• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Report of the state plant board...
 Report of the plant commission...
 Plant inspection department
 Imported fire ant and white-fringed...
 Quarantine inspection departme...
 Apiary inspection department
 Entomology department
 Department of plant pathology and...
 Staff publications














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/UF00098574/00019
 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: 1956/58
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: VID00019
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
    Cover
        Cover 1
        Cover 2
    Title Page
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Table of Contents
        Page 3
    Report of the state plant board of Florida
        Page 4
        Page 5
    Report of the plant commissioner
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
    Plant inspection department
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
    Imported fire ant and white-fringed beetle
        Page 77
    Quarantine inspection department
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
    Apiary inspection department
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
    Entomology department
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
    Department of plant pathology and nematology
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
    Staff publications
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
Full Text



Volume II, Bulletin 13


STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA
W. G. Cowperthwaite, Plant Commissioner
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA





Twenty-Second Biennial Report

FOR THE PERIOD


July I, 1956-June 30, 1958


State Plant Board laboratory and greenhouse at Winter Haven.;


Single copies free to Florida residents on
STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLOOR
John F. Seagle Building
Gainesville, Florida


to


May 1, 1959









Volume II, Bulletin 13


STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA
W. G. Cowperthwaite, Plant Commissioner
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA











Twenty-Second Biennial Report


FOR THE PERIOD


July I, 1956-June 30, 1958














Single copies free to Florida residents on request to
STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA
John F. Seagle Building
Gainesville, Florida


May 1, 1959













STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA

RALPH L. MILLER, Chairman, Orlando
JAMES J. LOVE, Quincy
S. KENDRICK GUERNSEY, Jacksonville
JAMES D. CAMP, SR., Ft. Lauderdale
J. J. DANIEL, Jacksonville
WILLIAM C. GATHER, Miami
JOE K. HAYS, Winter Haven
J. B. CULPEPPER, Secretary, Tallahassee





STATE PLANT BOARD STAFF
Gainesville
DR. W. G. COWPERTHWAITE, Plant Commissioner
H. L. JONES, Assistant Plant Commissioner
J. W. KNIGHT, Administrative Assistant
P. E. FRIERSON, Chief Plant Inspector
H. A. DENMARK, Chief Entomologist
R. A. MARTIN, Chief Apiary Inspector
DR. D. B. CREAGER, Chief Pathologist
DR. L. G. VAN WEERDT, Chief Nematologist













CONTENTS


Page

REPORT OF THE STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA .................................... 4

REPORT OF THE PLANT COMMISSIONER .........................................-.. 6

PLANT INSPECTION DEPARTMENT

N nursery Inspection ........ ...... ................... ....... ......... ....... 13

Spreading D decline ................ ...................... ........................ 18

The Citrus Survey .... ................... ... .......- ............ 28

Citrus Budwood Certification Program .................. ...---.............. 47

The Mediterranean Fruit Fly Eradication Campaign ........................ 53

G rades and Standards ...................................................... ...................... 69

Turfgrass Certification Program .................... .........- ... ...... ........ 73

Fruit and Vegetable Certification ........................... ........ ............. 74

IMPORTED FIRE ANT AND WHITE-FRINGED BEETLE ....................--............ 77

QUARANTINE INSPECTION DEPARTMENT ............................. ........ .. 78

Sweet Potato W eevil Control ...................................................... 80

White-Fringed Beetle Control and Other Inspectional Duties .......... 80

APIARY INSPECTION DEPARTMENT ......... ..............-- ......... -......... ... 81

ENTOMOLOGY DEPARTMENT ................. .. ..................... 85

DEPARTMENT OF PLANT PATHOLOGY AND NEMATOLOGY ............................... 97

Section I-Diseases of Ornamental and Miscellaneous Crops ........ 97

Section II-Diseases of Citrus and Subtropical Fruits ................. 100

Section III- Nematology ................................... .. .................. 102

STAFF PUBLICATIONS ................ ............................................... .. 108









Report of the State Plant Board of Florida


LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

Gainesville, Florida
March 20, 1959
To His Excellency
LeRoy Collins
Governor of Florida
SIR: Herewith is submitted the report of the State Plant
Board for the biennium ending June 30, 1958. Please submit
this report to the Legislature.
Respectfully,
STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA
By: RALPH L. MILLER, Chairman


REPORT OF THE STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA

The biennial report of the State Plant Board is submitted here-
with for the information of the executive and legislative branches
of the State, as well as for the citizens of Florida.
A number of changes in the membership of the State Plant
Board were made during the biennium. The terms of Hon. Fred H.
Kent, Jacksonville; Hon. Hollis Rinehart, Miami; and Hon. J.
Lee Ballard, St. Petersburg Beach, expired. Hon. J. J. Daniel,
of Jacksonville; Hon. William C. Gaither, of Miami; and Hon.
Ed H. Price, Jr., of Bradenton, were appointed by Governor Col-
lins to succeed them. Hon. R. H. Gore, Fort Lauderdale, resigned
and Hon. James D. Camp of Fort Lauderdale was appointed to
finish his term. Mr. Camp was reappointed for a full term. Mr.
Price resigned to become a candidate for the Legislature, and
Hon. Joe K. Hays of Winter Haven was appointed to succeed him.
The membership of the State Plant Board at the end of the
biennium was: Dr. Ralph L. Miller, Chairman, Orlando; S.
Kendrick Guernsey, Jacksonville; James J. Love, Quincy; James
D. Camp, Sr., Fort Lauderdale; J. J. Daniel, Jacksonville; Wil-
liam C. Gaither, Miami; Joe K. Hays, Winter Haven. Dr. J.
Broward Culpepper continued to act as Secretary of the Board
during the biennium.







Twenty-Second Biennial Report


The State Plant Board of Florida was created in 1915 by the
Legislature to "protect the agricultural and horticultural inter-
ests of the State from insect pests and diseases." The Plant
Board has an enviable record in this field, having eradicated
major pests such as citrus canker, Mediterranean fruit fly twice
(in 1930 and 1958), citrus blackfly, and minor pests such as
stellate scale and erinose mite. No other similar State organ-
ization has been able to accomplish the eradication of pests of
this nature. Credit must also be given to the Plant Pest Control
Division of the United States Department of Agriculture for its
participation in the major campaigns.
The burrowing nematode of citrus, which causes spreading
decline, has been handled on a containment basis in commercial
citrus-producing areas. Nursery regulations limiting the move-
ment of infested citrus and ornamental plants were adopted to
prevent the spread of this pest by movement of infested plants.
At the end of the biennium approximately half of the known
infested citrus acreage had been pushed and treated to eliminate
this nematode pest.
Many States imposed quarantines on agricultural products
moving from Florida. To assist the industry, inspection and
certification of vegetables, vegetable plants, and fruits was a
continuing project. As no special funds were appropriated for
this important work, these projects were absorbed by the Plant
Inspection Department.
The Chairman and other members of the Plant Board take
this opportunity to express their appreciation for the advice,
counsel, and support on the part of growers and governmental
agencies, both State and Federal. The Board is especially grate-
ful for the advice and aid furnished by the Governor and mem-
bers of his Cabinet at Tallahassee; the Director of the Florida
Agricultural Experiment Station and his associates; the Director
of the Florida Agricultural Extension Service and his associates;
the Chief and Associate Chiefs of the Plant Quarantine Branch
and the Plant Pest Control Branch, United States Department
of Agriculture; the Chairman and members of the Florida Agri-
cultural Council; and the Collector and Assistant Collector of
Customs of the Florida District.
Respectfully submitted,
STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA
By: RALPH L. MILLER, Chairman









Report of the Plant Commissioner

For Biennium Ending June 30, 1958

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Gainesville, Florida
March 20, 1959
Honorable Ralph L. Miller, 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, 1958.
Respectfully,
W. G. COWPERTHWAITE
Plant Commissioner


REPORT OF THE PLANT COMMISSIONER
During the past two years the activities and duties of the
State Plant Board have increased. The joint Federal -State
Mediterranean fruit fly eradication campaign was brought to a
successful conclusion and a joint Federal -State imported fire
ant and white-fringed beetle eradication program was initiated.
The spreading decline eradication program in commercial citrus
areas has been continued, and spread of the pest curtailed by
nursery inspection and quarantines in both citrus and ornamental
nurseries. Plant inspection activities have increased due to an
increase in the number of commercial nurseries, increases in
types of plants and flowers produced, and increased regulatory
quarantines imposed by other States.
During the biennium Mr. Ed L. Ayers retired as Plant Com-
missioner and Dr. W. G. Cowperthwaite was appointed to this
position. Many qualified and able plant inspectors resigned to
accept more remunerative positions with private industry and
State and Federal agencies. Vacancies have been filled as rapidly
as possible with college graduates, so that the Board's technically
trained personnel has increased to the point that 85 percent
of its field inspectors are now college graduates.
A $65,000 installation consisting of office, laboratory, and green-
house facilities was completed and occupied during the biennium
at Winter Haven, Florida. This building and its attendant facili-







Twenty-Second Biennial Report


ties have increased the services that the Plant Board can furnish
the citrus industry in Florida, as qualified pathologists and nema-
tologists serve on the staff in Winter Haven. A picture of this
building is to be found on the front cover.
The Plant Board, in cooperation with the Federal Government,
is maintaining a comprehensive fruit fly survey. Approximately
39,000 traps were in the field at the end of the biennium, many
of which were combination traps designed to indicate not only
the presence of the Mediterranean fruit fly, but that of four
other potentially dangerous pests. This survey should be con-
tinued so that any infestation can be quickly delimited and
treated at a minimum cost before severe financial loss is suffered
by the agricultural industry.
A State-wide survey of citrus groves was completed during
the biennium. There are 603,059 acres planted to citrus, with a
total of 45,707,559 trees of all varieties. At the time the census
was completed in December 1956, it was found that 24 percent
of the total commercial citrus trees were of nonbearing age.
The special projects outlined above have been supervised by
the Board's regular personnel which has, of necessity, reduced
the over-all plant inspection program. Every effort is being
made to increase the services rendered the agricultural interests
served by the Plant Board. That these services have increased
is shown by the reports of the Nematology, Pathology, and
Entomology Departments found elsewhere in this report.

Resources
A statement in regard to the funds available for the Board's
use during 1956-1957 and 1957-1958, as appropriated by the
Legislature and released by the Budget Commission, is as follows:

Table 1. Resources

Balance Total
Forward 1956-57 1957-58 Biennium

General Revenue
General Activities
Salaries ............................... $ 42,302 $ 540,798 $ 619,400 $ 1,202,500
Expense .............................. 000 156,147 174,972 000
Refunds ............................ 000 21,679 13,096 000
Total Expense .................... 5,681 177,826 188,068 371,575
Operating Capital Outlay.... 7,370 6,600 21,000 34,970
Total .................................. $ 55,353 $ 725,224 $ 828,468 $ 1,609,045







State Plant Board of Florida


Table 1. Resources-(Cont.)

Balance Total
Forward 1956-57 1957-58 Biennium


Mediterranean Fruit Fly
Survey
Salaries ................ ....$.. 000
Expense ......--....---...---- ..... 000
Total ................................ $ 000


$ 000
000
$ 000


$ 78,750
107,000
$ 185,750


$ 78,750
107,000
$ 185,750


Spreading Decline
Eradication
(Lump Sum) .......................$1,347,683
Spreading Decline:
Research and Study
(Lump Sum) ......................$ 000
Imported Fire Ant and
White-Fringed Beetle
(Lump Sum) .......................$ 000
Total General Revenue
(Operating) .......................$1,403,036

Capital Outlay (Buildings
and Improvements)
General Revenue
1. Office and Laboratory
Bldg. (Winter Haven) ..$ 49,900
2. Greenhouse No. 1
(Winter Haven) ............ 14,970
3. Cyclone Fence ................ 2,469
4. Purchase of Land .......... 4,990
Total Capital Outlay,
Buildings and
Improvements .............- $ 72,329
Total All General
Revenue ........................$1,475,365
Agency Fund
Nursery Inspection Fees
Receipts ................................$ 44,449
General Inspection Fund
Citrus Tree Research ..........$ 36,533
Trust Fund
Emergency Infestation
Fund ..................................$ 75,286
Grand Total-All Funds .....$1,631,633


$ 000 $1,380,400 $ 2,728,083


$ 000 $ 119,600 $ 119,600


$ 000

$ 725,224


$ 000

000
000
000


$ 000

$ 725,224


$ 500,000

$3,014,218


$ 500,000

$ 5,142,478


$ 000 $ 49,900

000 14,970
000 2,469
000 4,990


$ 000

$3,014,218


$ 72,329

$ 5,214,807


$ 74,576 $ 58,268 $ 177,293


$ 40,000 $ 000 $ 76,533


$4,825,000
$5,664,800


$ 000
$3,072,486


$ 4,900,286
$10,368,919







Twenty-Second Biennial Report


Expenditures
Expenditures of the Board for each year of the biennium are
shown in the following table:
Table 2. Expenditures

Operating
1956-57 Capital
Salaries Expense Outlay Total


General Revenue
General Activities
1. Office of the Board ........
2. Plant Commissioner's
Office .......... ...................
3. General Expense .............
4. Plant Inspection
Department ......................
5. Quarantine Inspection
Department ....................
6. Entomology Department
7. Plant Pathology
Department ......................
8. Apiary Inspection
Departm ent ......................
Transfer .........................


5,350 $ 899

33,615 6,062
000 30,939

270,073 77,782

119,768 17,280
47,366 16,049

46,144 9,199

40,778 25,294
20,000 000


Total General Activities $ 583,094
Spreading Decline
Eradication ........................ 42,478

Total General Revenue
(Operating) ....................$ 625,572
Agency Fund
Nursery Inspection Fees ......$ 000
General Inspection Fund
Citrus Tree Research ...........$ 46,478
Trust Fund
Emergency Infestation
Fund ...................................$ 701,684


Total All Funds
(Operating) ..


...............$1,373,734


$ 183,504

303,974

$ 487,478


$ 000

1,536
000

5,756

121
3,519

1,328

000
000
$ 12,260

25,774

$ 38,034


$ 15,089 $

$ 29,500 $


$3,903,123

$4,435,190


$ 6,249

41,213
30,939

353,611

137,169
66,934

56,671

66,072
20,000

$ 778,858

372,226

$1,151,084


556 $ 15,645

351 $ 76,329


$ 81,171

$ 120,112


$4,685,978

$5,929,036


Capital Outlay (Buildings and Improvements) (General Revenue)

Budget 1956-57
Releases Expenditures Balance


1. Office and Laboratory Building
(Winter Haven) ...........................
2. Greenhouse No. 1 (Winter Haven).
3. Cyclone Fence .................................
4. Purchase of Land ............................

Total Capital Outlay, Buildings
and Improvements .............................


$ 2,000 $ 1,305 $ 695
S 600 408 192
S 2,469 000 2,469
S 200 000 200

.$ 5,269 $ 1,713 $ 3,556


F







State Plant Board of Florida


Table 2. Expenditures-(Cont.)

Operating
1957-58 Capital
Salaries Expense Outlay Total
General Revenue


General Activities
1. Plant Commissioner's
Office .................................$
2. General Expense ............
3. Plant Inspection
Department ....................
4. Quarantine Inspection
Department ....................
5. Entomology Department
6. Plant Pathology
Department ..--... ..............
7. Nematology Department
8. Apiary Inspection
Department ......................


40,314
000

327,197

99,237
49,135

36,020
20,395

41,313


Total ..................................$ 613,611
Mediterranean Fruit Fly
Survey ..................................$ 73,463
Spreading Decline
Eradication ..-..............-- ..... 38,503
Spreading Decline: Research
and Study ......................... 5,275
Imported Fire Ant and
White-Fringed Beetle ...... 3,860
Indemnities for Destruction
of Bees, etc. ....................... 000

Total General Revenue
(Operating) ........................$ 734,712

Agency Fund
Nursery Inspection Fees ...... 26,329
Trust Fund


$ 10,071
24,597

86,009

15,733
14,188

10,221
2,116

25,014

$ 187,949


$


$


$ 104 $ 50,489
000 24,597

9,740 422,946

000 114,970
4,935 68,258

5,398 51,639
000 22,511

000 66,327
$ 20,177 $ 821,737


74,578 $ 000 $ 148,041

249,474* 5,577 293,554

4,047 14,529 23,851

6,344 1,899 12,103

6,514 000 6,514

528,906 $ 42,182 $1,305,800


33,085


5,149 64,563


Emergency Infestation
Fund .................................... 2,687 173,914 000


Total All Funds
(Operating) ...


................$ 763,728 $ 735,905 $ 47,331


176,601

$1,546,964


Capital Outlay (Buildings and Improvements) (General Revenue)
Budget 1957-58
Releases Expenditures Balance
1. Office and Laboratory Building
(Winter Haven) ................................$ 48,692 $ 47,689 $ 1,003
2. Greenhouse No. 1
(Winter Haven) ............................ 14,599 14,056 543
Total Capital Outlay, Buildings
and Improvement ........................... 63,291 $ 61,745 $ 1,546
$19,860 of this amount paid as compensation for healthy trees destroyed.








Twenty-Second Biennial Report


Total All Expenditures 1956-1957 ............................... ......... .... ...$5,930,749
Total All Expenditures 1957-1958 ...................................... ................ 1,608,709

Grand Total (Biennium) ----.................... ....... ..--------- $7,539,458

Estimates

The Plant Commissioner presents herewith the estimates he
believes to be necessary to carry out the Board's activities in a
satisfactory manner during the two years of biennium 1959-61.


Table 3. Estimates


1959-60
Salaries Expense


Operating
Capital
Outlay


Total


Operating Funds by
Departments
Plant Commissioner's Office ....
General Expense ........................
Plant Inspection Department
Grove and Nursery ............--
Plant Inspection Department
Citrus Budwood
Certification ................
Plant Inspection Department
Mediterranean Fruit Fly
Survey ................................
Entomology Department ........
Plant Pathology Department ..
Nematology Department ........
Apiary Inspection Depart-
m ent ... .............


$ 54,140
000

405,900


35,220


65,640
61,980
49,980
18,240


45,540


Total General Revenue ....$ 736,640
Nursery Inspection Fees
Grades and Standards ........ 46,440

Total ................-.. ...............$ 783,080


$ 11,500
46,600

106,500


17,200


67,000
17,400
13,000
3,000

25,500

$ 307,700

49,000

$ 356,700


3,550
5,000

7,000


69,190
51,600

519,400


3,500 55,920


10,000
3,500
2,000
000

100

$ 34,650

2,500

$ 37,150


142,640
82,880
64,980
21,240

71,140

$1,078,990

97,940

$1,176,930


Operating
1960-61 Capital
Salaries Expenses Outlay Total


Operating Funds by
Departments
Plant Commissioner's Office ....$ 56,720 $
General Expense ...................... 000
Plant Inspection Department
Grove and Nursery .............. 424,920
Plant Inspection Department
Citrus Budwood
Certification ...................... 37,140


11,500 $ 500
46,600 5,000

106,500 7,000


$ 68,720
51,600

538,420


19,200 1,000 57,340







State Plant Board of Florida


Table 3. Estimates-(Cont.)


1960-61
Salaries Expense


Plant Inspection Department
Mediterranean Fruit Fly
Survey ...............................
Entomology Department ........
Plant Pathology Department..
Nematology Department ........
Apiary Inspection Depart-


69,180
64,380
52,500
19,140


m ent ....................................... 47,940

Total General Revenue ....$ 771,920
Nursery Inspection Fees
Grades and Standards ........ 48,900

Total ...................................$ 820,820
Total Operating Funds for
the Biennium ..........................$1,603,900


67,000
17,500
13,000
3,000

25,500

$ 309,800

45,660

$ 355,460


Operating
Capital
Outlay



10,000
4,000
1,500
500

100

$ 29,600

2,500

$ 32,100


Total


146,180
85,880
67,000
22,640

73,540

$1,111,320

97,060

$1,208,380


$ 712,160 $ 69,250 $2,385,310


CAPITAL OUTLAY
Summary of Proposed Buildings and Improvements for
the 1959-61 Biennium

Project Estimated Cost
1 Headquarters Buildings, Gainesville .............................................$307,500
2 Warehouse and Storage Shed, Winter Haven ............................ 50,558
3 Addition to Archer Road Laboratory, Gainesville .................... 23,000
4 Addition to Laboratory and Office Building, Winter Haven .... 56,160
5 Warehouse and Storage Building, Gainesville ............................ 22,860

Total .................... ....................... ...... ..................$.$460,078









Plant Inspection Department

PAUL E. FRIERSON, Chief Plant Inspector
The period covered by this biennium was the most productive
ever experienced by the State Plant Board. Announcement was
made of the successful completion of two projects of a momen-
tous nature-the Mediterranean Fruit Fly Eradication Program
and the Citrus Survey.
The Mediterranean fruit fly eradication program could have
been stamped as officially ended in June 1958 when Arizona
removed the last State quarantine on host fruits and vegetables
of the fly produced in Florida. Undoubtedly this two-year ac-
complishment, due to its magnitude, will be recognized as one of
the most remarkable achievements in the history of agriculture.
The citrus survey was completed in the fall of 1957 after three
years of assiduous labor. The statistics resulting from this
survey should prove invaluable to the citrus industry in fore-
casting future trends in production.
In addition to these accomplishments, two new programs were
initiated during the biennium-the Grades and Standards Pro-
gram and the Turfgrass Certification Program. Both are oper-
ated on a voluntary basis and, while acceptance may be slow at
the outset, indications point toward a successful future.
The Citrus Budwood Certification Program, Fruit and Vege-
table Certification, and the Spreading Decline Program are other
projects now being conducted by the State Plant Board. Need-
less to say, supervision of these programs has put a tremendous
burden on the personnel of the Plant Inspection Department.
This is exemplified in the regular nursery inspection work which
has shown a gradual reduction in the average number of in-
spections per biennium.
Complete accounts of the projects are given elsewhere in this
report, in addition to a summary of nursery activities.

