|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
This article was excerpted from "Insect Pathogens as Biological Control Agents: Do They Have a Future?" in Biological Control, Vol. 21, Issue 3, July 2001. CLICK HERE for a PDF copy of the full article, which contains numerous examples and illustrations of the principles discussed, plus over 250 references for further information. Should you not have Adobe Acrobat Reader (required to read PDF files), this free program is available for download at http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html.
The idea of applying microorganisms to control insect pests has its roots in the early days of invertebrate pathology. Pioneers including Agostino Bassi, Louis Pasteur, and Elie Metchnikoff proposed the concept and several researchers experimented with the use of fungi as microbial control agents in the late 19th century (53, 54). However, it was not until the development of the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner that the use of microbes for the control of insects became widespread.
Organisms harmful to insects are known as "entomopathogens." Types of bacteria, viruses, fungi, protozoa, and nematodes can all function as entomopathogens. Today, a variety of such organisms are used for the control of invertebrate pests in glasshouse and row crops, orchards, ornamentals, range, turf and lawn, stored products, and forestry and for abatement of pest and vector insects of veterinary and medical importance (6, 36, 55).
Entomopathogens are often compared with conventional chemical pesticides solely in terms of efficacy and cost. But there can be other advantages to using entomopathogenic controls, such as environmental benefits (including safety for humans and other nontarget organisms), reduction of pesticide residues in food, increased activity of most other natural enemies, and increased biodiversity in managed ecosystems.
Entomopathogens also compare favorably to arthropod biocontrol agents, since most entomopathogens can be applied using conventional equipment and many can be produced using artificial media and can be stored for extended periods of time. Like arthropod natural enemies (i.e., predators and parasitoids), many entomopathogens are specific to certain species or groups of insect pests and some have the potential to provide long-term control. Disadvantages of entomopathogens include, in some cases, their lack of persistence, speed of kill, specificity (too broad or too narrow host range), and cost relative to conventional chemical insecticides.
Like other natural enemies, insect pathogens can exert considerable control of target populations. A disease event of epidemic proportions is known as an "epizootic." Epizootics caused by naturally occurring viral and fungal pathogens can be responsible for spectacular crashes of insect pest populations (9, 42), often eliminating the need for further interventions (9, 28, 56).
But relying on the natural occurrence of
entomopathogens for management of pest insects is risky; a host
of unpredictable factors govern epizootics. Many pathogens require
a critical host density, therefore natural epizootics often occur
after economic thresholds of a pest have been surpassed. Careful
management can help the natural pathogenic processes evolve into
useful techniques for pest control.
Strategies for the use of entomopathogenic organisms for insect
control are basically the same as for other biological control
agents (23). They may be used to augment naturally-occurring
pathogens (augmentation), conserved or activated in nature (conservation),
introduced into pest populations to become established and exert
long-term regulation of the pest (inoculative release), or used
inundatively for rapid short-term control (inundative release).
The balance of this excerpt focuses on the concepts of inoculative
and inundative releases.
The intentional introduction of exotic
pathogens as classical biocontrol agents has lagged considerably
behind the introduction of predators and parasitoids (41). ("Classical
biocontrol" is defined as importing a natural enemy of a
pest insect to an area where it does not naturally occur. For
this and other related information on biocontrol, see "Biocontrol
of Insect Pests in Potato," AENews No. 181, May 2001.) Regulatory restrictions on the introduction
of exotic pathogens into the United States have nearly eliminated
this potential strategy against introduced insect pests. However,
the unintentional or accidental introduction of pathogens has
in several cases resulted in significant and ongoing natural
control (2, 4).
The principal criteria most successful inoculative agents have
in common are persistence in the environment and/or host and
the ability to cause epizootics and to be transmitted within
and between host populations and/or generations. The ecosystems
and host plants that have best supported establishment and persistence
of introduced entomopathogens are permanent and perennial and
can tolerate attack by the targeted insect (i.e., they have a
high economic threshold) while inoculum levels increase. Forests
are ideal habitats in this sense.
Bacteria. The most widely used, inundatively applied microbial control agent is B. thuringiensis. As of 1998, about 200 B. thuringiensis-based products were registered in the United States alone (50). Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal proteins are delivered to insects in formulated products and transgenic plants. These proteins are highly specific insect gut toxins with a superior safety record regarding their effects on nontarget organisms (18, 37, 38, 43). Varieties of Bt are currently used to control a broad range of crop and forestry pests and larvae of several blood-sucking pests of humans and domestic animals (7, 10, 12, 18, 24, 39, 49, 51).
