Having problems with message search?
Agnet April 12/04 -- II
Consumer acceptance critical factor in success of genetically modified crops
GM corn hybrids find OSU trials a good place to Bt
Weeds and cutworms
Update on the occurrence of glyphosateresistant marestail/horseweed
Plant population affects the yield and quality of corn grain and silage
Hollow stem jointing in wheat
Potential problems with flea beetle in corn
Wet soils increase the likelihood of corn injury with preemergence herbicides
Identity preserved grains and oilseeds offer pricing challenges
Virus diseases of winter wheat
Nitrogen carryover after low yielding corn
Quilt: a new foliar fungicide for use on wheat
Spraying sense and sensibility
Early-season diseases of alfalfa, the "queen of forages"
Another year to remember for insect management?
Some 11th-hour reminders about insect management
Alfalfa weevil or clover leaf weevil?
Announcements on new insecticides
how to subscribe
Consumer acceptance critical factor in success of genetically modified crops
April 9, 2004
Crop Watch News Service
University of Nebraska
Shannon Hartenstein, IANR Writer
http://cropwatch.unl.edu/archives/agnews04/an04-4-9.htm#biotechnology
Farmers may embrace it. Companies can invest billions. Yet, ultimately, the fate of agricultural biotechnology hinges on consumers.
Consumer acceptance and demand depend largely on whether people think this technology benefits them and whether they believe foods made from genetically modified, or GM, crops differ from traditional products, said Konstantinos Giannakas. The University of Nebraska agricultural economics has extensively studied the economic ramifications of ag biotechnology for consumers, producers and biotech companies.
"My research looks at the market and welfare effects of introducing genetically modified products into the food system," he said. His economic analysis provides a clearer picture of what's likely to happen to GM products in the marketplace under different regulatory and labeling scenarios.
Overall, he found that consumer attitudes toward GM food and their influence on public policy will significantly affect demand for GM products throughout the food system.
See more about his findings and the potential implications for U.S. regulations regarding genetically modified crops in the most recent issue of Research Nebraska, the University of Nebraska Institute of Agricultural and Natural Resources magazine featuring IANR research.
GM corn hybrids find OSU trials a good place to Bt
April 9, 2004
Ag Answers
Purdue/Ohio State University
http://www2.agriculture.purdue.edu/agcomm/aganswers/story.asp?storyID=3639
Bt corn hybrids, produced specifically to control European corn borer, are finding a place among their non-Bt counterparts.
According to the 2003 Ohio Corn Performance Test, the genetically modified varieties performed just as well as conventional corn varieties and, in some cases, produced higher yields. The top performer at many test sites was, in fact, a Bt hybrid.
"One of the problems with Bt hybrids in past years was yield drag or lag, but Ohio State research and research from other states is showing that Bt hybrids are performing as well or better than their conventional counterparts," said Peter Thomison, an Ohio State University Extension agronomist.
The Ohio Corn Performance Test is a joint project between OSU Extension and Ohio State's Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center.
Because of the improved yield performance, seed companies are entering more hybrids into state research performance trials, making Bt hybrids more widely known and more available. In the Ohio State performance test, about 25 percent of the 312 corn varieties tested were Bt hybrids.
"The lion's share of hybrids in our evaluations are still conventional varieties, but this year is the first time we've seen a big increase in the number of Bt hybrids entered in the tests," Thomison said.
The purpose of the Ohio Corn Performance Test is to evaluate corn hybrids based on a variety of performance characteristics, such as yield potential, percent moisture, lodging, emergence and test weights of the grain. The results help growers select the best hybrids that not only yield well, but also can withstand a variety of environmental factors and growing conditions.
The test was conducted in three regions: southwestern/west central, northwestern and northeastern/north central, along with sites in Piketon and Coshocton. Entries were planted in either an early- or full-season maturity trial. In each region, for both early- and full-season varieties, Bt corn hybrids out-yielded conventional corn varieties anywhere from 3 percent to 10 percent on average.
"In the southwest and northwest test regions, the differences in average yield between the Bt and normal hybrid groups were generally small, but at the Wooster test site, which represented the northeast region in 2003, the yield advantage to the Bt corn hybrids was about 21 bushels per acre," Thomison said.
"The point is not that Bt hybrids are better than conventional hybrids, because there are still a lot of good conventional hybrids on the market which generally cost less than Bt corn. The point is that differences in yield between Bt and top-yielding non-Bt hybrids have become less pronounced, and growers have more options now because of that."
The results of the 2003 Ohio Corn Performance Test are available online at http://www.oardc.ohio-state.edu/corn2003/ .
Weeds and cutworms
April 9, 2004
Pest Crop No. 4
Purdue University
John Obermeyer and Larry Bledsoe
http://www.entm.purdue.edu/entomology/ext/targets/p&c/P&C2004/P&C4_2004.pdf
As reported in this and last week’s “Black Cutworm Adult Pheromone Trap Report,” this insect has begun its arrival into the Midwest. Todd Hutson, Vermillion County CES, monitors both a pheromone and black light trap. He’s reported the capture of variegated cutworm moths in the black light trap. Unlike the black cutworm, the variegated cutworm overwinters here. This cutworm species can damage corn and soybean, especially in fields with chickweed “carpets.” Both of these cutworm moths are particularly attracted to winter annuals, such as chickweed and mustards in which to lay their eggs. Fields that are showing plenty of green are at highest risk for cutworm damage. Corn and soybean are the cutworm’s least favorite foods, it just so happens these are the only plants remaining by the time larvae have emerged and weeds have been killed. Research has shown that cutworm larvae starve if weeds are treated with tillage or herbicide 2-3 weeks before crop emergence. Something to be said for controlling weeds in order to manage insect pests.
Update on the occurrence of glyphosateresistant marestail/horseweed
April 9, 2004
Crop Pest No. 4
Purdue University
Bill Johnson, Glenn Nice, and Jeff Barnes
http://www.entm.purdue.edu/entomology/ext/targets/p&c/P&C2004/P&C4_2004.pdf
We reported last year that glyphosate-resistant marestail had been discovered in four southeast Indiana counties following the 2002 season. Greenhouse trials on two of those populations proved that these marestail populations tolerated at least a 4X rate of glyphosate (88 oz Roundup WeatherMAX/A or 3 lb ae/A). Conversations with producers and crop advisors during the winter of 2003 indicated that the problem was not confined to those four fields but appeared to be more widespread and included the majority of counties in southeast Indiana (Figure 1).
Other areas of the United States such as the Delaware and Tennessee began experiencing problems with control of horseweed with glyphosate during the summer of 2000 in isolated fields. Just two years passed before weed scientists in both states came to the conclusion that resistance was widespread across the landscape. Resistant horseweed was believed to infest 400,000 acres in Tennessee alone following the 2002 cropping season.
