DOCSLIB.ORG

Efficacy of Experimental Insecticides for Insect Control in Cotton Grown in the Low Desert Region of Arizona, 1997

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Efficacy of Experimental Insecticides for Insect Control in Cotton Grown in the Low Desert Region of Arizona, 1997 Efficacy of Experimental Insecticides for Insect Control in Cotton Grown in the Low Desert Region of Arizona, 1997 Item Type text; Article Authors Kerns, David L.; Tellez, Tony Publisher College of Agriculture, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ) Journal Cotton: A College of Agriculture Report Download date 01/10/2021 05:26:34 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/210389 Efficacy of Experimental Insecticides for Insect Control in Cotton Grown in the Low Desert Region of Arizona, 1997 David L. Kerns and Tony Tellez Abstract Experimental insecticides were evaluated for control of lygus bugs relative to commercial standards in cotton. These products were also evaluated for activity towards whiteflies and pink bollworms. CGA293343 was not effective when used as a side -dress material at layby, but was effective toward whiteflies, and towards lygus at higher foliar rates. Regent, Vydate and Mustang + Thiodan were highly effective for lygus control, while EXP61096A and Mustang alone performed poorly. Against whiteflies, CGA293343, Acetamiprid, and Mustang + Thiodan were most efficacious, while Mustang alone and with Thiodan were most effective towards pink bollworms. Introduction Lygus bug, Lygus hesperus Knight, sweet potato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) and pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) are all key pests of cotton grown in Arizona. Lygus is primarily a pest form the beginning of squaring until mid -plant boll maturity after which damage is usually of little economic concern. Currently, lygus is controlled using broad -spectrum insecticides such as pyrethroids, organophosphates or carbamates. Insecticide resistance in much of Arizona has led to much interest in alternative insecticides such as the chloronicotynl, Provado. Sweet potato whitefly usually begins to infest cotton when nearby hosts, such as melons, begin senescence, usually around the beginning of squaring. Prior to 1996, growers relied heavily on organophosphate / pyrethroid mixtures for whitefly control. Insecticide resistance and subsequent difficulty controlling whiteflies resulted in much interest in alternative insecticides. In 1996 -97, a Section 18 emergency use permit was issued in Arizona for the use of Knack and Applaud. Use of these products appeared to greatly enhance whitefly control over previous years experiences, and set the standard for whitefly control in cotton. Pink bollworm can usually be detected early in the cotton's fruiting stage but normally reaches damaging levels in mid -July through August. Pink bollworms are controlled by planting B.t. cotton or using broad -spectrum insecticides, often in conjunction with pheromone to disrupt mating. Because these pests overlap in their occurrence, there is interest cross efficacy to these pests. This study was setup to primarily evaluate insecticides for lygus control, but also collect some information on their efficacy towards whitefly and pink bollworm.Thus, insecticides applied for lygus control were evaluated for their impact on whiteflies and pink bollworms. However, once the lygus populations declined, insecticides targeting lygus would be dropped from the treatment list and replaced with whitefly,materials. The following products were evaluated: CGA293343, EXP61096A, Regent, Mustang, Mustang + Thiodan, and Vydate C -LV for efficacy toward lygus; CGA293343, EXP61096A, Regent, Mustang, Mustang + Thiodan, Acetamiprid, Nexter, Applaud and Knack for efficacy toward sweet potato whitefly; and CGA293343, Regent, Mustang, Mustang + Thiodan and Vydate C -LV for efficacy towards pink bollworm. CGA293343 is being developed by Novartis, and Acetamiprid by Rhone Poulenc act at the nicotinic receptor similar 422 to Provado and Admire (imidacloprid). These material are thought to have good potential againstwhiteflies and lygus. Regent (fipronil) and EXP61096A, are being developed by Rhone Poulenc, they unique and chemically similar, acting at the GABA receptor. These products are thought to have potential against lygus.Nexter (pyridaben) is a unique chemistry being developed by BASF and acts by disrupting oxidative phosphorylation. It has demonstrated activity towards whitefly in several crops. Materials and Methods This trial was conducted at the Yuma Valley Agricultural Center. Cotton, `DPL 5461', was planted on 40 in beds on March 19, 