions in Quarantines .................. ..........-.............. 63
Appropriations ........................ ... ................. 66





PAGE
Quarantines .........................-................ .. ... ...-....... ...------.....-....... 67
Rules and Regulations Relating to the Handling of the
Mediterranean Fruit Fly Adopted, Amended or Re-
pealed by the State Plant Board Between April 15,
1929, and December 31, 1930.......................................... 68
Changes in Quarantine No. 68, Plant Quarantine and
Control Administration, United States Department
of A agriculture ............................... ................. ................ 78
Relief Afforded by Revision of Notice of Quarantine No.
68 Effective September 1, 1929, as Compared with
Original Quarantine and Administrative Instructions
Supplemental Thereto ...................... ................. ..... 81
Summary Section Reports ........................................ 82
Field Inspection Section .................. .. . .... ............... 82
Quarantine Enforcement Section ......................................... 82
Perm it Section ................... .... .................. .................. .. 82
Transit Inspection Report ............................................. ...... 82
Report of Packing Houses, Processing Plants, Cold Stor-
age Plants, Railroads and Screening Section.............. 83
Clean-up Section ................................................. ................. 84
Trap Survey Division ........................................... ... 86
SECTION II
Departm mental Reports ..................................................... 88
Nursery Inspection Department ............................................ 88
Summary Nursery Inspection Department, Bien-
nium Ending June 30, 1930.................................... 89
Department of Grove Inspection (Citrus Canker Eradica-
tion) ............----.............. ..... ----- .------- 89
General Summary Citrus Canker Eradication as of
June 30, 1930 ...................... ....----- ----............. 90
Summary of Grove Inspection and Citrus Canker
Eradication Department, Biennium Ending June
30, 1930 ..................................... ........... ......... 91
Quarantine Inspection Department..-- -.............................. 92
Summary of Activities of the Department Since It
W as Inaugurated .....................................------....... .. 93
Departments of Entomology and Plant Pathology............. 95
Specimens Examined and Recorded Annually from
April 30, 1915, through June 30, 1930.................... 95
Apiary Inspection Department ---....................................... 96
Summary of Apiary Inspection Work Since the Depart-
ment Was Created in July, 1919--------............................ 96
Miscellaneous
Rules and Regulations Adopted, Revised or Repealed.. 97
Search for Blackfly Parasites ........................................ 97
Fumigation Investigations ........................ ... ............. 99
Bulb Inspection .......---................----------------- 99
Outside Relations ............................................ 99
SECTION III
Estimates of Funds Needed for Board's Work............................ 100
REPORT OF BOARD'S SECRETARY
JULY 1, 1928, TO JUNE 30, 1929............................ ........................ 104
JULY 1, 1929, TO JUNE 30, 1930................................................................ 109






Eighth Biennial Report


LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
February 1, 1931.
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, 1930. Please
submit same to the Legislature.
Respectfully,
STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA
BY P. K. YONGE,
Chairman.



REPORT OF STATE PLANT BOARD
In accordance with established practice, the State Plant Board
here presents for the information of the executive and legislative
branches of the state government and of the people of the state
an account of its activities during the biennial period ending
June 30, 1930. As in the past, the administrative and field op-
erations of the Board have been conducted through the Plant
Commissioner as executive officer of the Board. Under the
Plant Commissioner the work has been carried on through sev-
eral departments or divisions, namely: Grove Inspection,
Nursery Inspection, Quarantine, Apiary Inspection, Entomology
and Pathology, and, subsequent to April, 1929, Mediterranean
Fruit Fly Inspection and Eradication. A recital of these ac-
tivities is given in the report of the Plant Commissioner, which
is included as a part of the Board's Biennial Report.
The biennium was marked by the discovery in the state of the
Mediterranean fruit fly and the launching, in cooperation with
the Federal Government, of a campaign to eradicate this men-
ace to the prosperity of Florida and the country. This discov-
ery was made April 6, 1929. Immediately thereafter, recogniz-






State Plant Board of Florida


ing the emergency, the Plant Board force and all its resources
were mobilized for the undertaking. Likewise, a number of at-
taches of the Agricultural Experiment Station, the College of
Agriculture, and the Agricultural Extension Service were trans-
ferred, for varying periods, to the fruit fly force. The United
States Department of Agriculture hastened to join in the effort
and soon made available large sums for the project. The work-
ing understanding between the State and Federal Governments
was of such a satisfactory nature that, even under the urgent
necessity for speed, the campaign was carried forward efficient-
ly, economically and successfully. This particular phase of
Plant Board work is covered in the section of the Plant Commis-
sioner's report devoted to the fruit fly campaign. The state and
nation are to be congratulated on the apparent success which
attended the eradication effort. Attention is directed to the fact
that, effective November 15, 1930, on order of Honorable Arthur
M. Hyde, United States Secretary of Agriculture, all quarantine
restrictions on Florida products on account of the Mediterranean
fruit fly were withdrawn.
In connection with the inauguration of the fruit fly work, there
was made available for expenditure in the campaign the emergen-
cy fund of $50,000 provided for the use of the Plant Board. This
was by joint action of the Governor and the Board. But for the
wisdom of the State Legislature in incorporating this item in the
budget the situation would have been even more acute than it
was. There would have been delays and handicaps which might
have seriously affected the ultimate outcome. Although the Fed-
eral Government was prompt in acting, yet until it did appropri-
ate large sums, the relatively small state resources, including the
emergency fund, served to start the work and to bridge the gap.
Permit us to point out here that although the "emergency fund"
has been provided by the State Legislature for a number of
years, yet on only two former occasions was it found necessary
to draw upon it, and in each of these instances for comparatively
small amounts. It is the hope and expectation and the earnest
recommendation of the Board that the forthcoming Legislature
will continue the wise policy of providing an emergency fund.
As is indicated in the report of the Plant Commissioner, the
section of that report covering the fruit fly campaign is for
the period from April 6, 1929, to December 31, 1930. It is our
thought that by this extension of the report a fairly complete






Eighth Biennial Report


and comprehensive story is told, which would not be the case
if the report stopped abruptly with the end of the biennium,
June 30, 1930.
On account of the fruit fly emergency, all available field men
were transferred to that activity, thus occasioning a suspension
or curtailment of other vital lines of work. Just as rapidly as
possible, with the building up of a special organization to con-
duct the fly campaign, the men who had been drafted from the
Nursery, Quarantine and other Departments were returned to
their regular duties. This was not possible in the case of certain
individuals connected with these departments, nor in the case
of the men transferred from the grove inspection service. The
inspectors engaged in the regular grove inspection (canker
eradication) work for the Plant Board were not returned to
that service until the latter part of March, 1930. This was, in
effect, a suspension of canker inspection for practically a year,
although these men, in the course of their fruit fly inspection
work, did a certain amount of inspection for citrus canker.
With the resumption of the grove inspection work by the Plant
Board organization, the force was considerably augmented and
it is expected that the lost time will therefore be made up par-
tially and that the customary citrus grove inspection for canker
will be completed by June 30, 1931.
The report of the Plant Commissioner shows that there has
been an increase in the volume of traffic through Florida ports.
The most striking development has been the expansion of air
transport. Miami is the base port for the operation of planes
to Central and South America and the West Indian Islands.
There is every prospect that the expansion of air transport,
with its accompanying dangers of plant pest introduction, will
continue. This situation can only be safeguarded by continued
vigilance.
The nursery inspection service has not been called upon to
meet new demands, for the number of nurseries and the quan-
tity of stock are not as great as in the immediately preceding
biennium. This has permitted of more intensive work upon the
part of the inspectors in this service.
The Board has prepared and submitted to the Budget Commis-
sion estimates for the next biennium. These are shown in the
Plant Commissioner's report. We direct attention to the fact
that the sum total of these estimates does not exceed the amount







State Plant Board of Florida


made available for the current biennium, except for the supple-
mental item for fruit fly inspection.
The financial statements of the Board's Secretary for the fis-
cal years of the biennium are presented as a part of this re-
port. The Board believes that at the present rate of expenditure
there will be a considerable sum to revert to the state treasury
at the end of the fiscal year, 1930-31. This, of course, is made
possible through the curtailment in routine work during the
fruit fly campaign.
At this time the membership of the Board is as follows: P. K.
Yonge, W. B. Davis, R. F. Maguire, A. H. Blanding and F. J.
Wideman. P. K. Yonge is Chairman and J. T. Diamond is Sec-
retary.
Regular monthly meetings have been held throughout the
biennium. A number of special meetings were held in connec-
tion with the fruit fly campaign dealing with matters of policy
and practice and for the purpose of making frequent necessary
changes in rules and regulations called for by changing condi-
tions in the campaign. It is worthy of note and special comment
that in both state and federal regulations there was a constant
trend throughout the period of the eradication effort in the di-
rection of lessening the severity of the regulations.
Special meetings of the Board were held as follows: In 1929,
April 27, Orlando; May 4, Orlando; May 28, Gainesville; June
8, Jacksonville; July 26, Orlando; and in 1930, January 4, Or-
lando; February 12, Orlando; March 31, Tallahassee; May 3,
Gainesville; June 2, Gainesville.
In addition to the regular and special meetings, arrangements
were made so that during the fruit fly campaign one or more
members of the Board were available at practically all times for
consultation and advice. This arrangement served a very useful
purpose and, we believe, proved of value to both federal and
state field executives.
The reports of the Plant Commissioner and the Secretary are
transmitted herewith.
STATE PLANT BOARD,
P. K. YONGE,
Chairman.







Eighth Biennial Report


REPORT OF THE PLANT COMMISSIONER

For Biennium Ending June 30, 1930

Gainesville, Florida,
January 12, 1931.
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, 1930.
Respectfully,
WILMON NEWELL,
Plant Commissioner.


INTRODUCTION

The Plant Commissioner submits herewith the customary
biennial report covering the activities of the Board under his
direction for the period ending June 30, 1930. The routine work
of the Board through its several departments has continued ef-
ficiently, notwithstanding the interruption and disruption oc-
casioned by the discovery of the Mediterranean fruit fly in Flor-
ida in April, 1929. This discovery and the campaign to eradi-
cate this pest, which was launched immediately, called for a
concentration of forces and resources which inevitably affected
other activities for the time being. With the development of
an organization and its financing through special state and fed-
eral action, it became possible within a short time to resume in
a normal way most of the routine work interrupted in the emer-
gency. In the case of the Grove Inspection (citrus canker eradi-
cation) Department the suspension of field work extended over
a somewhat longer period. The inspectors connected with this
department continued on the Mediterranean fruit fly activity for
practically a year, from early April, 1929, to late March, 1930.
The work of the several departments is outlined in the follow-
ing report under appropriate headings.
By far the most important effort of the Board during the bi-
ennium was in connection with the eradication of the Mediter-
ranean fruit fly, and by far the greater portion of this report






State Plant Board of Florida


is devoted to a recital of the conduct of that campaign. The
discovery of the presence of the Mediterranean fruit fly oc-
casioned the gravest concern. There was no delay in grappling
with the situation, and the joint efforts of state and federal
forces were directed toward complete extermination. The dif-
ficulties were fully appreciated. The stupendous magnitude of
the task was recognized. Nevertheless, the attempt was made
and fortunately apparently was attended with success, for on
November 15, 1930, the United States Secretary of Agriculture,
Honorable Arthur M. Hyde, announced that the quarantine on
the products of Florida had been removed.
It should be stated at this point that the fortunate outcome
of the eradication project is in large measure due to the hearty
cooperation of the people of Florida, for without the support
of the general public and the producers and shippers of fruits
and vegetables, the efforts of the state and federal forces would
have been of no avail.
It is thought desirable that the whole story of the battle to
exterminate the Mediterranean fruit fly in Florida should be
told in one account, and a report on this subject up to December
31, 1930, rather than to the end of the biennium, June 30, 1930,
is therefore submitted.


SECTION I

MEDITERRANEAN FRUIT FLY REPORT
INTRODUCTION
The Plant Commissioner presents his report on the Mediter-
ranean fruit fly eradication campaign for the period from April
6, 1929, to December 31, 1930. No attempt has been made to
prepare two annual reports covering the periods from April 6
to June 30, 1929, and from July 1 to June 30, 1930, as has been
customary heretofore. It is believed the value of this report
will be greatly increased by consolidating the activities of the
two periods into one volume, thus providing a full and complete
report on the activities of the fruit fly campaign from its in-
ception to December 31, 1930.






Eighth Biennial Report


EARLY DEVELOPMENTS
On Saturday, April 6, 1929, larvae recognized as those of
some species of fruit fly were found in grapefruit being pre-
pared for the evening meal by J. C. Goodwin, Nursery Inspector
of the State Plant Board, at his home in Gainesville. The in-
fested fruit had been given to Mr. Goodwin several days pre-
viously by employees of the Bureau of Entomology, United
States Department of Agriculture, located at Orlando, Florida.
On the morning of Monday, April 8, these larvae were identified
by E. W. Berger, Entomologist, G. B. Merrill, Associate Ento-
mologist, and J. C. Goodwin, Nursery Inspector, all of the State
Plant Board, and D. B. Mackie, Senior Entomologist of the Cali-
fornia Department of Agriculture, who was in the state at that
time, as being larvae of some fruit fly. As the Board did not
possess a complete collection of fruit fly larvae for purposes
of comparison, it was impossible for these specialists to make
a definite identification. Specimens of the larvae were taken
to Washington, D. C., on April 8, by J. H. Montgomery, Assistant
Plant Commissioner, and were there identified tentatively by
C. T. Greene, fruit fly specialist of the Bureau of Entomology,
as being larvae of Anastrepha, probably fraterculus. Adult
specimens, collected by representatives of the Bureau of Ento-
mology, United States Department of Agriculture, were sent by
air mail from Orlando directly to Washington and were identified
on April 10, as being Mediterranean fruit fly by C. T. Green
and J. M. Aldrich, the latter Dipterologist and Associate Curator
of the National Museum at Washington, D. C. On April 11,
adults collected at the same time and in the same property as
those sent to Washington were determined by G. B. Merrill, As-
sociate Entomologist of the State Plant Board, as Mediterranean
fruit fly.
On April 8 inspectors of the Board were sent to Orlando to
investigate the source of the fruit secured by Mr. Goodwin.
These men arrived at the Bureau of Entomology Laboratory
about six o'clock that evening, and discovered infested fruit
under several grapefruit trees growing on the laboratory
grounds. Whether the fruit found infested with Mediterranean
fruit fly in Gainesville, Florida, came from these trees or not
is not definitely known.
All available Plant Board inspectors were ordered to report
to Orlando, and a hurried survey of all citrus plantings in Orange






State Plant Board of Florida


County was started. This survey showed many groves to be in-
fested, and by April 30 infestations had been found in 364 prop-
erties in 51 separate localities in 11 different counties.
On April 9 the Plant Commissioner, appreciating the serious-
ness of the situation and having reached the decision that im-
mediate steps should be taken with a view to eradicating this
pest frcm Florida, wired J. H. Montgomery, who was at that
time in Washington, to secure all possible information from the
Washington authorities which might be of use in handling the
situation. Acting upon these instructions, Doctor Montgomery
was in constant contact with responsible officials of the De-
partment of Agriculture discussing the situation as it developed.
On April 9, a conference was held in the office of the Secretary
of Agriculture. The conference was participated in by a num-
ber of the officials of the Department, including, among others,
A. F. Woods, Director of Research, W. C. Campbell, Director
of Regulatory Work, C. L. Marlatt, Chief of the Plant Quaran-
tine and Control Administration and head of the Bureau of
Entomology, A. C. Baker, in charge of the Division of Tropical
and Sub-tropical Insect Investigations for the Bureau of En-
tomology, W. A. Taylor and Karl F. Kellerman, Chief and Asso-
ciate Chief, respectively, of the Bureau of Plant Industry, J. E.
Graf, Assistant Chief of the Bureau of Entomology, and W. A.
Jump, Budget Officer of the Department of Agriculture. At
this conference the gravity of the situation and the importance
of prompt and vigorous action were recognized. A decision
was reached that Doctors Marlatt and Baker should proceed
to Florida, survey the situation and formulate preliminary plans
in conjunction with the State Plant Board for the eradication
campaign. The financing of such an activity was discussed at
length and arrangements were made for the immediate diversion
of funds from other appropriations of the Department for use
in Florida.
On April 11, C. L. Marlatt (Chief of the Plant Quarantine and
Control Administration), A. C. Baker (Entomologist in charge
of Tropical and Sub-tropical Insect Investigations, Bureau of
Entomology), and J. H. Montgomery (Assistant Plant Commis-
sioner and Quarantine Inspector of the State Plant Board),
arrived in Orlando. The officials of the Plant Quarantine and
Control Administration concurred in the preliminary plans as
formulated by the Plant Commissioner as Executive Officer of
the State Plant Board for the eradication of the fly. Doctor






Eighth Biennial Report


Marlatt as Chief of the Plant Quarantine and Control Admin-
istration and representing the Secretary of Agriculture re-
quested that the Plant Commissioner head the cooperative ac-
tivity in Florida. That evening a meeting attended by Doctors
Marlatt and Baker and the Plant Commissioner and by promi-
nent growers, shippers, representatives of the press and other
interests, was held at the Government Laboratory at Orlando
and the situation fully discussed.
On April 14 eight of the most experienced inspectors of the
Plant Quarantine and Control Administration who had been
engaged in the Morelos fruit fly eradication campaign in the
Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, headed by P. A. Hoidale,
in charge of that project, arrived at Orlando to assist in the
campaign in Florida. Included in this party was Foster H.
Benjamin, a specialist in the identification of fruit flies. From
the date of Mr. Benjamin's arrival in Orlando to the present
time he has made all identifications of the Mediterranean fruit
fly.
On April 15, the Plant Board held a public hearing in Gaines-
ville, which hearing was attended by Doctor Marlatt and repre-
sentatives of growers, shippers, transportation and allied busi-
ness interests. At this meeting the Board confirmed the pro-
gram for eradication as formulated and presented by Doctors
Marlatt and Newell and authorized the Plant Commissioner to
accept the offer of the Administration to act as its agent in
charge of the field work in Florida. At the same time rules
and regulations necessary for such an eradication program were
adopted by the Board.
On the same date, April 15, through joint action of the Board
and Governor Doyle E. Carlton, the emergency fund of $50,000
provided by the previous session of the Florida Legislature, was
released for immediate use. Other funds were diverted from
the regular appropriations of the Board and made available for
use in the emergency.
On April 15, the date of the public hearing held by the Plant
Board at Gainesville, notice of a similar hearing to be held by
the Plant Quarantine and Control Administration at Washing-
ton, D. C., on April 28 was published. The purpose of this hear-
ing was to consider placing quarantines against Florida products
in order to prevent the spread of the Mediterranean fruit fly
through interstate movement of host fruits and vegetables.






State Plant Board of Florida


The Plant Board was represented at this hearing by J. H. Mont-
gomery and H. H. Hume.
On April 16, a conference between the Plant Commissioner
and growers, civic and county officials, representatives of the
banking, real estate, legal and hotel interests was held in Or-
lando to discuss the desirability of calling out the National Guard
to act as quarantine guards on the limits of the infested area.
It was felt that guards should be placed immediately to prevent
the movement of infested material into the non-infested areas
of the state, and that time was too short to hire and train civilian
guards. A resolution was drawn up by those present petition-
ing the Governor to call out the National Guard immediately.
On the same date, His Excellency, Governor Doyle E. Carlton,
authorized the use of members of the Florida National Guard,
acting as agents of the Plant Board, for enforcement of the state
quarantine to prevent the distribution of infested material from
the affected areas. The first contingent of the National Guard
commenced road patrol work on April 18. Between the finding
of the first infestation and the time the National Guard took
over the patrol work, city police of Orlando and county traffic
officers of Orange County rendered efficient service in inter-
cepting and preventing movement of citrus fruits by trucks
from the infested area to points outside thereof.
On April 16, the Washington office of the Plant Quarantine
and Control Administration sent H. T. Cronin to Orlando as
fiscal agent for that organization. Inasmuch as both Federal
and State funds were expended in this cooperative activity, Mr.
Cronin was on April 27 appointed to act in a similar capacity
for the Plant Board and, after furnishing a $15,000 fidelity bond,
$10,000 of State funds were turned over to him as a "revolving
fund" to care for necessary immediate expenditures which could
not readily be handled through customary channels.
On April 17, the United States Department of Agriculture
made available $40,000 for the campaign against the fly, which
sum was transferred from the pink bollworm appropriation of
the Plant Quarantine and Control Administration. Of this
amount $32,194.88 was expended and the balance eventually
transferred back to the pink bollworm account.
On April 23, ten agents of the Plant Quarantine and Control
Administration arrived in Orlando to assist in the inspectional
work. These men had been employed on the pink bollworm
project in Texas.





Eighth Biennial Report


On May 1, 1929, Quarantine 68 of the Plant Quarantine and
Control Administration became effective. This quarantine had
two main objectives: (a) the prevention of the spread of the
Mediterranean fruit fly from the infested areas, and (b) the
eradication of the pest. These two objectives were so closely
related that whatever contributed to the success of one likewise
had an effect on the other. The quarantine therefore prescribed
the conditions under which Florida products susceptible to fruit
fly attack could be shipped into other states and also laid down
in a more or less definite form the program to be followed in
the eradication campaign which had been determined upon. As
any quarantine effort within the state as well as the actual eradi-
cation activity could only be carried forward under the police
power of the state, Quarantine 68 laid down as conditions under
which interstate commerce in host fruits and vegetables could
be continued the requirement that an intrastate quarantine
must be maintained and also that a serious effort be made to
eradicate the fly. In this latter direction Quarantine 68 went
into rather lengthy detail as to the measures to be used and the
manner of their application. In this connection we quote here-
with a portion of Regulation 2 of Quarantine 68, effective May
1, 1929:
"The interstate movement of restricted articles from any part
of the State of Florida will be conditioned on the said State
providing for and enforcing the following eradication and con-
trol measures in manner and by method satisfactory to the
United States Department of Agriculture, namely:" Then fol-
lowed the conditions which as already indicated covered the
eradication program to be followed and the maintenance of an
effective intrastate quarantine.
On May 2 the sum of $4,250,000.00 was made available by con-
gressional action for fruit fly inspection and eradication pur-
pcses.
On June 7 the Legislature appropriated the sum of $500,000
for fruit fly eradication in Florida.
FLORIDA LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
In order that close contact could be maintained between the
members of the Legislature and the officials in charge of eradi-
cation activities, not only for the purpose of securing any leg-
islation needed in connection with the Mediterranean fruit fly
work, but to serve as a standing committee to cooperate with,






State Plant Board of Florida


support and assist the State Plant Board in its fight on the fly,
a Legislative Committee was created in the last session of the
Legislature. This committee consisted of: Senator A. W. Young,
Vero Beach, Chairman; Senator J. J. Parrish, Titusville; Sen-
ator John J. Swearingen, Bartow; Representative S. W. Getzen,
Speaker, House of Representatives, Bushnell; Representative
I. N. Kennedy, Eustis; Representative Geo. I. Fullerton, New
Smyrna; Representative A. O. Kanner, Stuart.
Reports were made to the members of the Committee at
various times during the course of the campaign, and the Com-
mittee kept in close touch with the situation. The advice and
counsel of the Committee were sought and freely given, and were
of great value to the authorities.

ERADICATION CAMPAIGN
Plan of Campaign
At the request of the Plant Quarantine and Control Adminis-
tration and with the approval of the State Plant Board the Plant
Commissioner was placed in charge of the undertaking both
for the United States Department of Agriculture and for the
State of Florida. A plan of campaign looking to the extermina-
tion of the Mediterranean fruit fly in Florida was laid down.
Certain modifications of this plan were made from time to time
as conditions indicated or necessitated, but in the main it was
adhered to throughout. This program, which was carefully
worked out in detail, embraced the following features:
1. The division of the state into (a) Infested Zones, which
included the area within one mile of any property on or in which
infestation had been determined and (b) Protective Zones, which
included the area within nine miles of the outside boundary of
any infested zones.
2. Intensive inspections throughout the state.
3. The destruction of all host fruits and vegetables in in-
fested properties as rapidly as found, together with the destruc-
tion of such material in the surrounding mile (infested) zones.
4. Application of a poison bait spray throughout both in-
fested and protective zones.
5. For the purpose of maintaining a summer host-free pe-
riod the destruction of all summer-ripening host fruits and the
prohibition of summer-ripening vegetables in both infested and
protective zones.





Eighth Biennial Report


6. In the infested zones, the removal of all citrus and other
host fruits or host vegetables (throughout the year) prior to
their reaching a stage of maturity susceptible to the fly, and
as to host vegetables, the prohibition of planting such vege-
tables "until the State Plant Board, with the approval of the
United States Department of Agriculture, shall determine that
all infestation in such zone has been eliminated and that the
restrictions of this paragraph shall no longer remain in force
with respect thereto".
7. Requirement of orchard and packing house controls, con-
trol of transportation in interstate and intrastate commerce,
control of motor vehicle and other road movement and other
features of sanitation and protection enforced under state au-
thority within the infested and protective zones.

