DOCSLIB.ORG

Fortuitous Biological Suppression of the Boll Weevil by the Red Imported

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fortuitous Biological Suppression of the Boll Weevil by the Red Imported Fortuitous Biological Suppression of the Boll WeeviP by the Red Imported Fire Ant2•3 WINFIELD L. STERLING' Department of Entomology, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M University, College Station 77843 ABSTRACT Environ. EntomoJ. 7: 564-568 (1978) The efficacy of the red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta Buren) as a predator of larval stages of the boll weevil (Anthonomus grandis Boheman) was evaluated in 2 areas of Texas. In the Trinity River area the ants consumed up to 85% of the weevils with a weekly avg of 66%. Ants never consumed more than 37% of the weevils in the Brazos-Navasota River area and averaged 22% in Aug. The fire ant exhibits characteristics that may make it a valuable predator of cotton insect pests. It tends to disperse fairly uniformly across cotton fields at high densities and tends to increase in abundance as the growing season progresses. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ee/article/7/4/564/2366799 by guest on 24 September 2021 Ants have been considered the most important predators Trinity River. An 8.3-ha area of cotton, which had been of the boll weevil, Anthonomus grandis Boheman. (Hinds cleared of timber in 1975 and cropped for the 1st time in 1907. Hunter 1917, Hunter and Hinds 1905, Mally 1902). 1977, served as the experimental plot. No chemical insec- Pierce et aI. (1912) and Hunter and Pierce (1912) listed 16 ticides were applied to the area during 1977. The study cot- species of Texas ants reported as predatory on the boll wee- ton field was located at one end of a 202-ha cotton field and vil. Solenopsis geminata (F.), S. molesta Say. andS. texana was buffered by 77 ha of cotton that were occasionally Emery were among the species cited (Pierce et aI. 1912). treated with chemical insecticides to control boll weevils, with S. geminata having a greater impact on weevil abun- cotton fleahoppers, Pseudatomoscelis seriatus (Reuter), dance during the summer than the combined effect of heat tarnish plant bugs. Lygus lineolaris (Palisot de Beauvois), and parasites (Hinds 1907). Since the early 19OO's, two cotton bollworms, Heliothis zea (Boddie), or tobacco bud- additional species of 50Jenopsis, (5. invicta Buren and S. worms, HeJiothis virescens (F.), by ground application richteri Forel), have accidentally invaded the southern equipment rather than by air in an attempt to prevent insec- U.S.A. (Buren ]972). Their efficacy in suppressing boll ticidal drift into the untreated test plot. The remaining] ]6.7 weevil abundance has been largely unknown. Arant et al. ha were treated by TDC with several insecticides by air as (1958) reported that a laboratory colony of imported fire needed for Heliothis spp. control. The boll weevil was ants (species not cited) killed and consumed 20 adult boll treated with azinphosmethyl at 281 gmlha; the cotton flea- weevils in 2 h. These same ant species devoured boll weevil hopper was treated with dimethoate at 224 gm/ha. larvae and other destructive insects in the field. This early A 2nd field, located at the confluence of the Navasota observational research was not followed by careful field and Brazos rivers south of Navasota, Tex., was also used to evaluation. evaluate fire ant predation. This plot is referred to hereafter At least one attempt was made to introduce an ant pre- as the USDA field because it was leased by USDA-ARS dator to the United States for boll weevil suppression. O. F. researchers during 1977. The field had been in grass hay Cook distributed 89 colonies of the kelep ant (Ectatomma production for several years prior to 1977. Previous to our tuberculatum Oliver) in Texas (Hunter and Hinds 1905); evaluations starting on Aug. 4, the field had been treated however, as predicted by Wheeler (1904), none survived. with methyl parathion at 280 gmlha and diflubenzuron at The efficacy of ants in suppressing boll weevil abundance 70 gmlha on June 14 and methyl parathion at 1120 gmlha, is variable. Ants destroyed as many as 84% of the weevils and diflubenzuron at 70 gmlha on July 4. in fallen squares at Overton, Tex. and such mortality aver- The Ellis untreated cotton was grown under dryland con- aged 20% in east, south, central, northeast, and southwest ditions, whereas the USDA field was irrigated once. Soils Texas and western Louisiana (Hinds 1907). Boll weevil on the Ellis farm were black clay, cracking soils while those mortality from ant predation at Rorence, S.C., never ex- in the USDA field were largely the same except for some ceeded 2% during 1925 and 1926 (Fenton and Dunnam sandy portions. 