1996. The test was a randomized complete block design, with 4 replicates. Plots were 4 rows X 50 ft, bordered on each side by 2 blank rows and on each end by 10 ft alleys. Applications were made on 21 May (side dress), 18 and 25 June, 01, 08, 15, 22 and 30 Jul, and 12 Aug (Table 1). Two rates of CGA293343 were evaluated as side -dress applications at layby, and if they proved ineffective towards lygus or whitefly would to applied foliarily. EXP61096A would be applied for lygus control at two rates, and if they proved ineffective would be replaced by two rates of Regent. Towards the end of the season when lygus were of little concern several products would bereplaced by whitefly materials. The low rate EXP61096A / Regent plots would be treated with Acetamiprid while the high rate would treated with Nexter. Applaud and CGA293343 would be substituted for Mustang and Mustang + Thiodan respectively, and Knack would replace Vydate. All foliar treatments included Kinetic spreader sticker at 0.1% v /v. The side -dress application was applied using a tractor driven side dress fertilizer applicator designed to deliver 10 gallons per acre about 8 inches from the plants on the middle of the side of the bed. The material was injected about 3 inches beneath the soil surface. Foliar treatments were sprayed using a tractor mounted sprayer. The boom covered 4 rows, with 3 hollow -cone D -2 nozzles per row, one centered over each row and two on 18 in drops on each side. The sprayer was calibrated to deliver 20 gallons per acre at 40 psi. The tractor traveled at 3 mph. Lygus bug evaluations were made on 26 Jun, 02, 08, 17 and 30 Jul, and 09 and 20 Aug, which equated to 2 and 6days after each treatment. Lygus were sampled using a 15 inch sweep net, swung in a 180 degree arc. Twenty-five sweeps were taken per plot, adults and nymphs were counted. On 28 July and 4 August, lygus damage ratings were taken by collecting 25 medium -sized bolls from each plot and counting the number of damaged carpals from each boll. The percentage of damaged carpals was estimated and a damage rating was calculated using a 1 to 5 scale where 1= no damage, 2 = one carpal damaged, 3 = two carpals damaged, 4 = three carpals damaged, 5 = four carpals damaged. Whiteflies were sampled on 16, 24 and 30 June, 7, 14, 21 and 28 July, 4, 11, 18 and 25 August. Ten leaves were collected from 10 plants. Leaves were taken from the 5th node from the top, and the numbers of eggs, small nymphs, red -eyed nymphs and eclosed pupae from 1 cm2 leaf discs were counted. The leaf discs were taken from the area between the mid and secondary veins of the cotton leaves. Sooty mold / honey dew accumulation was evaluated on ten plants within each plot near harvest on 26 Sept. A subjective 1 -5 rating scale was used where; 1 = no contamination, 2 = foliar contamination only, 3 = light contamination of lint, 4 = moderate lint contamination and 5 = heavy contamination of the lint. Pink bollworm damage was evaluated on 22 July and 4 August by counting the number of infested bolls from a 25 bolls per plot sample. All data were analyzed using a analysis of variance, and an F protected (P < 0.05) LSD for means separation. Results and Discussion The lygus precount evaluation was made on 16 June, 26 days following the side dress applications of CGA293343. There were no significant differences among treatments, and lygus averaged approximately 9 lygus per 100 sweeps (Table 1). Two days following application 2 (first foliar application), nymph populations were low, but differences among treatments in the number of adults was evident. The high rate of EXP61096A, Mustang, Mustang + Thiodan and Vydate all had fewer adults than the untreated. After application 3, adult lygus populations were increasing but there were no clear cut differences among the treatments and the untreated check. On 1 July, application 4 was applied and since the side -dress application did not appear efficacious, CGA293343 was applied foliarily over the side -dressed 423 plots (Table 3). Two days after treatment (DAT), all insecticides had fewer adults than the untreated, but by seven DAT there were no significant differences. Nymph populations did not reach high level until the 14 July evaluation (7 DAT), where the CGA293343, Mustang, Mustang + Thiodan and Vydate treatments were significantly different from the untreated. At this time all treatments contained fewer adults than the untreated. For applications 7 and 8, Regent was substituted for the EXP6196A treatments (Table 4). Regent, the higher rate of CGA293343, Mustang + Thiodan and Vydate were all efficacious towards lygus nymphs and adults, while Mustang alone appeared to result