Inside thisissue...

NewsletterVol. 40 No. 4 Oct 2009

2468

Update on Biopesticide Workshop

A “Teff” Crop

We’ve Got Our WorkCut Out for Us

The Use and Benefits of Reduced RiskPesticides Since the Passage of theFood Quality Protection Act— by Faye Aquino Viray and Robert Hollingworth, Michigan State University

The enactment of the FoodQuality Protection Act (FQPA)of 1996 resulted in major regulatory changes in the registration of pesticides withspecial focus on the older pesticides such as organophos-phates (OPs) and carbamateanticholinesterase insecticides,and the B2 carcinogenic fungi-cides (captan, chlorothalonil, iprodione, mancozeb andmaneb). Many of the uses ofthese pesticides were cancelledand/or restricted because ofpotential health hazards andworker safety concerns. At thesame time, the registration ofnewer Reduced-Risk (RR) pesti-cides was encouraged. TheIR-4 program has focused onsupporting the registration ofRRs and OP replacements byconducting 70-80% of fooduse studies on such com-pounds since the passage ofFQPA.

Despite the initiative to substi-tute RR pesticides for these

older, toxicologically suspectcompounds, there has been little public analysis of changesin pesticide use and residuelevels or of changes in riskresulting from FQPA. In thisstudy, several pesticide usedatabases such as theCalifornia Department ofPesticide Regulation (CA-DPR)and the CropLife Foundation(CLF) that are publicly-availablewere used to determine howpesticide usage has changed inthe United States since FQPA.The data presented below arefor usage in California fromCA-DPR but they reasonablyrepresent the less comprehen-sive data on national use trendsfrom the CLF database.

The most commonly used OPand carbamate insecticidesshowed an overall decline inuse of about 50% and 70%,respectively, from 1994 to2006 as shown in Figure 1(seepage 10). The B2 fungicidesshowed much less decline in

use (about 10-20%; Figure 2-see page 10). Conversely, theRR insecticide and fungicidegroups showed a steadyincrease in use over this timesuch that they are now central

continued on page 10

Citrus GreeningSequel

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ir4.rutgers.edu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Information Exchange

pg 2 10/09

The November 2008 IR-4Newsletter reported on“Progress on GMUS ActionItems”. The article focused onregulatory capacity buildingworkshops, where IR-4’sBiopesticide & OrganicSupport Manager, MichaelBraverman, led the biopesticideportion. The workshops wereheld in Kenya and Nigeria inAugust 2008, and were fundedfrom a grant from the UnitedStates Department ofAgriculture-ForeignAgricultural Service (USDA-FAS). The theme of thebiopesticide portion of theworkshops was explaining theUS regulation of biopesticidesincluding biochemicals, micro-bials and plant incorporatedprotectants.

Scientists from the AfricanAgricultural TechnologyFoundation (AATF) the UnitedStates Department ofAgriculture-AgricultureResearch Service (USDA-ARS)

and the International Instituteof Tropical Agriculture (IITA)have collaboratively demon-strated the ability of a naturalfungus found in Nigeria to sig-nificantly reduce concentrationsof aflatoxins in maize. Field tri-als of the biocontrol method onNigerian stations in Zaria,Ikenne, Mokwa and Ibadanresulted in a 50 to 99 percent reduction in aflatoxin con-tamination in maize. Under thebiocontrol method, nativestrains of Aspergillus flavus (A.flavus) that do not produceaflatoxins (called atoxigenicstrains) were applied in orderto alter the fungal communityon crops and throughout anarea so that maize became lesscontaminated with aflatoxins.

One major concern in Africahas been these naturally occur-ring aflatoxins. These arenatural carcinogens producedby the fungus A. flavus inmaize, groundnuts, cassava,and yam chips. Additionally,

these toxins also sup-press the immunesystem causing humansand animals to be moresusceptible to diseases.“Aflatoxins are silentkillers. They underminehuman health and stuntthe growth of childrenbut are often not visibleon maize when pur-chased,” said Dr Ranajit

Bandyopadhyay, IITAPathologist, during an April2009 AATF-USDA-IITA meet-ing, which examined theprospects of registering thisbiological method to drasticallyreduce aflatoxin contaminationin food crops.

Dr. Peter Cotty of USDA-ARS,who collaborated with IITA onthe project, said “natural popu-lations of A. flavus consist oftoxigenic strains that producecopious amounts of aflatoxinand atoxigenic strains that lackthis capacity.” He explainedthat competitive exclusionworks by applying selectednative atoxigenic strains to out-compete and excludeaflatoxin-producers during col-onization of grains, therebyreducing levels of aflatoxin con-tamination. “There are severalatoxigenic strains native toNigeria that are useful forreducing aflatoxins.”

