HIM I 1 H l l ! HIWIHI fig? W LABORATORY COMPARESGNS OF THE EFFECTS OF WHEAT PROTECTANTS ON STORED GRAIN §NSECTS Thai: ‘0: the Dagmar of M. S. MICHiGfiN $143975 CCiLfiGE ’- . 7 ’4‘». ' 3.3a daway 41.33252 yams-45$ “-29 ‘a {if ‘1?! guests '1 “-h _.—— ‘- '- ”W t . ' I —_—---_.—_ -“ .- gue V ‘— ——a¢-_‘—§—- This is to certify that the thesis entitled Laboratory Comparisons of the Effects of Wheat Proteotants on Stored Grain Insects presented lag Harvey J. Dominick has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M. a._.degree minimalogy / ajor professor Dateifjm’j 145’ 3 ‘— ’ i“ v ‘ av ; I n 7 ' ,1 (.- '. ”I .‘ I’D-.1 .— L. IL"..- ‘I&- h... ”.8... ‘.- a :1 LABORATORY COMPARISONS OF THE EFFECTS OF WHEAT PROTECTANTS ON STORED GRAIN INSETS By Harvey John Dominick A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER. OF SCIENCE Department of Entomology 1953 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author desires to express his sincere appreciation to Professor Ray Hutson, department head, and Dr. Herman King under whose supervision and guidance this thesis was compiled; and to his wife, Blanche, for the initial typing of this thesis. iii-W W '31...‘ 1. \I’fll ‘VJ ._ 11 r‘. we .0 II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS mTRODUCTIONOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.0000.00.00.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIO REVIm OF LITERATUREeOeeoeooso.seoooeeoescooOooQQOOQeoeoeoo METHomI-DGYAND meLSOOOO.OOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.... Procedure in Rearing the InsectS...................... Materials Tested Tests Against the Confused Flour Beetle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tests Against the Granary Weevil, SitOphilus granarius and the Rice Weevil, Sitoghilus orga , , . . . , . . . . . . . .A. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA.......................... Discussion.of Results of Tests Against Tribolium conquUInOOOOOOOOOOOOO.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.... Discussion of Results of Tests Against Sitophilus granarius and Sitophilus 23233,..................... wWYOOOOOOOOeOO00000000000000.00000000000....so...costs. LHEMTURE CHEDQOOOOOOOO.0.OOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOO.00.0.0.0... PAGE 1 h 9 9 ll 12 1 13 19 15 21 39 L1 I . INTRODUCTION I. INTRODUCTION Insect posts have been important in stored grain and similar products ever since man learned to keep grain for food or seed. In many instances the human race has carried these insects along in its movements over the globe. As a result we find that many of our common grain insects have be- come cosmOpolitan in distribution. The sources of insect infestation vary with crop and region. In the South infestation usually starts in the field. Besides field infestation, infestation in stored grain can begin in storage facilities, or anywhere there is an accumulation of old grain, feed, or other infested food products. (Cotton and Ashby 1952). This occurs more often in the North. In the United States today the demand for grain that is free from insects and insect fragments is increasing. ‘With the encouragement of the Food and Drug‘Administration, more stress is beinglplaced on the control of insects before they get into the grain. The Food and Drug.Administration has begun to restrict the movement of infested grain and intends to insure that grain will not be shipped for use as food if it contains excessive insect infestation . (Kennedy 1953). Experts have estimated the total annual loss of stored grain due to weevils in this country to be about 50 million dollars; the estimated total annual insect damage in the United States is considered to be around two billion dollars. Cotton (1950) stated that as a result of their feeding activities, their presence in grain and cereal products and the cost of methods employed to destroy them, this group of insects exacts a yearly toll of at least $300,000,000 in the United States alone. Due to the extensive damage caused by grain insects a great deal .of research has been conducted along the lines of prevention of infesta- tion through the use of clean'bins, protectant dusts and fumigation. This paper is devoted chiefly to the use of protectant materials as preventatives against infestation by insects. The insects used in these tests were the confused flour beetle, Tribolium confusum, Duv., the granary weevil, Sit0philus granarius (L.) and the rice weevil, Sitophilus mg (L.). Tests were conducted in an attempt to determine which protectant provided the most satisfactory control. An attempt was also made to see how these protectant dusts would act against the confused flour beetle on whole wheat flour. I These tests were conducted at different temperatures and a constant humidity to determine if temperature would affect the toxicity of the material. The confused flour beetle was used because it is easy to raise. However, with.regard to stored grain, it is a mistake to base results of protectant tests on this. It is more reliable to use as test insects the primary insects of stored grain, namely the rice weevil and the granary weevil. These tests were conducted with Pyrenone Wheat Protectant which has a pyrethrum base and a piperonyl butoxide synergist and with two other materials containing allethrin as the base and piperonyl butoxide as the synergist. II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE The use of a protective covering of dust, wood ashes or similar finely divided material, or the mixing of the material with grain to prevent insect damage was first practiced many-years ago and has never been entirely abandoned (Cotton, 1950). Experiments have shown that chemically inert