in higher lygus nymph populations. Based on carpal damage, Mustang + Thiodan and Vydate, followed closely by Regent and the high rate of CGA293343 were most effective in protecting cotton bolls from lygus damage (Table 5). Overall, Mustang + Thiodan, Vydate and Regent appeared most efficacious towards lygus.The high rate of CGA293343 appear slightly less efficacious Whitefly densities were low in this trial and not much useful information was generated. There were no significant differences detected among treatments until 14 July (Tables 6 and 7). On 14 and 21 July, all treatments appeared to have whitefly activity. However, Mustang + Thiodan and CGA293343 appeared most efficacious. A similar trend in the activity of CGA293343 and Mustang + Thiodan occurred following applications 7 and 8 (Table 8). Regent was applied in place of EXP61096A, and did not appear to provide any significant whitefly control. Likewise, Vydate did not appear to offer much whitefly suppression at this time. On 12 August insecticides better suited for whitefly control were substituted for Regent, Mustang, and Vydate (Table 9).Also, Mustang + Thiodan was replaced with CGA293343.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 132467 Regent 4 SC BK.Indd
    RESTRICTED USE PESTICIDE DUE TO TOXICITY TO AQUATIC INVERTEBRATES For retail sale to and use only by Certified Applicators or persons under their direct supervision, and only for those uses covered by the Certified Applicator’s certification. It is a violation of federal law to use this product in a manner inconsist ent with its labeling. • NOT for sale or use in New York. • For in-furrow use on potatoes ONLY. For In-Furrow Use on Potatoes • DO NOT apply to sweet potatoes. Shake Well Before Use • DO NOT use this product for termite or other Active Ingredient: general pest control. Fipronil: 5-amino-1-(2,6-dichloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)-4- • DO NOT use on golf course turf. ((1,R,S)-(trifluoromethyl)sulfinyl)-1-H-pyrazole-3-carbonitrile . 39.4% • DO NOT use on/in commercial bee hives. Other Ingredients: . 60.6% • DO NOT use on animal trophies or animal Total: . .100.0% skins. One gallon Regent 4 SC insecticide contains 4 lbs fipronil. See inside booklet for additional Restrictions, EPA Reg. No. 7969-207 EPA Est. No. 7969-MO-001 First Aid, Precautionary Statements, KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN Directions For Use, Conditions of Sale and Warranty, and state-specific use sites and/or WARNING/AVISO restrictions. Si usted no entiende la etiqueta, busque a alguien para que se la explique a usted en detalle. (If you do not understand the label, find someone to explain it to you in detail.) In case of an emergency endangering life or property involving this product, call day or night, 1-800-832-HELP (4357).
    [Show full text]
  • US EPA, Pesticide Product Label, REGENT 4SC INSECTICIDE, 08/20
    ?/*>/ \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY m. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION August 20,2012 Amy S. Dugger-Ronyak Product Registration Manager BASF Corp., Agricultural Products 26 Davis Drive P.O.Box 13528 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528 Subject: Label Amendment—Additional of Beehive Restriction to Front Panel Text Box per Agency Agreement Product Name: Regent ® 4SC Insecticide EPA Reg. No.: 7969-207 Application Dated: August 10, 2012 Decision Number: 468565 Dear Ms. Dugger-Ronyak: The labeling referred to above, submitted in connection with registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended, is acceptable. A stamped copy of the label is enclosed for your records If you have any questions, you may contact Clayton Myers at (703) 347-8874 or [email protected]. Sincerely, Richard J. Gebken, Product Manager Insecticide Branch Registration Division (7505P) Enclosure: Stamped Label c RESTRICTED USE PESTICIDE £v DUE TO TOXICITY TO AQUATIC INVERTEBRATES * For retail sale to and*u»e only by Certified Applicators or persons under their direct supervision, and only for those uses covered by the Certified Applicator's certification. BASF The Chemical Company It is a violation of federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent EGENT°4SC with its labeling. INSECTICIDE • NOT for sale or use in New York. • For in-furrow use on potatoes ONLY. • DO NOT apply to sweet For In-Furrow Use on Potatoes potatoes. Shake Well Before Use • DO NOT use this product for termite or other general Active Ingredient: pest control. Fipronil: 5-amino-1-(2,6-dichloro-4-(trifluorornethyl)phenyl)-4- • DO NOT use on golf ((1,R,S)-(trifluoromethyl)suIfiny!)-1-H-pyrazole-3-carbonltrile 39.4% course turf.
