Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-21T12:54:50.924Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Insecticidal Dusts for the Protection of Stored Peas and Beans against Bruchid Infestation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

E. A. Parkin  and
G. T. Bills
E. A. Parkin
Affiliation:
Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Pest Infestation Laboratory, Slough, Bucks.
G. T. Bills
Affiliation:
Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Pest Infestation Laboratory, Slough, Bucks.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Laboratory tests are described for determining the protective value of a number of physically and chemically active insecticidal dusts against Bruchid infestation of peas and beans. Acanthoscelides obtectus (Say) and Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) were used as the test insects and were found to be very susceptible to most of the treatments tried. Adults of A. obtectus were in general more resistant to the treatments than those of C. chinensis, but the multiplication of the former species was more easily stopped, apparently because of the vulnerability of its first-stage larvae. It is concluded that protection of peas and beans can be achieved by thoroughly mixing into 200 lb. of the commodity 6–8 oz. of one of the following dusts: colloidal silica, colloidal aluminium pentasilicate, finely ground diatomite, 0.05 per cent. y BHC (as lindane) on diatomite or kaolin, 0.5 per cent. technical DDT on diatomite or kaolin. Rock phosphate, kaolin, or talc are not recommended. Where lindane or DDT are used in the dosages given, it is unlikely that the commodity will be tainted or rendered toxic to man or animals, even if no cleaning is undertaken.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , October 1955 , pp. 625 - 641
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1955

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aboim, A. N. (1948). Action du “ DDT ” contre plusieurs ravageurs desdenräesemmagasiäes.—Bull. Soc. portug. Sci. nat., 16, pp. 75–80Google Scholar
Aboim, A. N. & Veiga-Ferreira, G. (1948). Action du “ Gammexane ” contre quelques ravageurs des substances emmagasinées.—Bull. Soc. portug. Sci. nat., 16, pp. 81–93Google Scholar
Cannon, R. C. (1946). Protection of stored cowpea seed against insect damage.—Qd agric. J., 63, pp. 148–150Google Scholar
Chatterji, S. (1953). On some preservatives against Bruchid pests of stored mung.—Sci. & Cult., 18, p. 333Google Scholar
Chiu, S. F. (1939). Toxicity studies of so-called “ inert ” materials with the Bean Weevil, Acanthoscelides obtectus (Say).—J. econ. Ent., 32, pp. 240–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cockbill, G. F. (1953). Investigations on the control of insect pests of stored grains and pulses.—Rhod. agric. J., 50, pp. 294–323.Google Scholar
Deay, H. O. & Amos, J. M. (1936). Dust treatment for protecting beans from the Bean Weevil.—J. econ. Ent., 29, pp. 498–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friend, A. H. (1945). Experiments on the control of the Bean Seed Weevil.—J. Aust. Inst. agric. Sci., 11, pp. 139–141.Google Scholar
Friend, A. H. & Pasfield, G. (1945). DDT as an insecticide. Results of preliminary trials.—Agric. Gaz. N.S.W., 56, pp. 455–456, 467.Google Scholar
Headlee, T. J. (1924). Certain dusts as agents for the protection of stored seeds from insect infestation.—J. econ. Ent., 17, pp. 298–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hely, P. C. (1945). DDT as an insecticide. Result of preliminary trials.—Agric. Gaz. N.S.W., 56, pp. 397–400.Google Scholar
Horber, E. (1950). Beitrag zur Biologie und Bekämpfung des Speisebohnenkäfers Acanthoscelides obtectus Say (Col. Bruchid.).—Mitt, schweiz. ent. Ges., 23, pp. 233–244.Google Scholar
Janjua, N. A. & Nasir, M. M. (1948). Stored grain pests and their control in Baluchistan.—Bull. Dep. Agric. Baluchistan, no. 2 (1947), 32 pp.Google Scholar
Larson, A. O. (1920). Bean weevils in California.—Mon. Bull. Calif. Dep. Agric., 9, pp. 344–349.Google Scholar
LefÈvre, P. C. (1950). Bruchus obtectus Say ou bruche des haricots (Phaseolus vulgaris L.).—Publ. Inst. nat. Etude agron. Congo beige, Sèr. sci. no. 48, 65 pp.Google Scholar
LefÈvre, P. C. (1953). Deux insectes destrueteurs des graines emmagasineés dans l'est du Congo Beige et au Ruanda-Urundi.—Bull. Inform. Inst. nat. Etude agron. Congo belge, 2, pp. 263–268.Google Scholar
Lepage, H. S. & Giannotti, O. (1944). Experiências com o DDT.—Bio lógico, 10, pp. 353–366.Google Scholar
Lever, R. J. A. W. (1941). Entomological notes. 3. Beetle pest of pulse.—Agric. J. Fiji, 12, p. 47.Google Scholar
Metcalf, Z. P. (1917). Lime as an insecticide.—J. econ. Ent., 10, pp. 74–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, W. L. & Pasfield, G. (1942). Dusts for protecting bean seed against Bruchus (Acanthoscelides) obtectus Say.—J. Aust. Inst. agric. Sci., 8, pp. 121–122.Google Scholar
Oosthuizen, M. J. (1948). Seed-infesting insects.—Fmg in S. Afr., 23, pp. 221–234.Google Scholar
Parkin, E. A. (1944). Control of the Granary Weevil with finely ground mineral dusts.—Ann. appl. Biol., 31, pp. 84–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkin, E. A. (1951). Biological tests of insecticides for stored-product insects.—J. Sci. Fd Agric., 2, pp. 136–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkin, E. A. (1953). The susceptibility to DDT dust of Coleoptera infesting stored products.—Bull. ent. Res., 44, pp. 439–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subramaniam, T. V. (1935). How to free stored grain from insect attack.—Mysore agric. Cal., 1935, p. 21.Google Scholar
Van Den Bruel, W. E. (1946). Les méthodes de lutte utilisables contre la bruche du haricot. Acanthoscelides obtectus Say.—Parasitica 2, pp. 20–26.Google Scholar