Insecticides are the foundations of most insect control strategies in agriculture, particularly in the industrialized countries. Their present status as an integral part of agricultural technology reflects many successes in the invention and development of particular compounds for use by the farming industries. Moreover, reliance on insecticides presupposes a stable chemical industry to manufacture, formulate, and market the toxic materials. This chapter outlines the major events in the invention of insecticides and the development of the insecticide industry.


Spider Mite Insect Control Apple Production Benzene Hexachloride Wooly Apple Aphid 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference Notes

  1. 1.
    L. O. Howard, A History of Applied Entomology (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Inst., 1930), p. 64 (hereafter cited as Howard, History). Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Walter S. Hough and A. Freeman Mason, Spraying, Dusting and Fumigating of Plants (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1951), pp. 3–9 (hereafter cited as Hough and Mason, Spraying). Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harold H. Shepard, The Chemistry and Action of Insecticides (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1951), pp. 15, 21 (hereafter cited as Shepard, Chemistry). Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Adelynne Hiller Whitaker, A History of Federal Pesticide Regulation in the United States to 1947, Ph.D. Thesis, Emory Univ., 1974, p. 101.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ibid., pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ibid., pp. 7–10.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ibid., pp. 81–102.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    36 Stat. 331, Sect. 7.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Williams Haynes, American Chemical Industry (New York: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1945), Vol. 3, p. 112 (hereafter cited as Haynes, Chemical).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ibid., p. 115.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    B. R. Coad, Recent Experimental Work on Poisoning Cotton-Boll Weevils, USDA Bull. No. 731, July 19, 1918, 15 pp.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Douglas Helms, The Cotton Boll Weevil in Texas and Louisiana, 1892–1907, M. A. Thesis, Fla. State Univ., 1970, 127 pp; Howard, History, pp. 124–132.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shepard, Chemistry, pp. 25–26.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haynes, Chemical, Vol. 3, pp. 209–215.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ibid., p. 110.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hough and Mason, Spraying, pp. 11–12. E. B. Blakeslee, Use of Toxic Gases as a Possible Means of Control of the Peach-Tree Borer, USDA Bull. No. 796, Oct. 21, 1919, 23 pp.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shepard, Chemistry, p. 272.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hough and Mason, Spraying, p. 12.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Haynes, Chemical, Vol. 4, p. 332; Vol. 5, pp. 315–316.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Haynes, Chemical, Vol. 5, pp. 316–317.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Andreas Buxtorf and M. Spindler, Fifteen Years of Geigy Pest Control (Basel: Buchdruckerei Karl Werner AG, 1954) (hereafter cited as Buxtorf and Spindler, Fifteen Years). This book was originally published several years earlier under the title 10 Jahre Geigy Schädlingsbekämpfung. Although it is a company-sponsored, enthusiastic history, it contains a thorough review of the Geigy company’s efforts to discover, test, manufacture, and market DDT insecticides.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Insecticides are frequently classified as stomach or contact materials. The former must be ingested by the insect before poisoning occurs. The latter can kill merely by contacting the outside of the animal. An obvious advantage of contact poisons is that killing may be affected before the insect dines on the protected woolen textiles, while a stomach poison could begin to protect only after damage is done to the cloth. Some materials such as DDT possess both stomach- and contact-killing properties.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Paul Herman Mueller, Histoire du DDT (Alençon: Maison Poulet-Malassis, 1948). I thank Christine Newman for translating the article.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    H. Mooser, Schweiz. Med. Wochenschr. 74 (1944): 947Google Scholar
  25. 24a.
    T. F. West and G. A. Campbell, DDT (London: Chapman and Hall, 1950), pp. 3–4 (hereafter cited as West and Campbell, DDT). Google Scholar
  26. 25.
    Victor Froelicher, The story of DDT, Soap and Chemical Specialties 20 (1944): 115, 117, 119, 145 (hereafter cited as Froelicher, DDT); quoted in West and Campbell, DDT, p. 6.Google Scholar
  27. 26.
    Buxtorf and Spindler, Fifteen Years. There is some ambiguity about what type of information was given to the Germans. Mueller implies that the information was delivered only to the U.S. and the United Kingdom, but Buxtorf and Spindler imply that the information was also given to the Germans. The latter authors display a picture of a patent from the Deutsches Reich along with patents from France, the U.S., Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  28. 27.