    [Show full text]
  • Effect of Different Insecticides Against Termites, Heterotermes Indicola L
    EFFECT OF DIFFERENT INSECTICIDES AGAINST TERMITES, HETEROTERMES INDICOLA L. (ISOPTERA: TERMITIDAE) AS SLOW ACTING TOXICANTS AHMAD-UR-RAHMAN SALJOQI1*, NOOR MUHAMMAD1, IMTIAZ ALI KHAN2, SADUR-REHMAN3, MUHAMMAD NADEEM2and MUHAMMAD SALIM1 1Department of Plant Protection, The University of Agriculture, Peshawar-Pakistan 2Department of Entomology, The University of Agriculture, Peshawar-Pakistan 3Agriculture Research Institute, Tarnab, Peshawar, Pakistan. *Corresponding author: [email protected] ABSTRACT Three insecticides viz Regent, Tracer and Match were evaluated as slow toxicants against subterranean termites, Heterotermes indicola L (Isoptera:Termitidae). The experiment was performed using termite workers of H. indicola to which these insecticides were dipped in blotting paper once only, in start with the following concentration i.e. 0.000312, 0.000156, 0.00078, 0.00039 and 0.000195%. The total mean percent of mortality after ten days results concluded that Regent (Fipronil 5% SC) was 91.79, 86.40, 78.94, 74.18 and 62.06%, while Tracer (Spinosad 240 SC) was 72.60, 63.53, 60.60, 59.06 and 28.60%, and finally Match (Lufenuron 5% EC) was 49.40, 31.06, 26.19, 22.18 and 10.66%, repectively. Maximum mortality and avoidance was obtained by toxicity of Regent, as it was capable of obtaining 100% mortality even before day ten on every concentration therefore, Regent was considered highly toxic. Tracer was found to be slow acting agent. 100% mortality was recorded by using the 1st concentration of Tracer on day 7, on day 9 by using the 2nd concentration, while on day 10 by using the 3rd concentration of Regent. Match was unable to cause 100% mortality by using any of the tested concentrations.
    [Show full text]
  • Sweet Potato Technical Manual Sweet Potato Technical Manual
    p u o Sweet Potato r G y t Technical i d o m m Manual o C r e b u T d a n t o o C A R D I R CTA | Sweet Potato Technical Manual Sweet Potato Technical Manual CARDI Root and Tuber Commodity Group Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development Institute (CARDI) April 2010 iii | Sweet Potato Technical Manual The Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development Institute (CARDI) was founded in 1975 as an autonomous institution of 12 member countries of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). The member countries are: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago. The Institute is governed by a Governing Body comprised of the Ministers responsible for agriculture and a Board of Directors comprised of Representatives nominated by member govern- ments and key collaborating agencies. CARDI P.O. Bag 212, Frederick Hardy Building University of the West Indies St Augustine Campus, St. Augustine Trinidad and Tobago, W.I. The publication of this document was made possible through the kind courtesy of the Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA). CTA was established in 1983 under the Lomé Convention between the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States and the Europen Union (EU) Member States. Since 2000 it has oper- ated within the framework of the ACP-EU Cotonou Agreement. CTA, Postbus 380, 6700 AJ Wageningen, The Netherlands Contributing Authors: CARDI Root and Tuber Commodity Group Ms Pathleen Titus,
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. EPA, Pesticide Product Label, REGENT 4SC INSECTICIDE, 06/13/2008
    '/ (1 UNITED STATES ENVIRUNMENTAL PROTECTIUN AGENCY . WASHINGI'ON. D.C l\14(\D (IFI'I(T(lI· 1'f{I':VI::NIION. I'(SII( ·1f)E~ I\Nf) T( IXIC' SlIBST;\NCI'.S JUN 1 a JJJ'OS Mr. Dave G. Bolin Product Registration Manager US Regulatory Affairs BASF Corporation, Agricultural Products P.O. Box 13528 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528 RE: Notification of additional text added to Supplement Label EPA Registration Number: ·7969-207 Date of Submission: April 22, 2008 Dear Mr. Bolin: The Agency is in receipt of your Application for Pesticide Notification under Pesticide Registration Notice (PRN) 98-10 dated April 22, 2008, for the product Regent 4SC Insecticide). The Registration Division (RD) has conducted a review of this request for its applicability under PRN 98-10 and finds that the actions requested fall within the scope ofPRN 98-10. The label submitted with the application has been stamped "Notification" and will be placed in our records.· If you have any questions, please call me directly at 703-0305-6249 or Joyce Edwards of my staff at 703-308-5479. Sincerely, (-:/"""\....--. Linda Arrington Notifications & Minor Formulations Team Leader Registration Division (7505P) Office of Pesticide Programs . PI.UtI ,..ill".tnK:tio", tIIJ ",,,.,.. H/olfl comllltdintl form. Form ADDroved, OMB No... "' .. " "".. , '&AA.A--I .mir_ ~.~8.95 United States ~ Registration opp Identifiar Number &EPA Environmental Protection Agency Amendment Washington, DC 20460 .; Other Application for Pesticide - Section I 1 . CompanyfProduct Number 2. EPA Product Manager 3. Proposed Classification 7969-207 Richard Gebken . DNone [{] Restricted 4. Company/Product (Name) PM' REGENT 4SC Insecticide 10 5.
