Inside thisissue...

NewsletterVol. 42 No. 2 Spring 2011

248

1013

BMSB Research

AF36 Registered for Corn

Largest IR-4Submission

WSR Kick-off Meeting

Pest Management Solutions for Specialty Crops and Minor Uses

Highlights of NCR/SOR Training

It is with great sadness that werecognize the passing of agreat woman who was a mentor and inspiration tomany. Marion Miller Searsserved as the Western RegionIR-4 Program Director from2002 – 2011.

According to Western RegionalField Coordinator, Becky Sisco,“Marion was dedicated andcommitted to the program andthe people. She was an advo-cate for the Western Regionand supported us admirablybehind the scenes. She was aforce to be reckoned with:smart, savvy, fun and kind. Sheappreciated us all and what webrought to the program. Shewill be greatly missed.”

A memorial service was heldApril 11, 2011 on a beautifulafternoon on the UC Daviscampus. IR-4 ExecutiveDirector, Jerry Baron attendedthe service and described it asa “celebration of the life andaccomplishments of Marion.”

The service was attended byover 200 of Marion’s co-workers, students, friends andfamily.

Ron Tjeerdema, Marion’s successor, hosted the service,which offered a delicate balance between the sadnessof the great loss of Marion andthe celebration of the positiveimpact Marion had on so manypeople. Marion’s work with IR-4 was highlighted by UC-DavisDean, Neal Van Alfen andDepartment Chair, RonTjeerdema.

Many had fond memories toshare. Marion’s children,Thomas and Sophie spoke.Thomas emotionally expressedhis desire to make his Momproud of him by dedicating hiscareer to cancer research tohelp ensure that others wouldnever have to go through whatMarion battled. Sophie read aheartfelt poem on how herMom will always be there.

This is a great loss and Marionis truly missed.

In Memorium: Marion Miller Sears

Marion Miller SearsMarch 16, 1955 – February 25, 2011

A donation to the Marion MillerMemorial Student Scholarship Fundwas made on behalf of the IR-4Project. To learn more about thefund or to make a donation, visithttp://tinyurl.com/MarionMiller

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

Information Exchange

pg 2 Vol 42 No 1

Brown marmorated stink bug(Halyomorpha halys, BMSB)populations have been slowlybuilding over the last decade.This invasive pest was first dis-covered in Pennsylvania in1998 and has since beenfound in 33 other states in allfour IR-4 geographic regions(Figure 1). Until late in peachand apple production in 2009,BMSB had not been much of aproblem on crops, although thesuspicion was that it couldbecome a major issue.However, that has changed;2010 may become known asthe year of the stink bug.Populations were unusuallyabundant and wreaked havocon fruit, vegetable and orna-mental horticulture crops in themiddle Atlantic states. Many

fruit growers suffered heavylosses due to the damagecaused by BMSB feeding. Inornamental horticulture crops,BMSBs feed on stems and it isunknown at this point whetherthis damage will cause signifi-cant economic loss. The BMSBfeeds on more than 70 plantspecies; see the side bar listsfor some of the susceptiblefood and ornamental horticul-ture crops.

Similar to native stink bugs,BMSBs overwinter as adults andseek harborages in cracks andcrevices. These protected areascan be natural such as tree barkor human-made such as in andaround buildings. Due to thelarge numbers of BMSB invad-ing residential and commercial

buildings, many people nowseek assistance in preventingor controlling these insectsbecause of the foul odor theyemit. There are university factsheets that provide suggestionson what to do to preventBMSB from entering buildingsin early fall and how to handlethem if they do emerge duringthe winter and spring into liv-able spaces. Check out the listof resources at the end of thisarticle.

Research HighlightsInsect pheromones and trap-ping. Brown marmorated stinkbug is attracted to the aggre-gation pheromone of the Asianbrown-winged green bug,Plautia stali. This attractionhormone is being tested in thefield with traps primarily asmonitoring tools, but one typeis currently available commer-cially from AgBio.

Biological Control. So far, USnative beneficials have not significantly checked BMSBpopulations. USDA researchershave identified four parasiticwasps in the genus Trissolcusfrom China that lay their eggsin BMSB eggs. Over the nexttwo years, these wasps will beevaluated for their effectivenessin quarantine facilities inDelaware (Hoelmar andTatman).

Current Research and Distribution ofBrown Marmorated Stink Bug— by Cristi Palmer, IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Manager &

Edith Lurvey, IR-4 Northeast Regional Field Coordinator

continued on next pg

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

Information Exchange

pg 3 Vol 42 No 1

Chemical Management. Theefficacy research so far hasfocused on laboratory assays toassess BMSB mortality. Resultsfrom two different studies arepresented in Table 1.

Dr. Tracey Leskey, et al.(USDA-ARS, Kearneysville,WV) treated glass surfacesusing intermediate to high labelrates, allowed them to dry for

18 hours, placed 30 BMSBson treated surfaces and thenfollowed their fate for 7 days.They assessed whether BMSBswere alive, moribund, or deadinitially and then assessedlonger term effects. This infor-mation was converted into alethality index (0 to 100).continued on pg 5

Food Apple

ApricotCherryCitrus

CucumberEggplant

FigGrape

MulberryPeachPear

PecanPepper

PersimmonPlum

RaspberrySoybean

Sweet cornTomato

Ornamental Horticulture AppleBirch

Butterfly bushCatalpaCelosia

ChrysanthemumCrabapple

DahliaDogwood

FigHackberryHibiscus

HoneysuckleLilac

LindenMaple

Night-shadePittosporumPrincess tree

RedbudRose

ServiceberrySnapdragonSunflowerViburnumZelkovaZinnia

Cro

ps

Su

sc

ep

tib

le t

o B

MS

BC

rop

s S

us

ce

pti

ble

to

BM

SB

pg 4 Vol 42 No 1

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

Did You Know?