dusts cause the dessication of insects by getting between the surfaces of the cuticle that rub against each other, destroying its impermeability by-abrading the waxy coating and thus causing a great increase in tranSpiration through the cuticle (Cotton and Frankenfeld, 191.7) . These inert dusts, although economical to use will not give reliable results and therefore have not achieved the desired protection. Chemically active dusts have been employed for the protection of seed for many years, but usually the materials used are not suitable for grain destined for feed or food, because of their toxicity to warm- blooded animals (White 1952) . ,Among the various dusts employed in the past for the control of insects we find that pyrethrum is one of the most effective. The exact nature of the action of pyrethrum on insects is not known but destruction of nerve tissue is considered a primary factor in causing death. ”With most insects death from pyrethrum is accompanied by violent and occasionally'prhlonged struggles. Beckley (l9h8) in preliminary tests with pyrethrum powders used alone or diluted with diatomaceous earth reported approximately eight months protection of bagged maize and wheat exposed to natural infesta- tion. ‘Watts and Berlin (1950) stated that any large-scale development program based on the use of such a dust would be seriously impaired by the limited supply of pyrethrum that could be obtained for this purpose. McAlister, Jones, and Moore (19h?) stated that deepite the fact that pyrethrum insecticides on a unit-weight'basis are the most toxic to insects and at the same time the least toxic to warm-blooded animals, their utilization.has been necessarily restricted by their relatively high cost. .Attempts therefore have been made to develOp synergists, activators or synthetic materials which would permit the use of pyrethrum at an economical cost. The develoPment and use of piperonyl butoxide (Nachs, 19h?) as an extender for this purpose aroused considerable interest and various tests were conducted to determine the degree of synergism ob- tained.by the addition of piperonyl butoxide to reduced amounts of pyrethrins. Wachs and Berlin (1950) stated that the use of piperonyl butoxide alone was almost ineffective against the rice weevil. Pyrethrins alone gave from moderate to good control. Combinations of the two ma- terials however, gave from good to complete control over a 30-day test period. These various tests led to the development of Pyrenone which is a registered trade-mark of U. 8. Industrial Chemicals, Inc., and.pertains to various combinations of pyrethrins and piperonyl butoxide, with ground wheat as the carrier in the wheat protectants (Dove, 1952). As a result of laboratory tests it was found that the material had no effect on the germination of seed wheat and the odor was not noticeable in eggs when treated wheat was fed to laying hens (Wilbur, 1952). The other material used in this thesis work was a combination of allethrin.and piperonyl butoxide. In March l9h9 the Bureau of EntomOIOgy and PlanttQuarantine announced that their chemists Schechter, Green, and La Forge had discovered a method of synthesizing esters closely related to natural cinerin I which is an ester of pyrethrolone with chrysanthemum monocarboxylic acid and is one of the four esters found in.pyrethrum flowers. The d1-2—a11y1, l-h-hydroxyb3emethyl-2-cyc10pentenrl-one esterified.with cis and trans di-chrysanthemum monocarboxylic acids was shown to be the most practical ester from the standpoint of economical preparation.and insecticidal action and was the one selected for techni- cal production. This completely synthetic ester, the allyl.homolog of cinerinI,is now known as allethrin. In the Pyrenones piperonyl butoxide acts as the synergist and in the allethrin.mixtures the piperonyl butoxide has been shown to exhibit synergism with allethrin. In all of these formulations piperonyl butoxide appears to be the synergist in that it has the effect of extend- ing the toxicity of pyrethrum in one instance and allethrin in another, so that very much less pyrethrum or allethrin is needed to achieve the usual kill of insects. Tests of the residual effectiveness of natural pyrethrins as compared with the allyl homolog of cinerin l (allethrin) were conducted by E. W. Leaks and associates on the stable fly. These materials were used at a concentration of 0.1% alone, and in combination with 1% of piperonyl butoxide, as dips on screen-wire cages, and stable flies were intro- duced one day later and then exposed for 2h hours. The natural pyrethrins, alone and in combination, gave a 100% knock-down and kill, whereas the synthetic ester alone gave 60% and h0% and in combination with piperonyl butoxide 87% and 72%, reapectively. In another test without the synergist the natural pyrethrins gave a 100% knock-down and kill as compared with 92% knock-down and 85% kill fer the synthetic ester. The natura1.materia1 with.piperonyl butoxide gave 100% knock- down and kill as compared with a 82% knockbdown and a 70% kill for the synthetic product. Dennis and Cotton in tests againSt the confused flour battle by their glass plate method compared a number of different synergists and various rates of application. They found that the mortality of adults after 12 days was essentially the same for the natural product and the synthetic material without the synergist, but one commercial synergist greatly increased the kill with the synthetic ester. This work was reported.by Bish0pp (1950). Allethrin.has been shown to be as toxic as natural pyrethrins to Egggg, but is inferior in toxicity to Egriplaneta, Tribolium, Oncoggltus and a number of field crap insects. Bishopp (1950) stated