Inspection
It was necessary to determine where the Mediterranean fruit
fly was in Florida, how heavy the infestation was, what fruits
were hosts, and such field information covering its life history
as might be necessary for the handling of the project. Inspec-
tion was of three kinds: scouting by special, high-grade men
to secure an early comprehension of the situation; standard, a
more detailed inspection but still quite rapid; and intense, dur-
ing which an area in which the scouts had located the insect was
examined in minute detail. It became apparent at an early date
that the insect had confined its work to cultivated economic or
ornamental fruits. The fruits of vegetable plants were never
found infested in the field nor had the insect attacked the wild
fruits except in a single instance. Many fruits and vegetables
were attacked when confined with the insect in cages, but the
fly population had apparently not become dense enough for it
to infest these same fruits and vegetables under open field con-
ditions. Up to December 31, 1930, 1002 infested properties were
found varying all the way from a single fruit or tree on a prop-
erty to those in which infestation was almost 100 per cent.
Each property was posted with placards indicating that the
Mediterranean fruit fly had been found on it.

Identifications
The Identification Section examined and identified all sus-
picious material sent to the laboratory established at Orlando
for that purpose. All identifications were made by specialists






State Plant Board of Florida


of the Plant Quarantine and Control Administration stationed
at Orlando. This work was not done by inspectors in the field
but all suspicious larvae, adults and pupae were paced in al-
cohol, in vials, and sent to the laboratory at Orlando.
Prevention of Spread
It was decided early in the campaign that the large means
of spread was through the transportation of infested fruit, al-
though the possibility of spread by flight and by moving vehicles
(automobiles, railway cars, auto trucks, etc.) was not overlooked.
Consequently the movement of all host fruit and vegetables
within the infested area was brought under control; in ad-
dition to this all host fruit and vegetables found on infested prop-
erties, and on all properties in the mile zone were destroyed.
As a necessary important adjunct to eradication, quarantines
were established around all infested properties or areas to pre-
vent movement of infested fruit into uninfested areas. The
quarantine guard posts, established on all highways leading
out of infested areas, were manned night and day. All auto-
mobiles or other vehicles were stopped at these posts and ex-
amined for host fruits and vegetables. When such were found
they were taken up and forwarded to the identification labora-
tory at Orlando for examination. Movement of host material
by trains and boats was brought under control and inspected.
Baggage carried by passengers was also inspected.
During the first few months of the campaign the interiors of
automobiles were sprayed on leaving the infested area to destroy
or drive out any flies that might have gained lodgment. Rail-
way cars, both freight and passenger, were required to be closed
or screened when passing through infested areas. Trucks carry-
ing fruit for retail store trade and for distribution were
screened. The doors and windows of all stores offering host
fruits or vegetables for sale were also screened. Every pos-
sible precaution was taken to prevent the spread of the fly.
Due credit should be given at this point to the officers and
men of the Florida National Guard assigned to the Road Patrol
Section under the direction of Vivian Collins, Adjutant General
of the State of Florida. Members of this organization were en-
gaged in road patrol activities from April 18, 1929, to July
31, 1930.
To prevent spread to other states, host fruits and vegetables
were moved out of Florida only after inspection in both field






Eighth Biennial Report


and packing house, and then only under permit. It was found
that fruit could be sterilized by heat or by cold and this method
was used as a further safeguard against infested fruit entering
southern and western markets.
Destruction of Infested and Exposed Fruits and Vegetables
Between May 1, 1929, the date Quarantine 68 was promul-
gated, and September 1, 1929, when the revised quarantine be-
came effective, when an infestation was found all host fruits
and vegetables in the infested zone of one mile radius surround-
ing the property were destroyed as required by Federal Quar-
antine 68. This was done by collecting and burying such ma-
terial. The bottoms of the burying pits were first dressed with
refuse or crude oil, lime was placed over the last fruit put in,
and finally a covering of soil three feet deep was placed over
it. Fruit was also destroyed by grinding and cooking with
steam.
A radical change was made in the area involved by the finding
of an infestation when Quarantine 68 was revised, effective Sep-
tember 1, 1929. Destruction of host fruits and vegetables was
required on the infested property only, and not on all properties
located within the mile zone. Even on the affected property a
graduated scale of clean-up, depending upon the intensity of
infestation, was provided for. If the infestation was found
generally distributed throughout the property, all host fruits
and vegetables remaining on the property were destroyed. If
a careful inspection showed the infestation to be confined to
a limited portion of the grove, all host material in that portion
was destroyed and provision was made for the processing of
host fruits and vegetables available from the uninfested por-
tion of the property. Similarly, if the infestation was so lim-
ited that in the judgment of the inspector all risks could be
eliminated by the sterilization provided for elsewhere in the
regulations, sterilization and shipment to authorized destina-
tions outside the state were authorized. This authorization
was, however, conditioned on the prompt clean-up and destruc-
tion of all host fruits and vegetables in the infested portion of
the property concerned and compliance with any other safe-
guard'as to the handling and distribution as required by the
inspector.
Up to December 31, 1929, the official forces gathered and de-
stroyed 489,108 boxes (of approximately one and three-fifths






State Plant Board of Florida


bushels each) of citrus fruits, 49,974 bushels of host vegetables
and 27,395 bushels of minor and wild non-citrus fruits. In ad-
dition to infested or potentially dangerous fruit and vegetable
material disposed of by the official forces, a large amount was
disposed of by volunteer citizens' organizations, though those
activities were not directed by or in any way under the control
of the Department or the State Plant Board. General clean-up
activities were abandoned at this time, January, 1930, on ac-
count of lack of the necessary funds. The finding of the in-
festation in Orlando in March, 1930, required no destruction of
commercial citrus fruit, as the infestation was found in sour
orange after the crop had been moved to the markets.

Host-free Period
For the summer months of 1929, in addition to the destruction
of all host fruits and vegetables in the infested zone, Quarantine
68 required that a host-free period be maintained in the pro-
tective zones beginning on May 1 and continuing for five months.
Prior to the commencement of the host-free period Regulation
2 B of Quarantine 68 required the shipment, destruction or
processing of all ripe or ripening citrus fruits growing within the
protective zones and prohibited the planting or growing within
the protective zones of vegetables which would mature or reach
a stage of susceptibility during the host-free period. The only
host fruits or vegetables permitted to grow or exist in the pro-
tective zones at any time were citrus fruit on the trees in such
stage of immaturity as not to be susceptible to infestation and
host fruits and vegetables in storage or on retail sale for immedi-
ate consumption. Robbed of fruits in which to lay their eggs and
multiply, any carry-over of the insect would have to be by means
of adults originating before the host-free period was inaug-
urated.
Spraying
To make certain that there would be no carry-over of adults,
poisoned bait spray made from arsenic, molasses, crude brown
sugar and water, was used throughout the infested area. This
was sprayed at regular intervals in small quantities on foliage
and plants, wild and cultivated, in both towns and open country.
In the fall of 1929 copper carbonate was used instead of lead
arsenate.






Eighth Biennial Report


Trap Survey
As a further check on the presence of the insect, traps baited
with kerosene were used. At one time as many as 12,645 traps
were scattered throughout the affected districts. These made it
possible to ascertain the effectiveness of control measures and
in a few instances the first indication of the insects being in a
new area came through catching adults in traps.

OFFICIAL COMMITTEE REPORTS
That the plan of campaign outlined in the immediately pre-
ceding paragraphs was fundamentally sound is evidenced by the
conditions and recommendations incorporated in the reports of
two committees composed of eminent entomologists and horti-
cultural experts which completely surveyed the situation.
The first committee, named by President Hoover, visited Flor-
ida in July, 1929. This committee was composed of: Vernon
Kellogg, Permanent Secretary of the National Research Coun-
cil; H. A. Morgan, President of the University of Tennessee;
T. P. Cooper, Dean of the Kentucky State College of Agricul-
ture and Director of the Kentucky Extension Service; Victor
R. Gardner, Director of the Michigan State Experiment Station
and Professor of Horticulture in Michigan State College; T. P.
Headlee, Professor of Entomology in Rutgers College and State
Entomologist of New Jersey, and Entomologist of the New Jer-
sey State Experiment Station; G. A. Dean, head of the Depart-
ment of Entomology in the Kansas Agricultural College and En-
tomologist of the Kansas State Experiment Station; and H. J.
Quayle, Professor of Entomolcgy in the UniversiLy of California
and Entomologist of the Citrus Experiment Station at Riverside,
California.
On October 12, 1929, the Secretary of Agriculture, acting in
conjunction with Will R. Wood, Chairman of the House Com-
mittee on Appropriations, appointed another committee se-
lected by the President of the University of Indiana. This group
consisted of: W. O. Thompson, President Emeritus, Ohio State
University; W. C. Reed, commercial fruit grower of Vincennes,
Indiana; W. P. Flint, Chief Entomologist, Illinois Natural His-
tory Survey; W. H. Alderman, Head of the Department of Hor-
ticulture, University of Minnesota; and J. J. Davis, Head of the
Department of Entomology, Purdue University. Both com-
mittees made exhaustive investigations into the plan of the cam-






State Plant Board of Florida


paign, the manner in which it was being conducted, the necessity
for it, the prospects for success and ways and means of continu-
ing the activity. The reports were so informative that they
are here incorporated as a portion of this report.

Report of Committee of Seven
Washington, D. C.,
July 19, 1929.
"Hon. Arthur M. Hyde,
Secretary of Agriculture,
Washington, D. C.
SIR:
"The committee of seven, appointed by you to make careful studies
of the present status and possibilities for eradication of the Mediterranean
fruit fly, also to study the desirability of the maintenance or expansion of
the present program, or alternative possibility of commercial control, re-
ports as follows:

Economic Background
"The economic situation of Florida, the immediate future of the State is
definitely and intimately related to the policy which may be adopted in
relation to the Mediterranean fruit fly. The region involved in the infesta-
tion is 34 per cent of the land area of Florida. It contains 72 per cent
of the bearing citrus trees, and based upon a 3-year average, 80 per cent
of the carload shipments of citrus fruit originate in this area. The an-
nual income from the citrus crop and from other host crops which may
be affected by the fly is upward of $60,000,000. A capital investment for
the same crops exceeding $300,000,000 is threatened. Industries dependent
upon citrus fruit represent an annual income of approximately $52,000,000.
Agriculture, of which the citrus and kindred industries represent the larger
part, is the economic foundation of the State. From one-quarter to one-
third of the income accruing to the State, other than that pertaining to
the tourist trade, may be attributed to agriculture. The permanence of
the home and the adequate support of the families of 40 per cent of the
rural farm population of Florida are threatened by the fly. The income
for the State for the purpose of government is largely affected by the con-
ditions of the citrus industry and its kindred commercial, transportation,
and industrial development.
"In the event the fruit fly should escape from Florida, infesting
the regions of the South and West, capital values invested in properties
producing susceptible fruits aggregating $1,800,000,000 and producing
annual incomes of $240,000,000 are threatened. Infestation by the fly
would bring chaos to many agricultural regions of the South and West.
Their interest in the policy which may be adopted with relation to the
fruit fly is even greater than that of Florida.
"The consumers of the United States, likewise, are affected. An
infestation of the Mediterranean fruit fly may affect the reduction of







Eighth Biennial Report


susceptible products by 25 or even 50 per cent. It is estimated that a
reduction in the production of susceptible fruit by 20 per cent will in-
crease the cost of fruit to the consumer by approximately 24 per cent.
In addition the consumer is also directly interested by the fact that the
industry or trade with which he may be connected will be affected by the
spread of the fruit fly.
"The cost of commercial-control measures and of quarantines, should
the fly escape to other regions, would involve an amount difficult to
estimate, but undoubtedly greater than the sum required for eradication.
This cost would fall upon the National Treasury, the States involved, and
upon numerous individuals.
"This brief statement of the economic background evidences the
national interests that are involved. The fact that the citrus industry of
Florida furnishes approximately 40,000 cars of citrus fruit to the rail-
roads is an indication of the widespread economic effect that general in-
festation would involve.

Eradication or Control

"Basing its judgment on careful observation, the results of research,
and the progress toward eradication that has been made in the past three
months, the committee considers eradication practicable under present
known cond-tions. This will require vigorous effort, large additions to
present forces, fearless action, maintenance of the full cooperation of
Florida citizens, and ample funds promptly available.

Plan of Eradication

"You commissioned the committee to study the desirability of the
maintenance or expansion of the present program and plan of eradication.
Particular attention has been given to this program and plan of eradi-
cation as now operating. The committee recommends that the work of
eradication be expanded. Such expansion, vigorous and immediate, is im-
perative to the success of the work.
"The committee believes advisable a system of certification permitting
the entry of susceptible fruits and vegetables into interstate commerce.
Experimental evidence indicates that a system of processing whole fruit
may be devised which is economically feasib-e and will insure freedom from
the fly. Under such procedure: (1) Reimbursement to growers from the
National Treasury is not required; (2) a sound economic background for
the industry is restored, and (3) the full cooperation of growers and cit-
izens of Florida is maintained.
"An arrangement which assures that the products entering into inter-
state commerce are free from all stages of the fly, and which permits
the growers to continue their business and industry is essential.
"Attached hereto (see below) is a general statement of a program that
the committee considers necessary to carry out the work of eradication.
It recognizes, however, that as time goes on modification may be neces-
sary, and it has confidence that such modification should be determined
by the law enforcement and research organization in charge of the work.






State Plant Board of Florida


Progress Made in Eradication
"In spite of the fact that the area considered as infested has shown
accessions, the progress toward eradication has been rapid. Centers of
infestation have been so thoroughly cleaned, and sources of infestation re-
moved, that in the infested zone it is difficult to find any of the stages of
the Mediterranean fruit fly. At the beginning of the campaign flies
were numerous, easily found, and existed in great numbers at points of
infestation. Measurement of progress is difficult. But the committee has
been impressed with the rapidity of the cleanup work, the effectiveness
of the poison spray campaign, the progress of inspection and its increas-
ing thoroughness. Upon every side there is found evidence of increasing
efficiency and conviction upon the part of those in charge that they are
making progress. A description of the physical equipment and of the
methods used in carrying on the eradication program would be interesting
but appears unnecessary in this report.
"Representatives of organizations, citizens, joint committee of the
Florida Legislature, and the Plant Quarantine Board, as well as members
of the staff of the Federal and State organization cooperating in this work
were examined by the committee. We were impressed by the solidarity
of purpose.
"No intimation was apparent of lack of confidence in a program of
extermination. Desire was expressed to bring about eradication, and
willingness to continue the work until brought to a successful conclusion,
was evidenced by every individual or organization represented."

Program Recommended By Committee as Necessary for
Carrying Out Work of Eradication
(1) Inspection to determine spread.-Prompt provision should be made
for inspection, adequate to determine the spread of the fly, not only in
Florida but possibly in other states. This will mean considerable enlarge-
ment of present inspection forces.
(2) Host fruits and vegetable certification.-Adequate provision should
be made for the certification of all movement of host fruits or vegetables
produced in any State or portion thereof invaded by the fruit fly.
(3) Removal of minor host plants.-As absolutely essential to the
eradication object, provision should be made under State regulation for
the grubbing up or cutting down and removal-in other words complete
elimination-of host plants of minor commercial importance, the object
being to maintain, for the protection of the principal crop in each area,
a non-host or starvation period during the interim of the maturing of
such crop. It is understood that this is to replace any effort to eliminate
the fruit from such alternate hosts from week to week as it ripens as im-
practicable, both from the standpoint of accomplishment and of cost.
(4) Destruction of flies and puparia.-Citrus growers in infested areas
should be required under State and Federal regulations to spray their
groves at such periods as shall be required as necessary to destroy adult
flies, and similarly, if practicable, soil treatment to destroy puparia.






Eighth Biennial Report 25

(5) Shortening of cropping season.-To reduce as much as possible the
opportunity of the insect to breed up in the major host crop of any area,
the shipping season should be terminated as early as practicable. The
shipping season in Florida for citrus normally extends from September
to June or longer. By more adequate provision for holding of fruit in
cold storage and by enlarging methods of processing fruit it should be
possible to terminate by the 1st of March, the harvesting of the citrus
crop, and similarly to shorten the period in the spring and early sum-
mer of other crops.
(6) Orchard and crop cleanup.-As supplementing (5), provision
.should be made under State regulation for the prompt cleanup of orchards
or other crops coincident with the close of the stated harvesting period.
As corollary thereto all culls and discards should be promptly destroyed
and drops should be removed at weekly intervals throughout the ripen-
ing and harvesting period.
(7) Safeguarding fruit, etc., for shipment.-Under the indication of
recent experimental work citrus fruit and possibly also other host fruits
and vegetables may be treated or processed so as to make possible move-
ment in commerce without risk of carrying infestation. This shall apply
to the movement of all citrus fruit leaving infested States or districts
after successful demonstration of its commercial practicability. Safe-
guarding movement of other host fruits and host vegetables should sim-
ilarly be required upon determination of equivalent methods.
(8) Research work as basis for control.-This field of work should
be enlarged to meet all the needs of the eradication effort in Florida or
elsewhere, and also to include studies of the fruit fly situation in other
countries where this pest has become established.
(9) Port inspection.-To minimize risk of future introduction of the
Mediterranean fruit fly or other serious pest, provision should be made
for more adequate expansion of port inspection service.
Note.-This program provides (1) for the enlargement of work now
under way; (2) for the elimination of the special restrictions on so-called
infested zones, including the removal of fruit; and (3), as partial sub-
stitution for (2) the safeguarding by processing of fruit and other hosts,
as indicated in paragraph (7) above. The success of this enlarged
program is absolutely conditioned on the carrying out of these require-
ments under State regulations and with the full and complete cooperation
of State officers and all associations and persons in interest.
With respect to the elimination of fruit removal hitherto provided for
in both State and Federal regulations, it has become apparent that the
removal of fruit now developing in such zones is impracticable if not
impossible of accomplishment even under the expenditure of any possible
or reasonable funds, and that therefore the continuation of the eradica-
tion program must be based on the development and intensifying of other
methods of control.






State Plant Board of Florida


Report of the Committee of Five
Washington, D. C.,
October 22, 1929.
"Hon. Arthur M. Hyde,
Secretary of Agriculture,
Washington, D. C.
SIR:
"Your committee, appointed to make a study of the Mediterranean fruit
fly in Florida, with special reference to progress of the work the past three
months, the possibilities of eradication and the future needs so far as
determined at the present time, reports as follows:
"In order to be familiar with the problem, the committee spent the
past week in Florida, during which time, 1.300 miles through the in-
fested and outlying areas were covered and many citizens of Florida in-
terviewed.
"We concur with the report of your committee of seven regarding the
economic importance of the insect and the need for eradication. The
Mediterranean fruit fly should be recognized as a potential pest of very
great importance to the fruit industry of the southern states; also the
results to date clearly forecast the possibility of complete eradication in
Florida and this goal should be vigorously sought.
"We commend the work of the research and control forces, the former
for the progress made in the short period since the discovery of the infesta-
tion April 6, 1929, with attractants, poison sprays, host plant studies and
fruit sterilization; the latter for the apparent thoroughness and complete-
ness of the quarantine and eradication work. We likewise commend the
cooperation of the growers and the sacrifices wh:ch they have made in
destroying hundreds of thousands of boxes of fruit, in order to aid in the
eradication. A study of the activities of the research and control forces,
and the expenditures to date shows an economical and efficient use ct
the funds available.

Progress of Eradication and Needs for the Future
"The research division has made fundamental studies which have had
an important bearing on the conduct of the eradication program of the
past six months and which will have an increasing value for any future
program of control or eradication. A study of wild fruits, including the
period of maturing and susceptibility to fly attack, has revealed facts
which will enable a continuation of the eradication program and elimina-
tion-for the present, at least-of work which would cost many millions
of dollars. The studies of cold and heat sterilizing processes which will
permit uninterrupted shipment of citrus fruits have been basic and seem
to assure the development of methods which will not only eliminate the
danger of spread but may improve the color and reduce rots over previous
commercial methods. The finding and utilization of a poison spray to
destroy the flies was doubtless one of the chief factors in bringing about
the present apparent absence of infestation. Evidences of temporary in-
jury by this spray to the citrus tree and its fruit were apparent, especially
in groves where the grower has been unable to finance proper upkeep, but







Eighth Biennial Report 27

further studies now under way indicate the possibility of the development
of a safe and equally effective spray. Bait traps are now useful only in
detecting infestations-an important use-since the kerosene attractant
used will attract only male flies. Continued studies may reveal an at-
tractant to which females as well as males will respond. These develop-
ments reveal important leads and research along these and other lines is
essential for the eradication program which has been so effective during
the first six months of the campaign. A study of the canning industry,
with special reference to the utilization of by-products and its bearing
on fruit fly control, would seem to be a very desirable addition to the
research program.
"The eradication division involves many important features. From
an infestation where hundreds of flies could be obtained with a few sweeps
with a net and where infested fruit was common, to a point where all
methods of trapping fail to catch a single fly and where no fruit infesta-
tion can be located in spite of diligent and extensive search, is little less
than marvelous. Weather conditions may have assisted in reducing the in-
festation but a study of all the data clearly shows that the complete
destruction of fruits in the infested zones and the thorough use of poison
sprays have been largely responsible. That infestations have not been
found in adjoining states where much fruit was shipped previous to the
discovery of the infestation, nor in the known infested area, are facts
difficult to explain. That infestations will be found, at least in the original
infested zones, before the end of June, 1930, szems almost certain. For this
reason sufficient funds should be immediately available for stamping out
incipient outbreaks, should they appear. A continuation and enlargement
of the inspection and scouting work is essential to discover any occurrences
of the fly before they become conspicuous. Spraying should be continued
in the vicinity of citrus groves where injury to the trees and shrubs is not
likely to result. The complete destruction of "drops" and the inauguration
of a host-free period (approximately April 1 to September 1) by removal
of the citrus and other susceptible fruits, such as peach, pear, guava and
Surinam cherry, seems to be an important feature of the eradication pro-
gram. Destruction of abandoned groves is likewise important in the pro-
posed program of eradication.
"A very thorough study of wild native host fruits in 600 square miles
of wild, natural growths, exclusive of abandoned groves, has failed to
reveal a single infested fruit. For this reason, and until such findings are
made, we believe a general cleanup in such areas unnecessary. This
will materially reduce the cost of an efficient eradication campaign.
"An important part of the project is the quarantine which involves the
possible spread of the fly by means of public carriers. This work has
been admirably accomplished by the National Guard of Florida. The
utilization of the state National Guard for the enforcement of quarantines
has never before been attempted and the methods and effectiveness of this
organization for quarantine duty where a single state is involved are
heartily endorsed. The enforcement of garbage disposal, screening of
fruit stands and fruit delivery wagons is important from the standpoint
of eradication and should continue as a phase of the quarantine under the
supervision and control of the state National Guard.






State Plant Board of Florida


"Many who have objected to one or another phase of the fruit fly pro-
ject were interviewed, but after discussion and conference a distinct ma-
jority were in favor of a continuation of the research and eradication
wcrk on a reasonable basis. It was apparent that the comparatively few
who questioned the need or efficiency of the work usually did so because
they were uninformed on the significance of the Mediterranean fruit fly
should it become established and beyond control, and on the immensity of
a program of eradication. For these reasons we believe better methods of
fully informing the public should be used and that an efficient program of
education be inaugurated.
"The appropriations already made for the eradication program have
been so effectively used that infestation is not now apparent. The failure
to continue the program of eradication as a measure of precaution might
threaten the efficiency of the work already accomplished. In addition,
an emergency fund as a reserve might well be provided and made avail-
able only in case of new outbreaks in outside areas which would constitute
emergencies.
'The committee desires to express its appreciation for the active and
willing cooperation on the part of the federal, state and county officials in
the inauguration and prosecution of the eradication program."
Following the report made to the Secretary of Agriculture
by the Committee of Seven in July, 1929, there was a general
revision of Quarantine 68. The essential changes were as fol-
lows:
1. The substitution of an "Eradication Area" for the former
"Protective Zones". This area was defined as any area in an
infested State in which an intensive eradication program was
being carried out and included areas hitherto designated and
retained as infested and protective zones.
2. The semi-weekly (later changed to weekly) pick-up and
disposal of drops during the ripening and harvesting period by
the property owners.
3. Application of a poison bait spray in infested zones at
federal expense, and in other parts of the Eradication Area at
the expense of the property owners as a condition of crop move-
ment.
4. Elimination of the requirement providing for the de-
struction of all host fruits and vegetables in the infested, or mile,
zone and substituting therefore provision for a partial destruc-
tion (depending upon intensity of infestation found) of host
crops growing on infested properties only.
5. Provision for the shipment of sterilized host fruits from
infested zones.
6. As a condition of interstate movement of restricted







Eighth Biennial Report


articles the State was required to enforce the elimination
throughout the Eradication Area of all host plants, wi:d and cul-
tivated, which normally produced fruits or vegetables susceptible
to infestation during the host free period.