Two farmer based organiza-tions in Arizona and Texasworked together to achieve thesecond EPA Biopesticide regis-tration with AF36. Thisregistration of the aflatoxincontrol product AF36 for useon corn in Texas and Arizonarepresents a milestone in thedevelopment and commercial-ization of atoxigenic straintechnology for the mitigationof aflatoxin in a variety of agricultural crops.

Dr. Peter Cotty, USDA ARSpioneered this technology andhas been working on its devel-opment for more than fifteenyears. The Arizona cottonindustry leadership has beencommitted to this innovativetechnology. Their vision ofsharing the results of this effortwith other commodity groupssuch as the Texas Corn pro-ducers is becoming a reality.

Aflatoxin is a major problem inthe desert Southwest andoccasionally other parts of theUS as well. Aflatoxin is a natu-rally occurring carcinogenfound in cottonseed meal, corn, other grain crops and somespecialty crops as well.Aflatoxin is produced by theorganism Aspergillus flavuswhich is naturally occurring.Fortunately, there are somestrains of Aspergillus flavusthat do not produce the toxin.

Dr Cotty has been focusing onthe use of these atoxigenicstrains of Aspergillus flavus. Hehas developed a system whereonly very small quantities ofthe non-toxin producers areplaced on the soil surface at acritical period of crop develop-ment to out-compete the toxinproducers and the result is areduction in aflatoxin in theharvested crop. The ArizonaCotton Research andProtection Council (ACRPC) iscommitted to working with Dr.Cotty and other scientists totest and make new atoxigenicstrains available for commercialcrop application.

While most growers are glad tohave biological control options,the Arizona growers’ interestand commitment to biologicalcontrol runs much deeper. Thebiopesticide known as AF36 isnot simply used by growers.The ACRPC is the organizationrecognized by EPA as the reg-istrant, manufacturer anddistributer of AF36. With thesuccessful use of AF36 in cot-ton, growers using it in Texasbecame very interested inusing it for managing aflatoxinin corn.

Since the ACRPC is a smallgrower supported state agency,it lacked the considerable fund-ing necessary to pursue testingfor commercial registration of

the product. That’s where IR-4got involved. The longstandingcommitment of IR-4 and theassistance of IR-4 Biopesticideand Organic Support Manager,Dr. Michael Braverman madethe AF36 registration on cornpossible.

IR-4 was requested to assistand help secure anExperimental Use Permit oncorn in Arizona and Texas.Since EPA recognizes aflatoxinas a public health issue theyrequired efficacy data. Underan experimental use permit, DrCotty determined that AF36reduced aflatoxin in corn. Thethreshold for aflatoxin in cornis only 20 ppb. Growers thathave had many crops fail tomeet that standard have beenable to meet it with AF36.

IR-4 also helped format theinformation that Dr Cottydeveloped and submitted for afull Section 3 registration.Encouraged by the results, theTexas Corn GrowersAssociation expressed theirinterest to EPA in seeing thisregistration move forward.EPA’s Biopesticides andPollution Prevention Divisionworked very hard to completethe registration and was able tocomplete registration ahead ofschedule. The product contin-ues to be registered by the

Success! 2nd EPA BiopesticideRegistration AF36 Achieved on Corn

continued on pg 7

furon) and Trebon 280EC(etofenprox) will be testedalone and in combination withpiperonyl butoxide on peppers,peaches, apples, and sweetcorn grown in DE, MD or NJ.In addition to efficacy data,observations will be made onbeneficial organisms and cropphytotoxicity. In another experi-ment, several products thathave better profiles for con-serving natural enemies(buprofezin, flonicamid,pyriproxifen, spinetoram, andspirotetramat) will be screenedon peaches for efficacy andphytotoxicity. For ornamentalhorticulture crops, one experi-ment will be conducted in DEto screen A16901B, Aloft(clothianidin + bifenthrin),Flagship 25WG (thiamethox-am), Hachi-Hachi (tolfenpyrad),Orthene TTO (acephate),Scimitar (cypermethrin), Safari20SG (dinotefuran), Talstar(bifenthrin), and TriStar 30SG(acetamiprid).

Mention of a specific product does notconstitute a recommendation for use. Asalways, consult product labels prior toapplication and follow all label directions.

References & Resources:Bergh, 2011, What Will We Do AboutBrown Marmorated Stink Bug???www.caf.wvu.edu/kearneysville/BMSB/Bergh-VAfruitschool-rev02242011.pdf.Gill, Glick, and Kenney, 2011, The BrownMarmorated Stink Bug, University ofMaryland IPM Garden Center Fact Sheet,www.mdgga.org/BMSBinfoMar2011.pdf.

Hoelmar and Tatman, 2011, NaturalEnemies of the Brown Marmorated StinkBug: What are the Propsects forBiological Control, Entomology Society ofAmerica Eastern Branch Meeting,3/19/2011,www.northeastipm.org/work_bmsb_files/13-Natural-Enemies-of-the-Brown-Marmorated-Stink-Bug.pdf. Jacobs, 2011, Penn State Fact Sheet,Brown Marmorated Stink Bug,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ir4.rutgers.edu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pg 5Vol 42 No 1

Information Exchange

Dr. Thomas Kuhar and col-leagues (Virginia Tech,Blacksburg, VA) dipped paperand a single green bean pod ininsecticide solutions based onlabel rates delivered in 100 galper acre. The treatments wereallowed to dry for about half anhour before BMSB adults ornymphs were exposed to themin petri dishes. Percent mortalityand morbidity were assessed 72hours later.

