cerned, if the beef is well cooked, the cooking will kill the germ, and there will be no danger whatever; but, after all, we do not any of us hanker after that sort of beef, and we always advise to let it go into the rendering tank; let it be made into fertilizer.

Professor BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to say a word in connection with tuberculosis. It may do something to allay excitement and fear from the danger of using milk, etc. I see the statement repeated, it crops out again and again, that tuberculosis or consumption in the human family is known only where milk is used as human food. I know of my own observation that this is not the fact. I lived for twelve years among a people, the Japanese, of whom consumption carries off as large a proportion as it does here, and they never use the milk of cows as human food.

Adjourned until 2 P.M.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

The chairman called the meeting to order at about 2.30, and said: Gentlemen, the subject to which your attention will be first called this afternoon is "Work of the State Dairy Bureau,” which will be presented by Mr. GEORGE M. WHITAKER, assistant executive officer, whom I have now the pleasure of introducing to you.

The lecture of Mr. Whitaker, being in substance the forthcoming annual report of the Dairy Bureau to the Legislature, is omitted from the proceedings of the public winter meeting. The annual report of the Dairy Bureau will be found as a special report to the Legislature, following the report of the Gypsy Moth Committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Win. Bancroft of Chesterfield I believe wished to make a motion at this time, and I will ask the secretary to read it.

Secretary SESSIONS. Mr. Bancroft moves a vote of thanks to Mr. Arthur W. Hoyle, an enthusiastic young florist of this town, for his voluntary ornamentation of the platform during this session; also to Mr. John D. Avery, our late associate, for his kindness and untiring efforts in contrib

uting to our pleasures and comfort; and our thanks will be incomplete unless they include the great courtesy extended us last night by our generous entertainers, Mr. and Mrs. Chas. N. Prouty, and the citizens generally of Spencer.

The motion was adopted unanimously by a rising vote. Secretary SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that our friend Mr. Avery inform Mr. Prouty of the action of the meeting.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will request Mr. Avery to inform the gentleman of the action of the meeting.

Mr. AVERY. Mr. Chairman, when I extended the invitation to the State Board to meet here, several members of the Board approached me and asked me where Spencer was, and how they were going to get there; and I began to think they feared they would meet with the experience that we read the man did in sacred history that went down to Jericho. I hope those men are happily disappointed. If we have done anything to make your stay here pleasant and agreeable, we feel as though we had only done our duty. Mr. Prouty said to me at noon down at the hotel that if the State Board would come here another year, as we had just had a taste of them, we would fill this hall to overflowing.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, the next paper to be presented to-day is upon the "Work of the Gypsy Moth Committee," and I now have the pleasure of introducing to you Mr. E. H. FORBUSH, the director of the field work.

WORK OF THE GYPSY MOTH COMMITTEE.

BY E. H. FORBUSH, DIRECTOR OF FIELD WORK.

For centuries crusades have been carried on in European countries against certain species of animals harmful to agriculture. In early times kings required annually, as a part of the taxes from each land holder, a stated number of heads of animals whose destruction was considered desirable.

In this country inducements in the shape of cash bounties have been offered by many States for the heads, hides or scalps of rapacious mammals, and for the heads of birds supposed to be injurious. I am not aware, however, that any attempt has ever before been made by a State government to eradicate an insect pest which had obtained a foothold by a twenty years' residence. Neither am I aware that such a task has ever before been delegated by a legislative body to a State department, and yet this plan seems the only one which promises success. It leaves those in charge of the work unhampered by personal or political considerations in their choice of men and means, and demonstrates the wisdom displayed by the Executive and Legislature of Massachusetts in placing such a work in the hands of the State Board of Agriculture. The Board has wisely chosen men of ability and foresight as a committee to have charge of the work, and the committee has selected as entomological adviser a man whose eminent scientific qualifications are equalled only by his practical experience and knowledge of affairs. It must be granted, then, that the undertaking was begun under the most favorable auspices. But I am here to speak of its progress, and the prospects of ultimate success.

Money enough has been appropriated by the Legislature the past two seasons to provide for an inspection of the

infested region, and to test some of the principal means of control and destruction which have been utilized in this country and in Europe for this and similar insects, and these have proved utterly inadequate. While this was being demonstrated, experiment, observation and invention were supplying us with new resources, and soon extermination by localities became not only a probability but an accomplished fact.

Twice the success of the undertaking was endangered by a lack of funds, and this has been the most discouraging feature of the case. It may be said that your committee should have asked for more means; but it must be remembered that the area infested was found to be at least eight times as great as was at first represented, and that in view of subsequent developments the committee could not possibly have estimated the expense accurately beforehand. As many means of destroying the moth have been tried, and a few have proved useful and may assist the farmer in dealing with other insects, I will briefly describe some of them.

SPRAYING WITH ARSENITES.

At the first meeting of the present management the opinion of the majority of the experts called in was that extermination could be secured only by spraying with arsenites. This method had also been recommended to the original commission, and I presume there never was so much Paris green used for such a purpose in two seasons, under one management, as has been used within the limits of this infested district. Altogether some three and one-half tons have been sprayed over those devoted towns. The experiments which had been made with Paris green and London purple resulted in a verdict in favor of Paris green, as it gave the more uniform results and was less injurious to the foliage. The effect of these poisons on the caterpillars of the gypsy moth was not uniform, but it may be stated as a rule that both destroyed the young caterpillars, but failed to kill those that were larger and more vigorous. Critics may say that the poisons were adulterated, that they were carelessly or improperly applied, and that for these reasons the older caterpillars were not killed; but our Paris green was several

times analyzed, and proved to be the equal of any in the market. While the spraying did not kill all the gypsy moth caterpillars, it did kill other insects on the same trees. Yet a grove of trees that was twice sprayed with Paris green of a strength of one pound to one hundred gallons of water was afterwards entirely stripped of its leaves by these caterpillars. Many died, yet after the trees had been stripped and the insects had pupated, one man gathered one thousand one hundred and sixty-five living pupa in an hour under these same trees. In another instance the same experiment was tried on a larger scale, with similar results.

Other insects were killed in great numbers by the spraying in this district, and it was noticeable that never had the trees been so free from insects as in the season of 1891, and never had the crop of fruit been so large and of such good quality. Many people who were at first prejudiced against the spraying afterwards testified to these facts. One of my neighbors who had lost many leaves from his trees through the spraying expected to lose the entire fruit crop; yet his crop of apples so far exceeded his expectations that he was unable to gather them all, and sold the remainder on the trees. He told me that the fruit was all large and fair, with the exception of that on one tree which was not infested and had not been sprayed, and that most of the apples from that tree were wormy and worthless. Certain trees appear to be more susceptible to arsenical poisoning than other trees of the same species, and certain species of trees are more susceptible than other species or varieties; therefore a spraying of a strength that will not injure one tree may injure another.

As at one time two hundred and forty men were at work spraying, there was undoubtedly some carelessness and occasionally a tree was injured; but I know of no instance where permanent injury has been observed as a result of the spraying.

Much has been said about the danger to animals from this spraying; but it is hardly possible that the infinitesimal quantity of arsenic which is distributed in this way on each tree or plot of grass could injure an animal of any size. I have, however, noticed the sudden demise of several flocks of hens, and this demise was quite frequently coincident with