Publicity
Efforts to educate the growers as to the appearance and habits
of the fly were only partially successful or were, not infrequently,
misconstrued. A sincere effort which was made to prevent any
statements being made by the press until the pest was actually
identified and the distribution roughly defined reacted against
the officials in charge in the early days of the campaign. The
finding of the fly in Florida grew within a few days from a news
item of local interest to a point where the international news
agencies were demanding a statement. It was not until repre-
sentatives of several of these agencies delivered what was
virtually an ultimatum to the effect that unless an official state-
ment was made they would be forced to prepare their own copy
for distribution that their demands for information were heeded.
Official refusal to supply photographs of the infested groves was
met with the statement that photographs taken by local pho-
tographers could be purchased at news stands and drug stores,
and that, if necessary, sensational photographs could be made
by the reporters themselves. In order to prevent uncensored,
inaccurate and garbled information and pictures from being
broadcast over the country, carefully worded press articles and
a few of the least offensive photographs were given to the Asso-
ciated Press for release.
Interested citizens financed the printing of a colored poster
showing the Mediterranean fruit fly in all of its stages and pre-
sented a large supply to the Plant Commissioner for distribu-
tion. Copies of this poster were supplied to County Agents,
District Inspectors, Postmasters, civic organizations and indi-
viduals throughout the state.
Thousands of individuals could have easily become acquainted
with the various stages of the fly by the distribution of vials
containing larvae, pupae, and adults of the fly to every inspector
on the force. The officials in charge were severely criticized
for their failure to adopt this practice. However, if this ma-
terial had been supplied to the field men, many people would
have attempted to substantiate their unfounded charges that






State Plant Board of Florida


the fly was being "planted" by pointing out the fact that every
inspector entering their property had larvae, pupae, or adults
of the Mediterranean fruit fly in his possession, any one of which
could very easily have been transferred into another vial and
sent to Orlando as coming from that particular property. To
safeguard the organization against such charges and yet to meet
the actual necessities, carefully prepared specimens of the
several stages of the fly were supplied to the District Inspectors
throughout the area.
The exhibit prepared by experts of the Department of Agri-
culture and set up at the various state fairs was assailed as
adverse propaganda harmful to the state. Yet a large papier-
mache malaria mosquito with its attendant chart displaying
the annual death rate in Florida from malaria on exhibit in the
next booth aroused no protests from the public.

ORGANIZATION
The headquarters of all activities in Florida were in Orlando.
The Plant Commissioner, in his dual capacity as Agent of the
Plant Quarantine and Control Administration and Administra-
tive Officer of the State Plant Board was in charge of the work.
For administrative purposes the various activities were sepa-
rated into sections, under the direction of a section head. Each
section head was responsible directly to the Plant Commissioner.
That the field work might be efficiently handled, the State
was divided into districts under the direction of district in-
spectors who were directly responsible to the Plant Commis-
sioner in his role as Agent of the Plant Quarantine and Control
Administration. The districts were sub-divided by the district
inspectors for the purpose of inspection and clean-up. Crews
of from two to four men under the direction of a crew leader
were assigned to these sub-districts, each crew leader being
responsible to the district inspector.
The set-up put into effect during the last part of April, 1929,
continued to function efficiently and smoothly until the work
was suspended in March, 1930. With one exception there was
no change in the organization: In January, 1930, the Chief of
the Plant Quarantine and Control Administration, Lee A. Strong,
who succeeded Doctor Marlatt on December 1, 1929, felt that
the supervision of the issuance of permits for the interstate







Eighth Biennial Report


shipment of host material should be under the direction of a man
entirely disinterested in the marketing of Florida products. For
this reason, W. A. McCubbin, former Assistant Director, Bureau
of Plant Industry, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture,
was sent to Orlando to take charge of the Permit and Packing-
House Sections, with instructions to operate these sections as a
separate unit responsible only to the Washington office of the
Administration. Dr. McCubbin retained as his first assistants
the two men formerly in charge and the two sections continued
to function smoothly.
Some criticism has been directed towards those in charge of
the eradication work on account of the fact that the men placed
in charge of the various sections were in the main employees of
the State Plant Board, Florida Agricultural Experiment Sta-
tion or Florida Agricultural Extension Service. Instead of criti-
cism, this action should have been the subject of commendation
and congratulation. The state, in the circumstances, was very
fortunate indeed in having available men of training, experience
and demonstrated ability who could and did step into positions
of responsibility and "carry on" without the delays and mistakes
which would inevitably have resulted from the employment of
men who lacked these qualifications. That the selection of these
men was a happy one for Florida is evidenced by the fact that
these men are chiefly responsible for the almost miraculous
outcome of the eradication campaign.

Concentration of Inspectors
By May 1, 1929, all available inspectors of the Board had been
concentrated at Orlando for the purpose of making inspections
for fruit fly. In addition several employees of the Florida Ex-
periment Station and the Florida Agricultural Extension Service
had been drafted for this important work. These men were
selected because of their previous training. Additional men
were employed as rapidly as possible. Every effort was made
to secure only high class men, and their past records and recom-
mendations were carefully considered before they were engaged.
On this same date, May 1,1929, the various regulations con-
tained in the Federal Quarantine 68 went into effect and a tre-
mendous responsibility was thrown on the shoulders of the men
in charge of the work by the provision in the Federal quaran-







State Plant Board of Florida


tine requiring the certification of all hosts of the Mediterranean
fruit fly as a condition of interstate shipment. At that time
there were only 138 men on the force, and these men were badly
needed for the purpose of delimiting the fly infestation.
That host fruits and vegetables might move interstate without
delay, it was necessary to organize over night a force of from
75 to 100 permit inspectors. This huge task was accomplished
for the most part by authorizing the various county agricultural
agents to act as permit agents. Thus the balance of the 1928-
1929 crop was moved at practically no additional cost for labor
to the federal government. In addition to supplying the man
power necessary for the issuance of these permits, it was neces-
sary to have millions of certificates printed on a few hours' no-
tice. This was done by having a local printing shop run day
and night for several days. To get the paper needed for these
certificates the printing company purchased all available sup-
plies south of Richmond, Virginia, and some were ordered from
New York. The printing bill was defrayed out of government
funds on an emergency order from the fiscal agent; afterwards
additional permits were supplied by the Administration from
Washington. In spite of these handicaps, certified host material
was moving out of the state on the morning of May 1, 1929,
with but very little delay-and this delay may be laid chiefly
to the fact that the growers themselves were not familiar with
the regulations of the quarantine.

Labor and Equipment
In addition to the great need for trained inspectors for field
and permit activities, there was also a demand for laborers to
collect and equipment to move the infested material to the pits
in order that the properties, both infested and in the mile zone,
might be quickly and efficiently cleaned of all host material. At
first plans were made to rent local equipment; this soon proved
to be a costly and inefficient system. The machines were for
the most part old ones, and after a few days, or even hours,
work, broke down and had to be repaired at government expense.
This condition was greatly relieved by the arrival at Orlando
of three trainloads of machinery from the Department's depot
at Toledo and by purchase of new machinery. A list of this
equipment will be found below.







Eighth Biennial Report


TABLE I
FEDERAL EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS ASSIGNED TO CLEAN-UP DEPARTMENT
IN FLORIDA


Equipment from Toledo
Trunks
International 1 ton, stake
body ...... ............................... 4
International 3 ton, stake body 10
Chevro et panel b:dy ............... 26
Ford light roadsters.............. 13
Ford light panel body............... 5
Federal pumpers .................. 27
Defiance 600 gal. tanks.............. 37
Defiance stake body, 3 ton........ 10
Tractors
McCormick Deering 15-30.......... 18
John Deere ...-.............-.................. 18
Fordson ....................................... 1
Trailers
Fruehauf 1000 gal. 4 wheel........ 16
Fruehauf 2 wheel ...................... 3
Miscellaneous
Stubble Shredders ...................... 30


Equipment Purchased


Ford Model A roadster.............. 1
Ford Model A 1Y2 ton stake
body ........................... .............. 1
International 1Y2 ton stake
body .................................... 1
Federal 2 ton stake body............ 1
Federal scout ........ ................. 1
International 1% yard dump
b ody ........................................ 25
Dodge 2 yard dump body............ 25

Tractors
International Farmall ............ 2
International 10-20's .................. 53
Sprayers
Bean Model T 28....................... 28
Friend Model APTBA 501.......... 16
Hardie Model M.M. 16................ 16


Totals of all Vehicles Used by Eradication Section
Trucks ................... ... ................... ... ....... ........... 187
Tractors ................................ ... ......... .............. .... ............. 92
Sprayers ............................................. ................... .............. 60
T railers ................................................ .. .............................. ........ ...... 19
Stubble Shredders ........................ ........ ..... ....... 30

The labor problem, however, was not so easily solved. Every
effort was made to hire level-headed and dependable foremen
to supervise the clean-up crews. In spite of this, however, sev-
eral incompetent foremen were hired; these were discharged as
soon as their unfitness for the job was discovered. The ordinary
labor was composed of white men as far as possible, although in
some localities it was necessary to hire colored labol on account
of the scarcity of white men. The employment of both labor and
foremen was greatly handicapped by the requests on the part
of civic organizations and county authorities that only local
labor be used. Thus it was oftentimes necessary to discharge
able and trained men when the clean-up was completed in one
district and to hire new and untrained men when this work was
undertaken in another area. Many of the complaints of de-
struction of property and the disregard of the rights of property
owners can be traced to this demand on the part of local in-
terests.







State Plant Board of Florida


This system of employing and discharging men which was
forced upon the officials in charge resulted in a large number of
names appearing on the payrolls and caused many people to be-
lieve that an excessive number of men were being hired, with
the resultant charges of extravagance. It is true that for one
month there were around 6300 names on the payrolls. This is
accounted for by the fact that entire crews were discharged
when work was completed in one section and new crews hired
when operations were started in a new locality. Thus a labor
superintendent might have 400 names on his payroll when, as
a matter of fact and record, there were only 200 men actually
employed in his crew at any one time.
A table showing the average number of laborers engaged on
Mediterranean fruit fly work in Florida by months is given be-
low. This table shows the average number of men on labor pay-
roll of the Administration for each month, including also a large
number of trained and semi-trained inspectors engaged in the
more or less technical work of scout inspection and sterilization
supervision but who had not been appointed as agents of the
Administration upon a monthly salary basis.

TABLE II
TABLE SHOWING AVERAGE NUMBER OF LABORERS ENGAGED ON MEDITER-
RANEAN FRUIT FLY WORK IN FLORIDA BY MONTHS

Ordinary Quaran- Research Steriliza-
Labor ines tion Total

A pril, 1929 .................... 416 ............................................. ...... 416
May, 1929 ........................ 3,160 460 30 .................. 3,650
June, 1929 ...................... 3,843 614 63 .................. 4,520
July, 1929 ..................... 4,596 593 73 .................. 5,262
August, 1929 .................. 5,081 498 68 .................. 5,647
September, 1929 ............ 4,733 507 70 .................. 5,310
October, 1929 ................ 2,881 507 64 .................. 3,452
November, 1929 .............. 1,162 510 61 74 1,807
December, 1929 .............. 955 565 43 84 1,647
January, 1930 ................ 905 642 48 61 1,656
February, 1930 .............. 718 642 50 70 1,480
March, 1930 .................... 709 625 50 68 1,452
April, 1930 ...................... 100 .................. 47 28 175
May, 1930 ...................... 100 .................. 10 7 117
June, 1930 ...................... 444 324 10 5 783
July, 1930 ...................... 662 262 10 5 939
August, 1930 .................. 446 49 8 5 508
September, 1930 ............ 373 46 78 5 502
October, 1930 .................. 106 9 5 3 123
*November, 1930 .......... 34 9 3 .................. 46

*After November 15th there were only 18 men on the labor payroll.







Eighth Biennial Report 35

Table 3 shows the number of inspectors engaged in making
field inspections for the fruit fly in Florida.

TABLE III
TABLE SHOWING THE NUMBER OF MEN EMPLOYED BY THE FIELD INSPECTION
SECTION BY MONTHS FROM APRIL, 1929, TO DECEMBER 31, 1930
1929- April .............................. 138 1930- January .................... 695
M ay ................................ 189 February .................... 735
June ................................ 202 M arch ........................ 750*
July ................................ 245 April .......................... 56
August .......................... 243 May ......................... 70
September ...................... 261 June ............................ 425
October .......................... 299 July ............................ 612
November ........................ 683 August ...................... 670
December ...................... 569 September .................... 656
October ...................... 384
November .................... 428**
December .................... 216

Research Section

In addition to the field work, the Administration established
a Research Section at Orlando, under the direction of A. C.
Baker, Entomologist in charge of Tropical and Sub-tropical Plant
Insect Investigations, Bureau of Entomology, United States De-
partment of Agriculture, who was responsible only to the Chief
of the Administration. This section operated independently of
but in close cooperation with the field organization engaged in
the eradication, inspection and certification work. It rendered
very material assistance in the eradication campaign. It was
through this Section that information concerning the various
hosts of the Mediterranean fruit fly was secured. Acknowledg-
ment should be made here of the extensive herbarium of host
producing plants, together with many photographs of plants and
fruits, donated to the Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
by the Research Section through the kindness of Doctor Baker.
Valuable data in connection with the life history of the Mediter-
ranean fruit fly were secured. The bait spray formulae used by
the eradication forces were worked out by Doctor Baker and his
assistants. Poison bait sprays of one kind or another had been
used in South Africa and elsewhere in the control of the Med-
iterranean fruit fly. It was felt that a similar practice in the
Florida eradication campaign could be followed to advantage.
The Research Section therefore concentrated on the develop-

*694 inspectors discharged March 26, 1930.
**This number reduced to 213 inspectors on November 16, 1930.







State Plant Board of Florida


ment of a formula suitable for the purpose and recommended
the formulae which were used by the field organization through-
out the campaign. Perhaps the outstanding achievement of the
Research Section was the development of a method of steriliza-
tion of host fruits by heat which was the main factor in open-
ing up the southern and western markets to Florida citrus fruits.
This steri ization plan originated with Doctor Baker and was
developed by him in cooperation with Dr. L. A. Hawkins of the
Bureau of Plant Industry. These two experts worked out the
details of the sterilization by cold which was used to some ex-
tent by the growers during the shipping season.

DEGREE AND EXTENT OF INFESTATION
The first infested property was found in the city of Orlando
on April 8, 1929. The center of the infestation appeared to be
a forty-acre grove owned by H. L. Hamlin and located at Marks
and Mills Streets, about one and one-half miles northeast of the
government laboratory.
A hurried survey after the finding of the first infestation
showed that almost every property in the city was infested.
As the inspection progressed in the surrounding counties, it was
discovered that the fly was established on the east coast, the
west coast, and in the interior of the peninsula. The limits of
the infested area were practically determined by the middle of
July, and since August, 1929, there has been no extension of
the infested area. During the weeks between the discovery
of the fly and the completion of the clean-up in the infested
localities there was a very decided and alarming increase in the
number of insects. Groves inspected one week without any
signs of infestation being found were, a week later, discovered
to contain numerous infested fruits. Groves reported by the
inspectors to be slightly infested not infrequently showed, when
the clean-up crews arrived a short time later, a heavy infesta-
tion which caused an excessive drop of the fruit. That this
falling of fruit was not due to causes other than the fruit fly
was conclusively established by the fact that there was an ab-
sence of such unusual drop in groves apparently not infested;
in addition, from 50 to 85 per cent of the fallen fruit in the
infested groves was found, on examination, to contain living
fruit fly larvae. Examination of 79 grapefruit from infested
groves, by W. W. Others, Entomologist, Bureau of Entomology,






Eighth Biennial Report


showed an average of 10.2 larvae per fruit. The remaining per-
centage of dropped fruit was frequently in such condition of
decay as to make it impossible to say whether or not it had been
infested. As a matter of fact, it was an excessive drop that first
directed the attention of Mr. Hamlin to the infestation in his
grove.

Infestation Count in the Hamlin Grove
To determine the degree of infestation in the Hamlin grove
the following experiment was made: a piece of ground four feet
wide and twenty-five feet long was marked off under the trees
and 162 dropped citrus fruits were collected from this measured
plot. An examination showed that 116 of these fruits were infest-
ed with the Mediterranean fruit fly while 43 showed no infesta-
tion. Of these 46 uninfested fruits, however, fully 50 per cent
were so badly decomposed that it was impossible to handle them.
On the basis of this plot observation the infestation in this grove
was 71.46 per cent. In this same grove a square foot of soil
was sifted in ten different locations and an average of 13.9
Mediterranean fruit fly pupae per square foot was thus found.
While it is thought that the Hamlin grove was the center of
the infestation, yet there is no way of demonstrating this as
a fact. There were other heavily infested groves in that vicin-
ity. Investigations carried on by three visiting entomologists*
in the Gentile grove on Lake Adair, located about one mile west
of the Hamlin grove, showed the following degree of infesta-
tion: Several citrus trees were selected at random, dusted with
cyano-gas, and the number of adult Mediterranean fruit flies
killed or stunned by the dust recorded. The number of flies
collected varied from 80 to 300 per tree. A few days later this
group again dusted these trees in the same manner. The tree
that had furnished the greatest number of Mediterranean fruit
flies on the first visit, approximately 300, furnished 612 adult
Mediterranean fruit flies at the second dusting. The tree that
had furnished the least number of flies on the first dusting,
80, yielded 350 Mediterranean fruit flies at the second dusting.
The car used for transporting this party had been parked at
the curb close to the grove next to the lake. Upon returning

*H. J. Quayle, Professor of Entomology, University of California, and
a member of the Committee of Seven sent to Florida in July, 1929, R. S.
Woglum, Entomologist, California Fruit Growers' Exchange, and Wm.
Moore, of the American Cyanamid Company.







State Plant Board of Florida


CHART I
MAP SHOWING EXTENSION OF AREA IN FLORIDA QUARANTINED DURING SUM-
MER OF 1929 ON ACCOUNT OF MEDITERRANEAN FRUIT FLY.


KEY
Area Quarantined as
of May 31, 1929.
Additional Area Quaran-
tined as of June 30,
1929.
Additional Area Quaran-
tined as of July 31, 1929.
Heavy Black Line Denotes
Outside Limits of Erad-
ication Area as of Sep-
tember 1, 1929.


.00'C


to it a number of live adult Mediterranean fruit flies were found
inside the car. (At that time all men connected with the work
were supplied with small spray guns and an insecticide for
spraying the interiors of automobiles.) In connection with the
dusting carried on by Professor Quayle and his party it is in-






Eighth Biennial Report


teresting to record that of the adult Mediterranean fruit flies
knocked out of the trees and collected at the first dusting ap-
proximately 70 per cent were killed by the dust, and approxi-
mately 60 per cent of the second lot were killed. The balance,
needless to state, were killed in the laboratory after the count
was made.
The Hamlin grove at Orlando was the first heavily infested
grove found. The fact that there was ample time to make ob-
servations and records in this grove before clean-up activities
commenced, together with the fact that many officials of both
the state and federal governments and interested citizens visited
this grove, coupled with the publicity given this property, lead
many people to believe that this was the only heavily infested
grove in the area. This, however, was not the case. As a mat-
ter of fact and record, there were many heavily infested groves
in Orange, Osceola, and Volusia Counties. Several of these
heavily infested groves were located on islands in rivers or lakes
(Oliver's Island in Osceola County and Drayton Island in Volu-
sia County) far removed from the regular travel routes. These
groves ranged from 5 to 150 acres in extent, and were well cared
for properties returning considerable profit to the owners.

Citrus Not Only Host Infested Under Field Conditions
Although the citrus groves suffered almost entirely from the
attacks of the Mediterranean fruit fly, citrus fruits were by no
means the only fruits found infested in the field. Immature
green pears (Pyrus communis) were found infested near Cler-
mont, Lake County. In addition to larvae taken from the pears
themselves 400 larvae were collected from peelings and pear
scraps taken from a garbage can on the property. Eight of
these larvae were sent to the laboratory where they were identi-
fied as Mediterranean fruit fly larvae. The other 392 larvae
were transferred to apples in the experimental laboratory of
the Research Section, and propagated for experimental pur-
poses. About 75% developed and were identified as adult
Mediterranean fruit flies. The method of handling was largely
responsible for the failure of the remaining 25 % to develop.
Surinam cherry (Eugenia uniflora Linn.) was another host
found infested under field conditions. An infestation count was
made in Orlando by inspectors of the Research Section with the
following results:






State Plant Board of Florida


On June 7, 1929, 500 larvae were collected from fruit taken
from one Surinam cherry tree, and 750 pupae were sifted from
soil under the same tree.
On June 11, 1929, 1,400 larvae were collected from fruit taken
from one Surinam cherry tree, and 2,100 pupae were sifted from
soil under this same tree.
Peaches were also found infested in the field, both in Orlando
and in the northern portion of the eradication area. Records
show that on June 14, 1929, 550 pupae were sifted from the soil
under a peach tree growing near the city limits of Orlando,
Florida.
Infestations Found by Growers
Every effort was made to locate the fly and to clean up the
infested properties immediately. Speed was imperative if this
pest was to be eradicated before it became widely and generally
distributed. Unfortunately the very haste with which the eradi-
cation was carried on reacted against the work. Groves were
cleaned of infested fruit so rapidly that the general public had
no opportunity to see the fly. Many growers had never seen the
fly in any of its stages and honestly believed that it was not
present in the state, or at least not present in their own prop-
erties. It is known that several of these skeptical growers took
what appeared to them to be sound commercial fruit into their
homes for observation. Within a few days or weeks they were
amazed to discover larvae in this "sound" fruit, or adult Medi-
terranean fruit flies in the jars in which the fruit had been
placed. This experience was repeatedly related to inspectors
by growers throughout the infested areas. There are on file in
the Plant Commissioner's office in Gainesville affidavits from
reliable and well informed growers to the effect that apparently
sound fruit hidden by them from the clean-up crews and stored
in their houses for family consumption had become so heavily
infested that it was later discarded as unfit for use. Other
affidavits are on file to the effect that live Mediterranean fruit
flies were reared from "sound" fruit placed in jars by growers.

Infestation Count Not Made in Every Grove
Under the provisions of Federal Quarantine 68 effective May
1, 1929, when an infestation was found all host fruits and vege-
tables within one mile of the infested property, as well as on
the infested property itself, were to be destroyed, regardless of







Eighth Biennial Report


whether or not infestation was found on any other property in
the mile zone. With this condition in mind, facing a situation
that called for an immediate delimiting of the infested area
and handicapped by a shortage of men, the inspectors in the
early stages of the campaign were instructed to resume their
search at least one-half mile away after finding fruit fly larvae
in a property. After the limits of the infestation had been
defined and with the employment of additional inspectors, how-
ever, every property was inspected. As a result of this effort
to delimit the infested area as rapidly as possible, several groves
adjoining infested properties were not inspected, and the in-
spectors left many other groves after finding a single infested
fruit, although a further search would undoubtedly have dis-
closed many other infested fruits. After finding a single in-
fested fruit, a tree-by-tree or fruit-by-fruit inspection would
have been of no avail to the grower as the Federal government
had ruled that every host fruit not only on infested property,
but on every property, infested or not, within one mile of an
infested property, should be destroyed.

Extent of Infestation
It was soon determined that the principal spread of the fly
had been along the main traveled highways radiating from Or-
lando. The carriage of citrus fruits in private automobiles,
by picnic parties, fishermen, hunters, tourists, etc., during the
fruit season is almost a universal practice, under normal con-
ditions, in the Florida citrus belt.

The Eradication Area
Up to December 31, 1930, a total of 1,002 infested properties
distributed over 20 counties had been found by the official in-
spectors. There is of course no way of ascertaining how many
other, incipient, infestations were snuffed out by the volunteer
clean-up activities of growers and citizens. Under the Rules
and Regulations supplemental to the revised Quarantine No.
68-effective September 1, 1929, the area within which infesta-
tions were found was designated as the "Eradication Area"
and embraced about 10,000,000 acres or between 15,000 and
16,000 square miles.
Within this area are located 72 per cent of the bearing citrus
trees of the state, producing normally 73 per cent of the crop





State Plant Board of Florida


CHART II
MAP SHOWING GENERAL LOCATION OF CITRUS PLANTINGS IN FLORIDA


KEY
North and West Florida
Area-Satsumas.
Central Florida Area -
Mixed Grapefruit, Or-
anges and Tangerines.
South Florida Area -
Chiefly Grapefruit.
Key Area-Chiefly Limes.


