Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:57:01.847Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sodium Fluosilicate as a Poison against the Hoppers of Locusta migratoria migratorioides, R. & F., in Nigeria

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

F. D. Golding
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

(1) For the first time sodium fluosilicate has been tested as a poison against the hoppers of Locusta migratoria migratorioides. This poison was found to be as effective as sodium arsenite in baits when used at the same concentration, viz., 2·44%, but was slower in its action. When guinea-corn bran is used as the carrier it is necessary to add salt to the bait as an attractant; the reason for this is not known, fluosilicate baits containing sawdust, chopped hay and chaff from cereal crops respectively were effective without salt being added.

(2) From an examination of the results of experimental work on the relative toxicities of sodium fluosilicate and arsenical compounds to domesticated animals in various parts of the world, it is concluded that the former is less toxic to stock, but that the increased degree of safety acquired through the use of sodium fluosilicate is not so great as is popularly supposed. A definite advantage of baits containing fluosilicate is that they are repellent to many animals, whereas baits containing sodium arsenite are attractive to stock.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , December 1932 , pp. 449 - 461
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1932

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

(1) Burt, D. C. & Dutt, G. R. (1930). The Desert Locust in India, 1929–30.—Agric. J. India, xxv, p. 423.Google Scholar
(2) D'Costa, J. & Singh, Balwant (1930). The toxicity of sodium fluosilicate for domestic animals.—J. Central Bur. Anim. Husb. India, iv, pp. 139–145.Google Scholar
(3) Fleming, W. E. (1927). Fluosilicates as insecticides for the Japanese Beetle.—J. Econ. Ent., xx, pp. 685–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4) Harrison, E. (1929). History and activities of locusts in Kenya and relative costs of destruction.—Kenya Agric. Bull. no. 9, p. 21.Google Scholar
(5) King, H. H. (1930). The Desert Locust Schistocerca gregaria, Forsk.—Sudan Ent. Bull. no. 30, p. 11.Google Scholar
(6) Kuhn, H. A. (1929). The Problem of arsenical residues: importance of spray deposits from the standpoint of public health.—4th Int. Cong. Ent. Ithaca, N.Y., ii, pp. 675–687 [R.A.E., A, xviii, p. 315].Google Scholar
(7)Lounsbury, C. P. (1909). Third Annual Rept. Comm. Control S. Afr. Central Locust Bur., p. 9.Google Scholar
(8) Marcovitch, S. (1925). Non-arsenicals for chewing insects.—J. Econ. Ent., xviii, pp. 122–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(9) Marcovitch, S. (1928). The relative toxicities of arsenicals and fluorine compounds to various organisms.—J. Econ. Ent., xxi, pp. 108–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(10) Reeves, G. I. (1925). The arsenical poisoning of livestock.—J. Econ. Ent., xviii, p. 84.Google Scholar
(11) Richards, P. B. (1930). Memorandum on Locust Control Operations in the United Provinces. Locust Control, Allahabad, U.P., Govt. Press, pp. 55–57.Google Scholar
(12) Attia, Rizk (1931). A study on sodium fluosilicate with special reference to its toxicity to farm animals.—Min. Agric. Egypt, Bull. no. 105.Google Scholar
(13) Seddon, H. R. (1928). Poison bait for grasshoppers.—Agric. Gaz. N.S.W., xxxix, pp. 64–66 [R.A.E., A, xvi, p. 347].Google Scholar
(14) Uvarov, B. P. (1928). Locusts and Grasshoppers, p. 189.Google Scholar
(15) van Zyl, J. P. (1929). On the toxicity of arsenic to fowls.—15th Rept. Vet. Serv. S. Afr., ii, pp. 1189–1202 [R.A.E., A, xviii, p. 45]Google Scholar
(16) Interim Report (1930) of the Locust Committee appointed by the Imperial Council of Agricultural Research, India, pp. 16–17.Google Scholar