    [Show full text]
  • US EPA, Pesticide Product Label, REGENT 4SC INSECTICIDE,08/15
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, DC 20460 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION August 15, 2016 Michael D. Hall Product Registration Manager BASF Corporation 26 Davis Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528 Subject: Label Amendment – Clarify rotational crop directions for use and restrictions Product Name: REGENT 4SC INSECTICIDE EPA Registration Number: 7969-207 Application Date: 05/23/2016 Decision Number: 517771 Dear Mr. Hall: The amended label referred to above, submitted in connection with registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended, is acceptable. This approval does not affect any conditions that were previously imposed on this registration. You continue to be subject to existing conditions on your registration and any deadlines connected with them. A stamped copy of your labeling is enclosed for your records. This labeling supersedes all previously accepted labeling. You must submit one copy of the final printed labeling before you release the product for shipment with the new labeling. In accordance with 40 CFR 152.130(c), you may distribute or sell this product under the previously approved labeling for 18 months from the date of this letter. After 18 months, you may only distribute or sell this product if it bears this new revised labeling or subsequently approved labeling. “To distribute or sell” is defined under FIFRA section 2(gg) and its implementing regulation at 40 CFR 152.3. Should you wish to add/retain a reference to the company’s website on your label, then please be aware that the website becomes labeling under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act and is subject to review by the Agency.
    [Show full text]
  • Pesticides and Honey Bee Colony Collapse Disorder
    1 of Publication30th Year Volume XXX, Number 9/10, September/October 2008 Pesticides and Honey Bee Colony Collapse Disorder By William Quarles Photo courtesy of Kathy Keatley Garvey bout one-third of all the food we eat requires animal polli- A nation, and most of our fruits, vegetables, and nuts are pol- linated by bees. Due to increased development, pesticides, and habi- tat destruction, native bees that pollinated many of our crops are in decline (Buchmann and Nabhan 1996). Crop production in the U.S. has shifted to large monocultures, pollinated almost entirely by com- mercially managed colonies of the honey bee, Apis mellifera. Large beekeepers transport thousands of bee colonies long distances to pro- vide crop pollination throughout the U.S. (USHR 2007; 2008; NAS 2007). Large numbers of bees are needed for pollination, and available colonies are overworked. About half University of California, Davis researcher and beekeeper Michael “Kim” the honey bees in the U.S. are Fondrk is shown tending bees in the Roy Gill almond orchard, Dixon, needed just to pollinate the 650,000 California. The boxes are beehives, and more than a million of these acre (263,000 ha) California almond colonies are needed to pollinate California almonds. crop. Honey bees are trucked like migrant workers into California for and Calderone 2000; Losey and This 45% reduction in honey bee the almond crop, then to Washing- Vaughn 2006). colonies has been a slow decline ton and Oregon for apples, to marked at points by disaster. Florida for citrus, and into the Disasters include widespread honey Northeast for blueberries.