(6 year average). Citrus groves within this area total about
120,000 acres and cultivated non-citrus crops (fruits other
than citrus and susceptible vegetables) total about 160,000 acres.
The balance of the area is given over, in part, to non-suscep-
tible crops, to towns and villages and to considerable areas rep-
resented by several thousand lakes. By far the greater portion







Eighth Biennial Report


of the remaining area consists of unimproved lands, including
areas of swamp, hammock, cut-over pine lands, cypress forests
and marshes. Many of these, particularly where of consider-
able extent, were unquestionably effective barriers against the
spread of the Mediterranean fruit fly.
Citrus and vegetable plantings do not constitute a continu-
ous area, as do the cultivated farms of many northern and
western states, but instead are localized in communities or neigh-
borhoods separated by intervening expanses of timber, swamp,
lakes or other areas so that the prevention of spread of the
fly from one such cultivated area to another became essentially
a matter of controlling the transportation of susceptible fruits
and vegetables which might carry the fly in its immature stages,
since the adult Mediterranean fruit fly is not a strong flyer and
appears to spend its time in the locality where hatched. The
occurrence of these many "natural barriers" to spread of the
fly was undoubtedly an important contributing factor to suc-
cess in the eradication attempt.

Orlando the Original Place of Establishment
All indications point to Orlando or its immediate vicinity as
being the point at which the fruit fly found original establish-
ment. Not only is this view confirmed by the fact that here
the most intensive infestations were found but that, as one pro-
ceeded in every direction from Orlando, infestations became
more scattering and of much less intensity. In fact, nearly all
infestations found at a considerable distance from Orlando were
in their incipiency.

Not Previously Present for a Considerable Period
There is no reason for believing that the Mediterranean fruit
fly had been present for any considerable period before being
discovered. This view is supported by a number of facts and
observations, among which are the following:
Inspectors of the State Plant Board had been, since 1915,
systematically and continuously inspecting the citrus groves of
Florida for citrus canker and other major pests which might
appear. These men had all been instructed as to the appearance
of fruit fly larvae and were constantly on the lookout for them.
This force of inspectors varied from 40 to 400. They found no
indication of fruit fly and found no larvae living in sound fruit.







State Plant Board of Florida


For many years, citrus growers were accustomed to collect
and send numerous samples of citrus fruit to the State Plant
Board and the Agricultural Experiment Station at Gainesville
and to the Citrus Experiment Station at Lake Alfred, Florida,
for examination and diagnosis of various minor troubles. Simi-
larly, specimens of fruit were continuously being taken to the
Department of Agriculture laboratory at Orlando for examina-
tion. Usually such specimens were cut up and carefully exam-
ined but no fruit fly larvae were found.
Florida has for many years been a veritable Mecca for hun-
dreds of entomologists, both professional and amateur, who have
made extensive collections of insects of all kinds, many of which
specimens had been deposited with the United States National
Museum, the Smithsonian Institution, the Bureau of Entomology
of the Department of Agriculture, and in the museums and
natural science departments of many colleges, universities, ex-
periment stations and other scientific institutions where they
were examined, classified and named. It is hardly conceivable,
if the fruit fly has been present in Florida for any considerable
period, that specimens would not have been collected and later
detected among the many hundreds of collections of Florida
insects in existence throughout the United States.
During the winter of 1928-29 the Orlando laboratory of the
Bureau of Entomology conducted an extensive series of holding
tests with citrus fruits, during the course of which large lots of
fruit, including fruit produced at Orlando, were kept under ob-
servation at varying temperatures over considerable periods
of time. Such fruit was examined every few days during the
holding periods, much of it being cut up in the course of these
examinations and, at the end of the experiment in April, 1929,
fruit which had been kept in storage for some weeks was given
a most critical examination. Not a single fruit fly larva was
found.
In April, 1927, 0. C. McBride, an experienced entomologist
in the employ of the Bureau of Entomology, made an extensive
survey of citrus properties in and around Orlando for the ex-
press purpose of seeing if any species of fruit fly were present.
This survey included, among other things, an intensive examina-
tion of fruit in eight groves, with entirely negative results.
These eight groves were, in April and May, 1929, found infested
by the Mediterranean fruit fly.






Eighth Biennial Report


In September, 1928, F. Silvestri, an eminent and widely
known specialist on fruit flies, of Portici, Italy, visited Orlando
in the course of a world-wide tour which he was making in the
study of these insects. In company with lccal entomologists this
expert on the Mediterranean fruit fly made an exhaustive search
for fruit flies in the orchards in and around Orlando and found
no indication of such being present.
A. C. Baker and his associates found, from studies made at Or-
lando, that the average number of eggs laid by the female fruit
fly is 500, the minimum developmental period is 21 days and the
average life cycle* under mean Florida temperature is 34 days
(this including the pre-oviposition period) and, on the average,
one-half of each generation are females. This capacity of the
insect for rapid reproduction could account for its increase,
within a few months after introduction, to the large numbers
found in some of the Orlando groves in April and May of 1929.

HOST FRUITS AND VEGETABLES

Any fruit or vegetable in which the fly can deposit its eggs
with the result that these eggs hatch and the resulting larvae
grow to maturity is termed a "host" fruit or vegetable.
In the early days of the campaign and before the Research
Section had an opportunity to determine just what fruits and
vegetables were actually hosts under Florida conditions, the
officials in charge of the eradication campaign, forced to close
every loophole through which the fruit fly might possibly es-
cape, turned to the records of other countries, where research
work had shown certain materials to be hosts of the Mediter-
ranean fruit fly, for a list of fruits and vegetables known to be
hosts of this insect. In addition the records of government in-
spection officials listing material intercepted at ports of entry
on account of being infested with this fly were also consulted.
From these two official sources there was assembled a list of
fruits and vegetables that were proven hosts of the Mediter-
ranean fruit fly.
While this list was being prepared, C. B. Keck, Junior Ento-
mologist, Bureau of Entomology, United States Department
of Agriculture, under the direction of A. C. Baker, in charge
of the Research Section of the Administration, at Orlando,
*"The 'life cycle' of an insect is the amount of time required for the
development of a generation, but bears no relation to the duration of life
of the individual adult insect."





State Plant Board of Florida


started a series of cage experiments to determine the suscepti-
bility of Florida-grown fruits and vegetables to fruit fly in-
festation. As rapidly as possible the results of these cage ex-
periments were passed to the field men and corresponding
changes or corrections made in the host list. As an illustration,
cowpeas and string beans had been listed as hosts. Extensive
cage experiments showed them to be nonsusceptible to infesta-
tion under Florida conditions and they were then removed from
the list; cowpeas on June 27 and string beans on August 12,
1929.
This work of the Research Section has shown, under labora-
tory conditions (namely, in cages) 118 proven hosts, including
in this list the various varieties of citrus fruits found suscep-
tible to infestation.
With the exception of sour limes all varieties of citrus fruits
commonly found in Florida have been found infested in the field.
Other hosts which were found infested under growing conditions
in the field included peaches, plums, pears, guavas, white
sapotes, Surinam cherries, fruits of Eugenia, and the Barbados-
cherry. It should be stated here that with one exception no
field infestation of the Mediterranean fruit fly was found in
any of the so-called "wild hosts", although inspectors of the
Research Section made extensive surveys of this class of ma-
terial during the summer and fall of 1929. An infestation was
found in maypop (Passiflora incarnata) growing between an
infested grove and the adjoining uncultivated land. This would
indicate that the fly was discovered and eradication measures
adopted and put into operation before it had an opportunity to
leave the cultivated areas.
HOST LIST
HOST PLANTS OF Ceratitis capitata WIED., AS DETERMINED BY CAGE EXPERI-
MENTS AT ORLANDO, FLORIDA (TO DEC. 1, 1930)
Prepared by C. B. Keck, Junior Entomologist, Bureau of Entomology,
United States Department of Agriculture
(Contribution from Research Section)
W-Wild host
C-Cultivated host
*-Infested in the field
Scientific Name Common Name Date
W-Acanthocereus pentagonus
(L) Britt & Rose.....................Cactus ................................11-18-29
W-Annona glabra Linn.................Pond apple ....................... 9-23-29
C-Annona muricata Linn..............Sour sop .................................. 8-10-29
C-Annona squamosa Linn.............Sugar apple ........................... 8- 5-29
C-Arenga saccharifera Labill......Sugar palm .........................11- 4-29







Eighth Biennial Report 47

Scientific Name Common Name Date
C-Artabotrys odoratissimus R.
Br ............................. ......-- Climbing ylang-ylang ..........11-18-29
W-Asimina obovata (Willd.)
Nash ........................................Pawpaw ..................... ... 7-19-29
W-Asimina parviflora (Michx.)
Dunal .-.................................--... Pawpaw ................. 7-29-29
W-Asimina pygmaea (Bartr.) A.
Gray ........................Pawpaw ............................. 7- 9-29
W-Asimina reticulata Shuttl.........Pawpaw ............................- 9- 9-29
W-Asimina triloba (L.) Dunal......Pawpaw ............ ................. 9- 9-29
C-Asparagus sprengeri Regel......Sprengeri fern ..............11- 5-29
C-Averrhoa Carambola L....... Carambola ....................... 9- 7-29
W-Bumelia tenax (L.) Willd.........Buckthorn ..............................10-13-29
C-Butia capitata Beccari._.........Cocoa palm ........................... 8- 6-29
C-Capsicum frutescens var. con-
oides Irish ...................... ........ Red pepper ......... ............... 6- 3-29
C-Capsicum frutescens var.
grossum Sendt. ..........................Bell pepper ...... .................. 8- 3-29
W-Carica papaya L ............-......Papaya ......-............. ............ 6-21-29
C-Carissa carandas L ...... ......Karanda ............. ..................... 9-30-29
C-Carissa grandiflora DC .........Natal plum ......................... 7- 8-29
*- C-Casimiroa edulis Llav. & Lex.. White sapote ......................... 5-25-29
C-Chaenomeles sinensis Koehne..Chinese quince ......................11-18-29
W-Chrysobalanus icaco L....-..... Cocoa plum .......................... 8- 5-29
W-Citharexylum fruticosum L.......Fiddlewood ...........................-- 9-30-29
W-Citrullus vulgaris Schrad....... Citron (melon) ......................10- 3-29
C-Citrus aurantifolia (Christ-
mann) Swingle ....................-Mexican lime ...---.................. 9-10-29
*- C-Citrus aurantium L. ...............S o u r orange, Bitter-sweet
orange, Myrtle-leaf or-
ange ...---............................ 4- 9-29
*-C-Citrus maxima Merrill.............Shaddock ............................... 4- 9-29
C-Citrus paradise Macf................Grapefruit (Pernambuco,
Marsh, Foster, Duncan,
McCarty, Royal) ............. 4- 9-29
*- C-Citrus limonia Osbeck...............Sweet lemon ....................... 4- 9-29
*-C-Citrus mitis Blanco..................Calamondin -----...................... 4- 9-29
*- C-Citrus nobilis Lour. .................King mandarin ...................... 4- 9-29
*-C-Citrus nobilis var. deliciosa
Swingle ..................................Tangerine (Dancy, Cleopa-
tra) ................................... 4- 9-29
C-Citrus nobilis var. unshiu
Swingle ........................ Satsuma ...............................11-10-29
*--C-Citrus sinensis Osbeck ..............Sweet orange (Homosassa,
Valencia, Parson Brown,
Malta, Lambs Summer,
Lue Gim Gong) ................ 4- 9-29
C-Citrus hybrids ....................
C-Citrus aurantifolia (Christ-
mann) Swingle X Fortun-
ella japonica Swingle .............Eustis limequat ................. 9-10-29
C-Fortunella margarita Swingle
X Citrange .............. ............ Citrangequat .................... 11- 4-29
C-Poncirus trifoliata Ra f. X
Citrus sinensis Osbeck .............Citrange ............................11- 4-29
*-C-Citrus nobilis Lour. X
Citrus sinensis Osbeck ............Tangor ..............................- 4- 9-29
*- C-Citrus nobilis Lour. X
Citrus sinensis Osbeck ..............Temple .................................... 4- 9-29
-Parents unknown. Probably as above but may be a bud sport.
C-Citrus U.S.D.A. hybrid No.
4493 ...................................Citrus hybrid .....................11- 4-29







48 State Plant Board of Florida

Scientific Name Common Name Date
C-Citrus U.S.D.A. hybrid No.
4803 .................................. Citrus hybrid ..........................11- 2-29
C-Citrus U.S.D.A. hybrid No.
32255 .......... .............Citrus hybrid ........................11- 4-29
C-Citrus U.S.D.A. hybrid No.
48032 ........................... ...... ....... Citrus hybrid ........ ...............11- 4-29
W-Coccolobis laurifolia Jacq.........Coccolobis laurifolia ...........11-29-29
W-Coccolobis uvifera (L.) Jacq...Sea grape ..............................10-11-29
W-Crataegus floridana Sargent....Haw ....................................... 9-17-29
W-Crataegus galbana Beadle........Haw ................................. 11-29-29
W-Crataegus uniflora Muench.......Haw ............................................10- 3-29
C-Crinum asiaticum v a r. sini-
cum Baker ................... ..........St. Johns lily ..........................11- 2-29
W-Cucumis anguria Linn. ...........Wild cucumber ....................11- 4-29
C-Cucumis melo var. cantalup-
ensis Naudin .........-.............Cantaloupe ......................... 7- 8-29
C-Cucumis melo var. inodorus
Naudin .......................................... Cassaba melon ..................... 6-24-29
C-Cucumis sativis Linn. ..............Cucumber ............................10-16-29
C-Cucurbita sp. ................... .......Squash ....................................10- 5-29
C-Cydonia oblonga Mill. ..........Quince ....................................11-18-29
C-Diospyros kaki var. costata
Andre .........................................Japan persimmon ..................10-28-29
C-Diospyros kaki var. fuyugaki
Linn. f. .............. ...-....Japan persimmon .......... 8-12-29
C-Diospyros kaki var. taber No.
23 Linn. f ....-..........--.........Japan persimmon ................10-28-29
C-Diospyros kaki var. tane-na-
shii Linn. f. ...........................Japan persimmon ................ 8-12-29
W-Diospyros virginiana Linn......Wild persimmon ................... 8-12-29
C-Dovyalis hebecarpa Warb.--....Ceylon gooseberry ............ 9-14-29
C-Echmnocereus polyacanthus
Engelm. ..................................Cactus ..........................c .......................... 9- 9-29
*- C-Eugenia edulis Vell. ..............Willow leaved eugenia.......... 5-23-29
C-Eugenia jambos Linn. .............Rose apple ........................ 6- 7-29
*-C-Eugenia uniflora Linn. ............Surinam cherry ...................... 5-20 29
C-Feijoa sellowiana BErg. ...........Feijoa ...................................11- 2-29
C-Ficus carica Linn .......................Fig ..................................... 7-22-29
C-Ficus carica var. lemon............Lemon fig .................... 11- 2-29
C-Flacourtia indica Mcrr. .........Governor's plum ................. 7- 8-29
C-Fortunella japonica Swingle....Kumquat Miewa, Obi............ 4- 9-29
W-Geobalanus oblongifolius
(Michx.) Small ....................Gopher apple ..................... 8-12-29
W-Glycosmis pzntaphylla DC.........Glycosmis pentaphylla ..........11-18-29
C-Hevea brasiliensis Muell. Arg...Brazil rubber ................... 9-14-29
C-Hylocereus undatus Britt &
Rose ........................... Night blooming cereus..........10-21-29
W-Ilex caroliniana (Walt.) Tre-
lease ................................. ..Carolina holly---............... .....11-29-29
W-Lycium carolinianum Wait.......Boxthorn .........................11- 2-29
C-Lycopersicon esculentum Mill...Tomato ................................. 6-22-29
*- C-Malpighia glabra Linn. ...........Barbados cherry .................... 5-23-29
C-Mangifera indica Linn. ............Mango ................................. 6-10-29
W-Melothria pendula Linn.............Creeping cucumber ..............11- 4-29
C-Monstera deliciosa Liebm...........Monstera deliciosa .............10- 4-29
C-Musa sapientum Linn. ..............Banana .................................10-16-29
W-Nyssa biflora Walt .................. Black gum ...........................10- 8-29
W-Nyssa ogeche Marsh. ................Ogeeche lime .......................... 9-30-29
W-Opuntia dillenii (Ker.) Haw...Prickly pear ...................... 9-30-29
C-Opuntia engelmannii Salm-
Dyck. ............................. ............ Prickly pear .......................... 6- 3-29
C-Opuntia ficus-indica Mill. .......Indian fig ............................. 6- 3-29







Eighth Biennial Report


Scientific Name Common Name Date
W-Osmanthus floridana Chapm...Wild olive ..............................10-12-29
*-W-Passiflora incarnata Linn.........Maypop .................................. 5-28-29
W-Passiflora suberosa Linn.........Pass on flower ........................10-17-29
C-Persea americana Mill..............Avocado ........................... 7- 1-29
C-Pleiogynium solandri Englm...Burdekin plum ......................11- 2-29
C-Poncirus trifoliata Raf. ..........Trifol:ate orange .................... 9- 7-29
C- Prunus domestic Linn. ...........Plum ........................................10- 3-29
*-C-Prunus persica (L.) Sieb. &
Zucc. ....................................... Peach ........................................ 5-21-29
W-Prunus umbellata Ell. ............Wild plum ......................... 7- 8-29
*- C-Psidium cattleianum Sabine......Strawberry guava ................ 6-24-29
*--C-Ps'dium guajava Linn............Guava ..................................5- 9-29
C-Punica granatum Linn. ........Pomegranate ........................ 7-10-29
C-Pyracantha coccinea var. le-
landi Dipp. ............ .............. Firethorn .............. ............ 11- 4-29
*- C--Pyrus communis Linn. sero-
tina Rehd. ............. .................Leconte pear ....................... 7- 5-29
C- Pyrus malus Linn. ..................Apple ................................. .... 7- 1-29
W-Scaveola plumieri Vahl.............Goodenia ........................... 7-27-29
C-Sechium edule Swartz. ............Chayote ................................. 11-26-29
C-Selenicereus pteranthus Britt.
and Rose ............................... Cactus ...................................... 9-30-29
W-Serenoa serrulata (Michx.)
Hook ................ .. ........... .. Saw palmetto ..........................10- 8-29
W-Smilax beyrichii Kunth ............Smilax beyrichii....................11-26-29
W-Solanum aculeatissimum Jacq...Solanum aculeatissimum......11-12-29
W-Solanum carolinense Linn.........Horse nettle ............................11-29-29
C-Solanum nigrum va r. gui-
neense Linn. .............................Nightshade ........................... 6-24-29
C-Solanum seaforthianum Andr...Solanum seaforthianum ........11- 5-29
W-Solanum sisymbriifolium Lam...Solanum sisymbriifolium ......11- 2-29
W-Solanum verbascifolium Linn...Nightshade ............................11-29-29
C-Thevetia nereifolia Juss.............Bestill nut ....................... 7-24-29
C-Vitis sp. hybrid ......... ...Beacon grape .......................... 6-15-29
W-Ximenia americana Linn ....... Hog plum ......................... 8-13-29
PROGRESS OF ERADICATION CAMPAIGN
Between the date (April 6, 1929) of the discovery of the Medi-
terranean fruit fly and the end of April, 1929, 364 infested prop-
erties were found. With a steady increase taking place in the
number of inspectors employed and with the gradual shaping
of an organization, 378 more infestations were found during
May. These findings did not indicate, necessarily, any great
degree of spread by the fly during that period but were, for
the most part, the finding of infestations which had become es-
tablished prior to discovery of the fly or shortly afterwards.
With progress in clean-up of dangerous material well under
way and spraying work well started, the situation was, by May
31, being rapidly brought under control.
June revealed but 185 infestations. The number dropped in
July to 64 and in August to 8. These figures include all infesta-
tions found, regardless of whether they were primary or secon-
dary. One infestation was found in Orange County on Novem-







State Plant Board of Florida


ber 16, 1929, and another in the same county on March 4, 1930.
At St. Augustine pupae of the fruit fly were found under a sour
orange tree in a city lot July 25, 1930. No infestations have
since been found.
This record clearly indicates the definite and gratifying pro-
gress that was made in reducing the fly population and which
finally resulted in the lifting of the quarantine on November
15, 1930.
TABLE IV
INFESTATION BY COUNTIES, SHOWING DATE FIrST INFESTATION FOUND AND
DATE LAST LARVAE, ADULTS OR PUPAE WERE FOUND
April 8, 1929, to December 15, 1930


Total Prop- Date First Infes-
County erties Infested station Found


Alachua ........ 1

--Bewad...-..... 72
Brevard
Citrus ....... 1

Duval ............ 1

Flagler .......... 6

Hernando ...... 4

Hillsboro ...... 31

Lake .............. 96

Levy .............. 7

Marion .......... 12

Orange .......... 402

Osceola .......... 29

Pasco .............. 9

Pinellas ........ 16

Polk .............. 37

Putnam ._...... 24

Seminole ........ 97

St. Johns ...... 11

Sumter ......... 1

Volusia .......... 145

Total ......I 1,002 .


July 27, 1929

April 25, 1929

August 1, 1929

April 29, 1929

June 22, 1929

July 5, 1929

June 4, 1929

April 18, 1929

June 29, 1929

May 21, 1929

April 8, 1929

April 16, 1929

June 26, 1929

May 30, 1929

May 18, 1929

April 29, 1929

April 19, 1929

May 29, 1929

May 24, 1929

April 21, 1929


Date Last Infestation
Found


July 27, 1929

June 26, 1929

Aug. 5, 1929

April 29, 1929
July 1, 1929
Aug. 14, 1929

July 17, 1929

Aug. 13, 1929
June 15, 1929
Aug. 2, 1929
July 23, 1929
July 15, 1929
July 27, 1929
Aug. 2, 1929
July 13, 1929
March 4, 1930
July 8, 1929
July 19, 1929
July 2, 1929
Aug. 7, 1929
Aug. 7, 1929
July 20, 1929

July 31, 1929

Aug. 2, 1929
July 5, 1929
June 26, 1929
June 7, 1929
Aug. 27, 1929
July 25, 1930
May 24, 1929

July 5, 1929
July 12, 1929


Larvae

Larvae

Larvae

Adult
Pupae
Larvae

Larvae

Larvae
Adults
Larvae
Adults
Larvae
Adults
Larvae
Adults
Larvae
Adults
Larvae
Adults
Larvae
Adults
Larvae

Larvae

Larvae
Adults
Larvae
Adults
Larvae
Pupae
Larvae

Larvae
Adults







Eighth Biennial Report


TABLE V

MEDITERRANEAN FRUIT FLY INFESTATIONS IN FLORIDA
SUMMARY, BY COUNTIES AND TOWNS, SHOWING LOCATIONS OF INFESTED
PROPERTIES
April 8, 1929, to December 31, 1930


FLORIDA
II
Alachua County
M elrose ................. .


Brevard County
Allenhurst .......................
A rtesia .......... ..- ..- ..--
Aurantia ... .........
Banyan ..........................
Canaveral ................
City Point ....................
Cocoa ..- ...- ..........--
Courtenay .....................--
Footman .......................
Frontenac .............-......
Georgiana ............. ..-- ..-
Indianola ........... ... .......
Indian River City.............
Lotus ...........................
Merritt .........--.............
M im s ..................... ..........
Rockledge ............-............
Sharpes .............. .......
Shiloh ................ ........ .......
Titusville .......................
Turnbull ................. ...........


Citrus County
Inverness ..............


qFESTED PROPERTIES
Total Hillsborough County
1 A ntioch ...... .. ..............
Branchton ....................
1 Brandon .- .......... ..........--- .
Goldstein .. ........... ..........
1 Harney ...............----.......--
3 Knights Station ................
1 Lake Magdalene ...............
2 Lutz ................................
1 Plant City .........................
1 Remlap ...........................
11 Seffner .......................
2 Sidney .........- ........... ......-
2 Tam pa ...- ..... ... ........
1 U ceta ........ ...- ..


3
4
1
1
1
8
8
4
6
9
2

72

1


Duval County
Loretta ..................----... 1

1
Flagler County
Bunnell .............................. 1
Espanola ....................... 2
Ocean City ............-......-- 1
Ormond .......................... 1
St. John's Park ............... 1

6
Hernando County
Brooksville ................... 4

4


Total
2
1
1
2
1
4
1
1
2
1
2
2
10
1


Lake County
Albert ............................... 1
Altoona ........................ 1
A statula .............. .... ..... .... 2
A stor ..............- ............... 1
Astor Park ....................... 1
Clermont ....................... 21
Corley Island ..........-........ 1
Eustis ................ .............. .. 20
Fruitland Park .................. 3
Grand Island .................. 3
Groveland ....................... 1
Lake Jem ........................... 1
Leesburg ........................... 1
Lisbon ............... ............. .. 1
Mascotte ....................... 1
Messina ............................. 2
Minneola ......... .............. 3
Montevista ......................... 1
Mount Dora .................. 8
Oakland .............................. 1
Pittman ............................. 3
Sorrento ............................. 7
South Clermont ............ 1
Tavares .......................... 1
Umatilla .............................. 8
Withlacoochee .................. 2

96
Levy County
Montbrook ........................ 1
Raleigh .............................. 2
Williston .............................. 4

7


....