Other species of bacteria are used on a much smaller scale for insect control. These include Paenibacillus (=Bacillus) popilliae (Dutky) Pettersson et al., and related species; Serratia entomophila Grimont et al. for control of white grubs (Scarabaeidae); and Bacillus sphaericus Neide for control of mosquito larvae.
Viruses. A large number of viruses offer potential as microbial control agents of insects (46). Those with the greatest microbial control potential are in the Baculoviridae family (nucleopolyhedroviruses [NPV] and granuloviruses [GV]) (21, 27). More than 400 insect species, mostly Lepidoptera and Hymenoptera, have been reported as hosts for baculoviruses.
The use of viral pathogens of insects in
most agricultural crops is inundative. This does not utilize
their full epizootic potential, but does take advantage of their
virulence and specificity (46).
Their efficacy, specificity, and production of secondary inoculum
make baculoviruses attractive alternatives to broad-spectrum
insecticides. Due to their lack of untoward effects on beneficial
insects including other biological control organisms, baculoviruses
could be ideal components of integrated pest management (IPM)
systems. Unfortunately, the selectivity of many baculoviruses,
often targeting only one individual species, coupled with the
requirement for and cost of in vivo production, has deterred
large-scale commercial development. Several baculoviruses that
have relatively broad host ranges have recently been isolated;
these may prove more commercially viable.
Besides cost and the "good-news-bad-news" element of
specificity, entomopathogenic viruses present a few other drawbacks
compared to chemical insecticides, including relatively slow
action, sensitivity to ultra-violet light, and requiring living
production systems.
The use of baculoviruses for insect control within the IPM context is expected to increase in the coming years, particularly in developing countries and for the control of insects in high value crops grown on small acreages.
Fungi. Some 700 species of entomopathogenic fungi have
been reported, but only ten of these have been or are now being
developed for insect control (22).
Many entomopathogenic fungi are responsible for epizootics that
successfully regulate pest insect populations. Although inoculation
of insect populations with entomopathogenic fungi has provided
classical biological control of some pests (most notably the
gypsy moth), the most common method of employing fungi for insect
control is through inundative means. Most species of entomopathogenic
fungi are relatively difficult to produce and are short-lived,
making timing of inundative applications difficult or impossible.
Hyphomycetes species demonstrate activity against a broad range
of insects pests; these are the main contenders for commercial
production and use against homopterous pest insects. Several
species offer good potential for production on inexpensive artificial
media and have good shelf lives. Entomopathogenic Hyphomycetes
have been investigated for use against a broad range of insect
pests including whiteflies, aphids, thrips, termites, grasshoppers
and locusts, beetles, and others (8, 11,
13, 14,
19, 20,
32, 33,
34, 42,
44, 45,
57).
A complex set of interacting processes, both environmental and
biotic, is necessary for or inhibitory to development of epizootics
caused by entomopathogenic fungi. To take full advantage of the
epizootic potential of fungi, we need to understand the elements
that determine virulence and infection and learn how to control
these elements. These factors include sensitivity to solar radiation;
microbial antagonists; host behavior and physiological condition
and age; pathogen vigor and age; presence of pesticides; and
appropriate temperature, humidity and inoculum thresholds (14,
22, 35,
42). We can exert a measure of control
over these factors through optimization of culture methods, formulation,
environmental manipulation, and genetic engineering. Combining
the microbial control activity of entomopathogenic fungi with
other interventions and technologies promises to produce both
additive and synergistic results, in keeping with IPM strategies.
Nematodes. Nematode species in more than thirty families are
associated with insects and other invertebrates (31, 47,
48). Most research and development
has focused on nematode species in seven families: Mermithidae,
Tetradonematidae, Allantonematidae, Phaenopsitylenchidae, Sphaerulariidae,
Steinernematidae and Heterorhabditidae (31).
The steinernematids and heterorhabditids are currently receiving
the most attention as microbial control agents of soil insects.
After B. thuringiensis (see "Bacteria," above), nematodes
are next in commercial sales at US$2-3 million annually (15).
The entomopathogenic steinernematid and heterorhabditid nematode
species possess many attributes of parasitoids and pathogens.
They infect a number of insect pest species, yet pose no threat
to plants, vertebrates, and many invertebrates (1, 30).
They can be mass produced, formulated, and easily applied as
biopesticides (16, 17),
have been exempt from registration in many countries, are compatible
with many pesticides, and are amenable to genetic selection (30).
