Is ANNUAL REPORTS 01 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1061 
Control Campaigns Igainsl Gyps) and Brown-Tail Moths Continued 
Control operations wipe out source of bait lure 
Attesting to the effect Iveness of the extensive 1949 and 1950 cont rol 
opera! inn- was the necessity for abandoning in L950 the large-scale 
collection of female gypsy moth pupae. Collections in previous years 
reached as many as a million pupae from which to rear female moths, 
which, in turn, yield the attractant used in the thousands of traps 
set to detect outlying infestations. Barnstable and Plymouth Coun- 
ties in southeastern Massachusetts have usually yielded all the pupae 
needed in trapping activities. Spraying these counties in their en- 
tirety ami intensive spraying in many other sections within the gen- 
erally infested area eliminated these as collecting grounds. Collec- 
tions were attempted in a few town- in Norfolk County, where gypsy 
moth numbers had been high. It was soon found that parasites and 
the wilt disease had so reduced the numbers that further collections 
there were uneconomical. This Led to a decision to transfer attrac- 
tant operat ions to Europe. 
An entomologist, detailed in the spring of L951 t<» look for heavy 
moth infestations in Portugal, Spain. France, and Italy, found ex- 
tensive area- of heavy infestation near Lisbon, Portugal. About 
1:72,000 pupae were collected. Approximately 170,000 tip.- contain- 
ing attractant were clipped from the female moths that emerged from 
the pupae and shipped to this country for processing into bait 
material. 
L(iri*v-sc(ih> trapping and spraying continued 
More than L9, 600 traps were used during the summer of L950 in 
cooperat ive Federal-State surveys covering 7,190,000 acres in 812 towns 
ot townships in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, 
Pennsylvania, Rhode [sland, and Vermont. Trapping and scouting 
gave negative results in both New Jersey and Pennsylvania. No 
gypsy moth infestation has been found in New Jersey since L935 or 
in Pennsylvania since r.'li*. Results of the trapping in New Eng- 
land and New York furnished the basis for furt her -com ing or spray- 
ing there. Trap captures in New York showed no westward -plead 
of the moth. Iii tact, they showed substantial progress toward 
elimination of all general infestation- west of the Hudson River. 
Trap captures and supplementary scouting showed that the moth 
is more abundant in western Connecticut and Vermont than for sev- 
eral \ ears. 
\r;u!\ 180,000 acre- were sprayed with DDT in Connecticut. Ma- 
sachusetts, New York, and Vermont Approximately 178,000 acres 
were sprayed by aircraft: the remainder by mi-t Mower-. The la-t 
sizeable area of genera] infestation west of the Hudson River in 
Saratoga Count} was -prayed when more than 120,000 acre- were 
covered in New York. Other aerial spraying in New York was lim- 
ited principally to area- we-t of t he Hudson Kiver win 1 re aerial spray- 
ing in past years had eliminated general infestation. Aerial spraying 
in western Connecticut and Vermont minimized the hazard of newly 
hatched caterpillars being spread by the wind into adjacent area- of 
New York and prevented further build up in heavily infested areas, 
In Massachusetts, the entire island of Nantucket, comprising 31,000 