An effort was established last year to get a grasp on how severe the glyphosate-resistant marestail problem is in Indiana. During September and October of 2003, an intensive field survey was conducted to determine the frequency of occurrence of glyphosate-resistant marestail in Indiana. This effort concentrated primarily in southeast Indiana, but several counties were intensively surveyed in the southwest and northern regions as well. We also established a sampling form with sample collection and submission instructions that producers and crop advisors could download for sample submission (available
A total of 389 samples were collected. Of the 389 collected, 222 were from soybean or corn fields, or wheat stubble (215 samples were from soybean fields as this was the target crop for the field survey). During the survey trips, information was also collected from each field regarding the crop, field tillage system, and the distribution and relative density of marestail within a field.
Over the last few months we have been conducting screening trials in the greenhouse on these marestail populations. The screening efforts consisted of 2X applications of glyphosate (Roundup WeatherMAX 44 oz/A or 1.50 lbs ae/A) made when marestail rosettes were 2 to 3 inches in diameter. The populations were compared to known susceptible and resistant populations to determine if they were tolerant to glyphosate. Figure 3 shows the typical response we have seen in these greenhouse trials. In the greenhouse where conditions are optimal to achieve very good control, susceptible plants begin to appear yellow and stunted in 4 to 5 days with total plant death in 10 to 14 days after glyphosate application. Resistant plants also appear stunted with distinctive yellowing of older tissue by 4 to 5 days after treatment. Instead of dying, older plant tissue appears to recover slightly and new growth begins to appear from the center of the rosette. Once the new growth begins to develop, plants appear to grow at the same rate as non-treated plants despite the 20 to 40% stunting that occurred within the first 7 days after application.
To date we have tested 217 populations for tolerance to 2X applications of glyphosate. We are finding that many of the populations are tolerant to 2X glyphosate applications. Figure 4 shows the number samples tested for resistance in each county (bottom number) and the number of samples that were tolerant to glyphosate (top number). In the future we will screen the tolerant populations with a 4X glyphosate application, which is considered by many experts a rate which separates tolerance and true resistance. From a practical standpoint, rosette stage marestail that survives a 2X application of glyphosate will present a problem for producers regardless of whether the plants are considered resistant or tolerance. Producer and crop advisors in southeast Indiana especially should be aware that an overwhelming majority of populations from that area are demonstrating tolerance to glyphosate.
Based upon our screening efforts we have confirmed resistance to glyphosate in 19 Indiana counties, some as far north as Wells and Blackford counties and as far west as Spencer and Montgomery counties. Despite the discovery of resistance/tolerance in Montgomery and Wells counties, our survey efforts have lead us to believe that resistance is not widespread in these areas. Widespread resistance/tolerance observed in southeast Indiana may be delayed or prevented in the northeast and west-central regions of the state if we begin to manage for resistance by incorporating alternative modes of action for marestail into our herbicide programs.
Our current recommendations are to start-early in trying to control this weed and other winter annuals in no-till and conservation tillage fields. Include 2,4-D in the burndown treatment at a rate of 1-2 pt/A (check label as many formulations are available) in any burndown applications in southeast Indiana and in other counties in which resistance is suspected or confirmed. Closely monitor the size of marestail as both glyphosate and 2,4-D are much less effective on marestail when it reaches 6 inches or more in height. In most of Indiana this should not occur before May 1, so time remains for effective control this year. It is rather unclear at this point what role spring emergence of marestail plays in some of the control failures we have seen over the past few seasons. Many fields may have a significant amount of spring emergence, particularly in southeast Indiana and this can be reduced by including residual herbicides such as FirstRate, Sencor, Valor, Authority, Canopy XL, Gangster, or Python in the burndown application.
We are continuing our monitoring efforts this year and would appreciate any information that can be provided concerning new fields that have experienced control failures. If you are in doubt about a particular field or weed concerning possible reasons for herbicide escape, please contact Jeff Barnes, Bill Johnson, or Glenn Nice.
The sampling and survey efforts would not be possible without financial support from the following organizations; Purdue University Ag Research Programs, Indiana Soybean Board, Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow AgroSciences, BASF.
Plant population affects the yield and quality of corn grain and silage
April 8, 2004
Field Crop Advisory Team Vol. 19, No. 2
Kurt Thelen
Michigan State University
http://www.ipm.msu.edu/CAT04_fld/FC04-08-04.htm
Historically, soil nutrient status, weed control, machinery limitations and power source (horse vs. tractor) all played a role in determining the appropriate plant density for corn. Today, the primary driving force in determining the optimum plant population level for corn is genetics. Research has shown that the primary difference between today’s hybrids and the hybrids developed in the early days of hybrid seed corn production, is the ability of the modern hybrids to yield well under the stress of high plant populations. When high yielding modern hybrids are planted at the lower plant population levels commonly used for their ancestors, they lose their yield advantage. It is only when the plant population levels are increased that the modern hybrids begin to out yield their ancestors. This is because corn genetics have been improved to withstand high plant population stress and not lose yield. These modern hybrids continue to produce grain at plant populations that would have resulted in their ancestors having many barren plants. In other words, the yield increases we have seen since the advent of hybrid seed corn are due to harvesting more ears of corn per acre, not from harvesting larger ears or ears with more kernels on them. This trend will likely continue into the future, which means that the optimum plant population for your fields will likely continue to increase with time.
In addition to yield, plant population also affects the quality of corn grain and silage. The accompanying figures one and two show the results of extensive experiments conducted in Michigan involving over 2,600 plots across 11 site-years. The data shows the effect of increasing plant population levels on corn grain and silage yield and quality.
Plant population had a significant effect on grain yield, moisture, test weight and stalk lodging. Grain moisture was negatively correlated and grain test weight was positively correlated with plant population. As corn plant populations increased from lowest to highest, grain moisture dropped 0.4 and 0.7 percent, respectively.
Corn plant population also affected corn silage dry weight yield and quality. As plant population increased silage dry weight yield increased but silage quality was adversely affected. Silage dry matter digestibility and crude protein decreased while acid detergent fiber and neutral detergent fiber levels increased. The experiment also showed that silage specialty hybrids reacted to plant population stress similar to dual-purpose hybrids.
How does one go about selecting the best plant population for your fields? The answer is not simple because the optimum population varies with the soil conditions present in each field and with the weather conditions present in any given year. Therefore, your best bet is to base corn plant population rates on typical conditions for your farm.