The products and active ingre-dients which gave a lethalityindex of greater than 85 orexhibited 85% mortality or high-er are shaded in Table 1. Theseinclude acephate, acetamiprid,bifenthrin, chlorpyrifos, cyper-methrin, dimethoate,endosulfan, malathion, methida-tion, methomyl, permethrin, andcombinations of pyrethroids andneonicotinoids. However, twoneonicotinoids exhibited highermortality in Dr. Kuhar’s assess-ment than in Dr. Leskey’s.Although Dr. Kuhar’s methodol-ogy assessed impacts at 72hours instead of through 1week, BMSB were able to feedon a treated food source.Acetamiprid and dinotefuranmay be good candidates toinclude in field efficacy experi-ments. Product formulation maybe a factor in active ingredientefficacy.

IR-4 Research plans for 2011IR-4 will be sponsoring severalresearch projects in theNortheast and SouthernRegions. Venom 70WG (dinote-

ento.psu.edu/extension/factsheets/brown-marmorated-stink-bug.

Kuhar, et al, 2011, Insecticide Toxicityfrom Virgina and 2011 Research Plans,Entomology Society of America EasternBranch Meeting, 3/19/2011,www.northeastipm.org/work_bmsb_files/04-Insecticide-Toxicity-Data-from-Virginia-and-Research-Plans-in-2011.pdf.

Leskey, 2010, Brown Marmorated StinkBug: Survey and Monitoring Efforts,anr.ext.wvu.edu/r/download/74527.

Sacharow, 2010, Invasion of the StinkBug - Rutgers Researchers Race to HelpGrowers Deal with Possible Plague,Rutgers Today 12/23/2010.

Walgenbach, 2011, Brown MarmoratedStink Bug as a Pest of Tree Fruits in theSouthern Appalachians,www.ces.ncsu.edu/fletcher/programs/apple/BMSB%20Article%203-1-11.pdf,3/1/2011.

BMSBcontinued from pg 3

Save thedates...2011 Food Use WorkshopSept 13-14, 2011Raleigh, NC

Ornamental HorticultureWorkshopOctober 5-6, 2011 Sacramento, CA

2011 National ResearchPlanning MeetingOctober 25-26, 2011IR-4 HQ, Princeton, NJ

IR-4 National EducationConferenceFeb 29-Mar 1, 2012 San Antonio, TX

pg 6Vol 42 No 1

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

Information Exchange

Access to new and effectivepest management tools andtechnologies is a major priorityto Canadian horticultural pro-ducers, and Agriculture andAgri-Food Canada’s PestManagement Centre (PMC),hosted the 9th AnnualCanadian Minor Use PrioritySetting Workshop in Ottawa,March 21-24, 2011.

Over 200 participants attended, including growerorganization representatives,university and federalresearchers, provincial MinorUse Coordinators and extensionspecialists, registrants, PestManagement RegulatoryAgency (PMRA) representatives(Canada’s ‘EPA’), processingcompanies and other stakehold-ers. Delegates representing theIR-4 Project also participated,to seek opportunities for jointwork.

The Minor Use PesticideProgram is modeled after theIR-4 Project. The PMC welcomes participation by IR-4in the minor use priority settingprocess. Both organizationsfocus on grower-selected challenges, and continue toexplore additional ways to workcooperatively for the benefit ofspecialty crop growers andstakeholders on both sides ofthe border.

The purpose of the meeting

was to review thecurrent minor use prioritiesidentified by growers in each ofthe Provinces for all crops,including ornamentals, specialtycrops such as pulses as well asgreenhouse crops, and toestablish the top priority proj-ects for the Pest ManagementCentre’s (AAFC-PMC) 2012field trials.

A total of 44 projects wereselected, which includes priori-ties in each discipline(entomology, pathology andweed sciences) as well as 5regional upgrades and 2 priori-ties for organic production.Some of the priorities, whichreflect similar grower needs inthe U.S., could become collab-orative projects, and could leadto joint review submissions toboth EPA and Heath Canada’sPMRA. After completion of theIR-4 Food Use Workshop inSeptember, cooperative projectswill be identified, and jointreview possibilities will beexamined.

The Canadian Workshop alsoidentified the Spotted wingDrosophila (Drosophila suzukii)and the brown marmoratedstink bug (Halyomorpha halys)as two emerging pests that canhave a serious economic impacton growers on both sides of theborder. These invasive speciesthreaten Canadian and U.S.producers of cherries, apples,

Canadian Growers Select 2012Crop/Pest Priorities

blueberries, grapes, nectarines,pears, plums, pluots, peaches,raspberries, and strawberries.

The PMC is leading discussionswith PMRA and the CanadianFood Inspection Agency onmeasures to manage thesepests, including identifyingpotential products and tech-nologies. Canadian and U.S.officials will work closely togeth-er in the pursuit of pestmanagement options.

In its nine years of existence,the PMC’s working relationshipwith the IR-4 Project has grownstronger. PMC fully appreciatesthe expertise, experience andguidance of those working at IR-4, recognized as our signifi-cant partner in the minor useworld. Pests don’t respect inter-national boundaries, butthrough collaboration andshared resources growers onboth sides of the border arebenefiting from this partnership.

For a complete list of the priorities selected at the 2011Canadian Minor Use PrioritySetting Workshop please contact PMC’s International andNational Relations OfficerShirley Archambault atShirley.Archambault@agr.gc.ca. For more information on AAFC-PMC, please consult ourwebsite www.agr.gc.ca.

—by Randy Fletcher, Communication Officer Canada Pest Management Centre

growers for the growers. Scott Averhoff of the TexasCorn Producers Board stated,“As a Texas corn grower thatdestroyed 900 acres of corndue to aflatoxin levels in the1500 ppb range and havingendured years of participatingin scientific symposiums seek-ing field deployable solutionsfor our growers, I cannot beginto describe how gratified I amin being able to use AF36 inour production management.”

