North Dakota State University
NDSU Extension Service
Volume 17, No. 2, April 1999
a.i.: clethodim
Crops: Registered on chick pea/garbanzo bean under dry bean label.
a.i.: ethalfluralin
Crops: Section 18 registration on canola granted. Registered on chick pea/garbanzo bean.
Mode of action: PPO inhibitor
a.i.: sulfentrazone
Crops: Tobacco. Section 18 registration was denied by EPA and is now on appeal for sunflower.
Comments: Control most small-seeded broadleaf weeds and foxtail suppression. PRE application only. Requires rainfall for activation. Same product as Authority in soybean. DuPont has marketing rights to Authority in soybean. FMC has marketing rights to all other crops with sulfentrazone. Usage will be expanded to dry bean, field pea, and other legume crops in the future.
Mode of action: Both ALS
a.i.: primisulfuron (Beacon) + prosulfuron (Peak) in 3:1 ratio or 0.575 oz/A:0.25 oz/A)
Crops: Corn
Comments: Same ingredients as Exceed except contains a higher ratio of Beacon and less Peak for use in some northern U.S. geographic locations to reduce risk of carryover. See label.
Mode of action: Plant growth inhibitor
a.i.: fluroxypyr
Crops: Wheat, barley oat and chem fallow.
Corn and sorghum expected in future.
Comments: No residual. E control kochia including ALS and dicamba resistant. Provides control or partial control of wild buckwheat and nightshades. Premixes available with 2,4-D ester = Starane Plus Salvo and with MCPA ester = Starane Plus Sword. ND 2(ee) labels allow reduced rates of Starane at 0.5 pt/A ~ $5.70/A
Starane + Salvo and Starane + Sword at 1 pt/A.
Some evidence that some kochia populations may exhibit varying degrees of natural tolerance to Starane.
Mode of action: Plant growth regulator
a.i.: clopyralid
Crops: Section 18 on canola granted with a warning that future Sections 18 on the same crop for multiple years will not be granted.
Issues: Market segmentation
Lontrel (CAN) - $500/gal (CAN)
Stinger - $485/gal
Transline (MT) - $390/gal (not registered in ND)
Reclaim (OK/TX) - $200/gal (not registered in ND)
Mode of action: ALS inhibitor + photosynthetic inhibitor
a.i.: imazapyr (0.5%) + diuron (2%)
Crops: Noncropland and bare ground weed control
Comments: Same ingredients as in Sahara 70WDG but formulated as a granular for convenient application. Diuron will control ALS resistant kochia. Used as a preemergence or early postemergence will control over 100 annual and perennial grasses and broadleaf weeds. Requires precipitation after application for maximum control. Rate is 200 to 300 lb/A/0.5 to 0.7 lb/100 sq ft.
Mode of action: EPSP synthase inhibitor
a.i.: Trimethyl sulfonium salt of glyphosate (NOT sulfosate).
(Same active ingredient as Roundup but a different salt.
Roundup/Ultra/RT = glyphosate - isopropylamine salt
Touchdown = glyphosate - trimethyl sulfonium (trimesium).
Crops: Burndown for corn and soybean, and wheat. Use on Roundup Ready soybean and corn pending.
Comments: Previously registered only in noncrop uses. Negotiations with Monsanto will allow Touchdown on most Roundup Ready crops in future. Touchdown 5E contains adjuvants as Roundup Ultra but does not restrict addition of additional adjuvants. Touchdown is affected by water quality and salt antagonism as Roundup Ulta. Some observations that Touchdown may temporarily injure some varieites of Roundup Ready corn and canola. Observations may be caused by the phytotoxic effect of the TMS salt as compared to the DMA salt of Roundup brands.
Mode of action: acetamide + photosynthetic inhibitor
a.i.: metolachlor + metribuzin
Crops: Soybean
Comments: Novartis has marketing rights to Turbo in soybean beginning in 1999.
Mode of action: PPO inhibitor - Cell membrane disruptor
a.i.: flumioxazin
Crops: Soybean — registration on soybean expected in 2000
Comments: Soil applied at 2 to 3 oz/A at 3 to 6% OM but rates must INCREASE as soil OM decreases. Similar to Authority/ Spartan herbicide except no carryover and better common ragweed control. Potential use in cultivated sunflower. Label in soybean expected in 2002. Research in dry bean, field pea, and other crops will be explored.
Mode of action: Carotenoid inhibitor - same as Balance
a.i.: mesotrione
Crops: Corn
Comments: Registration expected in 2000. Experimental broadleaf herbicide for PRE and POST application. Symptoms are plant bleaching. Will not be used after Counter in-furrow nor a tankmix with an OP. An mesotrione/acetochlor tankmix registration expected in 2001.