Normally, seeding rates can be based on historical production levels. Under Michigan conditions, where yields are consistently 130 bushels per acre or more, optimum seeding rates range from 29,000 to 32,000 seeds per acre. When 100 to 120 bushel yields are common, optimum seeding rates begin at about 24,000 seeds per acre. Keep in mind that most studies show that corn plant population generally has what is referred to as a parabolic plateau effect on yield. This simply means that yield will increase with increasing plant population to a maximum level. If you keep increasing the plant population beyond this optimum level, the yield will not increase any more and will plateau out but will generally not decrease.
Hollow stem jointing in wheat
April 9, 2004
Integrated Pest Crop Management Newsletter Vol. 14, No. 4
University of Missouri-Columbia
Shawn Conley
http://ipm.missouri.edu/ipcm/archives/v14n4/ipmltr1.htm
Double cropping wheat has taken on a new meaning in recent years. Instead of following wheat with soybean, some Missouri growers are grazing wheat through the fall and winter, removing cattle in the spring and then harvesting the subsequent grain crop. The optimal time to remove cattle from wheat in the spring is the first hollow stem growth stage.
Dr. Gene Krenzer, Oklahoma State University Small Grains Extension Specialist, defines first hollow stem as the growth stage at which the hollow stem can first be identified above the crown in the larger shoots of ungrazed wheat.
The wheat crop has reached this growth stage when the average distance of hollow stem above the root to the growing point (tiny head) of 10 stems is 1.5 cm (0.6 inch) (Image 1).
Dr. Krenzer's research has shown that grain yield is similar when cattle are removed from 1-6 weeks prior to the first hollow stem. However, if cattle remain on the wheat after this growth stage, grain yield and net profitability decrease substantially.
For more information regarding this cropping system, please see Grazing Termination Date Effects Net Return per Acre in Wheat, http://pss.okstate.edu/ research/publications/grains/pt95-10.pdf. First hollow stem is also important in that it denotes the end of crop tiller formation and the beginning of the jointing growth stage (Image 2).
Once jointing is initiated, the maximum level of three of the four key components of winter wheat yield has been determined. These components are tiller and head number, head size and kernel number per head. Crop stress may still limit these components; however, their maximum potential is set. Kernel size is the final component of wheat yield to be determined. The time period in which kernel size is set is from flag leaf emergence through grain fill. Decreased pest pressure, sufficient supply of crop nutrients and moderate environmental conditions during this time period aid in maximizing wheat kernel size.
Wheat growth note: Developmentally, the wheat crop is 7 to 10 days ahead of last year.
Shawn Conley, Agronomy(573) 882-0618
Potential problems with flea beetle in corn
April 9, 2004
Integrated Pest Crop Management Newsletter Vol. 14, No. 4
University of Missouri-Columbia
Wayne Bailey
http://ipm.missouri.edu/ipcm/archives/v14n4/ipmltr2.htm
An insect that often causes problems following mild winter temperatures is the flea beetle. A model has been developed for predicting flea beetle damage in field corn. In this model, the potential for flea beetle damage is calculated by adding together the average daily winter temperatures for the months of December, January and February.
If the average monthly temperatures for these months is less than 90 F, then the risk of economic flea beetle infestations is low. If the total is between 90 F and 100 F, then moderate flea beetle damage can be expected. Heavy damage is possible if the three monthly averages total 100 F or more.
Both Jim Jarman, Central Missouri Region Agronomy Specialist, and Lyndon Brush, IPM/Agronomy Specialist for MFA, Inc., have graciously shared their calculations for flea beetle potential damage in the 2004 growing season. In general, their calculations found a total of 108 F for southern Missouri, 90 F for central Missouri and 86 F for northern counties. Although these numbers predict high, moderate and low potential for damage in southern, central and northern counties, respectively, other factors may increase the risk of flea beetle infestations statewide.
During the time of cold weather this past winter, most of the state was covered with a layer of snow. Snow acts as a good insulator and may allow for increased survival of overwintering flea beetles. Additionally, the numbers calculated for the model in 2004 are similar to those of 2003. In 2003, the model predicted low to moderate flea beetle activity in north Missouri, but severe damage was seen in many corn fields along U.S. Route 36, located along the Iowa/Missouri border.
Both of these factors suggest that flea beetle problems in 2004 are likely to be more severe than the model predicts. Other factors to consider are plant growth stage and growth rates. At present, it appears that much of the state’s field corn will be in the early seedling stages when flea beetles move into crop fields. This further increases the potential for flea beetle damage but could be offset by good plant growing conditions that would rapidly move corn plants from early seedling to the 5-leaf stage and limit flea beetle damage.
Biology/Damage: Flea beetles are small, dark, jumping beetles that overwinter in the adult stage. In early spring, they move to seedling corn and feed on plant foliage from the time of plant emergence through about the 4-leaf stage of growth. Adult beetles strip the chlorophyll layer (green tissue) from the surface of seedling corn leaves, resulting in the formation of “window panes” or translucent areas in leaf surfaces. Damage is often seen as translucent tracks or lines that run parallel to the veins of the corn leaf. Heavy flea beetle infestations cause plants to look “tattered” and wilted, similar to the type of injury caused to seedling corn when blasted by blowing sand. The most injurious flea beetle attacking corn is the corn or maize flea beetle. Typically, infestations are most severe in years where mild winters allow for increased survival of adults, and cool temperatures and drought conditions during spring result in slowed growth of corn plants. Flea beetles may transmit Stewart's wilt (a bacterial wilt) to corn, though most field corn has resistance to this plant pathogen. The economic threshold for implementation of control methods for flea beetles in field corn is an average of five or more beetles per corn seedling up through the 4-leaf stage of development. To scout for flea beetles, examine corn plants for feeding damage and determine the average number of flea beetles present per corn plant. This is most readily accomplished in the early morning or late afternoon by walking slowly through the field and counting beetles as they feed. Remember, flea beetles are easily recognized by their jumping ability similar to grasshoppers.
Management Options: Insecticides and rates of use labeled for flea beetle management on field corn are included.
Note: Corn treated with Cruiser, Poncho 250 or Poncho 1250 systemic seed treatments should be protected from flea beetle damage during the seedling stage of plant development. However, scouting of the corn field during seedling stages is strongly recommended. If a foliar insecticide application is required for flea beetle management on field corn, use one of the insecticides listed above.
I would like to thank Jim Jarman and Lyndon Brush for their contributions to this article.
Table by Jim Jarman, Central Missouri Region Agronomy Specialist, (573) 642-0755
Wayne Bailey, Entomology (573) 864-9905
To view the tables see: http://ipm.missouri.edu/ipcm/archives/v14n4/ipmltr2.htm
Wet soils increase the likelihood of corn injury with preemergence herbicides
April 9, 2004
Integrated Pest Crop Management Newsletter Vol. 14, No. 4
University of Missouri-Columbia
Kevin Bradley
http://ipm.missouri.edu/ipcm/archives/v14n4/ipmltr3.htm
Corn planting has already begun in some parts of the state and will soon be underway in most of the remaining areas as soon as the weather allows. Although it's hard to say what the weather will bring during the planting season, most of the state is currently experiencing very wet soil conditions. This is a situation that increases the likelihood of herbicide injury with most of our preemergence corn herbicides.
