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














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/UF00098574/00006
 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: 1930/32
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: VID00006
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
    Report of the board’s secretary
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
Full Text





STATE


PLANT BOARD


OF FLORIDA







REPORT FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 1930-
JUNE 30, 1932

(Ninth Biennial Report)


FEBRUARY, 1933

















STATE PLANT BOARD
of Florida

P. K. YONGE, Chairman...........--....-.. ................--Pensacola
A. H. BLANDING-- ---..... ---------............Tampa
R. F. MAGUIRE---.............-...... ---- ......---Orlando
F. J. WIDEMAN --.........-......------- -.............West Palm Beach
GEORGE H. BALDWIN ----..... --.............---------- Jacksonville
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
Prevention of Entry--....... ............ ..-- -.. ..... .. 9
Control and Eradication ............................ 10
Field Inspection ........................ ....... ... -.......- ....... 12
Entomology and Plant Pathology........................-.....-.... 13
Grape Pest Investigations .................. ... ....----- 14
Fumigation Investigations ........... .. .. ......... -- 15
Apiary Inspection Department ......................... ... ...-... 16
West Indian Fruit Fly at Key West ........... ---.......... 17
Pink Bollworm ...................-.....--....--...---...-. 20
Parasitic Control of Blackfly in Cuba....................... ....... .... 21
Violations of Rules and Plant Act........................... ............. 22
Rules and Regulations Adopted, Revised or Repealed........................ 22
Transit Inspection at Jacksonville.................- .. ............ 23
Departmental Reports-Statistical
Grove Inspection Department
Tree Inspections 1930-31.............................................. 24
Tree Inspections 1931-32................. ... ....... ...... 24
Summary .............. ........-- .......... ............. 25
Quarantine Inspection Department
Ships and Vessels Inspected .......... ... .. ....... .... 27
Parcels Inspected ............................... .............. ..- .... 27
Summary of Activities of the Department Since It Was
Inaugurated ................... ............ ....... .............. 27
Nursery Inspection Department
Summary-Biennium Ending June 30, 1932.......................... 28
Apiary Inspection Department
Summary of Work Since the Department Was Created.... 28
Operating Expenditures
Table A-Expenditures by Departments ...........................-...... 29
Table B-Expenditures for Specific Purposes .............................- 30
Table C-Expenditures from Chapter 13693 ................................ 30
Estimates of Funds Needed for Board's Work.................................... 31
Employees of the State Plant Board as of June 30, 1932.................. 34
REPORT OF THE BOARD'S SECRETARY
July 1, 1930 to June 30, 1931........................ ..... . ............... 36
July 1, 1931 to June 30, 1932.................................. ... .......... 40






Ninth Biennial Report


LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
January 16, 1933
To His Excellency,
David Sholtz,
Governor of Florida.
SIR: Herewith is submitted the report of the State Plant
Board of Florida for the biennium ending June 30, 1932. Please
submit same to the Legislature.
Respectfully,
STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA
BY P. K. YONGE,
Chairman.


REPORT OF STATE PLANT BOARD
The activities of the State Plant Board have been conducted
along the same general lines as during the previous years. The
Board was created by Act of the 1915 Legislature and under
the law is engaged in regulatory work intended to prevent or
retard the introduction into or the spread within the state of
serious plant pests.
Florida is so situated, geographically, as to be exposed on
all sides to many plant pests. The increase in tourist traffic in
recent years, both into the state and between Florida points and
the tropics, with the attendant increase in transportation facil-
ities, greatly increases the responsibilities of the Board. The
tremendous development of airplane traffic between Miami
and the West Indies, Central and South America opens an ave-
nue of invasion by plant pests that should be given careful con-
sideration. Within the state, climatic and other conditions,
although they are favorable to plant growth, are equally favor-
able to the growth and development of pests.
The membership of the Board is as follows: P. K. Yonge,
A. H. Blanding, R. F. Maguire, F. J. Wideman and George H.
Baldwin. Mr. Baldwin was appointed by Governor Carlton to
fill out the term of Judge W. B. Davis, who died in December,
1931. P. K. Yonge is Chairman and J. T. Diamond is Secretary.
The administrative officer of the Board is known as the Plant
Commissioner. Under the Plant Commissioner are several de-






State Plant Board of Florida


apartments, each headed by a thoroughly trained and experi-
enced employee.
The headquarters of the Plant Commissioner are at the Uni-
versity of Florida. Although the activities of the Board are
almost solely of a regulatory nature, some scientific work of
a special nature is done. It is highly essential, therefore, that
there be available for consultation and advice the specialists
attached to the Agricultural Experiment Station and the College
of Agriculture. This close association over a period of years
has been advantageous to both the Board and to the University.
The organization of the Plant Commissioner's office has not
materially changed during the past biennium. Decreases in
personnel, salaries and operating expenses have been made in
line with changed conditions. The departments operating under
the general supervision of the Plant Commissioner are as fol-
lows:
Quarantine Inspection Department
Grove Inspection Department
Nursery Inspection Department
Apiary Inspection Department
Department of Entomology
Department of Plant Pathology*

For detailed information as to the special activities of these
departments we respectfully refer to the Report of the Plant
Commissioner for the past biennium which is included herewith
and made a part of this report.
The Board invites particular attention to that portion of the
Plant Commissioner's report dealing with the citrus canker
eradication campaign. In his report the Plant Commissioner
briefly and succinctly reviews this campaign from its inception.
He points out the serious nature of the plague which threatened
the prosperity, if not the very existence, of Florida's citrus in-
dustry, the difficulties encountered and the progress made, and
finally gives expression to the view that citrus canker may now
be regarded as being eradicated. In this conclusion the Board
heartily concurs.
In making this declaration the Board does so with the feeling
that the industry and the state are to be congratulated on the
*The Board does not maintain a full time Plant Pathologist; the entire
Plant Pathology Department of the Experiment Station is available at all
times for consultation and advice.






Ninth Biennial Report


successful conclusion of the effort. When the campaign was
inaugurated there were many specialists and authorities who re-
garded the outcome as exceedingly doubtful. Others looked at it
as a desperate effort-foredoomed to failure. A plant disease
of this character had never before been eradicated. The federal
government, through its Bureau of Plant Industry, the State
Plant Board, and the citrus growers, however, thought the
effort worth making. The final result justifies this belief. The
citrus industry has been safeguarded and this Board is justly
proud of the part it has played.
One of the more important developments during the biennium
was the finding of a localized infestation of Anastrepha sp. in
hog plums at Key West. On November 6, 1930, inspectors in
the employ of the federal government found several fruits in-
fested with larvae of this fruit fly. No further infestations were
found until October 21, 1931, when larvae were again found
in hog plum fruits. Adult flies reared from some of these larvae
were identified by experts of the federal government as being
Anastrepha fraterculus, commonly known as the West Indian
fruit fly. This insect is firmly established in parts of Central
and South America, Cuba and other West Indian islands, where
it causes loss and damage to numerous fruits, including citrus.
Federal authorities have been greatly interested in the situ-
ation and have kept in close touch with recent' developments.
They felt that it was neither necessary nor desirable for any
action of a quarantine nature to be taken by either the Depart-
ment of Agriculture or other states. They expressed the fullest
confidence in the measures adopted by the Board to prevent any
possibility of the insect spreading from Key West to other parts
of Florida. A complete report on the Key West situation is
found in the report of the Plant Commissioner.
Another item of interest is the discovery, in June, 1932, of
pink bollworm in cultivated cotton growing in the federal plant
introduction garden at Miami. This finding was also made by
government inspectors. Infestations were also found in wild
cotton growing on the lower keys. A clean-up of all wild cotton
growing in the extreme southern part of the state was begun
under federal authority. This type of cotton was found grow-
ing on the lower keys from Miami to Key West, and on the west
coast as far north as Terra Ceia.







State Plant Board of Florida


The chief significance attached to the finding of this infesta-
tion is through the exposure to infestation of the chief cotton-
growing areas of adjoining states. The federal authorities
have for years been engaged in a successful eradication of this
pest from various cotton-producing areas in the Southwest. In
Florida at the present time a thorough survey is being made
by trained inspectors for the purpose of determining the dis-
tribution of the infestation, after which plans for eradication
will be completed.
Although the appropriations available for the last biennium
were less than the amounts appropriated for the preceding per-
iod, the Board was not only able, through the practice of the ut-
most economies, and through curtailments in the expenditures
for salaries and expenses, to function on the amount provided,
but to make a saving to the state of $28,790.74 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1932. The Board's belief that it has always
expended wisely and efficiently the funds made available for its
use is substantiated by this saving.
The Board has prepared and submitted to the Budget Com-
mission estimates for the biennium beginning July 1, 1933. This
budget is identical with the estimates prepared by the Plant
Commissioner as approved by the Board and which will be
found in detail in the Plant Commissioner's report. The sum
total of the amounts believed to be necessary for the continued
efficient functioning of the organization is the same as that upon
which the Board is now operating. This is, in round figures,
$29,000.00 less than the amounts made available through legis-
lative action, namely, $235,000.00. The Board urges and recom-
mends that $206,598.20 per annum be made available during
the legislative biennium beginning July 1, 1933.
The Board strongly recommends that the $50,000.00 emer-
gency appropriation provided for for many years past by the
Legislature, but seldom used, be continued during the coming
biennium.
There is presented herewith the report of the Board's Secre-
tary on the receipts and disbursements of the funds for the
State Plant Board during the past two years.
STATE PLANT BOARD,
P. K. YONGE,
Chairman.






