heavy dos ages , it abruptly re duced the rate of application of he ptachlor f rom 2 pounds to 1¼
pounds per acre in 1959; later on to ½ pound per acre, applied in two treatme nts of ¼ pound
each, 3 to 6 months apart. An official of the Departme nt explained that ‘an aggres sive methods
improvement prog ram’ showed the lower rate to be effective. Had this information been
acquired bef ore the progra m was launched, a vas t amount of da mage could have bee n avoided
and the taxpaye rs could have been s aved a great deal of money. In 19 59, perhaps in an attempt
to offs et the growing dissatis faction with the program, the Agriculture Department offered the
chemicals free to Texas landowners who would sign a release absolving federal, state, and local
governments of responsibility for damage. In the same year the State of Alabama, alarmed and
angry at the damage done by the che micals , refus ed to appropriate any further f unds for the
project. One of its officials characterized the whole program as ‘ill advised, hastily conceived,
poorly planne d, and a glaring example of riding roughs hod over the res pons ibilities of other
public and private agencies ’. Des pite the lack of s tate funds , federal money continued to trickle
into Alabama, and in 1961 the legislature was again persuaded to make a small appropriation.
Meanwhile, farmers in Louisiana showed growing reluctance to s ign up for the project as it
became evident that use of chemicals against the fire ant was causing an ups urge of ins ects
des tructive to s ugarcane. More over, the program was obvious ly accomplis hing nothing. Its
dismal state was ters ely s ummarize d in the s pring of 1962 by the director of entomol ogy
research at Louisiana State University Agricultural Experiment Station, Dr. L. D. Newsom: ‘The
imported fire ant “eradication” prog ram which has been conducte d by s tate and fede ral
agencies is thus far a failure. There are more infes ted acres in Louisiana now than when the
prog ram began.’
A s wing to more s ane and cons ervative methods s eems to have begun. Florida, re porting that
‘there are more fire ants in Florida now than there we re whe n the progra m s tarted,’ announced
it was abandoning any idea of a broad eradication program and would ins tead concentrate on
local control. Effective and inexpens ive methods of local control have been known for years.
The mound-building habit of the fire ant makes the chemical treatment of individual mounds a
simple matter. Cost of such treatment is about one dollar per acre. For s ituations where
mounds are numerous and mechanize d methods are des irable, a cultivator which firs t levels
and the n applies chemical directly to the mounds has been developed by Mis s iss ippi’s
Agricultural Experi ment Station. The me thod gives 90 to 95 per ce nt control of the ants. Its cos t
is only $0.23 per acre. The Agriculture Department’s mass control program, on the other hand,
cos t about $3 .50 pe r acre—the mos t expe ns ive, the mos t damaging, and the leas t effective
backadmin
(backadmin)
#1