that the allyl homolOg of cinerin I (allethrin) was superior to natural pyrethrins against several species of insects, aboutas toxic to many others, and decidedly inferior against certain.pests of field craps. In some cases the allethrin was less effective than the natural pyrethrins at low concentrations whereas the reverse was true at high concentrations. Wide differences in toxicity to insects also resulted when different synergists were added to the Sprays. The great advantages of pyrenone and allethrin are derived from the fact that they are non-toxic to mammals while extremely toxic to insects. Pyrethrins, which are components in.the Pyrenone material have long been known for their safety. Piperonyl butoxide which acts as the synergist is even safer than.pyrethrins. .Allethrin, which is shmilar in its action to pyrethrins is considered to be a safe material with regard to humans. These protectant materials are designed to prevent infestation, but are not necessarily a “cure all“. They are not effective when attempt- ing to control an already heavyinfestation. Neither of these materials will improve upon natural practices of drying and preserving stored grain, but they aid the natural means of protection. These two compounds will help in good methods of storing grains by preventing insects from becoming established in the treated grain. They will kill the insects if in moderate numbers, and will insure protection for a comparatively long period of time. Their main value will beflin long time storage where protection for a season or longer is desired.(Winburn, 1952). ILL. METHODOLOGY AND MATERIALS III. METHODOLOGY AND HATERIALS Procedure in Rearing the Insects In any type of experiment where live insects are required it is necessary to build up and maintain a constant supply. Grain insects are no exception, therefore it was necessary to build up a colony of confused flour beetles, granary weevils, and rice weevils for use in this work. After trying different temperatures with varying success it was found that the Optimum temperature for develOpment was between 85°and 90°F. At this temperature range the confused flour beetles completed their life cycle in 27 days. The confused flour beetles were raised in whole wheat flour in raids-mouth pint jars. The eggs of this insect are so minute that they are barely distinguishable with the unaided eye in the flour. When first laid they are covered with a fluid which causes the small parti- cles of flour to adhere to them. The eggs are laid singly and are scattered around in the flour. The female beetle may live approximately one year and lay one or two eggs each day during the year. If the temperature is maintained at about 90 F the eggs will hatch in about u days . The larvae mature in about 17 days and the pupal stage lasts about 6 days. This seems to be the Optimum temperature for rear- ing these insects. The rice and ganary weevils were reared at the same temperature as the confused flour beetle. The rice weevil is a small reddish brown 10 beetle, about 1/8 of an inch long and can be distinguished from the granary weevil by the two vague yellowish Spots on each wing, the well develOped wings, and the fine rounded punctures on the thorax. The rice weevil is considered by Cotton (19115) to be the most destructive insect pest of stored grain. The rice weevil is more important in the South. It flies from infested granaries to the fields of corn, wheat, and rice and starts the infestations that are so damaging after the grain is harvested. The granary weevil on the other hand has become a very specialized insect and seems to have lost the power of flight. It differs from the rice weevil in that it never breeds in the field and is found only in stored gain. The adult rice weevil lives an average of h-S months, during which time the female lays around 300 to I400 eggs. The granary weevil will live about 7 or 8 months. These weevils are similar in their work in that they both bore a hole in the grain into which the egg is inserted. After this is accomplished the female turns around and seals the hole with gelatinous fluid. The small white legless yubs hatch from the egg but remain inside the kernels. When they are fully grown they transform to the pupal stage and then to the adult weevil which bores out of the grain. At a temperature of 90° F. these insects can complete their life cycle in 27-30 days. The insects were reared in two small cabinets at an average tempera- ture of 85° F, originally. However, they were later transferred to one large cabinet which contained a fan to insure more ciruulation of air. The relative humidity was maintained between 65 and 70%. This was ll insured through the use of a saturated solution of Diamond Crystal Salt, which is composed of 99.5% choloride and 0.5% tri-calcium phos- phate. The salt solution was mixed in two large enamel pans and placed in the cabinet. The fan in the cabinet circulated the air and appeared to keep the relative humidity constant. In the smaller cabinets which lacked.a fan the water in the salt solution had to be replaced.more often than in the large cabinet with the fan. The confused flour beetles were reared in whole wheat flour while the rice weevils and granary weevils were raised in whole wheat. A thermograph and a thermometer were used to register the correct temperature. Materials Tested Common Name Composition Percent Company Pyrenone Wheat Piperonyl Butoxide 1.10 U. S. Industrial Protectant Pyrethrins 0.08 Chemicals Inert Materials 98.82 155.00 Grain Protestant Allethrin 0.11; Carbide and Carbon Dust Piperonyl Butoxide 1.60 Chemical Division 'Hheat Dust Diluent 98.26 of Union Carbide $55755 and Carbon Corp. Grain Protectant Allethrin 