UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE benj. ide wheeler, president BERKELEY THOMAS FORSYTH HUNT, Dean and Director H. E. VAN NORMAN. Vice-Director and Dean University Farm School CIRCULAR No. 141 October, 1915 STANDARD INSECTICIDES AND FUNGICIDES versus SECRET PREPARATIONS By GEO. P. GEAY No small part of the correspondence of the Insecticide and Fungi- cide Laborator}^ of the University of California is in answer to questions concerning the composition or value of various proprietary remedies which are being offered for sale for the control or eradication of insects or fungi. The following is an abstract from a letter which is more or less typical of many which have been received : "Under separate cover I am sending you a small sample of a preparation which is being used and offered for sale in this district as a secret cure for . . . The man who is introducing this medicine claims great and mysterious things for it and is charging an extremely exorbitant price for the same. In one orchard, for instance, he treated something like 300 trees and claimed that his medicine cost $285. I desire very much to have an analysis of this material. I have assumed that it is merely creosote or some similar substance with . . . coloring matter in it. The man claims, however, to have some other mysterious substance mixed with it. ' ' COMMON EEMEDIES IN DISGUISE MAY CONSTITUTE ALLEGED DISCOVERIES Very often the promoters of "secret" remedies either claim or imply certain mysterious properties for their compounds and "new discoveries" are frequently mentioned. The statement is commonly found that "years of study have been spent in the perfection" of such preparations. During the four years' operation of the California Insecticide Law, scores of proprietary insecticides and fungicides have been analyzed. In no case could any mysterious or costly sub- stance be found by the most searching examination, nor could any substance be detected which had not been made public as a remedy for insects or fungi. Based upon this experience, a study of the pub- lished writings on insecticides and fungicides, and of the formulas on file in the office, it is concluded that the most noteworthy "dis- coveries" and "secrets" in this class of goods consist not in the discovery of the insecticide or fungicide itself but the discovery and keeping secret of efficient and cheap coloring matters or powerful and pleasant smelling perfumes to mask the presence of some very com- mon remedy. The mysterious and wonderful properties ascribed to them are too often found on the outside of the package composed of printer's ink, rather than upon the inside of the package. Among illustrations of this kind may be mentioned the coloring of borax with iron rust, the sweetening of the odor of kerosene with oil of citronella, the coloring of carbon bisulphide with iodine and masking its tell-tale odor with oil of mirbane. "TREEVAX" ANOTHER GOOD ILLUSTRATION The most recent instance of this kind that has come to the attention of the laboratory is a red powder which is being offered for sale in the state under the name of "Treevax," probably intended to catch the fancy of the public under the guise of a supposed tree vaccine. It is said to be manufactured by the Treevax Chemical Company of Hicksville, Ohio. Special mention is made of this compound for the reason that it is believed that the method of application is such as to place in jeopardy the life of any tree to which it may be applied. A sample of "Treevax" has been analyzed by the laboratory and found to be of approximately the following composition : Potassium nitrate (saltpeter) 2 parts Sulphur 5 parts Iron compounds (principally oxides and carbonates) 1 part According to the best information available, such a mixture is practically valueless as an insecticide or fungicide when placed in a hole bored into the trunk of a tree, as directed in the circulars. The retail price of the most expensive ingredient (saltpeter) is only about twenty-five cents per pound, even at ' ' war prices. ' ' The price of ' ' Treevax " is $2 per pound. Very alluring and extravagant claims are made in the circulars accompany- ing the package. The following are some of the statements made: "Treevax kills San Jose Scale, Caterpillars, Lice, Borers and many insects that feed upon leaf, branch, roots, or fruit, without injury to either. Blight — the enemy of the pear tree is conquered by Treevax. ' ' The above claims appear to be based largely upon the experience of a certain lady of Hicksville, Ohio, who testifies that she had a very valuable pear tree on her lot which was badly affected with the blight and that after treatment with "Treevax," "The tree soon took on new life and a healthier tree cannot be found than my pear tree, and it was just loaded with fruit." According to the circular, a quantity of the pear juice was extracted from the pears grown by the owner of this valuable tree and subjected to bacterio- logical and chemical analysis and found free from any injurious impurities. Pictures are also shown of a certain Ohio orchard (consisting of sixteen trees) which had been treated with "Treevax" in comparison with an orchard which had not been so treated. An effort is made in the advertising matter accompanying the package to create the impression that the compound and method of treatment are based upon scientific principles. The statement is also made that "years have been spent in perfecting the compound." The directions for use and the testimonials are mosi unscientific, however. It is presumed that the best of the testi- monials would be selected for the advertising matter, but those given are not calculated to greatly impress the scientist. The lady's pear tree and the sixteen-tree orchard which were rescued from an untimely death do not constitute sufficient evidence to warrant the statement appearing on the circular that ' ' The Treevax treatment is based on the same scientific facts as are now