When an entomopathogenic nematode species is used against a pest
insect, it is critical to match the right nematode species to
the target insect pest (3, 30).
(See also "Using Beneficial Nematodes for Crop Insect
Pest Control," AENews No. 180, April 2001).
Although they are used primarily as biopesticides, some species of nematodes persist and recycle in the host habitat bringing about sustained suppression of some insect pests (26, 29).
Significant advances have been made in the use of entomopathogenic nematodes, but the high costs associated with production and formulation in comparison to chemical pesticides and other biologicals (i.e., B. thuringiensis) will restrict their use to high value niche markets and sensitive areas where chemicals cannot be used (15).
Protozoa. Protozoan diseases of insects are ubiquitous; they play an important role in regulating insect populations (5, 40). Protozoan diseases are generally host-specific and slow-acting, most often producing chronic infections. Their main advantages are persistence and their tendency to recycle in host populations, plus their debilitating effect on reproduction and overall fitness of target insects. As inundatively applied microbial control agents only a few species have been moderately successful (52). The grasshopper pathogen Nosema locustae Canning is the only species that has been registered and commercially developed (25). The main disadvantages of protozoa are that they must be produced in vivo and they result in low levels of immediate target pest mortality.
Control of pest insects using chemical pesticides has generated several problems including insecticide resistance; outbreaks of secondary pests normally held in check by natural enemies; safety risks for humans and domestic animals; contamination of ground water; decreased biodiversity; and other environmental concerns. These problems and sustainability of programs based predominantly on conventional insecticides have stimulated increased interest in IPM.
Sustainable agriculture in the 21st century will rely increasingly on alternative interventions to chemical pesticides for pest management that are environmentally friendly and reduce the amount of human contact with pesticides. The mandate of the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) strongly influences the development and registration of chemical pesticides today and will continue to do so in the future.
Certain microbial control agents can help fill the void left by phased-out chemicals, but their further development and implementation will require improvements in the production and formulation of the pathogens; better understanding of how they will fit into integrated systems; greater appreciation for their full advantages (e.g., efficacy, safety, selectivity), not simply their comparison with chemical pesticides; and acceptance by growers and the general public. If future development is driven exclusively by the market, implementation of microbial control agents will be delayed.
The editors of AENews wish to thank the authors for allowing us to excerpt their article. Dr. Lacey is with the U.S. Department Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) at the Yakima Agricultural Research Laboratory in Wapato; he can be reached at llacey@yarl.ars.usda.gov or (509) 454-6550. Dr. Frutos is with the Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement in France. Dr. Kaya is with the Department of Nematology at the University of California at Davis. Dr. Vail is with USDA-ARS Horticultural Crops Research Laboratory in Fresno, California.
The Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration (WSCPR) was created by the Washington State Legislature in 1995 to address the pest control issues facing minor crops and minor uses in Washington. Because the cost to obtain and maintain pesticide registrations is high, it is not always commercially viable to pursue pest control technologies for crops and sites involving limited acreage. WSCPR provides a funding opportunity to meet these pest management needs.
This table shows a six-year history of WSCPR funding.
|
|
||||
| Year |
|
|
|
|
| 1995 |
|
|
|
|
| 1996 |
|
|
|
|
| 1997 |
|
|
|
|
| 1998 |
|
|
|
|
| 1999 |
|
|
|
|
| 2000 |
|
|
|
|
| Total |
|
|
|
|
In 1999, the legislature expanded the commission's mandate, allowing
it to support a wider range of pest management options. Previously,
WSCPR could only support projects that were directed at obtaining
or maintaining pesticide registrations. The new mandate, which
took effect in 2000, allowed the commission to fund research,
implementation, and demonstration of any aspect of integrated
pest management and pesticide resistance. In the first year of
the new mandate, forty-three percent of WSCPR funding was directed
toward twenty-one of these new types of projects, many of which
focus on biological control and other alternatives to pesticides.
Between January 1999 and June 2000, WSCPR provided a total of $1,547,011 in funding to support 104 projects affecting 35 crops or crop groupings (representing over 70 total crops). Grower groups submitting proposals generated an additional $2,882,076 in cash or in-kind matching contributions to these WSCPR-funded projects.
In keeping with its mission to support minor crops and minor uses (i.e., those crops and uses for which research might not prove commercially viable due to limited acreage), WSCPR funded predominately minor crops during the 1999-2000 period. (For specific crops and sites supported, see first box at the end of this article, "Crops/Sites Supported by WSCPR.") The enabling legislation requires that WSCPR direct a minimum of twenty-five percent of its total funding to projects for crops not ranked among the top twenty agricultural commodities in the state. During 1999-2000, fifty-four percent of funding went to a total of sixty-nine such projects.