1929). Ant predation was highest in eastern and southern The standard experimental technique used in these exper- Texas and western Louisiana. iments was to stake 100 yellow, flared, weevil-infested squares on the ground in a large X pattern across the cotton Materials and Methods field. Engineering flags on wire posts were thrust through The predatory efficacy of the red imported fire ant was one of the square bracts and pegged to the soil near the base evaluated on the Ellis farm of the Texas Department of Cor- of a cotton plant. The immature weevil in the square was rections (TDC) located north of Huntsville, Tex., on the placed in the shade to eliminate heat and desiccation as im- portant mortality factors. A square was flagged every 4 m I An,honomus gmndis 8cheman (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). 1 SoleIWpsis invicra Buren (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). down the row and over 2 rows to complete each transect of , This research was supported iD part by the NatioDal Science Foundation and the En- vironmental PrOlection Agency. through a grant (NSF G8-34718) 10 the Uniy. of Calif. an X pattern. The same pattern was used in both the Ellis The findings. opinions and recommendations expressed herein arc those of the author and and the USDA fields. This technique minimized any effect not necessarily those of the Uniy. of Calif .• the NSF or the EPA. This work was con- dueled in cooperation with the Agricultural Research Service. USDA, and was p:u1ially of predator clumping. supported by Entomology Cooperatiye Agreement DO. 12-14-100-9752 (33). Ap- proved for publication as TA 14197 by Director. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. Ragged squares were exposed to field mortality factor Received for publication Apr. 17. 1978 . for 3-7 days before being collected. Each of the squares • Associate Professor, Department of Entomology, Texas A&M Uniyersity. College Station 77843. was carefully examined for evidence of fire ant predation, 564 ©1978 Entomo]ogical Society of America 0046-225X/78/0007 -0564$00. 75/0 August 1978 STERLING: BOLL WEEVIL SUPPRESSION BY FIRE ANT 565 parasitization, weevil mortality due to other factors or adult sion was made to treat most fields with azinphosmethyl at weevil emergence. a rate of 281 gmlha. The untreated field had sufficient num- Fire ants were sampled by taking 30 cm of row sample bers of overwintered weevils to damage 15% of the 1st 1/3 units containing at least one plant per 20-25 paces, while grown squares (flower buds) produced. However, it was walking a large circle through the field. At least 25 of these noticed that essentially no square damage resulted after the samples were taken in each field on each sampling date. FI generation had emerged, indicating a high degree of Ants on the soil were counted on the 20 cm of row extend- mortality in the FI immatures. Therefore, we decided to ing 50 cm on each side of the plants. Upon approaching the assess the reasons for this developmental failure. Initially 30-cm sample unit, the foot was stamped firmly on the soil we examined a number of dried squares with boll weevil ca. 10 cm from the plant stalk before attempting to count egg punctures and with characteristic ant entry holes as re- the ants. This stamping action excited the ants and caused ported by Hinds (1907). To confirm our diagnosis of these them to emerge from their holes and crawl about rapidly on entry holes as being ant caused, we exposed several yellow, the soil surface where they could be counted. Large plants flared and weevil-infested squares to a laboratory colony of Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ee/article/7/4/564/2366799 by guest on 24 September 2021 were spread to allow light penetration and to disturb the soil red imported frre ants and predation was observed. The ants surface which assisted in exciting ants near the plant base rapidly distinguished weevil-infested squares from unin- where they frequently congregate. Using this method, fire fested ones, and within minutes workers chewed holes in ants may be found in cultivated fields where no ant mounds infested squares and removed the immature weevils through are present. As a year or more is required for the fire ant the holes. These fire ant holes can be distinguished from mounds to develop to noticeable size (Green 1962), it is of those made by Heliothis larvae or emerging adult weevils. little value to count only mature mounds in cultivated Heliothis larvae generally make a large excavation in the agroecosystems as an estimate of ant densities. square as they feed on the contents, thus leaving a large Boll weevils were sampled using a biased sample tech- hole and a nearly hollow square. Boll weevil adult exit nique. Our action level was set at finding one adult in the holes are characteristically circular and of sufficient size to field and an avg of 2 adultslStoryR trap on the week during allow adult emergence. Furthermore, when there was doubt which the 1st matchhead squares, i.e., flower buds, were that the emergence hole had been caused by an emerging formed.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Calendar No. 113