In 2010, corn from untreatedfarms were in the 400-500ppb range for aflatoxin but onfarms where AF36 was used,every load delivered was under20 ppb aflatoxin, which yielded an $0.85/bushel pricepremium over corn in the 20-100ppb range. This is anextreme example, but it isalways good to be incorporat-ing a practice that improvesfeed/food safety.

How is it that IR-4, whichworks on specialty crops, isinvolved? IR-4’s mission is toprovide the facilitation of regis-trations on specialty crops, but,IR-4 also works to facilitateregistrations for minor uses onmajor crops such as cotton andcorn and results can often benefit minor crop uses too.

Such is the case with pista-chios. Pistachio is the thirdcrop where IR-4 has becomeinvolved in helping registerAF36. Most pistachios in the

pg 7Vol 42 No 1

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

Did You Know?

The IR-4 Newsletter is published quarterly for distribution to cooperators in ourpartner State/Federal/Industry research units, State and Federal officials, commoditygroups, and private citizens. Material from the IR-4 Newsletter may be reproducedwith credit to the publication. Major funding for IR-4 is provided by USDA-NIFAand USDA-ARS in cooperation with the State Agricultural Experiment Stations. NewJersey Agricultural Experiment Station Publication No.P-27200-11-02, supportedby state, US Hatch Act, and other USDA funds.

Editor: Sherrilynn NovackIR-4 Public Relations and Communication 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. 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 4621Ornamental Horticulture Manager, Cristi Palmer x 4629Technical Coordinator/Entomology, Ken Samoil x 4614Assistant Coordinator, Interdisciplinary Working Group Kathryn Homa x 4604

IR-4 Newsletter Vol. 42 No. 2 Spring 2011

US are grown in Californiaand the export market toEurope is very important topistachio growers. Europeanstandards have rejected manyvaluable pistachio loads. Dr.Cotty has been cooperatingwith Dr. Themis Michailides ofthe University of California to

satisfy the efficacy datarequirements for EPA and theCalifornia Department ofPesticide Regulation (CDPR).The Section 3 registration forAF36 in pistachio has alreadybeen submitted to EPA andCDPR. In the near future, it ishoped pistachio producers willsoon have full use of AF36.

Chalk up anothersuccess for growersthrough collaborativeefforts.

AF36

Corn samples are preparedto determine the percentof AF36 and toxin produc-ing strains on the grain

continued from page 4

pg 8Vol 42 No 1

Feature Article

Bales of Effort YieldThe IR-4 Project, building onits strong, more than 10-yearrelationship with SyngentaCrop Protection and working inconcert with the Canadian PestManagement Centre (PMC),recently submitted its largestregistration package in Projecthistory. On March 28, 2011The IR-4 Project submitted 5administrative volumes for 5active ingredients, 14 finalreports, 21 end use productlabels, and 78 tolerancerequests to the US EPA.

IR-4 implemented thisresearch based on prioritiesset by growers and growergroups at Food UseWorkshops. Syngenta sup-ported the work with productsamples and technical supportand following US EPA regis-tration, will add the uses tothe final printed labeling whenapproved. As the projectwound down, IR-4 PlantPathology Program Manager,David Thompson stated, “I'venever submitted anything withthis much complexity”. Thissubmission is a culmination ofthe collaborative efforts that gointo attaining registrations ofpest management solutions forspecialty crop growers.

The main driver for this submission is the use of 3compounds (azoxystrobin, fludioxonil, difenoconazole) onpotato as a post-harvest treat-ment to control silver scurf andFusarium dry rot of potatoeswhile they are in storage.Other postharvest uses includecontrol of sour rot on citrus,

sour rot on tomatoes,Penicillium mold in citrus andstone fruit, Penicillium surfacemold of pineapple, and usesthat provide postharvest dis-ease control tools for othertropical fruit. The use onpineapple is considered aSection 18 Emergency Useand is necessary to keep fruitfrom rotting in shipment.Growers had limited chemi-

cals and needed additionalchemistries for resistance management control ofanthracnose on spinach andpeppers. This submission alsorequests expansion of presenttolerances to the newer cropgroups and subgroups, whichnow contain many additionalspecialty crops that have neverhad any pest control toolsavailable.

With these new uses, growerscan produce and market higherquality potatoes, citrus fruits,stone fruits, pineapple andtropical fruits. Pepper andspinach growers will be able to

manage anthracnose leaf spoton their crops. Growers willalso gain tools to assist inresistance management, wherecurrently a limited number oftools prevents good chemistryrotation. Specialty crop grow-ers will also gain tools wherethey previously had few ornone.

Collaboration is KeyBundling the studies into oneEPA submission packagebecame a catalyst for collabo-ration. IR-4 Executive Director,Jerry Baron discussed the needfor submission bundling. Hesaid, “Bundling as many

It took a team of people fromevery group within

IR-4 to put together thelargest submission in IR-4 his-

tory. Team leader DaveThompson pumps his fist intriumph. Members from the

HQ team include (seated l tor) Debbie Carpenter, Dave

Thompson, Jane Forder,Kathryn-Hacket Fields, (stand-

ing l to r) Johannes Corley,Bill Barney, Grace Lennon,

Jerry Baron and TammyBarkalow. Not pictured are

Dan Kunkel, Kathryn Homa,Karen Sims and Juliet

Thompson.

The paperworkwas immense.

It weighed100 poundsand when it

was stacked, itmeasured

11’ 2.5” tall.

noted, “This has been a greatexample of excellent coordina-tion with IR-4, SyngentaCanada and the PMC.” ThePMC worked with IR-4 andconducted trials in Canada onsome of the studies (potato,spinach, pepper, ginseng) toobtain these uses and plans tosubmit the package to thePMRA in Canada as soon aspossible after the US EPA sub-mission.