NURSERY INSPECTION
It must be acknowledged that the inventory figures used in
the second half of this biennium were in most cases secured
before the nursery industry suffered a severe setback due to
subnormal weather conditions. Although indications point to
speedy recovery from this near catastrophe, the figures will not
reflect the picture at this moment. This is especially true in
regard to citrus nurserymen, who suffered the heaviest losses.







State Plant Board of Florida


Most categories showed an increase during the biennium, with
the exception of the average number of inspections per nursery.
The amount of nursery stock under inspection at the time of
inventory increased from 243,549,980 to 387,973,604 during this
period. The total number of nurseries also showed an increase,
from 4,404 to 4,778.
Nursery inspection activities during the biennium can best be
summarized in the following tables and charts.




TABLE 1


Number of Plant Inspection
Districts ..................................
Number of Nurseries in the State
Average Number of Inspections
per Nursery -.--........-- ..........
Total Number of Inspections of
Nursery Stock ................ ..... .....
Total Acreage of Nurseries in
the State .....................................
Total Amount of Nursery Stock
in the State ................................


1955-1956



27
4,404

2.3

13,872

7,284

243,549,980


1956-1957



28
4,547
2.1

9,869

7,752

335,238,105


1957-1958



31
4,778
1.9

10,856

8,546
387,973,604


TABLE 2
Number of Nurseries Under Inspection by Type


Type


Citrus .............................. .. ...... .......
tru andOrnamental ......... .....................................
G general ........-- ................. .--....................--..... ..- ......
Citrus and Ornamental ......................... ...
Citrus and General .............---..-......................
Ornamental and General ..-..-- --.........-.......... .....
Citrus, Ornamental, and General ........................


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


1956-1957


1,097
2,264
50
278
22
341
495


4,547


1957-1958


1,300
2,253
112
269
16
351
477


4,778







Twenty-Second Biennial Report 15

TABLE 3
Approximate Acreage and Amount of Nursery Stock-June 30, 1958
As Compared with the Two Previous Years

Kind of 1955-1956 1956-1957 1957-1958
Stock I
Acres Plants Acres Plants Acres Plants

Orange ..........- 1,128.401 4,767,274 1,288.80 6,339,142 1,554.16 8,382,894
Grapefruit ........ 151.93 424,897 114.09 268,008 92.83 261,955
Tangerine ... 78.33 182,031 30.22 140,1271 43.301 194,587
Tangelo ........... 39.811 129,893 22.67| 105,755 27.231 104,029
Satsuma ........ 29.20i 100,163 35.36| 118,786 25.381 79,072
Lemon ............ 47.221 273,921 20.31: 120,210 16.211 115,064
Lime .................. 35.54 206,377 16.36' 67,909 8.83 84,465
Miscellaneous
Citrus ............ 49.67 265,978 41.49 117,835 34.42 144,343
Citrus Seedlings 743.51 13,606,293 898.24 27,523,524 1,193.22 25,374,650


Total Citrus ..... 2,303.61 19,956,827 2,467.54 34,801,296 2,995.58 34,741,059


Ornamental ...... 4,570.78 221,894,268 4,891.51 298,658,674 5,087.73 351,146,767
General .............. 410.45 1,698,885! 392.99 1,778,135 463.04 2,085,778

Total Non-
citrus .............. 4,981.23 223,593,153 5,284.50 300,436,809 5,550.77 353,232,545


Grand Total ...... 7,284.84 243,549,980 7,752.04 335,238,105 8,546.35 387,973,604


NUMBER NURSERIES UNDER INSPECTION
1948-49 to 1957-58


4000


3000
90W0


1948-49 1949-50 1950-51 1951-52 1952-53 1953-54 1954-55 1955-56 1956-57 1957-58








State Plant Board of Florida


TABLE 4
Citrus Stock Movement as Compared with


Two Previous Years


Variety


Orange ..................... ...............
Grapefruit ........................ .....-- ....
Tangerine .................................
Tangelo ..................... .... ..........
Satsuma .................. ........ ......
Lem on ................ ......................
Lim e ................................... ...........
Miscellaneous ...............................
Seedlings .........................................


1955-1956


1,686,692
61,671
100,589
39,049
19,763
33,390
28,985
22,135
2,464,070


Total ............... .................. .... 4,456,344


1956-1957


2,158,282
51,411
51,812
41,335
18,561
24,727
18,378
13,929
4,479,395


6,857,831


1957-1958


942,938
37,927
41,605
31,115
8,586
33,822
7,108
8,752
2,399,266


3,511,089


TABLE 5
Miscellaneous Bulbs and Plants Inspected (Not Included as Nursery Stock)
July 1, 1956 to June 30, 1958

1956-1957 1 1957-1958
Variety No. Acre- No. Plants No. Acre- No. Plants
Farms age or Bulbs Farms age or Bulbs

Amaryllis ............ 40 66.66 1,147,515 38 79.38 1,822,731
Caladium ....... 69 311.77 13,695,386 99 522.94 24,440,274
Chrysanthemum.. 29 139.44 16,975,205 33 206.48 20,132,900
Easter Lily ........ 16 34.79 704,996 6 16.25 359,000
Ferns ............... 179 404.41 30,981,872 243 622.74 52,668,999
Gladiolus .......... 40 5,363.22 171,041,046 37 5,969.00 252,206,800
Hemerocallis ...... 37 10.59 288,443 50 20.53 507,312
Narcissus ............ 1 35.50 11,400,000 1 35.00 8,500,000
Miscellaneous
Bulbs and
Plants .............. 207 67.02 5,276,509 251 48.74 5,695,663
Cabbage ............. 7 8.07 1,624,000 6- 20.80 8,068,300
Tobacco ............ 9 103.75 67,325,000 9 57.95 23,465,000
Tomato ............. 70 2,480.72 200,316,700 63 2,023.98 164,605,172
Corn ............ .. 37 6,085.00 16 6,166.00
Sod ...................... 9 552.00 --- 10 257.75


Total ................... 750 15,662.94 520,776,672 862 16,047.541562,472,151


III








Twenty-Second Biennial Report


AVERAGE NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS
1948-49 to 1957-58


TOTAL NIIMER OF PLANTS UNDER INSPECTION
1948-49 to 1957-58


1948-49 1949-50 1950-51 1951-52 1952-53 1953-54 1954-55 1955-56 1956-57 1957-58


million


387,97:


8-llooo


1~l







State Plant Board of Florida


SPREADING DECLINE
The citrus industry of Florida still is seriously threatened by
the disease known as spreading decline. During much of the
1956-1958 biennium, the State Plant Board continued to ad-
minister the pull-and-treat program developed to give the indus-
try opportunity to limit spread of the disease until such time as
research is able to provide a satisfactory control.













Under the microscope, burrowing nematodes and the injury they cause to
feeder roots may be clearly observed. (Photograph-courtesy Cit. Exp. Sta.)

The burrowing nematode, Radopholus similis (Cobb) Thorne,
the reported causal agent, is a small eelworm parasite that bur-
rows into citrus feeder roots causing the tree to decline in vigor
and production. Because the area affected spreads in all direc-
tions at the approximate rate of 50 feet per year, the disease has
been given the common name of spreading decline.
The pull-and-treat program begins with the delimiting of the
infected area through use of a detailed visual map and by root
samples collected and examined microscopically for the presence
of the nematode. The diseased trees and a safety margin of
healthy-appearing trees are destroyed and the soil fumigated.
Citrus or other host plants cannot be planted for two years and
the treated area should be kept fallow by clean cultivation for a
continuous period of at least six months as a safety precaution
against any nematodes missed by fumigation. The trees along
the margin of the treated area are tested periodically during
the two-year waiting period. If the marginal trees are found
infested, the area is delimited again and subjected to pulling
and treating.
The Plant Board's program, launched during the 1954-1956
biennium on a voluntary basis and without compensation to the







Twenty-Second Biennial Report


grower, continued at a steady pace until the spring of 1956. As
the number of volunteers declined and the need arose for total
area cleanup, a compulsory phase was instituted. On July 23,
1956, after an extensive hearing, Circuit Judge Don Register,
of Polk County, refused to issue an injunction to Harry Corneal
and his wife Gertrude, of Auburndale, to prevent the Plant Board
from forcibly destroying the infected Corneal grove. Corneal
appealed to the Florida Supreme Court.





















This picture illustrates a distinct contrast between trees suffering from
burrowing nematodes and trees on the left that have not yet begun to
succumb to the attack.

The pull-and-treat program was continued into the fall of 1956
until halted to permit the harvesting of mature fruit on infested
trees.
The Supreme Court heard the Corneal appeal on November 7,
1956, and a decision handed down on January 23, 1957 reversed
the findings of the lower court. However, on March 27 the
Supreme Court issued a revised opinion stating that an emer-
gency did exist because of spreading decline and that the use
of force in the program was justified, provided compensation was
paid for at least the loss of profits from the good trees forcibly
destroyed.
The Legislature met in April 1957 and appropriated funds to
continue the program and to provide for compensation in accord







State Plant Board of Florida


with the Supreme Court decision. The program was resumed
with efforts redoubled toward education and personal contact,
necessary items in obtaining as much volunteer support as pos-
sible. Compensation proved invaluable in many instances, easing
the burden on growers who earlier had proved border-line par-
ticipants in the program.
Compensation figures were based on tables supplied by the
Agricultural Experiment Stations of the University of Florida
from records of average net returns for citrus on a per-tree basis.
The table values served as standard, unless growers could furnish
reasonable proof of higher net returns.
With few exceptions, the maturing of the citrus crop in the
fall of 1957 brought another halt in the program. Then the
several hard freezes of the winter damaged trees to the extent
that the mapping of decline groves was extremely difficult and
often impossible. Indirectly, the loss of a large part of the crop
also delayed the program by greatly increasing fruit prices.
Growers who had volunteered to participate in the program were
inclined to hold on to fruit beyond release dates, hoping for
better returns. Surprisingly enough, most groves in this cate-
gory contained late varieties of fruit, which meant delay until
late spring.
Volunteers continued to appear in great numbers, although
most of them raised the question of what action would be taken
against recalcitrant growers who refused to cooperate under
any conditions and whose groves remained a threat to neighbor-
ing areas. This resulted in another resort to force, and growers
affected immediately requested to be heard by the Plant Board.
The Board's explanation that its duty was to follow the dictates
of the Legislature resulted in a group of dissident growers pe-
titioning the courts to enjoin the Plant Board from enforcing
the program against protesting individuals. At the present time,
Circuit Judge Gunter Stephenson, of Polk County, is hearing
arguments by attorneys for both parties while the program re-
mains at a standstill. The Plant Board has authorized the con-
tinued pushing of infested margins for growers who wish to
volunteer without compensation.
An interesting side issue in regard to legal activity was the
request of two citrus growers that a neighbor be forced to pull
and treat in order to protect their own properties from the threat
of reinfestation. Judge Register dismissed the suit without
prejudice, stating that the present law provides for the cleanup






Twenty-Second Biennial Report


of such groves. The Judge further stated that he would enjoin
the grower from interfering, if the Plant Board desired to proceed
with the program. The Plant Board has refrained from further
involuntary pushing, however, until settlement is made in the
pending suit brought by W. A. Smith, of Winter Haven.

PROGRAM NOTES
The general State-wide spreading decline survey conducted
jointly by the Plant Board and the United States Department of
Agriculture was nearly completed during the 1954-1956 biennium.
Most increases in infested acreage since have been due to dis-
covery in young groves where symptoms have become visible for
the first time, and to the appearance of the disease in areas
adjacent to known positive groves. The following tables show
inspection results as of June 30, 1958.


An auger mounted on the rear of a jeep is used to dig root samples
for burrowing nematode determinations. The mass of soil and roots is
dumped on a screen where hand labor shakes the soil through the mesh,
exposing the roots for easier collecting.

Many improvements have been made in survey procedures for
detecting the presence of the burrowing nematode. Originally,
one sample was taken by shovel from the roots of each tree to be
examined. Now, at least three cores from each tree are taken
with a post-hole auger mounted on a jeep. The soil removed










TOTALS BY COUNTIES


County


Alachua ...............
Brevard ........ ........
Broward ....................
Charlotte ...............
Citrus .................. ......
C lay .-------- .....
Dade .-...... ....
DeSoto ............. .........
Duval -.... .................
Glades ................. ..... .
Hardee .....................
Hendry .................
Hernando ............... -
Highlands ............
Hillsborough ........
Indian River .............
Jefferson .............. --
Lake -- ..................
L ee ... .................- .....-..-
Manatee .....................
Marion ......................
M artin ............


Citrus
Total Pos.


62 1
7 -
2


5 -
96 1
1
1 -
202 7
1 -
33
144 40
329 11
79 4
1 -
275 9
4 1
24 -
61


Nurseries
Ornamental Citrus and Orn.
Total Pos. Total Pos.

- 1 --
1 1 -
10 6 4 1
1 1 -


14 4 8 -
I- -
6 1 3 -

1 6 -
I

61 1 6 -
5 1 8 1
5 8 -
-
1 1 -

4 3 1

3 1


Grove
Total
Insp.


8
2
1
2
1

13


25
1

336
20
1

125

1
1


s Others
Total
Pos. Insp. I


5

1

3
8
3

3 6


75 101
3 25
-- 2

23 54

5









TOTALS BY COUNTIES-(Cont.)


County


Okeechobee ...............
Orange ....................
Osceola ....................
Palm Beach ...............
P asco ........ ...- ......-.....
Pinellas ............. ....... I
Polk ...... ......... ...........
Putnam ......-....... ......
St. Johns ...................
St. Lucie ...................
Sarasota ...................
Seminole .................
Sumter ......................
Volusia .....- .............--
W alton .......... ..............


Total 1956-1958 ...... |
Total 1953-1956 .......


GRAND TOTAL .....


Citrus
Total

7
160
30
8
186
20
418
8
1
19
4
43
4
53



2,288
1,621


3,909


Pos.


8

3
5
3
43
1



3





140
138


278


Nurseries
Ornamental
Total Pos.


22

8

3
6
3


1
2

1
1


154
675


829


13

2

1
2



1
2

1
1


41
156


197


Citrus and Orn.
Total Pos.


I-

8 -

5 -
4 -
1 -
-I-
3 -
S-

1 -



54 2

54-

54 I 2


Groves
Total
Insp. Pos.


150 27
13

6 1


1,468
4,421


5,889


Others
Total
Insp. Pos.


28 2
4
7 -
8 1
2 -
98 24
3 -

2
1 -
5 1

21



392 44
862 382


1,254 426


3

1



307
753


1,060


|







State Plant Board of Florida


by the auger is sifted through a screen and the roots collected
and composite into one sample. This mechanical device has
improved quality and increased production and the additional
sampling permitted in a grove insures a more thorough delimit-
ing operation. Every means of handling samples is studied in
search for more accurate methods. Periodic meetings are held
with State and Federal research workers for advice and sug-
gestions in regard to improved techniques.
Close attention is given to all bulldozing activities to preclude
any possibility of spread of the burrowing nematode by equip-
ment. Each piece of equipment used in the process is supervised
by a Plant Board inspector, both to insure quality work and to
make certain the equipment is thoroughly cleaned before moving
to another property.
Despite the extended delays caused by court action and the
many moves required by the irregular pattern of a volunteer
program, 3,390 acres of citrus were treated in the biennium.
This means an over-all total of 4,719 acres, as shown in the
following detailed table:

Total Number of Properties Treated Since July 1, 1955
Properties Acres
Charlotte ................................... 1 40.00
DeSoto .......... .................. .......-- 1 7.00
Highlands ..................... ....... ...... .. 104 1,114.50
Hillsborough ....................................... 5 115.75
Lake .............. ........... ..............-.. 47 251.50
Orange ............... --......-............. 23 134.25
Pasco ........... ....................-. ........... 1 10.00
Pinellas .............................. .... .. 2 10.00
Polk ... --.............. ......... ........ 386 3,036.67
Total ............... .. ......... ....... ..... 570 4,719.67

At the beginning of this biennium, a systematic survey was
begun of trees remaining along margins of pulled and treated
areas. It was first thought that a single sample from each mar-
ginal tree would be sufficient to determine if any nematodes had
escaped detection in the original delimiting operation. Later,
as additional manpower became available and particularly when
the jeep auger units came into use, samples were taken from
each tree in the first two rows. The following table shows the
number of properties having margins and the results of mar-
ginal inspections.
Although the number of margins found infested might appear
discouraging, it is well to point out that approximately 97 per-







Twenty-Second Biennial Report 25

cent of the trees involved were not infested. The destruction
of one or two additional rows of healthy trees in the safety
margin no doubt would eliminate all marginal infestations, but
also would result in the sacrifice of many more good trees. Al-
though it is too soon to offer results, a third marginal inspection
is being made to test the efficiency of the work.

MARGINAL INSPECTIONS
Grand Total Through June 30, 1958

Groves First Second Third Total
Treated Margin Margin Margin Margins*

County .5 .
0 V 0 < 0 0

Polk ................. 286 100 68 135 27 89 1 5 96 229
Highlands ........ 80 24 18 39 12 20 0 7 30 66
Lake ............... 41 6 5 15 0 10 0 0 5 25
Orange .............. 23 0 3 17 4! 5 0 0 7 22
Hillsborough .... 3 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3
Charlotte ...... 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
DeSoto ........... 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Pasco ......... ..... 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Pinellas ......... 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 4

Total ............ [ 438 132 95 213 43 125 1 13 139 351

These grand totals include reinfections of treated groves from adjacent groves.

