DOCSLIB.ORG

Efficacy of Insecticides Against Major Defoliators of Rice

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Efficacy of Insecticides Against Major Defoliators of Rice Indian Journal of Entomology 83(2021) Online published Ref. No. e20228 DoI No.: 10.5958/0974-8172.2021.00024.9 EFFICACY OF INSECTICIDES AGAINST MAJOR DEFOLIATORS OF RICE SANDEEP KUMAR* AND KULDEEP SHARMA Department of Agricultural Entomology, College of Agriculture, V C Farm, Mandya, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bengaluru 571405 *Email: [email protected] (corresponding author) ABSTRACT A field experiment carried out at the College of Agriculture, V C Farm, Mandya, Karnataka evaluated the efficacy of insecticides viz., indoxacarb 15.8EC @ 0.5 ml/ l, flubendiamide 48SC @ 0.15 ml/ l, chlorantraniliprole 18.5SC @ 0.12 ml/ l, benfuracarb 3G @ 33 kg/ ha, cartap hydrochloride 4G @ 25 kg/ ha, fipronil 0.3G @ 25 kg/ ha, acephate 75SP @ 1g/ l and chlorpyriphos 20EC @ 2ml/ l against major defoliators of rice viz., rice hispa, leaf folder, caseworm and horned caterpillar during kharif, 2018. The reduction of leaf damage over untreated control after imposing treatments was maximum with flubendiamide 48SC (56.99-82.72%) followed by cartap hydrochloride 4 G (52.24- 79.69%). Also, flubendiamide 48SC @0.15 ml/ l was the most effective with maximum cost benefit ratio. Key words: Rice, defoliators, insecticides, efficacy, flubendiamide, cartap hydrochloride, indoxacarb, chlorantraniliprole, benfuracarb, fipronil, acephate, chlorpyriphos, cost benefits Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is one of the most important include: indoxacarb 15.8EC @0.5 ml/ l, flubendiamide cereal crops of the world, and its productivity is 48SC @0.15 ml/ l, chlorantraniliprole 18.5SC @0.12 hampered by insect pests. Amongst these the defoliators ml/ l, benfuracarb 3G @33 kg/ ha, cartap hydrochloride viz., rice hispa, Dicladispa armigera Oliver, leaf 4G @ 25 kg/ ha, fipronil 0.3G @ 25 kg/ ha, acephate folder Cnaphalocrocis medinalis Guenee, caseworm 75SP @1g/ l, chlorpyriphos 20EC @ 2ml/ l and untreated Nymphula depunctalis Guenee and horned caterpillar control. The variety Jaya was sown with a spacing of 20x Melanitis leda ismene Cramer are of major importance 15 cm, in plot size of 4x 4.5 m with a total of 108 subplots. and cause economic damage (Sidde Gowda and The evaluated insecticides were used as soil application/ Gubbaiah, 2011; Bhattacharjee and Ray, 2010; Ahmad foliar spray, with granular insecticides being benfuracarb, et al., 2010; Alvi et al., 2003; Singh and Singh, 2014; cartap hydrochloride, fipronil applied seven days Pathak and Khan, 1994). Of these, the rice horned before those applied as foliar spray. The pretreatment caterpillar usually occurs in less number and infest rice observations were made a day before treatment, and crops of lowland and upland. This pest has gained major the post treatment counts at 1, 7 and 14 days after. For pest status in various parts of India. In Southern parts rice hispa counts were made on 10 randomly selected of Karnataka, the infestation of all these defoliators plants/ replication by counting number of leaves showing have become serious for the past two decades causing feeding damage by adults (white parallel streaks along heavy damage in both kharif and summer crops. Since, leaf axis) and total number of leaves, and % leaf damage the southern parts of Karnataka are important rice computed. For rice leaf folder it was computed with the growing region in the state, the management of these number of folded leaves (scrapping on leaf blade). In case defoliators are of prime importance. The present study of rice caseworm, it was done with number of leaf cases, evaluates the efficacy of some insecticides against the and for horned caterpillar it was done with the damaged major defoliators. leaves (defoliated leaf blade irregularly) (IRRI, 2013). At harvest, yield of grain and biomass were recorded, with MATERIALS AND METHODS data converted to q/ ha. The data of % leaf damage was The field experiment was carried