
e 
obtained." 
= Wha 
‘Mole Cricket Control 
C. F. Stahl, Sanforc, Fla., reports that "there has been unusual 
interest and dissatisfaction in the mole cricket situation this fall. 
Probably the most important reasons for this special agitation are the 
generally poor condition of the seed beds, owing. primarily to unfavorable 
weather conditions and blamed more than it should be to mole crickets; 
the acute financial stringency, which makes.it extremely difficult for the 
farmers to finance control measures; and the shifting of the intensity of 
infestations so that many growers who have been caused very little incon- 
venience in the past are now being faced with the problem of controlling 
heavy infestations. Opinion in the district varies in regard to the pop- 
ulation of mole crickets this season but probably the majority of the 
farmers consider that the infestation is heavier than ever before. In my 
Opinion the population of crickets is not so great as it was 2 years ago, but 
is distributed over a much larger area, with a shifting of centers of very 
heavy infestation. Adults have been flying to lights in increasingly large 
numbers on favorable nights during the past month. The attraction of 
lights seems to be quite strong to the crickets moving from one location 
to another. This movement appears to be more a result of crowding and 
necessity for redistritution than anything else, and occurs during a short 
period in the early evening. Taking advantage of this habit may aid in 
our control progran, and a study of the possibilities should be made. The 
nest significant development in the feeding tests conducted during October 
has been the apparent effectiveness of sodium fluosilicate as a killing 
agent. Further indications of the repellent action of paris green have been 
Tests with Two Brands of Magnesium Arsenate 
L. W. Brannon, of the Norfoik, Va., laboratory, reports that "an ex- 
periment was conducted in orler to determine the foliage tolerance of beans 
to two brands of magnesium arsenate. The results were as follows: 
Insecticide Injury by insecticide 
Percent 
Chipman liagnesium arsenate 1-50 70-85 
Chipman magnesium arsenate e@-50 80-85 
Dow magnesium arsenate 2-50 0 
Chipman magnesium arsenate 1, lime 3-50 15--20 
Chipmen magnesium arsenate 2, lime 3-50 20-25 
Dow magnesium arsenate 1, lime & O 
Chipman magnesium arsenate 1, lime 3 15-20 
The results show that tne Chipman 
foliage injury at 1 and 2 pounds to 50 
tion of lime considerably lessened the 
have long been using the Dow magnesium 
magnesium arsenate caused serious 
gallons of water and that the addi- 
injury. As growers over the country 
arsenute as a spray without the nec- 
essity of adding lime to prevent injury, some of them might apply the 
Chipman magnesium arsenate without lime with serious consequences. 