Clean cultivation as a safety precaution remains one of the
most critical phases of the spreading decline program. Research
has demonstrated that the burrowing nematode is unable to sur-
vive four months in fallow soil. With this in mind, workers have
made a determined effort to encourage cooperating growers to
keep treated areas cultivated for at least six months. Unfor-
tunately, very few growers have done a satisfactory job in this
connection.
Currently under observation are various herbicide test plots
prepared in cooperation with the United States Department of
Agriculture, the Citrus Experiment Station, and representatives
of most major chemical firms. It is hoped that some pre-emer-
gence chemical treatment of reasonable cost may be developed
from these experimentation.
The concern brought on by seeming disinterest in clean cultiva-
tion motivated a survey late in 1956. A total of 2,516 samples







State Plant Board of Florida


was taken from 126 treated properties in order to check the
efficiency of the fumigation treatment. Two samples were found
positive, both on beggarweed, with one never confirmed. The
two properties involved subsequently were found to have infested
margins and the infestations will be treated at the time the
margins again are treated. During the spring of 1958, another
treated-area survey was made, this time under supervision of the
Plant Board's Nematology Department. Soil samples were col-
lected from one-, three-, and six-foot levels and planted to corn,
a preferred host, as a catch crop. Roots of any miscellaneous
host plants encountered were recovered and examined as a paral-
lel check. These tests still are under way and the results not
yet available. In conjunction with this work, each treated area
was examined carefully for citrus root sprouts which were hand-
treated after sampling. This survey reports that of 349 prop-
erties examined, 287 were badly in need of cultivation and only
62 were reasonably clean.
During the current survey for citrus sprouts, field men re-
ported that 268 acres of treated property have been replanted
to date. A systematic inspection of these replanted properties
probably will be initiated in the near future.
Hot-water treatment of infested citrus nursery stock has con-
tinued as a service to nurserymen who wish to move stock
quarantined against use in commercial citrus areas. Approxi-
mately 2,000,000 citrus and ornamental plants have been treated
during this biennium in the four hot-water tanks now in use.
In the spring of 1957, all available men were assigned to a sur-
vey to check the efficiency of hot-water treatment under field con-
ditions. Trees moved to the tank from very heavily infested
nurseries were traced to their new grove site and sampled. Re-
sults were negative where all trees were planted on virgin soil.
One block surveyed was found positive, but this property was
completely surrounded by decline groves and had been replanted
one year after fumigation. In addition, a crop of watermelons
had been planted on the site during the waiting period. Research
later determined that watermelon is a good host for the burrow-
ing nematode. Additional work of this nature has been proposed
for the future.
Plant Board spreading decline program personnel clean up
infested citrus nurseries which have been abandoned. This is
in cooperation with the nurseryman and the local nursery in-







Twenty-Second Biennial Report


spector and helps prevent the spread of the burrowing nematode
by pilferage or other means.
In cooperation with the United States Department of Agricul-
ture, a determined effort was made to inspect or reinspect all
citrus nurseries. In at least half the cases where the burrowing
nematode was found, there was a dooryard or ornamental plant-
ing in connection with the infection. This pointed up the need
for some means of protecting the nursery from infection. The
result was a site approval plan for nurseries to further strengthen
the program and to halt the spread of the burrowing nematode
by nursery stock.
Basically, the site approval plan calls for minimum standard
distances from nearby domesticated plantings. Generally, the use
of virgin land some distance removed from any source of infection
is most desirable. If all basic rules are followed and precautions
observed in regard to all material subsequently brought into the
area, then the nursery may be certified as free of the burrowing
nematode. This entitles the nurseryman to the new burrowing
nematode certificate now required for all stock destined to com-
mercial citrus growing areas. All other stock must be hot-water
treated if moved to such areas.
The citrus nematode, Tylenchulus semipenetrans, which is
particularly serious in California, also is included in regulations
concerning new sites. Precautions used in burrowing nematode
certification are adequate against the citrus nematode.
As a guide to future cleanup in commercial citrus areas, bur-
rowing nematode records in the Winter Haven office of the Board
have been studied and a set of maps drawn showing the prin-
cipal towns and cities in the areas most seriously affected with
spreading decline. These maps were taken to the field and com-
pared with actual field conditions in an effort to distinguish
between commercial and noncommercial citrus areas. Infested
groves located in or near cities and not considered hazards to
commercial citrus because of natural barriers which impede
spread of the burrowing nematode were encircled, along with
city dooryard properties. Periodic reassessment of the situation
will be made as additional information becomes available and
individual circumstances will be subject to adjustment in the
near future.
A fee system, becoming effective on May 15, 1958, was instituted
to cover inspection requests not essential to the pull-and-treat
program. Impending real estate transactions often demand in-







State Plant Board of Florida


section of grove property that appears free of spreading decline.
Since many of these groves are not in the immediate vicinity of
other inspection areas, special attention and expense often are
involved. However, visual and survey-type inspections still are
made free of charge where it is felt conditions warrant them.

THE CITRUS SURVEY

The citrus survey, which was started in the fall of 1954, was
completed in the fall of 1957. Plans for the survey were worked
out by the State Plant Board in cooperation with representatives
of the Agricultural Marketing Service of the United States De-
partment of Agriculture, the Florida Citrus Commission, and
Florida Citrus Mutual. The field inspectors of the State Plant
Board did the actual enumeration of the citrus trees in the field
and officers of the Board directed the work and were responsible
for the tabulation and publication of the results.
The cooperating agencies contributed $245,000.00 toward the
cost of the survey, the total cost of which was approximately
$345,000.00, viz.:

*The Citrus Industry .......................................... .$ 62.500.00
The United States Department of Agriculture .. 122,500.00
**The State Plant Board ................................ ........ 160,000.00
Total ..........................---..---------..$345,000.00
Florida Citrus Commission and Florida Citrus Mutual.
** $100,000.00 of this covered capital outlays for jeeps, supplies, salaries, and other
overhead operating expenses.

The questionnaire used in collecting the citrus data was de-
signed and developed by representatives of the State Plant Board,
the University of Florida, the United States Department of
Agriculture, and the citrus industry itself. This questionnaire
worked out very satisfactorily. It was so designed that the data
could be easily punched on IBM cards. All the punching and
tabulation work was done in the Statistical Laboratory of the
University of Florida.
The questionnaire is shown on the next page.
When the survey was begun, data were obtained from section
maps used in connection with regular grove inspection work.
Later it was found that large-scale aerial maps were available
for most counties, making it possible to identify all grove prop-
erties. Translucent section paper with the same scale as the
aerial maps permitted tracing of grove boundaries, together with









Twenty-Second Biennial Report


Inspector No.
I I


STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA

CITRUS SURVEY


Owner's or
Property Name .................. .............................. .. ................. .....

Legal Description ............................... ........ .. ................ ....................
Report No. No Date p No. Property No, Sec. No Township Range No.

E:= = I I I FI I I "..


Column No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Kind, Type, Variety
2. Rootstock
3. Age (Actual)
4. Age (Est.)
Age Code (Leave Blank)
5. Trunk Circumference
6. Height
7. Tree Spacing
8. Drip Spacing
9. Tree Count
10. Vacancies
11. NB Resets
12. Hedged or Canopy
13. Planting Systems
14. Grove Class
15. Disease
16. No. Trees Affected
17. Disease
18. No. Trees Affected
19. Disease
20. No. Trees Affected
21. Disease
22. No. Trees Affected
23. Location in Grove
Read instructions at bottom of code sheet on how to use columns.

Remarks: ............................ .........- ... ..-----.. ............ ..............--...-...............


roads, lakes, and other identifiable features. Plat books in the
various courthouses then were consulted and the most recent
owners' names inserted, each grove being given a number. The
plan worked exceedingly well, and it is doubtful if any groves
of consequence were missed. Groves planted after the aerial
maps were made were added as located. Because recent aerial
maps were not available, grove inspection maps had to be used
for Polk, Manatee, and Sarasota Counties.







30 State Plant Board of Florida

A brief summary of the survey:
TREE TOTALS
All Citrus Trees ................................... ..... ...... 45,707,559
Trees in Commercial Groves ................................ 43,484,851
Noncommercial dooryardss) ................................. 222,708
Commercial Citrus Trees:
Of Bearing Age .................... ................. 33,218,821
Not of Bearing Age ............... ...................... 10,266,030
Percent Not of Bearing Age ....................... 24
Acres Planted to Citrus Trees:
Oranges ................................ ........ ............. 432,957
Grapefruit ........... ................... ..... .. 112,989
Mandarin Type ............................ ..... ..... 20,981
Hybrid Type .............. ........... -........... 25,190
Acid Fruits ...................... .... ... ....... 8,895
Miscellaneous .......... ..... ............ .... ..... 2,047
Abandoned Citrus Trees ........... ....... ............. 688,475
Vacancies ................................ ..... .......... 1,135,470
As rapidly as each county was enumerated and tabulated, de-
tailed data were mimeographed and released, the last release
being dated October 18, 1957.
A general summary table showing the number of all citrus
trees in a number of categories was then prepared and published.
Funds have not been available for printing a bulletin containing
this information with graphic illustrations.
Because the work of counting trees was spread over three
seasons (September 1954 to October 1957) it was not possible
to show the exact tree population for any fixed or given date.
During the period when the counts were made, not only were
thousands of citrus trees of all varieties being planted, but many
trees were being pulled out. Parts of the plantings and pull-outs
were done subsequent to the time enumerators visited the
groves. As many more trees apparently were planted than pulled
out or abandoned in this period, the original citrus tree census
figures would no doubt be low were it not for the severe freezes
which killed many trees last winter.
The county data are correct for the date when the count was
made in each county.
Future Plans:
As the number and variety count of citrus trees in the State
is constantly changing, due to new plantings, pull-outs, abandon-
ment, and occasional freeze losses, plans are being made to keep
the inventory up to date with a carefully planned sampling pro-
gram. Current data are needed, not only by the citrus industry
itself but by the United States Department of Agriculture in
estimating citrus crops and by the State Plant Board in inspec-
tion and regulatory functions.








NUMBER OF ACID AND MISCELLANEOUS CITRUS TREES IN COMMERCIAL GROVES AS OF DECEMBER, 1956

OAAcid Citru Fruit Tres Commercial Micallanius Cltn Frit Trm CommMrdl
COUNTY --A I I IAx d
Acid Peracn Key Othsr Vila Frsno Msrsr Rough 0thsr Sour Kuorqost Limsqost Citron Shiddork Calumoudicn *~nd Tot
Fru, LimIs Lic.s trs Lsoc Ismon Itrson LmnOr 0U...tr Misc.
ALACHUA ......................- -
BREVARD ........................ .... 4,578 477 36 1 114 243 144 31 3,533 499 5 2 8,475 8,981
BROWARD ......................... 2,405 1,437 19 17 25 150 528 229 403 5 287 389 1,084
CHARLOTTE ........................... 23,222 222 23,000 -
CITRUS ................... ................ 684 49 - 635 1 366 427
COLLIER ... ........ 69 10 17 42 -- -- -
DADE ..................................... 26,630 518,451 3,350 12 327 466 2.351 1,660 13 1,333 18 3 211 190 1,766
DE SOTO ........................... 9,760 - 3,399 2,640 1,992 1,729 464 122 478 1,064
DUVAL ...................................... 4 -
FLAGLER ...............................- -
HARDEE ................................. 9,182 2,037 - 1,546 2.036 613 10 3,040 829 42 18 1,064
HENDRY ................................ 609 8 11 40 2 48 13 4 501 18
HERNANDO .............. 729 337 392 -
HIGHLANDS ............................ 59,518 52,904 5 139 12 3,224 1,886 838 371 110 1,08 1,19
HILLSBOROUGH ................. 62,487 2,669 364 462 14,963 36,746 543 52 6,798 234 82 1,086
INDIAN RIVER...................... 2,841 382 6 363 6 138 37 1,420 705 49 1 6 8,406 4,166
LAKE .......... ................... 35,838 7,253 18 715 7,634 612 2,693 2,112 14,801 1,416 239 3 1 22 15,872 17,062
LEE ........................................ 16,968 13,027 28 1 -2,966 257 258 46 385 452 1 410 863
MANATEE .......................... 3,972 1,081 6 97 1,864 489 385 124 54 15,861 16,039
MARION ..................... 4,02 1,273 3 80 2,676 132 2,22 2,654
MARTIN .................................... 4,37 4,332 - 5 1,42 1,342
OKEECHOBEE ....................... 16 1 3 12 1 05 306
ORANGE ................................. 23,017 1,569 106 1 2,426 1,547 551 1,972 14,845 588 46 3,28 3,917
OSCEOLA ................................. 2,186 489 1 96 864 70 40 626 90 90
PALM BEACH.......................... 1,068 - 1.059 9 89 2,064 2,153
PASCO ...................................... 20,312 14,136 - 507 477 102 66 5,024 12,340 102 528 12,970
PINELLAS ................................ 2,843 450 97 15 1.074 688 86 356 177 539 57 7 38 6,728 7,369
POLK ........................................ 23,416 36,873 609 3,958 110,425 16,633 7,941 53,779 3,197 2,040 36 1 28 48,980 61,085
PUTNAM .................................. 1,400 - 22 150 23 1,205 1 300 200 3,247 3,748
SARASOTA .............................. 65 - 66 40 156 196
SEMINOLE .............................. 11,957 62 2,287 97 1 9,510 210 52 57 319
SUMTER ................................ 886 - 886 -
ST. JOHNS ................................ 89 89 -
ST. LUCIE ................................ 2,27 2,184 8 34 16 17 16 363 1 751 1,115
VOLUSIA .................................. 4,311 782 28 408 62 3,031 312 -- 312

TOTALS .................................. 1,1,266 660,882 4,944 5.469 173,889 68,785 19,980 61,698 75,608 23,298 881 22 214 915 117,630 142,860










MANDARIN AND HYBRID TYPE CITRUS TREES IN FLORIDA AS OF DECEMBER, 1956

Mandrin Ty Ct Tr in C ommercial G rove Hybrid Type Citrus Tres n Commerrisl Grov
COUNT All I II
COUNTYrn D Chln I SmiLths In Cleopstn Oth Staums Uni ed Hybrid Templ Orlndo leneola Thortoe n Other
i yT Tn.I. Ir I ur IcottT riM.nri I TyT I Tabinl I T.iI r
ALACHUA ......... 1,683 1,628 5 59 59 -
BREVARD .......... 10,936 7,207 8 2,784 982 9 60,438 45,884 2,222 11,876 5 951
BROWARD .......... 1,735 9 614 112 998 2 8,929 4,476 77 1,066 8,810
CHARLOTTE ...... 1,367 1,182 186 6,976 6,976 -
CITRUS ................ 3,084 3,04 30 5,621 ,212 2,65 54 -
COLLIER ............ 173 173 135 119 16 -
DADE ................... 10,272 4,692 400 3,264 206 1,704 6 8,179 5,972 40 464 1,703
DE SOTO ............. 16,167 10,994 3,183 744 53 127 66 9,242 5,246 3,396 600 -
DUVAL ................ 1,462 1,462 106 106 -
FLAGLER ............ 1,200 1,200 74 74 -
HARDEE ............. 22,249 20,255 1,611 217 23 143 19,568 14,804 4,440 306 18 -
HENDRY ......... 466 431 34 1 1,147 147 1,000 -
HERNANDO ........ 64,937 47,579 1,52 11,724 6 138 3,632 606 5,656 ,656 -
HIGHLANDS ...... 49,106 46,192 3 1,784 184 929 14 72,488 64,827 6,362 1,451 848
HILLSBOROUGH.. 48,436 43,696 169 3,992 170 240 34 130 87,658 79,825 6,366 1,062 10 896
INDIAN RIVER.. 9,713 7,379 909 1,407 15 3 62,783 56,502 2,137 2,820 519 806
LAKE ............ 346,226 165,183 17,984 123,706 1,965 3,415 13,935 18,985 1,052 503,427 384,169 88,793 12,9756 ,178 8817
LEE ...................... 2,181 1,764 327 15 76 5,890 5,430 106 328 27
MANATEE............ 3,992 2,263 554 169 915 89 2 45,943 21,665 12,541 4,564 7,173
MARION ............ 25,666 12,048 166 129 82 114 117 18,010 17,995 14,050 8,447 498
MARTIN ........... 2,855 307 2,233 315 13,175 12,069 500 606 -
OKEECHOBEE...... 283 279 4 1,053 801 262 -
ORANGE .............. 269,816 179,379 18,068 62,274 1,314 80 4,306 3,521 874 346,388 280,615 67,930 4,146 2,987 760
OSCEOLA .......... 37,737 27,364 10,171 132 68 47,424 45,022 2,402 -
PALM BEACH .... 2,217 1,921 296 14,202 12,478 825 904 -
PASCO ............ 42,065 37,285 3,546 33 176 286 739 73,729 65,844 4,936 1,388 199 1,67
PINELLAS .......... 18,118 17,098 39 131 47 12 129 19 643 41,298 36,526 1,127 2,016 160 1,469
POLK .................... 298,555 272,479 35 15,841 3,824 189 1,133 1,321 3,733 218,891 193,972 19,113 3,340 1,616 860
PUTNAM ......... 35,538 29,49 22 3,33 92 1,164 1,200 2,394 2,340 20 14 20
SARASOTA .......... 1,150 944 107 99 ,227 2,639 1,806 689 98
SEMINOLE ......... 73,519 62,476 1,990 5,628 108 716 2,586 15 59,034 29,849 27,776 687 1,211 12
SUMTER .............. 9,777 1,216 186 526 7,860 1,026 990 4 31
ST. JOHNS .......... 1,564 169 1,895 183 61 72 50
ST. LUCIE ............ 33,274 22,421 7,394 3,448 11 189,086 177,456 8,794 1,986 52 6,798
VOLUSIA ............ 117,492 108,851 315 2,005 1,539 4,782 16,456 18,816 1,866 410 878 497

TOTALS .......... 1,664,009 1,138,612 43,797 258,223 22,942 8,105 23,847 60,660 8,323 1,951,728 1,892,071 255,456 58,485 16,292 84,474







NUMBER OF GRAPEFRUIT TREES OF ALL VARIETIES IN COMMERCIAL GROVES AS OF DECEMBER, 1956


All _Sedy Graplfmt Tr4 s in Commercial Grove
Gra Seedy BeIrn Bearing Whit
Cr II I,4,A Ag AeLI


COUNTY


ALACHUA .
BREVARD......
BROWARD .........
CHARLOTTE
CITRUS .
COLLIER ..........
DADE .....................
DE SOTO......
DUVAL .
FLAGLER ......
HARDEE ....
HENDRY ........
HERNANDO ......
HIGHLANDS ..
HILLSBOROUGH
INDIAN RIVER
LAKE
LEE
MANATEE
MARION
MARTIN
OKEECHOBEE
ORANGE ......
OSCEOLA
PALM BEACH
PASCO ..
PINELLAS
POLK ..
PUTNAM ..........
SARASOTA ........
SEMINOLE ...
SUMTER .........
ST. JOHNS ........
ST. LUCIE ..........
VOLUSIA ......

TOTAL.


.. 1,546 721 716
305,171 47,013 44,012
45,612 12,714 12,032
.............. 8,787 3,927 3,734
7,982 3,098 1,652
............... 503 188 180
30,632 11,682 11,526
100,250 53,104 52,764
202 66 66
79 -
74,564 38,783 37,430
7,009 6,070 4,467
35,864 19,896 19,779
311,986 148,741 145,521
262,040 113,508 108,156
756,763 49,893 49,278
. 1,106,387 241,152 233,188
44,703 30,539 30,037
186,683 122,506 115,762
55,721 15,029 14,913
10,141 1,395 1,217
2,258 684 684
321,822 102,102 100.876
56,278 23,431 23,215
24,698 1,239 1,107
203,590 64,911 63,250
495,148 184,379 179,885
.1,934,130 1,029,878 1,001.17:3
17,314 9,927 9,447
..... ....... 34,956 16,595 16.207
82,882 25,233 24,770
5,346 1,629 1.308
1,423 811 770
.. ........ 813,054 42,911 42.200
67,002 29,471 28.845


5 721
3,001 43,660
682 3,256
193 2,495
1,446 3,001
8 188
156 11,079
340 51,307
66


1,353 36,943
1,603 5,070
117 19,276
3,220 145,249
5.352 105,406
615 48,001
7,964 229,34:3
502 28,998
6,744 117,888
116 14,585
178 1,395
684
1.226 95,660
216 23,153
132 851
1,661 59,133
4,494 176,968
28,705 1.022,327
480 9,607
388 13,745
463 20,169
321 1,377
41 811
711 39,582
626 29.438


.... .... I B..,.... I 54 9.4 1 I .. .... I,,I d",, 1,4. .
P Ik 11,d Sertlss BI I.,,,,ng Wh9t1 lk pv U d,,e
rpefrul 1 Ag, Ag.
547 438 109 265 179 103 278
975 2,378 254,417 237,439 16.978 108,117 73,126 73,174 3.711
9,008 450 19,795 18,774 1,021 :,389 9,163 6.213 13.103
1,432 4,860 4,747 113 1.124 3,736 -
97 4,884 3,395 1,189 2.087 1.083 1.714 -
315 141 174 111 204 -
600 3 10.354 9.506 8.18 8,256 1,673 125 8.596
1.160 637 47.146 1,044 3.102 :12,781 10.225 4.1-10
82 62 20 82 51
79 79 79 -
903 937 35,711 29,977 5.734 5,668 6.614 2:1.129 74)
1,000 939 917 22 652 287 -
209 411 15.945 15.695 250 4.839 1.157 9.619 2:3
:3,412 80 135,237 128,814 ,6423 107.067 13.982 1-1.188 28.008
5.036 3,066 138.206 132.31.I 5.892 79.236 2.1.:67 31.603 326
515 1.:77 685.939 597.672 88,267 .116.901 75.390 193.6.18 20,931
5,21.1 6,595 773,534 705,078 G,.156 276.068 192.906 :341.560 91.701
590 951 13,7.17 11,927 1.824 7,296 5.631 817 .117
4,418 200 62,511 58,679 3.832 30,.182 18,171 13.558 1.GG(
141 38.666 36,375 2,291 15.317 10,279 13:,070 2,026
8.7.16 7.834 912 1,4139 568 6,739 -
1,571 1.574 289 47 1,238 -
:.915 2,497 219,070 191,416 27,65.1 81,512 70,386 67,172 650
78 :132.817 30.987 1,8611 11.821 ..982 13.01 -
388 23,129 21,086 2,.313 13,255 5,442 4,732 30
5,433 315 133,620 119.34 1,20 1, 0,788 2:,717 19,085 5,059
7,026 385 220,011 209,306 10,705 156,312 13,671 20,025 90.758
5.925 1,626 836,089 790.409 .15,680 582,512 108,873 1.1,704 68,163
80 210 4,248 3.21: 1,005 2.657 518 1,073 3,139
2,083 767 18,361 18.065 296 15.821 1,628 912 -
3.173 1.891 57,627 49,673 7,951 19,519 14,125 23.983 22
252 3.606 1.756 1,850 105 319 3.182 111
277 269 8 110 83 54 335
1.813 1,516 759,720 631.000 128,720 307,063 112,314 34,0,343 10,423
33 37,531 34,690 2,811 23,086 11,697 2,748 -