    Froelicher, DDT.Google Scholar
  29. 28.
    Henry A. Wallace to Chiefs of Bureaus and Officers, Aug. 23, 1940, Record Group 7 (Records of the Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine), National Archives (hereafter records from this group are cited as RG7NA).Google Scholar
  30. 29.
    Claude R. Wickard to Chiefs of Bureaus and Heads of Offices, Dec. 14, 1941, RG7NA.Google Scholar
  31. 30.
    Walter E. Dove, “Historical References to Man and Animal’s Contribution to War Effort,” n.d., RG7NA. Knipling assumed the directorship of the laboratory in June 1942 and guided it for the duration of the war years. He later wrote that the real moving influence in getting the laboratory started came from Col. William S. Stone and Gen. J. S. Simmons (U.S. Army), who sat on committees of the National Research Council. According to Knipling’s estimation, the Office of Scientific Research and Development gave the Orlando facility $815,000 between March 1942 and October 1945. In addition, the laboratory received from other agencies equipment, aircraft, personnel, and administrative supervision.Google Scholar
  32. 30a.
    The total cost of operating the research station was estimated to be approximately $1 million [Edward F. Knipling, “Insect Control Investigations of the Orlando, Florida, Laboratory during World War II,” in Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution, 1948 (Washington, D.C., 1948), pp. 331–348] (hereafter cited as Knipling, Insect Control).Google Scholar
  33. 31.
    Knipling, Insect Control.Google Scholar
  34. 32.
    Ruric C. Roark to Percy N. Annand, Aug. 27, 1942, RG7NA.Google Scholar
  35. 33.
    W. H. White to Percy N. Annand, Jan. 28, 1942, RG7NA.Google Scholar
  36. 35.
    Ruric C. Roark to Percy N. Annand, Jan. 2, 1942, RG7NA.Google Scholar
  37. 36.
    Avery S. Hoyt to Morse Salisbury, July 2, 1942, RG7NA.Google Scholar
  38. 37.
    Ruric C. Roark to Percy N. Annand, Jan. 6, 1945, RG7NA.Google Scholar
  39. 38.
    Knipling, Insect Control.Google Scholar
  40. 39.
    Walter E. Dove, “Contributions to War Effort: Summary of More Important Developments to January 24, 1945,” n.d., RG7NA.Google Scholar
  41. 40.
    Fred C. Bishopp to D. L. Van Dine, Sept. 2, 1943, RG7NA.Google Scholar
  42. 41.
    Annonymous, DDT not recommended for agricultural use, Oil Paint Drug Rep. 146 (Nov. 6, 1944): 4.Google Scholar
  43. 42.
    Agricultural Association discusses DDT, ibid., Vol. 146 (Oct. 30, 1944): 3.Google Scholar
  44. 43.
    Report of Special Committee on DDT (S.A. Rohwer, Chairman) J. Econ. Entomol. 38 (1945): 144.Google Scholar
  45. 44.
    S. W. Simmons, “The Use of DDT Insecticide in Human Medicine,” in DDT, Paul H. Mueller, ed. (Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag, 1959), pp. 264–265. Gordon Harrison discussed the frustration of the Sardinian Campaign because it failed to eradicate the malarial vector. Anopheles labranchiae, even though transmission of malaria was halted, in Mosquitoes, Malaria and Man (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1978), Chap. 24.Google Scholar
  46. 45.
    Production and Marketing Administration, The Pesticide Situation for 1952–53 (Washington, D.C.: USDA, 1953), p. 4 (hereafter cited as Production and Marketing Administration, Pesticide Situation). Google Scholar
  47. 46.
    Ibid., pp. 4–5, 16.Google Scholar
  48. 47.
    Samuel A. Graham, Forest Entomology, 3rd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1952), p. 10.Google Scholar
  49. 48.
    D. Price Jones, “Agricultural entomology,” in History of Entomology, Ray F. Smith, Thomas E. Mittler, and Carroll N. Smith, eds. (Palo Alto, California: Annual Reviews, Inc., 1973), pp. 326–327.Google Scholar
  50. 49.
    E. Dwight Sanderson and Leonard Marion Peairs, Insect Pests of Farm, Garden and Orchard, 2nd ed. (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1921), p. 144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 50.
    Roscoe E. Hill, Ephraim Hixson, and Martin H. Muma, Corn rootworm control test with benzene hexachloride, DDT, nitrogen fertilizers and crop rotation, J. Econ. Entomol. 41 (1948): 392–401.Google Scholar
  52. 51.