Ninth Biennial Report


REPORT OF THE PLANT COMMISSIONER
For Biennium Ending June 30, 1932

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Gainesville, Florida,
January 1, 1933.
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, 1932.
Respectfully,
WILMON NEWELL,
Plant Commissioner.


REPORT OF THE PLANT COMMISSIONER
1930-31 and 1931-32
The work of the State Plant Board as carried on during the
biennium ending June 30, 1932, has been characterized by close
attention to the duty imposed on the Board by the Plant Act:
protection of Florida's agriculture from dangerous plant pests.
This important duty may be subdivided under several different
headings: (a) prevention of entry of such pests; (b) control
and/or eradication, where possible, of major pests which may
gain entry; (c) field inspection (grove and nursery) to de-
termine the conditions existing in our plantings.

PREVENTION OF ENTRY
Under this subheading is the protective work at the ports of
entry of the state. This activity is one of joint effort on the
part of state and national governments. Inspectors of the state
hold appointments as agents of the Federal Bureau of Plant
Quarantine and, as such, administer the rules and regulations
of that division of the national government applying to the
movement into the United States of plants and plant products.
Inspection service is maintained at the six principal ports of
entry: Jacksonville, West Palm Beach, Miami, Key West, Tampa
and Pensacola. There are required fourteen Assistant Quaran-






State Plant Board of Florida


tine Inspectors to handle imports. During the year ending June
30, 1932, 6305 ships and airplanes arrived, were boarded and
inspected. Of this number 3669 were from foreign ports, and
1339 of these were airplanes. On account of the generally de-
pressed economic conditions traffic, both passenger and freight,
has fallen off considerably. Passenger movement by airplane
has, however, increased. The tabulation given elsewhere shows
in a statistical way the extent of the operations of the Quaran-
tine Inspection Department.

CONTROL AND ERADICATION
Despite the very best efforts of those engaged in the attempt
to prevent entry of major plant pests, there is always the like-
lihood of alien invaders escaping the vigilance of our guardians.
In that event, when the establishment of the pest has been dis-
covered, a determination must be reached as to the procedure
to be followed. The adoption of an eradication plan involves
the acceptance and carrying forward of measures of a drastic
nature calculated to stamp out the pest with the least possible
delay. Such a procedure may require a considerable period and
the expenditure of large sums of money. Such expenditures
are, however, amply justified when the industry threatened is of
such magnitude as the citrus plantings of Florida. When the
eradication efforts are carried forward to a successful conclusion
as has apparently been the case in the two major eradication
campaigns conducted in Florida, there is reason for congratu-
lation and rejoicing.
The discovery of the Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capi-
tata Wied.) in Florida in April of 1929 created a tense, critical
and threatening situation. Prompt and vigorous action upon
the part of federal and state agencies, supported by growers and
allied interests, brought about an early and successful conclusion.
The history of this epoch-making combat was fully set forth in
the last biennial report. Since the lifting of the federal quar-
antine restrictions in November, 1930, which officially marked
the end of the eradication campaign, no evidence has been found
of the presence of the Mediterranean fruit fly in Florida,
although the field inspection forces of the State Plant Board have
been constantly and vigilantly on the alert. Nearly $7,000,000
(practically all from federal sources) of public funds were ex-
pended in this activity. Not only was Florida's huge citrus






Ninth Biennial Report


industry saved from the menace, but protection was likewise
afforded the fruit industries of other states.
The second major eradication activity in which Florida has
been engaged has been in connection with the malignant disease
of citrus known as "citrus canker." This activity was initiated
in 1914 by state and federal governments. This disease, a native
of the Orient, was probably introduced into the Gulf States prior
to 1912 on citrus nursery stock from Japan. The diseased con-
dition which manifested itself in citrus plantings was not recog-
nized as of a serious nature until 1914-15 when growers and
agricultural workers realized they were dealing with a new and
destructive plant disease which did not respond to treatment and
was of a most malignant nature. It soon became apparent that,
as there was no known remedial measure, if the citrus industry
was to be protected and preserved, resort would have to be made
to the most drastic of all control procedures, namely, destruction
of all plants affected.
The State Legislature of 1915 passed a horticultural law
known as the Florida Plant Act of 1915 which created the Plant
Board and empowered it to take necessary steps to protect
horticulture. The legislature also made available funds for
carrying forward a canker eradication program, as well as for
general protective measures. The Federal Government recog-
nized that a crisis existed with respect to the continued pros-
perity of the citrus industry and provided funds for the canker
eradication campaign. The funds were handled through the
Bureau of Plant Industry, but, under a working agreement with
the State Plant Board, the Plant Commissioner (chief executive
officer of the Board) acted in charge of field activities for both
agencies.
During the years 1914 and 1915 little or no progress was
made. In 1916 there was an appreciable improvement and in
1917 only 372 canker-infected trees were found. In 1918 the
closest inspection failed to produce over 15 diseased trees, while
in 1919 but 4 canker-infected trees were located. These results
clearly indicated that eradication could be accomplished provided
careful inspection were maintained over a relatively long period.
Following 1919 were several sporadic and localized recurrences.
In 1920 at Boynton an infection was found in two adjoining
groves and 520 diseased trees were destroyed. In 1922-23 a
rather persistent localized infection was encountered at Davie,






State Plant Board of Florida


in the course of which 884 trees were found to be infected. In
November of 1927, in a planting north of Fort Lauderdale,
85 infected trees were discovered.
Since the November, 1927, finding, not a single canker-in-
fected tree has been discovered. During this five years an in-
tensive search has been made for diseased trees. All citrus
plantings in the state have been inspected at least three times.
All plantings in areas where canker had previously been found
were inspected at least once a year. Nothing of a suspicious
nature has been found. It is believed by the Plant Commissioner
and his staff that citrus canker may be regarded as eradicated
in Florida.
In the campaign to eradicate citrus canker there has been ex-
pended a total of nearly two and a half million dollars. Of this
total there was derived from federal sources, according to the
records in the Bureau of Plant Industry, United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture, the sum of $1,057,546.89. The State of
Florida expended on this project, through the operation of the
Grove Inspection (Citrus Canker Eradication) Department
$1,264,366.17. In the early days of the campaign the Florida
Growers and Shippers League and allied interests furnished for
use in the eradication activity, according to the best available
information, $85,019.62.

FIELD INSPECTION

The fact that the canker eradication campaign is regarded as
having been successful does not mean that inspection of citrus
plantings should be discontinued. There is always a possibility
of a hidden or dormant infection being present, due possibly to
reintroduction of the disease. There are also other major plant
pests, not present in but threatening to invade Florida. We are
constantly exposed to the introduction of such tropical pests
as the Blackfly, the Green Scale, and various fruit flies. All of
these are of major importance as plant pests. The safety of
Florida's horticulture lies in a combination of field inspection
and port inspection.
A very important part of field inspection-equally as im-
portant as that of grove plantings-is the supervision of the
nursery plantings of the state. It is a well recognized fact
among plant quarantine officials that pest-affected nursery stock
is the most frequent and prolific means of disseminating insect






Ninth Biennial Report


and disease pests. An undiscovered pest condition in a nursery
may well serve as the focus for widespread and general pest
distribution. This was the case with citrus canker. The object
of nursery inspection is, therefore, twofold: (a) to prevent
wide and general distribution of major plant pests and (b) to
see that the purchaser of nursery stock does not labor under the
handicap of starting his planting with material affected by the
more common minor pests. To accomplish these two objectives
all states maintain nursery inspection and certification services.
Florida, on account of climatic and other conditions which,
although they are favorable to growth of plants, are equally
favorable to the growth and development of pests, must maintain
a very efficient nursery inspection service. It is thought that
the greatest degree of efficiency, considering the cost, has been
attained by our nursery inspection division. According to the
statistical report of this department, which appears elsewhere
in this report, Florida nurseries are inspected an average of
four times a year. This is no little task when it is noted that
there are, according to the records kept by the Chief Nursery
Inspector, 1842 nurseries in the state under inspection as of
June 30, 1932. These nurseries contain 5206 acres, with 43,-
575,332 plants thereon. These figures do not include narcissus
plantings, which are under inspection in order that interstate
shipments of these bulbs may be made under the federal require-
ments. There are 175 narcissus plantings in the state, in which
are 111,468,920 bulbs.

ENTOMOLOGY AND PLANT PATHOLOGY

The activities of the Board of an entomological and patho-
logical character are so well and yet so briefly described in the
last previous biennial report that we quote therefrom, in large
measure, the following:
The Plant Board is primarily a regulatory or police organi-
zation, 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. During
the fiscal year 1930-1931, 3696 specimens of plant pests were re-
ceived from field inspectors and identified by these specialists.






State Plant Board of Florida


The number for the year 1931-32 was 5281. The Department of
Entomology also produces and distributes a fungus which effects
control of the citrus whitefly. The same department rears and
distributes Vedalia, a predatory insect which effects control of
the cottony-cushion scale. The chief activity of the Department
of Plant Pathology has been the study of citrus canker, an
oriental disease affecting citrus trees and fruit which threatened
the existence of the citrus industry. These investigations were
discontinued August 31, 1931. The reasons for discontinuing
this work were twofold: (a) the prolonged and intensive in-
vestigations had accumulated a large amount of important in-
formation regarding the behavior of the disease and the organ-
ism causing it which will now be available if and when needed;
(b) inasmuch as the eradication campaign is now regarded as
completed, it is not thought advisable to retain at Gainesville,
even under the greatest safeguards, live canker material.