IR-4 Registration Projects in Progress
Barley = Roundup - preharvest
Borage = Authority
Buckwheat = Poast
Chickpeas = Spartan, Tough
Canola = RU - preharvest
Imi canola = Accent, Ally, Harmony GT
Crambe = Muster, Sonalan, Stinger, RU - preharvest
Dry beans = Authority, Permit, RU —preharvest
Flax = Assure II, Poast, RU — preharvest
Field pea = Spartan, Paraquat and RU (preharvest)
Imi Sunflower = Raptor
Lentils = RU - preharvest
Safflower = Poast, Spartan, RU — preharvest
Sunflower = Valor, Milestone, RU — preharvest
The Environmental Protection Agency believes that new restrictions are needed to protect bystanders in residential and occupational settings, as well as pesticide applicators, from exposure to the highly toxic phosphine gas that is created when these pesticides are used. In North Dakota, aluminum phosphide is primarily used to control insect pests in stored grain. These proposals will be reviewed with stakeholder groups this summer and new use restrictions are expected in the next 18 months. What follows are some questions and answers on EPA's proposals:
EPA has reviewed aluminum and magnesium phosphide under the agency's pesticide reregistration program and completed the review of human health effects of aluminum and magnesium phosphide, including their potential for causing adverse effects in fish, wildlife, and the environment. The agency has identified risks that must be reduced in order for these pesticides to become eligible for reregistration.
EPA has developed a number of proposals to reduce the potential risk of inhalation toxicity to handlers and bystanders that may be posed by current uses of aluminum and magnesium phosphide. EPA's risk mitigation proposals can be summarized as follows:
- Applicators would be required to notify local authorities at least 24 hours in advance of the date, time and location of planned fumigation activities.
- All fumigation activities would have to be conducted by a certified applicator or within 50 feet and in clear sight of a certified applicator.
- Aeration of fumigated railcars and other vehicles while in transit would be prohibited.
- Placarding fumigated structures, containers and vehicles would be required.
- Registrants would be required to establish an incident reporting program.
- All persons involved in fumigation/aeration activities would be required to wear respiratory protection during those operations, unless monitoring shows that phosphine concentrations are at or below the established standard of 0.03 ppm..
- A two-man operation would be required for any activity that involved entry into a fumigated structure.
- A 500-foot buffer zone and restricted area would be required around all fumigated structures to prevent exposure to residential bystanders. Placarding around the perimeter and monitoring prior to reentry also would be required.
- More thorough, stringent monitoring of fumigated commodities would be required.
- Prior to fumigation, structures would be required to undergo seal/leak testing. Leaks would have to be repaired prior to fumigation.
- Treatment of burrows for rodent control would be prohibited within 100 feet of a residence (instead of the current 15 feet). This would eliminate residential rodenticide uses of aluminum and magnesium phosphide, but would allow rodent control under other circumstances to continue. Exceptions could be made for public health reasons.
- The certified applicator would be required to notify all local residents and bystanders within 750 feet of the structure to be fumigated.
- Registrants would be required to work with EPA and the states to develop a fumigator specific certification program.
- Additional monitoring would be required around fumigated structures to reduce occupational and residential bystander exposure. No fumigated structure could be reentered until phosphine concentrations declined to 0.03 ppm or less, unless appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) was worn.
- All applicable safety standards would be required to appear on product labels.
Contact Mark Hartman, Chemical Review Manager for aluminum and magnesium phosphide, at EPA; telephone 703-308-0734; e-mail Hartman.Mark@epamail.epa.gov.
The EPA has granted a specific exemption for the insecticide Warrior to control two species of flea beetles in North Dakota canola fields. The exemption allows ground or air application of Warrior at a rate of 0.02 to 0.03 pounds of active ingredient per acre. Total applications must not exceed 0.06 pounds per acre. Applicators must follow all instructions, precautions and warnings on the label and have a copy of the exemption label in their possession during application. A maximum of 130,000 acres of canola may be treated under the exemption, which expires July 1, 1999. Warrior (lambda-cyhalothrin) is manufactured by Zeneca Ag Products.
Charles Hagedorn, Professor and Biotechnology Specialist, Virginia Cooperative Extension
According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), the global acre-age planted to commercial transgenic crops, excluding China, increased 250% between 1997 and 1998 to almost 70 million acres (Table 1, ISAAA). Soybean and corn accounted for 82% of the 1998 acreage (57 million acres combined), with cotton and canola planted to some 6 million acres each.
Table 1. Global acreage of transgenic crops (excluding China) in 1997 and 1998: by crop (millions of acres).