63:,815


.. 7,402,526 2,453,226 2,380,167 73,059 2.361.432


27,979 1,599,670 4.116,721 452,9.19


2:,30, 136 817,179 1,372,355 319,630









NUMBER OF ORANGE TREES OF ALL VARIETIES (EXCEPT TEMPLE) IN COMMERCIAL GROVES AS OF DECEMBER, 1956

ECO T Ala rly Orange. Commercil I Mid-Sea.on Orange. Commial Late Orange Commernial
COUNTY I I I Ot Al A I I All
Orane Hamlin Early Navel Other I ly Jaffa Seedy Seedling Other I1idean Valencia Other All Ua ra
tL Lae
ALACHUA ........ 38,328 477 1,192 1,201 1,050 3,920 25,750 929 3,002 29,681 1,808 1,808 2,919
BREVARD......... 735,977 40,843 18,538 25,958 344 85,683 1,216 313,284 2,866 22,782 340,148 296,872 296,872 13,274
BROWARD 294,968 2,210 5,677 34,781 1,809 44,477 2,063 5,741 7,804 227,439 4,833 232,272 10,415
CHARLOTTE 49,194 2,035 7,093 225 9,353 1,164 13,426 1,408 15,998 23,843 23,843 -
CITRUS ... 96,067 25,208 29,815 3,137 681 58,841 1,239 18,198 3,702 330 23,469 13,285 13,285 472
COLLIER .... 1,917 9 98 316 171 487 1,332 1,332 -
DADE ......... 63,601 229 1,740 427 2,396 584 12,130 6 959 13,679 41,172 41,172 6,354
DE SOTO .... 586,227 26,378 26,073 1,205 341 53,997 7,546 187,375 42,814 237,735 294,431 294,431 64
DUVAL ........... 8,533 890 488 1,378 1,491 553 4,615 6,659 180 180 316
FLAGLER ...... 4,982 868 938 1,806 1,904 1,904 1,272 1,272 -
HARDEE ... 1,356,042 130,166 99,504 5,345 4,906 239,921 30,488 308,403 91,351 9,702 439,944 607,948 607,948 68,229
HENDRY...... 35,161 1,577 1,163 25 50 2,815 264 7,455 4,152 11,861 20,185 300 20,485 -
HERNANDO. 464,414 69,321 11,272 4,798 17,780 103,171 3,392 42,802 7,085 1,171 54,450 290,221 357 290,578 16,215
HIGHLANDS 1,159,651 74,930 29,625 603 2,231 107,389 33,467 140,306 2,080 3,828 179,681 749,840 67: 750,513 122,068
HILLSBOROUGH 2,006,441 242,184 217,277 42,078 8,552 510,091 20,540 313,201 123,973 12,671 470,385 1,013,316 1,013,316 12,649
INDIAN RIVER. 430,616 23,503 5,330 8,368 32 37,233 637 113,569 146 114,352 267,423 267,423 11,608
LAKE ............ ,816,447 631,572 580,155 120,209 20,431 1,352,367 67,235 953,674 112,377 37,134 1,170,420 3,151,942 1,046 3,152,988 140,672
LEE .......... 105,878 1,421 311 2,159 321 4,212 1,640 28,280 1,997 473 32,390 63,559 693 64,252 5,024
MANATEE.... 396,020 32,763 10,793 11,378 1,795 56,729 889 88,716 10,296 23,136 123,037 215,363 215,363 891
MARION ... 997,668 58,138 415,721 41,092 23,350 538,301 5,054 231,179 15,768 24,247 276,248 134,790 134,790 48,329
MARTIN 101,160 2,439 516 3,031 5,986 932 7,674 8,606 86,568 86,568
OKEECHOBEE 13,182 160 160 1,142 1,181 779 3,102 8,044 8,044 1,876
ORANGE ....... 4,232,449 641,519 414,888 85,435 17,342 1,159,184 96,036 796,399 145,775 38,924 1,077,134 1,959,103 6,035 1,965,136 30,995
OSCEOLA 739,953 77,351 72,962 12,907 3,406 166,626 16,925 153,791 18,022 3,774 192,512 380,815 380,815 -
PALM BEACH .. 69,401 3,558 25 1,154 4,737 5,422 48 5,470 59,147 59,147 47
PASCO ............ 1,981,538 313,200 45,300 18,088 30,565 407,153 20,509 189,630 52,399 6,892 269,430 1,233,567 1,562 1,235,129 69,826
PINELLAS ... 476,464 20,690 25,832 6,165 1,695 54,382 9,168 101,080 10,644 945 121,837 251,979 176 252,155 48,090
POLK .. ,758,055 546,799 443,434 18,771 32,738 1,040,742 228,724 669,735 171,664 24,169 1,094,292 3,251,952 1,463 3,253,415 369,606
PUTNAM .... 316,735 45,822 15,066 9,253 10,119 80,260 1,946 96,496 4.145 23,524 126,111 68,578 586 69,164 41,200
SARASOTA .... 121,742 1,844 17,513 901 187 20,445 4,334 24,681 492 29,507 71,790 71,790 -
SEMINOLE .... 887,762 154,425 51,534 29,309 235,268 7,304 241,669 88,905 8,391 346,269 306,170 306,170 55
SUMTER .. 153,633 17,129 21,075 3,007 41,211 2,169 13,707 8,079 9,887 33,842 78,580 78,580 -
ST. JOHNS 26,210 5,488 1,020 202 456 7,166 9,044 590 1,781 11,415 4,786 4,786 2,843
ST. LUCIE 951,394 38,424 1,604 11,715 51,743 4,305 283,043 1,409 288,757 596,564 13,374 609,938 956
VOLUSIA 874,663 152,036 41,028 28,698 4,476 226,238 2,304 154,603 33,635 141,624 332,166 314,802 723 315,525 734

TOTAL ....... 31,352,473 3,383,707 2,613,174 532,515 186,083 6,715,479 572,064 5,553,412 957,205 408,101 7,490,782 16,088,666 31,819 16,120,485 1,025,727







SUMMARY OF CITRUS TREES IN FLORIDA AS OF DECEMBER, 1956

onth Total Cllrus Tree-All Varietes Commercial Cita TrAs -Ac Plntd t CaI
Pab- COUNTY I TreAl InI Of Not o % Not o|d
SCOUNTY CE c C l N~on-Cmm B.r: Brlong B..nn, To Omn(al Grp.fruit I nd d A And Mise. Ab .doan Vamei

7/57 ALACHUA ..... 45,283 41.616 *3,667 38,252 3,364 8% 466 427 20 18 1 2,513 5,111
10/57 BREVARD 1,182,384 1,126,080 "56,304 1,031,038 95.042 8% 14.261 9,196 4,016 117 775 50 107 63.320 46,614
11/55 BROWARD ...... 394,572 354,733 39,839 328,723 26,010 7% 5,379 4,437 745 24 132 31 10 17,.391 20,696
7/57 CHARLOTTE . 104,145 89,545 "14,600 53,123 36,422 41% 1,029 623 105 17 72 212 8,351 2.395
8/57 CITRUS .............. 121,076 113,865 "7,211 64,272 49,693 447. 1,757 1,469 126 54 92 10 6 1,192 6,921
9/55 COLLIER ........... 7,637 2.797 4,840 2,404 393 147Y 47 34 9 2 1 1 2,112 232
12/55 DADE ............. 848,656 641,069 207,587 445,487 195.582 31% 5,466 595 329 74 57 4,400 11 67.081 21,773
6/57 DE SOTO ........ 749,637 721,710 27,927 530,499 191,211 26!%7 11,135 9,023 1.639 225 123 121 4 21,367 30,951
10/57 DUVAL ............. 32,857 10,357 *22,500 9,070 1,287 127. 118 99 2 15 1 1 701 1,559
8/57 FLAGLER........... 11,235 6,335 -4,900 6,058 277 4% 85 66 1 17 1 335 731
5/57 HARDEE .......... 1,513,519 1,482,659 30,860 885,673 596,986 40% 22,300 20.354 1.145 374 282 132 13 14,156 42,982
9/55 HENDRY .......... 52,798 44,910 7,888 37,573 7.337 16 % 559 470 76 5 3 1 4 1,920 2,771
8/57 HERNANDO .... 594,360 571,500 *22,860 321,475 250,025 44% 8,080 6,442 553 1,000 75 10 2,937 15,566
7/55 HIGHLANDS 1,687,911 1,653,944 33,967 1,350,151 303,793 18% 24,002 16,464 5,083 765 975 701 14 11,103 33,015
10/57 HILLSBOROUGH 2,639,152 2,458.148 '181.004 1,890,073 568,075 23% 34.659 28.629 3.753 680 1,186 401 10 32,003 58.467
6/57 INDIAN RIVER .. 1,290,127 1,266,382 23,745 1,119,321 147.061 12% 17,466 5,638 10,837 112 831 9 39 56.885 37.253
5/56 LAKE ................. 8,017,250 7,825,376 191,874 5,427,313 2,398,06:1 31% 107,922 78,872 17,288 4,458 6,638 504 162 21,774 168,366
7/55 LEE ............... 212,366 176,483 35,883 137,589 38,894 22% 2,402 1,456 664 29 82 162 9 60,155 10,874
7/57 MANATEE ..... 691,807 652,649 "39,158 476,755 175,894 277 8,405 5,294 2,307 46 538 40 180 46,208 19,659
10/57 MARION .. .. 1,158,923 1,103,736 "55,187 852,672 251,064 22% 15,785 14,239 819 384 243 64 36 13,775 35,846
7/57 MARTIN ......... 147,010 133,010 *14,000 90,704 42,306 32% 1,819 1.362 153 39 173 75 17 10,463 10,116
7/57 OKEECHOBEE .. 22,200 17,098 "5,102 14,581 2,517 15% 228 176 31 4 13 4 5,974 694
5/57 ORANGE ........ 5,413,811 5,197,409 216,402 3,864,281 1,333,128 267. 68,505 55,815 4,784 3,279 4,334 252 41 19,632 91.664
8/57 OSCEOLA ....... 927,851 883,668 "44,183 553,519 330,149 37% 13,134 11,052 862 533 658 28 1 6,240 10,914
7/57 PALM BEACH 167,223 113,739 *53,484 100,474 13,265 127% 1,697 1,029 396 31 194 16 31 12.060 12,139
8/57 PASCO .............. 2,427,540 2,334,204 *93,336 1,605,868 728,336 31% 32,768 27,715 3,152 650 976 202 73 5.093 62.248
7/55 PINELLAS .... 1,294,440 1,041,240 253,200 928,160 113,080 11% 13,540 5,708 6,457 215 370 16 774 28,036 33,133
5/55 POLK ........... 8,761,176 8,494,131 267,045 7,167,714 1,326,417 167o 121,793 81,047 32,166 4,159 2,739 1,234 448 63,469 193,326
7/57 PUTNAM ......... 434,138 377,129 *57,009 287,558 89,571 24% 4,677 3,968 209 418 30 13 39 10,242 28,951
7/57 SARASOTA ..... 181,236 163,336 "17,900 151,091 12,245 7% 1,863% 1,400 398 10 54 1 1/ 3,617 2,526
7/57 SEMINOLE........ 1,179,279 1,115,473 63,806 767,480 347,993 22% 16,639 12,395 1,238 1,003 796 105 2 6,030 36,131
8/57 SUMTER ...... 179,507 170,667 "8,840 65,178 105,489 62% 2,263 2,043 91 103 14 12 3,628 8,270
8/57 ST. JOHNS....... 34,775 29,469 "5,306 26,199 3,270 11% 320 290 13 15 1 1 166 3,026
6/57 ST. LUCIE ...... 2,015,342 1,990,148 25,194 1,719,602 270,546 14% 28,819 13,185 12,664 407 2,524 29 10 54,251 47,852
7/57 VOLUSIA ......... 1,166,336 1,080,236 86,100 868,891 211,.45 18% 14,771 11,945 858 1,699 206 61 2 14,.295 32,700

TOTAL ........... 45,707,559 43,484,851 2,222,708 33,218,821 10,266,030 24% 603,059% 432.957 112,989 20,981 25,190 8,895 2,04714 688,475 1,135,470









State Plant Board of Florida


ALL CITRUS TREES IN CO-MERCIAL GROVES
SHOWN IN HUNDRED Or ACRES BY TOWNSHIP AND RANGE
(00 OMITTED)
LESS THM 10 ACRS
SLESS THN 100 BUT OVER S0 ACRES


STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA
GAINESVLLE. FLORIDA


004










Twenty-Second Biennial Report


ALL ORANGE TREES I COMMERCIAL GROVES

EARLY ORANGES
HMLIN
EALY SEEDY
NAVEL
OTHER AND UMDENTIFIED EARLY
MID-SEASON ORNGES

MIDSEASON SEEDY
SEIDLING
OTHER AND UNIDENTIFIED WD-SEASON
LATE O RANGES
VALENCIA TYPE
OTHER AND UNIDENTIFIED LATE
SHOWN IN HUNDREDS OF ACRES BY TONSHIP AND RANGE
(00 OMITTED)
LESS THAN SO ACRES
S LES THA N00 BUT MORE THU s0 ACasS


WAS G r -
















STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE. FLORIDA


00 4


Ij










State Plant Board of Florida


EARLY ORANGE TREES IN COMMERCIAL GROVES
HMLIN
EARLY SEEDY
NAVEL
OTHER AND UNIDENTIFIED EARLY
1O% ', IN HUNDREDS OF ACRES BY TOWNSHIP AND RANGE
(00 OMITTED)
LESS THAN SO ACRES
-- LESS THAN 100 BUT OVER 0 ACRES


STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA

GAINESVLLE. FLORIDA
it1


d 0









Twenty-Second Biennial Report


MID-SEASON ORANGE TREES IN COMMERCIAL GROVES
JAFFA
MID-SEASON SEEDY
SEEDLING
OTHER AND UNIDENTIFIED MIDSEASON
SHOWN IN HUNDREDS OF ACRE BY TOWNSHIP ND RCGE
(00 OMITTED
LESS THAN o0 ACES
LESS TH- 100 BUT OVER o ACRES


ESCAMibi SA R SO RAL SA 4 Ro N~ STLMES ACSON *








U F








STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA
GAINESVLLE. FLORIDA
nPI


0,


C-


t







State Plant Board of Florida


S- 7fi : r T ". ^ s o
WAD A TAYLOR


PRA ALIN1


LATE ORANGE TREES IN COMMERCIAL GROVE
VALENCIA TYPE
OTHER AND UNIDENTIFIED LATE
HOW IN HUNDREDS or ACRES vB TOWNSHIP AND
o00 OMITTED)
LES THAN SO ACRES
SLSS THAN 100 BUT OVER SO ACRE


I %2_- SI-N I 00 W 00 51 fWAS> SI'OR --














STATE PLANT BOARD nF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE. FLORIDA
n


-I-t


R7.


i


m


-SUANNEE










AFAI I IT N 4 2
OLW







'I I1 1U7 1








s1(1
M-t 6 A CUA

1 EVY

I 1 M







RANGE _^2
1 3





P 1
SI
as


3 5 4371 47 - J' 7
.7 CL Y


















4 ir I IS -
4i 4. -
-3-






I= SI^= 2 311 --
1 2 11233 7 7 23 12- _
Tl I ItI I
--1323 2 73 6 S1



* 27 3 2 -7 A E-
2 2 I 3 15 ( 252 -2
-- 35341- --




I I h -''--414'
47 1 I0 1
! L V, 4 - -
6,l 1 4





L _j~EE-z~_lY N-











I








dOP











Twenty-Second Biennial Report


CHAPETRUIT TREES IS COMMERCIAL GROVES

SEEDY ORAPEFRUIT

WmHITE SEEDY
PIN. SEEDY
RED SEEDy

SEEDLESS GRAPEFRUIT

WHITE SEEDLESS
PINK SEEDLESS
RED SEEDLESS

IN HUNDREDS OF ACRES BY TOINIHIm AlD -A1GE
I00 OMITTED)

LES THAN o ACRES
LESS TH .. 100 U ovER U 0 ACr.


STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA

GAINESVLLE. FLORIDA









State Plant Board of Florida


EEDIt OpP rRUrTr TREES INO COuUtRCIA GROVU
wHITE SEEDY
PINK SZEOY
RED SEEDY
SHOWN IN HUNDREDS OF ACRES SB TOWNSHIP AND RANGE
(00 OMITTED)
LSS THAN S0 ACRES
LESS THAN 100 BUT OVER SO ACRES


STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA

GAINESVLLE. FLORIDA
.1.


01-A 4









Twenty-Second Biennial Report


pazma rr aCrm oanuu omovu


w IN m urorI AcAIn *T TOVNU
AMD SAIOH DI OUITTHD)
LW. TRAN u AC
= LCM THAn I- UT OvM InARa


N. a IMgas g r.;I *-r1Im f I-"G -"



S1 C.









STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA
GAINESVLLE. FLORIDA


I1%


d


" a










State Plant Board of Florida


YHYRID TYPE TREES IN COMMERCIAL GROVES

TEMPLE
I OLARDO TANGELOS
SOMNNEOLA
THORNTON
OTH.R TAGCELO5
OTHER UMDENTIFIED HaBI

SHOWN IN HUNDRED OF ACRS BY TOWNSHIP N RANGE
(o0 OMITTED)
-- LEs THAN o ACR.
SLEB TH- 100 BUT OVER SO ACRV


STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA

GAINESVLLE. FLORIDA
net


d ''











Twenty-Second Biennial Report


MADAM TTFl W RUI TR5 W Im COUUMMERCL OVY

DACT TAQCM
UIlW'S TA OBMHE OR UMTCOTT
XWO
CLrOPATA
OTRCB TAMG.MMU
I ATIMUnA

SDwN IN HUNDIEM OF *ACU ST TOWISICP D b R-C
4( OMITTED)
-- LA TH SO AC50R
S LIW THAN BUT OVER 50 ACRE


STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA

GAINESVLLE. FLORIDA
HC


S-'









State Plant Board of Florida


ACID FRUITS IN COMMERCIAL GROVES
PElRSIAN L
IrT LIE
OTHER UIE
VLLAFrA CA LEMON
MUTR L-MON
ROUGH LEMON

SOU RKANGS,
SHOm IN HUNDREDS Or ACRES BY TOmHIP AND RANGE
(W OMITTEO)

LESm THAN 100 BUT OVER SO ACRES


s s t/I& wt I / / s i i /
/--,- --- _-I I P I P It"i I. II
,r t- -- I IT I J I/













STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA
GAINESVLLE. FLORIDA
Hr


o w-%^ s "







Twenty-Second Biennial Report


CITRUS BUDWOOD CERTIFICATION PROGRAM
G. G. NORMAN
Already recognized as the largest and most comprehensive in
the world, the Florida program for producing virus-free citrus
budwood continues to expand in size and scope. Originally in-
tended to assist growers and nurserymen in obtaining budwood
sources true to type and free of bud mutation and virus diseases,
it now includes the certification of seed used for rootstocks and
the development and testing of nucellar strains of commercial im-
portance. Activities of the certification group include routine
screening, inspection and testing of possible virus-free bud and
seed sources entered by participants in the program, the regula-
tion, inspection, and labeling of registered nursery stock, and
the supervision of planting of scion groves to be used as future
sources of budwood.
Also, during the biennium training was given to groups in-
cluding new State Plant Board personnel, county agricultural
agents, citrus classes from agricultural colleges, and to many
grower groups and agricultural specialists from other States
and countries.
The surprisingly high incidence of virus infection throughout
the entire selection of varieties entered in the program has
pointed out the importance of securing new strains that are
virus-free. To this end, many lots of material from seedling
trees from all over the State have been assembled and are under
test.
During the biennium the following changes and additions were
incorporated in the program's procedure:
Childs Color Test:
A technique developed by J. F. L. Childs, of the United States
Department of Agriculture Subtropical Fruit Field Station, Or-
lando, for the determination of the presence of exocortis in
inoculations on trifoliata rootstock. This method is considerably
shorter than the usual field test which takes from six to eight
years.
Heat Chamber Treatment:
A method developed by T. J. Grant, Pathologist, United States
Department of Agriculture Subtropical Fruit Field Station, Or-
lando, which at present indicates the possibility that certain
virus diseases of citrus may be eliminated from young tissues
in living trees by controlled heat over long periods of time.