out in kharif, subjected to suitable transformation before ANOVA and 2018 at the College of Agriculture, V C Farm, Mandya, means were separated by Tukey’s HSD (Tukey, 1953). Karnataka (12032’N, 76053’E, 690 masl) during kharif, Further, cost economics was worked out by following 2018. l. For each defoliator, separate experiment was formula. laid out in Randomized Completely Block Design with Benefit Cost Ratio = (Net profit (Rs.) three replications in each treatment. The treatments (Total cost (Rs.) 2 Indian Journal of Entomology 83(2021) Online published Ref. No. e20228 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION against rice leaf folder. Similarly, Javaregowda and Naik (2005) and Kulagod et al. (2011) also indicated The results revealed that with D. armigera, the that flubendiamide 39.35SC was the best against rice pretreatment data varied from 2.03 to 2.41%, and 2.02 defoliators. Similarly, Seetharamu et al. (2005) and to 2.39 on one day after treatment (DAT); seven DAT Sachan et al. (2006) revealed the superiority of cartap least damage (1.61%) was observed with acephate 75SP hydrochloride against lepidopteran pests of rice. Thus, which was on par with that of flubendiamide 48SC flubendiamide 48SC @ 0.15 ml/ l was found to be the (1.67%) and cartap hydrochloride 4G (1.72%); on 14 most effective insecticides against defoliators of rice DAT 1.13% damage was observed with flubendiamide followed by cartap hydrochloride 4G @ 25 kg/ ha. 48SC which was on par with cartap hydrochloride 4G However, the flubendiamide 48SC @ 0.15 ml/ l and (1.33%). Thus, reduction of damage at 14 DAT was more indoxacarb 15.8 EC @ 0.5 ml/ l gave maximum cost in flubendiamide 48SC (59.78%). Maximum grain yield benefit. (61.12 q/ ha) was obtained with flubendiamide 48SC followed by cartap hydrochloride 4G (57.22 q/ha). The ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS maximum cost benefit was 1:3.07 with flubendiamide 48SC. For C. medinalis, the pretreatment observations The authors thank the Department of Agricultural revealed 9.70 to 10.92% damage, and 1 DAT, it was Entomology, College of Agriculture, Mandya, 9.62 to 10.34%, with significant differences observed University of Agricultural Sciences, Bengaluru for 7DAT- the least damage (6.09%) was observed in providing necessary facilities. The award of ICAR-NTS flubendiamide 48SC followed by cartap hydrochloride 4 (National talent scholarship) to the first author is also G (6.43%) against 13.97% in untreated control. After 14 acknowledged. DAT similar results were obtained with flubendiamide REFERENCES 48SC which was on par with cartap hydrochloride 4G, with maximum reduction of 82.72% in damage over Ahmad H, Khan R B, Sharma D, Jamwal V V S, Gupta S. 2010. Seasonal incidence, infestation and trap catches of Cnaphalocrocis medinalis untreated control. Maximum yield of 66.47 q/ ha was in rice. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences 18(2): 380-383. observed with flubendiamide 48SC giving cost benefit Alvi S M, Ali M A, Chaudhary S, Iqbal S. 2003. Population trends and being 1:3.15 (Table 1, 2). chemical control of rice leaf folder, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis on rice crop. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology 5(4): Against N. depunctalis which was showing a 615-617. pretreatment damage at 9.79 to 10.66%, and 9.75 Bhattacharjee P P, Ray D C. 2010. Population dynamics of rice hispa, to 10.58% on 1 DAT, revealed damage of 5.60% Dicladispa armigera (Olivier) in Barak Valley of Assam and effectiveness of bio-pesticides for its management. Oryza 47: on 7 DAT with flubendiamide 48SC; and it was on 307-311. par with cartap hydrochloride 4G; on 14 DAT again Chaudhari B N, Shamkuwar G R, Raut R F, Shende P V, Undirwade flubendiamide 48SC was the most effective on par D B, Katti G R. 2017. Screening of newer insecticides against with cartap hydrochloride 4G, leading to 74.94% and major insect pests of rice. International Journal of Researches in 71.91% reduction in damage, respectively. Maximum Biosciences Agriculture and Technology 5(2): 506-509. yield (59.83 q/ha) was observed with flubendiamide Devi P R, Singh K L. 2015. Efficacy of new molecules, spinosad and monocrotophos on the incidence of Cnaphalocrocis medinalis 48SC giving maximum benefit cost ratio (1:3.00). In Guenee under kharif rice crop ecosystem of Manipur Valley. the experiment on M. leda ismene, pretreatment damage International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology was from 6.19 to 6.53% and after 1 DAT it was 6.10 to 6(1): 8-14. 