BIBLIOGRAPHY 
Beck, Stanley D. The European corn borer, Pyrausta 
nubilalis (Hubn.), and its principal host plant, VII. 
Larval feeding behavior and host plant resistance. 
Ent. Soc, Amer. Ann, 53: 206-212, 1960. 
Beck, Stanley D. Resistance of plants to insects, Ann, 
Rev, Ent, 10: 207=232. 1965. 
Brown, Harry E. Correlations between population levels 
of the Hessian fly and yield of wheat forage and 
grain. N, Cent. Br. Ent, Soc. Amer. Proc, 19: 40= 
42, 1964, 
Clark, J. Allen, and B. B. Bayles. Distribution of the 
varieties and classes of wheat in the United States. 
U.S. Dept. Agr. Cir. 861, 71 p. 1951. 
Clark, J. Allen, and K, S, Quisenberry. Distribution of 
the varieties and classes of wheat in the United 
States in 1944, U.S, Dept. Agr. Cir. 761, 80 p. 
1948, 
Coon, B. F. Aphid resistance in oat varieties. Pa. 
State Univ., Dept. Zool, and Ent, Occas, Papers 
61-1,6p. [Mimeog.] 1951. 
Gallun, R. L. Report on distribution of Hessian fly re= 
sistant varieties, N. Cent. Br. Ent. Soc. Amer. 
Proc, <7: 94=95, 1962. 
Gallun, R, L. The Hessian fly, how to control it. U.S, 
Dept, Agr. Leaflet 533, 7p. 1965, 
Harvey, T. L., H. L. Hackerott, E. L, Sorensen, R. H. 
Painter, E. E. Ortman, and D. C. Peters, The 
development and performance of Cody alfalfa, a 
spotted alfalfa aphid resistance variety. Kans. 
Tech. Bul, Bul, 114, 26 p. 1960. 
Howard, L. O. A history of applied entomology. 
Smithsn, Misc, Collect. 34, 564 p. 1930. 
Hyslop, J. A. Losses occasioned by insects, mites, 
and ticks in the United States. U.S, Dept. Agr., 
Bur, Ent. and Plant Quar, Div. Insect Pest Survey 
Inf, E444, 57 p. 1938. 
Isely, Dwight. Methods of insect control, Ed. 2. Bur= 
gess, Minneapolis, 121 p. 1942. 
Jones, E. T. Sources of resistance to the Hessian fly. 
U.S. Dept. Agr. Div. Cereal Crops and Dis. Hard 
Red Winter Wheat Impr. Conf. 5: 21. [Mimeo.] 1945, 
Metcalf, C, L., and W, P. Flint (rev. by R. L. Metcalf), 
Destructive and useful insects. Ed. 4, McGraw- 
Hill, New York. 1087 p. 1962. 
Painter, Reginald H. Insect resistance in crop plants, 
Macmillan, New York, 520p. 1951. 
Painter, Reginald H. Resistance of plants to insects. 
Ann, Rev. Ent, 3: 267=290. 1958, 
Wardle, Robert A, Theproblems of applied entomology, 
McGraw-Hill, New York. 587 p. 1929, 
THE FUTURE OF ANIMAL BREEDING FOR RESISTANCE TO DISEASE 
AND PESTS 
R. E. McDowell and J. W. Smith, Animal Husbandry Research Division, Agricultural 
Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville Md. 
Estimates of the annual losses of cattle, 
sheep, swine, poultry, and their products in 
the United States from infectious and nonin- 
fectious diseases amount to $1.52 billion. 
Losses from parasites add another $330 mil- 
lion,totaling $1.85 billion. This is equivalent to 
about 11 percent of the income from livestock 
and livestock products. The cost of drugs and 
treatments makes the figures even more stag- 
gering. Suffice it to say that one of the major 
means of lowering the cost of livestock pro- 
duction is through reduction of the toll taken 
by diseases and pests. Although U.S. losses 
per farm unit are high, livestock producers 
here fare better than those in many other 
areas of the world. This evident when we con- 
lThe authors acknowledge the help of L, B, Crittenden, 
H, L. Marks, G, M. Sidwell, and H, O, Hetzer in as-= 
sembling data and materials. 
148 
sider that the United States has an annual 
extraction rate for livestock to 30 percent or 
better, as compared with 5-15 percent in 
many of the developing countries. 
Considering that genetic variation in re- 
sponse to disease, including environmental 
stress, has been observed in all cases adequ- 
ately studied, it is a temptation to believe that 
breeding for disease resistance should be a 
prime objective for the animal breeder at 
this time. The temptation becomes even greater 
when we consider the emphasis and success 
of the plant breeder in disease control. 
Even though many of the basic laws of in- 
heritance apply equally to plant and animal 
life, breeding programs vary because of pe- 
culiarities and restrictions imposed by each 
species considered. These differences include 
mode of reproduction, reproduction rate, value 
of individual, length of reproductive life, and 