CITRUS BUDWOOD CERTIFICATION PROGRAM
July 1, 1957 June 30, 1958


Participants



1953
Ward's Nursery, Avon Park .........-.......
Minute Maid Corp., Plymouth ................
Diversified Services, Orlando ................
Grand Island Nursery, Eustis ..................
Indian Rocks Nursery, Largo ..................
F. E. Gress, Lakeland ............-...............
Eloise Groves, Winter Haven .................
Story Properties, Winter Garden ..........
Lake Garfield Nurseries, Bartow ..........
Glen St. Mary Nurseries, Winter Haven
Mixon Fruit Farms, Manatee ..................
Indian River Nursery, Vero Beach ........
E. W. Vickers, Sebastian ........................
Ocklawaha Nursery, Lake Gem ..............
Libby, McNeill & Libby, Apopka .........
Stanley Davis, Sebring .......................
Norman Platts, Ft. Pierce ..................

1954
Reynolds Nursery, Ocala ........................
Alcoma Association, Lake Wales ...........
Kenneth Curtis, Lake Wales .-........-....
G. Dexter Sloan, Tampa .....................
A. P. Brill, DeLand .................................


Certified Parent Trees
in Program
I Psorosis &
Psorosis IXyloporosis I
Free Free


13 7
23 6
3 3
4
6 3
12 1
25 7
11 7
39 14
24 6
4
24 2
6 2

5 2

8 1


13 1
11 5


Certified Scion Trees I
in Program
Psorosis &
Psorosis Xyloporosis
Free Free


2,863 2,495
413 238
200 200
101 101

40 18
1,176 321

7,350 2,584


34





238


Certified Nursery Trees
Propagated to Date
Psorosis &
Psorosis Xyloporosis
Free I Free

91 6


99,313
1,917

1,608

65
11,492

136,067

2,400
2,944


7,832
2,044

1,084


76,898
1,261

1,128

14
2,531

53,380

142







2,463
1,360

740


Parent
Trees
Still
Under
Test
Co

n

6



10
2 o
4

4
40 3.

1



2
1






CITRUS BUDWOOD CERTIFICATION PROGRAM-(Cont.)
July 1, 1957- June 30, 1958


Certified Parent Trees
in Program
Participants I Psorosis &
Psorosis Xyloporosis
Free Free

R. M. Swartsel, Davenport .............-
Adams Citrus Nursery, Winter Haven.... 19 9
G. 0. Nordmann, DeLand ........................ 6 3
L. B. Anderson, Mulberry ...................... 14 3
Wallis Skinner, Dunedin .......................
Central Groves Assn., Winter Haven ... 24 7
W. R. McMullen, Tampa ......................... 24 9
W & B Land Co., St. Petersburg ......... 1 1
Tom Swann. Winter Haven ................... 16 1
Southern Groves Assn., Winter Haven.. 12 2
Thornhill Nursery, Dundee ........-..-......... 1
A. V. Lent, Sorrento ............................... 4 2
A. O. Roberts, Howey ............................. 7 1
Walter Kersey, Tampa ......................... 12 5

1955
H. M. Landrum, Homestead ................... 4 1
Coral Reef Nursery, Goulds .................. 2 2
Edgar Davis, W auchula .......................... 11 7
D. W. Tredinick, Jacksonville ................. 3 3
F.F.A. Chapter, Ft. Meade ..................... 10 4
J. W. Lyle, Winter Haven ....................... 3
W G. Boyd, Leesburg ................................ 18
Florence C. G. Assn., Winter Haven ...... 6


Certified Scion Trees
in Program
Psorosis &
Psorosis Xyloporosis
Free Free


219 157


188
253







104


Certified Nursery Trees
Propagated to Date
Psorosis &
Psorosis Xyloporosis
Free Free


1.118
7,150



6,395

1,182
9,406
4,155


2,834

5,611


750
5,445


4,161


3,589
839





2,834

5,611


Parent
Trees
Still
Under
Test 3



17




3
3 ;.






1
3
c-4.








CITRUS BUDWOOD CERTIFICATION PROGRAM-(Cont.)
July 1, 1957 June 30, 1958


Participants



1956
Slough Grove Co., Dade City .................
Volusia County 4-H Club, DeLand ........
K. R. Williams, Ocala ......................
P. C. Friese, DeLand ...............................
Lewis & Myers Nursery, Ft. Meade ......
Edward Pell, Sanford ................................
Wartmann Estate Groves, Citra ..............
A. J. Hook, Eustis .........-....... ................

1957
Citrus Properties, Lake Alfred ................
R. L. Mohler, Plant City .....................
R. C. Harley, Bartow ..........................
Fosgate Citrus Concentrate, Orlando ...
Horace Rodgers, Arcadia .......................
Rummell & Lee Nursery, St. Cloud ........
Jim Crump Citrus Nrsy., Winter Haven

1958
Bessemer Properties, Port Mayaca ........
A. R. Jones, Vero Beach ...................
U.S.D.A., Orlando ..................................
Florida Ponkan Corporation, Apopka ....
Carl Bonnell, Clermont ..........................


Certified Parent Trees
in Program
Psorosis &
Psorosis Xyloporosis
Free Free


23
3

2
16
21
24
34


Certified Scion Trees Certified Nursery Trees
in Program Propagated to Date


Psorosis &
Psorosis Xyloporosis
Free Free


Psorosis &
Psorosis Xyloporosis
Free I Free




1,667 1,608

105,302 25,533


Parent
Trees
Still
Under
Test





1
1
12
9

22
12
9
8
14
12


28
36
76
18






CITRUS BUDWOOD CERTIFICATION PROGRAM-(Cont.)
July 1, 1957- June 30, 1958


Participants



Roy L. Hart, Groveland ............................
Lake Lowry Nursery, Winter Haven ......
Polk County 4-H Club, Winter Haven....
Ward Groves, Oviedo ...............................
Mrs. B. H. Cannon, Valrico .....................
George Riegler, Lutz ..........-..................
Lane Blanton, Tavares .........................
Thomas Law, Lutz ........................-...... .....
Mrs. E. T. Roux, Bartow ......................
W aldo Davis, Bartow ...............................-
Groveland Nursery, Groveland .............
Big Four Groves, Alturas ......................
W allace Long, Ft. Pierce ..........................
Clark Fruit Co., Lutz .........................
Paul J. Volzone, Leesburg ......................
S. C. Dobson, Oakland .........- ... ............
Dallas Thompson, Lake Hamilton ..........
R. S. Edsall, Vero Beach .......................
C. R. Disher, Sebring ..........................
Camplin Grove, Arcadia .......................
Harold Thompson, Plant City ..................
Glenn Lucas, Tampa ..........................

Total ........ ........ .... ...... .... ..........
Based on total certified buds cut.


Certified Parent Trees
in Program
i Psorosis &
Psorosis IXyloporosis
Free Free






















573 136


Certified Scion Trees 1 Certified Nursery Trees
in Program Propagated to Date
Psorosis & Psorosis &
Psorosis Xyloporosis Psorosis Xyloporosis
Free Free Free Free

8,831 4,087


714
350
330

347
50

16,405


225
350
330

347
50

8,906


420,532* 194,474*


Parent
Trees
Still
Under
Test



25

18

16



2
40

o4






465







52 State Plant Board of Florida

Psorosis Quarantine:
In May 1952, all Florida nurserymen were warned that when
sufficient quantities of psorosis-free budwood became available,
its use would be required. The Florida Budwood Program has
been able to develop, through its cooperators, over a quarter of
a million psorosis-free trees (either parent, scion, or progeny).
Accordingly, all producers of citrus nursery stock were advised
on December 9, 1957 that, tentatively effective January 1, 1960,
all citrus nursery stock showing psorosis leaf pattern would not
be certified for movement from the nursery. This regulation
on psorosis is intended to make the production of psorosis-free
nursery stock compulsory for the several hundred nurserymen
in the State who are not producing such trees on a voluntary basis.

SUMMARY OF CERTIFIED NURSERIES


Participants Number Trees

W ard's Nursery, Avon Park ....................... ............ 44,398
Minute Maid Corporation, Plymouth .................................... 1,516
Grand Island Nursery, Eustis ..-............................. 1,391
Gress Nursery, Lakeland ...............-................-... .. 65
Eloise Groves, W inter Haven .................... ....... ............ 12,427
Lake Garfield Nurseries, Bartow ................... ... ........... 80,825
Indian River Nursery, Vero Beach ..................................... 2,944
Alcoma Association, Lake Wales .................................. .. 7,832
Kenneth Curtis, Lake Wales ............ ...................... ..... ........ 1,691
A. P. Brill, DeLand .............. ....... -- ............... 1,084
Adams Nursery, Winter Haven --............................ 425
George O. Nordmann. DeLand .................... .. 4,075
W R. McMullen, Tampa .................................. ......... 2,506
Southern Groves, Winter Haven ...................... ........ ....... 7,240
Thornhill Nursery, Dundee ........................... ............. 4,155
Coral Reef Nursery, Goulds ..................... ...... ...... 2,834
D. W. Tredinick, Jacksonville ........................... 4,324
K. R. Williams, Ocala ...... ..... .................... 1,667
Lewis & Myers Nursery, Ft. Meade .................... .. ........... 75,313
Roy L. Hart, Groveland ........................... ............ 6,013
Paul J. Volzone, Leesburg ....................... ...- ...... 17

Total ......... ....... .....-.. -... .....----.....- ..- . 262,742


Foundation Planting:
In the five years of its operation, the program has shown that
a large number of apparently healthy candidate trees are actually
infected with one or more viruses. Because of this, entirely
virus-free budwood of some varieties may be rare. In order to







Twenty-Second Biennial Report


achieve the maximum amount of procurement and distribution
of such budwood, a program of organized propagation and de-
velopment by the State Plant Board is being considered. By
pooling the best sources of all varieties, each grower could then
obtain outstanding sources of budwood of varieties not otherwise
available to that grower.
The charts and tables presented here give a summary of the
Citrus Budwood Certification Program.

TOTAL TREES IN PROGRAM

Candidate Parent Trees ..................................... 1,038
Seed Source Trees ............................................. .... 143
Scion Grove Trees .................... ........ ... ...... ...... .. 16,405
Progeny of Certified Parents .............- .................... 262,742
State Plant Board Acquisitions ................................................. 296

T otal ........... ... ................................. 280,624


THE MEDITERRANEAN FRUIT FLY ERADICATION
CAMPAIGN
The Mediterranean fruit fly, one of the world's most destructive
fruit pests, has been eradicated from Florida a second time.
This insect, which attacks citrus and more than two hundred
other fruit and vegetable crops, has made commercial fruit pro-
duction difficult or impossible in some countries.
Only twice has this pest gained a foothold in the continental
United States-in 1929 and 1956.
The 1929 infestation, which involved 20 counties in central
Florida, was eradicated by late 1930 at a cost of $7,500,000-
about what growers could have expected to pay each year for
control had the pest become permanently established.
The 1956 infestation, which involved 28 south and central
Florida counties, has been eradicated at a cost of approximately
$11,000,000, a huge fund provided by equal appropriations and
services of State and Federal Governments.
Origin:
A notorious world traveler, the Mediterranean fruit fly today
is established in many countries thousands of miles away from
its native Africa.







State Plant Board of Florida


A plant inspector examines fallen fruit infested with Mediterranean
fruit fly larvae in Hardee County.
This fly has been in the Mediterranean area since about 1863;
in Bermuda since 1890; in Australia since 1897; in South America
since 1901; and in Hawaii since 1910. In 1955 an extensive
infestation was discovered in Costa Rica.
The insect spreads from country to country, chiefly in larval
form, in fruits carried by tourists or transported commercially.
Once the pest is established in a locality, it moves quickly by
natural flight, by wind drift, or by transportation in fruit, vege-
tables, and soil. In addition, the fly may hitchhike out of an
infested area in automobiles, trucks, airplanes, boats, and other
vehicles.
Federal and State plant quarantine inspectors prevented earlier
establishment of the Mediterranean fruit fly in the United States
by intercepting the insect at least 1,800 times at dozens of points
along the borders. These inspectors have found and destroyed
specimens in fruit and plants in passenger baggage and in com-
mercial shipments of host products.
Life History:
The Mediterranean fruit fly has four life stages: egg, larva,
pupa, and adult (fly), and produces about one generation a month.
The cycle begins when the female fly punctures the fruit with
a needle-like ovipositor and lays eggs. A female may deposit






Twenty-Second Biennial Report


1 to 10 eggs in each puncture and 200 to 600 eggs in a lifetime.
In two to three days, the eggs hatch into maggots or larvae.
The maggots feed within the fruit for about ten days. When
the feeding is done, the larvae cut small holes in the fruit skin,
drop to the ground, and burrow into the soil, to begin trans-
formation into pupae.

ADULT MEDILILS IDENTIIED BV LAB
k0- I I 11 11 I I I"


-Ih--


3o

to

6


1956 1957 1958


In about two weeks, depending upon temperature, the adult
flies emerge to mature and mate, and the cycle begins again.
Adults, which may live as long as a year, do not feed on fruit.


,'8o _

IL

1|0|oE







State Plant Board of Florida


The following 16 hosts were found to be infested with Medi-
terranean fruit fly larvae during the 1956-1958 campaign:
Avocado Rose apple
Calamondin Sapodilla
Grapefruit Satsuma
Guava Soursop
Kumquat Surinam cherry
Mango Tangerine
Orange Temple orange
Peach White sapota

The 1956 Campaign:
The methods used in fighting the fly were entirely different
from techniques employed in the first campaign, when host trees
and plants were stripped of fruit and produce in order to remove
breeding spots. The latest campaign involved the most recent
findings of outstanding scientists, although some of the newest
chemicals, such as oil of angelica seed, were still in the testing
stage and were put to use before final laboratory examinations
were completed.
The old system of fruit stripping and a host-free period was
discarded at the outset. Substituted was a new theory of regu-
lation through fumigation and certification, with practically no
loss to farmers and growers of produce and fruit.
In general, when a fly infestation was found, a quarantine zone
of one mile was established and all host fruit or produce moving
out had to be fumigated or processed immediately. Weekly
spraying for a minimum of 40 days was prescribed for a radius
of half a mile around the infestation. Unless further flies were
found, the area was released from quarantine restrictions 90
days after recovery of the last fly, or 120 days after the finding
of the last larva.
Baited traps were greatly increased within the spray area
to serve as guides in determining cut-off dates for controls.
Traps also were increased along the outside margin of the spray
area to ascertain whether flies had escaped to develop a new
infestation.
Control Operations:
State and Federal experts lost little time in getting the eradica-
tion operation airborne. Multi- and single-engine aircraft were
called into the struggle to do the spraying which previously had
been confined to the ground.
By use of aircraft, the mass application of insecticides was
possible over heavily populated areas, often within minutes after







Twenty-Second Biennial Report


an infestation was discovered. Planes could transfer from one
area to another with little loss of time due to the necessary
movement of equipment. In most residential areas, multi-engine
planes were required by the Civil Aeronautics Administration.





















A converted B-17 spouts a swath of Mediterranean fruit fly bait spray while
a single-engine observation plane is used to view the spray pattern.

At the peak of the Mediterranean fruit fly eradication pro-
gram there were 27 planes in daily operation, ranging in size
from B-17's of World War II to single-engine Piper cubs. In
considering that these planes operated at heights ranging from
50-100 feet above tree tops, the low accident rate was remark-
able. In the only fatal mishap, a twin-engine C-84 crashed at
Boca Raton on a ferrying trip, killing two crew members and
three helpers who prepared the spray mixture.
Bait Spray.-A newly perfected bait spray, which was applied
to vegetation by airplanes and ground sprayers, was one of the
principal weapons used in the fight against the adult fly. The
spray, which is not harmful to human beings when properly
applied, contained both a poison (malathion in a 25-percent
wettable powder) and a bait (enzymatic protein hydrolysate or
sauce base). The bait contained certain essential nutrients
especially attractive to the fruit flies.







State Plant Board of Florida


Because flies sought out the poisoned bait, complete coverage
of every tree and plant was not necessary for effective applica-
tion. Also, less poison was required than would be needed in
contact sprays that must reach each insect to be effective.
Composition of the spray for use on one acre of land was 1
pound of protein hydrolysate or 1 pint of sauce base, and 11/2
pounds of the 25-percent wettable powder, malathion, together
with enough water for one gallon of mixture.
The bait was sprayed uniformly over an area as a coarse
application. This was the recommended procedure since deposits
on foliage proved more attractive to flies than deposits on trunks,
limbs, or fruit of the trees.
The bait spray was applied approximately once a week, the
length of time between sprayings depending upon the frequency
and intensity of rain and upon other climatic conditions.
Soil Treatment.-An insecticide (granulated dieldrin) was ap-
plied to the soil to kill a percentage of the larvae entering the
soil to pupate and most of the adults emerging from the soil. A
total of 29,337 acres was treated in this manner.
Extent of Insecticide Program.-As an indication of the size
and scope of the program in Florida, a total of 800,423 acres
was treated with insecticides one or more times. Due to the
fact that some areas were covered as many as a dozen times,
insecticides were applied to an aggregate total of 6,804,383 acres.
The following table gives a summary of this phase of the oper-
ation:
MEDITERRANEAN FRUIT FLY ERADICATION
June 30, 1958
Malathion Treatment
Total aggregate acres sprayed ........... ........... ................- 6,804,383
Acres sprayed one or more times ....................... ..... ...... ... 800,423
Pounds of malathion purchased (25% material) .......................... 12,014,910
State ......................... .......... ........ 3,769,070 pounds
Federal ................ ..... ......... ........ 8,245,840 pounds
Gallons sauce bait or equivalent ....................... ......... ............. 1,015,808
State .................................... ......... 122,080 gallons
Federal ......................... ......... ... .. 893,728 gallons
Dieldrin Treatment
Total acres treated ................... ................................. 29,337
Pounds dieldrin purchased (10% material) ...................................... 1,667,217
State .-.-- ...- ........... .............. .......... 1,227,827 pounds
Federal ......................... .. ............... 439,390 pounds







Twenty-Second Biennial Report


AGCREGATE ACRES TREATED BY SPRAY


1400,000

i;oopoo

I,20ooaC

1,100 ,o





aoopoo
90opOo







500000


Quarantines and Regulations:
Federal and State quarantine regulations to prevent spread of
the Mediterranean fruit fly to uninfested areas were put into
effect promptly after discovery of the 1956 infestation.
The Federal quarantine regulated the movement from Florida
to other States of any articles that might harbor the insect.
State regulations controlled movement of these articles to un-
infested parts of the State.


-tttt"+-~t+++--t~~tttrr







State Plant Board of Florida


Regulated articles consisted principally of:
Fruits, vegetables, and other garden and orchard products.
Sand, soil, earth, peat, compost, and manure.
Fruit-picking equipment.
Trucks, wagons, cars, aircraft, boats and other means of con-
veyance, and containers used in conveying fruits or vege-
tables.
Other products and articles associated with the production of or
commerce in fruits and vegetables or that had been or
were contaminated with sand, soil, earth, peat, compost,
or manure.

Program officials approved a total of 264 fumigation chambers
in which approximately 5,040,000 boxes of citrus fruit were
fumigated with ethylene dibromide used at the rate of 8 ounces
per 1,000 cubic feet for a period of two hours. The cost of fumi-
gation was approximately 5 cents per box in truckload lots.
This treatment proved faster and less expensive than either
of the two treatments-vapor-heat and cold storage-used in
the 1929 campaign.

Movement of Host Fruit:
A Dealer-Carrier permit was issued to packers, single box
shippers, wholesalers and/or chain store operators, air lines,
trains, steamship lines, bus lines, truckers, railway express, etc.
In general, Dealer-Carrier permits were issued to persons or
firms engaged in purchasing, assembling, exchanging, process-
ing, or carrying restricted articles for interstate or intrastate
movement when such articles originated in or were stored in
areas regulated by the Mediterranean fruit fly quarantine.
Before a Dealer-Carrier permit was issued the person or firm
requesting a permit signed and agreed:
1. To handle hosts of the Mediterranean fruit fly for local sale and/or
shipment outside of the Regulated Area under the following condi-
tions:
a. Hosts Produced within Regulated Area: To handle only those
hosts that had been sterilized by an authorized fumigator by
methods approved by the Inspector, packed in standard containers
marked by official U. S. Department of Agriculture stamp, and
protected from reinfestations while in applicant's custody.
b. Hosts Produced Outside of the Regulated Area: To handle only
those hosts of the Mediterranean fruit fly that had been packed
and shipped by methods commonly used in the trade and approved
by the Inspector, and that were received in the original unopened
container.
2. To maintain premises in a strictly sanitary condition, and permit no
unmarketable hosts to remain on premises unprotected from infesta-
tion, and to dispose of such hosts in a manner which would prevent
further build-up and spread of the Mediterranean fruit fly.