Dr. Bandyopadhyay said, “atox-igenic strains can be directed atreducing aflatoxin contamina-tion in several cropsthroughout an area simultane-ously. Manipulation of thecomposition of fungal commu-nities (i.e., replacing highaflatoxin-producers with theircousins that do not produceaflatoxins) so that high aflatox-in-producers are less common,is a viable approach for reduc-

Update on Biopesticide Workshop -AflaSafe Approved in Nigeria

Roadside drying of corn in Abuja, Nigeria. Uncontrolled dryingconditions can exacerbate aflatoxin problems.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ir4.rutgers.edu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Did You Know

pg 3 10/09

The IR-4 Newsletter Vol 40 No.4 October 2009

The IR-4 Newsletter is published quarterly for distribution to cooperators in our partnerState/Federal/Industry research units, State and Federal officials, commodity groups, andprivate citizens. Material from the IR-4 Newsletter may be reproduced with credit to thepublication. Major funding for IR-4 is provided by USDA-NIFA and USDA-ARS in cooper-ation with the State Agricultural Experiment Stations. New Jersey Agricultural ExperimentStation Publication No.P-27200-09-04, supported by state, US Hatch Act, and other USDepartment of Agriculture funds.

Editor: Sherrilynn NovackIR-4 Public Relations and Communications Manager, 732.932.9575 x 4632,novack@aesop.rutgers.eduNewsletter Committee:Northeast Regional Field Coordinator, Edith Lurvey, 315.787.2308. North Central Regional Director, Bob Hollingworth, 517.432.7718. Western Regional Assistant Field Coordinator, Stephen Flanagan, 541.688.3155. Southern Regional Field Coordinator, Michelle Samuel-Foo, 352-392-1978 ext 406Southern Region Program Assistant/Quality Assurance Support Robin Adkins352.392.1978 x 424. USDA/ARS Field Representative, Emy Pfeil 301-504-8903 ext 234. Commodity Liaison Committee member, Dave Trinka of MBG Marketing, 269.434.6791. Alabama State Liaison Representative, Charles Gilliam, 334-844-3045 IR-4 HQ, 732.932.9575.Assistant Director, Van Starner x 4621Technical Coordinator /Entomology, Ken Samoil x 4614Assistant Coordinator, Interdisciplinary Working Group Kathryn Homa x4604

ing aflatoxin contaminationthroughout all crops grown in atarget area. In the long-term,this research will lead to theimprovement of the health ofvulnerable groups, especiallywomen and children. This isespecially important to thehealth of small farm familieswhere the grain they produce isconsumed directly.”

During the August 2008 work-shops, an aflatoxin reductionproduct (AF36) that IR-4helped register in the US wasused as a registration exampleand was compared to the IITAproduct under development inAfrica. These discussions aboutthe IITA strains helped familiar-ize the regulatory authoritieswith the research of Dr.Bandyopadhyay and laid thegroundwork for the provisionalregistration of AflaSafe. InAugust 2009, IITA receivedapproval for provisional regis-tration of AflaSafe, a nativeatoxic A. Flavus strain similarto AF36, to reduce aflatoxin inNigeria.

Bandyopadhyay said, “Severalpeople helped in gettingspeedy approval of registration

-- Ali Abdi (Ag Attaché fromthe US consulate in Lagos andUSDA-FAS staff) and UwemUdoma (from Nigeria’sNational Administration forFood, Drug Administration andControl, who attended thebiopesticide workshops andadvised on some of the docu-mentation for the dossier) wereprincipal among them. In thisrespect, IR-4, USDA-FAS andUSDA-ARS were all successful

in helping with the registrationof the aflatoxin biocontrolagent in Nigeria.”

The IR-4 Project’s uniqueexpertise is being sought byorganizations throughout theworld. IR-4’s leadership ininternational capacity buildingfosters a spirit of cooperationwith global entities by organiz-ing international reviews,participating on CODEX andOECD committees, conduct-ing joint field trials andengaging in other global activ-ities. Working with minor useprograms throughout theworld, IR-4 conducts coopera-tive studies and generatesdata required to obtain USand international registrationsfor new specialty crop usesand minor uses on majorcrops.