GRAPE PEST INVESTIGATIONS
In July, 1931, funds became available for investigating grape
pests and Mr. K. W. Loucks, who had been conducting the in-
vestigations of citrus canker, was placed in charge of the pro-
ject with headquarters at the Watermelon and Ornamental Lab-
oratory at Leesburg.
Work on the project has been conducted during the year
along three lines, namely, (1) a general survey of the grape-
growing district to determine the prevalence and comparative
importance of different diseases, (2) spraying experiments for
control of diseases and (3) treatment of cuttings to prevent
spread of diseases.
A survey of most of the vineyards in Marion, Orange, Lake
and Sumter Counties showed that black rot (Guignardia bid-
wellii), anthracnose (Sphaceloma ampelinum) and downy mil-
dew (Plasmopara viticola) are the diseases most prevalent.
Several other diseases have been observed but their economic
importance has not been determined.
Comparative spray schedules are being conducted this season
with eight growers in 36 different plots to determine the most
effective material and spray schedule for the control of grape
diseases.
This, being primarily a research activity, should properly be
handled through the Agricultural Experiment Station. The






Ninth Biennial Report


work was undertaken by the Plant Board because the Legislature
placed an appropriation for this purpose at the disposal of the
Board. The Board has not included in its estimates for the next
biennium an item for the continuance of the work. The Uni-
versity budget does carry such an item under the estimates for
the Agricultural Experiment Station.

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
methods made use of as a means of destroying insect life and
thus preventing distribution of such pests by means of affected
nursery stock or other plant material. A well equipped labora-
tory has been provided for this purpose. Research work on
fumigation has covered a wide field during the biennium and
much new information has been brought out. As a result, new
fumigation rooms for the ports have been developed and install-
ed. The construction and operation of these rooms is based pri-
marily on an application of the facts brought out in the course
of the research work. A fractional dosage system has been de-
veloped which makes it possible to control the concentration of
the hydrocyanic acid gas within the fumigating chamber to a
reasonable degree if the absorptive qualities of the material
being fumigated are known.
In experimental work, both in the laboratory and with the
rooms at ports, it was found difficult to duplicate concentrations
to any exact degree and one of the factors found to influence
this materially was the fact that liquid hydrocyanic acid ex-
panded greatly with rising temperature as compared with other
liquids. Some experiments were run on this and the figures
checked against the published tables on specific gravity which
indirectly measure the same factor. The results of these experi-
ments were made up in the form of tables so that, by the use
of controlled temperature burettes, exact quantities of HCN can
be measured out for experimental purposes. This factor had
not been previously called attention to directly and was found
to be the cause of much of the fluctuation in concentration in
carefully controlled experiments.
The effect of concentration of hydrocyanic acid gas on the kill
of various stages of the Blackfly and Green Scale was studied in






State Plant Board of Florida


Cuba in cooperation with the Sanidad Vegetal and the Cuban
Experiment Station. The work was carried on at Santiago de
las Vegas and it was found that these insects were relatively easy
to kill and the conclusion reached that a maintained concen-
tration of .20% for one hour would give 100% control. The
fumigation work at the ports is now carried out on this basis.
New fumigation rooms have been installed at Key West and
Tampa, through which ports the bulk of fruit imports from
the tropics is made. These rooms are constructed in the man-
ner indicated by the experimental work as being most suitable
and have been found to be very satisfactory in the practical ap-
plication of cyanide fumigation as a safeguard against intro-
duction of plant pests.

APIARY INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
Production of honey in Florida is a business in which about
1,000 citizens are engaged. Honey is not the only source of in-
come from beekeeping, for there is a market for bees themselves.
Also there is a demand for queen bees and wax. The supplying
of hives and other equipment is an industry of no small size. It
is conservatively estimated that the apiaries in Florida contain
100,000 colonies and that the income derived therefrom is at
least a quarter million dollars annually. The value of the cap-
ital investment in apiaries has been placed at a half million
dollars. It is probably greater than that.
To protect the honey producing industry in Florida the leg-
islature of 1919, at the instance of beekeepers, passed what is
known as the Florida Bee Disease Law of 1919. There being
no other agency of a regulatory character available to carry out
the provisions of this law, the duty of so doing was placed upon
the State Plant Board.
The primary object of the law was to prevent the introduction,
dissemination and establishment of diseases of bees. In order
to accomplish this, there was built up an inspection service con-
sisting of a chief inspector and a number of local or part-time
inspectors. The chief inspector is a trained bee specialist, while
the local or part-time inspectors are experienced practical bee-
keepers. The chief inspector not only engages in field work,
supervising the activities of the local men, but arranges for and
attends meetings of beekeepers for the purpose of stimulating






Ninth Biennial Report


interest in better beekeeping methods and to educate apiarists
in recognizing and handling the diseases of bees.
The disease of bees which occasions greatest loss and is hard-
est to control is that known as American foul brood. This dis-
ease is not generally established in Florida as it is elsewhere.
One of the primary objects of apiary inspection in Florida is to
discover the presence of this disease and to eradicate it. Our
efforts have been attended with success so far as local eradi-
cation is concerned. As a state-wide proposition, however,
although progress has been made, new foci of infection are
from time to time being found. It is only through continuous
and repeated inspection, with destruction of diseased colonies
when found, that we may hope to keep the disease under control.
During the year 1930-31 inspections were made in 47 counties.
There were 45,238 colony inspections made in 2374 apiaries.
Diseased colonies were found in 37 apiaries located in 9 coun-
ties, 114 colonies being affected. The diseased colonies were
located in the following counties:
Dade Hillsborough Sarasota
Glades Lee Suwannee
Hendry Pinellas Volusia
For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1932, 44,211 colony in-
spections were made in 2744 apiaries located in 44 counties.
Seventy-four colonies were found infected with American foul
brood in 42 apiaries. Twenty-three of these apiaries were dis-
eased the previous year. New infections were found in 19 api-
aries during 1931-32. Eight counties were found to have in-
fected colonies:
Dade Lee Pinellas
Glades Leon Sarasota
Hillsborough Pasco

WEST INDIAN FRUIT FLY AT KEY WEST

On November 6, 1930, inspectors employed by the United
States Department of Agriculture at Key West found a number
of hog plums (Spondias sp.) infested with a maggot which was
tentatively identified as of the Anastrepha species, to which the
West Indian fruit fly belongs. It was not possible to breed adults
from the larvae, so a determination as to identity could not be
made. Two experienced field men were assigned to duty at Key






State Plant Board of Florida


West and close inspections were made of all possible hosts at
Key West and on the lower keys. No evidence of fruit fly in-
festation was found until October 21, 1931, when larvae were
again found in hog plum fruits on a tree located about one and
one-half blocks from the original finding. From these larvae
adult flies were bred, which appeared to answer in every way
the description of, and to correspond by comparison with, au-
thenticated specimens of the West Indian fruit fly (Anastrepha
fraterculus Wied.). This insect is firmly established in parts
of South America, Central America, Cuba and other West
Indian islands, and occasions loss and damage to numerous trop-
ical and subtropical fruits, including citrus.
The Plant Commissioner, in accordance with the instructions
of the Board, proceeded to Washington, D. C., where, on Decem-
ber 7, he submitted to Dr. C. L. Marlatt, Chief of the Bureau of
Entomology, for identification specimens of fruit flies reared
from larvae found in hog plum at Key West during the latter
part of October.
These specimens were identified by Messrs. Harold Morrison,
C. T. Greene and F. H. Benjamin of the Bureau of Entomology
as Anastrepha fraterculus Wied., commonly referred to as the
West Indian fruit fly and identical with large numbers of speci-
mens of the same species which the Department has in its col-
lections from Cuba, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, and other tropical
countries. The insect is known to be of common occurrence in
hog plum (Spondias purpurea).
Following this identification, the Plant Commissioner had an
extended conference with Dr. C. L. Marlatt and Mr. Lee A.
Strong, Chief of the Plant Quarantine and Control Administra-
tion, concerning the situation created by the discovery and iden-
tificatin of this insect in Florida territory. Messrs. Marlatt
and Strong did not feel that it was either necessary or desirable
for any action of a quarantine nature to be taken at that time by
either the Department or other states on account of this situ-
ation. They expressed their fullest confidence in the State Plant
Board taking adequate and sufficient measures to guard against
any possibility of the insect spreading from Key West to other
parts of Florida.
At New Orleans on December 28, the Plant Commissioner ad-
vised the Southern Plant Board, and on December 31, the Na-
tional Plant Board, regarding the discovery of the West Indian






Ninth Biennial Report


fruit fly at Key West, and all essential details concerning the
situation in connection therewith. Both Boards manifested keen
interest in this situation and both expressed their fullest con-
fidence in the ability of the Florida State Plant Board to handle
the situation in a manner and with a thoroughness which would
provide adequate and sufficient protection from this infestation
to the remainder of the country. It appeared to be the sense
of these groups that state quarantines against Florida products
probably would not be seriously considered in event the Florida
Plant Board took prompt and efficient steps in preventing pos-
sible spread of the West Indian fruit fly from Key West and in
eradicating the infestation.
At the January, 1932, meeting of the Board, Rules 47A and
47B were adopted. These rules provided for a quarantine on
the island of Key West and adjacent Keys and for the spraying
and other measures to be made use of in eradicating and con-
trolling the infestation. The quarantine was not of a rigorous
nature. As it only prohibited the removal of native grown host
fruits from the quarantined area and as there is no such move-
ment of a commercial character, the quarantine has not oc-
casioned any material inconvenience or annoyance.
On February 15, 1932, the Plant Commissioner reported as
follows to the Board:
"The Plant Commissioner reports that on January 29 the
Quarantine Inspector communicated with the Chief of the Fed-
eral Plant Quarantine and Control Administration, Mr. Lee A.
Strong, giving a full account of the observations made by thel
Quarantine Inspector at Key West with respect to the West
Indian fruit fly situation at that place, together with the pre-
liminary steps which had been taken in handling the situation
and in securing the support of leading citizens in the campaign
of control and eradication which will be inaugurated by the
State Plant Board. In the same communication tentative plans
were outlined as to the procedure to be followed. Under date
of February 2, Mr. Strong advised of the receipt of this report'
and expressed approval of the steps which have been taken and
those which are in contemplation. The Plant Commissioner also
advises the Board that a copy of the communication of January
29 to Mr. Strong was sent to Dr. C. L. Marlatt, Chief of the Bu-
reau of Entomology, United States Department of Agriculture.