0.07 Carbide and Carbon Dust Piperonyl Butoxide 1.60 Chemical Division 'Wheat Dust Diluent 98.32 of Union.Carbide 100.00 and Carbon Corp. 12 Tests Against the Confused Flour Beetle The insecticides and.wheat flour were weighed out in grams in the following amounts: Insecticide 'Wheat Flour Equivalent to: 0.05 gram ho grams 75 lbs. per 60,000 pounds 0.05 gram 30 grams 75 lbs. per h5,000 pounds 0.1 gram ho grams 75 lbs. per 30,000 pounds 0.1 gram 20 grams 75 lbs. per 15,000 pounds 1 gram ho grams 75 lbs. per 3,000 pounds After the wheat flour was weighed out the insecticide was weighed out and added to the flour. The flour and insecticide were thoroughly mixed together in.small jars. .After leaving this mixture in the test cabinet for a period of twentybfour hours at a temperature of 85° F. and a humidity of 65%, fifty confused flour beetles were placed in each jar. The insects were maintained at the above temperature and humidity for periods of one month, two weeks, and one week. In all instances four replicates were made of each.material as well as of the control. The insects were prevented from crawling out by a rim of vaseline along the top of the jar. Tables I, II, III, IV and V illustrate the results of these tests. 13 Tests Against the Granary Weevil, SitOphilus ganarius and the Rice Weevil, Sitgphilus oryza In the tests conducted against these two insects the insecticides were mixed with whole wheat instead of flour because the weevils work only in the whole wheat. They puncture the bran on the wheat and lay their eggs next to the starch. The eggs hatch in the kernel and the insect completes its development inside before emerging. The procedure followed in the case of Tribolium confusum was applied here also with a few exceptions. The granary and rice weevils were prevented from crawling out, (or flying out in the case of the rice weevil), by the use of hO-mesh screen covers. The insecticide and wheat were weighed out in the amounts listed below: Insecticide Wheat Equivalent to: 0.05 gram ho grams 75 lbs. per 1000 bushels 0.1 gram 140 grams 75 lbs. per 500 bushels Comparative tests were run between the granary weevil and rice weevil at a temperature of 80° F. and concentrations of 0.05 grams of insecticide per 140 grams of wheat and 0.1 gram of insecticide per ho grams of wheat for one month. After this, a test was run at 71.60 F. and a concentration of 0.05 grams of insecticide to ho grams of wheat against the granary and rice weevils. Because the granary weevil is the more important insect in the northern states it was decided to run comparative tests against this insect at the two concentrations listed in the table at temperatures of 6h.h° F., 70° F. and 82.1;o F. at a constant humidity of 65% for a period of approximately one month in each case. Both of these species will lay a few eggs at 6&0 F. and they will complete their development from egg to adult but at a much.slower rate than at 70 or 82 F. It was decided to compare the effectiveness of the materials at the three temperatures listed above because temperature is the most important factor in determining insect development. .According to Cotton (1950) the rice weevil is affected more by lower temperatures than the granary weevil. The rice weevil will become dormant at h5° F. and the granary weevil at 350 F. Unlike the cadelle they usually do not hibernate so their development is not effectively retarded by low temperatures to enable the food reserves of their bodies to carry them through long periods of dormancy (Cotton, 1950). Therefore they usually die of starvation at low temperature. Hanson (1951) stated that stored-grain posts will not work in grain having a moisture content of less than eight per cent. The wheat used in all the tests had a moisture content of fourteen.per cent so this would not effect the comparative results. However, in comparing the three temperatures the results obtained at 6h° F. may be influenced not only by the insecticides, but also by the lower temperature. IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA 15 PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA Discussion of Results of Tests.Against Tribolium confusum As can be seen from Tables I to V none of the materials showed very much promise fer use in the control of the confused flour beetle in flour. Even at the rate of one gram of insecticide to forty grams of wheat flour, which is equivalent to 75 pounds to 3000 pounds of wheat flour there was no evidence of any notable toxicity to this insect. Although the insects were maintained for only a week at the above concentration the materials should have shown some effect in this period of time. In the test where one-tenth of a gram of insecticide was used with twenty grams of flour fer a period of one month there was very little development of larvae. Although the materials used have not been recommended for use in flour it seemed logical to test the materials against the confused flour beetle because of the damage it can cause wherever flour is stored. According to Hinton (l9h2) the confused flour beetle, Tribolium confusum Duv. and the rust-red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum Herbst, are the most abundant and destructive insects infesting flour and other stored products. Therefore, for this reason.alone it seemed worth-while to observe the effects, if any, upon this insect. 