Dr. Peter Cotty inspecting AflaSafe research plots.

pg 4 10/09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ir4.rutgers.edu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Information Exchange

What annual grass crop is har-vested for its tiny white, reddishor dark brown grain, is classifiedas the world’s smallest grain,has become a popular item inUS health food markets, andyields from 700 kg/ha to 1400kg/ha in Montana?1, 2, 3 Teff(Erogrostis tef )! Haven’t heardof this crop? You’re not alone.However, in Ethiopia, teff is apopular crop. There, it is usedas a food staple and source offorage for livestock. To this day,teff serves as the major foodsource (over two-thirds ofhuman nutrition) in Ethiopiabecause it is adaptable to manyenvironmental conditions includ-ing droughts and floods1. Thiscrop is also utilized for foodand livestock feed in other partsof the world including India,Australia and South America.So why all the hype in the US?Besides being adaptable tomany environmental conditions,teff is becoming a major healthfood that is on many people’sgrocery lists. It serves as amajor source of nutrition, con-taining amino acids, iron,calcium, phosphorous, copperand thiamine. It is also popularas a wheat substitute, since itdoes not have gluten proteinthat damages the small intestineof gluten sensitive people.

Composed of a large crown,many tillers, fine stems, and ashallow fibrous root system, teffis morphologically and taxonom-ically similar to other cereal

grains including corn (sweet andfield), rice, sorghum, wheat, bar-ley, pearl and proso millet, oats,popcorn, rye, teosinte, and triti-cale. These cereal grains allbelong to the family Poaceae(alt. Gramineae). Teff is a mem-ber of the Poaceae family.Comparable to other cerealgrains such as sorghum, teffconsists of a panicle inflores-cence (a large, soft inflorescencesimilar to broom or witch grass).This inflorescence containsspikelets from which the flowersand later the seed (grain) areproduced. Teff is seeded similar-ly to wheat (grain drill) andcultural practices are similar toother small grains such aswheat, barley, rye and oats.1,2

So what does a crop fromEthiopia have to do with IR-4?As a result of the increasedinterest and production of teff,and the lack of herbicideslabeled for use on this crop inthe US, IR-4 received a ProjectClearance Request (PCR) fromRonda Hirnyck at the Universityof Idaho for the use of dicamba+ 2,4-D on teff. Because teffand the other cereal grains men-tioned above have similarmorphologies, cultural practices,taxonomical characteristics, andpest problems, IR-4 proposedextrapolating the tolerances forwheat, barley, oats, rye and mil-

let to tolerances for teff.Following an IR-4 ChemSACproposal, ChemSAC approvedthe extrapolation of dicamba+ 2,4-D from wheat, barley,oats, rye and millet to teff.However, teff will not be sup-ported by registrants until thecrop safety data has been gen-erated and found acceptable.A petition requesting the useof dicamba and 2,4-D muststill be submitted to the USEnvironmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) for review,human health risk assessmentsmust be conducted and therequired safety finding must bemade before tolerances can beestablished.4

Unfortunately, a great deal ofconfusion has recently arisenover this crop in the US. In aneffort to clear up some mis-leading information, this articlewill address some of the com-mon myths and facts.

MYTH #1: It is okay to use2,4-D or any other pesticideon teff.

FACT #1: There must be aspecific tolerance (maximumresidue limit) for a chemical ona specific crop in order for thepesticide to be used on thecrop. A tolerance for the pes-ticide on a crop must beestablished by the EPA beforeit is used in the field. Mis-understandings of thisinformation have lead to illegalapplications in the US. Thereare no herbicides (exceptglyphosate), fungicides orinsecticides labeled for use onteff. The ONLY legal herbicide

A “Teff” Crop— by Kathryn Homa and Bill Barney

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ir4.rutgers.edu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pg 510/09

that can be applied to teff as ofSeptember 2009 is glyphosatefor teff GRAIN. Currently, teffhas NOT been added to 2,4-Dor dicamba labels.

MYTH #2: Crop grouping currently allows for teff to beused with any pesticide thatcontains the words “cerealgrain,” “forage, fodder, andstraw of cereal grains,” “grassforage, fodder, and hay,” “millet” or “warm season grass”on the label.

FACT #2: As of September2009, teff is classified as a MIS-CELLANEOUS COMMODITYand is NOT included in CropGroup 15 (Cereal Grains), CropGroup 16 (Forage, Fodder, andStraw of Cereal Grains), or CropGroup 17 (Grass Forage,Fodder, and Hay). As mentionedbefore, the word “teff” has tobe on the pesticide label inorder for the pesticide to beused on the crop.5 Teff was pro-posed and validated for CropGroup 15 Cereal Grains at the2002 IR-4 / USDA InternationalCrop Grouping Symposium.Crop Group 15 is scheduled tobe included in a 2011 cropgroup submission to the EPA.However, it is important to notethat even if teff is approved tobe included in a revised cropgroup 15, use of any chemicalon teff will not be legal until theEPA is petitioned to establishtolerances for a chemical, andafter tolerances are establishedon the revised crop group 15.4

MYTH #3: The EPA is makingit difficult to grow teff in the US.