A summary of projects funded in 2001 is given in the second box at the end of this article, "Projects Funded by WSCPR in 2001," along with a breakdown of dollars supporting "new mandate" versus "old mandate"-type projects.
The Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration consists of twelve voting members and five non-voting members representing various agricultural and public sectors of Washington State. Further information about the commission can be found on its Web site, http://www.wscpr.org/. This site also includes a downloadable Request for Proposal form and examples of previously submitted proposals. Proposals for funding must originate from or be supported by an affected pest management user group. WSCPR considers proposals twice yearly, at its November and January meetings. Emergency proposals can be submitted for consideration at any time.
Source: WSCPR 1999-2000 Progress Report and WSCPR Web site.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|||
| Project |
|
|
|
| Fungicides & Timing for Alternaria Fruit Rot on Highbush Blueberry |
|
|
|
| Field Evaluation of Fungicides for Botrytis cinerea on Strawberry |
|
|
|
| Beneficial Arthropods in Washington Hop Yards |
|
|
|
| Beneficial Arthropods in Washington Vineyards |
|
|
|
| Biocontrol of Cereal Leaf Beetle |
|
|
|
| Evaluation of Insecticides for Control of Flea Beetles in Potato |
|
|
|
| Integrated Management of Greenhouse Rose Pests |
|
|
|
| Fungicidal Control of Alternaria Leaf Spot on Cabbage Seed Crops |
|
|
|
| Feeding Enhancements for Insecticides |
|
|
|
| RAYNOX, a Particle Film for Suppression of Insects in Apple/Pear |
|
|
|
| IR-4 GLP Residue Studies on Hops |
|
|
|
| Powdery Mildew on Hops in the Pacific Northwest |
|
|
|
| Development of an IPM Program for Aphid Control in Crucifers |
|
|
|
| Annosus Root Rot in Noble Fir Christmas Trees |
|
|
|
| Acquisition of a Mechanical Red Raspberry Harvester |
|
|
|
| Mowing Height and Nitrogen Fertility in Home Lawn Turf |
|
|
|
| Effect of Pesticides and Repellents on Bees |
|
|
|
| Developing a Pest Monitoring Plan for Burrowing Shrimp |
|
|
|
| Chemical Control of Powdery Mildew in Washington Sweet Cherries |
|
|
|
| Magnitude of Residue Field Trials for Thiocloprid and Bifenazate |
|
|
|
| Assessing Grape Quality Reduction from Spider Mite Feeding |
|
|
|
| Biorational Screening of Mint Insecticides and Acaricides |
|
|
|
| Screening of Pesticides and GLP Magnitude of Residue Studies |
|
|
|
| Weed Control in Direct-Seed Grain Legume Production |
|
|
|
| Control and Management of Common Smut on Corn |
|
|
|
| Asparagus Pest Management Program |
|
|
|
| Maintenance of Guthion Registrations on Pome Fruits |
|
|
|
| Potato Areawide IPM Program |
|
|
|
| IPM System for Pears in the Wenatchee Valley |
|
|
|
| Improving Grass Seed Production Practices for the Columbia Basin |
|
|
|
| Ornamental Disease Control |
|
|
|
| Managing Soil Pests in Potatoes with Yellow Mustard Green Manures |
|
|
|
| Cranberry Pest Management with Low-Risk Alternative Pesticides |
|
|
|
| Cover Crops to Enhance Biological Control in Orchards |
|
|
|
| Develop an IPM Program for Hybrid Poplar Plantings |
|
|
|
| Herbicide Trials for Mustard and Canola |
|
||
| Biocontrol of Leafrollers |
|
|
|
| Weed Control in Spinach and Table Beets Grown for Seed |
|
|
|
| Weed Control in Newly Planted Strawberries |
|
|
|
| Organic Herbicides and Flaming for Weed Control in Strawberries |
|
|
|
| Field Evaluation of a New Strain of Aphids in Potatoes |
|
|
|
| Control of Winter Moth in Pacific Northwest Blueberries |
|
|
|
| A Test of Phytotoxicity, Efficacy and Resistance |
|
|
|
| Pest Management Strategies in Riparian Buffer Zones |
|
|
|
| Crop Protection Plan for Clover Grown for Seed in WA |
|
|
|
| Alternative Raspberry Production and Pest Management Study |
|
|
|
| GLP Field Trial for New Cranberry Pesticides in OR and WA |
|
|
|
| Assessing Thrips Feeding Damage to Dry Bulb Onions in WA |
|
|
|
| IPM of Lygus Bugs |
|
|
|
The Western United States Agricultural
Trade Association (WUSATA) has allocated $178,000 to the Washington
State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) marketing program to promote
overseas sales of Washington food and agricultural products.