    [Show full text]
  • "Weakening, Collapse and Mortality of Bee Colonies"
    "Weakening, collapse and mortality of bee colonies" - November 2008 – 1 Editorial coordinators Ms. Julie Chiron Ms. Anne-Marie Hattenberger Administrative and secretarial assistance Ms. Sheila Gros-Désirs 2 Composition of the working group on "bee colony mortality, collapse and weakening" Chairman Mr. Bernard Toma Contagious diseases Ecole nationale vétérinaire d’Alfort (Alfort National Veterinary School) Working group members Ms. Anne Alix Ecotoxicology and environment Afssa (French Food Safety Agency) Plants and Environment Department (DiVE) Mr. Mike Brown Head of the National Bee Unit, York Laboratory Apiculture Field and advisory services - (United Kingdom) Mr. Patrice Carpentier Biostatistics Afssa (French Food Safety Agency) Plants and Environment Department Ms. Magali Chabert-Ribière Virology, Bee Diseases Unit Afssa (French Food Safety Agency) Sophia-Antipolis Ms. Marie-Pierre Chauzat Bee ecotoxicology, Bee Diseases Unit Afssa (French Food Safety Agency) Sophia-Antipolis Mr. Robert Delorme Toxicology INRA (French National Institute for Agricultural Research) Versailles Mr. Jean-Paul Faucon Bee diseases, Bee Diseases Unit Afssa (French Food Safety Agency) Sophia-Antipolis Mr. Jean-Pierre Ganière Contagious diseases, microbiology, antimicrobial resistance, health regulations Ecole nationale vétérinaire de Nantes (Nantes National Veterinary School) Mr. Laurent Gauthier Virology (bees) Pôle Agro Montpellier (Marseilles National School for Further Agricultural Studies) Mr. Eric Haubruge Entomology Faculty of Food Sciences-University of Gembloux (Belgium) Mr. Franz Jacobs Bee physiology and pathology University of Ghent (Belgium) Mr. Yves Le Conte Invertebrate ecology, bee biology and protection laboratory INRA (French National Institute for Agricultural Research) Avignon 3 Mr. François Moutou General epidemiology, wildlife, risk analysis Afssa Lerpaz (Laboratory for studies and research on animal diseases and zoonoses) Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Beekeeping Coordination
    3 July 2013 Facts and figures for an informed opinion on fipronil. The review of the risk assessment of fipronil revealed several concerns for bees. As for neonicotinoids, the EU Commission has proposed to ban fipronil for certain uses in the EU market. By mid July 2013, Member States must vote again for the stake of our ecosystems and our health. If Member States want to be consequent with the precautionary principle, they will support the EU Commission in their proposal. What is fipronil? Fipronil is an insecticide from the group of phenyl-pyrazoles or fiproles. In the EU farming sector, fipronil is only applied as seed treatment. Regent®, Mundial® or Cosmos® are some of the commercial names. Fipronil is also used to treat fleas and ticks on companion animals e.g. Frontline®. Fipronil was put on the market in 1993. Nowadays, fiproles' market share has hugely increased worldwide (Jeschke et al 2011). In which Member States is fipronil authorised? Slovakia, Hungary, Spain, Bulgaria, Czech republic, Belgium and the Netherlands currently authorise fipronil-containing seed dressing. For more detailed information on their specific uses, see EFSA report on fipronil, p36 (EFSA, 2013). Why are Member States going to vote on fipronil? The story is very similar to that of neonicotinoids: • After a first risk assessment, fipronil was authorised at EU level in 2007. Before this period, fipronil was individually authorised by Members States, which made their own risk assessment. • Due to new scientific and technical knowledge and monitoring data, the EU Commission asked EFSA for a reassessment of the risks that fipronil poses to bees.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. EPA, Pesticides, Label, REGENT 80WG INSECTICIDE, 7/24/2009
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES Dave G. Bolin, Ph.D. Product Registration JUL 2 4 2009 BASF Corporation, Agricultural Products PO Box 13528 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528 SUBJECT: Application for Pesticide Notification (PRN 98-10) Request Directions for Use/General Label Change EPA Reg. No.7969-208 Application Dated June 4, 2009 Dear Registrant: The Agency is in receipt of your Application for Pesticide Notification under Pesticide Registration Notice (PRN) 98-10 dated 06/04/09 for the above product. The Registration Division (RD) has conducted a review of this request for its applicability under PRN 98-10 and finds that the action(s) requested fall within the scope ofPRN 98-10. The label submitted with the application has been stamped "Notification" and will be placed in our records. If you have any questions, please call me directly at 703-305-6249 