    Calendar No. 113 117TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! 1st Session SENATE 117–34 AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIA- TIONS BILL, 2022 AUGUST 4, 2021—Ordered to be printed Ms. BALDWIN, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 2599] The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2599) mak- ing appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2022, and for other purposes, reports fa- vorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass. New obligational authority Total of bill as reported to the Senate .................... $203,085,781,000 Amount of 2021 appropriations ............................... 205,769,113,000 Amount of 2022 budget estimate ............................ 214,812,272,000 Bill as recommended to Senate compared to— 2021 appropriations .......................................... ¥2,683,332,000 2022 budget estimate ........................................ ¥11,726,491,000 45–273 PDF CONTENTS Page Overview and Summary of the Bill ........................................................................ 4 Reports to Congress ................................................................................................. 5 Breakdown by Title ................................................................................................. 5 Title I: Agricultural Programs: Production, Processing, and Marketing: Office of the Secretary
    [Show full text]
  • Red River Valley (Arkansas and Louisiana) Boll Weevil Cooperative Eradication Program
    United States Department of Agriculture Red River Valley (Arkansas Animal and Plant Health and Louisiana) Boll Weevil Inspection Service Cooperative Eradication Farm Service Agency Program Environmental Assessment, May 1997 Red River Valley (Arkansas and Louisiana) Boll Weevil Cooperative Eradication Program Environmental Assessment, May 1997 Agency Contact: Joe Davidson, Regional Program Manager Central Regional Office Plant Protection and Quarantine Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service U.S. Department of Agriculture 3505 Boca Chica Blvd., Suite 360 Brownsville, TX 78521-4065 (210) 504-4150 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, marital or familial status, or political beliefs. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Office of Communications at 202-720-5881 (voice) or 202-720-7808 (TDD). To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, USDA, Washington, DC 20250, or call 202-720-7327 (voice) or 202-720-1127 (TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer. Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of any product mentioned. Product names are mentioned solely to report factually on available data and to provide specific information. This publication reports research involving pesticides. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they can be recommended.
    [Show full text]
  • P2294 the Boll Weevil in Mississippi
    The Boll Weevil In Mississippi: Gone, But Not Forgotten Although the boll weevil has been successfully It is likely that the boll weevil attained this rate of eradicated from Mississippi cotton fields, it must never spread under its own power. Both male and female boll be forgotten! Both cotton growers and scouts must weevils are capable of long duration flight, and remain aware of how to identify boll weevils and the individual weevils can move surprising distances when damage they cause, as well as how to scout for this pest. carried by prevailing winds. In some studies, marked Continued vigilance is necessary because the boll boll weevils have been recaptured as far as 63 to 169 weevil likely will return to the state from time to time, miles from the point where they were released. and unless these reinfestations are detected and This information shows why it is so important to be eliminated promptly, large areas of the state could be vigilant for the reappearance of the boll weevil in the quickly reinfested. state. It made it to Mississippi once, and there is every reason to expect it can do so again if preventive steps HOW DID THE BOLL WEEVIL GET TO are not taken. MISSISSIPPI? Modern transportation greatly increases the potential for boll weevil reinfestations to occur. As a “stowaway” Boll weevils are not native to Mississippi. Because aboard a motorized vehicle, it only takes a matter of cotton is the only host plant upon which the weevil can hours for a boll weevil to travel from a cotton field or develop and reproduce, it was not until cotton from wild hosts in Mexico to a cotton field in production was established in the state that the weevil Mississippi.