State Plant Board of Florida


Under date of February 8, Dr. Marlatt expressed approval of
the procedure to date, as well as the tentative plans as outlined."
Intensive inspection has been continued without any additional
infested fruits being found. It is expected, however, that fur-
ther infestations may be discovered with the ripening of the
hog plums during October and November.* In the meantime,
as much information as possible with regard to habits, hosts,
etc., of the West Indian fruit fly is being acquired.

PINK BOLLWORM
One of the more important developments during the biennium
was the discovery of pink bollworm of cotton in Dade County
and on the Keys. This infestation was in wild cotton (except
at the United States Plant Introduction Garden south of Miami),
as there are no commercial plantings of cotton in south Florida.
The chief significance attached to the finding is through the
exposure to infestation of the main eastern cotton-producing
area of the United States. The report of the Chief of the Plant
Quarantine and Control Administration (now known as the
Bureau of Plant Quarantine), United States Department of
Agriculture, to the Secretary of Agriculture for the year end-
ing June 30, 1932, contains a section dealing with the pink boll-
worm finding in Florida. This is here quoted:
"A rather serious development in the pink bollworm situation was the
discovery of this insect in southern Florida. The initial infestation was
located in small plots of cultivated cotton totaling approximately 2 acres
at the United States Plant Introduction Gardens at Chapman Field, near
Miami. Bolls showing insects and damage had been collected from these
plots and sent to Washington, and on June 1 the Plant Quarantine and
Control Administration was notified that these insects had been identified
as pink bollworms by specialists of the Department. A survey of the area
was immediately begun.
"It was found that wild cotton grows in southern Florida and on many
of the keys. The leaves, blooms, and bolls of this wild cotton hre similar
to those of domestic cotton. The bolls are very small, with usually three
locks. The lint is of a brown color and very short. Another type of wild
cotton is very similar to the sea-island form. Because of the tropical cli-
mate of the area these plants often grow to a height of 10 or 15 feet, and
fruit continuously. Plants are sometimes found in colonies covering as
*In November, 1932, heavy infestation showed at Key West. Larvae
were found not only in the hog plum fruits but also in guavas, Surinam
cherries, etc. A laboratory has been established at Key West and an inten-
sive study is being made. An entomologist of the United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture has been assigned to the Key West laboratory in close
cooperation with the Plant Board force.






Ninth Biennial Report


much as an acre, but in the majority of cases they are more or less scat-
tered. The plant requires a considerable amount of sunshine, and is there-
fore usually found growing near the shore. Wild cotton was found from
Miami to Key West, it being most abundant beginning at a point about 70
miles below Miami, and extending southward for 25 or 30 miles, or to the
southern end of Lower Matecumbe Key. All of the cotton in this strip was
found to be infested with the pink bollworm. There is also a considerable
amount of infested wild cotton on the mainland near Flamingo, on Cape
Sable.
"On June 11 quarantine officials of near-by cotton-growing states met
with members of the administration and the Bureau of Entomology at
Atlanta, Georgia, to discuss the situation. It was decided to take immediate
steps to eradicate the infestation and to prevent any spread during he
eradication work. The infested region is some 400 miles from cotton-grow-
ing areas, and it was considered that the danger of spread to cultivated
cotton was relatively small. In view of all of these circumstances, it was
felt that no quarantine action was necessary at this time.
"The removal of wild cotton plants was immediately begun by the ad-
ministration in cooperation with the State Plant Board of Florida. All such
plants growing along the roadside were first removed so as to avoid any
possibility of infested material being taken away by tourists. This was
followed by the removal of cotton plants from all keys through which the
road passes and all dooryard plants from Key West to and including Dade
County. The plants seemed to be largely confined to an area in which the
soil and salt water are not conducive to other plant growth, which natu-
rally limits the localities in which wild cotton exists. The plants grow in
a thin layer of soil on solid rock, and can ordinarily be pulled up with
ease. Some of the individual plants had reached the tree stage; but the
majority were small bushes, so that the work proceeded very rapidly. The
eradication of the small experimental plantings of cultivated cotton at
Chapman Field was carried on in cooperation with the Bureau of Plant
Industry. To avoid any possibility of driving the pest to some other mal-
vaceous plants it was thought best not to eradicate all cotton completely
at once. Therefore, some of the plants were allowed to remain temporarily.
On these all bolls were first picked off and burned. This is being followed
by the daily picking and destruction of blooms, which method will be con-
tinued until the infestation has practically disappeared, after which final
plans for eradication of all non-essential cotton will be completed.
"A special group of inspectors experienced in pink bollworm work has
been assigned to this undertaking, with headquarters at Miami, Florida.
A thorough survey is now under way to determine the distribution of wild
cotton in Florida, after which plans for eradication of the infestation will
be completed. In the meantime it is hoped that the precautionary meas-
ures will largely eliminate any spread of the insect."

PARASITIC CONTROL OF BLACKFLY IN CUBA

Two years ago the Plant Commissioner reported in the Bi-
ennial Report that as the result of a plan initiated by the Plant
Board, a cooperative effort was instituted on the part of the






State Plant Board of Florida


Cuban and American governments to search for and secure para-
sites of the blackfly in the Orient and introduce same into Cuba,
the Panama Canal Zone, and elsewhere where the fly was es-
tablished and therefore threatened American horticulture. The
Plant Commissioner is now pleased to report that success of a
most unusual nature attended these efforts. Introduction and
establishment of the control parasites has been accomplished
in Cuba, Haiti, Panama, the Bahamas and Jamaica. The control
exerted is of an exceptionally high degree. Observations made
in Cuba recently indicate quite clearly the effectiveness of the
introduced parasites as a control. Florida's horticultural in-
dustries are, by reason of the successful introduction, greatly
protected against danger of introduction of the blackfly and, if
there should be such introduction, there is immediately avail-
able an effective control measure.

VIOLATIONS OF RULES AND PLANT ACT
There has been general compliance on the part of nursery-
men and others affected by the provisions of the Plant Act and
the rules of the Board. In only five instances was it found neces-
sary to file information for such violations. In each case the
defendant plead guilty and was assessed by the court with a
small fine and costs.

RULES AND REGULATIONS ADOPTED, REVISED OR REPEALED
During the two-year period ending June 30, 1932, the Board
has made numerous changes in its rules. These have been, with
few exceptions, of a minor nature and principally for the pur-
pose of bringing our state rules into line with federal regulations
on the same subject where conflict existed. Other rule changes
were as follows:
December 5, 1931
Rule 29, prohibiting the shipment into Florida of citrus fruits
from the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and
Georgia, was repealed, effective immediately.
January 11, 1932
Rule 47-A was adopted, declaring the West Indian fruit fly
to be a public nuisance and declaring certain area in Monroe
County as likely to be infested by this insect.
SRule 47-B was adopted, prohibiting the movement of host
Fruits of the West Indian fruit fly out of the infested area; and






Ninth Biennial Report


providing for the further transportation of host fruits imported
through the ports of the quarantined area and entered in accord-
ance with the provisions of Quarantine 56 of the United States
Department of Agriculture.
Rule 30, prohibiting the entry into Florida of oranges and
lemons from California, was repealed and a new rule adopted
permitting the entry of such fruit when prepared in accordance
with the instructions of the State Plant Board to the Plant Com-
missioner and when accompanied by a valid certificate to that
effect. Permitted shipments are subject to inspection on arrival
at Florida destination.

TRANSIT INSPECTION AT JACKSONVILLE
The Plant Commissioner reports that the negotiations inaugu-
rated by the Board, through the Plant Commissioner's office,
looking toward the designation of Jacksonville as a transit in-
spection point for plant material being transported by freight,
express, mail and otherwise, have been successfully carried for-
ward. On August 9 this combination federal-state service was
inaugurated at Jacksonville. The Post Office Department ac-
ceded to the joint request of the federal and state plant quaran-
tine organizations for transit inspection of mail matter passing
through the Jacksonville gateway. The approval of the plan
by the Post Office Department, however, was contingent upon
its being a trial.