16 TABLE I RESULTS OF TESTS commune THE EFFECTIVENESS or PROTFETANT DUSI'S ammsr Tribolium confusum AT A CONCENTRATION OF 0.05 GRAM or INSECTICIDES-TO ho GRANTS or WHOLE WHEAT FLOUR (EQUIVALENT 1'0 75 LBS. PER 60,000 summerE Percent Insecticide Alive Dead Mortality Pyrenone . A8 2 h be 2 h 118 2 b h? 3 6 Average In .75 2 .25 h.5 Grain Protectant h8 2 h (0.07% Allethrin) so 0 o h6 h 8 118 2 h Average h8 2 h Grain Protectant 19 l 2 (0.1m; Allethrin) so 0 o . so 0 0 50 0 0 Agergge h9.75 .25 ___g%g:_2 ‘ __ Check 50 O 0 1:9 1 2 50 0 o 50 0 0 .Average h9.75 .25 2 * Results were noted after exposure of two weeks. TABLE II RESULTS OF TESTS COMPARING EFFECTIVENESS 0F PROTECTANT DUSI‘S AGAINST Tribolium confusum AT A CONCENTRATION 01i 0 .05 GRAN 0F INSECTICIUE T0 30 Camus 0F WHOLE WHEAT FLOUR (mumnm To 75 LBS PER 1.5000 POUNDS or WHOLE warm) “—FPercent __Insecticide Alive Dead Mortality Pyrenone 50 0 0 M3 2 h 116 h 8 ha 2 h Average ’48 2 )4 Grain Protectant 50 0 0 (0.07% Allethrin) h? 3 6 . M; 6 12 4:7 3 6 Average h? 3 6 Grain Protectant 145 5 10 (0.11m Allethrin) to lo 20 h2 8 16 I43 7 1h Average 142 . 7 .5 ' 15 Check ha 2 14 SO 0 o 50 o o 148 ' 2 h Average ’49 ‘ l 2 * Results were noted after exposure for one month. TABLE III RESULTS OF TESTS COMPARING THE EF‘FESTIVENESS 0F PROTECTANT DUSTS .AGAINST Tribolium éonfusum.AT A CONCENTRATION OF 0.1 GRAMS 0F INSECTICIDE T0 50 GRAMS 0F WHOLE WHEAT FLOUR (EQUIVALENT T0 75 LBS.PER 30000 POUNDS 0F WHOLE WHEAT)! Percent Insecticide Alive Dead Mortality Pyrenone h6 h 8 19 1 2 h9 l 2 h8 2 h Average h8 _ 2 h Grain Protectant h8 2 h (0.07% Allethrin) 50 0 0 b9 1 2 50 0 0 Average h9.2 0.75 1.5 Grain Protectant A6 h 8 (0.114% Allethrin b9 1 2 50 0 0 h9 l 2 Average . h8.5 1.7 3 Check 50 0 0 50 0 0 h9 1 2 50 0 0 Average h9.7 0.25 0.5 {~Resu1ts'were noted after exposure for one month. 19 TABLE IV RESULTS OF TESTS ccmmnmc EFFECTIVENESS 0F PROTECTANT DUSTS AGAINST Talbolium confusum.AT.A CONCENTRATION OF 0.1 GRAN 0F INSECTICIDES. T 0" '20 GRAMS 0F WHOLE WHEAT FLOUR (EQUIVALENT T0 75 LBS. PER 15,000 POUNDS)* Percent Insecticide Alive Dead Mortality Pyrenone Ah 6 12 ' A6 A 8 145 S 10 1:6 ‘ h 8 Average h5.2 h.7 9.5 Grain Protectant A7 3 6 (0.07% Allethrin) to h 8 ha 2 h h? 3 6 Average A7 3 6 __. Grain Protectant A9 1 2 (0.11.1 Allethrin) . 1.2 8 16 - 146 h 8 us 5 10 Average Q5.5 h.5 9 Check h? 3 6 A7 3 6 1:8 2 h h9 1 2 .Average_ h7.7 2.2 h.5 i Results were noted after exposure for one month. 20 TABLE V RESULTS OF TESTS C(NPARING THE EFFECTIVENESS 0F PROTEOTANT DUSTS AGAINST Tribolium ggnfusum.AT A CONCENTRATION 0F 1 GRAM T0 10 GRAMS 0F WHOLE WHEAT FLOUR (EQUIVALENT T0 75 LBS.PEE 3000 POUNDS 0F WHOLE WHEAT)s . TErcent Insecticide Alive Dead Mortaligy Pyrenone A9 118 1L9 _ 1:9 Average h8.7 F‘ FJFJADPJ naanrh) o N N 0 U1 Grain Protectant N8 (0.07% Allethrin) 1:9 1:9 1:9 Ammge Th&7 o N N in Grain Protectant ‘ 147 (0.114% Allethrin) . A9 NNNQ U1 Average ' ’48 .5 Check 50 SO 50 Average 4450 a Results were noted after exposure for one week. 2" \O o-oooo H HHHw H HHHN O 0000 u 21 Tribolium confusum is also one of the insects most commonly used in the laboratory for experimental purposes. This insect may be very resistant to certain types of insecticides and not to others and it seems debatable whether it is wise to use it in experiments where recommendations for control are involved. I In these experiments it is possible that the flour itself may have absorbed the insecticide in such a way that its effect on the insect would be negligible. According to Linsley (19h3) and Michelbacher the eggs which are laid directly in the flour are sticky and food particles adhere to them. It seems logical to assume that small amounts of the insecticide would adhere to the eggs and have an effect upon development. However, since numerous larvae developed in most of the tests it appeared that the insecticide had no effect upon the egg, larval, or adult stages. As mentioned before there was only one test over a thirtybday period that gave any control of the larvae. This was at a concentration of one tenth of a gram of insecticide to twenty grams of flour which is equiva- lent to 75 pounds of insecticide to 15,000 pounds of wheat flour. If the protectants were used at this rate, they would not be worth-while from a control or economical standpoint. . Discussion of’Results of Tests Against SitOphilus granarius and Sitgphilus ggygg_ As can be seen from the tables all the materials employed exhibited a higher degree of toxicity to the rice weevil and the granary weevil than to the confused flour beetle. This may seem to be a minor detail, ‘22 TABLE VI RESULTS 01" TESTS CCMPARING EFFEETIVENESS 0F PROTEDTANT IIJSI'S AGAINST Sitophilus granarius AT A CONCENTRATION OF 0.05 GRAN 0F INSEETICIDE TO DO GRATIS 0F WHEAT (EQUIVALENT T0 75 LBS. PER 1000 BUSHELS) AT A TE‘TPERATURE 0F 71.6o F3 Percent Abbotts Percen? Insecticide Alive Dead Mortality Control Pyrenone 20 30 60 1h 36 72 18 32 6h 0 50 100 Average 13 37 7h 69.h Grain Protectant 20 30 60 (0.07%.A11ethrin) 20 30 60 26 2h h8 23 27 St I Average 22.2 27.7 55.5 147.6 __ Grain Protectant 17 AB 86 (0.lh%.A11ethrin) 19 31 62 13 37 7h 2h 26 52 Average 18 .2 3b, .2 68 i 57 _ Check ’43 7 1h h3 7 1h AB 7 1h 11,1 9 18 _ Average 112 .5 7 .5 15 0 * Results were noted at the end of one month. TABLE VII 23 RESULTS 01" TESTS COMPARING THE EFFECTIVENESS 01" PROTEETANT DUSTS a AT A CONCENTRATION OF 0.05 GRAM AGAINST Sitthilus % INSECTICIOE T0 0 MS OF WHAT (EQUIVALENT T0 75 LBS. PER 1000 BUSHETS 0F WHEAT) AT A TmPERATURE 01" 71.6°P,s Percent Abbofls Percentag Insecticide Alive Dead Mortality Control Pyrenone 1 ’49 98 2 h8 96 3 h? 9h 16 3h 68 Averagg 5 .5 ML .5 89 85 .1 Grain Protectant 12 38 76 (0.07% Allethrin) 15 35 70 . 