    Velmar W. Davis, Austin S. Fox, Robert P. Jenkins, and Paul A. Andrilenas, Economic Consequences of Restricting the Use of Organochlorine Insecticides on Cotton, Corn, Peanuts, and Tobacco, Agricultural Economic Report No. 178 (Washington, D.C.: USDA, 1970), p. 14.Google Scholar
  53. 52.
    John H. Berry, “Effect of restricting the use of pesticides on corn-soybean farms,” in Economic Research on Pesticides for Policy Decision Making, proceedings of a symposium, Apr. 27–29, 1970 (Washington, D.C.: USDA, 1971), p. 139.Google Scholar
  54. 53.
    C. L. Metcalf, W. P. Flint, and R. L. Metcalf, Destructive and Useful Insects (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1951), p. 354.Google Scholar
  55. 54.
    Gordon Harrison, Mosquitoes, Malaria and Man (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1978), Chap. 25.Google Scholar
  56. 55.
    Buxtorf and Spindler, Fifteen Years. Google Scholar
  57. 56.
    Agricultural Research Administration, USDA, “Producers of DDT and DDT Insecticides,” mimeo, 1945.Google Scholar
  58. 57.
    Production and Marketing Administration, The Pesticide Situation, p. 7.Google Scholar
  59. 58.
    Economic Research Service, DDT Used in Farm Production, Agricultural Economic Report No. 188 (Washington, D.C.: USDA, 1969).Google Scholar
  60. 59.
    Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, Census of Manufacturers: 1954, Vol. 2, Pt. 1 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1957). The figures quoted are for firms classified in Standard Industrial Code 2897.Google Scholar
  61. 60.
    Anonymous, Merck means over 1200 fine chemicals, Fortune, June, 1947, pp. 104–111+.Google Scholar
  62. 61.
    Anonymous, The chemical surge, Business Week, Mar. 18, 1950, pp. 117–118 (hereafter cited as Chemical surge, Business Week). Google Scholar
  63. 62.
    S. B. Self, Chemists goal, Barron’s Jan. 7, 1946, pp. 9 +.Google Scholar
  64. 63.
    Anonymous, The chemical century, Fortune, Mar. 1950, pp. 68–76 +.Google Scholar
  65. 64.
    J. V. Sherman, New Products assure growth in chemical industry, Barron’s, Feb. 19, 1945, pp. 9–10.Google Scholar
  66. 65.
    Chemical surge, Business Week. Google Scholar
  67. 66.
    For DuPont, see Annual Report 1946 and Annual Report 1948 (Wilmington, Del.: E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Co., 1947, 1949). For Monsanto, see Report of 44th Annual Meeting of Stockholders, Mar. 27, 1945Google Scholar
  68. 66a.
    Monsanto, Report of 45th Annual Meeting of Monsanto Stockholders, Mar. 26, 1946Google Scholar
  69. 66b.
    Monsanto, Prospectus, Apr. 8, 1946; all published by Monsanto Co., St. Louis, Mo. The entry of DuPont into DDT production was noted in Oil, Paint, and Drug Reporter, Jan. 24, 1944, p. 37. Monsanto’s activities with DDT were reported in ibid., Aug. 21, 1944, p. 40.Google Scholar
  70. 67.
    Alfred D. Chandler, Jr., The Visible Hand (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1977), pp. 374–375, 473–476.Google Scholar
  71. 68.
    Harold H. Shepard, The Chemistry and Action of Insecticides (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1951), p. 18. Shepard notes that in 1941,56% of the lead arsenate produced was used on apples.Google Scholar
  72. 69.
    R. M. Smock and A. M. Neubert, Apples and Apple Products (New York: Interscience Pub., Inc., 1950), pp. 1–3 (hereafter cited as Smock and Neubert, Apples). Google Scholar
  73. 70.
    J. C. Folger and S. M. Thomson, The Commercial Apple Industry of North America (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1921), p. 3 (hereafter cited as Folger and Thomson, Apple Industry). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 71.
    Joseph W. Ellison, The beginnings of the apple industry in Oregon, Agric. Hist. 11 (1937): 322–343.Google Scholar
  75. 72.