Under wet soil conditions, crop injury can occur because corn plants are able to take up the herbicides at a rapid rate but are not able to metabolize or break down these herbicides at a similar pace. Some injury may also be attributable to the herbicide coming into direct contact with the seed as a result of wet soil conditions and failure to close the seed row.
Herbicide injury to corn as a result of wet soils is perhaps most common with soil-applied grass herbicides like metolachlor (Dual II Magnum/Cinch/ Stalwort), acetochlor (Degree, Harness, TopNotch), alachlor (Lasso, MicroTech), dimethanamid (Frontier, Outlook) and flufenacet (Define), and also with any of the various atrazine pre-mixes that contain these herbicides (Bicep II Magnum, Lumax, Cinch ATZ, Stalwort Xtra, Degree Xtra, Harness Xtra, FulTime, Keystone, Bullet, Guardsman or Guardsman Max).
Corn that has emerged and has been injured as a result of one of these herbicides will appear malformed and have twisted leaves that do not unroll properly. This is often referred to as "buggy-whipping." Fortunately, this injury is usually short-lived and rarely causes yield reductions. Most plants that have been injured as a result of these herbicides will grow out of this injury once soil drying occurs.
Flumetsulam is another herbicide that has the potential to cause injury to corn as a result of cool, wet soil conditions. Flumetsulam is the active ingredient in Python and one of the ingredients in Hornet. Corn that has been injured as a result of Python or Hornet applications may be slightly yellowish (chlorotic) and will have both stunted roots and shoots. The short lateral roots are a key symptom of flumetsulam injury, which is often referred to as “bottle brushed roots.” As with the soil-applied grass herbicides, injury from flumetsulam is usually short-lived, and plants typically grow out of this injury once soil drying occurs.
Isoxaflutole and mesotrione are other preemergence herbicides that may cause injury to corn as a result of wet soil conditions.
Isoxaflutole is the active ingredient in Balance WDG and Balance Pro, and it is one of the ingredients in Epic. Mesotrione is the active ingredient in Callisto and is one of the ingredients in Lumax and Camix. The potential for injury with these herbicides is perhaps greatest when both cool and wet soil conditions exist. Corn that has been injured as a result of Balance Pro or Epic applications will have leaves with anywhere from a chlorotic to a completely bleached-white appearance. Injury will usually appear on the older leaves while new leaves often appear normal and unaffected.
Although symptoms of these herbicides are perhaps more noticeable than any other type of herbicidal injury, this injury is usually short-lived and often confined to low areas or wet spots within a field.
In severe cases, where a high percentage of the foliage has a chlorotic or bleached-white appearance, the plants may eventually turn brown (necrotic) and die.
Kevin Bradley, Agronomy, (573) 882-4039
Identity preserved grains and oilseeds offer pricing challenges
April 9, 2004
Integrated Pest Crop Management Newsletter Vol. 14, No. 4
University of Missouri-Columbia
Joe Parcell and Melvin Brees
http://ipm.missouri.edu/ipcm/archives/v14n4/ipmltr4.htm
Identity preserved grains and oilseeds are becoming prevalent in Missouri. White corn, non-gmo corn and soybean, food grade soybean and high-oil corn are examples of specialty crops that offer producers the opportunity to enter into a production or marketing contract where they receive premiums for meeting certain quality standards.
These premiums offer producers opportunities to enhance profits by utilizing their management skills to identity preserve the quality of the grains and oilseeds.
However, many identity preserved production and marketing contracts leave the price-level uncertainty up to the grower. Furthermore, many contracts specify a delivery period that may or may not be the preferred marketing period.
For instance, a non-gmo harvest delivery contract requires the grower to deliver the commodity at harvest when prices are typically at their lowest level. Or, a buyer’s call production contract leaves the door open to when the buyer will require delivery. Typically, a window is set for the earliest and latest potential delivery dates.
Users of identity preserved contracts need to recognize that while the premiums for these commodities may be good, the underlying commodity grade price is still exposed to fluctuations.
Because identity preserved commodity price is typically based off the under-lying commodity price, producers can use traditional marketing strategies to put in place price floors or leave the door open for price increases for these commodities.
Current commodity prices for the 2004 marketing year offer some good pricing opportunities for identity preserved crop growers. Let's look at corn price-level marketing strategies for identity preserved corn.
Suppose a producer plans to grow 20,000 bushels of high-oil corn for harvest delivery, then he should look at putting in place a strategy that could price a portion of the high-oil corn crop ahead of delivery. While pricing mechanisms like forward contracts, basis contracts and delayed pricing contracts may not be available, producers can put in place their own price floor by using futures/options on a portion of their planned identity preserved crop production.
Suppose this producer would now like to price 10,000 bushels. He could use a short futures position or a put option to lock in the current price level.
To establish a short futures position, the producer would sell December (new crop) corn futures. For example, suppose December corn futures are currently trading at $3.34 (April 2, 2004). Going short (selling) December corn would offset the producer's long position (ownership) of the growing high-oil corn crop. This effectively establishes a protected or hedged futures price at $3.34, since lower contract prices for the high-oil corn contract would be offset by the higher futures price. The final cash price is the futures less local basis at delivery.
The disadvantage of this strategy is that the producer would not be able to capture higher prices, if cash prices moved higher, because these would also be offset by the short futures position and would require additional “good faith” or margin money to maintain the position. Buying a put option offers the opportunity to protect a minimum price, while still being able to capture a higher price.
Using the same market example, with December corn futures at $3.34, the nearest strike price would be $3.30. Buying a $3.30 December corn put provides the right to go short December corn futures at $3.30. This means that if prices go down, the producer can exercise the right to go short futures at $3.30 and establish a futures hedge at that price. If prices go higher, the producer simply lets the call option expire and makes the contract sale at the higher price.
The disadvantage is the option premium (cost) of $0.32. This cost reduces the protected minimum futures price to $2.98 ($3.30 strike price minus $0.32 premium).
Similarly, strategies can be used for buyers call identity preserved contracts. It is important the grower select the appropriate futures contract month to use in locking in a price. Many commodity brokers can help you determine which is the best futures contract month to use based on the specified delivery period.