These funds will be used to expand produce sales into Southeast
Asian countries, to grow seafood markets in the European Union,
to promote consumer food products in Mexico and Taiwan, and to
increase sales of Northwest food ingredients in Japan.
Enjoying a six and a half percent increase over last year's allotment,
the state department of agriculture received twelve percent of
all the funds available to the thirteen member states. The WSDA
marketing program and the Oregon Department of Agriculture also
were allocated $100,000 to jointly manage a nursery project in
Japan.
In addition to these funds, sixteen Washington companies have applied for $1.4 million from WUSATA to market their branded products overseas with assistance from the marketing program. Branded products are those that carry the labels of specific companies. For the first time this year, apple companies are participating in the program.
WUSATA is a non-profit organization that combines federal, state and industry resources to carry out programs that help to increase exports of food and agricultural products from the Western region of the United States. The activities of WUSATA are directed by the thirteen Western states and funded through contributions from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Foreign Agricultural Service, the state departments of agriculture, and private firms.
One of four international trade development organizations known as "state regional trade groups," WUSATA often secures more money for its members than the states would be able to get on their own. A vital link between international food buyers, Western U.S. food suppliers, state agricultural agencies and the federal government, WUSATA services include export promotion, customized export assistance, a cost-share funding program, international trade exhibitions, overseas trade missions, export seminars, in-country research, and point-of-sale promotions in foreign food chains and restaurants. For more information about WUSATA, see its Web site on the Internet at http://www.wusata.org/.
This news was released by the Washington
State Department of Agriculture on August 9, 2001. WSDA's Web
site can be found on the Internet at http://www.wa.gov/agr. Inquiries may be directed
to the WSDA Public Information Office 360/902-1813 or Telecommunications
Device for the Deaf (TDD) 360/902-1996.
|
It's hard to believe a year has gone by. I'm still the newest member of the Food and Environmental Quality Laboratory (FEQL) team here at Washington State University, but I have in fact been on board for over a year now.
We have made a great deal of progress this year. One of my primary objectives when I took this position was to institute the policies and procedures that would result in the FEQL being approved as a Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) facility. This designation allows our lab to perform certain analytical work on pesticides proposed to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for registration. (For more information on GLP, see "Is 'Good' Enough?" AENews Issue No. 184, August 2001.) Today, we have a viable GLP program in place, having added an independent quality assurance unit to our operating protocol.
Another objective for the analytical laboratory in 2000-2001 was the revitalization of the analytical aspect of our state's Interregional Research Program #4 (IR-4). This has been accomplished through the cooperation of individuals including Chuck Mourer and Matt Hengel at the IR-4 Western Regional Laboratory and with the support of key individuals in Washington State such as Rocky Lundy in his role as chair of the commodity liaison committee. Working together with our state's IR-4 Representative Liaison and fellow FEQL faculty member Doug Walsh, our group has met this objective as well.
Finally, looking at the broader mandate of the FEQL-seeking effective crop production technologies that are protective of human and environmental health-Allan Felsot and I have been able to combine our areas of expertise to develop regional air, deposition, and biological monitoring programs that will have immediate and long-term benefits for the Pacific Northwest grower community and public sectors.
While I am pleased that we have been able to meet these primary objectives my first year at FEQL and WSU, it is apparent that change is in the air. (I've performed considerable research on atmospheric transport, so I can say that with authority!) It seems to me that the role of residue laboratories at land-grant universities is changing with respect to supporting minor crop registrations.
To understand why I've come to this conclusion during my short time here in Washington, some background on residue analysis is in order. Analytical sensitivity began increasing dramatically in the 1980s. Around this time, it became possible to identify pesticide candidates solely by chemical structure and target site of action using quantitative structural activity relationship (QSAR) models. Add to this the subsequent passage of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) calling for safer alternative chemistries and integrated pest management (IPM) strategies. As a result, alternative pest management chemistries are being developed at an unprecedented rate (thereby requiring new analytical approaches) and lower use rates are being explored for efficacy (thereby requiring heightened sensitivity in analytical instrumentation).