6.68%. After 7 DAT this daamge reduced to the least IRRI. 2013. Standard Evaluation System (SES) for rice. International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Los Banos, Philippines. value of 5.58% with cartap hydrochloride 4G which was Javaregowda, Krishna Naik. 2005. Bioefficacy of flubendiamide 20 on par with others; and after 14 DAT it reduced to 3.26% WDG (RIL-038) against paddy pests and their natural enemies. with flubendiamide leading to a reduction of 56.99%. Pestology 29(11): 58-60. Maximum yield (60.36 q/ ha) was obtained with Kulagod S D, Mahabaleshwar H, Vastrad A S, Basavanagoud K. 2011. flubendiamide 48SC followed by cartap hydrochloride Evaluation of insecticides and biorationals against yellow stem 4G, with benefit cost ratio of 1:3.02 (Table 1,2). borer and leaf folder on rice crop. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences 24(2): 244-246. These results are in close conformity with those Pathak M D, Khan Z R. 1994. Insect pests of rice. International Journal of Devi and Singh (2015), Sandhu and Dhaliwal of Tropical Insect Science 35(2): 51-53. Sachan S K, Singh D V, Chowdary A S. 2006. Field evaluation of (2016) and Chaudhari et al. (2017) who observed insecticides against rice stem borer and leaf folder. Annals of Plant that flubendiamide 39.35SC was the most effective Protection Sciences 14(2): 462-464. Table 1. Effect of insecticides against defoliators in rice D.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Historical Perspectives on Apple Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Insecticidal Chemistries
    Historical Perspectives on Apple Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Insecticidal Chemistries. Peter Jentsch Extension Associate Department of Entomology Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab 3357 Rt. 9W; PO box 727 Highland, NY 12528 email: [email protected] Phone 845-691-7151 Mobile: 845-417-7465 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/faculty/jentsch/ 2 Historical Perspectives on Fruit Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Chemistries. by Peter Jentsch I. Historical Use of Pesticides in Apple Production Overview of Apple Production and Pest Management Prior to 1940 Synthetic Pesticide Development and Use II. Influences Changing the Pest Management Profile in Apple Production Chemical Residues in Early Insect Management Historical Chemical Regulation Recent Regulation Developments Changing Pest Management Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 The Science Behind The Methodology Pesticide Revisions – Requirements For New Registrations III. Resistance of Insect Pests to Insecticides Resistance Pest Management Strategies IV. Reduced Risk Chemistries: New Modes of Action and the Insecticide Treadmill Fermentation Microbial Products Bt’s, Abamectins, Spinosads Juvenile Hormone Analogs Formamidines, Juvenile Hormone Analogs And Mimics Insect Growth Regulators Azadirachtin, Thiadiazine Neonicotinyls Major Reduced Risk Materials: Carboxamides, Carboxylic Acid Esters, Granulosis Viruses, Diphenyloxazolines, Insecticidal Soaps, Benzoyl Urea Growth Regulators, Tetronic Acids, Oxadiazenes , Particle Films, Phenoxypyrazoles, Pyridazinones, Spinosads, Tetrazines , Organotins, Quinolines. 3 I Historical Use of Pesticides in Apple Production Overview of Apple Production and Pest Management Prior to 1940 The apple has a rather ominous origin. Its inception is framed in the biblical text regarding the genesis of mankind. The backdrop appears to be the turbulent setting of what many scholars believe to be present day Iraq.