Joe Parcell, Agricultural Economics (573) 882-0870
Virus diseases of winter wheat
April 9, 2004
Integrated Pest Crop Management Newsletter Vol. 14, No. 4
University of Missouri-Columbia
Laura Sweets
http://ipm.missouri.edu/ipcm/archives/v14n4/ipmltr6.htm
The four virus diseases most likely to occur on winter wheat in Missouri are wheat spindle streak mosaic, wheat soilborne mosaic, barley yellow dwarf and wheat streak mosaic.
This is the time of the year when symptoms of wheat spindle streak mosaic, wheat soilborne mosaic and barley yellow dwarf may be quite evident. Just in the last few days, we have received wheat samples from southeast and southwest Missouri that tested positive for strains ofbarley yellow dwarf.
Although there are no rescue treatments for wheat virus diseases, it is still a good idea to scout fields for plants showing virus symptoms and to send in samples to identify the virus or combination of viruses that are present so that proper preventative management measures can be used the next time wheat is planted in that field. Descriptions of the wheat virus diseases most likely to occur on winter wheat in Missouri are given in the following paragraphs.
Symptoms of wheat spindle streak mosaic appear in early spring as yellow-green streaks or dashes on the dark green background of the leaves. These lesions usually run parallel to the leaf veins and tend to be tapered at the ends giving the lesions a spindle shaped appearance. Foliage symptoms are most obvious when air temperatures are about 50 F. Plants may be slightly stunted and have fewer tillers than normal. Wheat spindle streak mosaic tends to be more prevalent in lower, wetter areas of a field. The virus which causes this disease is soilborne and is spread by the soil fungus Polymyxa graminis. Wet falls tend to favor outbreaks of wheat spindle streak mosaic the following spring.
Wheat soilborne mosaic causes light green to yellow green to bright yellow mosaic patterns in leaf tissues. Symptoms are most evident on early spring growth, and warmer temperatures later in the season slow disease development. Symptoms of wheat soilborne mosaic are not always particularly distinctive and might occur as a more general yellowing similar to that caused by nitrogen deficiency. Infected plants may be stunted. This disease may be more severe in low lying, wet areas of a field. The soilborne wheat mosaic virus survives in the soil and is spread by the soil fungus Polymyxa graminis. Again, wet falls tend to favor outbreaks of wheat soilborne mosaic the following spring.
Barley yellow dwarf is an extremely widespread virus disease of cereals. Symptoms include leaf discoloration ranging from a light green or yellowing of leaf tissue to a red or purple discoloration of leaf tissue. Discoloration tends to be from the leaf tip down and the leaf margin in towards the center of the leaf. Plants may be stunted or may have a rigid, upright growth form. Symptoms are most pronounced when temperatures are in the range of 50-65 F. The barley yellow dwarf virus persists in small grains, corn and perennial and annual weed grasses. More than twenty species of aphids can transmit the barley yellow dwarf virus. Symptoms may be more severe and yield losses higher if plants are infected in the fall or early in the spring. Infections developing in late spring or summer may cause discoloration of upper leaves but little stunting of plants or yield loss.
The other virus disease likely to occur on winter wheat in Missouri is wheat streak mosaic, but symptoms of this disease are not usually evident until later in the season when air temperatures increase.
Wheat streak mosaic causes a light green to yellow green mottling and streaking of leaves. Symptoms may vary with variety, virus strain, stage of wheat growth when plants are infected and environmental conditions. Plants may be stunted. As temperatures increase later in the spring, yellowing of leaf tissue and stunting of plants may become more obvious. The wheat streak mosaic virus is spread by the wheat curl mite. Symptoms are frequently found along the edges of fields where the mite vector first entered the field. Both the wheat streak mosaic virus and the wheat curl mite survive in susceptible crop and weed hosts. Thus, the destruction of volunteer wheat and weed control are important management options for wheat streak mosaic.
A management program for wheat virus diseases should include these steps:
Plant good quality seed of resistant varieties.
Avoid planting too early in the fall to minimize opportunity for insect vectors to transmit viruses to young plants.
Destroy volunteer wheat and control weed grasses.
Maintain good plant vigor with adequate fertility.
Laura Sweets, Plant Microbiology Pathology, (573) 884-7307
Nitrogen carryover after low yielding corn
April 9, 2004
Integrated Pest Crop Management Newsletter Vol. 14, No. 4
University of Missouri-Columbia
Peter Scharf
http://ipm.missouri.edu/ipcm/archives/v14n4/ipmltr7.htm
Awide swath of Missouri, from the northwest corner down to central Missouri, received very little rain during the peak water uptake time for corn (mid-June to late August) last year (see map). Corn yields were low for most fields in this area, meaning that N uptake was also low. The crop was not able to effectively use the N fertilizer that had been applied.
The question is this: How much of the unused N is left in these fields? Rainfall from harvest until now has been a little above average (in contrast to the last two dry winters). There has been enough rain in most fields that water has moved down through the soil profile, possibly carrying unused N with it.
We have sampled some fields in Atchison, Linn and northern Ray Counties during the week of March 22- 26. Soil samples were taken to a depth of 3 feet. The average soil N content for five fields that had corn last year was 105 lb N/acre. Typically, we expect to find about 50 lb N/acre in a field that has not been fertilized, so our soil test results were about 55 lb N/acre higher than normal. This suggests that, if these fields are returned to corn, N rates could be cut back without hurting yield. However, there is still a chance the N that is in the soil now could be lost before the corn has a chance to get it if we have a wet spring.
Although it would save on input costs to plant corn back to fields that had low corn yields in 2003, we expect in many years there will be a rotation effect that leads to lower yields for corn following corn. This may be due to carryover of disease organisms or insect pests. So, any savings on fertilizer cost might be offset by lower yield. For many soils and fields in Missouri, soybean is on average more profitable than corn, and in these fields, it makes sense to plant soybeans even though the soil contains residual N that won't benefit the beans.
During late March, we also sampled three fields that were planted to soybean in 2003. Average soil N content was 52 lb N/acre, which is just what we'd expect in a normal year. For corn following 2003 soybeans, normal N rates should be used.
Peter Scharf, Agronomy (573) 882-0777
Quilt: a new foliar fungicide for use on wheat
April 9, 2004
Integrated Pest Crop Management Newsletter Vol. 14, No. 4
University of Missouri-Columbia
Laura Sweets
http://ipm.missouri.edu/ipcm/archives/v14n4/ipmltr8.htm
Quilt Fungicide, a premix of azoxystrobin and propiconazole, received federal registration in November of 2003.
Azoxystrobin has been available under the trade name Quadris (22.9 percent azoxystrobin), and propiconazole has been available under the trade name Tilt (41.8 percent propiconazole). Quilt combines these two fungicides in a premix containing 7.0 percent azoxystrobin and 11.7 percent propiconazole. According to Syngenta (the manufacturer of Quilt), the product ratio was designed to provide superior disease control with longer residual than Tilt, yet remain affordable.