State Plant Board of Florida

DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS

Statistical

GROVE INSPECTION DEPARTMENT


TREE INSPECTIONS 1930-31

Number
Employees Number of Citrus Trees
Engaged in Inspected
S Grove
Inspection GROVE* NURSERY*

1930- July ...................................... 41 1,522,586 5,916,608
August ................................ 41 1,324,307 4,937,367
September ..................... 40 1,137,668 5,708,192
October ................................ 40 1,003,540 5,496,901
November ............................ 41 1,031,331 5,758,527
December ............................ 40 956,194 4,157,474
1931--January .............................. 39 1,347,700 5,821,176
February ............................ 39 1,310,306 3,571,178
March .................................. 40 1,476,589 4,341,283
April .................................... 40 1,789,479 6,436,312
May ..................................... 40 1,395,275 6,891,265
June ...................................... 40 1,440,358 3,560,176
| 15,735,333 | 62,596,459
Prior to July 1, 1930................................................ 133,522,439 | 1,229,669,488
Totals .................................................................I 149,257,772 1,292,265,947
*Nursery trees were reinspected several times during year; above fig-
ures include such reinspections. Grove trees in Broward, Palm Beach and
a portion of Highlands counties inspected twice.


TREE INSPECTIONS 1931-32


1931 -July ....................................
A ugust ..............................
Septem ber .........................
October ................................
N ovem ber ..........................
D ecem ber ............................
1932-January .........................
February ...........................
M arch ............... ...............
A pril ....................................
M ay ...................................
June ..... ..........................


Number
Employees
Engaged in
Grove
Inspection

40
29
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33


Number of Citrus Trees
Inspected

GROVE NURSERY*

1,253,729 7,507,982
907,687 3,438,039
1,195,877 3,758,324
944,187 4,877,639
845,829 2,931,298
969,349 3,477,055
1,171,156 4,637,000
1,230,939 3,263,654
1,298,950 4,205,527
1,164,007 5,590,109
1,061,868 4,295,104
1,122,453 4,505,452
13,166,031 1 52,487,183
149,257,772 I 1,292,265,947
162,423,803 1 1,344,753,130


*Nursery trees were reinspected several


Prior to July 1, 1931..................................................
Totals ..................................................................


times during the year.







Ninth Biennial Report 25

The following summary supplies the essential information
concerning the eradication of citrus canker in Florida up to
June 30, 1932:
SUMMARY

Total number of properties found infected in the State.................. 515
Total number of properties declared no longer danger centers...... 515
Total number of properties still classed as active infections, June
30, 1932 ............................................................................................... 0
Number of properties declared clean.................................................... 515
Number of properties still under partial or full quarantine, June
30, 1932 ....................................................... ....................................... 0
Total number of grove trees found infected from May 1, 1914 to
June 30, 1932 .................................................................................... 15,243
Total number of nursery trees found infected from May 1, 1914
to June 30, 1932 .................................................................................. 342,260
Total number of "exposed" grove trees destroyed from May 1,
1914 to June 30, 1932 ..................................................................... 242,502
Total number of "exposed" nursery trees destroyed from May 1,
1914 to June 30, 1932 ....................................................................... 2,740,850








The following tabulation shows the total number of grove trees found infected with citrus
canker by months and years since the work began in May of 1914 to June 30, 1932:

|1914|1915|1916|1917|1918|19199192019219221923|1924|1925|1926|1927119281192911930 1931|1932
Jan. ................................ O 306 86 14 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 O 0 1
Feb. ............................. 0 165 21 4 1 0 0 01 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0
I I
Mar. ....................... 0 444 49 9 1 1 0 01 0 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
April .................... 0 408 49 169 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 O
May ................................ 1081042 338 52 1 1 0 01 585 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q0 0
June ................................ 160 772 450 45 10 0 0 0 168 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
July ............................... 275 651 349 39 0 0 539 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Sept ............................. 767 618 124 6 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Oct. .................................. 565 214 451 2 0 0 0 0 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01
Nov. ................................ 77 494 131 1 0 0 0 01 12 0 0 0 0 85 0 0 0 0
Dec. .............................. 366 256 27 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

Total .................... 4327 6715 2294 372 15 4 540 0 873 11 0 5 2 85 0 0 0 0







Ninth Biennial Report


QUARANTINE INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
SHIPS AND VESSELS INSPECTED
1930-31 1931-32
From foreign ports:
Direct by air .................................. ......... .... 1698 1339
Direct by water ................................... ... ... 2137 1739
Via United States ports.................................... .... 614 591
Total ......................................... ........ ........ 4449 3669
From United States ports other than Florida.................. 2086 2045
From Florida ports ............ .................... 619 591
Total ........................ ............ 7154 6305
NUMBER OF PARCELS INSPECTED
Arriving by Boat, Express, Freight, Mail and Airplane
Passed ........................ ..... ............................ 2,428,230 1,700,303
Treated and passed ................................ ........ 157,899 121,774
Returned to shipper .............. .................... 6,810 9,846
Contraband destroyed ....................................... 3,737 4,133
Diverted to Washington ............................. ........ 40 85
Total ................................. ....................... ...2,596,716 1,836,141
The following tabulation is presented showing the work of
the Quarantine Division by years since this work was inaugu-
rated:


Year IForeign
Boats


1915-1916 .......... 166
1916-1917 ....... 1,240
1917-1918 ......... 1,777
1918-1919 ....... 1,724
1919-1920 ....... 2,458
1920-1921 ....... 3,035
1921-1922 .......... 2,225
May and
June, 1922 ........ 364
1922-1923 ....... 2,207
1923-1924 ......... 2,309
1924-1925 -......... 2,437
1925-1926 ......... 2,705
1926-1927 ....... 2,989
1927-1928 .......... 3,430
1928-1929 ......... 3,941
1929-1930 ........ 4,684
1930-1931 .......... 4,449
1931-1932 ........- 3,669
Total .......... 45,809


Total
Boats


370
3,257
4,253
3,485
4,504
4,948
4,179
697
4,559
4,842
5,464
6,668
5,980
6,094
6,352
7,175
7,154
6,305
86,286


SNumber
I Packages
IArriving by Number
I Boat, Packages
SExpress, Returned
I Freight,
I Mail
500 18
3,105 255
3,422 485
*69,985 1,521
336,059% 4,936 Y
710,412M 2,130
1,333,333% 2,610
747,972 201
1,827,727 1,006
t1,410,860 1,566
1,633,015 2,630
2,435,470 3,766
2,304,594 5,237/2
2,415,694 4,633
2,537,695 4,925
3,007,540 9,127
2,596,716 6,810
1,836,141 9,846
125,210,241 i 61,7031/2


I I Number
I Number Packages
IPackagesl Treated


De- I and
stroyed I Passed

69
1,182
1,037 1 ..................
1,743 ] ..................
2,3456% .........
1,564 3 ... ....
1,757 .------
311
311 ..................
2,278 -
4,478 ..
3,040 192,707
3,469% 865,927
3,538 911,717
4,844%/4 1,010,635
5,177 243,595
4,8751/2 85,979
3,737 157,899
4,133 121,774
49,610%1 3,590,233


*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.
fDecrease in number of packages arriving was due to the Federal Hor-
ticultural Board Quarantine No. 56, prohibiting the entry of fruits from
foreign countries except under permit, which went into effect in November,
1923.


I







28 State Plant Board of Florida

NURSERY INSPECTION DEPARTMENT

SUMMARY-BIENNIUM ENDING JUNE 30, 1932
1930-1931 1931-1932
Number of inspection districts.................................. 8 7
Total acre inspections made (does not include
narcissus bulbs) .................................................. 24,009.61 21,870.33
Total acre refusals ...................................................... 854.77 965.95
Total stock inspected .................................................193,719,575 181,708,562
Total stock refused ................................................... 3,751,802 3,297,690
Total number refusals ................................................ 435 451
Total number inspections made (nursery, pack-
age, narcissus, etc.) ........................................ 13,404 10,231
Total number nurseries under inspection June 30
(not including narcissus) .................................. 1,846 1,842
Total number inspections made of the above........ 7,945 7,661
Average number of inspections................................ 4.3 4.17
Number of nurseries going out of business............ 359 298
Total number of inspections before going out of
business ............................... .............................. 725 587
Number new nurseries ................................................ 283 287
Actual acreage in citrus stock June 30.................. 2,507.52 2,029.69
Actual acreage in non-citrus stock June 30.......... 3,214.26 3,176.79
Actual amount of citrus stock June 30.................. 12,708,099 11,577,934
Actual amount of non-citrus stock June 30........ 33,914,035 31,997,398
Number of narcissus plantings ................................ 212 175
Number of bulbs under inspection..........................128,965,050 111,468,920




APIARY INSPECTION DEPARTMENT

SUMMARY OF WORK SINCE THE DEPARTMENT WAS CREATED
IN JULY 1919
I Apiaries Colonies
Infected Infected
Year Ending Apiaries Colonies with with
Inspected j 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 53 182
June 30, 1931.............. 2,374 45,238 37 114
June 30, 1932........ 2,744 44,211 42 74






Ninth Biennial Report


OPERATING EXPENDITURES
It is worthy of note that the operations of the Plant Board
during the past biennium have been carried on both efficiently
and economically. In line with the special economy program for
state agencies, the Board succeeded in conducting its operations
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1932, at a saving of $28,790.74
under the amount made available through appropriations for
that year. Out of an appropriation of $235,000, there was ex-
pended $206,209.26. The emergency appropriation of $50,000
per annum was not resorted to during either year of the bien-
nium.
Curtailment of expenditures and consequent savings was
made possible by (a) salary reductions of 6% and over affecting
all employees; (b) reduction in allowance for use of employees'
personally owned automobiles for official travel from 6c per
mile to 5c per mile; (c) discontinuance of publication of "The
Monthly Bulletin"; (d) reduction of per diem allowance for
subsistence to employees and a lowered cost for hotel accommo-
dations for those employees not on a travel allowance; (e) econ-
omies in purchases of supplies and equipment and (f) various
other miscellaneous directions.
The following tabulations show expenditures for each year of
the biennium. The table marked "A" indicates expenditures by
departments or projects, while the table marked "B" shows pur-
poses for which expenditures were made.