--------------------------------------
Crop 1997 1998
--------------------------------------
Acres % Acres %
Soybean 12.8 46 36.3 52
Corn 8.0 30 20.8 30
Cotton 3.5 13 6.3 9
Canola 3.0 11 6.0 9
Potato <0.3 <1 <0.3 <1
----------------------------
Total 27.5 100 69.5 100
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Currently, the crop biotech industry is narrowly dependent on two engineered traits and two crops (Tables 2, ISAAA). In both 1997 and 1998, over 99 percent of the transgenic acreage was devoted to just two traits — herbicide and insect resistance. In 1998, herbicide-resistant crops were planted on nearly 50 million acres, about 71 percent of the total, while Bt insect resistant crops were planted on 19 million acres or 28 percent. Less than one percent of the acreage was devoted to "quality traits," some of which might be important to consumers. Herbicide resistant soybeans alone accounted for 52% of the transgenic acres on a global basis, with Bt corn a distant second at 24% (Table 3, ISAAA).
Table 2. Global acreage of transgenic crops (excluding China) in 1997 and 1998: by trait (millions of acres).
---------------------------------------------------
Trait 1997 1998
---------------------------------------------------
Acres % Acres %
Herbicide resistance 17.3 63 49.5 71
Insect resistance (Bt) 10.0 36 19.3 28
Insect/herbicide resist. <0.3 <1 0.8 1
Quality traits <0.3 <1 <0.3 <1
--------------------------
Total 27.5 100 69.5 100
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
Table 3. Globally dominant transgenic crops in 1998 (excluding China).
----------------------------------------------------------
% Global
Rank Crop Transgenic Acres
----------------------------------------------------------
1 Herbicide-resistant soybean 52
2 Insect-resistant (Bt) corn 24
3 Herbicide-resistant canola 9
3 Insect (Bt)/herbicide-resistant cotton 9
4 Herbicide-resistant corn 6
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
In both 1997 and 1998, the bulk of the transgenic acres, about 85 percent, was planted in industrialized nations. The United States, where acreage more than doubled last year, remained the leader, accounting for nearly three-fourths of the global total (Tables 4, ISAAA). Among developing countries, only Argentina planted large amounts of transgenic crops (15% of the total). Most of the acres planted to transgenics in Canada (3.3 million) were canola. Although the ISAAA excluded China for lack of reliable data, it is estimated that 250,000 acres, principally in Bt cotton, were grown in China in 1998. In the U.S. 32% of the total soybean acreage was planted to transgenics, while 45% of the U.S. cotton acreage (13 million acres) was planted to transgenics (Table 5, BIO and the Idaho Statesman). Within five years, virtually all of the U.S. cotton acreage is expected to be in transgenics.
Table 4. Global acreage of transgenic crops (excluding China) in 1997 and 1998: by country (millions of acres).
------------------------------------------
Country 1997 1998
------------------------------------------
Acres % Acres %
USA 20.3 74 51.3 74
Argentina 3.5 13 10.8 15
Canada 3.3 12 7.0 10
Australia 0.3 1 0.3 1
Mexico <0.3 <1 0.3 1
Spain 0 0 <0.3 <1
France 0 0 <0.3 <1
South Africa 0 0 <0.3 <1
-----------------------------
Total 27.5 100 69.5 100
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
Table 5. Percentage of total US acreage planted in transgenic crops in 1998: by crop (millions of acres).
---------------------------------------------
Acres
-------------------------------------
Crop Transgenic Total % Transgenic
---------------------------------------------
Soybean 27 72 32
Corn 19.6 80 25
Cotton 5.8 13 45
Potato 0.05 1.4 3.5
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
The North Dakota Weed Control Association (NDWCA) is sponsoring two noxious weed control workshops at:
Stanley
May 25th — Fair Building, Mountrail County Fairgrounds
Jamestown
May 27th — James River Senior Center, 502 10th Ave.
Southeast
Both workshops will be offered for recertification and certification for those applicators in the Right-of-Way category. The certification fee is $40. Onsite testing will not be offered, so if a monitored exam is necessary to complete certification, arrangements must be made independently through local NDSU Extension Service county offices.
The day long workshop will open with a 9:00 am registration for those applicators participating for certification. The program will begin at 9:30 a.m., break for lunch on site, and conclude at 3:00 p.m. Major covered topics and speakers will include:
For more information contact Randy Mehlhoff, NDWCA Executive Secretary at 701-774-1198 or 4315.
Pat O'Neil, Compliance Officer
Please take note of the following sections of the North Dakota Century Code:
North Dakota Century Code 12.1-17-03
"Reckless endangerment. A person is guilty of an offense if he creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death to another. The offense is a class C felony if the circumstances manifest his extreme indifference to the value of human life. Otherwise it is a class A misdemeanor. There is a risk within the meaning of this section if the potential for harm exists, whether or not a particular person's safety is actually jeopardized.
A class C felony is punishable by 5 years in prison or a fine of $5,000.00, or both. The class A misdemeanor is punishable by one (1) year in prison or a fine of $2,000.00, or both."
