Locust by Jeffrey A. Lockwood Page A
Authors: Jeffrey A. Lockwood
Tags: Non-Fiction, Library
Ads: Link
more profound changes in agriculture than such tactical shifts suggest.
Historians credit the repeated invasions by the locusts with reshaping American agriculture west of the Mississippi River into the production patterns that persist today. Admonished by federal entomologists, farmers began to diversify their production systems. Wheat had come to nearly monopolize the Midwest, but this crop was particularly vulnerable to the locusts. For example, nearly two-thirds of the Minnesota farmland was producing wheat in 1873, just before the locusts’ most withering offensive. By the last year of the invasions, less than one-sixth of the land was in wheat. The farmers learned that peas and beans were far less vulnerable to the insects, and corn was a more robust grain crop than wheat. 3
In addition to planting alternative crops, many farmers turned to animal production. Poultry could exploit the locusts to some degree, but the greater shift was to dairy and beef. Although pastures were often damaged by the locusts, these lands were almost always left in better shape than the crops. In particular, native grasses and rangelands seemed to fare relatively well or at least to recover rather quickly after a swarm departed. Farming the semiarid lands west of the 100th meridian was a marginal venture without the locusts, and these insects were the nail in the coffin for many homesteaders. Ranching, however, relied on the native grasslands. And cattle production became the mainstay of western agriculture. The prairies could be, and frequently were, overgrazed by livestock, but they were often mercifully passed over by the swarms migrating to more fruitful and verdant lands.
This approach to battling the locust really amounted to conflict avoidance, rather than direct confrontation. As with flooding, plowing, harrowing, and ditching, diversification required no technological sophistication and little capital investment. All of these practices had been available to farmers for centuries. But wasn’t America the land of innovation and industry? Where were the chemical and biological weapons that dominate the modern agricultural battlefield?
POISONS, PARASITES, AND PREDATORS
Insecticide chemistry was in its infancy during the Rocky Mountain locust’s heyday. Some of the machines invented to assault the insects made use of poisons, such as kerosene, coal tar, and sulfur fumes, but these were incidental to the function of the machine. Any of these lethal substances could be, and were, replaced with devices to crush, bag, or incinerate the locusts. However, various and assorted chemicals were directly applied to the locusts or the plants they were consuming. Salt, saltpeter (potassium nitrate), naphthalene (the active ingredient in mothballs), kerosene, and cresylic acid soap (derived from coal tar) provided little control, and some of these chemicals probably killed more crops than locusts. Plant extracts, such as pyrethrum powder and quassia water, worked no better, but at least these remedies were safer for people and plants. Milo Andrus, a creative but apparently unorthodox Mormon farmer, suggested sprinkling whisky on locust-infested plants. Perhaps this was Milo’s way of disposing of a forbidden liquid, but the whisky would have been more effective in drowning his sorrows than in intoxicating locusts.
The most effective insecticides of the day were arsenical compounds—lead and calcium arsenate. These poisons were usually mixed with bran to create an oatmeal-like paste that was applied to the bases of trees or scattered through an infested field. Although there were no reported cases of human poisonings, dead birds were often seen in the treated fields. Rabbits and hares seemed to fare the worst of all creatures. And whereas large numbers of vertebrates were killed by the deadly bait, only a small proportion of the pests were poisoned.
The greatest limitation to waging effective chemical warfare against the locusts was
Historians credit the repeated invasions by the locusts with reshaping American agriculture west of the Mississippi River into the production patterns that persist today. Admonished by federal entomologists, farmers began to diversify their production systems. Wheat had come to nearly monopolize the Midwest, but this crop was particularly vulnerable to the locusts. For example, nearly two-thirds of the Minnesota farmland was producing wheat in 1873, just before the locusts’ most withering offensive. By the last year of the invasions, less than one-sixth of the land was in wheat. The farmers learned that peas and beans were far less vulnerable to the insects, and corn was a more robust grain crop than wheat. 3
In addition to planting alternative crops, many farmers turned to animal production. Poultry could exploit the locusts to some degree, but the greater shift was to dairy and beef. Although pastures were often damaged by the locusts, these lands were almost always left in better shape than the crops. In particular, native grasses and rangelands seemed to fare relatively well or at least to recover rather quickly after a swarm departed. Farming the semiarid lands west of the 100th meridian was a marginal venture without the locusts, and these insects were the nail in the coffin for many homesteaders. Ranching, however, relied on the native grasslands. And cattle production became the mainstay of western agriculture. The prairies could be, and frequently were, overgrazed by livestock, but they were often mercifully passed over by the swarms migrating to more fruitful and verdant lands.
This approach to battling the locust really amounted to conflict avoidance, rather than direct confrontation. As with flooding, plowing, harrowing, and ditching, diversification required no technological sophistication and little capital investment. All of these practices had been available to farmers for centuries. But wasn’t America the land of innovation and industry? Where were the chemical and biological weapons that dominate the modern agricultural battlefield?
POISONS, PARASITES, AND PREDATORS
Insecticide chemistry was in its infancy during the Rocky Mountain locust’s heyday. Some of the machines invented to assault the insects made use of poisons, such as kerosene, coal tar, and sulfur fumes, but these were incidental to the function of the machine. Any of these lethal substances could be, and were, replaced with devices to crush, bag, or incinerate the locusts. However, various and assorted chemicals were directly applied to the locusts or the plants they were consuming. Salt, saltpeter (potassium nitrate), naphthalene (the active ingredient in mothballs), kerosene, and cresylic acid soap (derived from coal tar) provided little control, and some of these chemicals probably killed more crops than locusts. Plant extracts, such as pyrethrum powder and quassia water, worked no better, but at least these remedies were safer for people and plants. Milo Andrus, a creative but apparently unorthodox Mormon farmer, suggested sprinkling whisky on locust-infested plants. Perhaps this was Milo’s way of disposing of a forbidden liquid, but the whisky would have been more effective in drowning his sorrows than in intoxicating locusts.
The most effective insecticides of the day were arsenical compounds—lead and calcium arsenate. These poisons were usually mixed with bran to create an oatmeal-like paste that was applied to the bases of trees or scattered through an infested field. Although there were no reported cases of human poisonings, dead birds were often seen in the treated fields. Rabbits and hares seemed to fare the worst of all creatures. And whereas large numbers of vertebrates were killed by the deadly bait, only a small proportion of the pests were poisoned.
The greatest limitation to waging effective chemical warfare against the locusts was
Similar Books