    [Show full text]
  • NOT E Interference of Boll Weevil Trapping by Spiders
    NOT E Interference of Boll Weevil Trapping by Spiders (Araneida) and an Evaluation of Trap Modification to Reduce Unwanted Arthropods1 J. Scott Armstrong2 and David B. Richman3 USDA-ARS, Beneficial Insect Research Unit, 2413 East Highway 83, Weslaco, Texas 78596 USA J. Entomol. Sci. 42(3): 392-398 (July 2007) Key Words trap design, Anthonomus grandis grandis, cotton Boll weevil, Anthonomus grandis grandis Boheman, eradication is nearing comple­ tion throughout the U.S. as all cotton-producing regions are in active or posteradica­ tion maintenance, with most of the active eradication occurring in Texas. The success of eradication is almost entirely based on boll weevil traps baited with grandlure and a weekly trap capture threshold of 1 weevil per trap per week used in active eradi­ cation zones (Dickerson et al. 2001, Cotton Foundation, Memphis, TN, 627 p.). The Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation uses a standard 10 mg grandlure dis­ penser (Scentry Biologicals, Billings, MT) and an impregnated kill-strip of 10% (wtwt) dichlorovos DDVP ([2,2,-dichlorovinyl dimethyl phosphate]; Heron Environmental, Emigsville, PA) to kill boll weevils in the trap and prevent their escape (Suh et al. 2003, J. Econ. Entomol. 96: 348-351). Even when a DDVP kill-strip is used in a boll weevil trap in South Texas, a significant impedance to trapping efficiency can be the predation of boll weevils by insects and spiders that enter the capture area of the trap. Spiders have been implicated as a significant factor in interfering with trapping effi­ ciency by preying on boll weevils or, more importantly, by webbing the entrance of the trap making it impossible for weevils to enter the capture container (Armstrong and Richman 2006, Proc.
    [Show full text]
  • W024 Cotton Insects: Boll Weevil
    Agricultural Extension Service The University of Tennessee W024 Cotton Insects Boll Weevil Scott D. Stewart, Associate Professor Entomology and Plant Pathology Classification and Description America in the 1890s and quickly made their way The boll weevil, Anthonomus grandis grandis across most of the Cotton Belt. Although adults can (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), belongs to a group of beetles characterized by an elongated snout (or probos- cis). The adult boll weevil is about 1⁄4 inch long. Re- cently emerged adults may have a slightly reddish hue, but adult color typically varies from gray or brown to nearly black. The boll weevilʼs snout is about one-half the length of its body. Chewing mouthparts are located at the end of the snout. Boll weevils can generally be separated from other weevils by the presence of two spurs on the femur of each front leg, with the inside spur being larger than the outside spur. Immature life stages, including eggs, larvae and pupae, are found inside squares or bolls. Eggs are small and embedded inside squares and bolls, and thus are not visible. The larval and pupal stages of the boll weevil are found inside squares or bolls. Larvae are white to cream- Boll weevil colored, legless and about 1⁄2 inch long when fully de- veloped. Pupae are also white to cream-colored. Legs, temporarily feed and persist on the pollen of some eyes and mouthparts become visible on pupae as they other plants, this insect can only reproduce on cotton. develop. Life History Hosts and Distribution The boll weevil overwinters as an adult.
    [Show full text]
  • Characterization of Bacillus Thuringiensis Isolates Toxic to Cotton Boll Weevil (Anthonomus Grandis)
    Biological Control 40 (2007) 65–68 www.elsevier.com/locate/ybcon Characterization of Bacillus thuringiensis isolates toxic to cotton boll weevil (Anthonomus grandis) Érica Soares Martins a, Lílian Botelho Praça a, Vinícius Fiúza Dumas a, Joseilde O. Silva-Werneck a, Eduardo Hideki Sone a, Isabel C. Waga a, Colin Berry b, Rose Gomes Monnerat a,¤ a Embrapa Recursos Genéticos e Biotecnologia, SAIN-Parque Rural, Caixa postal 02372, 70770-900-Brasilia-DF, Brazil b CardiV School of Biosciences, CardiV University, Museum Avenue, CardiV CF10 3US, Wales, UK Received 6 April 2006; accepted 15 September 2006 Available online 27 September 2006 Abstract The cotton boll weevil (Anthonomus grandis) is the major cotton pest in the Americas. One of the alternatives for its control