3 ms·

Is it really true about the unpalatable chickens? Every mention of "caloptine" that I can find is from 1878, and derives from the annual Report of the United St

Is it really true about the unpalatable chickens? Every mention of "caloptine" that I can find is from 1878, and derives from the annual Report of the United States entomological commission, which expressed hope of making commercial locust products, mainly formic acid. That entomological comission is the cited Charles Riley. Nobody ever seems to mention the substance again.

skywhopper 5mo ago
Took a few clicks to track down source 10: https://history.nebraska.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/doc_publications_NH2008Grasshoppered.pdf https://history.nebraska.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/doc_..., which in turn cites this book: https://www.amazon.com/Locust-Devastating-Mysterious-Disappearance-American/dp/0465041671 https://www.amazon.com/Locust-Devastating-Mysterious-Disappe... On that page you can click “read sample” and then search for “chicken” and the reference on page 3 seems to be the main source of that claim. Where that is quoting, I’m not sure.
- card_zero 5mo ago
  Thanks! So the connection between the tainted taste (source on that still unknown) and this essential oil of locust is just Lockwood spitballing: > Although the insects had no defensive chemicals in their bodies, a diet saturated with locusts rendered the eggs and flesh of chickens inedible. Studies at the time found that the locusts were remarkably rich in a “reddish-brown oil of very pungent and penetrating odor,” and perhaps this accounts for the tainted meat. They were not "rich" in this oil: https://archive.org/details/firstanuualrepor01unit/page/442/mode/1up?q=pungent https://archive.org/details/firstanuualrepor01unit/page/442/... Oil, .004 percent. Still, a little oil can go a long way, so perhaps.
explosion-s 5mo ago
For most of my sources I didn't trace back to the original source but rather just cited the first source, if it ends up being inaccurate let me know and I'll revise it! The main focus of the article is breadth not depth =)

skywhopper 5mo ago

Took a few clicks to track down source 10: https://history.nebraska.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/doc_publications_NH2008Grasshoppered.pdf https://history.nebraska.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/doc_..., which in turn cites this book: https://www.amazon.com/Locust-Devastating-Mysterious-Disappearance-American/dp/0465041671 https://www.amazon.com/Locust-Devastating-Mysterious-Disappe... On that page you can click “read sample” and then search for “chicken” and the reference on page 3 seems to be the main source of that claim. Where that is quoting, I’m not sure.

card_zero 5mo ago
Thanks! So the connection between the tainted taste (source on that still unknown) and this essential oil of locust is just Lockwood spitballing: > Although the insects had no defensive chemicals in their bodies, a diet saturated with locusts rendered the eggs and flesh of chickens inedible. Studies at the time found that the locusts were remarkably rich in a “reddish-brown oil of very pungent and penetrating odor,” and perhaps this accounts for the tainted meat. They were not "rich" in this oil: https://archive.org/details/firstanuualrepor01unit/page/442/mode/1up?q=pungent https://archive.org/details/firstanuualrepor01unit/page/442/... Oil, .004 percent. Still, a little oil can go a long way, so perhaps.

explosion-s 5mo ago

For most of my sources I didn't trace back to the original source but rather just cited the first source, if it ends up being inaccurate let me know and I'll revise it! The main focus of the article is breadth not depth =)