The ResultIn total, the submission pack-age paperwork weighed 100lbs and, when stacked end onend, measured 11 feet and2.5 inches tall. This collabora-tive effort of IR-4, CanadianPMC, Syngenta, and thou-sands of people-hours fills thevoid and brings new tools togrowers, which can help themprovide cleaner, more appeal-ing, fruits and vegetables toconsumers.

This is a great example ofworking together in leveragingresources with external part-ners (IR-4 and PMC),collaborating across NorthAmerica, delivering stakehold-er priorities, avoiding tradeirritants and establishing com-mon MRLs with Canada.Together, IR-4, Syngenta, andother industry collaboratorsare continually looking forways to enhance and increaseefficiency as we broaden prod-uct uses and address gaps incrop protection tools for spe-cialty crop growers.

pg 9Vol 42 No 1

Feature Article

s Bountiful Harvests

actions on a compound as pos-sible benefits the US EPA. Thisallows them efficiencies inreviewing chemicals less fre-quently and allows them toreview submission within theirtimeframe.” Working with companies and EPA in meetingtheir timelines is crucial andthis large submission broughtmany challenges in reachingdeadlines.

The analysis of propiconazoleand triazole metabolites instone fruit and citrus studiesbecame a bottleneck to com-pleting the submission. Further,the study with azoxystrobin,fludioxonil and difenoconazolewas going to be difficult andcould have delayed the sub-mission. With the deadlinelooming and complicated labanalysis becoming more chal-

lenging, IR-4soon realizedit could notcomplete thissubmissionon time with-out help.Syngentaoffered tohelp by com-pleting thelab analysis.IR-4 wrotethe Field andProcessingReports andtransferredthe study toSyngenta.Syngentaadded theanalytical

portion and together, they fin-ished the study.

Helping growers further, therewas a need for growers to beable to market their commodi-ties without trade barriers.Coordination with Canada viathe PMC and Syngenta Canadawas crucial in minimizing tradeissues. John Abbott, SyngentaTeam leader for fungicides,

The Syngenta Greensboro, NC based team Starting back row l to r : Eileen Kennedy,David Lowe, Eric Tedford, Janis McFarland; next row l to r: Aaron Weber, Jeff Perine,Tom Willard, Arpad Szarka, Mark Grunenwald; next row l to r: Walt Anderson,Sharon Waynick, Carol Hayworth, Tim Joseph, Michelle Hampton, Dirk Drost; nextrow l to r: Betty Brame, Stephanie Rutledge, Faye Wilhite, Bunnie Konat, Pat Dinnen,Teresa Cox; front row l to r: Sharlyne Pyles, Ruhi Rezaaiyan, and Barbara North. In all,at least 52 people from Syngenta participated in the submission.

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

Did You Know?

pg 10Vol 42 No 1

Spring 1. Winter 2. Cold pour-ing rain was no deterrent tothe group attending theWestern Region State LiaisonRepresentatives meeting at theUniversity of California, Davis.The meeting was an opportuni-ty for state representatives and commodity liaison repre-sentatives to discuss pestmanagement needs, tour localagriculture and ornamentalsites, get updates on IR-4, andlearn about invasive pest concerns.

Becky Sisco, Regional FieldCoordinator for the WesternRegion, began the meetingwith a tribute to faculty direc-tor Marion Miller, who lost hercourageous battle with pancreatic cancer in February.

Ron Tjeerdema was introducedas the new IR-4 faculty direc-tor. Dr. Tjeerdema chairs theEnvironmental ToxicologyDepartment at UC Davis andconducts pesticide environmen-tal fate research.

The remainder of the morningheld discussion of research priorities for 2012 and anupdate from headquarters onnew pesticide uses, crop grouprevisions and the proposedchange to commodity-basedprioritization for the Food UseWorkshop.

Then it was tour time. Firststop: Michael Parrella’s UCDavis greenhouses to see natural predators in action forbiocontrol in ornamentals.

Back on the bus, sandwicheswere served en route toGreene and Hemly’s pearorchard in the SacramentoRiver Delta. The group metwith Matt Hemly, orchard manager, Pat Weddle andRandy Hansen, pioneers ofbiologically intensive integratedpest management to talk abouthow the pear industry trans-formed from one of theheaviest users of pesticides toa low pesticide input crop.

Next, the bus headed east toAnn Chase’s horticulturalresearch facility in Mt. Aukum.Dashing between greenhousesto avoid the downpour, Chaseexplained how she conductstrials to determine the bestproduct for controlling a plantdisease and whether a grower’scrop can be salvaged. She gen-erously provided the groupwith publications including afungicide options wheel and ahandheld plant disease guide.

The tour concluded at CooperVineyards near Plymouth for atalk by grower Dick Cooperand an evening reception.

Wednesday’s program opened

with a presentation fromBarbara Madden on the EPApesticide regulatory processand proposed changes to IR-4’sfee waiver. She encouragedeveryone to send concerns toSteven Bradbury, EPA DirectorOffice of Pesticide Programs.

Field Program Assistant MikaTolson provided an update onthe Western Region Ornamen-tal Program, and the meetingwrapped up with a series ofinvasive pest presentations.

As a testament to the impor-tance of Spotted WingDrosophila, Doug Walsh ofWashington State Universityhas given 26 presentations inthe last 14 months. All westernstates have the pest, and it’smoving up the US easternseaboard. Dr. Walsh is part of a$5.8 million grant from theUSDA-Specialty CropsResearch Initiative to managethe fruit fly.

Mike Kawate of the Universityof Hawaii spoke about the sig-nificance of the Coffee BerryBorer as a new invasive pest. Aquarantine is in place for theentire west coast of the bigisland where Kona coffee isgrown. Chemical control hasnot proven effective against theBerry Borer. Researchers areinvestigating biological control,changes in cultural practices,

Western Region Spring Kick OffMeeting —by Mika Tolson, Western Region Assistant Coordinator

Controlling AdultMosquitoes with Pesticides Part III —Risk Assessment & Risk Mitigation

Information Exchange

pg 11Vol 42 No 1

and natural products to syn-chronize flower and fruitdevelopment.