TABLE A
EXPENDITURES BY DEPARTMENTS

Department 1930-1931 1931-1932

Grove Inspection Department.......... $119,242.55 $ 75,855.56
Nursery Inspection Department...... 44,046.27 36,200.03
Quarantine Inspection Department 69,074.32 54,831.04
Apiary Inspection Department ........ 13,649.82 11,954.06
Department of Plant Pathology.... 1,363.50 409.13
Fumigation Experiments ................ 8,148.99 3,346.23
Office of the Board............................ 4,733.53 2,843.79
Plant Commissioner's Office............ 17,756.21 8,790.48
Department of Entomology.............. 9,048.37 8,245.88
Grape Pest Investigations ............ ............ 3,733.06

Totals .................................... $287,063.56 $206,209.26







State Plant Board of Florida

TABLE B
EXPENDITURES FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES


Item


Salaries ................ .... ................
Travel and Subsistence Expenses...
Labor .... ... ....... .......
Stationery and Small Printing........
Postage ..............--............ .....
Bulletins and Circulars......................
Telegraph, Telephone ...............--
Fumigants, Insecticides, etc.............
Miscellaneous Supplies -...............
Miscellaneous Expenses ...................
Office Equipment ..........................
Laboratory Supplies and Equipment
Freight, Drayage, Express .............
Library ................. ...............


Totals


1930-1931


$201,038.25
62,708.04
1,977.72
1,210.28
1,246.45
3,218.77
664.87
523.85
2,356.84
8,161.49
1,813.03
1,542.24
242.26
359.47
$287,063.56


-f


1931-1932


$159,461.44
39,552.79
674.88
805.07
870.94
341.71
591.31
493.58
934.43
1,719.90
182.03
199.92
195.97
185.29
$206,209.26


Tables A and B appearing above show expenditures for rou-
tine or general activities of the Board. In addition to expendi-
tures for such purposes, the Board expended, out of the special
appropriation made available by Chapter 13693, a total of
$80,780.08 during the biennium. Of this appropriation there
remains a balance of $224,182.42.


TABLE C

EXPENDITURES FROM CHAPTER 13693

Item 1930-31 1931-32


Salaries .............. .......................... $68,406.65
Travel and Subsistence Expenses ........................ 828.02
Labor ............... ........ .......................... 69.00
Stationery and Small Printing ........................... 10.00
Telegraph, Telephone .......................................-.. 304.15
Miscellaneous Supplies, Including Spray Ma-
terials, Inspection Suits .................................. 9,866.66
Miscellaneous Expenses, Including Hospitali-
zation Expense for Men on Road Patrol
Duty ................................................... .............. 774.13 440.80*
Office Equipment ................................................... 10.85
Laboratory Supplies ..................................... .. 59.50
Freight, Drayage, Express ................................... 10.32
Total ................................ ..... ............... $80,339.28 $440.80
*Special counsel ........................................ ...... $425.80
Rent, storage bin at Orlando, 3 mos..................... 15.00

$440.80







Ninth Biennial Report


ESTIMATES

At the regular monthly meeting of the Board on October 17,
1932, the following report was presented covering the subject
of estimates for operating expenses for the biennium beginning
July 1, 1933:
In accordance with the instructions of the Board, the Plant
Commissioner herewith submits estimates as to the amounts
of money believed to be necessary for the proper prosecution
of the Board's activities during the biennium beginning July
1, 1933. These estimates are based upon the expenditures for
the Board's activities during the current fiscal year, but do not
include any amounts for the continuation of fumigation investi-
gations or grape pest investigations. The sum total of the esti-
mates is $206,598.20 per annum. The amount of money made
available by legislative action for the present biennium is
$235,000.00 per annum.


PLANT COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE

(General Expenses)
Per For
Annum Biennium
Salaries:
Plant Commissioner .......................................- $ 1,770.00 $ 3,540.00
Chief Clerk ........ ......... .............. ........... .... 1,861.20 3,722.40
Stenographer and Filing Clerk........................ 1,500.00 3,000.00
Janitor ...................... ..... ............. 600.00 1,200.00
Total for Salaries ...............-... ...............-.$ 5,731.20 $ 11,462.40
Operating Expenses:
Traveling Expenses, Printing, Postage, Station-
ery, Telegraph, Telephone, Laboratory, Labor
and Miscellaneous Expenses........................ 3,000.00 6,000.00
Total for Plant Commissioner's Office............S 8,731.20 $ 17,462.40

GROVE INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
Salaries:
Chief Inspector ...................................-- 3,384.00 $ 6,768.00
8 District Inspectors at average of $2,190.00.... 17,520.00 35,040.00
20 Assistant Inspectors at average of $2,040.00... 40,800.00 81,600.00
Total for Salaries .................................. $ 61,704.00 $123,408.00
Operating Expenses:
Travel and subsistence, etc.......................--.....--. 13,675.00 27,350.00
Total for Grove Inspection Department........$ 75,379.00 $150,758.00






32 State Plant Board of Florida

QUARANTINE INSPECTION DEPARTMENT

Per For
Sa : Annum Biennium
Salaries:
Chief Inspector .... ...............................$ 4,117.20 $ 8.234.40
15 Assistant Inspectors at average of $2,662.67 39,940.00 79,880.00
Office Assistant ........................................ ........... 1,861.20 3,722.40
Total for Salaries ................................................$ 45,918.40 $ 91,836.80
Operating Expenses:
Travel and subsistence, etc....................................... 9,000.00 18,000.00
Total for Quarantine Inspection Department.$ 54,918.40 $109,836.80

NURSERY INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
Salaries:
Chief Inspector ..---................................. ......... ..$ 3,948.00 $ 7,896.00
8 Assistant Inspectors at average of $2,350.00.. 18,800.00 37,600.00
1 Stenographer ............ ................................... 1,800.00 3,600.00
1 Stenographer and Filing Clerk............................ 1,500.00 3,000.00

Total for Salaries ................................................$ 26,048.00 $ 52,096.00
Operating Expenses:
Travel and subsistence, etc....................................... 9,000.00 18,000.00
Total for Nursery Inspection Department....$ 35,048.00 $ 70,096.00

DEPARTMENT OF ENTOMOLOGY
Salaries:
Entomologist ............ ..- ......................$ 3,290.00 $ 6,580.00
Associate Entomologist ........................................... 2,914.00 5,828.00
Stenographer and Filing Clerk................................ 1,500.00 3,000.00
Total for Salaries ................................................$ 7,704.00 $ 15,408.00
Operating Expenses:
Travel and subsistence, etc..................................... 400.00 800.00
Total for Department of Entomology............$ 8,104.00 $ 16,208.00

DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY
Salaries:
Pathologist (part time) ............................................$ 200.00 $ 400.00
Total for Salaries ............................................ $ 200.00 $ 400.00

APIARY INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
Salaries:
Chief Inspector ......................--........... .... .....$ 2,538.00 $ 5,076.00
Local Inspectors (part time) at $5.00 per day
when actually employed ...................................... 4,000.00 8,000.00
Total for Salaries .............................................$ 6,538.00 $ 13,076.00
Operating Expenses:
Travel and subsistence, etc. .................................. 5,100.00 10,200.00
Total for Apiary Inspection Department......$ 11,638.00 $ 23,276.00







Ninth Biennial Report


ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF BOARD

Per For
Annum Biennium
Salaries:
Secretary ......................... .......... ................ $ 1,600.00 $ 3,200.00
Stenographer (part time) ........................................ 300.00 600.00
Total .......................... ............ .......-$ 1,900.00 $ 3,800.00

Operating Expenses:
Traveling Expenses of Board Members and Sec-
retary and Miscellaneous Office Expenses........ 1,500.00 3,000.00
Total for Administration, Board........................$ 3,400.00 $ 6,800.00
Reserve Fund .......................---........ .....---- $ 9,179.60 $ 18,359.20

RECAPITULATION
--Total----
Salaries Expenses Per For
Annum Biennium
Plant Commissioner's Office..$ 5,731.20 $ 3,000.00 $ 8,731.20 $ 17,462.40
Grove Inspection Department. 61,704.00 13,675.00 75,379.00 150,758.00
Quarantine Inspection De-
partment .................................. 45,918.40 9,000.00 54,918.40 109,836.80
Nursery Inspection Depart-
ment .................................. 26,048.00 9,000.00 35,048.00 70,096.00
Department of Entomology.... 7,704.00 400.00 8,104.00 16,208.00
Department of Pathology........ 200.00 .............. 200.00 400.00
Apiary Inspection Department 6,538.00 5,100.00 11,638.00 23,276.00
Administrative Expenses of
Board ................................ 1,900.00 1,500.00 3,400.00 6,800.00
Reserve Fund ............................. .............. .............. 9,179.60 18,359.20
Total ......................................$155,743.60 $41,675.00 $206,598.20 $413,196.40