State Plant Board of Florida


Marion County Total
Belleview ................. .......... 2
Eastlake ............................ 1
Orange Springs ................ 1
Reddick .............................. 1
Silver Springs .................... 1
Stanton .............................. 2
Sum merfield ........................ 1
W eirsdale ............................ 3

12
Orange County
Apopka ............................ 14
Bay Ridge .......................... 4
Bithlo .................................. 1
Clarcona ............................ 6
Conway ................................ 20
Edgewood .......................... 4
Fairvilla .............................. 2
Ft. Christmas ................-... 13
Fuller's Crossing ................ 3
Golden Rod ........................ 8
Gotha ..........................---..... 9
Lake Jem ............................ 2
Lake Pickett ...................... 3
Lakeville ............................ 1
Lockhart ............................ 6
Killarney ............................ 1
M cDonald ........---... ...-- .. 1
M aitland ............................ 14
M inorville .................--........ 3
Mount Plymouth Corp....... 2
Oakland ......................----. ... 1
Ocoee .................................. 19
Orlando ............................ 149
Orlo Vista ............................ 4
Piedmont ..................----.......... 5
Pine Castle ........................ 6
Plymouth ..........-........-..- ..... 5
Taft .................................... 4
Tangerine .........-----................... 10
Tildenville .......................... 5
Vineland ............................ 6
W ewahotee ........................ 1
W inderm ere ........................ 13
W inter Garden ................ 8
W inter Park ...................... 40
Zante .................................. 4
Zellwood ............................ 4

402
Osceola County
Campbell ............................ 1
Carolina .............................. 2
Deer Park .......................... 2
Kissim mee .......................... 3
K issimmee Park ................ 5
N arcoossee .......................... 4
Oliver's Island .................. 2
Pleasant H ill ...................... 2


Total
St. Cloud ........................... 5
W olf Creek ........................ 3

29
Pasco County
Dade City ............................ 1
Jake Jovita ........................ 2
St. Joseph .......................... 3
W estley .............................. 1
Zephyrhills .......................... 2

9
Pinellas County
Bayview .............................. 1
Clearwater ........................ 1
Dellwood ............................ 1
Indian Rocks .................... 2
Ozona .................................. 3
Palm Harbor .................... 1
Sem inole .............................. 1
St. Petersburg .................. 6

16
Polk County
Auburndale ........................ 3
Bartow ................................ 1
Dundee ................................ 3
Eagle Lake ........................ 1
Foxtown ............................ 2
Galloway ............................ 1
Griffin ................................ 1
Haines City ...................... 3
Lakeland ............................ 9
Loughman .......................... 1
M edulla .............................. 1
M illard .............................. 2
Peace Valley .................... 1
Pok City ............................ 2
Providence .......................... 1
Socrum ................................ 3
W averly .............................. 1
W inter Haven .................... 1

37
Putnam County
Crescent City .................... 2
Drayton Island .................. 1
East Palatka .............:...... 1
Ft. Gates ............................ 3
Georgetown ........................ 2
Interlachen ........................ 2
Keuka .................................. 1
Lake Como .......................... 2
M anville ............................ 1
M elrose ................................ 1
Palatka .............................. 1
Pomona .............................. 1
San M ateo ........................ 4
W elaka ............................... 2

24







Eighth Biennial Report


St. Johns County Total
Armstrong .......................... 2
Bakersville ....................... 1
Crescent Beach .................. 1
Hastings ............................ 1
New Augustine ................ 1
Riverdale ............-.......... 1
Spuds .................................. 1
St. Augustine .................... 2
Switzerland ..-........-.... .. 1
11
Seminole County
Altamonte Springs .......... 12
Chuluota ............................ 11
Forest City ........................ 6
G eneva ................................ 9
Goden Rod ........................ 9
Lake Howell .................... 2
Lake Mary ........................ 3
Lake Monroe ...................... 1
Longwood .......................... 14
Maitland (vicinity) .......... 3
Markham ............................ 3
O viedo ................................ 9
P ao!a .................................. 5
Sanford .............................. 10

97
Sumter County
Oxford ................................ 1


Volusia County Total
A lam ana ............................ 3
A l'endale ............................ 3
A riel .................................... 6
Bakersburg ........................ 2
Barberville ........................ 4
Benson Springs ................ 4
Benson Junction ......-....... 1
Beresford ............................ 5
Bishopville .......................... 1
Cassadaga .......................... 2
Cow Creek .......................... 2
D aytona .............................. 2
DeLand ................................ 16
DcLeon Springs ................ 5
Edgewater .......................... 1
Em poria .............................. 2
Garfield .............................. 2
Glencoe ................................ 2
G enwood ............................ 8
H olly H ill .......................... 9
Lake Helen ........................ 3
N ew Sm yrna .................... 11
Oak H ill ............................ 9
Orm ond .............................. 5
Orange City ...................... 3
Orange City Junction ...... 1
Osteen .................................. 5
Pierson ................................ 2
Port Orange ...................... 12
Sevi:le .................................. 7
Shiloh (vicinity) .............. 1
Spring Garden .................. 6

145


Spray Program


One of the procedures determined upon when the eradication
campaign was undertaken was that of the use of poison bait
spray. This procedure had a sound scientific background and
was regarded as of prime importance in the program of eradica-
tion.
For the destruction of flies which had matured prior to re-
moval of host fruits and vegetables a bait spray was applied to
trees in infested properties and in properties within one mile
thereof. This mixture as first applied consisted of the follow-
ing formula:

Lead arsenate ...........................--- -........- ....- .. 8 lbs.
Crude brown sugar ...................... ........... ...... ...... 50 lbs.
M olasses ...................................................................... 10 gals.
W after ................................................... ........ ................ 200 gals.

After the campaign was well under way, the amount of ar-
senate was reduced to four pounds.






State Plant Board of Florida


Later it was determined by the Research Section that copper
was toxic to the Mediterranean fruit fly and in the fall of 1929
copper carbonate was substituted for arsenic in the precaution-
ary spraying. The formula used was:
Copper carbonate ......... .-- -----................ ......... 8 lbs.
Syrup (blackstrap molasses) .............................. ... 5 gals.
Sugar (soft brown) ............-. ............- .. ............. 25 lbs.
W ater ................................ ......... 195 gals.
In carrying out the spraying program during the summer and
fall of 1929 the following materials were used:
Sugar .................................. ...... .......... .. 2,218,387 lbs.
Lead arsenate .......................... ............. 299,309 lbs.
Syrup (molasses) ........................... ......... ......... 375,301 gals.
It was felt necessary that some steps should be taken for the
destruction of adult flies for the reason that they may live for
several months (maximum life recorded, 10 months).
The term "bait spray" is a misnomer, in that the material
seemed not actually to attract flies for distances greater than a
few inches and was not spread generally over the tree as is the
case with sprays ordinarily used for control of insects. Only
a small quantity was applied to each tree and that generally near
the center of the top. Power sprayers were used, for the most
part, in commercial groves and knapsack sprayers in small and
residential properties. Official forces sprayed as high as 110,000
acres a week within the infested zones. Growers themselves
sprayed citrus groves quite generally in the remainder of the
Eradication Area. Roadside spraying amounted to the equiva-
lent of one spraying along 18,554 miles of highway. Roadside
spraying was deemed advisable for a two-fold purpose: first,
to create barriers of poison against the spread or flight of adult
flies from infested properties and, secondly, to insure the death
of flies developing from fruits discarded by travelers along the
highways.
The bait was applied to wild and semi-wild growth in the
infested zones, the attempt, naturally, being made to effect the
destruction of every adult fly that might be present.
During the late fall of 1929 many complaints were received
by the Plant Commissioner to the effect that the poison spray
used in the campaign was affecting the quality of the fruit and
even damaging the trees themselves. To determine to what
extent, if at all, this spray material was responsible for these







Eighth Biennial Report


conditions, a committee of outstanding Florida citrus growers,
men with years of experience in citrus production and them-
selves having extensive investments in citrus groves, conducted
an extensive survey. This committee, consisting of Wm. L.
Drew, Chairman, Eagle Lake, Sam L. Harris, Eustis, A. R. Traf-
ford, Cocoa, John S. Taylor, Largo, and Rupert Smith, Arcadia,
made its investigation over the period from December 3, 1929,
to January 21, 1930, serving without compensation and operat-
ing independently of the official forces engaged in the fruit fly
work. Their summary of the situation and their conclusions,
made public January 21, 1930, are quoted in full below:

"Summary and Conclusions of the Citrus Growers' Investiga-
tional Committee on the Use and Effect of Arsenical
Bait Spray Against the Mediterranean Fruit Fly
"1. The amount of injury caused by the 'bait spray' can easily be,
and often has been exaggerated. Many of the groves that have been
sprayed fourteen or more times show no injury to trees that can be de-
tected and but little, if any, injury to fruit. This is generally true of
trees twelve or more years old that were in a healthy and vigorous con-
dition when the spraying began, and were not allowed to suffer from
hunger. Where trees of this age have been allowed to suffer from hunger
it is usually not possible to determine how much, if any, the 'bait spray'
may have contributed to their impaired vigor.
"2. Injury has sometimes resulted in groves less than twelve years
old ranging all the way from slight to severe. Here again the condition
of the trees when sprayed is a very important factor. If healthy and well
fed the harm resulting to trees of a particular size is likely to be much
less than when the trees have been weakened by hunger or other causes.
Vigorous well grown trees from eight to twelve years old usually show
but slight evidence of injury. Younger trees are in much greater danger
of harm from the spray and serious injury has often resulted. Where the
trees have been weakened by hunger or other cause the injury has often
been severe.
"3. Where injury has resulted it is manifested by the weakening and
gradual death of the twigs and smaller branches which have been repeatedly
struck by the spray. In the most severe cases the foliage on the living
portions of the tree is sparse, the leaves are small, faded and lifeless in
appearance. New growth, if any, is weak and unthrifty.
"4. The injury has been much more severe, in groves where injury
has occurred, where the spraying has been done by power sprayers than
where knapsack sprayers were used.
"5. The damage is much more prevalent on trees grown on light, sandy
lands than those on heavier sandy loams and hammock lands.
"6. The smaller the tree the more susceptible it is to injury from
the spray.







State Plant Board of Florida


"7. Pineapple orange trees seem more subject to injury than other
varieties observed. Valencia orange trees are also injured. Dancy tan-
gerines are resistant but not immune. Grapefruit trees, while not immune,
are very resistant.
"8. No injury has been observed where the trees were sprayed only
four times.
"9. Fruit has matured at least a month earlier than usual this year,
and there has been an abnormally heavy drop. This has occurred in all
parts of the State in sections where no spraying has been done, as well
as where the 'bait spray' has been used.
"10. Injury to fruit is manifested by loss of acidity and consequent
flatness of taste. It is greatest where trees have suffered most, and least
where trees have suffered least. Some fruit has been burned by the spray;
but this injury is not very common.
"In conclusion the Committee wishes to make the following statement:
"The presence of the Mediterranean fruit fly in the State is a very
serious menace to the citrus industry. Those who assert that it has been
with us for a long time should prove their assertion. This Committee does
not believe it to be true. If the industry is to live the fly must either be
eradicated or controlled. If control, rather than eradication, measures, are
adopted all states that have reason to fear the fly will quarantine against
all Florida products that are hosts of the fly. This, of course, if the Fed-
eral Government does not do it for them. These quarantines will continue
until the fly has spread into all of these States and they have no longer
any reasons to fear invasion from Florida. It is possible then that the time
may come that unceasing and expensive control measures and the intro-
duction of parasites may bring the fly under commercial control. This
condition will not be reached for many years. Meanwhile, the industry
will have perished for want of a market and will have to be started all
over again when the readjustment is completed. This is not a pleasant
prospect for the present generation of growers.
"The Committee believes that the present favorable progress toward
eradication is largely due to the use of the arsenic 'bait spray'. Nothing
was known that could be substituted for it and there was no time to search
for a substitute. Its use was therefore justified and wise. It was known
that damage to trees and fruit might result from its use; but there was
no reasonable alternative. This Committee believes that the beneficial
results of the 'bait spray' far outweigh the damage that has occurred. To
blame the National Department of Agriculture and the State Plant Board
for using the arsenic spray the Committee believes to be unwise and unjust.
While the 'bait spray' was being used, investigators have been searching
for a substitute, and one has been found containing no arsenic which there
is reason to believe will prove equally effective. The Committee hopes
that this may prove to be true and the use of arsenic can be discontinued.
"The Committee has tried, in this report, to state the facts as it finds
them, and at the same time not to lose sight of the peril that confronts the
horticultural interests of the State."

The attention of growers and others who claim that the spray
program carried on as part of the eradication campaign caused






Eighth Biennial Report


severe losses through the impairment of the flavor of the fruit
and through damage to the trees themselves is called to the fol-
lowing three significant facts:
1. Very little, if any, bait spray was applied to that part of
the citrus area lying outside of the Eradication Area. This area
produces about one-fourth of the total crop. Therefore, of an es-
timated 1929-30 crop of 14,000,000 boxes, about 3,500,000 were
produced entirely outside of the affected area; yet the com-
plaints of poor quality fruit occurring last season were general.
2. The gross revenue to the state from the 1928-29 crop
(26,266,965 boxes) was $56,126,267. The gross revenue to the
state from the 1929-30 crop (14,214,600 boxes) was $52,757,313
or only $3,378,954 less than the 1928-29 crop. The returns to
the producer for the 1928-29 crop were $5,038,711.65. The re-
turns to the producer for the 1929-30 crop were $16,942,604.00*.
3. The estimate of the State Marketing Bureau for the 1930-
31 citrus crop is 26,500,000 boxes.
A careful study of the above figures should convince even
the most bitter opponent of the spray campaign that the loss
to the state through this activity was very, very small.

Traps
In connection with the investigations of the Research Section
fly traps, baited with kerosene (which is attractive to the male
flies) were widely used (a) in infested properties to maintain an
approximate index on the prevalence of flies and (b) in "non-
infested areas" to detect the possible presence of flies not dis-
coverable by any other means. That these traps were of real
value is demonstrated by the fact that as high as 81 adult flies
were caught in one trap, and 373 in 29 traps in one day. These
captures were made, of course, in the early days of the cam-
paign when the adult flies were plentiful. Prior to August, 1929,
1,644 adult Mediterranean fruit flies were caught in such traps,
for the most part in properties known to be infested; but no
adult flies have been captured by this or other means since that
date, indicating, at least, a great scarcity of adult flies. On
March 31, 1930, on which date the trap work was discontinued,
there were 12,645 traps in operation.

(*The above figures were taken from the report of the Florida State
Marketing Bureau.)






State Plant Board of Florida


Analysis of Results
By the last of August, 1929, an examination of the results
following the application of the eradication measures also re-
vealed encouraging information as to the efficiency of the
measures used. In the case of 38 infestations, or foci, circum-
stances-such as the proximity of other infestations-made
doubtful the value of any analysis but in the case of the remain-
ing 962 the records, both of the infestations and succeeding
developments, are sufficiently clear as to admit of significant
interpretation. Nine hundred and fifty of these were quite evi-
dently primary infestations; that is, they had become established
prior to the application of eradication measures. In the case
of these 950, no infestation was afterwards discovered in such
properties, or in the mile zone surrounding them, under con-
ditions indicating "hang-over" or secondary infestations. Twelve
infestations, out of 962, were quite clearly secondary; that is,
they resulted from failure to make the eradication measures,
at the first attempt, 100 per cent effective. No tertiary infesta-
tions followed the clean-up and treatment of the 12 secondary
or "hang-over" infestations. This indicates an efficiency of 98.8
per cent in the eradication measures employed.

Developments Since Fall of 1929
In the fall of 1929 work against the Mediterranean fruit fly
had to be slowed up as it was necessary to curtail expenses until
Congress should provide additional appropriations. In the
meantime, it was imperative that the federal requirements with
respect to crop movement be met and the crops kept moving
out of the state.
On November 16 a light infestation was found some ten or
twelve miles west of Orlando, this being the first finding after
August, 1929. This was cleaned up and no further trouble oc-
curred in that locality.
The matter of further appropriations had been presented to
Congress by the Secretary of Agriculture and on December 18
Congress appropriated $1,290,000. Of this, $1,000,000 was to
carry on the work of inspection and crop movement and $290,000
was to replace moneys borrowed from other Department of
Agriculture funds. In January it became apparent that further
curtailments would be necessary to keep the crops moving under
certification. Consequently on January 11, 1930, all eradica-
tion work (that is, spraying and clean-up) was discontinued.






Eighth Biennial Report


Federal Fruit Fly Board
To serve as the direct representatives of the Secretary of
Agriculture, the Federal Fruit Fly Board, consisting of five
entomologists, commenced its duties in Orlando on January
21, 1930. This Board consisted of W. C. O'Kane, State Ento-
mologist, New Hampshire; P. J. Parrott, Entomologist of the
New York Experiment Station, New York; Geo. A. Dean, Pro-
fessor of Entomology, Kansas State Agricultural College, Kan-
sas; J. J. Davis, Professor of Entomology at Purdue University,
Indiana; and W. P. Flint, State Entomologist of Illinois. The
functions of this Board as defined by the Secretary of Agri-
culture were "to consider all biological and entomological ques-
tions, to determine policies in the actual fruit fly eradication
work, and to supervise and control federal expenditures in the
eradication effort"; and, further, "to provide for dissemination
to all interested persons in Florida of full information on con-
ditions in the fruit fly eradication work."
The House of Representatives, on February 10, 1930, passed
a resolution, introduced by Chairman Wood of the Appropria-
tions Committee, authorizing an investigation as to the necessity
for further appropriations for fruit fly work, as well as the gen-
eral status of the fruit fly campaign. A sub-committee con-
sisting of Representatives Will R. Wood, L. C. Cramton, R. G.
Simmons, J. W. Byrnes and J. P. Buchanan, held hearings at
Orlando February 25 to March 8. On June 7, 1930, there was
made available through congressional action $1,740,000 for con-
tinuation of inspection and certification and $1,500,000 for emer-
gency eradication work.
On March 4, 1930, a slight infestation of the Mediterranean
fruit fly was found in the environs of Orlando. This was
thoroughly cleaned up and there has been no recurrence at that
point.
By the middle of March or thereabouts it became apparent
that a further curtailment of expenditures would be necessary
if crop movement was to continue, and on March 26 instructions
were received from the Secretary of Agriculture through the
Plant Quarantine and Control Administration at Washington to
suspend all inspection activities, effective that day. Arrange-
ments were made, however, to provide for the packing house
inspection necessary to keep the crop moving out of the state
under permit. This incident, when considered with the dis-






State Plant Board of Florida


continuance of the eradication work in January, suspended the
entire program for a time. For this reason, on March 29 the
Plant Commissioner resigned as federal agent in charge and the
work was taken over by the Federal Fruit Fly Board, of which
W. C. O'Kane was chairman. Later Mr. O'Kane became the fed-
eral executive officer in charge of the work in Florida.
In connection with the discontinuance of the eradication work
and the suspension of inspection work, the Department of Agri-
culture found itself in a position, because of lack of funds, where
it could not keep the crops moving out of the State and main-
tain the quarantine lines around the eradication area at the
same time. A request was therefore made by the Department
of Agriculture that the State Plant Board of Florida take over,
for a time at least, the maintenance of the internal quarantine
lines. The alternative to this would have been the placing of
all Florida within an eradication area. As a consequence, such
advantages as the sections outside of the original eradication
area enjoyed would be taken away. To consider this emergency
the Chairman of the State Plant Board called a special meeting
of the Board to be held at Tallahassee March 30-31, and at the
same time issued notice of a public hearing to be held on the
same date. At this hearing the situation was gone over care-
fully with representative growers and shippers and the facts
were later presented to the Governor and his cabinet. As the
result of this discussion an agreement was reached whereby the
state took over the maintenance of the quarantine lines on the
morning of March 28. (The action of the Governor and his cab-
inet was retroactive to the 28th.) This state maintenance of
the quarantine lines was continued until June 11-14, when it
was again taken over by the federal authorities.

Developments Since June 30, 1930
Congress in June made available for the Mediterranean fruit
fly work in Florida the sum of $1,740,000, and in addition there
was appropriated an emergency fund of $1,500,000 to be used
when the President of the United States declared that infesta-
tions of sufficient number and intensity were found in Florida
to justify its expenditure. Immediately upon this money be-
coming available the Administration on June 11 resumed the
intensive inspection for the fruit fly in Florida. The field in-
spection force was rapidly augmented until there were employed
during August some 670 inspectors in both the Eradication and






Eighth Biennial Report


Barrier Areas. This force, with the usual changes in personnel,
continued to function until October 15, 1930, when, again on
account of a prospective shortage of funds, a considerable re-
duction was made in the field force, some 200 men being laid
off. On November 15, when the Secretary of Agriculture lifted
Quarantine 68, another drastic cut was made in the number of
men employed. With this reduction in the field force, there was
a consolidation of districts throughout the State. The number
of District Inspectors was reduced from 25 to 12 and the field
force was cut to 213 inspectors.

Extent of Infestations Summer and Fall of 1930
From the date of the resumption of the field inspection activ-
ities in June until the lifting of the quarantine on November 15,
1930, as has been previously indicated, only one infested prop-
erty was located. On July 25 two pupae were found by federal
inspectors under a sour orange tree in St. Augustine. This
finding was immediately investigated by the Secretary of Agri-
culture, who, together with the Chief of the Administration, Lee
A. Strong, and various officials from the Orlando office of the
Plant Quarantine and Control Administration, as well as rep-
resentatives from the Plant Commissioner's office, visited the
infested property on July 28. Immediately after the visit of
the Secretary the usual steps were taken to clean up this out-
break.
Cooperative Spray Activity
Inasmuch as there was now no money available for clean-up
or spray measures (except in cases of emergency), the Admin-
istration was unable to carry on with the spray campaign dur-
ing the summer of 1930. Realizing that this activity during the
summer of 1929 was a very important factor in checking pos-
sible development and spread of the fly, plans were made for
a resumption of spraying on a cooperative basis. Under the
terms of this arrangement, the Plant Board agreed to supply
the spray materials gratis to the growers; the Florida Citrus
Growers' Clearing House Association undertook to deliver the
material to central supply depots throughout the peninsular
part of the state; the Administration arranged to supervise the
application of the spray, while the growers themselves agreed
to do the actual spraying of all citrus trees both within the
Eradication Area and outside thereof.






State Plant Board of Florida


For a short time it appeared as if the Board would not be
able to carry its share of this arrangement. Participation in
the spray program on the part of the Board was made possible
through the generous action of the Honorable Nathan Mayo,
Commissioner of Agriculture, who arranged for the temporary
transfer of $10,000 from his department to the State Plant
Board for the purchase of the necessary spray materials. Much
credit is due Mr. Mayo and his department for his hearty co-
operation with the Board not only in this particular instance,
but throughout the entire fruit fly campaign.
The difficult situation in which the Board was placed with
regard to participation in the spray program discussed in the
preceding paragraphs was due to unusually large and unexpected
obligations imposed upon it in connection with the maintenance
of the internal quarantine lines at the boundaries of the Eradi-
cation Area. The Board was forced to assume this unexpected
obligation by reason of an adverse ruling of the Comptroller
General of the United States, who, immediately following the
congressional investigation in March, notified the Administra-
tion that the salaries of the men employed on road patrol ac-
tivities for the month of March could not be paid out of federal
funds, this in spite of the fact that the employment of these
men had been approved by the Washington office of the Ad-
ministration and the Department had paid them regularly since
May, 1929. An opinion of the Solicitor of the Department that
this expenditure should rightly and justly be assumed by the
Department was overruled by the Comptroller General. This
unexpected obligation, together with the road patrol salaries
for April, May, and the first two weeks in June, placed the
Board in an embarrassing financial position. Although the
legislature had appropriated $500,000 for fruit fly eradication
purposes, this money was 'only available at the rate of $10,000
per month.