FACT #3: EPA is authorizedto establish maximum residuelimits or “tolerances” for pesti-cide chemical residues in foodunder section 408 of theFederal Food, Drug andCosmetic Act. EPA establishespesticide tolerances only afterdetermining that aggregateexposure to the pesticide issafe. The US Food and DrugAdministration and the USDAuse these tolerance limits toenforce compliance with thelaw. Unless tolerances on acommodity are established, acommodity is subject to seizureif pesticide residues are found.4

If growers are interested in useof a pesticide on teff, a ProjectClearance Request should besubmitted to IR-4. At that timeIR-4 can submit a proposal toEPA ChemSAC. Once IR-4 hasachieved approval fromChemSAC, IR-4 can then sub-mit a petition to EPA requestingtolerances for needed pesti-cides. However, crop safetydata may need to be producedto ensure the chemical (espe-cially herbicides) is safe to useon teff. To date, there are peti-tions requesting tolerances fora chemical on teff under reviewat the EPA.4

Since there are no herbicides(other than glyphosate), fungi-cides or insecticides labeled foruse on teff, there is a lot ofresearch to be conducted withthis crop. Tolerances are alsoneeded for glyphosate use onteff forage and hay. From all ofthe information floating around,it can be difficult to sort “facts”from “myths.” However, follow-

ing the facts mentioned abovecan ensure legal applications.Further “teff” questions can beanswered by Bill Barney (barney@aesop.Rutgers.edu), KathrynHoma (homa@aesop.Rutgers.edu), Janet Fults or RoseKachadoorian at 503.986.4635. If you would like to sub-mit a PCR for teff or any othercrop, please visit the IR-4 web-site at: ir4.rutgers.edu.

1 Stallknecht, G.F. Kenneth M. Gilbertson,and J.L. Eckhoff. "Teff: Food Crop forHumans and Animals ." Purdue UniversityThe New Crop Resource Online Program.10 September 1997. Purdue University. 7Oct 2008 www.hort.purdue.edu/ new-crop/proceedings1993/V2-231.html.

2 Stallknecht, Gilbert F.. "Teff." PurdueUniversity The New Crop Resource OnlineProgram. 24 February 1998. PurdueUniversity. 7 Oct 2008www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/default.html

3 Spencer, Robert. “Teff.” Government ofAlberta- Agriculture and RuralDevelopment. 06 June 2008. 14 Sept2009.www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/crop772.

4 Madden, Barbara. US Office of PesticidePrograms, EPA.

5. Fults, Janet and Rose Kachadoorian.“Pesticide Advisory: Pesticide Use on Teff.”Oregon Department of Agriculture. 17June 2009.

Calendar of EventsOctober 27-29, 2009PMC and National ResearchPlanning MeetingPrinceton, NJ

February 2-3, 2010Western Region TrainingUniversity of CaliforniaKearney Research & Extension Center Parlier, CA.

pg 610/09

Feature Article

As this issue goes to press, thepriority setting processes forboth the food and ornamentalprograms is nearing completion.While IR-4 researchers havetheir priorities set for the nextresearch year, “hot pest issues”are arising throughout thecountry. The following are justa few “hot pest issues.”

The California Farm BureauFederation reported August 12,2009 about a tiny new fly, nomore than two or three millime-ters long, that unexpectedlyappeared throughout much ofthe state this spring. This insectthreatens to menace a widerange of soft fruit crops. The newly named spotted wingdrosophila (SWD) has alreadydamaged strawberry, raspberry,blackberry, and cherry crops.And new information showsthat blueberry, plums peach andgrape crops are also impacted.The pest, originally called thecherry vinegar fly, has a historyin Japan of damaging a long listof soft fruit crops. No oneknows which crops could bevulnerable in California.

The SWD looks like other smallfruit flies, exceptthat the male hasa dark spot atthe tip of eachwing.

This pest is par-ticularlydestructivebecause thefemale is able topuncture the tis-

sue of soft fruits to lay her eggs

inside. These eggs quicklydevelop and the feeding larvaeform an unsightly mass insidethe fruit.

The SWD is hard to managebecause the pest lays a largenumber of eggs, completesmore than 10 generations peryear and can survive most cli-mates in California.

No one knows for certain whichcrops this fly could damagenext, but candidates include anysweet fruit with skin soft enoughfor the female to puncture withher ovipositor. In Japan, therewere reports in the 1930s ofdamage to a long list of cropsincluding grapes, peaches,plums, apples, blueberries andpersimmons. Interestingly, theSWD has been inhabitingHawaii for years with no reportsof crop damage.