    [Show full text]
  • INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES
    US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES Note: Pesticide tolerance information is updated in the Code of Federal Regulations on a weekly basis. EPA plans to update these indexes biannually. These indexes are current as of the date indicated in the pdf file. For the latest information on pesticide tolerances, please check the electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR) at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/40cfrv23_07.html 1 40 CFR Type Family Common name CAS Number PC code 180.163 Acaricide bridged diphenyl Dicofol (1,1-Bis(chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethanol) 115-32-2 10501 180.198 Acaricide phosphonate Trichlorfon 52-68-6 57901 180.259 Acaricide sulfite ester Propargite 2312-35-8 97601 180.446 Acaricide tetrazine Clofentezine 74115-24-5 125501 180.448 Acaricide thiazolidine Hexythiazox 78587-05-0 128849 180.517 Acaricide phenylpyrazole Fipronil 120068-37-3 129121 180.566 Acaricide pyrazole Fenpyroximate 134098-61-6 129131 180.572 Acaricide carbazate Bifenazate 149877-41-8 586 180.593 Acaricide unclassified Etoxazole 153233-91-1 107091 180.599 Acaricide unclassified Acequinocyl 57960-19-7 6329 180.341 Acaricide, fungicide dinitrophenol Dinocap (2, 4-Dinitro-6-octylphenyl crotonate and 2,6-dinitro-4- 39300-45-3 36001 octylphenyl crotonate} 180.111 Acaricide, insecticide organophosphorus Malathion 121-75-5 57701 180.182 Acaricide, insecticide cyclodiene Endosulfan 115-29-7 79401
    [Show full text]
  • Insecticide Recommendations for Arkansas Peanuts
    PEAnut InSECt COntROl Restricted Minimum days Entry From last Interval Application Insect Insecticide Formulation/Acre lb ai/Acre Acres/Gallon Application/Comments (hours) to Harvest thrips acephate 0.375-0.75 DO NOT graze or feed vines treated with 24 14 Orthene 97 6-12 oz Orthene. (of digging) Treat with foliar insecticides when gamma-cyhalothrin (R) 0.01-0.015 24 14 25% of newly emerged Prolex/Declare 1.25 CS 1.02-1.54 oz 83-125 leaflets show damage imidacloprid In-furrow application/ 12 14 from thrips. Admire Pro 4.6F 7-10.5 fl oz lambda-cyhalothrin (R) 0.02-0.03 DO NOT graze or feed vines treated with 24 14 Warrior II 2.08 CS 1.28-1.92 oz 66.6-100 Warrior. (See Generic Insecticides) phorate (R) DO NOT apply more than 7.5 lb/acre. DO 48 90 Thimet 20 G 5.5 oz/1,000 ft of row NOT graze or feed treated hay or forage to livestock. threecornered beta-cyfluthrin (R) 0.014-0.019 12 14 Alfalfa Hopper Baythroid XL 1 EC 1.8-2.4 oz 53.3-71 bifenthrin (R) 0.033-0.1 DO NOT graze or feed treated hay or forage 12 14 Brigade 2 EC 2.1-6.4 oz 20-60 to livestock. (See Generic Insecticides) carbaryl 1 DO NOT apply during bloom. 12 14 Sevin XLR or 4 F 1 qt 4 Sevin 80 S 1.25 lb esfenvalerate (R) 0.015-0.03 DO NOT graze or feed treated hay or forage 12 21 Asana XL 0.66 EC 2.9-5.8 oz 22-44 to livestock.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Evaluation of Insecticides for Management of Spotted Stem Borer
    Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies 2017; 5(5): 1719-1723 E-ISSN: 2320-7078 P-ISSN: 2349-6800 Field evaluation of insecticides for management of JEZS 2017; 5(5): 1719-1723 © 2017 JEZS spotted stem borer, Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) Received: 09-07-2017 Accepted: 10-08-2017 (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) on maize Arunkumara CG Department of Agricultural Arunkumara CG, Bheemanna M and Shaila HM Entomology, Raichur College of Agriculture, Raichur, India Abstract Bheemanna M Management of spotted stem borer, Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) on maize by insecticides was conducted in Department of Agricultural the Agricultural research station, Hagari (Ballari) UAS, Raichur, Karnataka during Kharif 2016. The Entomology, Raichur College of results revealed that, the insecticide viz., imidacloprid 60 FS - chlorantriniliprole 0.4 G, imidacloprid 60 Agriculture, Raichur, India FS - fipronil 0.3 G, imidacloprid 60 FS - carbofuran 3 G were found to be effective molecules against Chilo partellus. Next superior treatments