Twenty-Second Biennial Report


3. To maintain and make available to the Inspector records of receipts
and sales of all host fruits for shipment outside of the Regulated Area.
4. To apply quarantine stamps and secure shipping permits in accord-
ance with quarantine regulations.
5. To cease shipping host fruits outside of the Regulated Area when
informed by the Inspector that such activities would result in prob-
able further spread of the Mediterranean fruit fly, and to surrender
official stamp furnished by the Department of Agriculture when
requested to do so by the Inspector.
Regulations Governing the Movement of Citrus:
1. Citrus originating in an infested area had to be certified for move-
ment to any destination after fumigation, OR such citrus had to be
moved under limited permit to designated processing plants within
an infested area or the surrounding protective zone.
2. Citrus could be moved from a protective zone without treatment or
certification following 60 days of intensive negative inspections.
3. Citrus could be certified for movement to any destination without
fumigation either 90 days after the last recovery of a Mediterranean
fruit fly adult OR 120 days after the last recovery of a Mediterranean
fruit fly larva.
4. Citrus could be moved from an isolated area of infestation to any
destination without either fumigation or certification when 180 days
had elapsed since the last recovery of either an adult or larva.
5. The Federal quarantine would be removed from a county in which
a general infestation existed when 90 days had elapsed following
the last recovery at any location within the county of a Mediterranean
fruit fly adult or 120 days after the last recovery of a Mediterranean
fruit fly larva.
6. Operators of packing houses and processing plants in regulated areas
were required to sign Dealer-Carrier permits. All Dealer-Carrier


Citrus fruit from a Mediterranean fruit fly infested area shown in a fumi-
gation chamber ready to receive the ethylene dibromide fumigant.







State Plant Board of Florida


permits for packers, processors, commercial fumigators, fruit stand
operators having a fumigation chamber, and feed mill operators had
to be written by the district inspectors to satisfy local operating
conditions. After the Dealer-Carrier permits had been signed by
the officials at respective businesses, they were signed by either the
State or Federal District Inspector as the "Authorized Inspector."
7. Operators of packing houses located in regulated areas who did not
have approved fumigation chambers had to handle fruit from free
areas or fruit that had been fumigated in an approved fumigation
chamber. The Dealer-Carrier permit agreement had to specify that
only certifiable products could be handled.
Limited Permits:
1. A limited permit had to be issued to cover the movement of regulated
fruit to an approved processing or packing plant.
2. Fruit moved within and out of a regulated area had to leave under
limited permit unless it was moved to a packing house or processing
plant in the same zone and the respective business handled only fruit
from regulated areas.
3. Fruit moved from a quarantine area had to be fumigated at an ap-
proved location within the quarantine area before movement into a
free zone for either packing, processing, or consumption.
4. Field boxes and other loading equipment used in a heavily infested
area had to be steam sterilized or washed thoroughly with a solid
stream of water under high pressure. In most cases throughout
central Florida this precaution was considered unnecessary except
at the actual point of infestation.
5. Each load of fruit had to be secured to prevent spillage en route.
Loads could be made secure by covering with a tarpaulin or woven
wire, or by not loading within six inches of the top of the sides of
the truck bed in case of bulk movements.
6. Packing houses and processing plants were issued the required num-
ber of limited permits covering the movement of small quantities of
fruit from various locations throughout the State to their respective
plants for use in maturity tests provided that necessary sanitary
requirements for satisfactory disposal of the material immediately
after running the tests were complied with. Limited permits in such
instances were issued to cover the normal maturity testing season
and were written in such a way as to cover only movements of small
quantities of fruit.
7. Operators of packing houses, fruit stands, and feed mills, commercial
fumigators, and processing plants located in quarantine areas had
to comply with the following sanitary requirements:
a. Apply 10-percent 30-40 mesh granular dieldrin or heptachlor to
the environs as outlined by an authorized Inspector at the rate
of 50 pounds per acre (5 pounds actual). The dieldrin or hepta-
chlor applied had to meet specifications and had to be applied
under supervision. A single application generally lasted for one
packing season. Surface treatments were necessary even though
only certifiable products were handled, unless the infestation
status or other conditions warranted waiver of treatment as
determined by an authorized Inspector.
b. A bait spray had to be applied at 10-day intervals or as directed
by the Inspector as long as the packing house or processing plant
handled regulated fruit. The spray had to be applied to the
property and environs of the property as outlined by an In-
spector. One-half pound of actual malathion in combination with
a bait was used per acre in each application. A 25-percent mala-
thion wettable powder was mixed with one pound of an approved
protein hydrolysate. Staley's sauce base No. 2 or No. 7 at the







Twenty-Second Biennial Report


rate of 1 quart per acre proved a satisfactory bait. The amount
of water used depended on equipment available.
A good distribution of spray, without complete wetting, was
necessary. Equipment and labor used for the application were
furnished by the operator of the packing house or processing
plant. If only certifiable products were handled, these sprays
were not necessarily required; however, if the point of infestation
was on or near the environs of the plant, the bait sprays were
applied as if regulated articles were handled.


A hand seeder is used to apply granular dieldrin to kill Mediterranean fruit
fly during the phases of its life cycle spent in the soil.

8. All vehicles used to haul citrus from regulated areas to approved
packing houses or processing plants had to be cleaned as follows:
a. The truck bed had to be steam sterilized immediately after un-
loading and prior to leaving the plant area, or
b. The truck bed had to be washed thoroughly with a solid stream
of water under high pressure.
9. Drops on the ground around packing or processing plants had to be
buried, burned, processed in an approved feed mill, or put through
an approved hammer mill or fumigation plant. An approved hammer
mill had to be equipped with a screen having perforations not greater
than % of an inch, and the mill had to be operated at not less than
2,000 RPM's.

Federal regulations requiring the cooperation of railway ex-
press and freight agents and of the Post Office Department sup-
plied a strong link in the chain to prevent spread of the fly
beyond the borders of infestation. These agencies provided a
thorough check on the movement of all host plants and produce
through the channels under their authority.






State Plant Board of Florida


The regulations of the Federal Government in this regard
state:
"When any State or area is quarantined by order of the Secre-
tary of Agriculture, under authority of the Plant Quarantine
Act, or by an authorized State Plant Pest official cooperating
with the Secretary of Agriculture, on account of a plant disease
or insect infestation, the mailing of plants, plant products, or
other articles covered by such quarantine or regulatory order
from such State or area into or through any State or area is
subject to the restrictions imposed by such order."
Roadblocks were set up around heavily infested areas to as-
sure that no infested fruit or produce was moved into a free
area. A total of 4,672,901 vehicles was inspected. All road-
blocks were discontinued on October 23, 1956.





















At the height of the Mediterranean fruit fly campaign, roadblock in-
spection stations were operated on highways leading out of heavily infested
areas to prevent the spread of the pest through the movement of host fruit
and soil. Plants with soil attached, fruit, and other host produce were
confiscated at the inspection station.

During the 1929 campaign, 625,000 boxes of citrus fruit were
destroyed, together with approximately 50,000 bushels of vege-
tables in the program to eliminate host plants and produce. In
the 1956 campaign, the destruction of fruit and produce was
negligible.






Twenty-Second Biennial Report


On February 25, 1958, Manatee became the last of the 28
counties to be released from controls. The first counties were
relieved of spray and quarantine regulations in the fall of 1956,
which was considered quick eradication in view of the fact that
the streamlined version of fruit fly fighting did not get into
motion until May of that year. Actually, the early weeks follow-
ing the first fly find were given over to an eradication plan pat-
terned along lines of the 1929 campaign, with the picking and
destruction of host fruits and vegetables.

NUMBL& OF TRAPS IN FIELD


1958


1957







State Plant Board of Florida


Trapping:
Trapping, which promises to become an integral part of the
Federal-State survey program in Florida, owes its being to the
Mediterranean fruit fly.
At the peak of the program these flies were trapped from the
northern extreme, where adults were found in Seminole County
on August 10, to the southern extreme, where adults were found
in Key West on August 13. The final application of spray was
at Sneads Island in Manatee County on February 25, 1958, and
the quarantine was lifted the same day. That, to all intents and
purposes, marked the end of the fight to chase the Mediterranean
fruit fly out of Florida for the second time in two decades.
In the first campaign, the method of detection was not con-
sidered a complete success because the attractant used in traps
was declared weak. The McPhail trap, known as the wet trap,
could not be operated as efficiently and speedily as the plastic
traps used in the later campaign.
During the first part of the 1956 program, oil of angelica seed,
an expensive lure costing on an average of $100 a pound, was
the attractant. Later, when supplies of this oil were completely
exhausted, research came through with a synthetic lure called
ENT 21478. This later was improved upon and called ENT 21486.
This lure proved almost as good as angelica oil and was con-
sidered more uniform and stable.
At the height of the program, 54,000 traps were in use, cover-
ing the State from Pensacola to Jacksonville to Key West. In
addition, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas
had traps placed in areas of preferred hosts to assure that no
flies had entered from Florida and become established. Cuba
also was trapped for infestations. At the present time 32,258
traps are in use.
Records show that 11,932 fly specimens were trapped and
identified as positive during the campaign.
The United States Army loaned pest control officials the
services of a helicopter and pilot for trapping off-shore islands
and host areas inaccessible by other means of transportation.
These craft played an important role in the eradication cam-
paign by providing a means for checking on the possibility of
flies existing in the Everglades and on hundreds of off-shore
islands.
Trapping has undergone a notable change in recent months
with added lures being placed in the plastic traps to provide







Twenty-Second Biennial Report


checks on the presence of other fruit flies not common to Florida.
Among these are the Queensland fruit fly, the melon fly, the
Oriental fruit fly, and the Natal fruit fly. Wet traps are to be
maintained in checking on the Mexican fruit fly.





















Investigating the Mediterranean fruit fly situation in the Everglades
is Loren F. Steiner (above left) with an army pilot. Steiner, a United
States Department of Agriculture fruit fly research scientist, came to Florida
to establish the eradication procedures he developed in Hawaii.

All this is a part of a continuing program which the State
Plant Board and the United States Department of Agriculture
have blueprinted to prevent another onslaught such as that made
by the Mediterranean fruit fly. By maintaining a constant
alert for all known fruit flies, these plant pest control agencies
hope to nip in the bud further insect invasions.
To assure such a program, the Florida Legislature last year
appropriated $320,000 for continuation of the present survey
system. The purpose of this fund is to maintain trapping, and
trapping personnel, for the two-year period ending June 30, 1959.
A great amount of interest in the campaign has been shown
by foreign countries. Visitors from practically every foreign
country that has a Mediterranean fruit fly infestation have fol-
lowed progress of the program in Florida and in at least one
country, Costa Rica, it appears that a similar eradication cam-
paign will be launched soon.







State Plant Board of Florida


MEDITERRANEAN
FRUIT FLY
INFESTATIONS
BY
TOWNSHIPS
















STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE. FLORIDA


...0-1


The Importance of Cooperation:
Cooperation is the key to any successful eradication effort and
that was never illustrated any more graphically than in the
second Mediterranean fruit fly program. State and Federal units
and personnel were welded together into one efficient organization.
In addition, individuals and industry joined the program by
contributing wholeheartedly of time and services. Committees






Twenty-Second Biennial Report


at every level helped establish public relations necessary for a
successful program. Not the least of these units was that body
of legislators referred to as the "watchdog committee," which
kept in touch with the situation and was instrumental in obtain-
ing appropriations from the State Government to carry on the
program. The citrus industry filled an important role in an
advisory capacity, and valuable contributions were made by county
committees which helped secure needed space for offices and
warehouses.
Local governments exhibited a willingness to assist in every
way possible, as exemplified by offerings in funds and in men
and materials.
GRADES AND STANDARDS

T. E. WHITMORE

Grades and standards for nursery stock are being established
by the State Plant Board in compliance with Chapter 581.02,
Florida Statutes, which states: "581.02 State Plant Board:
Duties and Authority: (5) Make and publish stand-
ard grades for nursery stock; (6) Make rules and regulations
governing the grading, marking, sale, and distribution of nursery
stock by nurserymen, dealers, and agents."
The section was contained in Senate Bill 305, Florida Legis-
lature 1955, and approved by Governor Collins on June 2, 1955.
This Bill was requested by the Florida Nurserymen and Growers
Association.
Following passage of the Bill, President Gervin Pringle of the
Florida Nurserymen and Growers Association appointed a com-
mittee to work out a system of grades and standards to be pre-
sented to the State Plant Board for approval and publication.
The committee, working with very little precedent, gathered all
the information available and worked out a set of recommended
grade-standards. These recommendations were prepared in a
preliminary report and sent to the various chapters of the Florida
Nurserymen and Growers Association for study and comment.
The result was a tremendous voice of opposition to a grading
system.
The achievement of the committee was commendable, for it
worked with little information and considerable abuse and criti-
cism to build the foundations for the presently proposed grading
system.






State Plant Board of Florida


Information given the State Plant Board by nurserymen within
the past year indicates that the original program failed appar-
ently for the following reasons:
(1) Many nurserymen felt the original bill was requested in
their behalf, but few knew such a movement was afoot.
(2) The original plan was a compulsory grading system with
several features which would have imposed a heavy burden by
requiring extra labor and time in the growing and sale of nursery
stock.
(3) The original recommendations were felt to be too strict
and not designed around current industry stock but rather on
an idealistic basis.
(4) There was a definite lack of educational effort to sell the
values of a grading system to nurserymen and the buying public.
It is entirely conceivable that the same group which vigor-
ously opposed the grading system during this period will in time
demand a mandatory grading program and an advance to higher
standards.
Work done by State Plant Board personnel on the grading pro-
gram before the beginning of the period was confined mainly to
advisory liaison work with the various committees and sub-
committees of the Florida Nurserymen and Growers Association.
Work during the fiscal year 1956-57 was restricted because the
Mediterranean Fruit Fly Eradication Program, the Spreading
Decline Program, and routine assignments took priority for
manpower and equipment. Dr. Marion F. Oberbacher, working
with the Florida Nurserymen and Growers Association commit-
tee and with industry in general, attempted to re-evaluate the
original committee recommendation and to collect information
and pictures which would form a basis for further work. Dr.
Oberbacher resigned his position on June 30, 1957, and T. E.
Whitmore was assigned to this work on August 1, 1957.
During the summer of 1957 a new policy was announced which
stated:
(1) The grading system would be on a voluntary basis, with
individual nurseries deciding whether to use grades.
(2) Grade-standards would be set up on the basis of current
industry stocks, would be kept flexible to permit changes as re-
quired, and would be in keeping with industry development.
(3) Every effort would be made to minimize requirements
which would place any burden on users of the grading system.






Twenty-Second Biennial Report


In September 1957, at the request of the State Plant Board,
President Milton Link of the Florida Nurserymen and Growers
Association appointed a new committee to work on the grading
system. The membership included: J. H. Popham, Jr., Chair-
man, Osprey; R. E. Brown, Pembroke; Raymond Oglesby, Hallan-
dale; Roy Rood, Jupiter; and Joseph Welker, Jacksonville.
In keeping with the announced policy of setting up grade-
standards on the basis of current industry stock, the committee
and the State Plant Board sent an inquiry to approximately 250
nurseries requesting specific measurements of plants, stem
counts, etc. The response was negative, with only three nurs-
eries replying. However, State Plant Board personnel, while
working in nurseries in various parts of the State, accumulated
a number of data sheets.
In January 1958, the Board of Directors of the Florida Nursery-
men and Growers Association was advised of the failure of the
committee to gain the assistance of the industry. The committee
endorsed the efforts of State Plant Board personnel and recom-
mended that this organization set up a grading system. The
State Plant Board actually had begun work in this direction in
November 1957.
During the past year, a large number of nurserymen in all
parts of the State were contacted in an effort to glean ideas and
thoughts. Plant material was checked and measured, stems
counted, pictures taken, and every effort made to collect suffi-
cient data to set up and publish a grading system. The freezes
of the 1957-58 winter created a tremendous problem for finding
material to photograph and delayed the project appreciably. The
demand for merchantable nursery stock was so great following
the freezes that material was sold as soon as it reached market-
able quality.
Many drafts have been made of the grading system and pre-
sented to the Florida Nurserymen and Growers Association
committee for study and comment, checked in nurseries, and
submitted for comment to many especially qualified persons in
the industry. The result has been constant improvement in
word and thought. By late fall, the initial set of grade-standards
should be ready for publication.
Grades and standards for commercial bare-root citrus were
drafted and presented to a group of citrus nurserymen for com-
ment. This group, invited by the State Plant Board, consisted
of Frank Alexander, Lake Garfield Nursery, Bartow; A. G.






State Plant Board of Florida


Scott, Glen Saint Mary Nurseries, Winter Haven; R. G. Pitman,
Florida Ponkan Corporation, Apopka; John H. Kauffman, Jr.,
Grand Island Nursery, Eustis; W. F. and Franklin Ward, Ward's
Nursery, Avon Park; and Brents Durrance, Sebring. These nur-
serymen requested that the State Plant Board give further con-
sideration to the problem of grading citrus nursery stock and
that this portion of the industry be exempt for the present. They
felt that only two grades could reasonably be established for
bare-rooted citrus (acceptable and nonacceptable) since they
would have no way of carrying over trees of a grade other than
those ordered.
With the end of the year (June 30, 1958) a great deal of inter-
est and little opposition has been generated in the establishment
of a grading system. At the annual convention of the Florida
Nurserymen and Growers Association in May 1958, a resolution
was passed, with only one dissenting vote, commending the State
Plant Board and endorsing the grading program as outlined at
that time.
Many personal contacts, including approximately twenty-five
talks before nursery groups and demonstrations with graded
plant material, have done a great deal to break down opposition
to plant grading. Efforts of the Florida Nurserymen and Grow-
ers Association committeemen and others of the industry with
interest and enthusiasm for the program have also been a major
factor in securing general acceptance. A continuing program
of education for both nurserymen and the buying public is needed
and planned.
The published grade-standards will be loose-leaf bound and
printed on a latex impregnated paper which can be washed with
mild soap and water. It is expected that published grade-stand-
ards will be distributed to all nurserymen, dealers, and agents.
The initial publication is expected to cover shrubbery, shade and
flowering trees, palms, container-grown citrus, and balled-and-
burlapped citrus trees. Other groups will be added.
Groups other than the nursery industry are interested in the
publication. The United States Corps of Engineers has made
requests for the preliminary edition to be used in landscaping
projects around military bases. The State Road Department of
Florida is developing a set of specifications covering plant ma-
terial for use in highway improvement and beautification, in-
corporating in the specifications State Plant Board grades.







Twenty-Second Biennial Report


There is every reason to expect plant grading to become a
major factor in the future of the industry. Not only are a
great many Florida nurserymen looking forward to the use of
grade-standards, but many other States are eyeing the develop-
ment and will quite possibly establish grading laws and systems
patterned after the Florida system.

TURFGRASS CERTIFICATION PROGRAM
J. K. CONDO

In March of 1957 the State Plant Board inaugurated the
Florida Turfgrass Certification Program.
Although this type of certification was entirely new to the
State Plant Board, it was not the first time the State of Florida
had had such a program. In the spring of 1955 the State Depart-
ment of Agriculture initiated a turf certification program which
was an interagency affair, set up in cooperation with the Georgia
and Alabama Crop Improvement Association. It was short-lived,
however, for in the spring of the following year the Department
suspended the program after learning further supervision was
prohibited by law.
Undismayed, the Florida Turf Association renewed efforts to
promote a new certification program. In the winter of 1956
the Association approached the State Plant Board with the
problem. The Board recognized the merits of such a plan and
agreed to set up a new turf certification program for Florida.
Regulations were drawn up and an advisory committee appointed
for the purpose of recommending policies. Finally, in March
1957, the State Plant Board announced to the turf industry that
the program was ready for full operation.
The actual purpose of the Turfgrass Certification Program
is to provide sources of superior turfgrasses that are true to
varietal type and reasonably free from injurious insects, diseases,
and noxious weeds. This goal is achieved by limiting partici-
pants to use of foundation stock which has been tested and
perfected at the experiment stations and is known to be the best
possible grass available for its purpose. Sites for these founda-
tion plantings are thoroughly checked by the State Plant Board
for desirability before approval. Also, regular spot inspections
are made during the course of the growing season to insure
clean turf.