is the uti- lization of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), an entomopathogenic bacterium characterized by its production of insecticidal crystal proteins. Embrapa Genetic Resources and Biotechnology has a collection of Bacilli in which diVerent isolates of Bt are stored. A method for rear- ing and maintenance of Anthonomus grandis on artiWcial diet in the laboratory was developed, and a robust larval bioassay protocol was established for the selection of B. thuringiensis isolates toxic to boll weevil. After preliminary bioassays performed with 215 isolates, 5 were selected that demonstrated a good level of toxicity and these were analyzed in more detail. The most toxic were S601 and S1806 pre- senting LC50 (lethal concentration to kill 50% if the larvae) of 0.14 mg/ml and 0.30 mg/ml, respectively. S601 showed an LC50 value that was half that of the standard B.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of the Boll Weevil, 1892-1932
    THE IMPACT OF THE BOLL WEEVIL, 1892-1932 Fabian Lange, Yale University Alan L. Olmstead, UC Davis Paul W. Rhode, Univ. of Arizona & NBER February 2008 Abstract: The boll weevil is America’s most celebrated agricultural pest. We assemble new county-level panel data on the insect’s geographic spread and on farm activity to investigate the weevil’s effects on the southern economy between 1892 and 1932. Our study provides sharp estimates of the full time path of the pest’s local impacts. We find that instead of diversifying away from cotton in anticipation of the weevil’s appearance, farmers attempted to squeeze one last large crop out of their land just prior to contact. Upon arrival, the weevil had a large negative impact on production which required up to five years to be fully manifest and which did not disappear within our study period. Cotton yields fell substantially; acreage declined by less. In response, farmers did not take land out of agricultural use instead shifting to other crops. We also find striking effects on land values and population movements, indicating the pest’s spread redistributed economic activity within the South. THE IMPACT OF THE BOLL WEEVIL, 1892-1932 The boll weevil, with its entourage of songs and folklore, is enshrined in many popular accounts as America’s most destructive agricultural pest. Testifying before Congress in 1903, the chief of the USDA’s Bureau of Plant Industry referred to the insect’s advance as “the wave of evil.”1 In his Annual Address to Congress in 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt discussed biological warfare when he alerted anxious cotton producers that USDA scientists had imported a predatory ant from Guatemala that fed on the weevil.2 The weevil was indeed a headline grabber.
    [Show full text]
  • Cotton Boll Weevil
    Cotton boll weevil What is it? The cotton boll weevil, Anthonomus grandis, is a major pest of cotton, attacking the developing squares and bolls. Feeding damage causes young squares to shed and damages the lint in older bolls. Infestations in the USA have cost hundreds 6) of millions of dollars to control. The cotton boll weevil has been successfully eradicated from several regions of USA using area wide management programs. What does it look like? Adult weevils are a greyish-brown with a body about 5 mm in length and conspicuous snout (which is an additional 3 mm long). The larvae, which grow inside developing squares and bolls, Research Agricultural Service (USA) (K2742- are white, legless grubs that grow up to 13 mm in Adult weevil on a cotton boll length. The head and chewing mouthparts are brown, with a curved and wrinkled body. What can it be confused with? The cotton boll weevil resembles some native weevil species. However, no weevils in Australia attack cotton. Therefore, any weevils found feeding on cotton plants or found within cotton bolls should be reported immediately. Clemson University, USDACooperative Extension Slide Series (1435143). www.invasive.org. Typical egg-laying puncture (upper right edge on the left boll) and feeding puncture (on square on right) Compiled by Dave Murray Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation What should I look for? Look for small puncture marks at the side of flower buds. Egg-laying punctures are covered with a sticky secretion that hardens to form a wart-like protuberance that can be easily seen and felt.