Removal of Guards on Eradication Area Boundaries
From June 11 to July 30, the road patrol stations on the in-
ternal quarantine lines were maintained by the Administration.
On July 31, pending formal action by the Board, the Chairman
authorized the suspension of the Board's rules prohibiting or
restricting the movement of host fruits and vegetables from
the Eradication Area to points outside thereof lying east of
the Ocklockonee River. This action by the Chairman was taken






Eighth Biennial Report


upon authorization by Secretary Hyde to modify the Board's
quarantine by removing from such classification all parts of
Florida heretofore designated as eradication areas, and to de-
clare all that part of Florida lying east of the Ocklockonee River
a regulated area. With the authorization of such action on
the part of the Board there was no further need for the main-
tenance of the road patrol on the old Eradication Area bound-
aries in Florida, and on July 30, 1930, the Administration dis-
continued this activity.
Identification of Specimens
Perhaps the outstanding achievement of the Adminstration
during the summer of 1930 was the collection and identification
of many thousands of specimens collected by the field inspectors.
As many as eight to ten thousand specimens a day were sent
into the Orlando office and identified. Out of the hundreds of
thousands of specimens collected, only one proved to be Mediter-
ranean fruit fly (reference is made to the St. Augustine infesta-
tion found on July 25).
The failure to find Mediterranean fruit fly in any of its stages
in these specimens greatly influenced the Administration in
carrying forward its policy of gradually lightening the restric-
tions imposed by reason of Quarantine 68. As a matter of fact,
every revision of Quarantine 68, with one exception, tended to
lighten the burden imposed on the growers in Florida. This,
we think, is a record for the Administration in connection with
its many quarantines imposed throughout the country on ac-
count of the presence of major insect pests and plant diseases.
Revisions in Quarantines
A general revision of Quarantine 68, effective August 15,
1930, was announced by the Secretary of Agriculture on August
12. This revision was followed by a similar revision of the
State quarantine. The most important changes in the Federal
Quarantine were: (1) Removal of the regulation requiring ster-
ilization of host fruits and vegetables shipped to the Middle
Western States, except where the material was produced on
properties close to points of recent infestation or where growers
failed to comply with clean-up, spraying, and similar require-
ments; (2) opening of the South and West to shipments through-
out the shipping season instead of being limited to the mid-
winter months; (3) restrictions on vegetable shipments modified






State Plant Board of Florida


so as to permit the shipment of unsterilized tomatoes, eggplants
and lima beans throughout the country, including the South and
West. The requirement that peppers be sterilized when in-
tended for shipment into the South and West was retained;
(4) the "infested areas" were reduced in size from one mile to
one-half mile.
Following this general revision in the federal quarantine, the
Administration made several other important changes during
the following months. On October 15 the Secretary of Agricul-
ture authorized the Plant Board to remove from the restrictions
imposed by reason of Quarantine 68 that part of the State of
Florida between the Ocklockonee River and the Aucilla River,
which action had the effect of increasing the number of counties
comprising the West Florida Area from 13 to 16 by the in-
clusion of the Counties of Jefferson, Leon and Wakulla.
As stated elsewhere in this report, W. C. O'Kane, Chairman
of the Federal Fruit Fly Board, was appointed Federal Execu-
tive in charge of the eradication activities in Florida and con-
tinued to function in that capacity until October 15th. Inasmuch
as Mr. O'Kane's connection with the Administration was only
a temporary one, it became necessary for him to return to New
Hampshire on October 15, 1930, to resume his duties as Entomol-
ogist of the Agricultural Experiment Station of that state. P. A.
Hoidale, Senior Plant Quarantine Inspector in charge of the
Morelos fruit fly eradication project in Texas, was assigned by
the Administration to assume the direction of the field activities
in Florida. In his capacity as Chairman of the Federal Fruit
Fly Board and as Federal Executive in charge of the work, Pro-
fessor O'Kane, who came to Florida with no small reputation as
an executive, made an exhaustive study of the fundamental
points involved in the eradication campaign. After careful in-
vestigation Professor O'Kane continued the essential features
of the original program when the inspection activities were re-
sumed in June, 1930. Thus through the administration of three
different executives, and after investigation by two official
commissions sent to Florida to inquire into conditions in the
state pertaining to the eradication campaign, the policies and
practices originally adopted were continued.
It is also worthy of note that in addition to the official in-
vestigations and approval of both the plan of campaign and the
manner in which it was carried out, the eradication program was
very favorably commented upon by members of the National






Eighth Biennial Report


Plant Board, who had opportunity during the annual meeting
held at Orlando in January, 1930, to make a careful study of
the entire project. While the National Plant Board, whose
membership is composed of agricultural and horticultural ex-
perts and specialists from all parts of the United States, has no
official connection with the United States Department of Agri-
culture, its recommendations and decisions are given careful
consideration by the Secretary of Agriculture and his associates.
On November 7, 1930, the State Plant Board, at its regular
meeting held in Gainesville, discussed the advisability of lifting
the present quarantine on Florida products. As a result of this
discussion, the Board requested the Secretary of Agriculture,
Honorable Arthur M. Hyde, to take this action. On November
15, 1930, Quarantine 68, imposed on Florida products because
of the danger of disseminating the Mediterranean fruit fly, was
raised by the United States Department of Agriculture.
In line with the action of Secretary Hyde in raising the inter-
state quarantine imposed on the movement of Florida products,
the State Plant Board took similar action with respect to the
intrastate quarantine. On November 10, the Chairman, pending
formal action by the State Plant Board, authorized the sus-
pension, effective November 15, of Rules 42D, 42E, 42F, 42G,
42H, 421, 42J, 42K, 42L, 42M (2), 42N, 420, 42P, 42Q and 42R,
which applied to the fruit fly activity. On December 6 the State
Plant Board, at its regular meeting, formally authorized the
suspension of the above mentioned rules.
From the very beginning of the eradication campaign it was
felt by both federal and state authorities that the extermina-
tion of the Mediterranean fruit fly was not only essential to the
welfare of Florida but to the welfare of the nation at large.
That others besides federal and state officials felt that this
activity was of national scope is evidenced by the action taken
during the meeting of the American Association for the Ad-
vancement of Science held at Cleveland in December, 1930, when
the American Association of Economic Entomologists there
assembled adopted the following resolution:
"WHEREAS, The establishment of the Mediterranean fruit fly in Flor-
ida constituted a great menace to the horticultural industries of the South
and West and,
"WHEREAS, The campaign to eradicate this pest has accomplished re-
sults far beyond our expectations, and






State Plant Board of Florida


"WHEREAS, This campaign is one of the outstanding achievements in
the annals of economic entomology
"BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED: That the American Association of Eco-
nomic Entomologists here assembled extends to the Plant Quarantine and
Control Administration of the United States Department of Agriculture
and to the State Plant Board of Florida its congratulations on the great
work accomplished to date.
"AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That a copy of this resolution be for-
warded to the President of the United States, the Secretary of Agricul-
ture, the Governor of Florida, and to the officials of organizations in-
volved."
APPROPRIATIONS
April 15, 1929. The emergency fund of $50,000.00 provided
by a previous session of the Florida Legislature was made avail-
able through joint action of His Excellency, Doyle E. Carlton,
Governor of Florida, and the State Plant Board. At the same
time the Board arranged for the transfer of other Board funds
for fruit fly purposes.
April 17, 1929. The sum of $40,000.00 was made available
by the Plant Quarantine and Control Administration for use in
Florida, which sum was transferred from the pink bollworm
appropriation of the Administration.
May 2, 1929. $4,250,000.00 was made available through joint
action of the United State Senate and the House of Representa-
tives by the transfer of this sum from an unexpended balance
of the $5,000,000.00 appropriated for the establishment and
maintenance of non-cotton zones in connection with the Ad-
ministration's pink bollworm project in Texas.
June 7, 1929. The Florida Legislature appropriated the sum
of $500,000.00 for fruit fly eradication work in Florida.
December 18, 1929. $1,290,000.00 was made available by
congressional action. Of this sum $1,000,000.00 was to be used
for inspectional work and crop movement and $290,000.00 was
to replace moneys borrowed from other Department of Agricul-
ture funds.
June 7, 1930. $1,740,000.00 was appropriated by Congress for
inspection work only; at the same time an emergency fund of
$1,500,000.00 was provided for.






Eighth Biennial Report


Financial Statement April 16, 1929, to December 31, 1930
State and Federal Mediterranean Fruit Fly Expenditures
Florida Plant Act of 1927 ...................- $ 3,970.10
State Plant Board, Chapter No. 11808 ........... 35,524.53
State Plant Board Emergency Appropriation,
Chapter No. 11808, Section 2......... ...---- 50,000.00
Mediterranean Fruit Fly, Chapter No. 13693 .... 284,942.83
$374,437.46
Total Credits (Canceled Warrants, etc.).............. 12,681.51
Total Expenditures from State Plant Board
Funds to December 31, 1930--- -. .......................$ 361,755.95
Florida Agricultural Experiment Station ......... 14,077.14
Florida Agricultural Extension Service............ 5,642.86 19,720.00
Total from State Funds to December 31, 1930.............................. $ 381,475.95
Expended and Obligated by Plant Quarantine
and Control Admin's'ration on Mediter-
ranean Fruit Fly Work in Florida from
Federal Funds to December 31, 1930 ............ .......$6,471,161.00
Total Expenditures from State and Federal
Funds to December 31, 1930 .....- .......-...............$6,858,636.95
QUARANTINES

On April 15, 1929, the State Plant Board adopted its first
rules and regulations with the view of eradicating the fruit fly
from the state. The Board members kept in close touch with the
situation throughout the campaign, and many special meetings,
in addition to the regular monthly meetings, were held. As
the situation developed the various rules and regulations in effect
were amended to meet changed conditions, and new rules were
adopted.
On April 26, 1929, the Secretary of Agriculture promulgated
Federal Quarantine No. 68 to cover the entire State of Florida,
effective May 1. This quarantine prohibited the movement of
all host fruits and vegetables and other possible carriers from
infested areas, and provided for their movement from other
areas under adequate safeguards. On May 16 Administrative
Instructions were issued under this federal quarantine to pro-
hibit movement by any means of host fruits and vegetables from
any part of Florida into the eighteen southern and western
states.
On September 1, 1929, Quarantine 68 was revised, and during
the months following further revisions were made so as to allow
the interstate shipment of host fruits and vegetables, except
infested material, or material produced on infested properties,
from all parts of Florida.






State Plant Board of Florida


Host fruits and host vegetables* produced in the Eradication
Area were allowed to move under permit into that part of the
country north and east of the Potomac Yards, Virginia, and to
points in Pennsylvania and New York and states north and
east thereof. Sterilized host fruits and green tomatoes pro-
duced in the Eradication Area were allowed to move under per-
mit into the middle western states. Peppers, lima and broad
beans produced in the Eradication Area were permitted to move
into the northeastern states only. Host fruits and vegetables
produced outside the Eradication Area were allowed shipment
under permit into all states except the eighteen southern and
western states. On November 21, 1929, the quarantine was
further modified to permit movement of fruit under sterilization
into the southern and western states (which sections up to that
time had been excluded from all movement of host fruits and
vegetables from Florida) until January 31, 1930.

Rules and Regulations Relating to the Handling of the Mediter-
ranean Fruit Fly Adopted, Amended or Repealed
by the State Plant Board Between April
15, 1929, and December 31, 1930
April 15, 1929
The following rules, pertaining to the Mediterranean fruit
fly, were adopted:
Rule 42-A. Declaring the Mediterranean fruit fly and articles infested
therewith to be public nuisances.
Rule 42-B. Declaring Orange, Seminole and a portion of Lake County,
Florida, to be infested with the Mediterranean fruit fly.
Rule 42-C. Prohibiting the transportation within the State of Florida
of material infested with the Mediterranean fruit fly.
Rule 42-D. Declaring fruits, vegetables, and other materials infested
with the Mediterranean fruit fly subject to confiscation and destruction.
Rule 42-E. Prohibiting transportation of fruits out of area infested
with Mediterranean fruit fly, except as provided.
Rule 42-F. Prohibiting transportation of vegetables out of area in-
fested with Mediterranean fruit fly, except as provided.
Rule 42-G. Prohibiting movement of soil or earth and of trees and
plants with soil about the roots out of area infested with Mediterranean
fruit fly.
Rule 8-L (a new rule under the nursery series). Prohibiting the re-
moval of nursery stock with soil about the roots from area declared in-
fested with Mediterranean fruit fly.
Rule 42-H. Prohibiting movement of fruits, vegetables and other agri-
*Tomatoes, peppers, eggplants, lima and broad or Fava beans.







Eighth Biennial Report


cultural products from places where Mediterranean fruit fly occurs, ex-
cept as provided.
Rule 42-I. Providing that work in properties infested with Mediter-
ranean fruit fly must be conducted under supervision of agents of the
Plant Board.
Rule 42-J. Prohibiting planting, cultivation and harvesting of crops in
properties infested with Mediterranean fruit fly.
Rule 42-K. Prohibiting pasturing of live stock in properties infested
with the Mediterranean fruit fly.
Rule 42-L. Prohibiting removal of live stock, implements, vehicles, etc.,
from properties infested with Mediterranean fruit fly.
Rule 42-M. Packing houses, canneries, and cold storage plants in area
infested with Mediterranean fruit fly required to dispose of cull fruit
and vegetables in accordance with Plant Board requirements.
Rule 42-N. Garbage and plant refuse in area infested with Mediter-
ranean fruit fly required to be disposed of in accordance with Plant Board
requirements.

April 27, 1929
Rule 42 adopted. Defining words, names and terms used in the fruit
fly regulations.
Rule 42-B amended. Extending area infested by Mediterranean fruit fly.
Rule 42-E amended. Addition of words "or zones" after "areas" in
4th line; and by insertion of words "or is likely to occur" after "occurs"
in 6th line.
Rule 42-F. Amended by addition of words "or zones" after "areas"
in third line; and by insertion of words "or is likely to occur" after "oc-
curs" in fourth line.
Rule 42-G. Amended by insertion of words "or zones" after "areas"
in third and fifth lines.
Rule 42-J. Amended by insertion of words "or in any infested zone
surrounding such property" after "fruit fly" in third line.
Rule 42-0. Adopted. Requiring disinfection of freight cars, vehicles,
equipment and appliances which may act as carriers of fruit fly, when
moved from infested areas.
Rule 42-P. Adopted. Requiring screening of places of business, ve-
hicles, etc., used in handling of host fruits and vegetables within infested
area.
Rule 42-Q. Adopted. Declaring each property infested with Mediter-
ranean fruit fly to be the center of an infested zone.
(1) Declaring area within one mile radius of infested property to be
an infested zone and providing for inclusion of additional area therein.
(2) Requiring processing, etc., of hosts within infested zones; prohibit-
ing planting of hosts within infested zone.
(3) Requiring treatment of soil in infested zone, railway cars and ve-
hicles, fruit-packing equipment, etc.
Rule 42-R. Adopted.
(1) Declaring area within nine miles of boundary of infested zone a
protective zone.
(2) Establishing a host-free period.







State Plant Board of Florida


(3) Requiring destruction or processing of citrus fruits prior to com-
mencement of host-free period.
(4) Prohibiting planting of host vegetables in protective zone which
mature during the host-free period.
(5) Prohibiting existence of hosts in protective zone during host-free
period, except immature citrus fruit; providing for storage.
(6) Prohibiting planting of host fruit trees within protective zone.
Rule 42-S. Adopted. Prohibiting movement within state of citrus
fruits in bulk; providing for movement to packing houses.

May 4, 1929
Rule 42 (e). Amended by insertion of words "which area is hereby
declared to be an area in which infestation is likely to occur" in the second
line.
Rule 42 (g). Amended by insertion of words "fresh or green" before
"vegetables"; by addition of "cantaloupes and cucumbers" to definition of
host vegetables; by insertion of "(including string beans, lima beans and
cowpeas)" after "beans of all kinds".
Rule 42-B. Amended to include additional infested area.
Rule 42-E. Amended by addition of the following to list of host fruits:
Surinam cherries, grapes, kumquats, limes, loquats, persimmons and blue-
berries.
Rule 42-F. Amended by substitution of "peppers of all kinds" for the
word "peppers"; by addition of tomatoes and green or fresh beans to list;
by insertion of "or" after "and" in third line.
Rule 42-J. Amended by addition of the following at end of rule: "Pro-
vided, that cover crops and green manure crops the products of which are
not subject to infestation, may be grown."
Rule 42-M. Amended by striking out the words "located in an area
designated in the rules and public notices of the Board as areas in which
the Mediterranean fruit fly occurs"; by eliminating the words "of the
Board" at the end of the first paragraph; by substitution of the words "in
accordance with such safeguards" for the words "in such manner" in the
second paragraph.
Rule 42-N. Amended by adding the word "or" after "and"; by addi-
tion of the words "and/or zones" after "areas" in the third line; by strik-
ing out the words "of the Board" after "inspector" in the fifth line.
Rule 42-0. Amended by substituting "railway" for "freight" in the
first line; by inserting "or through" after "from" in the fourth line; by
adding "or" after "and" in the fourth line; by adding "and/or zones" in
the fifth line; by adding "or is likely to occur" after "occurs" in the sixth
line; by changing last line to read: "and otherwise handled in a manner
approved by the Inspector".
Rule 42-P. Amended by addition of "or" in the seventh line; by
changing last clause to read: "and take such other precautions as the in-
spector may deem necessary to insure adequate protection from this pest."
Rule 42-S. Amended by addition of proviso for movement of citrus
fruit in bulk from approved packing houses to approved processing plants
when outside infested area; within protective zone; from packing house







Eighth Biennial Report


outside protective zone to processing plant within; and providing for clos-
ing, screening, or covering of vehicles in transit.
Rule 42-T. Adopted. Requiring destruction of stored host fruits and
vegetables in infested and protective zones on June 1; providing for storage
within such zones of fruits and vegetables produced outside.

May 13, 1929
Rule 42 (g). Amended by the addition of a number of hosts to list.
Rule 42-B. Amended to include additional infested area.
Rule 42-E. Amended to include additional host fruits.
Rule 42-F. Amended by changing the arrangement of the words.
Rule 42-G. Amended by addition of "sand, peat, compost and manure"
to list of materials given.
Rule 42-J. Amended by elimination of the following from third line:
"or in any infested zone surrounding such property".
Rule 42-K. Amended by striking out the last clause and substituting
the following: "except under such conditions and safeguards as may be
deemed necessary by the inspector to prevent the dissemination of the
Mediterranean fruit fly."
Rule 42-P. Amended by addition of words "having in their possession"
in second line; by insertion of word "residence" in eleventh line.
Rule 42-Q (2). Amended by insertion of the following in the ninth
line: "except as provided in Rule 42-P and Rule 42-T".
Rule 42-S. Amended by striking out the following from the second
line: "for sale or delivery, or intended for sale or barter".
Rule 42-U. Adopted. Requiring removal and destruction of citrus
fruits in infested and protective zones prior to June 15, 1929; providing
for storage and interstate shipment.

THE FOLLOWING RULES WERE ADOPTED:
Rule 43-A. Establishing a "Barrier Zone" or "Zone 3".
Rule 43-B. Designating area west of Ocklockonee River as "Zone 4".
Rule 43-C.
(1) Prohibiting movement of citrus fruit from Zone 3 to Zone 4 except
as provided.
(2) Prohibiting movement of citrus fruit in bulk or by truck from Zone
3 to Zone 4.
(3) Providing for movement of packed fruit from Zone 3 to Zone 4.
(4) Shipping season for fruit from Zone 3 to Zone 4 to close June 15,
1929.
(5) No permits to be issued for fruit produced in infested or protective
zones to be moved to Zone 4.
(6) Application for permits required.
(7) Requirements to be complied with by applicant for permits.
Rule 43-D.
(1) Certain fruits and nuts exempt from restrictions in moving from
Zone 3 to Zone 4.
(2) Providing for shipment of non-citrus fruits from Zone 3 to Zone 4.
(3) Bulk shipments of non-citrus fruits prohibited from Zone 3 to Zone
4 except as provided.







State Plant Board of Florida


(4) Specifications for preparation of non-citrus fruits for movement
from Zone 3 to Zone 4.
(5) Shipments of non-citrus fruit from Zone 3 to Zone 4 prohibited
during host-free period.
Rule 43-E. Shipment of certain green vegetables from Zone 3 to Zone
4 prohibited except as provided. Such shipments prohibited from infested
and protective zones.
Rule 43-F. Soil, earth, etc., prohibited movement from Zone 3 to Zone 4.
Rule 43-G. Requiring thorough cleaning of railway cars, vehicles and
containers used in transporting hosts from Zone 3 to Zone 4.
Rule 43-H. Requirements to be met in moving fruit-packing equipment,
etc., from Zone 3 to Zone 4.
Rule 43-I. Movement of nursery stock from Zone 3 to Zone 4-require-
ments to be complied with.
Rule 43-J.
(1) Marking requirements.
(2) Inspection of containers and vehicles.
(3) Revocation of permits.
Rule 43-K. Form of permit.
May 28, 1929
Rule 42-B. Amended to include additional infested area.
Rule 43-K. Amended by striking out the words "Form 700 PQCA" and
substituting "of the series Form 700 PQCA (namely, Form 700, 701, 702,
etc. PQCA) ".
Rule 42-E. Amended by addition of provision for movement of fruit
from protective zones to Florida ports for export.
Rule 43-L. Adopted. Prohibiting movement of stone fruits from Zone
4 into Zone 3.
Rule 44. Adopted. Prohibiting shipment of stone fruits into Florida
from other states.

June 8, 1929
Rule 42 (f). Amended by inserting the word "moss" in list of material,
and adding to the rule the words "and all articles or things which in the
judgment of the inspector may act as carriers of the Mediterranean fruit
fly in any of its stages".
Rule 42-B. Amended by addition of infested area.
Rule 42-G. Amended by adding the words "moss (both fresh and pro-
cessed or dried)" in lines 1 and 2, and by adding: "Provided, that this
shall not apply to Fuller's earth, kaolin clay, phosphatic sand or clay
and similar mined or dredged products, including sand, when, in the judg-
ment of the inspector, such movement does not carry any risk of spread-
ing the Mediterranean fruit fly."
Rule 42-Q. Amended by addition of Paragraph 4-treatment of articles
likely to carry Mediterranean fruit fly, when moved from an infested zone.
Rule 42-R (6). Amended by addition of proviso for planting of palms
and of citrus trees in protective zone.
Rule 43-1. Amended by striking out the words "including all kinds of"
and substituting "and all other".







Eighth Biennial Report


Rule 45. Adopted. Requiring removal and destruction of host fruit
trees and plants on abandoned or uncared-for properties.

June 17, 1929
Rule 42-B. Amended by inclusion of additional infested area.
Rule 42 (g). Amended by striking out of "(2)" the words "(including
string beans, lima beans and cowpeas)" and substituting therefore the
words "(except cowpeas)".
Rule 42-I. Amended by addition of the words "nursery, farm, garden
or other property" after the word "grove" in the fourth line.
Rule 42-J. Amended by inserting the words "farm, garden" after the
word "nursery" in line 2; by striking out all that portion of the rule after
the word "fly" in line 3, and substituting the following: "shall be carried
on by the owner or his employees under the general supervision of agents
of the State Plant Board designated for this purpose. Said agents shall
prescribe such precautions in connection with the grove, nursery, farm
or garden operations as will tend to prevent the spread or dissemination
of the Mediterranean fruit fly: Provided, that no host fruits or host vege-
tables shall be planted within such infested grove, nursery, farm, garden
or other property".
Rule 8-L. Amended by insertion of "or" after "and"; by striking out
"is known to occur" and substituting therefore the words "occurs or is
likely to occur".

July 15, 1929
Rule 42. Amended by addition of paragraph defining "Quarantined
Areas" and changing lettering of subsequent definitions.
Rule 42-B. Amended to include additional infested area.
Rule 42-P. Amended by addition of following sentence: "All fruits
and vegetables coming under the provisions of this rule and which have not
been handled and safeguarded as required herein and any refuse or ma-
terials which might serve as an agency in the dissemination of the Mediter-
ranean fruit fly are hereby declared to be public nuisances and as such
are subject to immediate confiscation and destruction".
Rule 42-T. Amended to require: That cold storage plants secure au-
thorization for storing host fruits or vegetables; that the removal of host
fruits and vegetables be under certain conditions; and to specify area to
which stored hosts may be shipped.

July 26, 1929
Rule 43-L. Repealed. Prohibited shipment of stone fruits from Zone
4 into Zone 3.
Rule 44. Repealed. Prohibited shipment of stone fruits into the State
of Florida.

August 12, 1929
Rule 42 (h). Amended by striking out the word "strawberry"; by
striking out the words "beans of all kinds (including string beans, lima
beans and cowpeas)" and the word "cucumbers".
Rule 42-B. Amended to include additional infested area.







State Plant Board of Florida


Rule 42-E. Amended by striking out the word "strawberries".
Rule 42-F. Amended by striking out the words "beans of all kinds (in-
cluding string beans, lima beans and cowpeas)"; by striking out the word
"cucumbers".

September 16, 1929
THE FOLLOWING RULES OF THE BOARD WITH REFERENCE TO
THE MEDITERRANEAN FRUIT FLY WERE REPEALED:
The 42 series (Rules 42, 42-A, 42-B, etc.)
The 43 series (Rules 43-A, etc.)
THE FOLLOWING NEW RULES WERE ADOPTED:
Rule 42. Definitions of words, names and terms used in the regulations.
Rule 42-A. Declares Mediterranean fruit fly as a public nuisance.
Rule 42-B. Declares certain areas as eradication areas.
Rule 42-C. Host-free period.
Rule 42-D. Spraying, clean-up and planting limitations on commercial
properties in eradication area.
Rule 42-E. Spraying and clean-up other than on commercial properties
in eradication areas.
Rule 42-F. Eradication of infestation.
Rule 42-G. Fruit and vegetable sterilization.
Rule 42-H. Control of local handling and utilization agencies.
Rule 42-I. Storage plant requirements.
Rule 42-J. Disposition of garbage and refuse.
Rule 42-K. Permits required.
Rule 42-L. Suspension of certificates and permits.
Rule 42-M. Marking requirements.
Rule 42-N. Prohibited shipments.
Rule 42-0. Special requirements as to containers and vehicles.
Rule 42-P. Restrictions on movement of cotton.
Rule 42-Q. Restrictions on the movement of sand, soil, earth, peat, moss,
compost and manure.
Rule 42-R. Nursery stock shipping restrictions.
Rule 42-S. Restrictions on the movement of picking equipment'and
other articles.
Rule 42-T. Inspection in transit.
Rule 42-U. Shipment for scientific purposes.
Rule 42-V. State-wide citrus clean-up.