commonly accepted by the medical profession and it is creating the same revolution in the treatment of diseases of plant life that has already taken place in the treatment of human ills." The promoters can not be very familiar with the habits of scale insects, for it is directed that "All dead limbs should be trimmed or cut off tree. This is very essential for a dead limb has no sap and if left on scale or other pests seek refuge on it, hence full benefit of the treatment is not realized." This direction is printed in large type. The removal of dead limbs might be a benefit to a tree affected with blight, but one does not need to be a trained entomologist to smile at the thought of scale or other pests seeking refuge on the dead limbs of a tree and there starving to death, of course, for the want of sap or other nourishment. The most insidious feature of the application of the material is believed to be the effect of the "plugging" of trees by inexperienced hands. The directions for use are to bore a hole in the tree, fill with the powder, drive in a hardwood plug and seal over with grafting wax. This question has been discussed in the publications of several experiment stations and in other literature. A summary of some of the experiments and conclusions has been made in the California Cultivator of April 22, 1915, and orchardists are advised of the futility and probable harmfulness of applying the known remedies in the manner under discussion. Present or future investigations may disclose an effective and safe way to control insects and fungi by means of remedies carried by the sap of trees. At present, however, there is no satisfactorily demonstrated method of this kind which may be used by unskilled hands, nor is it at all certain that a remedy can be thus applied, even by the expert, in sufficient strength to destroy insects or fungi without injury to the tree. It does seem certain, however, that a simple mixture of saltpeter, sulphur, and insoluble iron, selling at $2 a pound under the name of " Treevax" is a rank fraud and can have no legitimate place among the remedies in use by the fruitgrowers of California. The most serious menace of the compound is that some one may be misled by the confident assurance of the promoters and bore his trees full of holes, be further misled by the stimulating effect on the foliage of the soluble nitrate, and not realize his mistake until his trees begin to suffer from the effects of wood rot many months later. PEOPEIETAKY REMEDIES NOT ALL FRAUDULENT It is not intended by the above discussion to imply that all pro- prietary preparations are worthless, for many have been examined which are valuable and reliable remedies, but are on the market under names which do not convey any idea of their composition. Some of them are being sold at their true commercial value, the name being used only as an identification mark to designate certain characteristics or quality or worth of the particular preparation. There can be no objection made to the use of a trade name or brand or trade mark in connection with a standard material and, in fact, it is often quite desirable. Furthermore, if an actual discovery of some new insecticide or fungicide has been made, there can be no objection to the use of a coined name to designate the product. If the composition of the material is disclosed (but not necessarily the mode of manufacturing or compounding), the product may be properly recognized as a standard remedy, if tests show it to be worthy. DISADVANTAGES IN USING PROPRIETARY REMEDIES The fact that an insecticide or fungicide of secret composition is sold under a trade name does not necessarily condemn the preparation, but it does place it under suspicion, for the following reasons : 1. Under the existing insecticide laws, it is possible to concoct any form of mixture which is not absolutely injurious and impose it upon the consuming public. 2. No standard can be made for proprietary preparations. Their composition is entirely according to the desire of the manufacturer and may be changed at will. 3. Copyrighted names are often taken advantage of to obtain a higher price for a common remedy than could be obtained by the use of the real name of the material. 4. Certain mysterious and wonderful properties may be claimed or implied for a compound sold under a coined name, and obtain greater credence than if the composition were known. 5. The United States Department of Agriculture and the Agricult- ural Experiment Stations of the several states are spending thousands of dollars each year in making a study of the standard insecticides and fungicides. Recommendations are made for their use based upon careful experiments, as to what materials are best adapted to meet the different requirements, what materials may be safely mixed, and giving precautions to be observed in their use. To the consumer who is using the standard remedies, all this information is available. Such, however, is not the case for the one who is using a remedy sold under a trade name which conveys no idea of its composition. If the prospective user appeals to his County Commissioner of Horticulture for advice about the use of a proprietary remedy or goes to the University Experiment Station for help, the available informa- tion must of necessity be limited, for it would be an absolute impos- sibility to test out individually the thousands of materials offered for sale under trade names. Furthermore, if this could be done, there would be no assurance that the manufacturer would not change the composition of his product whenever he saw fit, and continue selling the new preparation under the old name. A secret remedy is com- pounded in accordance with no standard except the desire of the manufacturer. Consumers are therefore urged to greatly discount the marvelous properties and virtues so often ascribed to secret remedies, and to make use of the standard materials of more modest, but usually more truthful, claims.