19 31 62 h to 92 Average 12 .5 37 .5 75 66 .2 __ Grain Protectant 9 171 82 (0.111% Allethrin 13 37 7b. 10 no 80 19 31 62 Average 12 .7 37 .2 7h .5 65 .6 Check 3h 16 32 39 ll 22 36 lb. 28 39 ll 22 Average 37 13 26 0 w it Results were noted after a period of one month. TABLE V111 28 RESJLTS 0F TESTS COMPARING THE EF’FEDTIVENESS 01:" PROTESTANT DUSTS AGAINST THE GRANARI WEEVIL Sitophilus anarius AT A CONCENTRATION OF 0.1 cam 0E INSECTICIDE T0 to (RAMS 0F WHEAT (EQUIVALENT T0 75 LBS. PER 500 BUSHELS) AT A TEMPERATURE CF 80.6%.:- Percent Abbotts Percent Insecticide Alive Dead Mortality Control Pyrenone 18 32 6h 3 1:7 9h 0 50 100 12 38 76 _ Average 8 .2 141 .7 83 .5 80 Grain Protectant 7 113 86 (0.07% Allethrin) 17 33 66 0 50 100 5 as 90 Average 7.2 142.7 85.14 80 Grain Protectant 13 37 71; (0.111% Allethrin) 22 28 56 17 33 66 20 30 60 __ Average 18 32 614 56 Check ha 8 16 to lo 20 bl 9 18 Al 9 18 Average 141 9 18 0 _ * Results were noted after a period of one month. 25 TABLE II RESULTS OF TESTS COMPRRINC THE EFFEETIVENTJSS 0E PROTECTANT DUSI'S AGAINST 511691111113 oma AT A CONCENTRATION OF 0.1 (RAM 01" INSECTICTDE T0110 GRAMS OJ.“ WHNAT (EQUIVALENT To 75 LBS. PER 500 BUSHELS) AT A TEVIPERATURE OF 80.6° F3 ?ercent Abbotts Percent Insecticide Alive Dead Mortality Control Pyrenone 19 30 60 12 38 76 10 ho 80 17 33 66 Average 11; .5 35 .2 7O .5 62 Grain Protectant S ’15 90 (0.07% Allethrin 2 1:8 96 2 ha 96 3 14? 9h Averagg 3 h? 9h 92 Grain Protectant 9 1:1 82 (0.1m: Allethrin 3 h? 9h 2 1L8 96 2 ha 96 Average 11 116 92 . 89 .5 __ Check 35 15 30 36 1h 28 NO 10 20 142 8 16 Average 38 .2 11 .7 2h 0 a Results were noted after a period of one month. TABLE I ‘26 RESUDTS 0E TESTS»COMPARING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PROTECTANT DUSTS AGAINST Sitophilus granarius AT A CONCENTRATION OF 0.05 GRAN 0F INSECTICIDE?O 110 GRAMS 0F WHEAT (EQUIVAIJTNT To 7 5 LBS. PER 1000 BUSHELS) AT A TEAPERATURE OF 80.6° E... Percent Abbotts Percent Insecticide Alive Dead Mortalitz Control Pyrenone 2O 3O 60 17 33 66 22 28 56 17 33 66 Average 19 31 62 53 . 8 Grain Protectant 19 31 62 (0.07% Allethrin 16 3h 68 23 27 5h 16 3’4 68 Average 18 .5 31 .5 63 55 Grain Protectant 19 31 62 (O .1141 Allethrin) 21; 26 52 19 31 62 19 1 31 62 __ Average 20.2 29 .7 S9 .5 7 2 Check 10 10 20 142 8 16 112 8 16 Al 9 18 Average M .2 8 .7 17 0 i Results were noted after a period of one month. 27 TABLE II RESULTS OF TESTS CCMPARING THE EFFECTIVENESS 01" PROTECTANT DUSTS AGAINST Sito hilus o a AT A CONCENTRATION OF 0.05 ORAN 0F INSECT—+1010 T—‘EO 0% OF WHEAT (EQUIVAIENT T0 75 LBS. PER 1000 BUSHELs) AT A TWERATURE 01" 80.6° F3 ‘LPErcent Abbotts Percent Insecticide Alive Dead Mortaligzp Control Pyrenone 22 28 56 18 32 6h 22 28 56 23 2? Sh Average 21.2 28.7 57.5 38.? Grain Protectant 27 23 h6 (0.07% Allethrin) 2h 15 30 21 29 58 19 31 62 Average 22.7 211.5 19 30 Grain Protectant 23 27 Sh (0.111% Anethrin) 18 32 6h 17 33 66 18 32 61: Average 19 31 62 Al." Check 35 15 30 31 19 38 3h 16 32 30 2O ho Average 32.5 17.5 35 0 * Results were noted after a period or one month. TABLE XII 28 RESULTS OF TESTS CCMPARING THE: EFFECTIVENESS OF PROTEETANT DUSTS ACAINST Sitophilus anarius AT A CONCENTRATION OF 0.1 GRAM OF INSECTICIEE TO 0 CRANE OF WHEAT (EQUIVALENT TO 75 LBS. PER 500 BUSHELS) AT A TEMPERATURE OF 68° F .r Percent Abbottfiercent Insecticide Alive Dead Mortality Control Pyrenone O 50 100 I O 50 100 O 50 100 O 50 100 Average 0 50 100 100 Grain Protectant 1 119 . 98 (0.07% Allethrin) 10 NO 80 5 1:5 86 O 50 100 Average Lt 146 91 89 .2 Grain Protectant l ’49 98 (0.111% Allethrin) 1 1:9 98 1 A9 98 1 119 98 Average 1 ’49 98 97 .3 Check 39 ll 22 28 22 his 112 8 16 ’40 10 20 Average 37 .2 12 .7 25 .5 O * Results were noted at the end of one month. 29 TABLE XIII RESULTS OF TESTS C(MPARINC THE EETEETIVENESS OF PROTECTANT DUSTS ALAINST Sitoghug ggamrius AT A CONCENTRATION OF 0.05 (RAMS OF INSECTICIOE T0710 GRAMS OF WHEAT (EQUIVALENT To 75 LBS. PER 1000 BUSHELS) AT A TEMPERATURE OF 6h; 9 F3 Percent Abbotts Percent Insecticide Alive Dead Mortalitl Control Pyrenone 2 ’48 96 O 50 100 1 1:9 98 1 N9 98 Average 1 ’49 98 97.8 Grain Protectant 5 ’45 90 (0.07% Allethrin) 1 A9 98 3 ’47 ' 9’4 1 1:9 98 Average 2.5 ’47 .5 95 i 9’4 Grain Protectant 3 A7 98 (0.114% Allethrin) 9 1:1 82 1’: 36 72 7 h3 86 Average 8.2 ’41.? 83.5 I 81 Check 39 ll 22 A9 1 2 ’18 2 ’4 333 7 18 _ Average ’3’4.7 5.2 15 O * Results were noted at the end of one month. RBULTS OF TESTS COMPARING THE EFFECTIVENESS 01“ PROTECTANT 111st anarius AT A CONCENTRATION OF 0.1 GRAN firme- AMINST Si toehilus OF INsECTICIDE TO 0 PER 500 BUSHELS) AT A TEMPERATURE OF 70° F3 TABLE XIV 01" WHEAT (EQUIVALENT “1‘0 75 LBS ;- 3O Percent - ABBotts Percent Insecticide Alive Dead Mortality Control Pyrenone 0 50 100 1 A9 98 O 50 100 1 A9 9L Average 0 .5 ’19 .5 98 .5 99 Grain Protectant ' 2 ’18 .96 (0.07% Allethrin) O 50 100 A A6 92 2 ’A8 96 Average 2 ’18 96 95 Grain Protectant O 50 100 (0 .1’1% Allethrin) O 50 100 0 A9 98 2 88 96 Average 0 .5 ’49 98 .5 99 Check . ’t6 ’1 8 1’2 8 16 ’46 ’1 8 ’46 ’4 8 Average AS 5 10 0 * Results were noted at the end of one month. TABLE XV 31 RESULTS 01" TESTS C(MPARING THE EFFEDTIVENESS 01" PROTEIJTANT DUSTS A GAINSI‘ SitoE hilus anarius AT A CONCENTRATION OF 0.05 GRAMS OF INSECTICIEE TO 0 GRAMS OF WHEAT (EQUIVALENT T0 75 LBS. PER 1000 BUSHELS) AT A TEMPERATURE OF 70° F,-: Percent Abbotts Percenf_ Insecticide Alive Dead Mortality' Control Pyrenone 5 85 90 2 ’78 96 10 ’70 80 1 A9 98 Average, h.5 85.5 91 89.3 Grain Protectant 27 23 A6 (0.07% Allethrin) 16 3h 68 10 80 80 7 ’13 86 Average 15 35 70 68.3 Grain Protectant 5 ’45 90 (0.114% Allethrin) 32 18 36 ‘ 8 AZ 3’: 10 38 76 AverAge _13.7 35 71.5 67 Check 50 O 0 AS 5 10 3’: l6 32 Al 9 ' 18 Averagg ’32 7 .5 15 O a Results were noted at the 'end of one month. 