The Brown Marmorated StinkBug (BMSB) is a major agricul-tural pest in the eastern USthat has been moving west. UCDavis entomologist FrankZalom told the group BMSBwas confirmed in Davis onMarch 1st. Zalom presented

that researchers have seen con-trol in lab tests with mixes ofpyrethroids and neonicotinoids,but more research is needed inthe field and on life-cycle,detection, and non-chemicalalternatives.

Becky Sisco thanked everyoneand asked for a host for the2012 meeting — bring yourparkas, Idaho here we come! continued on pg 12

Control of adult mosquitoeswith pesticides is an importantpublic health practice (seeParts I & II of this series), butit does entail some risks, bothto human health and to theenvironment. This articleexplores how direct toxicantrisks are assessed and howthey are mitigated or managedto ensure that they are accept-able. The benefits and risks ofmosquito repellents, barriersprays, and attractants for trapsare explored in the next articlein this series.

Killing adult mosquitoes withpesticides requires that thepesticides move into andthrough the environment.Inevitably, this means thatsome non-target organisms,potentially including humans,

are exposed to mosquitocideswhen they are applied. Therisks associated with this expo-sure are primarily evaluatedwith the standard EPA processfor assessing outdoor uses ofpesticides. Some distinct fea-tures of mosquito adulticiderisk assessment are discussedhere.

EPA’s formal pesticide riskassessments follow four basicsteps – hazard identification,dose-response assessment,exposure assessment, and riskcharacterization – that takeinto account the potential toxicconsequences (hazards) of thematerial, the amounts neededto cause these effects, and thelikelihood of being exposed tothese hazardous doses(www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/

— by Karl Malamud-Roam, IR-4 Public Health Pesticide Manager

overview_risk_assess.htm).Substantial safety factors arebuilt into the process wheredata on either toxicology orexposure is incomplete.

The active ingredients in mostmodern mosquito adulticidesare either pyrethins (which arebotanical extracts) andpyrethroids (synthetic pyrethrinanalogues), or organophos-phates (OPs), and all of thesehave gone through the four-step risk assessment process inthe last few years. Starting in2010, all pesticides will bereevaluated at least every 15years through the registrationreview process (www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reevaluation/pyrethroids-pyrethrins.html)and will include risk assessmentand risk mitigation measures toensure that identified risks arereasonable.

Pyrethrins, pyrethroids, andOPs all impact mosquitoesthrough disruption of the insectnervous system, and the pri-mary hazard or potential effect

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

WSR Kick-off continued from previous pg

Mosquito Adulticide Drift into a Florida Forest (Courtesy City of Gainesville, FL)

Information Exchange

pg 12Vol 42 No 1

of these materials on humans ornon-target organisms, if expo-sures are sufficiently high, isneuro-toxicity. What makesthese materials acceptable aspublic health pesticides is thehigh degree of selectivity towardinsects, especially when syner-gized (with PBO), and the

consequent high safety factorthat exists for mammals andmost other nontarget organismsrelative to the very small dosesthat are neurotoxic for mosqui-toes (www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0284-0033). Aparticular concern of assessorsis ensuring the safety of workersusing these materials.

Other potential hazards thathave been reviewed, includingchronic toxicity, cancer risk,developmental and reproductiveimpacts, etc., also demonstratethe need to integrate dose andexposure data to fully assesspotentially toxic hazards. Aswith neuro-toxicity, some ofthese materials demonstratepotential impacts at high dosesbut insignificant risks at real-world exposure frequencies andapplication rates (Peterson et al

2006). For example,resmethrin is classified as“Likely to be Carcinogenic toHumans” by EPA’s CancerAssessment Review Committee(CARC) based on the results ofvery high exposures in labstudies; however, EPA conclud-ed that “the resmethrin riskassessment estimates that anadult could be exposed toresmethrin when applied as anaerial ULV mosquito adulticidespray up to 365 times a yearfor 70 years before theAgency’s cancer risk level ofconcern is exceeded.”(Resmethrin RED, 2006, p32)In other words, the qualitativehazard can only be interpretedin a meaningful way when doseand exposure are included.

Risk assessments for mosquitoadulticides as well as otherpesticides include evaluation ofconstituents other than theactive ingredients, and a par-ticular concern with adulticidesis the potential impact of thesynergists. This is not a partic-ular concern with organophos-phates, but most types of ani-mals have mechanisms fordetoxifying pyrethrins andpyrethroids, and synergistssuch as piperonyl butoxide(PBO) are commonly used topreclude rapid detoxification byinsect enzymes. While PBOand other such synergists havevery low direct toxicity to peo-ple or other non-targetorganisms (www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2006/July/Day-26/ p11717.htm), arecent focus of research hasbeen the potential impacts ofthese molecules in settings

where they might unintentional-ly synergize persistentpyrethroid residues(www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/ registration/reevaluation/chemicals/pyrethroids.htm).

Another research question isthe extent to which the cumula-tive effects of mosquitocidesand other pesticides may causetoxic impacts beyond those esti-mated by single-molecule riskassessments. Pesticide cumula-tive risk assessments weremandated by the Food QualityProtection Act (FQPA) in 1996,and have been completed fororganophosphates and someother pesticide classes, but notyet for the pyrethrins andpyrethroids (www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/). EPA’sFIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel(SAP) has reviewed this topicfor the pyrethrins andpyrethroids in 2009 and 2010,and proposed that the majorityof these chemicals share twocommon modes of action.When the final SAP report isissued, there may be newrestrictions imposed, possibly inthe area of allowable residueson foods or animal feed. Fewadulticides have explicit residuetolerances established at thispoint, and IR-4 is helping deter-mine appropriate protocols forestablishing these for mosquito-cides.