34 State Plant Board of Florida



EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE PLANT BOARD

As of June 30, 1932

OFFICE OF THE BOARD:
Diamond, J. T....... -.............S.................Secretary, State Plant Board
Lewis, Elizabeth .....................................Stenographer and Bookkeeper

PLANT COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE:
Newell, Wilmon .......................................Plant Commissioner
Hunter, Lena R.-.......-........... ....... -...Chief Clerk
Riddick, Eloise ................-----------........Stenographer and Filing Clerk
Lloyd, Henry (colored) ...........................Janitor

GROVE INSPECTION DEPARTMENT:
Brown, M. R..................................-----Grove Inspector
Adams, B. F. ...........................................Assistant Grove Inspector
Alexander, D. H..................... ...........- Assistant Grove Inspector
Artis, H. C..............-.......-------------....Assistant Grove Inspector
Baker, G. H .............--......................Assistant Grove Inspector
Barcus, G. D.....................................Assistant Grove Inspector
Bell, J. C .....-..............---------......--.........Assistant Grove Inspector
Bosse, R. F. .-...............-- ....--................-Assistant Grove Inspector
Burden, G. F.........................................Assistant Grove Inspector
Carlton, T. H.................................--.. ....Assistant Grove Inspector
Clark, V. I ................ ---......... --..... ----Assistant Grove Inspector
Dyson, Z. V.----.-..................--- ---.----------Assistant Grove Inspector
Fogg, Harry W.............................-----.........Assistant Grove Inspector
Frierson, Ed ......................---.........Assistant Grove Inspector
Grace, Don H............................................Assistant Grove Inspector
Green, Wingate ....-.....-.......-..........---.... Assistant Grove Inspector
Helseth, G. A........--.......---....----................Assistant Grove Inspector
Henderson, J. Harvey ..............................Assistant Grove Inspector
Light, L. S., Jr.. -----................--...............Assistant Grove Inspector
Lindner, R. W ................---------..................Assistant Grove Inspector
Linger, R. B ........................................Assistant Grove Inspector
Link, O. D.................. ..... --.---- ---.......Assistant Grove Inspector
Ludlam, J. W............------------ ------- ...Assistant Grove Inspector
McClanahan, H. S....................................ssistant Grove Inspector
McMullen, G. S .....................................Assistant Grove Inspector
O'Quinn, D. H........ ............................Assistant Grove Inspector
Sealey, J. H....................................... -----Assistant Grove Inspector
Stephens, C. S............--........---------.---Assistant Grove Inspector
Stokes, C. R......................---------------...Assistant Grove Inspector
Turnley, T. T......... .............................Assistant Grove Inspector
Wade, G. W................---------------......Assistant Grove Inspector
Whittington, C. E................................... ...Assistant Grove Inspector
Winter, H. K .......................................Assistant Grove Inspector







Ninth Biennial Report 35

NURSERY INSPECTION DEPARTMENT:
Goodwin, J. C........ ................................Nursery Inspector
Bass, C. A...................................................Assistant Nursery Inspector
Chaffin, Jeff .............................................Assistant Nursery Inspector
Kerr, James ..............................................Assistant Nursery Inspector
Kersey, Walter L.......................................Assistant Nursery Inspector
Knight, R. A............................................... Assistant Nursery Inspector
Nanney, W. C............................................. Assistant Nursery Inspector
Stone, 0. T............................................... Assistant Nursery Inspector
Wilson, Vern ............................................. Assistant Nursery Inspector
McIlvaine, Lucretia ..................................Chief Stenographer
Bryan, Pauline ..................-.................. Stenographer
QUARANTINE INSPECTION DEPARTMENT:
Montgomery, J. H.....................................Quarantine Inspector
Brown, Arthur C......................................Associate Quarantine Inspector
Gist, J. V.................... ...................Assistant Quarantine Inspector
Hart, Reginald .....................................Assistant Quarantine Inspector
Jackson, H. C..........................................------------ssistant Quarantine Inspector
LeRoy, Merton .......................................Assistant Quarantine Inspector
McGlamery, J. W.......................................Assistant Quarantine Inspector
Merrill, W. H............................................ Assistant Quarantine Inspector
Millington, W. V.......................................Assistant Quarantine Inspector
Milner, R. G................----- ..............----- .....Assistant Quarantine Inspector
Potter, R. D...-............-....................Assistant Quarantine Inspector
Robertson, P. F......................................Assistant Quarantine Inspector
Thomas, Paul ......................................Assistant Quarantine Inspector
Warner, L. R.....................................Assistant Quarantine Inspector
Williams, H. M..................................Assistant Quarantine Inspector
Lovejoy, Elita .----............................------......Office Assistant
APIARY INSPECTION DEPARTMENT:
Foster, Robert E.......................................Apiary Inspector
Booth, J. H....................................... .....District Apiary Inspector
Glenn, C. F.....................................---- .....District Apiary Inspector
Lott, W. K.................. ...... .............District Apiary Inspector
Lundin, A. C......................................District Apiary Inspector
Mack, Charles ...---.....--...........-- ...................-- District Apiary Inspector
Nordman, J. B...................................District Apiary Inspector
DEPARTMENT OF PLANT PATHOLOGY:
Tisdale. W. B..................-...................Plant Pathologist
FUMIGATION EXPERIMENTS:
Camp, A. F..............................................Horticulturist
Wilmot, R. J..........-..........................Special Investigator
GRAPE PESTS:
Loucks, K. W..................................... Assistant Plant Pathologist
DEPARTMENT OF ENTOMOLOGY:
Berger, E. W................................ ..Entomologist
Merrill, G. B.............................................. Associate Entomologist
Robbins, Julia ................. ....................Stenographer







State Plant Board of Florida


REPORT OF BOARD'S SECRETARY

July 1, 1930 to June 30, 1931

Tallahassee, Florida
October 1, 1931
To the State Plant Board:

GENTLEMEN:
The following report of the receipts and disbursements of the
funds for the State Plant Board during the fiscal year begin-
ning July 1, 1930, and ending June 30, 1931, is herewith re-
spectfully submitted.
J. T. DIAMOND,
Secretary, State Plant Board.



SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS TOGETHER WITH
THE BALANCES IN THE DIFFERENT FUNDS OF THE
STATE PLANT BOARD

Name of Fund Receipts Disbursements Balances
Continuing Appropriation, Chapter
12,291 ....................................................$ 35,000.00 $ 35,000.00 $ ..............
General Appropriation, Chapter 14,483.. 311,782.12 252,063.56 59,718.56
Emergency Appropriation, Chapter
13,693 .................................................... 304,962.50 80,339.28 224,623.22
Incidental Fund ...................................... 9,544.79 2,022.85 7,521.94
Total ............................................$661,289.41 $369,425.69 $291,863.72


CONTINUING APPROPRIATION, CHAPTER 12,291

RECEIPTS
State Appropriation ................................. ........... ................... $ 35,000.00

DISBURSEMENTS
Grove Inspection Department:
For Salaries .........................................$ 7,183.83
For Traveling Expenses .................... 2,216.74
For General Supplies ........................ 6.00 $ 9,406.57

Quarantine Inspection Department:
For Salaries ..........................................$ 2,075.00
For Traveling Expenses .................... 395.93
For Office Expenses ............................ 16.50 $ 2,487.43







Ninth Biennial Report 37

Department of Entomology:
For Salaries ..........................................$ 6,500.01
For Traveling Expenses .................... 103.14
For Office Expenses ............................ 267.43
For Freight and Express .................. 3.97
For Library Expenses ........................ 238.64
For Heat, Light, and Water.............. 1.88
For Laboratory Supplies .................... 112.83
For General Supplies ........................ 7.10
For Printing ......................................... 83.00 $ 7,318.00

Plant Commissioner's Office:
For Salaries ........................................---------$ 7,425.00
For Traveling Expenses .................... 923.95
For Office Expenses ............................ 875.61
For Freight and Express .................. 17.93
For Labor .............................................. 30.39
For Library Purposes ........................ 41.50
For Heat, Light, and Water.............. 127.40
For Laboratory Supplies .................... 8.70
For Printing .......................................... 3,480.15 $ 12,930.63

Office of the Board:
For Salaries ........................................--------$ 1,583.32
Traveling Expenses Board Members..$ 1,274.05 $ 2,857.37

$ 35,000.00



GENERAL APPROPRIATION, CHAPTER 14,483
RECEIPTS

Balance Brought Forward July 1, 1930......................$ 84,374.12
State Appropriation, 1930 .............................................. 227,408.00 $311,782.12
DISBURSEMENTS

Grove Inspection Department:
For Salaries ..........................................$81,686.31
For Traveling Expenses .................... 27,802.18
For Office Expenses ............................ 140.67
For Freight and Express.................... 38.31
For Library Purposes ........................ 2.20
For Laboratory Supplies .................... 1.82
For General Supplies ........................ 149.49
For Printing .......................................... 15.00 $109,835.98

Nursery Inspection Department:
For Salaries ........................................$31,602.46
For Traveling Expenses .................... 11,551.54
For Office Expenses ............................ 691.50
For Freight and Express .................. 5.35
For Library Purposes ........................ 26.17
For General Supplies .......................... 94.25
For Printing .......................................... 75.00 $ 44,046.27