October 14, 1929
Rule 42-C (4). Revised to include loquats in exceptions.
Rule 42-D (2). Revised to include loquats in exceptions.
Rule 42-K (2). Revised by striking out: "or Barrier Area" and sub-
stituting "to any point in the State of Florida or from the Barrier Area
to the West Florida Area".
Rule 42-N (2). Revised by adding at end of paragraph the words "ex-
cept under permit from the Board."
Rule 42-N (3). Revised by striking out "when such movement is not
to or through any point outside an Eradication Area"; by insertion of the







Eighth Biennial Report


following in the ninth line: "except that host fruits and vegetables may
be moved for the purpose of packing from approved groves or fields to ap-
proved packing houses in field boxes with or without covering".
Rule 42-L. Repealed. Regarding removal of nursery stock with soil
about the roots.

November 16, 1929
Rule 42-D (1) (a). Amended by substituting "weekly" for "semi-
weekly".
Rule 42-D (1) (b). Amended by substituting "weekly" for "semi-
weekly".

December 9, 1929
Rule 42-I. Amended in order to incorporate in the rule authority for
certification of and suspension of not only storage plants but also pro-
cessing plants and packing houses.

January 4, 1930
Rule 42-T. Amended by addition of the following sentence: "And all
persons driving motor cars or other vehicles on the public highways must
stop at Plant Board quarantine inspection posts for the purposes of in-
spection".

January 13, 1930
Rule 42-D (1) (a). Amended by adding in the second line, after the
word "clean-up" the words "and approved disposition".
February 12, 1930
Rule 42-I. Amended by designating paragraph "2" as "2 (a)" and add-
ing a new sub-paragraph "(b)", requirements for receipt of host fruits
by cold storage plants.
Rule 42-N (2). Amended by adding after the words "Rule 42-0" the
following: "nor by rail from one point within any Eradication Area to
another point within that Eradication Area, except in standard commer-
cial containers, or under permit".
Rule 42-N (3). Amended by inserting the words "cold storage" after
the words "approved packing houses" in line 4; by inserting the words "cold
storage and/or" after the words "from approved packing houses to ap-
proved" in line 5.
February 17, 1930
Rule 42-C (2). Amended by addition of sub-paragraph (b) permitting
the production of cantaloupes in the Eradication Area until June 15.
Rule 42-C (3). Amended by the addition of the following words: "No
date limitation is placed on the production of host vegetables outside the
Eradication Area".
Rule 42-K (2). Amended by addition of the following proviso: "Pro-
vided, that this shall not apply to the movement of green tomatoes from
the Barrier Area to points in the West Florida Area when such movement
is being made in accordance with all the provisions of the state and Fed-
eral regulations applying thereto".






State Plant Board of Florida


Rule 42-P. (Cotton regulations). Amended by the addition of a new
paragraph (1), changing the numbers of the others to 2, 3 and 4; by the
addition of the following to paragraph (3) : "provided, that the Board may
issue permits for the movement of seed cotton to points located in the
Barrier Area for ginning only."

May 3, 1930
Rule 42-C (4). Repealed. Regarding destruction of hosts which nor-
mally produce fruits or vegetables susceptible to infestation during the
host-free period.

May 12, 1930
Rule 42-C (1). Amended by the addition of the words "except grapes"
after the words "host fruits" in the third line; by changing the date of
commencement of the host-free period for vegetables from June 15 to
July 1 in the fourth line; by the addition of the words "and for grapes
beginning on July 15" after the words "June 15" in the fourth line; and
by changing the date of termination of the host-free period in the fourth
line from October 1st to September 1st.
Rule 42-C (1) (a). Amended by omitting the words "and Guatemalan"
after the words "citrus fruits" in the first line; and by addition of the
words "bananas and persimmons" after the word "avocados" in the same
line.
Rule 42-C (2) (b). Amended to extend the period of production of
cantaloupes in the Eradication Areas from June 15 to July 1.
Rule 42-D (2). Repealed. Regarding planting within Eradication
Areas of certain hosts of Mediterranean fruit fly.
Rule 42-F (2). Amended by omitting the words "No host fruits or
vegetables shall be planted within such infested grove, nursery, farm,
garden or other property, except under authorization from the Board"
after the words "fruit fly" in the tenth line.

June 16, 1930
Rule 42-A. Amended by addition of a third paragraph, designated as
(3), providing for inspection of nurseries, orchards, etc., to determine
whether Mediterranean fruit fly infestation exists.

July 14, 1930
Rule 42-H. Suspended that part of Rule 42-H providing for the screen-
ing and otherwise covering of host materials of the Mediterranean fruit fly.
Rule 42-N (3). Suspended that part of Rule 42-N (3) providing for
the transportation of host fruits and vegetables in tightly closed railway
cars or in screened trucks.
Rule 42-0 (3). Suspended.

August 11, 1930
Rule 42 Series suspended. New series 42 adopted as follows: (This
action necessary account revision Plant Quarantine and Control Admin-
istration Quarantine No. 68).








Eighth Biennial Report


Rule 42. Definitions.
Rule 42-A. Declares Mediterranean Fruit Fly a Public Nuisance.
Rule 42-B. Declares Certain Areas as Regulated and Infested Areas.
Rule 42-C. Eradication of Infestation.
Rule 42-D. Citrus-free Period in Regulated Areas.
Rule 42-E. Spraying and Clean-up in Regulated Areas.
Rule 42-F. Control of Local Handling and Utilization Agencies.
Rule 42-G. Packing, Processing, and Storage Plant Requirements.
Rule 42-H. Disposition of Garbage and Refuse.
Rule 42-I. Fruit and Vegetable Sterilization.
Rule 42-J. Permits Required and Conditions Governing the Issuance
of Permits.
Rule 42-K. Suspension of Certificates and Permits.
Rule 42-L. Marking Requirements.
Rule 42-M. Prohibited Shipments.
Rule 42-N. Special Requirements as to Containers and Vehicles.
Rule 42-0. Restrictions on the Movement of Sand, Soil, Earth, Peat,
Compost and Manure.
Rule 42-P. Nursery Stock Shipping Restrictions.
Rule 42-Q. Restrictions on the Movement of Picking Equipment and
Other Articles.
Rule 42-R. Inspection in Transit.
Rule 42-S. Shipment for Scientific Purposes.

October 14, 1930
Rule 42-G (3) (a). Amended by omitting the words "except to the
West Florida Area".
Rule 42-J (2). Amended by omitting the last sentence which reads
as follows: "Except by special authorization of the Board no permits
shall be issued for the shipment of peppers nor for host fruits, unless the
same has been sterilized by a method approved by the Plant Quarantine
and Control Administration, United States Department of Agriculture."
Rule 42-N (3). Amended by omitting the words "or from the regulated
area to the West Florida Area."

November 7, 1930
Rule 42 (e). Amended by substituting the words "Aucilla River" for
the words "Ocklockonee River".
Rule 42-B (1). Amended by substituting the words "Aucilla River"
for the words "Ocklockonee River" in the last sentence.
Rule 42-E (2). Amended by omitting the words "and vegetables" in
the first and last lines.
Rule 42-G (2). Amended by omitting the words "or other host ma-
terial" in line 2.
Rule 42-G (3) (a). Amended by omitting the words "and vegetables".
Rule 42-J (1). Amended by omitting the words "and vegetables" in
line 1.
Rule 42-J (2). Amended by omitting the words "and vegetables" in
line 2.
Rule 42-J (3). Repealed and new Rule 42-J (3) adopted in its place.







State Plant Board of Florida


(This rule provides for shipment under permit of host vegetables from
infested area and host fruits from infested and regulated areas.)
Rule 42-J (4). Repealed and new Rule 42-J (4) adopted in its place.
(This rule requires property inspection as a condition of movement of
host material.)
Rule 42-J (6). Repealed and new Rule 42-J (6) adopted in its place.
(This rule provides for shipment of host material for export under permit.)
(The above action was authorized by Chairman Yonge on October 16,
1930.)

December 6, 1930
Rules 42D, 42E, 42F, 42G, 42H, 421, 42J, 42K, 42L, 42M (2), 42N,
420, 42P, 42Q and 42R suspended. This action necessary on account
lifting of Quarantine No. 68 by the Secretary of Agriculture, November
15, 1930.
(This suspension authorized by Chairman P. K. Yonge on November
13, 1930.)

Changes in Quarantine No. 68, Plant Quarantine and Control
Administration, United States Department of Agriculture

Following the promulgation of Quarantine 68 by the Federal
Government on May 1, 1929, constant changes were made in the
regulations by the government, and, of course, by the Board,
following federal action or approval. It is interesting to note
that every such change lightened the load placed on the growers
and shippers in the state. A list of the most important changes
in the federal regulations (followed in all cases by changes in
state regulations except where interstate movement was con-
cerned) is given below:


May 11, 1929


May 23, 1929


June 4, 1929

June 14, 1929


June 27, 1929
July 2, 1929



July 23, 1929


Green tomatoes, chile and cayenne peppers from in-
fested zones permitted shipment to points north of
Potomac Yards to June 30, 1929.
All non-citrus fruits and host vegetables from pro-
tective zones permitted shipment to points north of
Potomac Yards to June 15; for grapes to June 30.
Citrus fruits from protective zones established sub-
sequent to May 31 permitted shipment to June 15.
Eggplants and peppers of all kinds from protective
zones permitted shipment to points north of Potomac
Yards to June 30.
Cowpeas removed from host list.
Grapes produced in protective zones and stored in
approved cold storage plants prior to July 1 permitted
shipment to points north of Potomac Yards throughout
the year.
Limes produced in Dade and Monroe Counties per-
mitted shipment to all states.










August 12, 1929
August 30, 1929



Sept. 16, 1929







Sept. 19, 1929





October 11, 1929

October 12, 1929

October 23, 1929

November 11, 1929




November 18, 1929

November 27, 1929

November 30, 1929



December 17, 1929

December 26, 1929

January 23, 1930


February 3, 1930


Eighth Biennial Report 79

String beans removed from host list.
1. Mature citrus fruits permitted to remain on trees
prior to October 1.
2. Shipments citrus fruits permitted prior to October
1, 1929.
Released from the Eradication Area the following ter-
ritory:
1. Southern tier of townships in Brevard and Osceola
Counties.
2. Two southern tiers of townships in Polk County.
3. That part of Hillsboro County lying south and west
of the Little Manatee River.
1. Approved and authorized refrigeration method of
sterilization.
2. Authorized treatment in approved cold storage
plants in northern states. This opened up midwestern
states to Eradication Area fruit and permitted for first
time shipment of fruit produced in infested areas.
Weekly clean-up of drops substituted for semi-weekly
clean-up.
Authorized State Plant Board to release as infested
areas all areas so created prior to August 1, 1929.
Heat sterilization approved and authorized for grape-
fruit.
Sterilized citrus fruits from all parts of state except
infested areas permitted shipment into southern and
western states from November 21, 1929, to January
31, 1930. (Subject to extension of one additional
month).
Tomatoes produced outside of Eradication Area per-
mitted shipment to any state.
Heat sterilization approved and authorized for oranges,
tangerines and Satsumas.
On request of Plant Board authorized release from
designation as infested areas all areas (eight in num-
ber) found infested subsequent to July 31 and up to
and including August 27, 1929.
Celery permitted shipment without washing and under
safe conditions specified.
Containers other than standard orange crates, etc.,
permitted.
Provided for movement of sterilized host fruits into
and reshipment between southern states, from No-
vember 21, 1929, to February 28, 1930.
Permitted sterilized fruit and tomatoes and eggplants
from the infested State, as well as peppers and lima
and broad beans produced outside the eradication area
to move in unbroken original containers from Pitts-
burgh, Baltimore, and Washington to Virginia, West
Virginia, and Ohio.







State Plant Board of Florida


February 6, 1930

February 11, 1930

February 19, 1930


February 20, 1930

February 26, 1930

March 3, 1930

March 4, 1930


April 1, 1930

April 1, 1930
April 10, 1930



April 14, 1930


(Undated)


April 30, 1930




June 21, 1930







July 24, 1930

July 24, 1930


August 21, 1930

August 21, 1930


Extension of shipment period for cantaloupes to June
15 in eradication area.
Authorized certain fabric mesh bags as standard con-
tainers in accordance with PQCA-258.
Permitted cotton production in the eradication area
in host-free period, and authorized movement of cot-
ton intrastate for ginning.
Released West Florida from quarantine and gave it
same status as eighteen southern states.
Extended shipping period of citrus and other host
fruits to April 15, instead of April 1.
Permitted less than car lot express shipment of vege-
tables from the Barrier Area.
Authorized cold sterilization of 30 to 31 degrees (15
days) for citrus fruits either in Florida or in North
(not in southern states).
Modified regulations covering production harvesting
and shipping of host fruits and vegetables.
Explained spraying requirements for grapes.
Permitted re-shipment of host fruits and vegetables
sent carlot to southern states, thus allowing regional
distribution of these by small shipment. Re-shipment
to south from northeast and midwest not permitted.
Cancelled the requirement for elimination of summer
host plants but retained requirement of removal of
susceptible fruits from these.
Provided for disposition of citrus fruits, avocados, per-
simmons, and bananas, ripening during the summer
host-free period.
Allowed peppers and broad and lima beans to move
to central states; required for peppers spraying and
a safety zone of 100 feet; provided for diversion of
host vegetables (not host fruits) within the area of
distribution.
Provided for host-free period beginning for
(1) Citrus........................April 15
(2) Other host fruits....April 15
(3) Cantaloupes................July 15
(4) Host vegetables..........July 15
(5) Grapes...............-......August 1
and continuing until September 1.
Provided for movement of sterilized avocados from
Florida to other southern and western states.
Modification of production and harvesting period of
Florida grapes (see June 21, 1930). Season for grapes
beginning on August 16.
Sterilization of grapefruit, oranges, tangerines, Sat-
sumas and avocados by use of heat.
Sterilization of grapefruit, oranges, tangerines, Sat-
sumas by refrigeration.







Eighth Biennial Report


October 15, 1930 Revision of Regulations 3 and 6, removing from quar-
antined area that part of State of Florida lying be-
tween Aucilla River and Ocklockonee River. Removes
restrictions on shipment of host vegetables produced
outside infested areas.
October 15, 1930 Amendment to Regulations 6, 11 and 12:
1. Removing sterilization requirements for host fruits
and vegetables moved interstate from those parts of
Florida not included in infested areas.
2. Removing restrictions as to cleaning railway cars,
boats and other vehicles in moving restricted articles
out of regulated area.
3. Providing for unrestricted reshipment from north-
ern to southern and western states of host fruits and
vegetables originating in the regulated area.
Therefore free redistribution allowed throughout
United States of restricted articles moved from regu-
lated area in compliance with regulations.
November 5, 1930 Removes prohibition against transportation host fruits
from regulated area by trucks and other road vehicles
under certain conditions.
November 15, 1930 Quarantines because of Mediterranean fruit fly lifted.

Relief Afforded by Revision of Notice of Quarantine No. 68 Ef-
fective September 1, 1929, as Compared with Original
Quarantine and Administrative Instructions
Supplemental Thereto

1. Host fruits and vegetables reduced in number. Strawberries, gourds,
pumpkins and squashes removed from host list.
2. Host-free period termination date advanced one month.
3. Permitted maturity host fruits and vegetables in Zones one or infested
zones.
4. Permitted shipment of sterilized host fruits and vegetables from in-
fested zones.
5. Eradication measures in re new infestations. Destroy only limited
portion in case of light infestation. If general infestation in a property
only destroy host fruits and vegetables within property. Shipment
under sterilization permitted of remaining fruits and vegetables.







State Plant Board of Florida


SUMMARY SECTION REPORTS

FIELD INSPECTION SECTION

Report from April, 1929, to December 31, 1930
Citrus Properties Inspected ........................ .............. 597,843
Citrus Trees Inspected ............ .................. ...... .....235,170,709
Non-citrus Properties Inspected ...................................................... 215,677
Non-citrus Trees Inspected ........................................................... 23,115,345
Vegetable Properties Inspected ....................................... 23.648
(Note: The figures given above include reinspections, as the various
properties were inspected several times.)

QUARANTINE ENFORCEMENT SECTION

Report from May 18, 1929, to July 31, 1930*

It was the function of this Section to inspect, at all railway,
bus and boat stations located within the Eradication Area, all
baggage intended for transportation to points outside thereof,
as well as all vehicles and baggage leaving the Eradication Area.
Vehicles Inspected .......... 4,825,989 Hosts Found in Vehicles.... 62,089
Baggage Inspected .......... 5,122,219 Hosts Found in Baggage.... 20,470
Total Inspections .... 9,948,208 Total Hosts Found........ 82,559

PERMIT SECTION

Report of Permit Section from September 1, 1929,
to November 15, 1930**
It was the function of this Section to certify for interstate
and intra-state transportation all material the movement of
which was restricted by Federal or State quarantines.
No. Cars Host Fruits and Vegetables Shipped Interstate.......... 49,116.49
No. Cars Host Fruits and Vegetables Shipped Intrastate............ 1,096.57
Total Cars Shipped ................................ ....... ......... 50,113.08
No. Truck Loads Citrus Fruits Moved to Processing Houses............ 20,747
No. Single Box Express Shipments...................................... ....... 613,112
No. Shipments Nursery Stock Permitted Movement................... 150,790

TRANSIT INSPECTION REPORT

January 1, 1930, to March 31, 1930

In January, 1930, inspectors were stationed at Jacksonville,
High Springs, and other transfer points in the state for the
purpose of ascertaining that all interstate movements of host
fruits and vegetables were properly certified.

*Guards on Eradication Area limits were removed July 31, 1930.
**Permit Section discontinued on lifting of Quarantine 68, Nov. 15, 1930.







Eighth Biennial Report 83

Interceptions-Express and Boat Shipments

Returned to Shipper: Corrected and Passed:
No. Shipments ........................ 1,125 No. Shipments ........................ 118
No. Crates ...---.............- 2,316 No. Crates .............................. 704

Interceptions-Car Lots

Returned to Shipper .......................... ..... ...------ .- 0
Corrected and Passed ................................... -- --.. ..- 275
Total Waybills Checked .... .................... ......... ... 39,868
Empty Cars Intercepted for Cleaning.......................................... 436
Empty Cars Inspected ................. ................... ... 26,235

REPORT OF PACKING HOUSES, PROCESSING PLANTS, COLD STORAGE
PLANTS, RAILROADS AND SCREENING SECTION

From April 15, 1929, to November 15, 1930*

It was the function of this Section to exercise supervision over
packing, storage and processing plants and related activities and
to see that same were operated in a sanitary manner and in
conformity with Federal and State requirements.

Total Number of Citrus Packing Houses in State........................ 342
Total Capacity Citrus Packing Houses in State (Boxes) .......... 44,942,904
Total Number of Packing Houses in Eradication Area................. 254
Total Capacity Packing Houses in Eradication Area (Boxes)...... 33,378,648
Total Number of Packing Houses in Barrier Area......................... 88
Total Capacity of Packing Houses in Barrier Area (Boxes) ....... 11,564,256
Total Number of Packing Houses Equipped for Sterilization...... 66
Total Number of Sterilization Rooms ..................................... 178
Total Number of Vegetable Packing Houses in State.................... 189
Total Number of Fern Packing Houses in State...................... 22
(Certified and under inspection)
Total Number of Cold Storage Plants in State.............-.............. 146
Total Capacity of Cold Storage Plants in State (Boxes)................ 811,129
Total Number of Processing Plants in State....................... .... 70
(Above data as of 1929-30 shipping season.)

INSPECTIONS

April 15, 1929, to February 28, 1930, Inclusive

Packing Houses ........................................ --............ .......... 79,128
Cold Storage Plants .............. .... ........................ ..................... 839
Processing Plants .....-..... ............................... 3,174
City Dumps, Cull Pits ...................................... .................. 3,375
Railroads ...... ...... ............. ............... ...... 738
Screening ............... .. . .............. .......... . 68.597
Confiscations ......... .. ...............................360
Perm its issued .............. ....... .... .................... ............................. 44,749
Sterilization by Heat:
Number of Cars ................... .... ................................ ..... 4,454

*Packing House Section was discontinued upon lifting of Quarantine
68, on November 15, 1930.







State Plant Board of Florida


Sterilization by Cold:
Number of Cars ........................................................... 175
Number of Canneries Closed for Minor Violations......................... 3
Number of Packing Houses Closed for Minor Violations................ 17
Single Box Shippers Permits Revoked.............................. ......... 9
Ferneries Inspected .......................................... ..... ........... 1,063

CLEAN-UP SECTION

Report for Period from April 13 to December 31, 1929*

Statistics
Citrus Clean-up Total to Date
Total Citrus Acreage .................... ..... .............. 120,157
Acres Cleaned 1st time.................................. 120,585
Acres .Cleaned 2nd time .................................... .. 114,775
Acres Cleaned 3rd time ....................................... 87,853
Acres Cleaned 4th time ...................................... 60,170
Acres Cleaned 5th time ................................... 19,942
Acres Cleaned 6th time .................................. 15,411
Acres Cleaned 7th time ................. ................... 5,077
Acres Cleaned 8th time ..................... ............. 1,535
Acres Cleaned 9th time ..................................... 411
Acres Cleaned 10th time.................................... 732
Acres Cleaned 11th time.................................... 407
Acres Cleaned 12th time ....................................... 2
Total Acres Cleaned .................................. 426,900
No. Properties Cleaned .................................... 36,207
Boxes Citrus Destroyed ............................... 489,108
Cultivated Non-citrus
Total Cultivated Non-citrus Acreage..............160,775
Acres Cleaned 1st time ................................ ... 127,976
Acres Cleaned 2nd time ..................................... 102,825
Acres Cleaned 3rd time ---.................................. 90,351
Acres Cleaned 4th time ................................... .. 4,056
Acres Cleaned 5th time ..................................... 209
Total Acres Cleaned ............................. ........... 325,417
No. Properties Cleaned ...................................... 45,003
Material Destroyed
Vegetables (Bushels) .................... .................. 49,974
Minor Fruits (Bushels) ........................ ............... 27,395
Wild Lands
Total Wild Land Acreage ................................803,945 Pits
Acres Cleaned 1st time ................................. 662,225 Closed
Acres Cleaned 2nd time .............................. 251,981 and
Acres Cleaned 3rd time ........................................ 69,088 Open 2,978
Acres Cleaned 4th time .................................. 2,390
Acres Cleaned 5th time .................................... 160
Total Acres Cleaned ....................................... .. 985,844
No Properties Cleaned ..................................... .. 40,359
Totals (All)
Acres Cleaned and Recleaned ...........................1,738,161
No. Properties Cleaned ................................... 121,569

*The major portion of the work of the Clean-up Section was discon-
tinued on December 31, 1929.







Eighth Biennial Report 85


STATUS OF SPRAY WORK AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1930*

Number Acres Sprayed to December 31


1st time .....................

2nd time ................

3rd time .......................

4th time .......................

5th time .......................

6th time .....................

7th time ......................

8th time ........................

9th time .....................

10th time .................

11th time ...................

12th time .....................

13th time .....................

14th time ....................

15th time ....................

16th time ...................

17th time ....................

18th time ...................

19th time ...................


Total ....................


Zone 1

186,954

145,118

140,548

137,720

129,918

132,731

142,005

137,332

133,428

129,302

105,821

87,841

72,921

70,438

46,112

29,558

10,428

2,389

596


1,841,160


Zone 2

136,918

116,391

106,171

114,949

11,804

10,539

4,483

1,410

1,800

4,466

2,709

1,473

1,800

2,363

444

1,344







519,064


Total

323,872

261,509

246,719

252,669

141,722

143,270

146,488

138,742

135,228

133,768

108,530

89,314

74,721

72,801

46,556

30,902

10,428

2,389

596


2,360,224


Roadside spraying to date 18,554 miles, 313,711 gallons mixture used.
Wood spraying to date 140,315 gallons mixture used.

*The major portion of the work of the Clean-up Section was discontinued
December 31, 1929.


.

.









State Plant Board of Florida


TRAP SURVEY DIVISION

(A contribution from the Research Section)

Report from May, 1929, to March 31, 1930*

It was the function of this Division to provide for the de-
termination of the distribution and population of adult Mediter-
ranean fruit flies throughout both the Eradication and Barrier
Areas.
Chart No. 3, shown below, is a progress chart of the trap op-
erations. The solid line shows the increase in the number of
traps in operation, while the dotted line shows the increase or
decrease in the number of adult Mediterranean fruit flies caught.