"It has been confirmed in 21counties from Napa to SanDiego. It looks like it has spreadthroughout California. I thinkthere will be spots where it willbecome established well enoughto cause significant damage tocherries," said Kevin Hoffman,California Department of Foodand Agriculture entomologist.

On September 22, 2009,USDA-APHIS representativesreported at an OregonDepartment of Agriculture SWDmeeting in Salem, Oregon thatthe pest has been positivelyidentified in Oregon,Washington, California, Floridaand British Columbia. Althoughthese four states have confirmed

infestations, it is likely that thepest has spread into other agri-cultural areas. Currently theirare no quarantines for interstateor inter- national trade for theSWD, as the majority ofDrosophila species are consid-ered non-pests. For moreinformation about SWD contact:www.oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/docs/pdf/ippm_alert_d_suzukii.pdf

The University of MaineCooperative Extension hasreported a new disease in MaineBlueberry Fields calledValdensinia leaf spot. This dis-ease (caused by Valdensiniaheterodoxa) causes early leafdrop in lowbush blueberries andcan cause complete leaf drop inthe prune year fields so that noflower buds are produced byinfected stems. By June 2009,Valdensinia leaf spot causedcomplete defoliation in approxi-mately 40 blueberry fields inNova Scotia, and had beenfound in Quebec and NewBrunswick fields. By July 15,2009, this fungus had beenlocated in Maine wild blueberryfields and garden plantings.Valdensinia infects all clones oflowbush blueberry.

Since the fungus produceslarge, heavy spores that are notcarried by the wind, the funguscannot move across large bareareas or roads without humanhelp. This disease spreads tonew areas of a field and newfields by movement of dead,infected leaves on contaminatedfootwear, vehicles and equip-

A vehicle driven thrarea and then drivearea produced newalong tire tracks.

Valdensinia lealowbush bluebe

We’ve Got Our Wor

Feature Article

ment including blueberry boxes.Moving ONE dead leaf willspread this disease. To learnmore about this new disease,contact Seanna Annis atseana.annis@umit.maine.edu.

New Invasive Pest ThreatensCorn Growers in Pennsylvania.The PA IPM Program recentlyreported on a new invasive pestfound in Pennsylvania that couldmean serious losses to corngrowers in the state.

“Western bean cutworm (WBC)was first trapped in July 2009and has been found recently inseven counties,” says JohnTooker, assistant professor ofentomology at Penn State."WBC has historically been apest of corn and dry beans inGreat Plains states, but inrecent years it has been expand-ing its range eastward for someunknown reason," explainsTooker.

In response to the threat of thisinvasive pest, 30 pheromonetraps were placed across thestate in a joint effort of PennState Cooperative Extension andthe Pennsylvania Department ofAgriculture.

According to Tooker, WBC is animportant pest of field andsweet corn as well as dried beancrops. "A heavily infested cornfield might have several caterpil-lars per ear, reducing yields by30 to 40 percent. Therefore,this insect has the potential tobe a severe pest.” For more information on the

cutworm or trapping project,visit: ento.psu.edu/extension/field-crops/corn/western-bean-cutworm. You can also contactTooker at 814.865.1895 orjft11@psu.edu.

At the 2009 IR-4 SouthernRegion Meeting, JonathanCrane, Associate CenterDirector for the University ofFlorida, Institute of Food andAgricultural Sciences, discussedlaurel wilt disease, a diseasecaused by a fungus transmittedby the red bay ambrosia beetle.The disease could threaten theFlorida avocado industry if itmigrates to the southern tip ofFlorida. The industry is veryconcerned and the potentialeconomic impact could be asmuch as $27 million (IFASNews, 1/26/09). Laurel wilt alsoinfects native trees includingredbay and sassafras.

David Studstill, a BiologicalScientist, at the University ofFlorida, Institute of Food andAgricultural Sciences, discusseda plant disorder called Oedema,

rough diseaseden through healthyw diseased stems

f spots of erry leaves.

that is affecting greenhousetomatoes. This disorder, which iscaused by water build up in plantcells, occurs when there is a dis-ruption of the plant’s waterbalance. The enlarged cells pushagainst the leaf surface and formblistered areas. When the blistersburst they rupture the leaf sur-face and cause dead corkytissue. The symptoms appear pri-marily in foliage, but the stemsand petioles can also be affected.