32 TABLE XVI RESULTS 0E TESTS CCMPARING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PROTECTANT DUSTS .AGAINST Sitthilus anarius AT.A CONCENTRATION OF 0.1 GEAM 0E INSECTICIDE TOEZTG—{m 0F WHEAT (EQUIVALENT To 75 LBS. PER 500 Busms) AT A TEMPERATURE OF 82 JP F3 Percent Ibbotts Percent— Insecticide Alive Dead Mortalgy Control Pyrenone O 50 100 O 50 100 3 h? 98 1 1:9 98 Average 1 119 98 ~ 97.7 I Grain Protectant 15 35 70 (0.07% Allethrin) 21 29 58 22 28 56 21 21 E2 AverAage 19.7 28.2 56.5 56.2 Grain Protectant 17 33 66 (0.111% Allethrin) 19 31 62 - . 16 3h 68 12 38 78 Average 16 3h 68.5 61M: Check it? 3 6 hi: 6 12 £13 7 111 146 h 8 Average 15 5 10 0 * Results were noted after a period of one month. TABLE XVII 33 RESULTS OF TESTS CCMPARING THE EFF EETIVENESS OF PRUI‘EXJTANT DUSTS AGAINST Sitoghilus granarius AT A CONCENTRATION 01“ 0.05 GRAN 0F INSECTICID‘fTo Lo GRBMS OF HEAT (EQUIVALENT To 75 LBS. PER 1000 BUSRELs) AT A TEMPERATURE OF 82.h° F.* Percent Abbotts Percent Insecticide Alive Dead Mortality Control Pyrenone 1 119 98 0 50 100 0 50 100 O 50 100 Average 0 .25 1&9 .7 99 .5 99 J4 Grain Protectant 12 38 76 (0 .on Anethrin) 11 39 78 10 110 80 12 38 76 Average 11.2 38.7 77 73.9 Grain Protectant 5 145 90 (o .11.; Allethrin) 7 143 86 8 112 8h 9 hl 82 Average 7 .2 112 .7 85 83 .2 Check bl 9 18 1:3 7 In 113 7 1h 115 S 10 Average ’43 7 111 O 45 Results were noted at the end of one month. 3h but in this case it is very important because the weevils are considered to be the primary insects in stored wheat, corn or other grains. If these insects can be prevented from making the initial attack on the grain it is very improbable that the secondary insects will be able to move in. 'The weevils have to work in.the wheat before any of the so- called bran beetles can do their damage, because they cannot puncture the kernel. The rice weevil is not as important in the northern states as the granary weevil but a limited comparison.was made between the two. If we observe the results in.Tables VI and VII we can readily see that at a temperature of 71.69 F. there was a higher mortality of rice weevil than of the granary weevil. However, there was also a higher percentage of dead rice weevils in the control. In both instances the Pyrenone Wheat Protectant gave the best con- trol at the rate of 0.05 grams of protectant to ho grams of wheat. In Tables I and II at the same concentration but at 80.6 F. there was very little difference in the effectiveness of the materials used 'With the exception of the 0.07%.A11ethrin Grain Protectant which was slightlyizggective against the granary weevil than against the rice weevil.’ At a temperature of 80.60 F. and a concentration of 0.1 gram of insecticide to 10 grams of wheat which is equivalent to 75 pounds of insecticide to 500 bushels the two.Allethrin Grain Protectants gave very good control against the rice weevil.‘ 35 These comparisons do not indicate that one material is much more effective than another. However, if we compare the concentrations used at a temperature of 80.60 F. it can'he readily seen that if the pro- tectants are used at the rate of 0.1 gram of insecticide to ho grams of wheat the mortality rate with each material will be markedly higher than at a concentration of 0.05 grams of insecticide to ho grams of wheat. (See Figure III) In comparing the protectants at three temperatures and in two formulations it is interesting to note that the Pyrenone Wheat Protectant gave excellent control in.all the tests against the granary weevil. At 6&0 F. all the materials used gave similar results although the mortality rates given by the protectants containing allethrin were not quite as high as those given by Pyrenone. The temperature factor in the tests conducted at 6h° F. and involv- ing both formulations may have affected the results. .According to Brown (1951) the processes of recovery are retarded at low temperatures and the mortality will be higher than at high temperatures as far as post- treatment temperature is concerned. He also stated that pyrethrins are more toxic at lower temperatures. This may not be the case in these tests but it would be difficult to prove that the lower temperature did not have an effect on the mortality rate. In the tests at three varying temperatures the Pyrenone Wheat Protectant gave the best control. (See Figures I and II) FIGURE 1 36 MORTALITY OF GRAIIARY WILEVIIS, TREATED WITH THREE PROTECTANTS, AT THREE ESPERATURES AT A CON... CENTRATION OF 0.05 GRAM OF DISECTICIDE TO 40 GRAJ'IS OF WHEAT. 73 K111 100 SP eo-r '70-‘- eo-- 50d- 40"- 60 % 70 Temperature (F) A Pyrenone B Allethrin C Allethrin 1) Check 0.0755; 0.1455 FIGURE 11 37 MORTALITY OF GRAIIARY WEE'VILS, TREATED WITH THREE PROTECTANTS, AT THREE TEMPERATURES AT A CON- CENTRATIOH OF 0.1 GRAM OF INSECTICIDE. TO ‘0 GRAMS OF WHEAT. % Kill 1000' 90T- 70-4 1- 60*- 501- 40-? 304- 10-- 60 gab A Pyrenone B Allcthrin c Allothrin D Chock 0.07% 0.14% 4 I 70 Temperature (F) qu- 38 FIGURE 111 COMPARISON OF MORTALITY OF GRARARY AID RICE WEEVILS TREATED WITH THREE PROTECTANTS IN TWO COHCENTRATIONS.AT A TEKPERATURE OF 80.6 F. 1K111 100~r 908- btfl 80-- / C ‘ ' 70‘r A 60‘? c A manon. (60“.) 50“ B A' Pyrenone (R.w.) B Allcthrin o. 07% Z; ‘0. .W. B' Allethrin 0. 