State Plant Board of Florida


Foundation stock for certified Florida growers has been avail-
able from the Experiment Stations at Tifton, Georgia and Au-
burn, Alabama. However, sometime this fall (1958) the Experi-
ment Station in Gainesville, Florida will begin participation in
the program by releasing several new strains of grass for certi-
fication.
At the present time there are six participants in the program,
with a combined total of 918,556 square feet of certified turf.
In addition, several of these growers are anticipating expansion
from their foundation plots in the near future.
Although response to the program has been disappointing to
date, all indications point to a marked increase in participation
following release of the new strains this fall. Presently, nine
individuals have expressed a desire to be placed on the waiting
list for these releases.

CURRENT LIST OF CERTIFIED TURF GROWERS
Grower Location Variety Amount
O. S. Baker .................... Miami ................ Emerald Zoysia ...... 16,519 sq. ft.
Tiffine Bermuda .... 8,390 sq. ft.
Crackerland Nursery .. Sanford .............. Tiflawn Bermuda .... 58,740 sq. ft.
Hall & Thomas ............ Clewiston .......... Emerald Zoysia -.... 414,793 sq. ft.
Meyer Z-52 Zoysia .. 199,500 sq. ft.
Iffenwen Farms ............ Ft. Lauderdale .. Emerald Zoysia ...... 3,000 sq. ft.
Turfcraft ................------. Gainesville ........ Emerald Zoysia ...... 211,614 sq. ft.
Sigmund Weizer ............ Jupiter ................ Emerald Zoysia ...... 3,000 sq. ft.
Meyer Z-52 Zoysia .. 3,000 sq. ft.

FRUIT AND VEGETABLE CERTIFICATION
As a result of the freeze which occurred during the winter of
1957-58, citrus fruits and vegetables certified for shipment to
Arizona and California and for export showed a marked reduction
during the second half of the biennium. However, shipments
were so heavy during the first half that the over-all volume of
certified fruit, had the average been maintained, would have been
greater than the total volume certified during the preceding
biennium.
By a previous agreement with the State Department of Agri-
culture, export shipments of citrus fruit are certified by the
inspectors of that department. The Plant Inspection Depart-
ment keeps the records pertaining to export shipments, bills the
shippers, and collects the service charge for the Department of







Twenty-Second Biennial Report


Agriculture. Also, State Department of Agriculture inspectors
are still certifying limes from south Florida at the point of origin.
Collections for fruit and vegetable certification and fumigation
during the biennium totaled 819,580.58. Of this amount $16,-
128.08 was paid to the State Department of Agriculture for
certification services performed.
The following tables summarize activities of the program dur-
ing the biennium:


CITRUS FRUIT CERTIFICATION


California


Variety


Oranges ..................
Tangerines ..........-
Temple Oranges ..
Grapefruit ...........
Tangelos ................
Kumquats ..........
Persian Limes .....


Totals .............


Shipments by


Trucks ..-
Car Lots


Totals


1956-1957

4,284
9,254
677
167,891
13,014
5
17,604


212,729


502
27


529


1957-1958

2,000
80
959
102,679
12,452

8,858


127,028


322


Arizona

1956-1957 1

192
1.546

2,401
61

1,453


5,653


12
12


EXPORT SHIPMENTS OF CITRUS FRUIT


Variety


Oranges .........................
Temple Oranges ...............
Tangerines ....................
Grapefruit ..................-


1956-1957


1,298,492
24,748
11,467
261,176


1,595,883


957-1958

51

225
1,729

397


2,402


1957-1958


727,253

426
228,999


Totals


956,678


i
1


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

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







State Plant Board of Florida

VEGETABLE CERTIFICATION


Bushels


Cucumbers .................. ................ .... ...
Squash ....................... ..................


Totals ...... .................... ........

Shipments by

Trucks ....................... ............ --.
Car Lots ................. ...........- ...- ...


Totals ...................... .............. ..... .


BILLING


Citrus-California/Arizona:
Certification and fumigation..
Certification only ..................

Export Shipments:
Certification ....................

Vegetables-California:
Certification ....................


Totals ......... ........ ............ ....


1956-1957

FDA SPB


$ 485.00


9,180.00


$1,256.25




981.25


$


|


1957-1958

FDA SPB


218.08
$ 775.0

6,245.00

440.0


$9,665.00 $2,237.50 $6,463.08


1956-1957


149,667
13,323


162,990


372
20


392


1957-1958


77,829
2,675


80,504




171
4


175


0


0


$1,215.00












Imported Fire Ant and White-Fringed
Beetle

C. E. SHEPARD, Assistant Chief Plant Inspector

The program to eradicate the imported fire ant and to continue
white-fringed beetle eradication in Florida was approved during
the 1957 session of the State Legislature and was confined to
survey operations during the first fiscal year.
Senate Bill No. 344 initiated the eradication program against
the two insects, but the measure was vetoed by Governor Collins
on June 1, 1957. Legislators secured enough strength to over-
ride the veto, however, the Senate again passing the bill on
June 5 and the House approving the measure the following day.
Because the Mediterranean Fruit Fly Program was still in
progress, the proper personnel could not be secured to direct a
second eradication program within the State and the campaign
start was delayed. This decision was followed by the disastrous
freezes of the 1957-58 winter, seriously curtailing the State's
revenue. Funds set aside for the Imported Fire Ant and White-
Fringed Beetle Eradication Program were withheld on the recom-
mendations of the Budget Director and the State Cabinet.
The first funds for an eradication effort were made available
in April 1958, and the first steps were directed toward the hiring
and training of personnel for survey duties. By the end of the
biennium, field crews had pushed the survey to the point where
infestations were discovered in 19 counties-Baker, Bay, Cal-
houn, Dade, Duval, Escambia, Gadsden, Gulf, Hillsborough,
Holmes, Jackson, Leon, Marion, Nassau, Okaloosa, Pasco, Santa
Rosa, Walton, and Washington.
No treatments for the imported fire ant or the white-fringed
beetle were made prior to July 1, 1958.











Quarantine Inspection Department

W. H. MERRILL, Chief Quarantine Inspector

During the fiscal year which ended June 30, 1957, it was agreed
between the State Plant Board and the United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Plant Quarantine Division, that the Quaran-
tine Inspection Department would be transferred within the
following year from State to Federal control. The change was
necessitated by increased demands upon the State Plant Board
to carry forward and complete work on pest control projects.
It was proposed and agreed that the Federal Plant Quarantine
Division would assume the full load of inspection and of operat-
ing costs at Florida sea- and airports, beginning July 1, 1958.
Funds were made available and Civil Service formalities cleared
in time to permit the appointment and transfer by that date of
twenty-one quarantine inspectors from State to Federal pay roll.
This completed all transfer of authority for operation of the
foreign plant quarantine service in Florida.
The following tabulations report, in part, the volume of work
performed by State and Federal inspectors during the biennium:

TABLE 1
Number of Parcels of Plants and Plant Products Handled
(Arriving by ship, airplane, express, and mail. Passengers' baggage
not included in total.)


Passed ................. .... ..............
Cleaned and passed ................. ..........
Returned to shipper ............. ...........--
Returned to stores .............................
Contraband destroyed ........................
Diverted to Inspection Houses ...........

T otal ....... ..... ... ......... .... ...


1956-1957

5,943,979
3,677,070
491
24,618
20,229
503

9,666,890


TABLE 2
Record of Inspections of Aircraft, Watercraft, Passengers, and Baggage


Total Number Aircraft and
Year Watercraft Arriving
Planes I Vessels

1956-57 ......... 34,999 7,191
1957-58 .... 36,613 7,208


Total
Number
Passengers

664,400
739,210


Total Number
Pieces of
Baggage

1,963,913
1,826,140


.. ..... ... .... . .. - - - - - -
. .............. .. .. . ........
.. . . ...... ... .................
.. . . ...... ... .................
..... . . . .. . . . .








Twenty-Second Biennial Report


TABLE 3

Number Shipments and Plant Units Destined to Florida Received or Di-
verted to Federal Inspection Houses (Brownsville and Laredo, Texas;
Hoboken, New Jersey; Miami, Florida; San Francisco, California; and
Washington, D. C.) Inspected and Released or Treated and Released.


1956-5

1957-5


Year


7 ..... .......


8 ....


Number
of
Shipments

1,051


........ 1,033


Nu
Ship
Tr


mber
ments
heated

953


Number
of Plant
Units

106,721


902 471,477
1 !


Number
Pounds
of Seeds

1,205

1,355


TABLE 4

Number Containers and Units of Plant Material Arriving from Puerto Rico


Year


1956-57 ....... .....

1957-58 ..... ... ..... ... .... ........


I Number
of
I Containers


4,024


5,591 2,493,371


TABLE 5
Number Containers Domestic Agricultural Products Certified for Export
to Foreign Countries and United States Possessions Through the Ports
of Florida.


Number


of Fruits
Ship- and
nents Vege-
tables

7,601 2,776,261


Number of

Cut
Flowers


6,530


Containers Certified

Bulbs, Total
Plants Seeds, Con-
etc.* tainers

5,469 22,533 2,810,793


Bulbs, seeds, dry beans, cotton waste.

TABLE 6

Number Containers Fresh Corn Certified for Shipment to Arizona, Nevada,
New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington and the Canadian Provinces
of Alberta and British Columbia.


Year


1956-57 ..........................

1957-58* .... ....... ...- ...


Number Shipments
Truck I Rail


152

72


* Corn crops badly damaged by cold weather in December.


Number
of
Plant Units

1,504,877


I


Year



1956-57


Number
Containers

96,968

59,057


81

47







State Plant Board of Florida


SWEET POTATO WEEVIL CONTROL
During the biennium, four inspectors were assigned to inspec-
tion, regulatory, and educational efforts and demonstration of
cleanup methods-application of 2% dieldrin dust to the sweet
potato plant beds and fields and 10% DDT dust to stored and
banked potatoes. This new method of control, when followed
through by the inspectors, produced excellent results and appears
to be the answer to a control problem of many years' standing.
Control of the sweet potato weevil can now be accomplished
by the grower at small cost by applying the recommended control
measures.
This program was carried on in cooperation with the Plant
Pest Control Division of the Agricultural Research Service,
United States Department of Agriculture.

WHITE-FRINGED BEETLE CONTROL AND OTHER
INSPECTIONAL DUTIES
The white-fringed beetle program was carried on in cooper-
ation with the Plant Pest Control Division, United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture, by the same four State inspectors reported
under the sweet potato weevil control project.
State inspectors devoted their time to inspection, regulatory
work, and treatment of crops, nursery stock, fields, pasture lands,
and highway rights-of-way.
In addition to the sweet potato weevil and white-fringed beetle
programs, the personnel inspected commercial nurseries, at-
tended Mediterranean fruit fly traps, and surveyed for the im-
ported fire ant.









Apiary Inspection Department


RUSSELL A. MARTIN, Chief Apiary Inspector

Few persons seeing the striking displays of fine honey on
grocery shelves realize the importance and extent of the bee-
keeping industry in this country. According to the United States
Department of Agriculture, over 200,000,000 pounds of honey
are produced annually. Florida, with over 200,000 colonies of
honeybees, has been consistently near the top in production and
in 1957 had a record crop of 18,936,000 pounds. Even if the
honeybee did not produce surplus honey for human consumption,
it still would be the most important insect in the service of man-
kind. It is impossible to accurately evaluate the cross pollination
service rendered by the honeybee. In many parts of Florida,
beekeeping has become more profitable by providing this im-
portant service.
While beeswax is not often thought of as commercially im-
portant, this product of beekeeping is used extensively in the
manufacture of church ceremonial candles, wax polishes, cos-
metics, paints, lithograph inks, modeling wax, and many other
items.
Bees are subject to diseases, and a method of treatment was
described as early as 1769. In the United States and Canada,
the greatest loss is caused by diseases of the brood, especially
American foulbrood. To date, no positive cure has been found
for American foulbrood, and complete destruction by burning
of bees, honey, and frames of diseased colonies is recommended
by most apiary inspection authorities as the only effective means
of control.
States important in commercial beekeeping have apiary in-
spection laws as protection for the industry. There is no doubt
that the average beekeeper needs skilled assistance in the eradi-
cation of this serious threat. The Florida Legislature, recog-
nizing the importance of beekeeping and realizing the need for
an adequate apiary inspection force, has been cooperative in
appropriating funds for this work. At the present time, the
State Plant Board maintains eight apiary inspectors and one
Chief Apiary Inspector.
There have been several changes in personnel during the
biennium.






State Plant Board of Florida


An apiary in the tupelo honey producing area of west Florida.

On October 1, 1956, Inspector W. R. Hamric transferred to
the Plant Inspection Department, and on February 1, 1957, In-
spector T. R. Ellis transferred to the same Department. S. D.
Harvey was appointed Inspector on March 1, 1957, with head-
quarters in Mount Dora, and Mark M. Bryant was appointed on
February 1, 1958, with headquarters in Gainesville. W. G.
Baumgardner replaced Leo Harrell in Miami on January 1, 1958.
Charlie Griffin, T. R. Yeomans, J. C. Herndon, L. C. Waldrep,
and G. E. Tanner continue as Inspectors in their respective ter-
ritories.
H. S. Foster, Chief Apiary Inspector since July 1, 1953, retired
on June 30, 1957, but remained in the Department as Special
Inspector until January 31, 1958. Russell A. Martin, who had
served as Inspector since May 1, 1947, was appointed to succeed
Mr. Foster on July 1, 1957.
The 1957 session of the Legislature amended the Bee Disease
Law to provide for the compensation of beekeepers for bees and
equipment destroyed by the State Plant Board on account of the
presence of American foulbrood. This amendment became ef-







Twenty-Second Biennial Report


fective July 1, 1957, and $20,000 was appropriated for a two-
year period. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1958, a total of
$6,518.40 was paid in compensation for destruction of 1,329
colonies of bees and equipment.
During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1957, the Apiary In-
spection Department made 162,885 colony inspections in 5,813
apiaries in 59 counties; 1,121 colonies in 490 apiaries were found
infected with American foulbrood and destroyed. Permits were
issued for entry of 21,942 colonies of out-of-state bees and 627
moving permits were issued to Florida beekeepers. The total
cost of operation for the Department that year was $66,072.11,
or 401/2 per colony inspection.
Activity for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1958 covered
159,692 colony inspections in 4,932 apiaries; 1,623 colonies in-
fected with American foulbrood were found and destroyed in
457 apiaries. Inspection work in this period was handicapped
by one of the most severe winters on record. Permits were
issued for entry of 21,114 colonies of out-of-state bees and 670
moving permits were issued to Florida beekeepers. Operational
cost of the Department for the year was $66,326.76, or 411/.2
per colony inspection.
Over-all totals for the biennium were 322,577 colony inspec-
tions in 10,745 apiaries, with 2,744 colonies infected with Ameri-
can foulbrood found and destroyed in 947 apiaries. Permits
were issued for entry of 43,056 colonies of out-of-state bees and
1,297 moving permits were issued to Florida beekeepers. The
total cost of operation for the biennium was $132,398.87, or 41
per colony inspection.
SUMMARY


1956-1957 1957-1958

Number colonies inspected .......................... 162,885 159,692
Number apiaries inspected .......................... 5,813 4,932
Number counties in which inspections were
m ade ..................................... ............ ...... 59 60
Number apiaries infected with American
foulbrood ............................................... 490 457
Number colonies infected with American
foulbrood ............ ..................................... 1,121 1,623
Number infected colonies burned .........-.... 1,121 1,623
Number apiaries with new infections of
American foulbrood ................................ 252 265








State Plant Board of Florida


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

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

June 30, 1920 ........ 394 16,121 30 104
June 30, 1921 ....... 753 18,078 16 33
June 30, 1922 ....... 837 22,522 14 34
June 30, 1923 ....... 1,016 23,848 18 30
June 30, 1924 ....... 803 22,806 8 13
June 30, 1925 ........ 675 21,378 7 58
June 30, 1926 .....-- 676 16,756 5 22
June 30, 1927 ........ 796 23,791 6 34
June 30, 1928 .....-. 1,248 20,115 18 74
June 30, 1929 ........ 1,297 32,442 21 85
June 30, 1930 ........ 2,273 44,645 53 182
June 30, 1931 ....... 2,374 45,238 37 114
June 30, 1932 ........ 2,744 44,211 42 74
June 30, 1933 ........ 2,219 42,307 38 76
June 30, 1934 ....... 2,305 43,877 71 132
June 30, 1935 ........ 2,445 49,379 78 167
June 30, 1936 ....... 3,344 73,415 69 131
June 30, 1937 ........ 3,544 72,795 32 98
June 30, 1938 ........ 3,451 64,668 38 173
June 30, 1939 ........ 3,371 70,655 56 416
June 30, 1940 ........ 3,414 76,851 61 234
June 30, 1941 ........ 3,711 81,950 80 371
June 30, 1942 ........ 3,671 83,354 106 698
June 30, 1943 ........ 3,347 80,823 100 524
June 30, 1944 ....... 2,646 73,649 106 456
June 30, 1945 ........ 2,371 69,262 105 379
June 30, 1946 ........ 2,265 71,161 138 959
June 30, 1947 ....... 2,464 87,674 104 683
June 30, 1948 ........ 3,266 98,147 100 391
June 30, 1949 ........ 3,710 105,678 130 406
June 30, 1950 ........ 3,082 105,296 175 369
June 30, 1951 ........ 2,872 95,405 237 772
June 30, 1952 ......-- 2,836 88,206 232 578
June 30, 1953 ....... 3,259 92,267 449 1,366
June 30, 1954 ........ 5,102 135,168 683 2,158
June 30, 1955 ........ 5,885 157,388 524 1,421
June 30, 1956 ....... 6,168 176,616 460 1,180
June 30, 1957 ....... 5,813 162,885 490 1,121
June 30, 1958 .... 4,932 159,692 457 1,623









Entomology Department


H. A. DENMARK, Acting Chief Entomologist

The primary function of the Entomology Department is to
make insect and mite identifications for the Plant Inspection
Department, the Imported Fire Ant and White-Fringed Beetle
Eradication Program, the Sweetpotato Weevil Survey, and the
Insect Pest Survey. The Insect Pest Survey is a continuous
program conducted in cooperation with the United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture. In addition, the Department assists in
instruction of plant inspectors in the detection of insects and
mites on agricultural crops.
Since the expansion of departmental personnel in 1954 from
two to five entomologists, the insect collection has increased
from 30,000 to approximately 140,000 pinned and labeled speci-
mens. A large percentage of this increase has been through
donations of the entomologists who have joined the staff in the
past five years. Dr. H. V. Weems, Jr., donated about 30,000
specimens, Frank Mead donated about 5,000, and Robert E.
Woodruff has donated about 15,000 specimens to the State Plant
Board insect collection. In addition, the American Museum of
Natural History, New York City, N. Y.; the Biological Labora-
tory, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts; Cornell Uni-
versity, Ithaca, N. Y.; the National Museum, Washington, D. C.;
and specialists working privately, or located at other universi-
ties, have determined and donated some specimens. The Ento-
mology Department is recognized and accepted by other State
organizations and private industry as the identification center
for Florida.
The present work load is in excess of 200 identifications a week.
An identification is the determination of a single species, al-
though there may be one to several dozens of a species involved
in a single identification. Extra time is required to check addi-
tional specimens and if counts were made of the total number
handled, it would approximate one to several thousand specimens
per week. While it is not the intent of this Department to be-
come another National Museum, a well curated insect collection
is one of the necessary tools of the entomologist.
The following changes have been made in personnel: H. A.
Denmark now handles aphids, ants, adult Lepidoptera, fleas,
mites, thrips, and ticks; Frank Mead handles Hemiptera, leaf-







State Plant Board of Florida


hoppers, planthoppers, cicadas, treehoppers, spittlebugs, and mos-
quitoes; Dr. Howard V. Weems, Jr., handles mealybugs, scales,
whiteflies, Diptera, Orthoptera, and smaller miscellaneous
groups; George W. Dekle handles the immature insects; and
Robert E. Woodruff handles all adult Coleoptera. Stanley V.
Fuller has been hired temporarily half-time to curate the adult
Lepidoptera.
Dr. Roger A. Morse, formerly with this Department, is now
Assistant Professor of Apiculture at Cornell University.
Mrs. Marguerite S. Batey has been employed as Librarian.
Her most important work will be to organize and catalog the
State Plant Board Library, which contains one of the best col-
lections on entomology in the Southeast, including some books
that are not found in other Florida libraries and which it is no
longer possible to acquire. Once cataloging of the Library has
been completed, State Plant Board and University of Florida
personnel will be able to make a much wider use of its facilities.