in order of priority were chlorantriniliprole 0.4 G > Shaila HM imidacloprid 60 FS + flubendiamide 39.35 SC > fipronil 0.3 G > carbofuran 3 G > flubendiamide 39.35 Department of Agricultural SC > imdacloprid 60 FS. Entomology, Dharwad University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur College of Keywords: Insecticides, Maize, Spotted stem borer, Chilo partellus Agriculture, Raichur, India Introduction Maize or corn (Zea mays Linn.) is one of the important cereal crops in the world after wheat and rice and it is cultivated for food, fodder and as raw material for many industries. In India, maize is the third most important food crops after rice and wheat. It is cultivated over an area -1 of 8.69 m ha with a production of 21.80 m t and productivity of 2509 kg ha .
    [Show full text]
  • Ingleby Prohibited Pesticides May 2018
    1[5] INGLEBY PROHIBITED PESTICIDES MAY 2018 Active ingredient Type Acaricides Cyhexatin Acaricide Parathion-ethyl Acaricide/Insecticide Tetradifon Acaricide Tebufenpyrad Acaricide Fumigants 1,2-Dibromoethane Fumigant 1,2-dichloroethane Fumigant Fungicides 2-Aminobutane (aka sec-butylamine) Fungicide Allyl alcohol Fungicide Benomyl Fungicide Binapacryl Fungicide Bitertanol Fungicide Blasticidin-S Fungicide Cadmium Fungicide Captafol Fungicide Chloranil Fungicide Chloromethoxypropyl-mercuric-acetate (CPMA) Fungicide Chlozolinate Fungicide Di(phenylmercury)dodecenylsuccinate (PMDS) Fungicide Diammonium ethylenebis Fungicide DNOC Fungicide / Herbicide /Insecticide Edifenphos Fungicide Fenarimol Fungicide Fentin acetate Fungicide Flusilazole Fungicide Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) Fungicide Hexaconazole Fungicide Iminoctadine Fungicide Leptophos Fungicide Maneb Fungicide Mercuric oxide Fungicide Mercurous chloride (calomel) Fungicide Mercury compounds Fungicide Nickel bis Fungicide Nuarimol Fungicide Oxadixyl Fungicide Penconazole Fungicide Ingleby Farms & Forests May 2018 Prohibited Active Ingredients 2[5] INGLEBY PROHIBITED PESTICIDES MAY 2018 Active ingredient Type Fungicides (continued) Phenylmercury acetate Fungicide/Herbicide Phenylmercuric oleate [PMO] Fungicide Prochloraz Fungicide Procymidone Fungicide Propineb Fungicide Pyrazophos Fungicide Pyrifenox Fungicide Tecnazene Fungicide Tricyclazole Fungicide Tridemorph Fungicide Vinclozolin Fungicide Zineb Fungicide Herbicides 2,4,5-T Herbicide Acifluorfen Herbicide Alachlor Herbicide Arsenic
    [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]
  • China Releases New Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides In
    GB 2763-2016 THIS REPORT CONTAINS ASSESSMENTS OF COMMODITY AND TRADE ISSUES MADE BY USDA STAFF AND NOT NECESSARILY STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL U.S. GOVERNMENT POLICY Voluntary - Public Date: 3/31/2017 GAIN Report Number: CH17016 China - Peoples Republic of Post: Beijing China Releases New Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides in Food Report Categories: FAIRS Subject Report Approved By: Lisa Anderson Prepared By: FAS Staff Report Highlights: On December 18, 2016, the Chinese National Health and Family Planning Commission, Ministry of Agriculture, China Food and Drug Administration released the National Food Safety Standard - Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides in Foods (GB 2763-2016). The standard will replace the current MRL Standard (GB 2763-2014) and will be implemented on June 18, 2017. This report provides an unofficial translation of the standard. Editors’ Note: The asterisk appearing in the MRL column means that the limit is a temporary MRL. A temporary MRL is usually set under the following four conditions: 1. The dietary risk assessment data is incomplete; 2. The Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) is temporary (ADI is used as the basis for MRL setting); 3. There is no surveillance or analysis method for the MRL that complies with the standard requirements; 4. In emergency situations, the pesticide is approved to be used on un-registered crops. I GB 2763-2016 General Information: BEGIN TRANSLATION ICS 65.100 G 25 GB National Standard of the People’s Republic of China GB 2763—2016 Replacing GB 2763 - 2014 National food safety standard Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides in Food General Information: National Health and Family Planning Commission Issued by: Ministry of Agriculture China Food and Drug Administration Issued on: 2016-12-18 Implementation:2017-06-18 II GB 2763-2016 Table of Content Preface ...............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Insecticides Act, 1968 (Act No.46 of 1968)
