North Dakota State University
NDSU Extension Service

Volume 18, No. 2, April 2000

Contents

Coordinator's Comments

Pesticide Report Cites Trends in Usage
Mid-Year Enforcement Activities at the North Dakota Department of Agriculture
Prepare Now for Protection During Pesticide Application
Looking for Section 18 or 24C Pesticide Labels?
A Primer on Pesticide Registration and Labeling
New Brochures Encourage Pesticide Users to "Read the Label First!"
Recent and Pending Section 18 and 24C Labeling in North Dakota
Spraying in the Wind
Right of Way Recertification Available for Participation in the North Dakota
Outcrossing of Herbicide-tolerant Canola Can be Controlled: Growers have Several Options
Crop Management Field School Scheduled June 29

 

Need help with pesticide certification or general pesticide use issues?

Contact: NDSU Pesticide Training and Certification Program Box 5051, Fargo, ND 58105-5051 Tel: 701-231-7180 Fax: 701-231-8474 E-mail: pesticid@ndsuext.nodak.edu Internet: http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/aginfo/pesticid/pesticid.htm

Pesticide Report Cites Trends in Usage

The Environmental Protection Agency says pesticide usage on farms peaked in the early 1980s and has been maintaining a lower, yet fluctuating, level ever since. Meanwhile, pesticide usage in the non-agricultural sector reached its peak in 1979 and has declined consistently ever since. These trends and other information on pesticide use can be found in the a publication titled "EPA Pesticide Industry Sales and Usage: 1996 and 1997 Market Estimates," which is the latest version of this annual report.

The following highlights on pesticide sales and use come from the current EPA report.

• In 1997, U.S. pesticide users spent $11.9 billion on products developed and produced exclusively or primarily for use as pesticides (conventional pesticides) and on other pesticide chemicals such as sulfur and petroleum. Of that total, 70 percent was used by the agriculture sector ($8.3 billion), an amount that equates to an average of nearly $4,400 per farm.
• The U.S. total expenditure on pesticides in 1997—$11.9 billion—equals $44 per capita. The average U.S. household spent about $20 for pesticides applied by the homeowner (does not include expenditures for pesticides applied to homes and gardens by others for hire).
• There are 18 major pesticide manufacturers doing business in the United States and about 17,000 distributors, along with between 35,000 and 40,000 pest control firms and 375,000 certified commercial applicators.
• According to 1997 census data, there are about 940,000 farms using pesticides—that's out of 1.67 million farms with cropland and 1.90 million farms in total.
• About three-fourths of U.S. households use pesticides (74 million out of 100 million).
• Crop acreage is a major and direct factor affecting the quantities of pesticides used by the agriculture sector. For example, conventional pesticide usage in agriculture increased by 35 million pounds in 1996 (to 806 million pounds) because the production area of major crops such as corn, soybeans, sorghum and cereal grains grew by more than 20 million acres.
• Purchases by U.S. pesticide users account for nearly one-third of the world market in dollar terms and about one-fifth of the active ingredient, measured in pounds. The U.S. agriculture sector accounts for more than two-thirds of expenditures by pesticide users and three-fourths of the volumes used annually.
• U.S. farmers who use pesticides devoted, on average, the equivalent of 4.5 percent of their total farm pro-duction expenditures to pesticides in 1997—a level that was down slightly from the previous two years.
• Herbicides are the leading types of pesticides used, in terms of both expenditures and volume. The most widely used pesticide in U.S. agricultural crop production, by volume, is the herbicide atrazine. The herbicide 2,4-D has the largest volume of usage in non-agricultural sectors.

Coordinator's Comments

Another training season has drawn to a close, and at the time of this writing everyone's thoughts are turning to the field and the application season. Before you go to the field take a few moments to consider the following:

• Check to see that your certifications and your employees certifications are current in all the use categories that you plan to work with this season. Expiration years of 2000 or less are no longer valid. Expiration years 2001, 2002, and 2003 are current.
• If you sell pesticides to private applicators or other dealers, check their certifications to make sure they are current so a problem does not arise during the rush of the season.
• Do you have all the labels and material safety datasheets available for all the products you will likely be merchandising or using this season?
• Review the labels to make sure you have all the safety equipment and materials you need to properly apply them.
• Finally, have you developed an emergency response plan just in case something goes wrong?

I could develop a check list a mile long, but you get the idea.

Statistics

What follows are some statistics we have collected during this certification season as of April 24, 2000:

• Private certifications granted—5300
• Commercial certifications granted—2300
• Number of applicators, dealers, and consultants not in compliance with the financial responsibility law because no documents have been filled—34
• Number of applicators, dealers, and consultants not in compliance with the financial responsibility law because of insurance or document expirations—732
• Number of internet requests for certification records on the public database since January 26, 2000—2301

What's Up on the State Regulatory Front

• The NDDA convened an ad hoc task force of industry representatives in early April to advise them on necessary revisions to the rules on bulk re-packaging of pesticides.
• The NDDA is going to do a comprehensive review of the North Dakota Pesticide Act to advise the 2001 Legislature on needed statute changes. Industry has been invited into this process, which will be done over the summer recommendations solidified in the fall.
• Public hearings have been held and comments received on the establishment of a sewer root control certification category. This process should be completed before the 2001 training season.
• The NDDA is taking strong enforcement action on those applicators, dealers, and consultants who are not in compliance with the financial responsibility law. Suspensions and sizeable fines have recently been levied.

Finally

Remember that July is the month when Project Safe Send is active collecting damaged or unwanted pesticides and that August is the month for recycling pesticide containers. Watch your local papers and the July issue of the Pesticide Quarterly for details.

Best wishes on a safe and profitable spray season,

Andrew A. Thostenson,
Pesticide Program Specialist

Mid-Year Enforcement Activities at the North Dakota Department of Agriculture

Submitted by Gerald Thompson, NDDA Pesticide Coordinator, March 31, 2000

Inspection Summary

•	Inspections conducted	422
•	Commercial applicator	182
•	Restricted use dealer	146
•	Bulk dealer	71
•	Market place	18
•	Use inspections	4
•	Complaints—ag follow-up	2

Complaint Summary

• One complaint that feed and pesticides were intermixed in the storage area at an elevator in southeastern North Dakota.
• One complaint involved the death of 13 head of cattle in southeastern North Dakota. The laboratory results indicated phorate, an insecticide, was in the stomachs of two animals that were autopsied. The cattle drank from a slough near their pasture area. The State Health Department obtained several water samples. Water sample results were negative. Hay samples have been submitted to a laboratory and results are still pending.

Violations Issued—64

Nineteen of these violations resulted from a Wisconsin Department of Agriculture referral when they discovered high fumigant levels in an unmarked truck. The truck had traveled on a public road while it was under fumigation. There were several violations on the elevator manager and 14 illegal sales to farmers who were not certified in the fumigation category.

Warnings issued on inspection reports—55
Dollar amount of fines collected to date in FY 2000—$11,400.00

Prepare Now for Protection During Pesticide Application

As the pesticide-application season approaches, farmers and commercial applicators should be giving some thought to their own protection, says Clark Brenzil, weed control specialist, Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food.

"Protection from pesticides is often one of the first things to slip when the busy season is on, so now is the time to prepare supplies of safety equipment.

"While each new generation of pesticides is safer than the last, users still need to take adequate precautions to prevent unnecessary exposure. Pesticides range in toxicity, from very acute, as with the organophosphate insecticides, to relatively benign, as with some herbicides. But, even though the acute toxicity of most herbicides is relatively low, safety equipment should still be worn because less is known about the long-term effects of exposure to these products."

Brenzil says some pesticide formulations are absorbed by the skin more easily than others. For example, oil-based products, such as emulsifiable concentrates and some oil-based flowables, are absorbed the quickest by the skin. Water-based solutions and water-based flowables have lower potential for absorption by the skin, but not as low as dry products, such as water-soluable granules, wettable powders and soil-applied granules.

"The skin, furthermore, is the most common area of exposure to chemicals used in pesticide applications.  Absorption of pesticides through the skin varies with the body part it covers. The scalp, ear canal and genital area have the highest uptake."

Brenzil suggests that hearing-protection devices may serve a dual role by blocking entry to the ear. They should be washed thoroughly after each use. Hardhats or flexible plastic hats to protect the scalp are preferable to baseball caps because they are not permeable. If baseball caps are worn, they should be thrown out after each round of spraying.

Coveralls should also be worn, preferably disposable coveralls because they are less permeable and are thrown out after use. If cloth coveralls are used, the weave should be tight and there should be no holes. A fresh pair should be worn each day, and they should be washed separately.

Brenzil says the mucous-secreting areas of the body, such as eyes, mouth, lungs, nasal passages and digestive tract, are also areas of high pesticide absorption. Contact lenses, for example, should not be worn because they trap pesticides and increase pesticide risk. Goggles, facial protection and respirators that block organic vapors should be worn. An effective respirator will have an activated-carbon filter. Because it loses its effectiveness if left in the air, should be stored in an airtight plastic bag. The rubber mask portion of the respirator should be washed and thoroughly dried after each use.

"Obvious areas of exposure are the hands and feet as they have the most contact with our surroundings. Gloves and boots that are impermeable to chemicals are also the obvious solution," says Brenzil.

Boots should be of natural rubber or neoprene and should completely cover the feet and legs to the knee. Rubber or green nitrile gloves are important for both mixing of the pesticide and maintenance of the sprayer. Latex and vinyl gloves should not be used, as they are porous and degrade easily on exposure to many of the carriers and adjuvants. Because large heavy gloves are often difficult to use when working with small parts of the sprayer, a set of heavy surgical nitrile gloves (green), available at safety supply distributors, can be used.

"Turning down the cuffs of gloves will help keep drips from running down arms when working on objects overhead or lifting containers up to the opening of sprayers," adds Brenzil.

Because the length of exposure to chemicals is as important as the intensity of the chemicals, clothing used during spraying should be removed when spraying is finished. The applicator should shower immediately and change into clean clothes. If pesticides are spilled directly on clothing, this clothing should be changed immediately. Organic materials such as cloth, leathers and canvas tend to absorb pesticides and then re-expose the owner each time they are worn

The cabs of application equipment should also receive attention. Many have controlled ventilation with carbon filters, and these filters should be changed at the beginning of each spray season and replaced if the smell of chemicals occurs. If such a contained system is used on spray equipment, protective clothing worn during mixing should be removed before entering it. Otherwise, the benefits of the system are lost.

Looking for Section 18 or 24C Pesticide Labels?

North Dakota's Section 18—Emergency or Crisis Exemption labels as well as recent 24C—State and Local Needs labels are available at the NDSU Pesticide Training and Certification World Wide Web Home Page. The URL is:

http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/aginfo/pesticid/pesticid.htm  

Look under "What's Hot" or click on the green button on the left side of the page entitled: "Pesticide Label Search."

All labels are in Portable Document Format (PDF) and require Adobe Acrobat Reader software to view. This software is free and a link to Adobe Corporation's download site is also located on the label pages.

A Primer on Pesticide Registration and Labeling

Pesticide Labeling and Registration

No pesticide may be sold or used in the United States until the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has registered the product and approved of the use and the labeling. Canadian and other foreign labeled pesticides may not be used in the United States until registered by the EPA.

Federal EPA Labels, also known as 3e and 2ee labels, are the most common and widely used type of pesticide labeling. These labels are granted at the national level by EPA and must be attached to the container that the pesticide is sold in.

Special Local Needs Labels, also known as 24C or State and Local Needs (SLN) labels, allow states to control pesticide usage in their jurisdiction, including registering additional uses or adding limitations for a federally registered pesticide. SLN registrations involve adding application sites, pests, or alternate control methods to those listed on federally registered labeling. SLN labels are usually initiated by the pesticide manufacturer, are issued by the North Dakota Department of Agriculture (NDDA), and must be approved by EPA. Supplemental labeling must be provided for each SLN registration. Applicators must have the SLN label and federal label in their possession at the time of application. These registrations are legal only in the state or local area specified in the labeling.

Section 18 "Emergency" and "Crisis" exemptions from registration are used when an emergency or crisis pest situation arises for which no pesticide is registered. Both types of exemptions from registration allow use of a pesticide for a non-registered purpose for a specified period of time. North Dakota "Emergency" Section 18 exemptions are registrations initiated by the NDDA, are approved by the EPA, and can be declared if both federal and SLN registrations are not or cannot be enacted in time to prevent the emergency pest situation from occurring. This process takes several months to complete.

In rare occasions, when time is critical and the emergency is acute, NDDA has the authority to declare a "Crisis" exemption without the written approval of EPA. The NDDA informs EPA of the condition prior to the action and allows EPA to support the state action. This process usually takes 10 to 14 days to complete. The duration of a "Crisis" exemption (14 to 21 days) is shorter than an "Emergency" exemption. If an "Emergency" exemption is being reviewed by the EPA at the time the "Crisis" exemption is declared, the EPA may elect to grant the "Emergency" exemption and increase the use period. Applicators must have the federal label and the Section 18 exemption labeling in their possession at the time of application.

New Brochures Encourage Pesticide Users to "Read the Label First!"

As part of its new consumer campaign, EPA in cooperation with its partners has released four new brochures to encourage consumers to "Read the Label First!" before using pesticides around their homes and gardens. This campaign is a component of the Consumer Labeling Initiative (CLI), a public-private partnership intended to improve the clarity and presentation of product labels, thereby preventing misuse and potential exposures and enhancing the protection of human health and the environment. Four new brochures inform consumers of why they should "Read the Label First":

Protect Your Kids (EPA 740-F-00-001) informs parents of the importance of following label instructions and precautions to protect children's health and safety, as well as common sense practices such as storing products out of the reach of children;

Protect Your Pet (EPA 740-F-00-002) informs pet owners of how following label instructions and precautions can help protect pets such as dogs and cats from unnecessary exposure to pesticides;

Protect Your Garden (EPA 740-00-003) informs home gardeners of tips they can use for selecting and using products for their plants, flowers, and lawns, thereby protecting their gardens as well as their families, pets, and the environment;

Protect Your Household (EPA 740-F-00-004) informs consumers of the importance of reading labels on household cleaners and pesticides and tips to protect their families, pets, and the environment.

These brochures are now available through the National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP). You can order them without charge:

1. by phone: 513-489-8190 or 1-800-490-9198
2. by fax: 513-489-8695
3. by mail: NSCEP, P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242
4. on their web site: http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom  

Recent and Pending Section 18 and 24C Labeling in North Dakota

Spraying in the Wind

By John Peckham, Minnesota Department of Agriculture Pesticide Complaint Investigator

Each year the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) receives complaints regarding lawn and agricultural commercial applicators applying pesticides in high wind conditions. As part of the MDA's complaint investigation process, the airport weather records closest to the complaint site are checked. In many cases, the weather records prove that the applicator was applying in winds in excess of the label wind speed restriction or in winds problematic for drift.

The reasons given by a company applicator making an application in high winds are often one or more of the following:

• The customer/farmer told me to do it.
• I'm behind.
• I was only spraying fungicide, insecticide, crabgrass control pre-products, or products to be incorporated, and drift doesn't really matter for these products.
• I was able to control my pattern. The wind speed at the application site was not that high. My pattern was confined to the field, there was no drift.
• Everyone does it.
• I didn't know it was that windy.

When the applicator is questioned by the MDA about how they measured the wind speed at the application site, the applicator usually says one of the following:

• My experience told me what the wind speed was.
• I listened to the radio, checked the internet, or checked the wind speed at the shop prior to spraying and it was okay.

Very rarely do applicators involved in drift cases actually measure wind speed at the time of application. Even more rarely does the applicator read the pesticide label to know whether there is a wind speed restriction or other restrictions.

As a point of information, some pesticide labels do have specific wind speed restrictions. Harness/Surpass has a 15 mph wind speed limitation. Banvel has a 5 mph wind speed limitation (proximity to sensitive crops).

In addition, when the company is questioned, either there is no policy on spraying in high winds, or the applicator is simply told to do the best he can, or to pick and choose their application site so they can spray. While that type of approach may work most of the time, I think we would all agree that spraying in winds of 25-30 mph can't be justified.

It seems like the one remaining issue that still appears to be the biggest factor in reducing drift is company/applicator judgment. How's yours? If you are a manager what message do you send to your applicators about drift? If you are an applicator, what message do you send to an already concerned general public about your stewardship of pesticides?

Right of Way Recertification Available for Participation in the North Dakota Weed Control Association Spring Sprayer Schools

The NDWCA has fixed the dates and agenda for its annual Spring Sprayer Schools. Throughout the years this program has built a reputation as an excellent pre-spray season brush up course for new and existing weed control personnel. This will also be a recertification training opportunity for commercial applicators in the Right of Way category.

The Williams County Weed Board will host the May 22, 2000 school in Williston. The Cass County Weed Board will host the May 25, 2000 school in Fargo. What follows are the locations and agenda for these schools:

For more information contact Randy Mehlhoff
NDWCA Executive Secretary at 701-774-1198

Outcrossing of Herbicide-tolerant Canola Can be Controlled: Growers have Several Options

by Dr. R. Keith Downey

It is true that the pollen of novel-trait herbicide-tolerant canola plants can outcross to nearby non-herbicide-tolerant canola or canola with other herbicide tolerances. However, the notion that such outcrossing will create a "super weed," indestructible by any herbicide, is false. On the contrary, pollen flow and the resulting outcrossing are manageable.

Canola growers need to know how pollen flow occurs, and how to handle it on their own land. It is well known that western Canadian herbicide-tolerant canola acreage is growing by leaps and bounds. Indeed, we have seen it rise from less than 0.5% of canola acreage in 1995 to 73% in 1999.

With such extensive use of the three herbicide systems, there are many opportunities for pollen from herbicide-tolerant fields to land on unfertilized open flowers of related weeds, conventional canola plants
and plants expressing different herbicide tolerances. The possibility and consequences of such outcrossing have been under investigation for several years.

Canola flowers are designed to spread their pollen over great distances by both wind and insects. Although the vast majority of canola pollen falls to the ground within a few meters of its source, a small percentage (5-10 %) becomes airborne and floats like dust particles on the wind.

Researchers in Scotland estimated that under ideal conditions a canola pollen grain could drift as far as 4 km. However, for such pollen to result in seed set, a pollen grain must first land on the stigma of an unfertilized flower, which is a rare event. Canola flowers are also attractive to bees and other pollen-bearing insects that can travel long distances.

To produce certified canola seed that is true to variety, 100 meters of isolation are normally sufficient. By regulation, canola fields for the production of hybrid seed must be isolated from other canola by at least 800 m, and many companies prefer to use about 1,600 m isolation distance. This ensures that no stray pollen fertilizes the female plants that produce no pollen themselves.

A small amount of natural outcrossing can occur between the two canola species and condiment or oilseed mustard, but the concern has been whether canola will cross and share its herbicide tolerance with its weedy relatives.

Canadian and French scientists have shown that natural gene flow between cultivated canola and wild mustard does not occur. Fortunately, in western Canada, wild radish, hoary mustard and black mustard are either absent or rarely found. However, dog mustard is present in many Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan fields.

Crossing studies at the Agriculture and Agri-food Canada (AAFC) Saskatoon Research Center in Saskatoon, SK have shown that the possibility of gene transfer from B. napus canola to dog mustard, as well as the survival of any progeny, is extremely low. However, intergenetic crosses between B. rapa canola and dog mustard have been obtained in the greenhouse, and the resulting plant was found to be vigorous. Thus, there is the possibility that a herbicide-tolerance gene could be transferred from a plant of B. rapa canola to dog mustard in some field, some time in the future.

What would be the consequence of a herbicide-tolerance gene escaping into dog mustard? The broad-spectrum herbicide would no longer control the hybrid weed in the field or fields where the cross occurred. This would reduce the effectiveness of the herbicide and allow populations of resistant plants to increase. However, the populations of this weakly competitive weed would be easily controlled in cereal and other crops with phenoxy herbicides.

Reports of canola plants that survive the application of Roundup herbicide, in fields that had not been sown to Roundup Ready canola, have appeared in the press. No one seems to have asked why volunteer plants, tolerant to Liberty or Pursuit/Odyssey, have not also been reported.

The fact is that plants tolerant to Liberty and Pursuit are also present in many fields. However, growers don't recognize such plants because Liberty and Pursuit are not used for chemfallow or spraying around waste places. If Roundup is to be used for chemfallow or killing vegetation around various farm sites, to avoid volunteers tolerant to the new broad-spectrum herbicides, apply a phenoxy herbicide such as 2,4-D together with the Roundup.

Keep to a minimum the number of canola plants that may be tolerant to two or more broadleaf herbicides. Isolate fields with different herbicide systems; do not grow them side-by-side in the same field or across the fence line. To minimize the amount of field-to-field crossing, the current data suggest a minimum of 175 m isolation between fields.

A large-scale monitoring program on field-to-field crossing is under way this year at the AAFC Research Center under the direction of H. Beckie and G. Seguin-Swartz. Because of the frequency of rainfall, plus the low average temperature and wind velocities during the flowering period, the incidence of field-to-field crossing in 1999 was expected to be very low.

Dr. R. Keith Downey is Research Scientist Emeritus at the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Research Center in Saskatoon, SK. He can be reached at (306) 956-7200 or by e-mail at downeyk@em.agr.ca 

Crop Management Field School Scheduled June 29

The seventh annual crop management field school will be offered June 29 at the North Dakota State University Carrington Research Extension Center for agronomists, crop consultants, extension agents, agricultural chemical and fertilizer dealers, and ag industry representatives.

The program will include sessions on weed identification, crop injury and herbicide mode-of-action diagnosis, insect scouting, small grain disease management, crop rooting and soil water management, and crop problem diagnosis.

A completed preregistration form and a $30 fee is requested by June 20. An application will be submitted to the Certified Crop Adviser program to provide participants with five IPM, one crop production, and one soil and water management continuing education units.

For further details and preregistration information, contact the NDSU Carrington Research and Extension Center at 701-652-2951 or e-mail gendres@ndsuext.nodak.edu 

Pesticide Quarterly, Volume 18, No. 2, April 2000

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 Service