    [Show full text]
  • Student Activity
    Peanuts STUDENT ACTIVITY Instructions: After watching the Farming Feeds Alabama video about Peanuts, answer the following questions. Listen to and watch the video carefully as questions can be answered based on what the farmers say or the images shown. 1. What percentage (approximately) of U.S. peanuts is grown within a 100-miles radius of Dothan, Alabama? 2. What time of year is peanut harvest? What two processes are part of peanut harvest? 3. How did the boll weevil impact the peanut industry? 4. How many people are employed in the peanut industry in Alabama? What is the economic impact to the state? 5. List products that include peanuts as an ingredient. 6. Name some of the health benefits of peanuts. 7. What’s the difference in acreage a farmer tends now compared to 50 years ago? What technology has made this increase possible? 8. What is the No. 1 cause of yield losses for peanut farmers? 9. How does GPS help farmers and the environment? 10. What does the peanut plant make on its own, and why does that help farmers? Farming Feeds Alabama™ Peanuts TEACHER KEY Access the Peanuts video at www.FarmingFeedsAlabama.com or through the jump drive provided in your Farming Feeds Alabama Teacher Resource Guide. Run time: 4:43 1. What percentage (approximately) of U.S. peanuts is grown within a 100-miles radius of Dothan, Alabama? • Over 50% 2. What time of year is peanut harvest? What two processes are part of peanut harvest? a. Fall b. Digging and picking 3. How did the boll weevil impact the peanut industry? • Boll weevils devastated cotton crops in Alabama, so farmers turned to peanuts as a different crop to grow.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Bulletin 228 a Field Guide to Boll Weevil Identification
    Technical Bulletin 228 July 2001 a field guide to BBolloll WeevilWeevil IdentificationIdentification A Field Guide to Boll Weevil Identification Robert G. Jones Research Entomologist U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine Michael R. Williams Extension Entomologist Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology Mississippi State University For more information, contact Dr. Jones at (662) 320-7423 or [email protected], or con- tact Dr. Williams at (662) 325-2986 or [email protected]. Technical Bulletin 228 was published by the Office of Agricultural Communications, a unit of the Division of the Agriculture, Forestry, and Veterinary Medicine at Mississippi State University. A Field Guide to Boll Weevil Identification INTRODUCTION Identification of boll weevils in both The reduction in the boll weevil Introductioneradication and pest management programs population and the presence of large is critical. Control decisions based on iden- numbers of pheromone traps creates a new tification are major costs to the programs situation for even the most experienced and to cotton growers. Treatments resulting field people. Now, boll weevil scouts are from misidentified boll weevils are disrup- likely to find a variety of other snouted tive, unnecessary, and expensive. Failure to beetles – both in the traps and in the field treat when boll weevils are not correctly – that were not commonly seen before. identified could extend eradication pro- Additionally, differentiation in boll weevil gram operations into extra years. punctures and the small bollworm and Therefore, all identifications of weevils are budworm damage can become more critical. Second opinions should be encour- difficult and takes on new importance.
    [Show full text]
  • Peanuts and Presidents
    st Popula Mo r Pe an The Jumbo u Virginia Peanut is t SAMPLE the most common Peanuts and variety in America. What do George Washington and Jimmy Carter have in Presidents common? They were both U.S. Presidents, southern farmers, and peanut lovers! Our nation’s first president was a successful Nut vs Pea farmer before he took office. He experimented with growing grains for export, and also promoted crop Peanuts are really rotation. Carter took over his father’s peanut farm and warehouse business upon his death in 1953. He ran “peas” that look like nuts, and are not a prosperous business, becoming involved in Georgia politics at the same time. He was our 39th president. really nuts! Peanut S Washington’s White Using a crock pot, simmer 1 cup peanuts in waterou untilp House Favorite soft. Scoop out the peanuts and skin. Chop or mash the Peanut soup and Virginia peanuts into very fine pieces. In a saucepan over an spoon bread were two dishes electric hot plate, bring 1 quart milk to a boil. Add the enjoyed by George and peanuts and cook slowly for 20 minutes. Remove several spoonfuls of the Martha Washington. Try peanut milk from the crock pot and mix with 2 teaspoons flour to form a some warm soup on a cold February President’s Day! Cut out paste. Stir into the saucepan, adding 2 teaspoons butter and salt and pepper ✂ to taste. Warm and serve. Peanuts Arrive in America Peanuts came from Africa with the arrival of Fre slaves. They were used as a cheap and nutritious sh Blender food for the slaves during the voyage to Pour 2 cups dry roasted peanutsPe intoan theut bowl Bu tof a food Soft and processor or blender.
    [Show full text]
  • Boll Weevil.Indd
    History of the Boll Weevil in Alabama, 1910–2007 Bulletin 670 December 2007 Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station Richard Guthrie, Director Auburn University Auburn, Alabama CONTENTS page Impact and Spread of the Boll Weevil .........................................................................3 Fighting the Boll Weevil ..............................................................................................4 County Agents and the Ag Experiment Station ....................................................4 Diversifi cation of Crops .......................................................................................5 Cotton Acreage Moves North and West .......................................................................6 Early Use of Insecticides .............................................................................................6 Cotton Scouting Evolves..............................................................................................7 Later Use of Insecticides ..............................................................................................7 Eradication of the Boll Weevil Becomes Goal ............................................................9 Development of Eradication Methods .........................................................................9 Eradication of the Boll Weevil in Alabama................................................................10 Intensifi cation of Education Program ........................................................................ 11 Effect of Boll Weevil
    [Show full text]