    The Insecticides Act, 1968 (Act No.46 of 1968) An Act to regulate the import, manufactures, sale, transport, distribution and use of insecticides with a view to prevent risk to human beings or animals and for matters connected therewith. [2 nd September 1968] Be it enacted by Parliament in the Nineteenth Year of the Republic of India as follows: 1. Short title, extent and commencement. * a. This Act may be called the Insecticides Act, 1968. b. It extends to the whole of India. c. It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint and different dates may be appointed for different States and for different provisions of Act. 2. Application of other laws not barred * The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force. 3. Definitions- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires- a. "animals" means animals useful to human beings and includes fish and fowl, and such kinds of wild life as the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify, being kinds which in its opinion, it is desirable to protect or preserve; b. "Board" means the Central Insecticides Board constituted under Sec.4; c. "Central Insecticides Laboratory" means the Central Insecticides Laboratory established, or as the case may be, the institution specified under Sec.16; d. "Import" means bringing into any place within the territories to which this Act extends from a place outside those territories; e. "Insecticide" means- i.
    [Show full text]
  • Method Description
    Methods for Elements Method Method Description Analyte Calcium Copper Iron Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Magnesium EAM 4.4 Spectrometric Determination of Elements in Phosphorus Food Using Microwave Assisted Digestion Potassium Sodium Strontium Zinc Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Lead Spectrometric Determination of Arsenic, Manganese EAM 4.7 Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Mercury and Mercury Other Elements in Food Using Microwave Molybdenum Assisted Digestion Nickel Selenium Uranium Vanadium Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Copper Method for Analysis of Bottled water for 18 Iron EAM 4.12 Elements by ICPMS Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Thallium Uranium Zinc High Performance Liquid Chromatography- Inorganic arsenic, Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Dimethylarsinic acid (DMA), EAM 4.10 Spectrometric Determination of Four Arsenic Monomethylarsonic acid (MMA), Species in Fruit Juice Arsenobetaine (AsB) KAN-LAB-MET.95 Determination of Iodine in Foods Iodine Methods for Radionuclides Method Method Description Analyte Determination of Strontium-90 in Foods by WEAC.RN.METHOD.2.0 Strontium-90 Internal Gas-Flow Proportional Counting Americium-241 Cesium-134 Cesium-137 Determination of Gamma-Ray Emitting Cobalt-60 WEAC.RN.METHOD.3.0 Radionuclides in Foods by High-Purity Potassium-40 Germanium Spectrometry Radium-226 Ruthenium-103 Ruthenium-106 Thorium-232 Methods for Pesticides/Industrial Chemicals Method Method Description Analyte Extraction Method: Analysis of Pesticides KAN-LAB-PES.53 and
    [Show full text]
  • Pesticide Data Program Annual Summary for Calendar Year 2018
    United States Department of Agriculture December 2019 Dear Reader: We are pleased to present the Pesticide Data Program’s (PDP) 28th Annual Summary for calendar year 2018. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) conducts this program each year to collect data on pesticide residues in food. This report shows that when pesticide residues are found on foods, they are nearly always at levels below the tolerance, or maximum amount of a pesticide allowed to remain in or on a food, that is set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). PDP provides high-quality, nationally representative data to help ensure consumer confidence in the foods they provide to their families. Over 99 percent of the products sampled through PDP had residues below the EPA tolerances. Ultimately, if EPA determines a pesticide is not safe for human consumption, it is removed from the market. The PDP tests a wide variety of domestic and imported foods, with a strong focus on foods that are consumed by infants and children. EPA relies on PDP data to conduct dietary risk assessments and to ensure that any pesticide residues in foods remain at safe levels. USDA uses the data to better understand the relationship of pesticide residues to agricultural practices and to enhance USDA’s Integrated Pest Management objectives. USDA also works with U.S. growers to improve agricultural practices. The PDP is not designed for enforcement of EPA pesticide residue tolerances. Rather, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for enforcing EPA tolerances. PDP provides FDA and EPA with monthly reports of pesticide residue testing and informs the FDA if residues detected exceed the EPA tolerance or have no EPA tolerance established.
    [Show full text]
  • Major Uses of Pesticides (Upto
    Government of India Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine & Storage Central Insecticide Board & Registration Committee N.H.-IV, Faridabad-121 001 (Haryana) MAJOR USES OF PESTICIDES (Registered under the Insecticides Act, 1968) (UPTO - 31/01/2020) (Based on certificate issued) Disclaimer: The document has been compiled on the basis of available information for guidance and not for legal purposes. INSECTICIDES 1. Insecticides registered for Agriculture use (Page No. – 02 to 58). 2. Insecticides combination registered for agriculture use (Page No. – 59 to 66). 3. Insecticides registered for Public Health use (Page No. – 67 to 72). 4. Insecticides registered for Household use (Page No. – 73 to 84). 5. Ad-hoc approval for Fall Army Worm (Page No. – 85 to 85). 1 Approved Uses of Registered Insecticides (As on 31/01/2020) Agricultural Use Crop Common Name of Dosage/ha Waiting Period the pest (days) a.i (gm) Formulation Dilution (gm/ml) in Water (Liter) Abamectin 01.90% EC Rose (Ornamental) Red spider mites 0.00048- 0.025-0.050% 500 03 (Tetranychus urticae) 0.00096% Grapes Mites 0.014/L 0.75 ml/L 500-1000 03 water Acephate 75.00% SP Cotton Jassids 292.00 390.00 500-1000 15 Bollworms 584.00 780.00 500-1000 15 Safflower Aphids 584.00 780.00 500-1000 15 Rice (Paddy) Yellow stem borer, 500.0-750.0 666.0-1000.0 300-500 15 Leaf folder, Plant Hoppers, Green leaf hopper Acephate 97.00% DF Cotton Jassids & Boll worm 436.50 -582.00 450.0-600.0 500 48
    [Show full text]
  • Determination of Pesticides in Tea Automated with FREESTYLE Quechers and LC-MS/MS
    APPLICATION NOTE | AN0031 Determination of Pesticides in Tea Automated with FREESTYLE QuEChERS and LC-MS/MS Dr. Hans Rainer Wollseifen (MACHEREY-NAGEL) APPLICATION NOTE | www.LCTech-online.com As of: November 2019, Version: 1.2 APPLICATION NOTE | AN0031 Content 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 3 2. Method Development .............................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Reagents and Materials .................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Sample Preparation ........................................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Instrumentation .................................................................................................................................. 4 2.3.1 FREESTYLE QuEChERS System .............................................................................................. 4 2.4 Analytical Set-up ................................................................................................................................ 4 2.4.1 HPLC System and Settings ..................................................................................................... 5 2.4.2 Chromatographic Conditions ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]