IS dRCCLAR 9 52. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICCLTURE 



and from a field receiving 4 r [rands ■:: the g amm a isomer. Since the 

 comparable sample from plot A receiving 2 pounds per acre of gamma 

 isomer was not significantly different from the other samples with 

 which it was compared, it seems probable that the off -flavor found in 

 the sample from plot B was due to factors other than the BHC 

 treatment. The roast of this sample was probably one factor, since 

 the most frequent comment of the judges in describing its flavor was 

 that it was green or raw. This sample was a fighter roast than either 

 of the other samples with which it was compared, a fact that makes 

 flavor analysis of peanut butter very difficult and probably accounts. 

 at least in part, for the low score of 6.2. 



Among the Hill farm samples the flavor scores, even when signifi- 

 cantly low. indicate only slight of! -flavor and show no correlation with 

 the dosage of insecticide to which soil was exposed or consistency 

 among samples from replicate plots. In connection with such 

 apparent inconsistencies, the possibility needs to be considered tha: 

 soil residues of BHC. following a specific treatment of cotton with 

 this insecticide, and the effect of such residues on the flavor of a fol- 

 lowing crop of peanuts may vary with such factors as soil type, rain- 

 fall, or other environmental conditions. In the samples from the 

 Turner farm only barely perceptible ofT-fiavors were noted: there 

 were no significant differences among these flavor scores. The sample 

 from the plot treated with activated carbon did not differ signifi- 

 cantly from the others. The general means of all flavor scores for 

 each treatment also show no correlation with the quantities of insec- 

 ticide to which soils were exposed. 



Bexzent Hexachloride Context 



Peanuts. — The analytically determined BHC content of some of 

 the peanut butter samples has been noted in connection with the 

 preceding discussion of palatability evaluations. With the exception 

 of the sample that was interplanted with cotton and showed 0.49 

 p. p. m. of BHC. the highest BHC content observed in the 1950 

 samples was 0.14 p. p. m. and only 15 samples showed 0.10 p. p. m. 

 or more of the insecticide ; tables 1.2.3 . With the noted exception. 

 all of the determined concentrations were below the 0.2-p. p. m. 

 limit of reliability of the analytical method when applied to peanuts. 

 Within the limits of the method, therefore, no significant amounts of 

 BHC were found in the 1950 peanut samples that followed BHC- 

 treated cotton and the data evidence no relationship between insecti- 

 cide residues in the peanuts and amounts of BHC applied on cotton 

 that preceded them. 



The BHC content of the 1951 commercial samples (table 4' aver- 

 _ I somewhat higher than in the 1950 samples. Of S samples that 

 followed BHC-treated cotton, only 1 contained less than 0.10 p. p. m. 

 of BHC while 5 showed from 0*20 to 0.27 p. p. m. In the 1951 

 experiment station samples from Holland. Va., however. BHC was 

 found in all S of the samples of peanuts that followed cotton treated 

 with BHC conta ining 13 percent of gamma (table 5 . The quan- 

 tities found con-elated generally with the cotton treatments and 

 approached 1 p. p. m. in 3 of the 4 samples that followed cotton 

 treated with insecticide dosages providing 5.1 pounds of the gamrna 

 isomer per acre. 