While risk assessments for mos-quitocides generally follows thestandards for other pesticides,control of adult mosquitoes hassome unique attributes, which

Riskcontinued from pg 11

Mosquitocontrol tech-

nician in FL(courtesy

City ofJacksonville)

continued on back pg

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

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

Spotlight on Ornamentals

pg 13Vol 42 No 1

Mothers’ Day. Writing a notein a card, taking her to dinner,giving her a present are allways to honor our mothers onthis holiday. Another commonway to show mom appreciationis to give her a bouquet offlowers or a live plant, whethera house plant or a floweringbush or bulb that she cantransplant later into the gar-den. In this Spotlight, we are

focusing on cut flowers andfoliage that create beautifularrangements expressing ourthoughts and emotions duringholidays and other events.

The United States domesticcut flower and foliage produc-tion is $487 million in flowersand greenery annually (2009Census of Horticulture, NASS2010). The 2,700 domesticgrowers represent 63% of theflowers placed into arrange-ments, remaining a keycomponent of US floricultureproduction. In addition to ger-bera, rose and tulip, USproducers grow lilies, iris, car-nations, asters, lisianthus,asparagus fern, baby’s breathand many other common

other Botrytis diseases is a newresearch project starting thisyear. And another new researchproject for 2011 is testingwhether PGRs can enhancebranching for hydrangea growneither as a pot crop or for theproduction of cut stems – andhydrangea is an up-and-comingflower in floral design.

To read the IR-4 summaryreports on these and otherprojects, visit ir4.rutgers.edu/ornamentals.

Happy Mothers’ Day!

Mention of a specific product does notconstitute a recommendation for use. Asalways, consult product labels prior toapplication and follow all label directions.

Blooms & Greenery

Photo by Terry Davis, Michigan State University

—by Cristi Palmer, IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Manager

and/or exotic flowers to bringinteresting colors and shapesto floral arrangements.

Each cut flower and greeneryhas an almost unique set ofchallenges to produce qualityblooms or stems, but there aresome common pest and dis-ease issues for many crops.Aphids, thrips, whiteflies andmites feed on many crops.Disease issues include bacterialdiseases, root and bulb rotsand foliar diseases such aspowdery mildew, gray mold,and viruses.

Over the past few years, IR-4has tackled some of the dis-eases and pests affecting cutflower and foliage production.For thrips management, severalproducts have been newly reg-istered or updated:Hachi-Hachi (tolfenpyrad),Kontos (spirotetramat),Overture (pyridalyl), and Pylon(chlorfenapyr). IR-4 has alsohelped develop data for rootrots caused by Phytophthoraspecies, and some of the prod-ucts registered for this useinclude Adorn (fluopicolide),Segway (cyazofamid), StatureSC (dimethomorph), andSubdue MAXX (mefonaxam).The research so far for bacteri-al diseases points toward thecopper-based products provid-ing the best efficacy, althoughthere are some new activeingredients being tested furtherthis year. Screening new activeingredients for gray mold or

Photo by aboutflowers.com

Photo by aboutflowers.com

Highlights of Joint NCR/SOR FieldTraining

pg 14Vol 42 No 1

Did You Know?

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

You can see the logic. Offersunshine starved folks anopportunity to get in a gameof putt-putt golf, bask inFlorida sunshine and enjoyedauthentic Southern-style BBQ.This, plus more, was whatattendees enjoyed at the jointIR-4 Southern (SOR) andNorth Central (NCR) RegionGLP Field and Residue trainingworkshop.

On February 22-23, 52 par-ticipants, including IR-4 fieldresearch directors (FRD), tech-nicians and their assistants,HQ personnel, regional fieldcoordinators (RFC) qualityassurance (QA) coordinators,and private consultants allconverged in Gainesville, FLfor the workshop. The SORRFC Michelle Samuel-Foomoderated the first day’s ses-sions with the assistance of thetraining committee that con-sisted of David Studstill andDarrell Thomas (FRD andassistant at the UF Citra Fieldresearch center); DebbieCarpenter and Van Starner (IR-4 Asst Director ofRegistrations and AsstDirector of Res Planning &Outreach); Satoru Miyazakiand Michael Chen (NCR RFCand QA coordinator), KathleenKnight, Robin Adkins andAmanda Hogle (SOR QAcoordinator, QA Assistant andProgram Assistant). They put

together a jam-packed 2 daysession tackling everythingfrom greenhouse trials toreceiving samples in the analytical lab.

Marty Marshall, SOR IR-4Director welcomed the groupfollowed by Satoru Miyazaki’spresentation on the impor-tance, generation and use ofstandard operating procedures(SOPs). A hands-on demon-stration of making spaghetti,led by Debbie Carpenter, illus-trated the importance of havinga standardized methodology forconducting routine operations.Debbie also led sessions on: 1) GLP Test Substances,(Receipt and Storage -what tolook for, Formulations, COA,Expiration dates, Re-certifica-tions and what to do when indoubt) and 2) Timelines,Bundling and Preparation ofdata summaries. She explainedthe critical role field sites playas the initiator of the GLPresidue trials and how submit-ting Field Data Books (FDB)promptly contributes to thewider success of the IR-4 pro-gram. With the challenges tothe National program to reducethe timelines for the organiza-tion, Debbie’s seminar wastimely and well received.

Van Starner took participantsthrough changes to the 2011protocols and FDB. This

proved to be a ‘high energy ses-sion’ as new requirements inprotocol language for distin-guishing between multiple trialsat a single location was hotlydebated. QA Coordinators,Michael Chen and KathleenKnight, presented a session onthe role of QA in GLP studiesand FRD top 10 findings to QA.

