Cotton Insect Management, 2011

Points for Discussion: 
1. Low Input System - Conventional vs. Technology 
2. Evolution of Bt Cotton - Various Genes Involved 
How do they compare and what is in the future? 
3. Phase Out of Temik 
What will be the greatest impact? 
4. Stink Bug Research Towards a More Rapid Survey Technique 
Factors that influence external vs. internal stink bug boll damage. 
5. New Damaging Insects 
Plataspid (Kudzu) