DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Register/Vol. 84, No. 50/Thursday, March 14, 2019/Notices

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Register/Vol. 84, No. 50/Thursday, March 14, 2019/Notices Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 50 / Thursday, March 14, 2019 / Notices 9329 other information, call (866) 208–3676 20460–0001. The Public Reading Room would be likely to cause significant (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., impact on the availability of the Monday through Friday, excluding legal pesticide for the use. Kimberly D. Bose, holidays. The telephone number for the In fiscal year 2018, maintenance fees Secretary. Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, were collected in one billing cycle. In [FR Doc. 2019–04670 Filed 3–13–19; 8:45 am] and the telephone number for the OPP late November of 2017, all holders of BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review either FIFRA section 3 registrations or the visitor instructions and additional FIFRA section 24(c) registrations were information about the docket available sent lists of their active registrations, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. along with forms and instructions for AGENCY responding. They were asked to identify II. Background which of their registrations they wished [EPA–HQ–OPP–2018–0657; FRL–9987–82] This cancellation order follows an to maintain in effect, and to calculate Pesticide Maintenance Fee: Product October 19, 2018 Federal Register and remit the appropriate maintenance Cancellation Order for Certain Notice of Receipt of Requests from the fees. Most responses were received by Pesticide Registrations registrants listed in Table 2 of Unit III. the statutory deadline of January 15, to voluntarily cancel these product 2018. A notice of intent to cancel was AGENCY: Environmental Protection registrations. In the October 19, 2018 sent in May of 2017 to companies who Agency (EPA). notice, EPA indicated that it would did not respond and to companies who ACTION: Notice. issue an order implementing the responded but paid for less than all cancellations, unless the Agency their registrations. Since mailing the SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA’s received substantive comments within notices of intent to cancel, EPA has order for the cancellations, voluntarily the 30-day comment period that would maintained a toll-free inquiry number requested by the registrants and merit its further review of these through which the questions of affected accepted by the Agency, of the products requests, or unless the registrants registrants have been answered. listed in Table 1 of Unit III., pursuant to withdrew their requests. The Agency In fiscal year 2018, the Agency has the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and received two comments on the October waived the fee for 336 minor Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). 19, 2018 notice. One comment was agricultural use registrations at the DATES: The cancellations are effective general in nature and did not merit request of the registrants. Maintenance March 14, 2019. further review. The other comment was fees have been paid for about 16,519 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: a request from Loveland Products, Inc. FIFRA section 3 registrations, or about Michael Yanchulis, Information to withdraw one cancellation request for 97% of the registrations on file in Technology and Resources Management registration number WA900005 which October 2017. Fees have been paid for Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide now will be retained. The registration about 1,838 FIFRA section 24(c) Programs, Environmental Protection numbers below were listed in the registrations, or about 86% of the total Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, October 19, 2018 notice but were listed on file in October 2017. Cancellations Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone in another request to cancel Federal for non-payment of the maintenance fee number: (703) 347–0237; email address: Register notice so are not listed in this affect 135 FIFRA section 3 registrations [email protected]. notice. The products and Federal and 7 FIFRA section 24(c) registrations. Register notice are: Federal Register of These cancellations can be found in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: August 10, 2018 (83 FR 39746; FRL– Table 3 of Unit III. Cancellations for I. General Information 9980–44): 100–1065, 100–1174, 100– companies paying the fee at one of the 1181, 100–1257, OR040004, OR040005, capped payment amounts are A. Does this action apply to me? OR990039, OR990040 and VA110002. considered voluntary cancellations This action is directed to the public Accordingly, EPA hereby issues in this since the registration could be in general and may be of interest to a notice a cancellation order granting the maintained without an additional fee wide range of stakeholders including requested cancellations. Any payment. These cancellations are environmental, human health, and distribution, sale, or use of the products subject to a 30-day comment period and agricultural advocates; the chemical subject to this cancellation order is are listed in Table 1 of Unit III. industry; pesticide users; and members permitted only in accordance with the The cancellation orders generally of the public interested in the sale, terms of this order, including any permit registrants to continue to sell and distribution, or use of pesticides. Since existing stocks provisions. distribute existing stocks of the canceled others also may be interested, the Section 4(i)(5) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. products until January 15, 2019, 1-year Agency has not attempted to describe all 136a–1(i)(5)) requires that all pesticide after the date on which the fee was due. the specific entities that may be affected registrants pay an annual registration Existing stocks already in the hands of by this action. maintenance fee, due by January 15 of dealers or users, however, can generally each year, to keep their registrations in be distributed, sold, or used legally until B. How can I get copies of this document effect. This requirement applies to all they are exhausted. Existing stocks are and other related information? registrations granted under FIFRA defined as those stocks of a registered The docket for this action, identified section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a) as well as those pesticide product which are currently in by docket identification (ID) number granted under FIFRA section 24(c) (7 the United States and which have been EPA–HQ–OPP–2018–0657, is available U.S.C. 136v(c)) to meet special local packaged, labeled, and released for at http://www.regulations.gov or at the needs. Registrations for which the fee is shipment prior to the effective date of Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory not paid are subject to cancellation by the cancellation order. Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the order and without a hearing. The exceptions to these general rules Environmental Protection Agency Under FIFRA, the EPA Administrator are cases where more stringent Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William may reduce or waive maintenance fees restrictions on sale, distribution, or use Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 for minor agricultural use pesticides of the products have already been Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC when it is determined that the fee imposed, through special reviews or VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:22 Mar 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM 14MRN1 9330 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 50 / Thursday, March 14, 2019 / Notices other Agency actions. These general III. What action is the Agency taking? section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a). These provisions for disposition of stocks registrations are listed in sequence by should serve in most cases to cushion This notice announces the registration number in Table 1 of this the impact of these cancellations while cancellation, as requested by registrant, unit. the market adjusts. of products registered under FIFRA TABLE 1—PRODUCT CANCELLATIONS Registration No. Company No. Product name Chemical name 100–1053 ............. 100 Havoc Rodenticide Bait Pack Pellets with Bittrex ..... Brodifacoum. 100–1054 ............. 100 Havoc Rodenticide Bait Pack Mini-Pellets with Brodifacoum. Bitrex. 100–1082 ............. 100 Demand Pestab Insecticide ...................................... lambda-Cyhalothrin. 100–1142 ............. 100 Mesotrione/acetochlor 3.5 CS ................................... Mesotrione; Acetochlor. 100–1152 ............. 100 Lumax Selective Herbicide ........................................ Mesotrione; Atrazine; S-Metolachlor. 100–1201 ............. 100 Lexar Herbicide ......................................................... Mesotrione; Atrazine; S-Metolachlor. 100–1396 ............. 100 Flexstar Gt Manufacturing Use Concentrate ............ Glyphosate; Sodium salt of fomesafen. 100–1436 ............. 100 Derby ......................................................................... Thiamethoxam; lambda-Cyhalothrin. 100–1542 ............. 100 Zyrox SC................................................................... Cyantraniliprole. 228–689 ............... 228 MSM E-Pro 60 EG Herbicide .................................... Metsulfuron. 228–702 ............... 228 Nufarm Prosedge Selective Herbicide ...................... Halosulfuron-methyl. 264–1075 ............. 264 Wolverine Herbicide.................................................. Bromoxynil octanoate; Bromoxynil heptanoate; Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl; Pyrasulfotole Technical. 264–1103 ............. 264 Atlantis Herbicide ...................................................... Mesosulfuron-methyl; Iodosulfuron-methyl-sodium. 270–307 ............... 270 Farnam Pet Spray 549 .............................................. MGK 264; Pyrethrins; Pyriproxyfen.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Restricted Use Product Summary Report
    Page 1 of 17 Restricted Use Product Summary Report (January 19, 2016) Percent Active Registration # Name Company # Company Name Active Ingredient(s) Ingredient 4‐152 BONIDE ORCHARD MOUSE BAIT 4 BONIDE PRODUCTS, INC. 2 Zinc phosphide (Zn3P2) 70‐223 RIGO EXOTHERM TERMIL 70 VALUE GARDENS SUPPLY, LLC 20 Chlorothalonil 100‐497 AATREX 4L HERBICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 42.6 Atrazine 100‐585 AATREX NINE‐O HERBICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 88.2 Atrazine 100‐669 CURACRON 8E INSECTICIDE‐MITICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 73 Profenofos 100‐817 BICEP II MAGNUM HERBICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 33; 26.1 Atrazine; S‐Metolachlor 100‐827 BICEP LITE II MAGNUM HERBICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 28.1; 35.8 Atrazine; S‐Metolachlor 100‐886 BICEP MAGNUM 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 33.7; 26.1 Atrazine; S‐Metolachlor 100‐898 AGRI‐MEK 0.15 EC MITICIDE/INSECTICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 2 Abamectin 100‐903 DENIM INSECTICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 2.15 Emamectin benzoate 100‐904 PROCLAIM INSECTICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 5 Emamectin benzoate 100‐998 KARATE 1EC 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 13.1 lambda‐Cyhalothrin 100‐1075 FORCE 3G INSECTICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 3 Tefluthrin Acetochlor; Carbamothioic acid, dipropyl‐ 100‐1083 DOUBLEPLAY SELECTIVE HERBICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 16.9; 67.8 , S‐ethyl ester 100‐1086 KARATE EC‐W INSECTICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 13.1 lambda‐Cyhalothrin 100‐1088 SCIMITAR GC INSECTICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION,
    [Show full text]
  • California Restricted Materials Requirements (English)
    CALIFORNIA RESTRICTED MATERIALS REQUIREMENTS FEDERAL RESTRICTED USE PESTICIDES RESTRICTED USE PESTICIDE A (Included by reference as California Restricted Materials) DUE TO (reason for restricted use classification) Pesticides display the RESTRICTED USE PESTICIDE (RUP) statement on For retail sale to and use only by Certified Applicators or the pesticide container similar to the statement shown here. RUPs require an persons under their direct supervision and only for those RUP statement enclosed in a box, at the top of the front panel of the label. uses covered by the Certified Applicator's certification. Some product labels require a Certified Applicator be “physically present” at the use site. B CALIFORNIA RESTRICTED MATERIALS This section is written in a quick reference format; refer to Title 3, California Code of Regulations (3 CCR) section 6400 for complete text. Acrolein, labeled for use as an aquatic Chlorpyrifos, labeled for the Metam sodium, labeled for the Potassium n-methyldithiocarbamate herbicide production of an agricultural production of agricultural plant (metam-potassium), labeled for the Aldicarb – unregistered commodity commodities production of agricultural plant All dust (except products containing Dazomet, labeled for the production Methamidophos – unregistered commodities only exempt pesticides)** of agricultural plant commodities Methidathion Propanil (3,4-dichloropropionanilide) Aluminum phosphide Dicamba* Methomyl†† Sodium cyanide Any pesticide containing active 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid Methyl bromide Sodium
    [Show full text]
  • Efficacy of Electrolyzed Water in Degrading and Removing
    EFFICACY OF ELECTROLYZED WATER IN DEGRADING AND REMOVING PESTICIDE RESIDUES ON FRESH PRODUCE By HANG QI (Under the Direction of Yen-Con Hung) ABSTRACT Pure solution of diazinon, cyprodinil, and phosmet were treated with electrolyzed oxidizing (EO) water and electrolyzed reduced (ER) water. Lower pH, higher available chlorine content (ACC), and longer treatment time of EO water resulted in higher reductions of the three pesticides. ER water was effective in degrading phosmet, slightly effective in reducing diazinon, and ineffective in degrading cyprodinil. Soaking grapes in 12 mg/L mixed pesticide solution for 10 min was found to be the appropriate method for pesticide inoculation. EO water at 500 mL combined with 100 rpm shaking was determined to be the most effective way to wash 200 g contaminated grapes. Then, fresh grapes, spinach, and snap peas contaminated with the three pesticides were washed with EO water at different ACC and treatment time. The results showed both ACC and treatment time were significant (P ≤ 0.05) factors for EO water in removing the three pesticide residues on produce samples. EO water was more effective than ER water, diluted bleach, Vegwash and DI water. Finally, the effect of EO water treatment on produce quality was evaluated. No significant (P > 0.05) color and texture degradation was found for EO water treated produce samples. INDEX WORDS: Electrolyzed water, fresh produce, diazinon, cyprodinil, phosmet EFFICACY OF ELECTROLYZED WATER IN DEGRADING AND REMOVING PESTICIDE RESIDUES ON FRESH PRODUCE by HANG
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Reasons Not to Use Pesticides
    JOURNAL OF PESTICIDE REFORM/ SUMMER 2006 • VOL. 26, NO. 2 PESTICIDE BASICS contaminated with pesticides. They play in ways that in- crease their exposure. Also, their growing bodies can be Ten Reasons Not to Use particularly sensitive. EPA succinctly summarizes the reasons why children should not be Pesticides exposed to pesticides: • their internal organs are still BY CAROLINE COX has written, “the range of these adverse developing and maturing, health effects includes acute and persis- • in relation to their body weight, tent injury to the nervous system, lung infants and children eat and drink damage, injury to reproductive organs, more than adults, possibly increasing 1. Pesticides don’t solve pest dysfunction of the immune and endo- problems. They don’t change their exposure to pesticides in food crine [hormone] systems, birth defects, and water. the conditions that encourage and cancer.”3 pests. • certain behaviors--such as play- Pesticides that damage human ing on floors or lawns or putting Some pesticides are remarkably ef- health are used in staggering amounts. objects in their mouths—increase a ficient tools for killing pests, but almost Consider just the 27 most commonly 4 child’s exposure to pesticides used in all do nothing to solve pest problems. used pesticides. Fifteen of these have 8 5 homes and yards. To solve a pest problem, the most been classified as carcinogens by EPA Researchers continue to gather de- important step is to change the con- and their use totals about 300 million 4 tailed evidence that EPA’s concerns ditions that have allowed the pest to pounds every year.
    [Show full text]
  • AP-42, CH 9.2.2: Pesticide Application
    9.2.2PesticideApplication 9.2.2.1General1-2 Pesticidesaresubstancesormixturesusedtocontrolplantandanimallifeforthepurposesof increasingandimprovingagriculturalproduction,protectingpublichealthfrompest-bornediseaseand discomfort,reducingpropertydamagecausedbypests,andimprovingtheaestheticqualityofoutdoor orindoorsurroundings.Pesticidesareusedwidelyinagriculture,byhomeowners,byindustry,andby governmentagencies.Thelargestusageofchemicalswithpesticidalactivity,byweightof"active ingredient"(AI),isinagriculture.Agriculturalpesticidesareusedforcost-effectivecontrolofweeds, insects,mites,fungi,nematodes,andotherthreatstotheyield,quality,orsafetyoffood.Theannual U.S.usageofpesticideAIs(i.e.,insecticides,herbicides,andfungicides)isover800millionpounds. AiremissionsfrompesticideusearisebecauseofthevolatilenatureofmanyAIs,solvents, andotheradditivesusedinformulations,andofthedustynatureofsomeformulations.Mostmodern pesticidesareorganiccompounds.EmissionscanresultdirectlyduringapplicationorastheAIor solventvolatilizesovertimefromsoilandvegetation.Thisdiscussionwillfocusonemissionfactors forvolatilization.Thereareinsufficientdataavailableonparticulateemissionstopermitemission factordevelopment. 9.2.2.2ProcessDescription3-6 ApplicationMethods- Pesticideapplicationmethodsvaryaccordingtothetargetpestandtothecroporothervalue tobeprotected.Insomecases,thepesticideisapplieddirectlytothepest,andinotherstothehost plant.Instillothers,itisusedonthesoilorinanenclosedairspace.Pesticidemanufacturershave developedvariousformulationsofAIstomeetboththepestcontrolneedsandthepreferred
    [Show full text]
  • Advances in Enzyme-Based Biosensors for Pesticide Detection
    biosensors Review Advances in Enzyme-Based Biosensors for Pesticide Detection Bogdan Bucur 1 ID , Florentina-Daniela Munteanu 2 ID , Jean-Louis Marty 3,* and Alina Vasilescu 4 ID 1 National Institute of Research and Development for Biological Sciences, Centre of Bioanalysis, 296 Splaiul Independentei, 060031 Bucharest, Romania; [email protected] 2 Faculty of Food Engineering, Tourism and Environmental Protection, “Aurel Vlaicu” University of Arad, Elena Dragoi, No. 2, 310330 Arad, Romania; fl[email protected] 3 BAE Laboratory, Université de Perpignan via Domitia, 52 Avenue Paul Alduy, 66860 Perpignan, France 4 International Centre of Biodynamics, 1B Intrarea Portocalelor, 060101 Bucharest, Romania; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +33-468-66-1756 Received: 28 February 2018; Accepted: 20 March 2018; Published: 22 March 2018 Abstract: The intensive use of toxic and remanent pesticides in agriculture has prompted research into novel performant, yet cost-effective and fast analytical tools to control the pesticide residue levels in the environment and food. In this context, biosensors based on enzyme inhibition have been proposed as adequate analytical devices with the added advantage of using the toxicity of pesticides for detection purposes, being more “biologically relevant” than standard chromatographic methods. This review proposes an overview of recent advances in the development of biosensors exploiting the inhibition of cholinesterases, photosynthetic system II, alkaline phosphatase, cytochrome P450A1, peroxidase, tyrosinase, laccase, urease, and aldehyde dehydrogenase. While various strategies have been employed to detect pesticides from different classes (organophosphates, carbamates, dithiocarbamates, triazines, phenylureas, diazines, or phenols), the number of practical applications and the variety of environmental and food samples tested remains limited.
    [Show full text]
  • Developmental Ramifications of Dithiocarbamate Pesticide Exposure in Zebrafish
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF Fred Tilton for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Toxicology presented on May 24, 2006. Title:Developmental Ramifications of Dithiocarbamate Pesticide Exposure in Zebrafish. Redacted for Privacy Abstract approved Robert Dithiocarbamates are widely used agricultural pesticides, industrial chemicals and effluent additives. DTCs and their related compounds have historical and current relevance in clinical and experimental medicine. DTC developmental toxicity is well established, but poorly understood. Dithiocarbamates according to the U.S. EPA have a mechanism of action involving, "the inhibition of metal-dependent and sulfhydryl enzyme systems in fungi, bacteria, plants, as well as mammals." We hypothesized that by using the zebrafish development model we could better define the mechanism of action of DTCs and for the first time establish a molecular understanding of DTC developmental toxicity in vertebrates. We have established that all types of dithiocarbamate pesticides and some degradation products have the potential to elicit a common toxic effect on development resulting in a distorted notochord and a significant impact to the body axis. We provide evidence to support the hypothesis that metal chelation is not the primary mechanism of action by which DTCs impact the developing vertebrate. By manipulating the exposure window of zebrafish we hypothesized that somitogenesis was the targeted developmental process. We tested this by using the Affymetrix microarray to observe gene expression induced by the N-methyl dithiocarbamate, metam sodium (NaM). Throughout this process it is clear that genes related to muscle development are perturbed. These gene signatures are consistent with the morphological changes observed in larval and adult animals and that somitogenesis is the developmental target.
    [Show full text]
  • AP-42, Vol. 1, Final Background Document for Pesticide Application
    Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 9.2.2 Pesticide Application Final Report For U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Emission Inventory Branch EPA Contract No. 68-D2-0159 Work Assignment No. I-08 MRI Project No. 4601-08 September 1994 Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 9.2.2 Pesticide Application Final Report For U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Emission Inventory Branch Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Attn: Mr. Dallas Safriet (MD-14) Emission Factor and Methodology EPA Contract No. 68-D2-0159 Work Assignment No. I-08 MRI Project No. 4601-08 September 1994 NOTICE The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-D2-0159 to Midwest Research Institute. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review, and it has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. iii iv PREFACE This report was prepared by Midwest Research Institute (MRI) for the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under Contract No. 68-D2-0159, Assignment No. 005 and I-08. Mr. Dallas Safriet was the EPA work assignment manager for this project. Approved for: MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE Roy M. Neulicht Program Manager Environmental Engineering Department Jeff Shular Director, Environmental Engineering Department September 29, 1994 v vi CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ................................................ viii LIST OF TABLES ................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 Theinternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) Was Established in 1980
    The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 cation Hazard of Pesticides by and Guidelines to Classi The WHO Recommended Classi The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 TheInternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) was established in 1980. The overall objectives of the IPCS are to establish the scientific basis for assessment of the risk to human health and the environment from exposure to chemicals, through international peer review processes, as a prerequisite for the promotion of chemical safety, and to provide technical assistance in strengthening national capacities for the sound management of chemicals. This publication was developed in the IOMC context. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or stated policies of individual IOMC Participating Organizations. The Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) was established in 1995 following recommendations made by the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development to strengthen cooperation and increase international coordination in the field of chemical safety. The Participating Organizations are: FAO, ILO, UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO, UNITAR, WHO, World Bank and OECD. The purpose of the IOMC is to promote coordination of the policies and activities pursued by the Participating Organizations, jointly or separately, to achieve the sound management of chemicals in relation to human health and the environment. WHO recommended classification of pesticides by hazard and guidelines to classification, 2019 edition ISBN 978-92-4-000566-2 (electronic version) ISBN 978-92-4-000567-9 (print version) ISSN 1684-1042 © World Health Organization 2020 Some rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • A Pest Management Strategic Plan for Garlic Production in California
    A Pest Management Strategic Plan for Garlic Production in California February 21, 2007 California Garlic & Onion Research Advisory Board (CGORAB) California Specialty Crops Council (CSCC) Assistance was obtained from the Western Region IPM Center at UC Davis for the development of this strategic plan. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 Stakeholder Recommendations 4 Research Priorities 4 Regulatory Priorities 4 Educational Priorities 5 A PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGIC PLAN FOR CALIFORNIA GARLIC PRODUCTION 7 California Garlic Production Overview 7 California Garlic Production Summary 8 Stages of Crop Development 9 Major Pests of Garlic in California 9 Garlic Production Areas in California 10 Historical Perspective on California Garlic: Production Trends and Pest Management 11 FOUNDATION FOR A PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGIC PLAN 12 Field Selection and Crop Rotation 12 Seed Selection and Seed Quality 13 Pre-Plant/Bed Preparation 13 Planting to Early Vegetative Development 15 Field Maintenance and Vegetative Development 22 Water Pull/Pre-harvest 24 Harvest 25 Post Harvest Issues 26 Food Safety Issues 27 CRITICAL ISSUES FOR THE CALIFORNIA GARLIC INDUSTRY 28 REFERENCES 29 APPENDICES 30 Appendix 1: 2005 Statewide Garlic Production Statistics 31 Appendix 2: Cultural Practices and Pest Management Activities 32 Appendix 3: Seasonal Pest Occurrence 33 Appendix 4: Efficacy of Insect/Mite Management Tools 34 Appendix 5: Efficacy of Weed Management Tools 35 Appendix 6: Efficacy of Disease Management Tools 36 Appendix 7: Efficacy of Nematode Management Tools 37 Appendix 8: Primary Pesticides Used in California Garlic (2004 DPR) 38 Appendix 9: California Garlic Industry – Contact Information 39 Appendix 10: Photographs 41 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY California ranks first in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of the Potential of a Reduced Dose of Dimethyl Disulfide
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Assessment of the potential of a reduced dose of dimethyl disulfde plus metham sodium on soilborne pests and cucumber growth Liangang Mao, Hongyun Jiang*, Lan Zhang, Yanning Zhang, Muhammad Umair Sial, Haitao Yu & Aocheng Cao Methyl bromide (MB), a dominant ozone-depleting substance, is scheduled to be completely phased out for soil fumigation by December 30th 2018, in China. The combined efects of dimethyl disulfde (DMDS) plus metham sodium (MNa) were assessed in controlling soilborne pests for soil fumigation. A study was designed in laboratory for the evaluation of the efcacy of DMDS + MNa to control major soilborne pests. At the same time, two trials were conducted in cucumber feld located in Tongzhou (in 2012) and Shunyi (in 2013), respectively, in order to assess the potential of DMDS + MNa in controlling soilborne pests. Laboratory studies disclosed positive synergistic efects of almost all four used combinations on Meloidogyne spp., Fusarium spp., Phytophthora spp., Abutilon theophrasti and Digitaria sanguinalis. Field trials found that DMDS + MNa (30 + 21 g a. i. m−2), both at a 50% reduced dose, efectively suppressed Meloidogyne spp. with a low root galling index (2.1% and 11.7%), signifcantly reduced the levels of Phytophthora and Fusarium spp. with a low root disease index (7.5% and 15.8%), gave very high cucumber yields (6.75 kg m−2 and 10.03 kg m−2), and increased income for cucumber growers with the highest economic benefts (20.91 ¥ m−2 and 23.58 ¥ m−2). The combination treatment provided similar results as MB standard dose treatment (40 g a.
    [Show full text]
  • Pesticide Degradates of Concern to the Drinking Water Community
    Pesticide Degradates of Concern to the Drinking Water Community Project #2938 Subject Area: High-Quality Water Web Report TO: Awwa Research Foundation Subscribers RE: Enclosed report, Pesticide Degradates of Concern to the Drinking Water Community The objectives of this project were to develop a priority list of pesticides and their degradates and adjuvants of potential concern and identify related research priorities. To meet these objectives, the research team collated data on the occurrence, properties, persistence and toxicity of pesticide degradates and adjuvants in soils, waters, and treatment processes; and held a workshop to discuss prioritization approaches and research needs. The information generated from the literature review and workshop recommendations has been summarized in the enclosed report and was used to develop a priority list of pesticide degradates. General research needs in four key areas were also identified at the workshop and are included in the report. Due to the technical nature of this project, the results are being made available to both subscribers and the research community through this electronic version of the report on AwwaRF’s web site. ©2008 AwwaRF. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ©2008 AwwaRF. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Pesticide Degradates of Concern to the Drinking Water Community ©2008 AwwaRF. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED About the Awwa Research Foundation The Awwa Research Foundation (AwwaRF) is a member-supported, international, nonprofit organization that sponsors research to enable water utilities, public health agencies, and other professionals to provide safe and affordable drinking water to consumers. The Foundation’s mission is to advance the science of water to improve the quality of life. To achieve this mission, the Foundation sponsors studies on all aspects of drinking water, including supply and resources, treatment, monitoring and analysis, distribution, management, and health effects.
    [Show full text]