David said, “the conditions thatproduce this disorder are warm,moist soil, a cool, humid atmos-phere, low light intensity, andpoor air circulation. Our weatherfrom 5/17-22/09 was overcastand cloudy every day and wereceived about 7 inches of rain-fall for the week. Also, we hadhigh humidity conditions duringthe entire week. The disorderappeared literally overnight. OnMay 21 there was no sign ofOedema. On May 22, the plantswere covered with it.” IR-4’swork with plant growth regula-tors could be helpful inmanaging environmental diseuses.

The issues discussed here arejust a small example of the pres-sures growers face and make itclear that at IR-4, we have ourwork cut out for us.

rk Cut Out For US!

Mature avocado tree – Miami-DadeCounty (slide 8, IR-4 Update JonathanH. Crane and W. Reed Olszack,UF-IFAS-TREC Homestead, FL)

Oedema disease. Picture taken byDavid Studstill.

pg 8 10/09

Information Exchange

The tremendous impact ofgreening disease on citrus hasbeen well documented inFlorida. The very future of theindustry is in doubt. Manage-ment strategies are limited, butthe one practice all growersimplement is management ofAsian citrus psyllid, the vectorof greening disease. One of thesignificant management costs isto kill every psyllid to keepgreening from moving from treeto tree. To eliminate psyllids andreduce costs, growers triedhighly mobile sprayers thatdeliver 1-10 gallons per acre(GPA), covering many acres perhour. Extension agents becameaware of the practice and thesuccess growers were having -satisfactory control at greatlyreduced costs. Next, researchersat the University of FloridaUF/IFAS confirmed that low vol-ume applications were extremelyeffective in killing psyllids.

Label DilemmaGrowers immediately werecaught in a difficult situation. Itwas clear that low volume sprayswould play a major role in con-trolling psyllids, but there werealmost no labeled products thatallowed for low volume applica-tions! The answer was to obtain24(c) labels from the FloridaDepartment of Agriculture(FDACS), and the IR-4 programagreed to help with the processto obtain these labels. IR-4’sinvolvement brought experienceand contacts (with EPA,

researchers, manufacturers,commodity associations) to theeffort. IR-4 was able to obtainthe protocol for collecting andprocessing residue data anddetermined from EPA that appli-cation volumes of 2 GPA wouldnot require a more detailed reg-istration process. IR-4 contractedthe application and collection ofsamples of targeted insecticides.They then did the laboratoryanalysis to determine residuelevels and prepared a report withtheir findings - all in a remark-ably short time.

In order for IR-4 to get involvedin this project, funding wasneeded for contractors, lab sup-plies, and other expenses. TheFlorida Citrus ProductionResearch Advisory Council(FCPRAC) moved quickly toapprove funding for the IR-4effort to cover costs for threeproducts (Mustang, Micronnite,and Delegate). Chemtura paidfor residue analyses for Micro-mite, and FMC, Chemtura, andDow put together first class reg-istration packages for theirproducts. In addition, Valent, themanufacturer of Danitol, submit-ed a 24(c) request for a lowvolume label based on their owndata, using the protocol andother background work from IR-4. The FDACS pesticideoffice was extremely cooperativeand pledged to move theprocess along as quickly as theycould. The approval processrequired UF/IFAS Pesticide

Information Office and Entomo-logists to perform timelyreviews. Meanwhile theGreening Task Force providedthe leadership necessary toquickly move the effort forward.

The DetailsUF/IFAS provided data for thelow volume labels that clearlydemonstrated the products wereeffective. All the products in this24(c) process were alreadylabeled for use on citrus; thenew labels simply allowed forapplication volumes as low as 2GPA. All trade associations(Florida Citrus Mutual, IndianRiver Citrus League, GulfGrowers, Peace River CGA andHighlands CGA) were stronglybehind the effort, and theFCIRC provided grower supportletters. In order for FDACS toissue a 24(c) label there neededto be "an enforceable statement"on the label. Since drift was aprime concern with low volumesprays, FDACS required lan-guage relative to the size ofspray particles. This is a newconcept to citrus growers as allprevious spray applications hadno label language relative toparticle size. FDACS requiredall manufacturers’ labels to limitapplication volume to 2 GPAand higher and a restriction onaverage particle size. Once thedetails were worked out FDACSissued 24(c) labels for Danitol,Mustang, Delegate, andMicromite.

Application EquipmentFlorida citrus growers have verylittle experience with low volumeapplicators, so the USDA-ARSresearch team in CollegeStation, Texas that was very

Citrus Greening: A Sequel — by John jackson, Florida Citrus Research Industry Council

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ir4.rutgers.edu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sourced with permission from the Florida Citrus Industry Research Council.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ir4.rutgers.edu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pg 9 10/09

Did You Knowknowledgeable about low vol-ume application equipment wascontacted. Two scientists fromCollege Station were in Floridaimmediately, conducting testswith various machines and mostof the labeled products, fieldtesting grower equipment andproviding printouts on the parti-cle size distribution. These datawill be extremely valuable asgrowers and manufacturersmake future modifications.