CHART 3


NO. FLIES
TRAPPED
1300

1100
1000
900
600
700
600
500
400
300oo
200
100
0 -


T A P S U VE, 1929 30.


10. TRAPS
13000
12645
12Q00
11000
10000
- 9000

000

6000


- 4000
- (000
40O


- 2000
- 1000


LPEIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOT. DEC. JAN. FEB. LMR.


Table VI shows the distribution and number of the traps
placed throughout the state, the number of adult flies caught,
date placed in position and date the last fly was caught.

*The Trap Survey was discontinued March 31, 1930.







Eighth Biennial Report

TABLE VI

TRAP SURVEY FROM MAY, 1929, TO MARCH 31, 1930


County Number
Traps Used


Alachua ..............
Baker ................
Bradford ............
Brevard ..............
Broward ............
Charlotte ............
Citrus ................
Clay ...................
Columbia ............
Dade ..................
DeSoto ................
Dixie ..................
Duval .................
Flagler .............
Gilchrist ............
Glades ..............
Hardee ..............
Hendry .............
Hernando ..........
Highlands ..........
Hillsborough ....
Indian River ....
Lafayette ..........
Lake ....................
Lee ...................
Levy ...............
Manatee ............
Marion ......... ..
Martin ................
Orange ..............
Orange-Ham-
lin Grove*....
Osceola ..............
Palm Beach ......
Pasco .................
Pinellas ..............
Polk ...................
Putnam ..............
Sarasota ............
St. Johns ............
St. Lucie ............
Seminole ............
Sumter ..............
Suwannee ..........
Taylor ................
Union ..................
Volusia ..............


385
25
78
1,028
57
73
268
112
187
246
188
86
51
210
78
192
244
94
316
40
553
204
78
724
236
226
249
473
164
1,275

44
329
338
237
402
651
438
80
343
249
301
176
64
12
55
786


When First
Placed

July, 1929
Oct., 1929
Jan., 1930
June, 1929
Mar., 1930
Feb., 1930
Aug., 1929
Feb., 1930
Oct., 1929
Mar., 1930
Jan., 1930
Feb., 1930
July, 1929
Nov., 1929
Feb., 1930
Feb., 1930
Jan., 1930
Feb., 1930
July, 1929
Feb., 1930
July, 1929
Oct., 1929
Feb., 1930
May, 1929
Feb., 1930
July, 1929
Nov., 1929
June, 1929
Feb., 1930
May, 1929

May, 1929
June, 1929
Mar., 1930
July, 1929
July, 1929
June, 1929
June, 1929
Feb., 1930
July, 1929
Jan., 1930
May, 1929
June, 1929
Oct., 1929
Mar., 1930
Nov., 1929
June, 1929


Total ......... 12,645 1,644


*The Hamlin grove, located at Orlando,
erty found in April, 1929.


Date Last
Fly Was
Caught


No. Flies
Previously
Caught

0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
0
11
0
12
0
442

1,112
1
0
14
0
0
1
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
2


was the second infested prop-


June 25, 1929


..........................













July 23, 1929

July 27, 1929

July 13, 1929

July 8, 1929

May 28, 1929




June 24, 1929
J ul. ........ ".... ...92 .





June 14, 1929




June 28, 1929






State Plant Board of Florida


SECTION II

DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
It is not the intention of the Plant Commissioner to present
to the Board a detailed account of the activities of the several
departments operating under his general direction. Previous
reports have gone into details rather extensively, and it is felt
that both the Board and the public are already in possession of
essential information as to the purposes and objects sought.
Therefore it is intended to briefly outline the efforts of these
departments and submit statistical material indicating the ex-
tent to which the several departments have functioned in their
particular lines of work.
On the whole, the work of the Board through the past bien-
nium has been efficient and, it is believed, beneficial in protect-
ing Florida's agriculture from pest introduction and spread.
The outstanding event of the biennium was, of course, the fight
waged against the Mediterranean fruit fly. This subject has
been fully covered in the preceding section of this report. The
discovery of the fly in Florida and the huge undertaking of
eradicating it had an immediate and a direct effect on all of the
varied activities of the Board. The grove inspection (citrus
canker eradication) service was suspended for practically a year
(April, 1929-March, 1930) and the operations of the quaran-
tine, nursery and apiary inspection services were seriously inter-
fered with for varying periods and to varying degrees. Never-
theless, it is felt that much good has been accomplished.
In presenting the following abbreviated departmental reports
the Plant Commissioner wishes to advise that complete, detailed
and comprehensive annual reports of each department are on
file in his office and are available at any time to supply further
information which may be desired.

NURSERY INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
There has, during the past two years, been a considerable re-
duction in the number of nurseries operating in the state. Like-
wise, the total quantity of stock has decreased. This decline
permitted of a reduction in personnel. Even so, the number
of inspections per nursery per year has been maintained as pre-
viously-that is, an average of four-and the thoroughness of
the inspections has not lessened.







Eighth Biennial Report


The following summary gives the more important data for
the biennium:

Summary-Nursery Inspection Department
Biennium Ending June 30, 1930


1928-1929
Number of inspection districts ...-............-....- 8
Total acre inspections made (does not in-
clude narcissus bulbs) ................. ..... ..... 27,636.57
Total acre refusals ............................ .......... 943.34
Total stock inspected ................................. 202,973,510
Total stock refused ...................... ............... 7,446,384
Total number refusals ........... ............... ........ 583
Total number inspections made (nursery,
package, narcissus, etc.) .......................... 11,414
Total number nurseries under inspection
June 30 ............................. ....... ..... ....... 1,985
Total number inspections made of the above 7,745
Average number of inspections ...................... 4
Number of nurseries going out of business.... 531
Total number of inspections before going
out of business ................... .... ..... ...... 1,115
Number new nurseries ............................... 242
Actual acreage in citrus stock June 30....... 3,164.36
Actual acreage in non-citrus stock June 30.. 3,495.94
Actual amount of citrus stock June 30......... 18,340,416
Actual amount of non-citrus stock June 30. 36,876,816


1929-1930
9
23,497.77
1,205.77
177,452,655
5,865,375
575
11,331
1,816
7,305
4.13
576
975
293
2,410.09
3,317.98
13,397,852
36,899,685


DEPARTMENT OF GROVE INSPECTION
(Citrus Canker Eradication)

It is a distinct pleasure to report that no citrus canker infec-
tion has been found in the state during the biennium. In fact,
no infections have been discovered since November of 1927. By
reason of the fruit fly outbreak no inspections for canker were
made by the grove inspection force for a period of almost a year
-April, 1929, to March, 1930. The regular canker inspection
work was resumed by a considerably augmented force in the
latter part of March, 1930, and it is expected that the citrus
plantings of the state will be covered by June 30, 1931. There
are not at this time any properties in the state resting under
restrictions of any kind on account of canker having previously
been found therein. In other words, all of the 515 infected prop-
erties have been released from quarantine.







State Plant Board of Florida


General Summary Citrus Canker Eradication as of June 30, 1930
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, 1930.................... 515
Properties still classed as actively infected June 30, 1930................ 0
The following table shows the number of citrus grove trees found in-
fected with canker during each month from the beginning of the eradi-
cation work to June 30, 1930:,

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


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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1929 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1930 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ......... ................. .... ............ ........







Eighth Biennial Report


Summary of the Grove Inspection and Citrus Canker Eradica-
tion Department, Biennium Ending June 30, 1930


1928

July ..............
August ..........
September ....
October ..........
November ......
December ......

1929

January ..........
February ......
March ............
April ..............
May ..............
June ................
July ................
August ..........
September ....
October ..........
November ......
December ......

1930

January ........
February ......
March ............
April .............
M ay ................
June ................


Prior to July
1, 1928 ....


Totals ......


g k



34





33
33
33
33


33
33
36




133
133
33
33


33
33
33
36

0
0
0
0
0
0
0


Number of Citrus
Trees Inspected*
for Citrus Canker


Grove I


1,149,608
955,663
783,066
1,039,416
1,009,038
816,519


1,255,813
1,076,359
1,112,241
453,379
4,422
12,243
11,321
1,957
12,131
46
71
8,602


0 326
0 570
28 408,468
40 1,278,341
42 1,624,492
42 1,337,119
| 14,351,211


119,171,228


133,522,439


Nursery



5,502,405
8,651,315
5,571,721
10,165,161
6,476,571
5,653,945


10,017,013
7,527,868
6,618,595
1,255,931
1,000
6,587,922
5,890,950
3,940,558
5,213,103
5,048,372
4,076,510
4,131,479


3,664,476
4,773,922
4,786,615
2,763,186
8,066,594
5,166,465


U ,
0 Z 0 ^ 0 g
'g Cd 0 a = cd 0 V
z US o zu 4nU z"U


131,551,6771 I


1,078,116,811


1,209,668,488


*Number of trees inspected for citrus canker. Nursery trees were re-
inspected several times during year; above figures include such reinspec-
tions. Trees in Broward County inspected several times; other grove trees
once.
The only citrus canker inspection conducted during the period from July,
1929, to February, 1930, inclusive, was that made by assistant nursery in-
spectors in connection with their regular nursery inspection work.


I







State Plant Board of Florida


QUARANTINE INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
In the effort to exclude plant pests the Plant Board has main-
tained since early in its history an inspection service at ports
of entry (Miami, Key West, Tampa, Jacksonville, West Palm
Beach and Pensacola) and the main gateways into the state from
adjoining states. The port service is in conjunction with the
Federal Government. Inspectors of the state force hold ap-
pointments as collaborators of the Plant Quarantine and Con-
trol Administration, United States Department of Agriculture.
As such they apply the federal regulations governing entry of
plants and plant products from foreign countries. State regu-
lations closely follow those of the parent government, although
in some cases there are special state regulations covering par-
ticular subjects.
The work of the Department during the past biennium has
considerably increased. Traffic with adjacent countries, par-
ticularly the West Indies, has greatly increased. The number of
passengers arriving by both boat and plane is steadily on the in-
crease, with corresponding increase of pest introduction danger.
The menace through the development of airplane transport has
necessitated a material increase in the number of port inspectors
stationed at Miami. It is expected that the development of air
transport will continue and as it does the inspection force will
be called upon to cope with the changing conditions.
The following tabulation summarizes very tersely the port
quarantine work for the biennium:
Ships Inspected: 1928-1929 1929-1930 Total
Foreign ................... ........... .. 3,941 4,684 8,625
Domestic ..... ....................... 2,411 2,491 4,902
Total ....................................... 6,352 7,175 13,527
Total number parcels inspected:
Arriving by boat, express, mail,
freight ......................................2,537,695 3,007,540 5,545,235
Of the total there were:
Treated and passed ................ 243,595 85,979 329,574
Returned to shipper ......... 4,925 9,127 14,052
Contraband destroyed .......... 5,177 4,875 10,052%







Eighth Biennial Report


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


Foreign
Year Boats


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 ....

1927-1928 ....

1928-1929 ....

1929-1930 ....


Total ...... 3


166

1,240

1,777

1,724

2,458

3,035

2,225

364

2,207

2,309

2,437

2,705

2,989

3,430

3,941

4,684


17,691


Total
Boats


37'

3,25'

4,25:

3,481

4,50

4,941

4,17'

69'

4,55

4,84

5,46

6,66

5,98

6,09

6,35

7,17


72,82


*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.


No. Pack- Number
ages Arriv- Number Number Packages
ingy Boat, Packages Packages Treated
Expres, Returned Destroyed and
Freight, Passed
Mail

0[ 500 18 69 ..............

7 3,105 255 1,182 ....

3 3,422 485 1,037 ...............

5 *69,985 1,521 1,743% .......

4 336,059% 4,936% 2,345 ................

8 710,412% 2,130V2 1,564 ........

9 1,333,333% 2,610 1,757 ...............

7 747,972 201 311 .....

9 1,827,727 1,006 2,278 ......

2 1t,410,860 1,566 4,478 ................

4 1,633,015 2,630 3,040 192,707

8 2,435,470 3,766 3,469%2 865,927

0 2,304,594 5,237% 3,538 911,717

4 2,415,694 4,633 4,844% 1,010,635

2 2,537,695 4,925 5,177 243,595

5 3,007,540 9,127 4,875% 85,979


7 20,777,384% 45,047% 41,710% 3,310,560







State Plant Board of Florida


During the year ending June 30, 1929, insect pests and plant
diseases were intercepted on material arriving at Florida ports
from 41 foreign countries:
1. Abaco, D. W. I. 22. Holland
2. Argentina 23. Honduras
3. Aruba, D. W. I. 24. India
4. Bahama Islands 25. Ireland
5. Barbados 26. Isle of Pines
6. Belgium 27. Italy
7. Brazil 28. Jamaica
8. Canada 29. Mexico
9. Canal Zone 30. Newfoundland
10. Canary Islands 31. St. Lucia, B. W. I.
11. Chile 32. San Salvador
12. Colombia 33. Santo Domingo
13. Costa Rica 34. Scotland
14. Cuba 35. Spain
15. Dutch Guiana 36. Spanish Honduras
16. Egypt 37. Sweden
17. England 38. Trinidad, B. W. I.
18. France 39. Union of South Africa
19. Germany 40. Venezuela
20. Gibraltar 41. Wales
21. Haiti

During the year ending June 30, 1930, insect pests and plant
diseases were intercepted on material arriving at Florida ports
from 50 foreign countries:
1. Algeria 26. Greece
2. Argentina 27. Haiti
3. Aruba, D. W. I. 28. Hawaii
4. Australia 29. Holland
5. Bahama Islands 30. Honduras
6. Barbados 31. Italy
7. Belgium 32. Jamaica
8. Bermuda 33. Japan
9. Brazil 34. Mexico
10. British Honduras 35. Norway
11. Canada 36. Porto Rico
12. Canal Zone 37. Portugal
13. Canary Islands 38. St. Lucia, B. W. I.
14. Chile 39. San Salvador
15. Colombia 40. Santo Domingo
16. Cuba 41. Scotland
17. Czechoslovakia 42. Sicily
18. Danish West Indies 43. South Africa
19. Dominica 44. Spain
20. Dutch Guiana 45. Sweden
21. Egypt 46. Switzerland
22. England 47. Trinidad
23. France 48. Uruguay
24. Germany 49. Venezuela
25. Grand Cayman 50. Wales
The records of the Department show that at the ports of entry
the interception of plant material affected by serious pests is
of frequent occurrence. Our inspectors on numerous occasions
have intercepted such major pests as the blackfly of citrus, the






Eighth Biennial Report


green scale and several members of the fruit fly family. The
listing of pests intercepted is not included in this report, but is
on file in the office of the Plant Commissioner. The number
and importance of such interceptions is somewhat greater than
reported in previous reports.
DEPARTMENTS OF ENTOMOLOGY AND PLANT PATHOLOGY
The activities of the Board of an entomological and patholog-
ical character are so well and yet so briefly described in the last
previous biennial report that we quote therefrom, in large meas-
ure, in the following paragraph:
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 assist-
ants, 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 fiscal year 1928-29, 2038 specimens of plant pests were
received from field inspectors and identified by these specialists.
The number for the year 1929-30 was 2718. 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 department rears and distributes Vedalia, a predatory
insect which 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.
Specimens Examined and Recorded Annually
(April 30, 1915, through June 30, 1930)
1915-1916 .................................................................. 388 (a)
1916-1917 .................................................................. 612 (b)
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 (includes 75 duplicates)...................... 1,651
1927-1928 .................................................................. 2,463
1928-1929 .................................................................. 2,038
1929-1930 ............................... ...... ..................... 2,718


1915-1930, Total .................. ...........................


33,733






State Plant Board of Florida


APIARY INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
In order to protect the bee industry of the state, the Plant
Board, under the provisions of the Bee Disease Act of 1927,
maintains an apiary inspection service. The purpose is to pre-
vent the introduction and spread of diseases of bees and to con-
trol or eradicate such diseases when found. American foul
brood is a disease of bees which occasions the greatest loss and
damage to beekeepers. This disease, while present in Florida,
is not nearly so prevalent as in other states. The Board has
adopted the policy of attempting to stamp out infections of
American foul brood whenever and wherever found in Florida.
This is the chief activity of the apiary inspection service. It is
believed that the spread of the disease has not only been checked
but that material progress is being made toward its eradication.
The Board employs a chief apiary inspector who is a specialist
in beekeeping to supervise the work. The handling and inspec-
tion of bees is a seasonal activity. Therefore it is not advisable
to have full time employees. The Board employs in its field op-
erations as part time employees a number of experienced prac-
tical beekeepers who operate under the direct supervision of the
Chief Apiary Inspector. The best available information seems
to indicate that there are upward of 8,000 Floridians engaged
in beekeeping and that there are more than 100,000 colonies of
bees in the state.

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

Apiaries Colonies
Infected Infected
Year Ending Apiaries Colonies with with
Inspected Inspected American American
Foulbrood Foulbrood

June 30, 1920.......... 394 16,121 30 104
June 30, 1921.......... 753 18,078 16 33
June 30, 1922.......... 837 22,522 14 34
June 30, 1923.......... 1,016 23,848 18 30
June 30, 1924.......... 803 22,806 8 13
June 30, 1925 .......... 675 21,378 7 58
June 30, 1926.......... 676 16,756 5 22
June 30, 1927.......... 796 23,791 6 34
June 30, 1928.......... 1,248 20,115 18 74
June 30, 1929.......... 1,297 32,442 21 85
June 30, 1930.......... 2,273 44,645 52 182






Eighth Biennial Report


MISCELLANEOUS

RULES AND REGULATIONS ADOPTED, REVISED OR REPEALED

The many actions of the Board with respect to the rules and
regulations pertaining to the Mediterranean fruit fly have been
previously indicated in the section of this report devoted to the
discussion of the fruit fly campaign. With respect to the Board's
actions as to rules and regulations on other subjects, the follow-
ing digest is given:
July 9, 1928
Rules 7-A, 7-B, 7-C and 34, dealing with the shipment into and within
the state of sweet potatoes, tubers and plants, and of related tubers and
plants, were repealed.
September 17, 1928
Rule 41-H adopted. Declaring each and every colony of bees in the
state found to be infected with American foulbrood to be a public nuisance
and requiring immediate destruction by burning.

SEARCH FOR BLACKFLY PARASITES

The horticultural interests of Florida are deeply concerned
over the possibility of there being introduced into this state cer-
tain especially injurious plant pests from the West Indian Is-
lands where our greatest exposure to danger exists. This is par-
ticularly so with respect to the blackfly of citrus. The Plant
Commissioner is pleased to report that steps have been taken
to counteract this danger or at least to minimize it through the
search for and introduction from the Orient of parasitic enemies
of the blackfly. This work has been carried forward as a joint
activity of the Cuban and American governments, and the effort
is decidedly promising. One of the specialists of the United
States Bureau of Entomology has been searching for and collect-
ing these parasites in China and India. These have been brought
to Cuba, bred and distributed. At the time of preparation of
this report our information is that quantities of the parasites
have been produced at the laboratories of the Cuban Agricultural
Experiment Station near Havana, have been distributed and are
exerting a marked control of the blackfly.
That the State Plant Board played no small part in the further-
ance of this project is indicated by the following special reports
submitted to the Board.







State Plant Board of Florida


At the Board meeting July 9, 1928, the Commissioner re-
ported:

"On June 25, 1928, Quarantine Inspector J. H. Montgomery and Assist-
ant Quarantine Inspector L. R. Warner accompanied a group of railroad
agricultural agents to Havana, Cuba, for the purpose of observing agri-
cultural conditions, particularly with reference to insect risks. Three days
were spent in the vicinity of Havana. Blackfly of citrus was found much
in evidence, although the hurricane of the late fall of 1926 had acted prac-
tically as eradication. The West Indian fruit fly was also observed in
plentiful numbers infesting various host fruits. A scale-insect, Coccus
viridis (green scale), not known to be present in Florida, was observed
in large numbers doing considerable damage to numerous host plants. While
in Cuba opportunities were afforded for conferences with Cuban plant quar-
antine officials and also with the Secretary of Agriculture. To all of these
our Quarantine Inspector suggested the importance of securing and intro-
ducing, not only into Cuba but into other places where the blackfly is preva-
lent, certain parasitic enemies of this insect. The suggestion was received
with favor and it is hoped that a cooperative arrangement participated in
by the American Government, the Cuban Government, and possibly the
State Government of Florida, will be entered into for the purpose of
carrying out such an enterprise."

On October 15, 1928, the following report was presented to
the Board:

"The Plant Commissioner reports that the negotiations instituted some
three months since by the Plant Commissioner's office for the launching of
the cooperative activity to be engaged in by the Cuban Government and the
American Government in searching for and collecting in the Orient para-
sites of the blackfly have reached the stage where direct conferences be-
tween representatives of the Departments of Agriculture of the two coun-
tries are now being arranged. It is the request of the United States De-
partment of Agriculture that representatives of the State Plant Board
participate in such further conferences as may be held, and the Plant
Commissioner therefore recommends that Quarantine Inspector Mont-
gomery and Assistant Quarantine Inspector Warner (in charge at Key
West) be authorized to make a trip to Havana for this purpose when fur-
ther information is received from the interested governments."

Again on November 12 a report was rendered to the Board
reading:

"The Plant Commissioner takes pleasure in reporting that the nego-
tiations which have been under way for the formation of a cooperative
expedition to search for parasites of the blackfly have been brought to a
successful conclusion. On November 6 the cooperative agreement between
the United States Government and the Cuban Government in connection
with this project was signed by the Cuban Secretary of Agriculture, Com-
merce and Labor. As the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States,






Eighth Biennial Report


Dr. Jardine, has previously indicated his intention to sign this agreement,
the preliminary negotiations may now be regarded as concluded. Copies
of the agreement between the two governments, as well as a supplemental
agreement, are being supplied to the Secretary of the State Plant Board
for his files."
FUMIGATION INVESTIGATIONS
The Plant Board has for several years past been engaged, in
cooperation with the Florida Agricultural Experiment Station,
in carrying on an intensive investigation as to fumigation meth-
ods made use of as a means of destroying insect life and thus
preventing distribution of such pests by means of affected nurs-
ery stock or other plant material. A well equipped laboratory
has been provided for this purpose. Progress has been made in
this work, and much valuable information bearing on the prob-
lem has been accumulated.
BULB INSPECTION

Through the Nursery Inspection Department an inspection
and certification service has been maintained for the benefit of
the already large and still growing bulb industry. The plant-
ings of narcissus and closely related bulbs in Florida approach
nearly one-half of the total plantings of such varieties in the
United States. There are now included in the Florida plantings
approximately one hundred million bulbs. There are one hundred
seventy-nine individuals engaged in growing bulbs. Quarantine
regulations of the Federal Government and of other states de-
mand that shipments of bulbs to other states be made after in-
spection and under certification. To meet this demand the Board
maintains supervision over plantings and issues the necessary
certificates.
OUTSIDE RELATIONS
The Plant Board organization has kept in touch with the ac-
tivities of other organizations of a similar nature in other states
and of the federal government. Our relations with such have
been pleasant and mutually helpful. The same may be said with
respect to our contacts with the plant quarantine authorities of
our nearest foreign neighbor, Cuba.






State Plant Board of Florida


SECTION III

ESTIMATES

At the regular monthly meeting of the Board on December
6, 1930, the following report was presented covering the sub-
jects of estimates for operating expenses for the biennium be-
ginning July 1, 1931:

The Plant Commissioner, in accordance with the instructions of the
Board, submits estimates of amounts believed to be necessary for carrying
on the Board's work during the biennial period beginning July 1, 1931.
In line with the expressed wish of the Board, the total is identical with that
now available, except for the addition of a supplemental item of $90,460
per annum for fruit fly inspection. This item provides for the employment
of some thirty-two inspectors and contemplates a coverage of the state
once during the biennium. It is again recommended that an emergency
fund of at least $50,000 per annum be provided for as heretofore.

PLANT COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE
(General Expenses)
Per For
Annum Biennium
Salaries:
Plant Commissioner.................. ............ 4,500.00 $ 9,000.00
Chief Clerk..................... .. ........ .............. 1,980.00 3,960.00
Stenographer and Filing Clerk......................... 1,500.00 3,000.00
Janitor ........... ...................... ....780.00 1,560.00
Total for Salaries.....................................$ 8,760.00 $ 17,520.00

Operating Expenses:
Traveling Expenses, Printing, Postage, Station-
ery, Telegraph, Telephone, Laboratory, Labor
and Miscellaneous Expenses................................ 8,000.00 16,000.00
Total for Plant Commissioner's Office............$ 16,760.00 $ 33,520.00

GROVE INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
(Citrus Canker Eradication)
Salaries:
Chief Inspector.......... .. ........................... $ 3,600.00 $ 7,200.00
31 Assistant Inspectors............................................ 63,420.00 126,840.00
Stenographer and Filing Clerk.............................. 1,440.00 2,880.00
Total for Salaries..........................-....$ 68,460.00 $136,920.00

Operating Expenses:
Travel and Subsistence, etc................................... 22,000.00 44,000.00
Total for Grove Inspection Department......$ 90,460.00 $180,920.00




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