Quilt is labeled for use on cereals (barley, wheat and triticale), sweet corn, grasses grown for seed in a limited number of states and rice.
On the cereal crops, the target diseases are early season suppression of powdery mildew, leaf blight (Septoria), glume blotch (Stagonospora) and tan spot and control of rust, powdery mildew, leaf blight, glume blotch, tan spot, Helminthosporium leaf blight, spot blotch, barley scald, barley stripe, net blotch and kernel blight.
The label further states, "Protecting" the flag leaf is important for maximizing the potential yield. Highest yields are normally obtained when Quilt is applied when the flag leaf is 50-70 percent emerged. Applications may be made no closer than a 14-day interval. Quilt may be applied up to Feekes growth stage 9.”
It is important to be aware of the federal label restriction on the application timing of Quilt. The current federal label allows application up to Feekes growth stage 9, which is flag leaf ligule and collar visible. If the wheat is in the boot stage or flowering, it is past Feekes growth stage 9 and Quilt can not legally be applied. Tilt, PropiMax EC (Dow Agrosciences' propiconazole product) and Stratego (Bayer's combination product containing propiconazole and trifloxystrobin) do have special local need registrations for use in Missouri that extends the application period to Feekes growth stage 10.5 or inflorescence completely emerged, anthesis not yet begun.
Quilt has not received a section 24c special local need registration, so the application timing is set by the federal label.
For all of the wheat foliar fungicides (and any pesticide), it is important to read the label prior to use and then follow all label restrictions.
Laura Sweets, Plant Microbiology Pathology (573) 884-7307
Spraying sense and sensibility
April 9, 2004
Integrated Pest Crop Management Newsletter Vol. 14, No. 4
University of Missouri-Columbia
Bill Casady
http://ipm.missouri.edu/ipcm/archives/v14n4/ipmltr9.htm
There's no room for miscommunication. That's the message we all need to be sharing when, instead, we sometimes focus on preaching about the wind. I sense that the drone of another windy sermon on the evils of drift would become muffled like a distant voice in a choppy spring breeze.
Everybody already knows that strong winds prevail during spraying season. "So what? We're going to spray, and we'll do our best to do it, right?" What we all really need is collaboration, cooperation, calculation and last, but certainly not least, communication.
Communication is key to so many things in life, and there's both an art and a science to making that happen. Communication implies sensibility, which implies awareness, receptiveness, openness and responsiveness. But these qualities of communication also imply vulnerability and voluntary disclosure, and that can make us uncomfortable because somebody else is going to know our business. Guess what? They already do.
The art of communication is embodied largely within the art of listening. Keeping your mouth shut when someone else has something to say is, perhaps, the most useful behavior any of us have ever learned. Communication is a positive thing, and it's not just about keeping your mouth shut. It's about listening and responding in a positive way, and those meetings we attended this winter were a chance to do just that.
The science of communication depends more on the situation. For custom application of crop protection materials, the science of communication has to do with timing, planning, grouping, cooperating, calculating and even anticipation or intuition. The science of communication, however, is about relying on as little guesswork as possible.
As a client, and as we begin making plans for spring planting, the moment we first think about spraying might just be the best time to call our custom applicator and say, "Hey, I'm thinking about spraying. I'm going to have beans here, corn there and sorghum over here. If the weather holds, I plan to start planting by Thursday next week."
As a manager of custom applicators, it might be good to call a meeting about a month or so before we first hear those words and lay out a plan to help make the busy season work as well as it can for everyone. Make sure everybody in the office and on the equipment has every opportunity to eat right and to get an appropriate amount of rest.
Stress can really take its toll when the rigs begin to roll. It might be worth it to have someone cater lunches for all employees and make sure everyone has the opportunity to take a break when necessary to take care of their own family obligations and responsibilities. It's also better to have a backup operator that can help relieve some of the stress than it is to lose a good full-time operator to the pressure.
Although it's late to have a preseason meeting now, it is a good time to assess whether we were well prepared this year and what we might want to do before the next season rolls around. As always, be safe!
Bill Casady, Agricultural Engineering (573) 882-4370
Early-season diseases of alfalfa, the "queen of forages"
April 9, 2004
The Bulletin No. 3
University of Illinois
Dean Malvick
http://www.ipm.uiuc.edu/bulletin/article.php?issueNumber=3&issueYear=2004&articleNumber=6
Alfalfa in Illinois in April can be looked at in at least two ways. One is the established alfalfa fields, which are growing vigorously in most areas of Illinois and are well on the way to producing the first crop for 2004. Another is the fields planted this spring. Both are susceptible to multiple diseases. With the value of alfalfa and the costs for reseeding in mind, it can pay to closely monitor and scout fields to determine whether and which diseases are causing problems so that management plans for specific diseases can be planned to maximize yield, quality, and profit for the alfalfa crop. Information and photographs for the most important alfalfa diseases in Illinois can be found at the University of Illinois Field Crop Diseases Web site (www.cropdisease.cropsci.uiuc. edu).
Early-Season Diseases in Established Stands
Several diseases can cause significant damage to alfalfa stands early in the season. Some of these are the same ones that cause later problems, including bacterial and Fusarium wilts, Verticillium wilt, anthracnose, crown rot, and Phytophthora rot. These diseases, with the exception of crown rot, can generally be managed with good alfalfa varieties that have high levels of disease resistance. Two other diseases can be of particular concern at this time of the year: spring black stem and Sclerotina crown and stem rot.
Spring black stem and leaf spot (caused by the fungus Phoma medicaginis) is a common disease in the cool times of the year that can reduce yield and forage quality. Dark brown to black spots develop on the leaves, which can expand and cause yellowing. Leaf drop may result, especially in the lower canopy of dense stands, which often stays moist. Dark lesions may develop on stems and and kill them. This disease is favored by wet and cool conditions and can develop quickly when conditions are favorable. The alfalfa crop should be harvested as soon as possible if this disease becomes severe in order to minimize losses of yield and quality. High levels of resistance to spring black stem are not available in alfalfa cultivars. However, good new varieties adapted to your area may suffer less damage from this disease than older varieties. Losses from foliar diseases can generally be minimized with good management practices and fertilization, especially using potassium.
Another disease that can cause considerable damage to young alfalfa stands, especially stands in the southern half of Illinois that were seeded last fall, is Sclerotinia crown and stem rot. At this time of the year, damage from this disease may be seen as dead patches of plants or plants with wilting or dying stems. On closer inspection, infected plants often are soft and rotting, covered in part with white fungal growth, and they contain small (1/8 inch to 1/4 inch), rounded black fungal structures. These plants typically have infected internal crown tissue that is brown to yellow in color. Sclerotinia crown and stem rot of alfalfa in Illinois is thought to be caused primarily by the soilborne fungus Sclerotinia trifoliorum, which is a different species than what causes white mold of soybean. This disease is managed by planting in spring, rotating away from alfalfa and clover, and using the most resistant cultivars available.