or Owen F. Beeder of my staff at 703-308-8899. Sincerely, ----y- Linda Arrington Notifications & Minor Formulations Team Leader Registration Division (7505P) Office of Pesticide Programs PI... e read iMtructiOM on l'fWene before comDleti"" fo"". Form ADDroved. OMB No. 2070-008(1 " emir.. 2-28-95 United States § Registration OPP Identifier Number &EPA Environmental Protection Agency Amendment Washington, DC 20460 .; Other Application for Pesticide - Section I 1 . Company/Product Number 2. EPA Product Manager 3. Proposed Classification 7969-208 Richard Gebken DNone [2] Restricted 4. Compeny/Product (Name) PM' REGENT 80 WG Insecticide 10 5. Name and Address of Applicant (Include ZIP Code) 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Regent Label
    3 g/kg Fipronil A Systemic Granular Insecticide for the control of Stemborers and Brown Planthoppers in Rice; Asiatic Corn Borer, Earworm and Aphids in Corn; and White Grubs in Sugarcane Registered with the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority Pursuant to P.D. 1144 FPA Registration Number: 005-244-0541 ® = Registered Trademark of BASF 5 kg KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN GENERAL INFORMATION: REGENT 0.3GR is a systemic PRECAUTIONS: REGENT 0.3GR may irritate eyes. Avoid contact pyrazole insecticide that provides excellent control of stemborers with eyes, skin and clothing. WEAR gloves, dust mask WHEN and brown planthoppers in rice; asiatic corn borer, earworm and HANDLING OR DURING APPLICATION. Do not eat, drink or aphids in corn; and white grubs in sugarcane. It is very effective in smoke when using insecticide. Wash exposed skin thoroughly with controlling brown planthoppers with known resistance to other soap and water after handling and application. Bath thoroughly insecticides. REGENT 0.3GR works by contact and stomach after working with this insecticide. Remove and wash thoroughly action with long residual activity. all protective equipment and working clothes before re-use. DIRECTIONS FOR USE: BABALA: Magbibigay ng bahagyang kati sa mata. Iwasan ang matagalang pagkadikit sa balat. Gumamit ng guwantes, respirator at pantrabahong damit na mahaba ang manggas habang nagsasabog ng CROP INSECT PESTS DOSE RATE APPLICATION METHOD (KG PROD/HA) AND TIMING REGENT 0.3GR. Huwag kumain, uminom at manigarilyo habang ginagamit ang produkto. Hugasang mabuti ang mga kamay, braso at Broadcast evenly at 30 to 45 days mukha. Labhang mabuti ang mga pantrabahong damit at guwantes Paddy Rice Stemborers 10-17 (Transplanted) after transplanting (DAT) bago muling gamitin.
    [Show full text]
  • FIPRONIL in the Products REGENT 200SC INSECTICIDE and PRESTO
    i Evaluation of the new active constituent FIPRONIL in the products REGENT 200SC INSECTICIDE and PRESTO MUSHROOM INSECTICIDE This document is published by the National Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals. For further information, please contact- Mr Colin Byrnes National Registration Authority PO Box E240 Queen Victoria Terrace PARKES ACT 2600 Telephone: 06 272 4850 Facsimile: 06 272 3218 (Published on the APVMA website on 14 October 2011 with a compete table of contents added) APVMA 363 1996 ii Table of Contents FOREWORD iv ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS WHlCH MAY APPEAR IN THIS DOCUMENT v 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 1 AGRICULTURAL ASPECTS 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS 2 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ASPECTS 2 RESIDUES IN FOOD AND TRADE ASPECTS 3 Residues in Food 3 Trade 3 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ASPECTS 4 2. INTRODUCTION 5 APPLICANT 5 PRODUCT DETAILS 5 OVERSEAS REGISTRATION STATUS 6 PROPERTIES OF THE CHEMICAL ACTIVE CONSTITUENT 8 3. AGRICULTURAL ASSESSMENT 9 JUSTIFICATION FOR USE 9 PROPOSED USE PATTERN 9 On Bananas 9 On Mushrooms 9 EVALUATION OF EFFICACY 9 On Bananas: 9 On Mushrooms 10 PHYTOTOXICITY 10 On Bananas 10 CONCLUSION 11 4. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 11 ENVIRONMENTAL FATE 11 Hydrolysis 11 Photolysis 11 Degradation in Soil 11 Mobility in Soils 12 Field Dissipation 12 Accumulation and bioaccumulation 12 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 12 Avian Toxicity 13 Aquatic Toxicity 13 Non-target Invertebrates 13 iii Phytotoxicity 13 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD 13 Terrestrial organisms 14 Aquatic organisms 14 CONCLUSION 15 5. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ASSESSMENT 15 EVALUATION OF TOXICOLOGY 15 Toxicokinetics and Metabolism 15 Acute Studies 15 Short-term Studies 16 Long-term Studies 16 Reproduction and Developmental Studies 16 Genotoxicity 17 Other Studies 17 PUBLIC HEALTH STANDARDS 17 Poisons Scheduling 17 6.
    [Show full text]