Proactive ApproachRealizing that drift is a majorconcern with low volume spray-ing, the Greening Task Forceasked the Florida AutomatedWeather Network (FAWN) staffto work on a pesticide applica-tion tool that would assistgrowers on determining when tosend sprayers to the field.FAWN is now developing a toolthat will use actual wind speeddata from a specific tower andNational Weather Service(NWS) forecasted wind speed todraw an actual and predictedtrace of wind speed. It is antici-pated this tool will save manyunnecessary trips to the grove.

ConclusionIt was a strong team effort toaccomplish what was needed toassist citrus growers in theirfight against citrus greening.With the opportunity to use lowvolume sprays, growers shouldbe able to reduce applicationcosts saving $100 per acre peryear. A reasonable guess as tothe number of acres under psyl-lid management would be400,000 to even 500,000making the annual savings forthe Florida citrus grower at least$40 million.

Spotlight on Ornamentals— by Cristi Palmer, IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Manager

What home would be complete without a plant or two sitting onthe kitchen windowsill or a larger potted plant softening an other-wise empty corner in the living room? Foliage plants, a $630million dollar crop in the US, enliven rooms, filter out indoor pollutants, and sequester carbon dioxide we and our pets exhale.

Since the Victorian era whenadvances in glass manufacturingproduced clearer windows,we’ve been bringing plantsinside to decorate our homesand businesses. Once a hobby ofthe rich, who gardened in terrar-iums and conservatories,keeping plants indoors is nowwithin reach of most Americans.

The variety of plants we can bring indoors is astounding. Thechoices range from A to Z – African violets to Zebra plants. Eachplant brings with it unique case instructions. Some foliage plantsrequire special light or nutrient conditions, others have specific disease or insect problems. Growing foliage plants indoors often-times presents unique challenges since a variety of plants with vastlydifferent environmental needs are being grown in the same location.

The IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Program has sponsored researchon some of the key pest and disease problems of foliage plants. Forexample, spathiphyllum and pothos are very susceptible to root rotscaused by Phytophthora fungi. Dr. Dave Norman at the Universityof Florida has looked at 14 different products to assess which willprovide the best control on these tropical plants. He has also exam-ined many different products that manage bacterial diseases,another common problem when growing tropical foliage plants.These efforts have expanded this year with Dr. Ann Chase research-ing what will best manage Erwinia bacteria on two different tropicalfoliage crops. Foliage plants are also susceptible to scale, mealy-bug, and thrips – all pest problems IR-4 has researched in recentyears, although not directly on foliage plants. Look for research summaries on these pests and diseases on the IR-4 website at: ir4.rutgers.edu/ Ornamental/ornamentalSummaryReports.cfm.

Zebra Plant. Photo by Nancy Chow

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ir4.rutgers.edu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pg 10 10/09

Information Exchange

in pest management programs for fruits andvegetables. It was estimated that approximate-ly 50% (33-60%) of the RR pesticidesregistered during this time were supported bydata developed by the IR-4 program.

Environmental Load The environmental load is the rate of applica-tion (lbs/acre) of chemicals to theenvironment. Figure 3 shows the environmen-tal loads (calculated as the ratio of the totallbs of pesticide applied and the total acrestreated based on the CA-DPR data) for theanticholinesterase and RR insecticides, and forthe B2 carcinogenic and RR fungicidegroups. The RR pesticides are generally usedat significantly lower application rates than theconventional compounds they are replacing,which has the effect of decreasing the amountof chemical applied to the environment.

Figure 4 shows the combined environmentalloads of the new and the old pesticidesgrouped into insecticides and fungicides. Thisdemonstrates the impact of the increasing useof RR compounds on the overall environmen-tal loads of the insecticide and fungicidegroups. The RR pesticides have substantiallydecreased the overall loads in these groupsfrom 1994 to 2006 by 45% for the insecti-cides and by 54% for the fungicides.

Figure 1. Acreage treated and pounds applied of the OPs, carbamates and reduced-risk insecticide groups.

Figure 2. Acreage treated and pounds applied of the B2 carcinogenicand the reduced-risk fungicide groups

Figure 3. Environmental load of the anticholinesterase and thereduced-risk insecticides group, and the B2 carcinogenic and thereduced-risk fungicide groups.