SPECIAL PROJECTS

HAROLD A. DENMARK, Acting Chief Entomologist

Following the trapping of the Mediterranean fruit fly in
Miami, H. A. Denmark and George W. Dekle established a labora-
tory and identified specimens for the Mediterranean Fruit Fly
Eradication Program until relieved by Dr. R. H. Foote, United
States Department of Agriculture, in August 1956.
In April and May 1957, an outbreak of an oedemerid (Copidita
suturalis (Horn)) occurred on Plantation Key and Islamorada
in Monroe County. Most of the complaints came from tourists
visiting that area. This beetle causes a blister when crushed
against the skin. It was found to be breeding in large piles of
plant debris from land clearing operations. The debris was
burned and the population of the beetles reduced measurably.
In June 1957, the royal palm bug (Xylastodoris luteolus Barb.)
was found in Homestead infesting royal palms. The pest spread
to areas where royal palms grew and caused considerable damage
during summer months.
Also in June 1957, the American grasshopper (Schistocerca
americana (Dru.)) reached damaging proportions on pastures
in Alachua County. In July, the American grasshopper was
reported doing considerable damage to young citrus trees in
Marion County.







Twenty-Second Biennial Report


H. A. Denmark was relieved of his Cooperative Insect Pest
Survey duties by Jesse C. Denmark in October 1957. Jesse C.
Denmark was transferred to the position of Regional Plant In-
spector in January 1958 and Robert E. Woodruff was named
Survey Entomologist for Florida.


Dr. John G. Franclemont, visiting entomologist from the Department of
Entomology, Cornell University, comparing specimens of Lepidoptera.

For the past two years a test to determine the effectiveness
of various lights as insect attractants was conducted at the
Gainesville laboratory. The following lights were used: black-
light, blacklight with filter, germicidal, incandescent, and a mer-
cury vapor. The lights were unidirectional and were mounted
on six-foot poles ten feet apart. The blacklight attracted the
most insects in numbers and species. The mercury vapor light
attracted the second most insects, but is much more expensive
to operate. Light trapping is part of the Cooperative Insect
Pest Survey and all cooperating States are now using blacklight
traps to sample insect populations.
The coded filing system adopted for machine handling in 1956
has been expanded to include insects, mites, and all miscellaneous







State Plant Board of Florida


groups handled by this Department. A revision in the coding
now permits all biological entities to be coded and machine
handled. The State Plant Board will continue to use the services
of the University of Florida Statistical Laboratory for punch-
ing, sorting, and summarizing data until its needs justify the
use of IBM machines and an operator.
Current projects are:
1. Revising survey techniques with Robert E. Woodruff
2. Collecting mites and information for future publication of mites
of Florida
3. Collecting data and working with Jack Matthews on the publica-
tion of the History of the Mediterranean Fruit Fly in Florida
4. Identifying ant specimens for the imported fire ant eradication
program
SPECIAL PROJECTS
R. A. MORSE, Entomologist
The first three and one-half months of the biennium were
spent in south Florida supervising the survey for the Mediter-
ranean fruit fly in the Everglades. All area in the twelve
southernmost counties, with the exception of areas within three
miles of paved roads, the Florida Keys, and the coastal islands,
was included in the Everglades survey. Twenty-two fruit fly
trappers were hired and part-time assistance was rendered by
two apiary inspectors. Eleven modified jeeps, five swamp
buggies, two motorboats, one air-boat, and a helicopter were
utilized. About mid-October, after negative results in trapping
and fruit cutting, trapping was discontinued in the Everglades
region.
Several cases of injury to honeybees by the fruit fly spray
were investigated during this and later periods. Several reports,
newspaper articles, and an article for magazine publication were
prepared on this subject.
During the report period, two bulletins were edited: Nema-
todes, Their Kinds and Characteristics and The Twenty-first
Biennial Report of the State Plant Board. Bulletin No. 10,
Florida Beekeeping, was published.
Other projects during this period included further collection
of the Apoidea and other insects and their shipment to various
specialists for identification.
Dr. Morse resigned from the State Plant Board on March 7,
1957.







Twenty-Second Biennial Report


Surveying for leafhoppers.

SPECIAL PROJECTS
H. V. WEEMS, JR., Entomologist
Efforts directed toward enlarging the scope of the insect col-
lection are continuing with special emphasis on the economic
insects. Special efforts have been made to complete smaller
groups of insects found in the Southeast. This list includes the
Conopidae, Dermaptera, Isoptera, Ixodidae, Mecoptera, and
Zoraptera. With the cataloging of the entomological library and
the coded filing system, more demands can be expected of the
Entomology Department for use of its insect collection and other
facilities in research studies.
The increased size of the collection demands most of the time
of one entomologist, a full-time technician, and a half-time
graduate student to process and curate. Noteworthy contribu-
tions of insect collections were received from fourteen outside
entomologists during the biennium.
Current projects are:
1. Editing Check List of Florida Lepidoptera, which is being com-
piled by C. P. Kimball for publication by the State Plant Board
in 1959.







State Plant Board of Florida


2. Preparing a revision of G. B. Merrill's State Plant Board bulletin
on the scale insects of Florida, for publication by the State Plant
Board in 1960.
3. Preparing a booklet on techniques and procedures in collecting,
rearing, preserving, and curating insects.

SPECIAL PROJECTS
F. W. MEAD, Entomologist
Identifications of leafhoppers have been made for Dr. J. M.
Crall and L. H. Stover, of the University of Florida Experiment
Station at Leesburg, in their work on the leafhopper vectors of
Pierce's disease. Specimens collected from grapevines and Ber-
muda grass were determined to establish the species found on
the above hosts, while some species are being tested as possible
vectors.
The project of collecting leafhoppers on six species of turf-
grasses at the Biven's Arm Turf Plots in Gainesville has been
continued through this biennium, but has not been completed.
Cooperation has been maintained with the North Central States
Regional Project No. 29-"Migration of the Potato Leafhopper
and Its Causes." About four to five collections a month of
Empoasca have been sent to Dr. G. C. Decker at Urbana, Illinois.
Leafhoppers have been identified for the United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture laboratory at Orlando in connection with
the laboratory's work on the transmission of citrus diseases by
these insects. Overwintering range of Draeculacephala leaf-
hoppers has been studied by sampling populations from central
Florida north to Gainesville.
Color plates were made for the Lepidoptera check list and for
leaflets on the imported fire ant and white-fringed beetles. Also,
some scale photographs were made for use in the revision of
the publication Scale-Insects of Florida.

SPECIAL PROJECTS
ROBERT E. WOODRUFF, Entomologist
Since March 1958, the duties of the Survey Entomologist have
been to instruct plant inspectors in survey and improved survey
techniques. Part of the time is spent in the office assisting in
the curating and identifying of the Coleoptera.
The insect survey report which is published weekly in cooper-
ation with the United States Department of Agriculture has been
changed considerably. Formerly, the report consisted of in-







Twenty-Second Biennial Report


dividual determinations which routinely passed through the hands
of the Department. The present form is a weekly summary
of conditions rather than individual reports. There are now
categories for:
1. New or rarely found insects
2. New State Plant Board host plant records
3. Highlights
4. Negative reports
5. Summaries of insects in the previously used categories
This change has eliminated some secretarial time and has pro-
duced a more easily read report with all of the essential material.
An effort is being made to have the survey meet the needs of
cooperating agencies through condensing the information to the
categories mentioned and endeavoring to return insect reports
promptly.
Current projects:
1. The distribution and taxonomy of the family Scarabaeidae
2. Identifying white-fringed beetles for the White-Fringed Beetle
Control Program

SPECIAL PROJECTS
GEORGE W. DEKLE, Entomologist
During the biennium considerable assistance has been given
nurserymen and growers in the State with special problems of
plant pests. The following are some of the problems to which
special attention was given:
Snails
A snail (Zachrysia auricoma Ferussac) was found at twenty
locations ranging from Key West to Miami and vicinity. This
snail was first reported in October 1956 by R. H. Humes of
Miami to be feeding on his orchids, ferns, and other succulent
plants. Although these snails have not been a problem in the
past, they are presently abundant and a pest to succulent plants.
Two other species of Zachrysia also were found feeding on
succulent plants. Control measures were applied by Dr. D. O.
Wolfenbarger, of the Subtropical Experiment Station, in infested
nurseries using 15 percent metaldehyde dust and bait. The
results were good.

Eradication of Aceria litchii (Keifer) on Lychee
The erinose mite (Aceria litchii (Keifer)), first found in 1955
in Dr. James M. Henry's lychee grove located at Nokomis, has







State Plant Board of Florida


apparently been eradicated from Florida. All of Dr. Henry's
lychee trees were severely damaged by the cold weather in the
fall of 1957 and spring of 1958. In March 1958, approximately
300 trees were pruned back from two inches to three feet above
ground level. The stumps and ground area formerly covered
by the trees were sprayed with Kelthane (2 pounds of 181/2
percent wettable powder to 100 gallons of water), the cuts were
treated with pruning paint, and then the stumps were white-
washed. The tops and leaves raked from around the stumps
were burned and the ground was resprayed. The lychee stumps
were sprayed with the concentration of Kelthane mentioned
above on April 9, April 23, and June 30. To date no mites have
been found.
Aerial Forest Insect Survey
On February 18, 1957, a meeting, called by C. H. Coulter,
State Forester, was held in Lake City for the purpose of organ-
izing a forest pest committee in Florida and initiating plans for
an aerial forest insect survey to be conducted by a technical
committee. Representatives of State and Federal pest control
organizations and private industry personnel attended this meet-
ing. John C. Camp, sawmill and pulpwood producer of Jasper,
Florida, was elected Chairman of the forest pest committee on
March 22. An aerial survey plan submitted by W. F. McCam-
bridge, Chairman of the technical committee, was approved at
this meeting.
The survey was conducted during May from airplanes at an
altitude of 500 feet. The personnel for the first survey team
was furnished by the United States Forest Service Forest Re-
search Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland; United States Forest
Service Southeastern Experiment Station, Asheville, North Caro-
lina; State Plant Board of Florida; and the Florida Forest Serv-
ice. This first survey indicated light insect activity and will
be used as a basis for determining trends in insect populations
in the future. It was recommended that a survey be made each
year in April or May and August or September, and that the
Forest Entomologist of the Florida Forest Service should be in
charge of future surveys. The total cost of the first survey
was $7,632.54, which includes $1,188.00 for the State Plant
Board in salaries and per diem.
In October 1957, the second aerial survey was made. Gener-
ally, insect activity in the northern portion of Florida seemed
to be at a minimum. Only northwest Florida showed an increase







Twenty-Second Biennial Report


in tree mortality. This survey was conducted by the United
States Southeastern Forest Service, Florida Forest Service, and
State Plant Board, with a total cost of $2,285.45. The State
Plant Board contributed $476.00 in salaries and per diem.
In May 1958, the third aerial survey was made. There was
very little insect activity, particularly of bark beetles. Scat-
tered sawfly defoliation was noticeable on longleaf and loblolly
pines in the north central, northern, and western areas. Up to
this time no trees had died as a result of the attacks of these
insects, but infestations were watched closely. The results of
ground sampling compared favorably with aerial survey. This
survey was conducted by the United States Southeastern Forest
Service, Florida Forest Service, and State Plant Board at a cost
of $2,622.45. The State Plant Board contributed $416.99 in
salaries and per diem.


Adding the killing agent, ethyl acetate, to a blacklight trap.

Asiatic Red Scale (Aonidiella taxus Leon.)
On September 16, 1955, the State Plant Board dropped the
eradication program for the State. However, all nurseries in-
fested with Asiatic red scale were quarantined.






State Plant Board of Florida


The failure of parathion and parathion plus oil sprays to com-
pletely clean up infested nurseries after repeated applications
resulted in a request by C. J. Frazier, of Frazier's Nursery,
West Palm Beach, to revoke the quarantine or to so modify the
regulations as to allow a tolerance of scale after the plants were
sprayed with a recommended insecticide. This request was de-
clined, and the Florida Agricultural Experiment Station was
asked to assist in further control work.


Portable fumigation chambers being used to fumigate podocarpus infested
with Asiatic red scale.

Plans for conducting fumigation tests were made and in Jan-
uary 1958 thirty podocarpus plants in quart and gallon cans
were fumigated with methyl bromide by B. P. Stewart, United
States Department of Agriculture Inspection House, Miami. Mr.
Stewart fumigated the plants at dosages of 3 and 3.5 pounds
methyl bromide per 1,000 cubic feet (68 F.). The plants were
then returned to Frazier's Nursery for observation. No plant
damage was observed one week following exposure.
As a result of the test, six four-foot field-grown plants were
dug, balled and fumigated, and sent to Mr. Stewart. Three
plants were exposed for 2 hours at a dosage of 3 pounds per







Twenty-Second Biennial Report 95

1,000 cubic feet and the other three plants exposed for 2 hours
at 3.5 pounds per 1,000 cubic feet. The plants were then reset
in Frazier's Nursery for observation. One week following fumi-
gation, some leaf drop was observed and the new foliage ex-
hibited tip burn. After two weeks, the fumigated plants in
cans showed no plant damage.
Preliminary plant tolerance tests having been completed, two
plywood fumigation chambers (2 ft. x 4 ft. x 8 ft.) were con-
structed for use at Frazier's Nursery. Severe leaf burn resulted
in the first three loads exposed for two hours at a dosage of
3 pounds per 1,000 cubic feet. The damage was later attributed
to three factors: overloading, poor circulation, and introducing
the gas too rapidly. The damage resulting to the first three
loads of plants from treatment in the plywood fumigation cham-
bers indicated the need for additional plant tolerance tests.
Methods and Materials.-A total of 180 podocarpus plants in
quart size containers were used, 20 plants in each test. Nine
tests were conducted with the concentration of methyl bromide
ranging from 1 to 2 pounds per 1,000 cubic feet and the exposure
period ranging from 1 to 2 hours. (See Table 1.) After fumi-
gation, the plants were placed in semishade for 24 hours, then
examined daily, for a period of one week, for fumigation burn.
The 20 plants used in each test were handled in the following
manner:

5 plants had foliage wet prior to fumigation.
5 plants watered prior to fumigation (soil only).
5 plants with soil moist.
5 plants had foliage hosed-down following fumigation.

TABLE 1
Summary of Fumigation Tests
No.
Average cc. MB Ex- Plants Date
Test Dosage per Temp. 64 posure No. of with Fumi-
1,000 cu. ft. in oF. cu. ft. Min- Plants Live gated
Iutes Scale

I 1 lb.......... 72 F. 18 cc. 60 20 0 1-28-58
II 1% lbs. .... 62 F. 31 cc. 60 20 0 1-29-58
III 2 lbs. ...... 74 F. 29 cc. 60 20 0 1-29-58
IV 1 lb ......... 750 F. 13 cc. 90 20 1 1-30-58
V 11 lbs .... 70 F. 25 cc. 90 20 3 1-30-58
VI 2 lbs ........ 700 F. 33 cc. 90 20 3 1-30-58
VII 1 lb .......... 740 F. 14 cc. 120 20 3 1-31-58
VIII 1% lbs .... 83 F. 15 cc. 120 20 2 1-31-58
IX 2 lbs ........ 750 F. 29 cc. 120 20 2 1-31-58







State Plant Board of Florida


All plants selected for the tests were of approximately the
same size and in good growing condition, and were watered thor-
oughly the day before the tests were made.

TABLE 2
Scale Mortality Two Weeks After Fumigation*

Dosage for Exposure Infested Scale Insects
1,000 cu. ft. in Leaves No. I
Minutes Examined Examined Alive Dead
1 lb. ...........--... 90 1 1 1 adult 0
3 crawlers
1 lb. ......- ......... 120 13 54 0 54**
112 lbs. ............ 90 4 8 0 8**
2 lbs ............ 90 4 14 0 14**

Examined on February 13, 1958.
** One scale parasitized.

Results of Tests: 1. Plants fumigated with methyl bromide
during the tests did not exhibit visible foliage damage after
fumigation. All plants were in good condition when examined
one month following fumigation.
2. There was no difference in the condition of plants with
foliage wet prior to fumigation and that of plants with dry foli-
age. Also, no difference was observed between the plants hosed-
down following fumigation and plants with moist soil.
3. Live Asiatic red scale was found two weeks after plants
were fumigated with 1 pound methyl bromide per 1,000 cubic
feet for 90 minutes. (See Table 2.)
4. Asiatic red scale on plants fumigated with 11/2 pounds and
2 pounds methyl bromide per 1,000 cubic feet for 90 and 120
minutes were dead when examined on February 13, 1958, two
weeks after fumigation. (See Table 2.)
Conclusion: Podocarpus macrophylla Don in 1-quart, 1-gallon,
and 5-gallon containers and small balled-and-burlapped field-
grown plants will tolerate fumigation for Asiatic red scale at
dosages of 2 pounds methyl bromide per 1,000 cubic feet for
2 hours.









Department of Plant Pathology and

Nematology

D. B. CREAGER, Chief Plant Pathologist

The work of the Department of Plant Pathology and Nema-
tology is proceeding according to the general plan formulated
at the time of its inception several years ago. The main func-
tions of the Department continue to be:
1. The diagnosis of disease, serving inspectors and growers.
2. The service of staff members as consultants for all regu-
latory, quarantine, and inspection personnel.
3. The conduct of research projects.
These functions of the Department are divided among three
Sections: (a) Diseases of Ornamentals and Miscellaneous Crops,
(b) Diseases of Citrus and Subtropical Fruits, and (c) Nema-
tology. Headquarters for the Department are in Gainesville,
where all work on diseases of ornamentals and miscellaneous
crops and most of the work in nematology is conducted. Research
on diseases of citrus and subtropical fruits, as well as some work
in nematology directly involving citrus, is conducted in the labor-
atory at Winter Haven. The present staff of the Department
consists of four plant pathologists, three nematologists, one
laboratory technician, one nurseryman, three laboratory assist-
ants, one field assistant, and three secretaries (two part-time).

SECTION I
Diseases of Ornamentals and Miscellaneous Crops
The primary service performed by this Section has been the
diagnosis of diseases present in specimens received from plant
inspectors. The number of specimens submitted during the
1956-58 biennium totaled 2,508, grouped according to crops, as
follows:
1. Cut-flowers, including chrysanthemum, gladiolus, Easter lily,
A m aryllis, narcissus, etc. ...................................................................... 253
2. Foliage plants, including Scindapsis, Philodendron, Syngonium,
Pilea, Peperomia, Polystichum, etc ........................................... ... 731
3. Turf, including St. Augustine, centipede, Zoysia, Bermuda, and
other grasses .........-............................. .......... 42
4. Nursery stock, including hibiscus, palms, pittosporum, azalea,
camellia, gardenia, poinsettia, hardwood trees, etc ........................1,361
5. Miscellaneous crops, such as tomato, tobacco, potato, onions,
sugarcane, small grains, etc ............ ............................ ... 121






State Plant Board of Florida


Several diseases were so serious or unusual as to require special
surveys or studies. These are summarized as special projects.
Project 1.-Diseases of Palms. A. P. Martinez, Plant Path-
ologist.
Numerous requests for diagnostic work and information on
palm diseases, coming from both nurserymen and inspectors,
resulted in special attention to the cause and control of palm
diseases. Specimens diagnosed involved 20 species of palms
with the most important diseases, caused by fungi-Ganoderma
sulcatum, Graphiola phoenicis, Exosporium palmivorum, Endo-
conidiophora paradoxa, Phytophthora sp., and Helminthospor-
ium sp.
Unusually low temperatures during the winter of 1957-58
aggravated the disease situation in palms, especially in plantings
of Cocos nucifera. Careful studies were necessary to determine
whether low temperatures or a severe epidemic of some disease
was striking the coconut. The visible symptoms were a distinct
folding-over of the heart leaves and the breaking and hanging
downward of the lower fronds. Advanced stages showed com-
plete defoliation and death of entire plants. Most organisms
associated with the affected trees appeared to be secondary to
cold damage. This damage occurred extensively from the Vero
Beach area to Miami on the east coast and from the vicinity of
Sarasota to Fort Myers on the west coast.
Coconuts in Key West have been affected with a malady closely
resembling the serious "Lethal Yellows" disease in Jamaica and
other islands south of the Florida Keys. The trouble is still
restricted to a part of the city of Key West but has been spread-
ing since discovery there several years ago. Early in 1957 a
preliminary survey of the trouble in Key West was conducted
by Harry C. Burnett, Pathologist, State Plant Board, and Dr.
G. F. Gravatt, Pathologist, United States Department of Agri-
culture. Histological studies made by the former revealed the
presence of multiple nuclei in some of the cells of leaf tissue
taken from affected palms, a possible indication of virus infec-
tion. This same condition was observed in coconuts in Jamaica.
For purposes of comparing the Key West coconut disease
with similar troubles in Jamaica, Cuba, and other islands of
that area, Dr. M. K. Corbett, of the Agricultural Experiment
Station, was employed for one month in 1957 and one month
in 1958 to make a survey of coconut plantings. From general
appearances, he concludes that the malady in Key West is the




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