Diseases in Newly Planted Fields
Soilborne diseases that cause pre- and postemergence damping-off of alfalfa seedlings can be a major concern for successful stand establishment. Three diseases of particular concern are Pythium rot and damping-off, Phytophthora rot and damping-off, and Aphanomyces root rot. All of these diseases are favored by wet soil conditions. Pythium and Phytophthora often kill seedlings rapidly, before plants become severely discolored, whereas Aphanomyces tends to kill plants more slowly, while causing stunting and yellow-purple discoloration of cotyledons and leaves. Each of these diseases can be managed to some degree by avoiding wet fields. Treatment of alfalfa seed with the fungicides metalaxyl (Allegiance) or mefenoxam (Apron XL) provides effective protection for seed and seedlings against Pythium and Phytopthora. Aphanomyces cannot be managed with fungicides. Cultivars are not available that are resistant to Pythium. Many alfalfa cultivars have excellent resistance to Phytopthora and race 1 of Aphanomyces.
Aphanomyces root rot, caused by Aphanomyces euteiches, may be of particular concern, because we have found this pathogen to be very widespread in Illinois alfalfa fields. This disease is typically most damaging to seedlings and can dramatically thin stands and reduce vigor and yield of infected plants. Races 1 and 2 of Aphanomyces euteiches are very common in Illinois alfalfa fields. Resistant alfalfa varieties should be used to manage Aphanomyces root rot, especially where fields are prone to slow drainage and where seedling establishment problems have been noted in the past. Most certified varieties are resistant (R) or highly resistant (HR) to Aphanomyces root rot race 1. Resistance to race 1 does not protect against race 2. Thus, based on our new knowledge of race 2 in Illinois fields, resistance to races 1 and 2 is needed in many fields to protect plants against Aphanomyces root rot. Several alfalfa varieties are available that are resistant to both races of Aphanomyces.
For diagnosis of these and other crop disease problems, send samples to the University of Illinois Plant Clinic in Urbana (217-333-0519; www.cropsci.uiuc.edu/research/clinic/clinic.html).
Another year to remember for insect management?
April 9, 2004
The Bulletin No. 3
University of Illinois
Kevin Steffey
http://www.ipm.uiuc.edu/bulletin/article.php?issueNumber=3&issueYear=2004&articleNumber=1
Everyone in agriculture knows that each growing season presents unique challenges and opportunities for crop production. We entomologists eagerly anticipate each growing season, wondering which insects will make their marks and which will be most noticeable by their relative absence. Will soybean aphids return with a vengeance in 2004, or will their populations be relatively unnoticed, as they were in 2002? Will the range of the variant western corn rootworm that lays eggs in soybeans expand in 2004? Will secondary insect pests wreak any havoc this year, and, if so, where? Will European corn borers remind us of their capability to cause economic losses, or will the trend of low densities continue?
In addition to these questions, and others about the usual culprits--alfalfa weevil, bean leaf beetle, black cutworm, potato leafhopper, spider mites, stalk borer--we should gain more insight about new insect-control technologies. Insecticidal seed treatments for corn (primarily Cruiser and Poncho) will be used on an unprecedented number of acres in 2004, so any uncertainty about their efficacy could be addressed. YieldGard Rootworm corn hybrids will be planted on more acres in 2004 than in 2003, and their impact on rootworm populations will be interesting to observe.
Our team comprising the Insect Management and Insecticide Evaluation Program, coordinated by Ron Estes in the Department of Crop Sciences, has ambitious plans for applied field research in 2004, with objectives to address both fundamental questions about product efficacy and more challenging questions associated with insect management. We have plans for research projects focused on bean leaf beetle, black cutworm, corn rootworms, European corn borer, soybean aphid, and white grubs. We will assess the efficacy of currently registered insecticides, insecticidal seed treatments, and transgenic crops, as well as the efficacy of "experimental" insect-control products not yet registered for commercial use. We also will investigate the effects of several insects on crop growth and development, including crop yield, and the effects of crop production practices (e.g., planting time, level of fertilization) on the pests. As always, we hope to share the results of many of our efforts in articles in the Bulletin, as well as in an annual report, which currently is being designed for accessibility through our IPM Web site (http://www.ipm.uiuc.edu).
We hope you learn a lot about insect management this year, too. And please don't hesitate to contact us if you have information or data to share. By way of example, your submissions of side-by-side comparisons of soybean yields from strips or fields treated and not treated with insecticides for soybean aphids enabled us to determine the general impact of soybean aphids in Illinois in 2003. Such information is invaluable for validating or revising our insect management recommendations. Never underestimate the significance of your input.
So here's hoping that we have a great growing season this year and that we learn a lot about insect management to boot. Keep us up to date with your observations, and we'll do the same for you.
Some 11th-hour reminders about insect management
April 9, 2004
The Bulletin No. 3
University of Illinois
Kevin Steffey, Mike Gray, and Kelly Cook
http://www.ipm.uiuc.edu/bulletin/article.php?issueNumber=3&issueYear=2004&articleNumber=2
Alfalfa and wheat are growing (and looking pretty good, for the most part), fields are being prepared, and some corn has already been planted. But it's not too late to offer some reminders about insect management for 2004. Following is an abbreviated list of considerations regarding insect management, presented to advocate that we all do the best we can for the economic bottom line and for the environment.
If transgenic corn for insect control (i.e., YieldGard Corn Borer, Herculex, and YieldGard Rootworm corn hybrids [Bt corn]) is to be planted, please abide by all insect resistance management guidelines. To view these requirements all at one location, go to the National Corn Growers Association Web site. Remember that if a grower plants Bt corn, at least 20% of the corn acres on a farm must be planted to a non-Bt refuge. We recommend that non-Bt corn refuges should be planted within or adjacent to fields of Bt corn, regardless of the target insect.
If insecticidal seed treatments or granular or liquid insecticides are used to control subterranean insects in corn (e.g., corn rootworms, white grubs, wireworms), we recommend untreated "checks" within the same field. These untreated areas of the field (they need not be large) enable growers and their advisers to evaluate the efficacy of insect-control products, as well as to determine whether they were needed in the first place. Untreated checks also enhance the likelihood for determining the impact of any given insect pest on crop development and yield.
Use all insect-control products in the manner prescribed by the manufacturing company and the U.S. EPA. Abide by the directions and precautions on insecticide labels, and never apply an insecticide to a crop for which the insecticide is not labeled. Also, please avoid pesticide drift. Instances of pesticide drift harm relationships among neighbors, both rural/rural and rural/urban.