07% R.V. ‘°__ C Allcthrin 0.14%; G. U. C' Allothrin 0.14% R.w. D: D Check G.W. D' Chock RAVI. 30-- - D' 20" 13 IL 104- 1 l 1 l 0.05 90/40 “.0 0.1 Elle/‘0 moo Concentration V. SUMMARY 39 V. SUMMARY Three different wheat protectant dusts were used against two insects of’primary importance to stored grain, namely the granary weevil, Sitgphilus granarius and the rice weevil, Sitophilus oryza. They were tested also against the confused flour beetle, Tribolium confusum, which is of secondary importance to stored grain. From the results obtained it appears that the confused flour beetle is very resistant to all three materials. Even at very high concentra- tions there was no evidence that the protectants used had any toxic effect on adult confused flour beetles. In one case however, at a con- centration of one tenth of a gram of insecticide to twenty grams flour (equivalent to 75 pounds of insecticide to 15,000 pounds of wheat flour) there was very little develOpment of larva. At this concentration it would not be economical to attempt to control this insect in flour. ‘Hith regard to the granary weevil and the rice weevil the results were much.more promising. In comparing the effects of the materials against each insect Table II indicates that the grain protectants contain- ing,Allethrin.at a concentration of 0.1 gram of insecticide to ho grams of wheat gave good control against the rice weevil. However, the other tests conducted with this insect did not give consistently high results. The Pyrenone'Wheat Protectant appeared to cause a higher mortality of the granary weevil. to The results in the Tables XII through XVII verify this assumption. In fact the Pyrenone material gave excellent results in all the tests although the two materials containing 0.07% Allethrin and o.lh% Allethrin reapectively gave good control. The best control was attained at temperatures of 6h° F. and 70° F. and at a concentration of 0.1 gram of insecticide to ho grams of wheat (equivalent to 75 pounds to 500 bushels). These grain protectants are useful to prevent infestation rather than to destroy an existing infestation. They have no fumigant effect, but kill by contact only. Their importance is in protecting grain over a long period of time. VI. LITERATURE CITED . LITERATURE CITED Beckley, J. A. 1918. Protection of grain against weevils, ' The East African Journal 11;: 71-6. BishOpp, F. C. 1950. Preliminary report on Allethrin. Agricultural Chemicals 5: 22-24, 76-77. Brown, A. W. A. 1951. Insect Control b Chemicals. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, 237-253. Cotton, R. T. 1950. Insect Pests of Stored Grain and Grain Products, Burgess Publishing 00., Minneapolis, Minnesota. 1, 51-2. Cotton, R. T. 19%. Protection of stored and dried processed foods and supplies from insect attack. Jour. Econ. Ent., 37: 380-3814. Cotton, R. T., and J. C. Frankenfeld. l9h7. Dust for use against stored grain insects. Down to Earth. 3: 9-11. Cotton, R. T. and W. Ashby. 1952. Insect pests of stored grains and seed. Insects the Yearbook of Agriculture. U. S. D. A. 629-639. Dove, W. E. 1952. Keep the weevils out. Better Farming Methods. Gnadinger, C. B. Pyrethrum Flowers. McLaughlin Gormley King 00., Minneapolis, Minnesota. Hanson, D. 1951. Stored grain insects. Successful Fanning. L19: I‘D-’41, 860 Hinton, H. E. 19142. Secondary characters of Tribolium. Nature, (London) 1’49 (3783) 500-501, 192. Kennedy, T. 1953. Is your grain clean. The Michigan Farmer, CCXIX: 38. La Forge, 1“. 3., Nathan Green and W. A. Gersdorff. 191:8. Mthesis and relative toxicity of cinerin I. Jour. Amer. Chem. Soc. 708 3707-11. Linseley, E. G. and A. E. Michelbacker. 19h3. Insects. Affecting stored products. Minnesota Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 3131. 13-11;. h2 McAlister, Jr., L. 0., Howard A. Jones and D. H. Moore. 19347. Piperonyl butoxide with pyrethrins in wettable powders to control certain agricultural and household insects. JourI of Econ. Ent., ’40: 906-909. Watts, N. W. , and F. D. Berlin. 1950. Piperonyl butoxide and pyrethrins to control rice weevils. Jour. Econ. Ent. 13: 371-373. White, G. D. 1952. Experiments in preventing the build-up of insects in newly harvested wheat. U. S. D. A. Ag. Research Administra- tion, Bureau of Ent. and Plant Quarantine. Wilbur, D. A. 1952. Effectiveness of dusts containing piperonyl butoxide and pyrethrins in protecting wheat against insects. JourL EconLEnt. ’45: 913-920. Winburn, T. F. Fumig-ants and protectants for controlling insects in stored grain. Pest Control 20: 9-142. 1951 Report on Pyrenone Wheat Protectant by U. S. Industrial Chemicals . O 7 . $50.! «Jh rio- ' p ...r . . . . ..... _ .. . . . . . . . .. p. . o. . ... o t... 3. . ... .. . . . . ., . .. ._ w r ... . . . . i k . I . {A $4 . .o , . . , ; ,. u .3” .. 3 . .. o .. . o . . .~ . If Vito-8..., ‘ T .. . A n n . , .. . u. l. . . r. \. . . .. . 3 . . . .. .19 a.) or! n . .1 o ...-. . . y . a: .. . .. . r .. . v . . u . .> . 3 t .v . o». . ..v . . n . ...,JA .fiv‘wvt‘ .. V .4. . . a . I . . . . v t t .. . . . . . t. . .7 t . . .1 .. .... § xv . .v 3 .. o u . a a . o» I . .. a a . . a _v . . u s I o . h . V . a a; .: .... . . l I . . . . . . .... . . . A 1% . . . . . . . . . . . . _ I . . 3 . .. . r . u . .. a u .. . . , , . . 1 . t 3 . .L r . a . . I I u 3 . 3 . r . . . u , n . h . . t . . a , . t‘ 1 . o . . . . . .3 . . o . L y » v u I . . . D 0 O . a ..t . \ a .0}. a . . . . .v . v u I. ‘4 . .l Ll'lllli .. . - . . o , . t 9. 1 ... . . . ...: . . . ... ,. I n y . V v n . 3 . u C . .. , r _. , .1 . . A . n .. . . . o. n . . . . t . . . , o _ . o . .v 0.333.331 . u..., . . . , .3333. 3.3 . 3 ‘ ROOM USE ONLY Jun 5 ‘57 v u . ). . .. a t: . . .J. . . .. , ... . . . . . J . o .. . ...... . . , ., .3\ ..u .. t ,.w a . . . . no . u . I. . o . .. x .. v .. .r . . . 3. . .u.. a \ to r: . _ t . x u . .. . . . . . ..H .. _ . .. . a . . ........do...r..,,:<«nsxifir . . A o . u . . 1.5.. 3 . . . e o . A . . . A . ... , p. , 3 ..x . In. . . .... o n b» up..{).’ 3’4';* s . . o. ,. ... . . . . . ... u -.. . _ .... . . . .y . . ,u.... F... u». . o .. we .. .. . .hwqdu ffltwlé‘q a.v\.fl. 4 \ I . I. c . . ..a.., . u , . . ..\ M . . . .. . . . . . . . ...... 1.1.1:; . 5.... .5. g . “V... l a I .5: ... I... .. 7 In... W... .mrfi. 36”“? ......u ... u . . t .wIn .... .. «flint. .-.. ... .W .. -.. a .1 .3 .. v. . .ww...\hM\fl..-..... ...\.. ., racism)... . ......“ u. ”T. NI. #1". I 4.r\y ~eol‘ . 1. t g . . t ”WIVITMNHIIEHEIEH 133331111333S