To keep up with this surge of change, and provide the data necessary to register new chemistries through EPA, pesticide manufacturers and contractual laboratories today must invest large sums of money into state-of-the-art instrumentation that can handle the new chemistries and the ever-decreasing amounts of tolerable residues.
Our nation's land-grant universities have been key players in the performance of residue analysis. Universities have the intellectual resources to stay on top of the latest scientific developments, so this role has been appropriate. But the fact is that when a single analytical instrument can cost upwards of $200,000 to $300,000, many of the land-grant universities simply can't keep pace. Not only is it expensive to acquire the equipment necessary to perform the high standard of analyses demanded today, this equipment is expensive to maintain and to upgrade.
One consequence of this situation is that many pesticide manufacturers are now investing in this instrumentation and analyzing residue samples in-house, analyses that previously might have been conducted by IR-4 land-grant satellite laboratories.
Where does this leave a laboratory like FEQL? We will most certainly continue to play a key role in the effort to ensure minor crop growers are properly armed with IPM strategies and softer alternative crop protection chemistries as part of the IR-4 program. After all, supporting Pacific Northwest agriculture within a context of protecting human and environmental health is a principal mission of the FEQL, and the IR-4 program is perhaps the most highly evolved framework for supporting the minor crops that are such an important part of Washington State agriculture. But to keep pace with the breakneck evolution of chemical analysis, our laboratory must also evolve, and this co-evolution must include acquisition of state-of-the-art instrumentation to keep pace with the necessities and demand for a safer food supply.
In addition to analyzing residues, we will expand our focus on product understanding studies, especially of newer and alternative chemistries. Such studies will ensure that pest control products are used safely and effectively. We expect the FEQL will be using all of its skill in environmental chemistry and toxicology to aid the development of best management practices and, with the help of the information dissemination resources of the Pesticide Information Center, the promotion of agricultural stewardship.
Dr. Vince Hebert is
the Analytical Chemist with the Food and Environmental Quality
Laboratory. His office and laboratory are located on the Tri-Cities
campus of Washington State University. He can be reached at (509)
372-7393 or vhebert@tricity.wsu.edu.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Washington Pest Consultants Association (WaPCA) has been involved in recycling plastic pesticide containers since the early 1990s. They organize an annual series of collection dates and sites, contracting with Northwest Ag Plastics to collect and granulate the plastic containers. A schedule for eastern and western Washington dates and times through October is available on-line at
There is no charge for this important service. Contact information, container clean-up criteria, and other details are posted at the URL above.
The Pesticide Notification Network (PNN) is operated by WSU's Pesticide Information Center for the Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration. The system is designed to distribute pesticide registration and label change information to groups representing Washington's pesticide users. PNN notifications are now available on our web page. To review those sent out in the month two months prior to this issue's date, either access the PNN page via the Pesticide Information Center On-Line (PICOL) Main Page on URL http://picol.cahe.wsu.edu/ or directly via URL http://www.pnn.wsu.edu. We hope that this new electronic format will be useful. Please let us know what you think by submitting comments via e-mail to Jane Thomas at jmthomas@tricity.wsu.edu.
W.S.U. Pullman Home Page Comments and questions: cdaniels@tricity.wsu.edu Technical Assistance: scoates@tricity.wsu.edu Copyright © Washington State University / Disclaimer Electronic Publishing and Appropriate Use Policy University Information: 509/335-3564
to
my attention and wanted to get my thoughts on it. In the article,
Lovejoy extols the virtues of Blackberry & Brush Block (we'll
call it "B&BB" for short) as the "natural"
answer for control of everything from annual weeds to Canada
thistle and dock to Scotch broom and, of course, blackberry.
Lovejoy notes that weeds quickly wither away after treatment,
with a single application lasting up to a year. "No more
weeds," she bluntly states. "Period."
Now, I am as excited
as anybody when a product comes along that purportedly kills
such tough weed species as blackberry and horsetail. I live in
western Washington and heaven knows I seem to be fighting a losing
battle with these and other species myself. But I must admit
to being more than a little skeptical that B&BB, or any other
acetic acid-based herbicide, could offer such a thorough solution,
especially after a single application. I am ready to concede
that contact herbicides such as B&BB applied to foliage would
cause rapid desiccation. But when I read that B&BB applied
to the soil around "a big old blackberry or Scotch broom"
results in wilted foliage within a day, my eyebrows rise. And
when I read further that established horsetails "begin wilting
immediately and are totally dead within a week," my credulity
is badly strained.