38 State Plant Board of Florida

Quarantine Inspection Department:
For Salaries ........................................--$47,107.08
For Traveling Expenses .................... 12,228.94
For Office Expenses .......................... 1,323.48
For Freight and Express .................. 39.38
For Labor ................................ ....-...... 250.80
For Heat, Light, and Water.............. 6.28
For Laboratory Supplies --.................... 5,420.68
For General Supplies .-...................... 151.50
For Printing ....................-- --...........-- 58.75 $ 66,586.89

Apiary Inspection Department:
For Salaries ........................................$ 8,092.00
For Traveling Expenses ................... 5,401.35
For Office Expenses ........................... 52.47
For Freight and Express .................. .37
For Labor ............................................. 36.00
For Library Purposes ........................ 11.41
For Heat, Light, and Water.............. 41.79
For General Supplies ......................... ---------14.43 $ 13,649.82

Plant Pathology:
For Salaries .................................-- ..-- $ 200.00
For Labor ..--.............-- ..--..........-........ 566.55
For Heat, Light, and Water ........... 208.89
For Laboratory Supplies .................. 111.33
For General Supplies ........................ 276.73 $ 1,363.50

Department of Entomology:
For Salaries .................................. .$ 1,224.99
For Office Expenses ............................ 240.41
For Freight and Express-- ---................. 1.48
For Labor .......................................... 93.87
For Library Purposes .......-............... 89.55
For Laboratory Supplies ................. 66.57
For Printing ....................-..-.. ..... ....... 13.50 $ 1,730.37

Fumigation:
For Salaries .......... ---............................. 4,670.00
For Traveling Expenses ...-................ 938.99
For Office Expenses ........................... 54.49
For Freight and Express.................... 14.78
For Labor ........................-- -- .............. 1,107.35
For Heat, Light, and Water ............ 19.70
For Laboratory Supplies ..---................ 1,200.16
For General Supplies ........................ 137.77
For Printing ........................................ 5.75 $ 8,148.99

Plant Commissioner's Office:
For Salaries ....................................----$ 1,516.45
For Traveling Expenses .................... 68.82
For Office Expenses ............................ 1,288.19
For Freight and Express .................. 23.16
For Repairs to Office .......................... 1,235.90
For Library Purposes ........................ 3.00
For Heat, Light, and Water.............. 267.00
For General Supplies ......................... 12.32
For Printing ..................... ----........ -....-- 395.74
For all other purposes ........................ 15.00 $ 4,825.58







Ninth Biennial Report 39

Office of the Board:
For Salaries ................ ............... $ 316.68
For Office Expenses ............................ 957.40 $ 1,274.08

Expense of Board Members:
For Traveling Expenses............................ ..$ 602.08
$252,063.56

Balance July 1, 1931 ............................................... S 59,718,56
(Reverts to General Revenue Fund.)



EMERGENCY APPROPRIATION, CHAPTER 13,693

RECEIPTS

Balance Brought Forward July 1, 1930................ ..........................$304,962.50

DISBURSEMENTS
For Salaries ................................................ $ 68,313.38
For Traveling Expenses ...................................... 992.25
For Office Expenses ................... ..................... ..... 329.25
For Freight and Express .................................... 8.77
For Labor .................... .......... .................................. 3 337.51
For Hospital Expenses .............................................. 380.45
For Heat, Light, and Water ...........~........................ 24.73
For Laboratory Supplies .................................... 9,255.24
For General Supplies .......................................... ..... 614.80
For Printing ........-............-- ...... .. ................ 49.45
For all other purposes .......... ....... ................ ............... 33.45
$ 80,339,26

Balance carried forward July 1, 1931.. ..............................-$224,623.22



INCIDENTAL FUND

RECEIPTS

Balance Brought Forward July 1, 1930...................-................$ 5,036.81
Receipts during the year........ ............................ ............ ....... 4,507.98

$ 9,544.79
DISBURSEMENTS
For Salaries ............... .......................... .............$600.00
For Traveling Expenses ............ .............. .........-- 180.09
For Office Expenses ... ................-.... ....... ............................ 260.47
For Freight and Express ............................................ ........ 10.95
For Labor ................. ........- ..................-........ 98.70
For Heat, Light, and Water ..................................... ...... 1.76
For Laboratory Supplies ...................................................... 8.34
For General Supplies ......................... ...... ...... 91.16
For Printing ........................... ............. .................... 208.88
For all other purposes ................ ..... .................. 562.50 $2,022.85

Balance carried forward July 1, 1931......................... ............. $7,521.94







State Plant Board of Florida


REPORT OF BOARD'S SECRETARY
July 1, 1931, to June 30, 1932

Tallahassee, Florida
October 1, 1932
To the State Plant Board:

GENTLEMEN:
The following report of the receipts and disbursements of the
funds for the State Plant Board during the fiscal year begin-
ning July 1, 1931 and ending June 30, 1932, is herewith respect-
fully submitted.
J. T. DIAMOND,
Secretary, State Plant Board.



SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS TOGETHER WITH
THE BALANCES IN THE DIFFERENT FUNDS OF THE
STATE PLANT BOARD

Name of Fund Receipts Disbursements Balances
Continuing Appropriation, Chapter
Chapter 12,291 .--.......----.---- ....$ 35,000.00 $ 35,000.00 ..
General Appropriation, Chapter 15,719.. 200,000.00 171,209.26 $ 28,790.74
Emergency Appropriation, Chapter
13,693 -------------- ..--224,623.22 440.80 224,182.42
Incidental Fund ..-.........----.--.------- 10,139.24 3,017.94 7,121.30
Emergency Appropriation, Chapter
15,719 .......-.......-..... ------------------- 50,000.00 ........-- ..-- 50,000.00
Total .....................---------..---519,762.46 $209,668.00 $310,094.46


CONTINUING APPROPRIATION, CHAPTER 12,291
RECEIPTS


State Appropriation, 1931 ...............--

DISBU
For Salaries:
Grove Inspection Department.....
Department of Entomology .....
Plant Commissioner's Office .....
Office of the Board ............--.......


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

RSEMENTS

...-..$12,402.50
.-...- 6,420.03
.--... 4,791.00
-...... 1,500.02
$ 25,113.55







Ninth Biennial Report


For Equipment and Operating Expenses:
Grove Inspection Department .........$ 3,306.42
Nursery Inspection Department.-..... 2,244.45
Quarantine Inspection Department.. 1,505.67
Department of Entomology................ 293.02
Plant Commissioner's Office .............. 1,784.88
Office of the Board .............................. 68.05
Traveling Expense Board Members. 683.96
$ 9,886.45

$ 35,000.00

GENERAL APPROPRIATION, CHAPTER 15,719
RECEIPTS
State Appropriation, 1931 ..................... ..................$200,000.00
DISBURSEMENTS
For Salaries:
Grove Inspection Department ..........$48,297.46
Nursery Inspection Department ...... 26,398.00
Quarantine Inspection Department.. 45,155.64
Apiary Inspection Department.. .....- 6,795.50
Plant Pathology ............................... 400.00
Department of Entomology ............. 1,283.97
Fumigation Investigations ............... 2,568.80
Plant Commissioner's Office .............. 955.20
Office of Board ............................... 299.98
Investigation and Control of Grape
Diseases ..................................... ... 2,193.34
$134,347.89

For Equipment and Operating Expenses:
Grove Inspection Department -.........$11,849.18
Nursery Inspection Department ...... 7,557.58
Quarantine Inspection Department.. 8,169.73
Apiary Inspection Department ......... 5,158.56
Plant Pathology ...............................~... 9.13
Department of Entomology .........-... 248.86
Fumigation Investigations ................ 777.43
Plant Commissioner's Office ........... 1,259.40
Expense of Board Members................ 291.78
Investigation and Control of Grape
Diseases .................. -..... ....... 1,539.72
$ 36,861.37

Total for Salaries and Equipment ..............-.................--$171,209.26

Balance July 1, 1932 .................... ...... ..................$. 28,790.74

EMERGENCY APPROPRIATION, CHAPTER 13,693
RECEIPTS
Balance Brought Forward July 1, 1931..................................$224,623.22
DISBURSEMENTS
For Miscellaneous Expenses ......................... ................. 440.80

Balance July 1, 1932 ............. .... ................... .......$224,182.42







42 State Plant Board of Florida

INCIDENTAL FUND

RECEIPTS
Balance Brought Forward July 1, 1931........................................... 7,521.94
Receipts During the Year .............................. ...................... .. 2,617.30

Total ................. .................................$ 10,139.24

DISBURSEMENTS
For Salaries ..... ........... ... --................. 1,261.34
For Traveling Expenses ...----......................... 566.79
For Office Expenses .................................... 230.48
For Freight and Express .......................... 3.66
For Labor ............-.............-...........--........ 174.92
For Rent on Storage Room........................ 5.00
For Library Expenses .............................. 3.50
For Laboratory Supplies .......................... 48.72
For General Supplies ................................. - 106.07
For Printing ..........................-- ........ ...... 346.62
For all other purposes ............-..-..............- 270.84

Total ........................ .------ .......... ...$ 3,017.94

Balance July 1, 1932 ....................................................... $ 7,121.30

EMERGENCY APPROPRIATION, CHAPTER 15,719

RECEIPTS
State Appropriation ..........................---------------- 50,000.00

DISBURSEMENTS
No disbursements because no emergency occurred in the state
during the year ....----------.............................

Balance reverting to General Revenue Fund....................................---- 50,000.00




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