    Chester C. Hampson, “Trends in the apple industry,” Wash. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. No. 277, Feb. 1933, p. 9 (hereafter cited as Hampson, Trends).Google Scholar
  76. 73.
    Hoyt Lemmons and Rayburn D. Tousley, The Washington apple industry. I. Its geographic basis, Econ. Geog. 21 (1945): 161–182 (hereafter cited as Lemmons and Tousley, Apple industry, I).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 74.
    Willard V. Longley, Some economic aspects of the apple industry in Nova Scotia, Nova Scotia Dept. of Agric. Bull. No. 113, Nov. 1932, pp. 1, 7.Google Scholar
  78. 75.
    Hampson, Trends, p. 8.Google Scholar
  79. 76.
    Folger and Thomson, Apple Industry, pp. 10–15.Google Scholar
  80. 77.
    Rayburn D. Tousley and Hoyt Lemmons, The Washington apple indsutry. II. Economic considerations, Econ. Geog. 21 (1945): 252–268 (hereafter cited as Tousley and Lemon, Apple indsutry, II).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 78.
    C. H. Zuroske, Washington Apple Production Costs and Labor Requirements, Wash. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. No. 644, Oct., 1962, 16 pp. (hereafter cited as Zuroske, Washington apples).Google Scholar
  82. 79.
    Joseph Waldo Ellison, Cooperative movement in Oregon apple industry, 1910–1929, Agric. Hist. 13 (1939): 77–96Google Scholar
  83. 79a.
    Joseph W. Ellison, Marketing problems of northwestern apples, 1929–1940, Agric. Hist. 16 (1942): 103–115Google Scholar
  84. 79b.
    C. Brewster Coulter, The big Y country: Marketing problems and organization, 1900–1920, Agric. Hist. 46 (1972): 471–488.Google Scholar
  85. 80.
    Zuroske, Washington apples.Google Scholar
  86. 81.
    Tousley and Lemmons, Apple industry, II.Google Scholar
  87. 82.
    “Royal Commission Investigating the Apple Industry of the Province of Nova Scotia,” Report (Halifax: Minister of Public Works and Mines, King’s Printer, 1930), pp. 10–11.Google Scholar
  88. 83.
    G. P. Scoville, Fruit Farms Analysed: 36 Years of Farm Business Records in Niagra County, Cornell Univ. Agric. Econ. 769, Feb. 27, 1951, 38 pp.Google Scholar
  89. 84.
    Tousley and Lemmons, Apple industry, II; Lemmons and Tousley, Apple industry, I.Google Scholar
  90. 85.
    The average figure of $5948 comes from Scoville, Fruit Farms. Data on Niagra County growers come from G. P. Scoville, Apple Costs, 1943, Cornell Univ. Agric. Econ. 509, Feb., 1945, 20 pp.Google Scholar
  91. 86.
    Tousley and Lemmons, Apple industry, II.Google Scholar
  92. 87.
  93. 88.
    Van Travis and B. F. Stanton, Costs and Use of Labor in Harvesting Apples for Fresh Market, Hudson Valley, New York, 1959 and 1960, Cornell Univ. Agric. Econ. Res. 63, Apr. 1961, 13 pp.Google Scholar
  94. 89.
    Washington State Apple Commission, Apple Research Digest, No. 4, Nov., 1946, p. 3.Google Scholar
  95. 90.
    Washington State Apple Commission, Apple Research Digest, Nos. 1–84 (Nov., 1946-Dec, 1953), constantly advocated ways to reduce packing costs and bruising. Tousley and Lemmons strongly recommended a renewed effort to establish cooperative marketing for Washington apples, in Apple industry, II.Google Scholar
  96. 91.
    Edward H. Forbush and Charles H. Fernald, The Gypsy Moth (Boston: Wright and Potter Printing Co., State Printers, 1896), pp. 142–143, 473.Google Scholar
  97. 92.
    C. L. Metcalf and W. P. Flint, Destructive and Useful Insects, 2nd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1939), pp. 244–245 (hereafter cited as Metcalf and Flint, Destructive). In 1941, 55.6% of the lead arsenate used in the U.S. was on apples (Shepard, Chemistry, p. 18).Google Scholar
  98. 93.
    Metcalf and Flint, Destructive, pp. 599, 594.Google Scholar
  99. 94.
    Calculated from figures in W. M. Bristol, Washington Apple Production Costs for the 1944–45 Season, Wash. Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 474, June, 1946, 24 pagesGoogle Scholar
  100. 94a.