Plan to scout early and frequently. This may seem like a tired recommendation (it's been around for decades), but the worth of regular and timely scouting should not be undervalued. Early and timely scouting in 2003 would have prepared far more people for soybean aphids. Instead, far too many people were surprised.
Don't apply an insecticide if the insect pest density has not reached an economic threshold. Again, this may seem like a trite recommendation, but it is an underlying principle of integrated pest management (IPM). Far too often, insecticides are applied to fields because neighbors are applying insecticides, or based upon spurious recommendations. Case in point: We learned that some aggressive "advisers" were recommending application of insecticides to control aphids in wheat in southern Illinois a couple of weeks ago. However, based on widespread reports, aphids were either not present or were at very low densities in wheat fields in southern Illinois. When growers heed spurious recommendations, the results are unnecessary impacts on economics and the environment. As the growing season of 2004 progresses, this simple principle will be especially important regarding our response to small densities of soybean aphids.
Despite the increasing trend toward prophylactic insect control with insect-control products, we would like to keep the principles of IPM on the front burners. Let's not erase all of the benefits of IPM by reverting to uninformed insect management decisions.
Alfalfa weevil or clover leaf weevil?
April 9, 2004
The Bulletin No. 3
University of Illinois
Kelly Cook http://www.ipm.uiuc.edu/bulletin/article.php?issueNumber=3&issueYear=2004&articleNumber=3
It's the time of year that, when walking through our alfalfa fields, we ask ourselves that age-old question--Is this an alfalfa weevil or a clover leaf weevil? Well, maybe we don't always ask ourselves that very question, but it is one that should be considered this time of year. Kevin Black, with Growmark, has recently received reports of scattered alfalfa weevil activity in southern Illinois. Truth be told, these may not all be alfalfa weevils that are feeding in these alfalfa fields.
The alfalfa weevil and clover leaf weevil can both be found in early spring and can easily be misidentified. Larvae of the alfalfa weevil are green, with a white stripe down the back and a black head capsule. Clover leaf weevil larvae are also green with a white stripe on the back, but the stripe is bordered by reddish pink smudges. The head capsule of cloverleaf larvae is brown.
Injury caused by these insects is very similar, though injury caused by the clover leaf weevil occurs just prior to that caused by the alfalfa weevil. Alfalfa weevil larvae remain on the plant most of the time and prefer to feed on the tips of plants; clover leaf weevil larvae feed on the lower leaves of the plant but feed primarily at night. During the day, they can be found in the soil around the crowns of the plant or in debris. Adults of the clover leaf weevil are light brown, with a wide, dark brown stripe on the back. The adult alfalfa weevil is about half the size of the clover leaf weevil and is brown, with a dark, narrow stripe along the center of the wing covers.
Fungal organisms usually keep clover leaf weevil infestations in check, and they generally do not cause economic injury. It is important to distinguish between these two insects to correctly assess the situation and avoid unnecessary insecticide treatments.
Table 1 lists accumulated and projected degree-days (base 48°F) from January 1. Alfalfa weevil larval hatch is expected to occur after the accumulation of 300 degree-days. Alfalfa fields in southern Illinois will soon be experiencing larval hatch. View statewide maps and the most current degree-day accumulations at locations near you with our degree-day calculator.
To view the table see:
http://www.ipm.uiuc.edu/bulletin/article.php?issueNumber=3&issueYear=2004&articleNumber=3
Announcements on new insecticides
April 9, 2004
The Bulletin No. 3
University of Illinois
Kevin Steffey
http://www.ipm.uiuc.edu/bulletin/article.php?issueNumber=3&issueYear=2004&articleNumber=5
Early in 2004, AMVAC Chemical Corporation entered into an agreement with Syngenta Crop Protection to supply Force 3G corn soil insecticide for use through AMVAC's SmartBox systems beginning this year. Most of you know that AMVAC also supplies Aztec 4.67G and Fortress 5G through the SmartBox system, a closed handling system that makes application of granular insecticides more precise and reduces applicator exposure. Force 3G in the SmartBox will be available in limited quantities in 2004 and will be sold through select distribution channels by AMVAC.
We just received word from Dow AgroSciences that gamma cyhalothrin has received federal registration for use on a number of field, vegetable, tree, and vine crops. State agencies currently are reviewing the submission package, so the product is not yet available for use in Illinois. However, Dow AgroSciences expects state registrations soon. The trade name for the product containing gamma cyhalothrin for use on field crops will be Proaxis. This new generation pyrethroid will have the lowest overall rate range of any currently U.S.-registered pyrethroid. Over the past few years, we have included Proaxis in several of our insecticide efficacy trials, and its performance has been excellent. In the near future, we will provide more information (e.g., crops, use rates) about Proaxis in the Bulletin.
Agnet is produced by the Food Safety Network at the University of Guelph and is sponsored by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Plants Program at the University of Guelph, Agricultural Adaptation Council (CanAdapt Program), AGCare, Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, ConAgra Foods Inc., Meat Livestock Australia, Pioneer Hi-Bred Limited (Canada), Monsanto Canada, National Pork Board, Syngenta Seeds, Inc. USA, JIFSAN, CropLife Canada, Canadian Animal Health Institute, Burger King Corporation, Southern Crop Protection Association, Ag-West Biotech Inc., Ontario Agri-Food Technologies, Syngenta Crop Protection, Feedlot Health Management Services, Institute of Environmental Science Research Limited , National Food Processors Association, Tactix Government Consulting, Inc., CanAmera Foods, Global Public Affairs, and Agri Business Group, Inc.
To subscribe to the html version of Agnet (subscription is free), send mail to:
listserv@...
leave subject line blank
in the body of the message type:
subscribe agnet-L firstname lastname
i.e. subscribe agnet-L Doug Powell
(replace agnet-L with agnettext to subscribe to the text version of agnet)
To unsubscribe to the html version of Agnet, send mail to:
listserv@...
leave subject line blank
in the body of the message type:
signoff agnet-L
(replace agnet-L with agnettext to unsubscribe to the text version of agnet)
For more information about the Agnet research program, please contact:
Dr. Douglas Powell
Associate Professor
dept. of plant agriculture
University of Guelph
Guelph, Ont.
N1G 2W1
tel: 519-824-4120 x54280
cell: 519-835-3015
fax: 519-763-8933
dpowell@...
http://www.foodsafetynetwork.ca
The Food Safety Network's bilingual toll-free line for obtaining food safety
information: 1-866-50-FSNET (1-866-503-7638)
archived at "http://131.104.232.9/agnet-archives.htm
Send Email