In the last few years, there have been several "pesticide" incidents which could have resulted in convictions for the above crime. On one occasion some (aluminum phosphide) fumigant flasks, which apparently contained unused product, were placed in a dumpster. The sanitation company picked up the dumpster and one of the handlers was so affected by the gas fumes he was hospitalized for a short time. At a different location, a liquid herbicide was applied to a crop for which it was not labeled. If the residue had been over the EPA tolerance level, the above crime could have been charged.
You may not realize the serious nature of a faulty pesticide application until you find that the North Dakota Supreme Court has said you can be guilty of this crime even where a person's safety is not actually in jeopardy so long as the "potential" for harm exists. An applicator's actions may show he disregarded a risk by creating the potential for harm, even if nobody was placed in danger by his conduct. It is enough if they could have been in danger because of the pesticide applied, the way it was applied or the conditions in existence at the time it was applied.
The handling, mixing and application of pesticides is a serious business. If you don't believe that, please read the criminal law above again.
January 1999 Canola Digest, the Canola Council of Canada
Intense efforts by Canadian registrants, government regulators on both sides of the border and Canadian canola growers has resulted in unanimous agreement to remove lindane seed treatments from Canadian product labels by December 31, 1999. Growers and suppliers have until July 1, 2001 to use existing stocks after which time lindane use in Canada will be illegal.
Lindane seed treatments are still illegal in the U.S. and treated seed exports will be turned back. However, the process to remove lindane is looked on favorably by the U.S. officials and it's highly unlikely canola will be embargoed during the phase-out period, Zatylny says. The agreement comes after lengthy discussions and a series of meetings between the registrants of lindane (Gustafson, Rhone Poulenc, Zeneca Agro and Inter-Provincial Cooperatives Ltd.), the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Canadian Canola Growers Association. Tony Zatylny, the Canola Council's Vice-President of Crop Production, coordinated the process that led to the agreement.
The process began after the U.S. EPA gave notice under the Food Quality Protection Act in June last year that lindane seed treatments are illegal in the U.S. and exports of seed from Canada would be confiscated or turned back. The situation had the potential to cause the U.S. to shut down the border to Canadian canola, Zatylny says. The U.S. is a big purchaser of Canadian canola seed and the major buyer of canola oil and meal.
Canadian and U.S. regulatory agencies are working with growers and registrants to identify replacement products for lindane seed treatments and ways to expedite the review process to get new products to market sooner. One option is to use a streamlined joint review process developed by Canadian and U.S. officials. Streamlining of the approval processes for seed treatments will reduce the time required for regulatory approval from 18 months to about 12 months, claim regulatory officials. Several lindane replacement products are under development. Field trials will be run across Canada this year showcasing the new seed treatments.
Business Name: ________________________________________________________
Product: ______________________________________________________________
Business Address: ______________________________________________________
EPA Registration Number: ________________________________________________
(Link to printable worksheet - 6KB pdf file)
On the opposite page is an inventory record form for tracking Section 18 pesticides. Dealers selling this special class of pesticides are expected by law to keep an accurate tally of sales and inventories for followup inspection by the North Dakota Department of Agriculture. The supplied form has been approved by the NDDA for this purpose. However, any format would be acceptable provided the requested information on the form is complete.
While this tracking is required by law, it is also necessary as an essential tool for EPA to use in assessing risks and use patterns of these particular pesticides. Without this EPA would have to greatly restrict pesticide availability because they have to guesstimate a higher risk rather than factually documenting risk. Finally, these Section 18 pesticide registrations represent millions of dollars in income for North Dakota Agriculture. Without adequate use records, this income will be placed in jeopardy.
Visual and microscopic diagnosis for disease, insect, weed or herbicide injury:
N.D. Residents............................. $15 N.D. Residents............................. $10 (submitted through your county agent) Out-of-state residents.................... $20
Cultures and special tests................ $25 Soil test for Pursuit herbicide residue... $125
Plant and soil test for Roundup herbicide residue ............................. call lab for cost
For more information contact:
Cheryl Ruby,
Plant Pest Diagnostician
at 701-231-7854 or
diaglab@ndsuext.nodak.edu
Pesticide Quarterly - Volume 17, No. 2, April 1999
NDSU Extension Service, North Dakota State University of
Agriculture and Applied Science, and U.S. Department of
Agriculture cooperating. Sharon D. Anderson, Director, Fargo,
North Dakota. Distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress
of May 8 and June 30, 1914. We offer our programs and facilities
to all persons regardless of race, color, national origin,
religion, sex, disability, age, Vietnam era veterans status, or
sexual orientation; and are an equal opportunity employer.
This publication will be made available in alternative format for
persons with disabilities upon request 701/231-7881.
North Dakota State University
NDSU Extension Services
North Dakota State University
NDSU Extension Service