    M. T. Buchanan, Washington Apple Production Costs During the 1943–44 Season, Wash. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 446, July, 1944, 14 pagesGoogle Scholar
  101. 94b.
    M. T. Buchanan, A. W. Peterson, and G. A. Lee, “Washington Apple Production Costs, 1939–43,” Wash. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 429, May, 1943, 11 pp.Google Scholar
  102. 95.
    Tousley and Lemmons (Apple industry, H) analyze comparative cost changes between Washington and New York. See M. T. Buchanan, Washington, for Washington State figures; Scoville, Apple costs, for New York data.Google Scholar
  103. 96.
    Walter S. Hough first studied Colorado codling moth larvae resistant to lead arsenate in 1928 [Relative resistance to arsenical poisoning of two codling moth strains,J. Econ. Entomol 21 (1928): 325–329].Google Scholar
  104. 97.
    Lemmons and Tousley, Apple industry, I.Google Scholar
  105. 98.
    Howard Baker, “Spider mites, insects, and DDT,” in Insects: The Yearbook of Agriculture, 1952, p. 562 (hereafter cited as Baker, Spider mites).Google Scholar
  106. 99.
  107. 100.
    J. H. Newton and George M. List, Codling moth and mite control in 1948, J. Econ. Entomol 42 (1949): 346–348.Google Scholar
  108. 101.
    Calculated from Zuroske, Washington apples.Google Scholar
  109. 102.
    For an early review of the airblast machines, see O. C. French, Spraying equipment for pest control, Calif. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 666, May, 1942, pp. 34–38Google Scholar
  110. 102a.
    James G. Horsfall, Fungicides and their Action (Waltham, Mass.: Chronica Botanica Co. 1945), p. 78.Google Scholar
  111. 103.
    Calculated from Zuroske, Washington apples.Google Scholar
  112. 104.
    Arthur D. Borden, Control of codling moth on pears with a DDT spray, J. Econ. Entomol. 41 (1948): 118–119.Google Scholar
  113. 105.
    Zuroske, Washington apples.Google Scholar
  114. 106.
    Recommendations for Codling Moth, Orchard Mite, and Scale Control in Washington for 1942, State Coll. of Wash. Ext. Bull. 279, Feb., 1942, 12 pp.Google Scholar
  115. 107.
    Spray Programs for Insects and Diseases of Tree Fruits in Eastern Washington, State Coll. of Wash. Ext. Bull. 419, Feb., 1950, 29 pp (herefater referred to as Spray programs, Ext. Bull., 1950).Google Scholar
  116. 108.
    S. C. Hoyt and J. D. Gilpatrick, “Pest management on deciduous fruits: Multidisciplinary aspects,” in Integrated Pest Management, J. Lawrence Apple and Ray F. Smith, eds. (New York: Plenum Pub. Co., 1976), pp. 133–147.Google Scholar
  117. 109.
    Baker, Spider mites; E. J. Newcomer and F. P. Dean, Studies of orchard acaricides, J. Econ. Entomol. 41 (1948): 691–694.Google Scholar
  118. 110.
    E. J. Newcomer and F. P. Dean, Effects of xanthone, DDT, and other insecticides on the Pacific mite, J. Econ. Entomol. 39 (1946): 783–786.Google Scholar
  119. 111.
    Newcomer and Dean, Studies.Google Scholar
  120. 112.
    Spray programs, Ext. Bull., 1950.Google Scholar
  121. 113.
    Baker, Spider mites.Google Scholar
  122. 114.
    B. A. Croft, “Tree fruit pest management,” in Introduction to Insect Pest Management, Robert L. Metcalf and William H. Luckmann, eds. (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1975), p. 481.Google Scholar
  123. 115.
    B. F. Stanton, B. A. Dominick, Jr., and S. C. Fan, Variability in Apple Production Costs and Returns, Cornell Univ. Agric. Econ. Res. 17, May, 1959, 35 pp.Google Scholar
  124. 116.
    C. G. Garman, How to Increase Efficiency in Spraying Apples: Some results of a study made by K. L. Robinson of 56 fruit tree farms in New York State in 1946, Cornell Univ., Agric. Econ. 654, Jan. 1948, 11 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • John H. Perkins
    • 1
  1. 1.The Evergreen State CollegeOlympiaUSA

Personalised recommendations