Use andBenefits of RRPesticides SinceFQPAcontinued from page 1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ir4.rutgers.edu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pg 11 10/09

Toxicity of Older and RR PesticidesThe main concern with the anti-cholinesterase insecticides is acutetoxicity. As shown in Fig 5, 73% ofthese compounds most widely usedin the USA fall into the highest toxic-ity class of EPA and none are in thesafest class. By contrast, 64% of theRR insecticides fall into the highestsafety class and the rest are in thenext safest group III. On the otherhand the major concern with B2

fungicides is potential carcinogenicity rather than acute toxicity. All of the RR fungicides included herewere classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic” and they introduced no appreciable acute risk. Whileformal risk assessment requires knowledge of exposure levels as well as toxicity, the radical change intoxicity properties of the RR compounds coupled with their lower use rates suggests that the replace-ment of the older groups by the RR compounds has significantly lowered or eliminated risks toconsumers, applicators and the environment.

Figure 5: Comparative acute toxicities of anticholinesterase and reduced risk insecticides inthis study.

Figure 4. Overall environmental load of the insecticide and the fungicide groups.

Contact Information forIR-4 Regional FieldCoordinators and ARSDirector

Northeast Region Ms. Edith Lurvey, 315.787.2308ell10@nysaes.cornell.edu

North Central RegionDr. Satoru Miyazaki, 517.336.4611 ncrIR-4@msu.edu

Southern RegionDr. Michelle Samuel-Foo,352-392-1978 ext 406mfoo@ufl.edu

Western RegionMs. Rebecca Sisco, 530.752.7634 rsisco@ucdavis.edu

USDA-ARS Dr. Paul H. Schwartz 301.504.8256paul.schwartz@ars.usda.gov

IR-4 Headquarters, Rutgers,The State University of New Jersey500 College Road EastSuite 201 WPrinceton, NJ 08540

NON-PROFITUS POSTAGE

PAID

NEW BRUNSWICK, NJPERMIT NO. 157

Address Service Requested

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey • University of California • Cornell University• University of Florida • Michigan State University

Major funding for IR-4 is provided by Special Research Grantsand Hatch Act Funds from USDA-NIFA , in cooperation with theState Agricultural Experiment Stations, and USDA-ARS.

Information Exchange

Federal Register: June 3, 2009TriflumizoleTrade Name: ProcureCrops: Leafy greens subgroup 4A(except spinach), Head and stem bras-sica subgroup 5A, Brassica leafygreens subgroup 5B, Cilantro leaves,Swiss chard, Turnip greens, Hop,Pineapple, Papaya, Black sapote,Canistel, Mamey sapote, Mango,Sapodilla, Star applePR#: 08863, 08868, 08993,

09298, 08869, 09143, 09319,09586, 08865, 08866, 08864,08867, 08883, 08967, 08830,09332

Federal Register: July 8, 2009CyazofamidTrade Name: RanmanCrops: Fruiting vegetable group 8,Okra, Grape (east of the RockyMountains)PR#: 08509, 08773

Pyrimethanil Trade Name: ScalaCrops: Citrus fruit group 10 (revisedtolerances to add preharvest use onlemon), Stone fruit group 12(revised tolerance to include cherryand raise tolerance level)

Federal Register: July 10, 2009BuprofezinTrade Name: ApplaudCrops: Coffee, PomegranatePR#: 08828, 08973

Federal Register: July 10, 2009IndoxacarbTrade Name: Avaunt

Crops: Garden beet, Bushberry sub-group 13-07BPR#: 08870, 07038

Federal Register: July 15, 2009FenamidoneTrade Name: ReasonCrops: Root vegetables except sugarbeet subgroup 1B (except radish),Cilantro leaves, Turnip greens, Okra,Grape (east of the Rocky Mountains)PR#: 07975, 08164

Federal Register: July 29, 2009FenpyroximateTrade Name: FujimiteCrops: Fruiting vegetables group 8,Okra, Melon subgroup 9A, CucumberPR#: 08617, 09021, 09027, 09284,09022, 10109

Federal Register: August 13, 2009SpinetoramTrade Names: Delegate, Endure, Exalt,RadiantCrops: Date, Pomegranate, Pineapple,Hop, Spice subgroup 19B, Tree nutgroup 14 and pistachio (revised nuttolerances to raise tolerance levels)

The trade names listed below are providedas a means to identify the chemical for whicha tolerance has been established. A tradename listed here may not be the name of theproduct on which the new food use(s) will beregistered. Only labeled products may beused on a food crop. Be sure to obtain cur-rent information about usage regulations andexamine a current product label beforeapplying any chemical.

IR-4 Successes Jun-Aug 2009

United States Department of Agriculture

National Institute of Food and Agriculture