Tuesday’s classroom sessionswere punctuated by “How welldo you know IR-4” trivia stylequestions that were written byVan Starner, Roger Batts andMichelle Samuel-Foo. Categoriesincluded “How well do youknow IR-4 Acronyms” and “Howwell do you know IR-4 FieldData Books.” Dan Heider andMichelle tested the shippingprowess of the group while providing some afternoon enter-tainment, by quizzing folks onthe do’s and don’ts of shippingIR-4 samples. Dan used his ownset of QA findings to get folks togauge what to do or not dowhen shipping samples.

FRDs, presented “Tricks of theTrade” where they shared toolsor other items that they havecustomized to make their IR-4jobs easier. Lori Gregg discussedusing colored flagging tape toeasily identify items, BernieZandstra, Rodney Tocco andSylvia Morse try to “keep thingssimple and standard” by makinguse of repetition for their trials.David Studstill highlighted his“creative calculations” for appli-cation records, and Reed

— by Michelle Samuel-Foo and Robin Adkins

continued on next pg

pg 15Vol 42 No 1

IR-4 Successes Jan. - Mar. 2011The trade names listed below are provided as a means to identify the chemical for which a tolerance has been established. A tradename listed here may not be the name of the product on which the new food use(s) will be registered. Only labeled products may beused on a food crop. Be sure to obtain current information about usage regulations and examine a current product label before apply-ing any chemical.

Federal Register: January 19, 2011 Fluazinam Trade Name: OmegaCrops: Carrot, Apple PR#: 07094, 06797

Federal Register: January 26, 2011 Mefenoxam Trade Name: Ridomil GoldCrops: Snap bean, Spinach, Caneberry subgroup 13-07A, Bushberry subgroup 13-07B (deleteLingonberry tolerance), Bulb onion subgroup 3-07A, Green onion subgroup 3-07BPR#: 08371, 08430, 08431, 01169

Federal Register: February 2, 2011 Sulfentrazone Trade Name: SpartanCrops: Tuberous and corm vegetable subgroup 1C (delete Potato tolerance), Head and stem Brassicasubgroup 5A (delete Cabbage tolerance), Brassica leafy greens subgroup 5B, Fruiting vegetablegroup 8-10, Melon subgroup 9A, Succulent pea, Strawberry, FlaxPR#: 07723, 07724, 08064, 08065, 07581, 07912, 07914, 09355, 07957, 08048, 09025,07911, 07917, 08049, 08445, 06520, 07044, 07584

Federal Register: March 23, 2011Aspergillus flavus AF36Crops: Corn (exemption from tolerance) PR#: 378B

Tolerance Successes

Olszack shared his “confes-sions of a reluctant FRD” orhow he overcame his initialhesitation, accepted that hehad a huge learning curve toundertake and ultimately howhe has come to embrace and“enjoy” IR-4 FDB completion.

The UF Plant Research andEducation Center was the siteof the second day’s activities.David Studstill and BuckNelson led participants on atour of the experiment stationand the IR-4 facilities.Afterward, David and DarrellThomas led a backpacksprayer calibration demonstra-tion. Darrel simulated walking3 mph with the use of ametronome while carrying a

backpack sprayer and holdingthe spray wand at a consistent18-20 inches across a plot ofchives. To demonstrate thatthis is not always such an easytask, volunteers from the audi-ence were asked to mimic thespray application. All in all,this was a simple, but engagingactivity that achieved a dualpurpose of demonstratinggood technique and recordkeeping while providing a lightmoment of entertainment.

Roger Batts, Field ResearchDirector at the NC State IR-4Field Research Center, drovehis customized and well-outfit-ted truck and sampling trailerto the UF Citra experiment sta-tion. Both are impressivelyorganized with the tools and

equipment that he needs forconducting his trials. Most ofRoger's GLP residue studiesare performed at remote sitesso it is necessary for him tohave all needed equipment andsupplies organized and "readyto roll." There is also spacededicated for coolers that areheld securely in the trailer, fortransporting samples back tohis freezers.

David and John Wise (FRD atMSU) demonstrated spraydeposition patterns using an airblast sprayer versus a straightboom attached to a high boytractor (both set at 30 GPA).This exercise was conducted ina highbush blueberry field

continued on back pg.

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

2011 MRLWorkshopInternational trade, pestmanagement, evolving regulations and global harmonization will be thefocus of the 2011 MRLWorkshop. Growers, pestcontrol advisors, commodi-ty groups, packer-shipperorganizations, registrantsand regulatory personnelare encouraged to partici-pate! June 1 & 2, 2011.The workshop will be heldat the Holiday Inn SanFrancisco Fisherman’sWharf. To learn more visitthe California SpecialtyCrops Council website atwww.specialtycrops.org.

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

United States Department of Agriculture

National Institute of Food and Agriculture

led EPA to issue PesticideRegistration Notice 2005-1.The most significant elementsof this PR Notice are: therecognition that drift is neces-sary for adult mosquitocontrol, rather than an adversesource of impacts; that applica-tions over water are acceptableif the anticipated drift movesthe pesticide cloud to andthrough areas of mosquitohabitat; and that careful con-trol of pesticide droplet sizeand frequency of applicationare the keys to mitigatingpotential pesticide impacts.

Riskcontinued from pg.12 where water sensitive paper

was placed at low, medium andhigh heights in various loca-tions throughout the plot.Thisillustrated the penetrativepower and distance that spraydroplets could travel. Johngave a brief lecture to thegroup about how important itis to select the proper equip-ment for a specific trial, whilebeing consistent with commer-cial practices as this couldultimately influence the out-come of a residue analysis.The workshop was a successfulevent that provided a refresherto experienced GLP personneland laid a solid foundation fornewer field researchers.

NCR/SORcontinued from pg 15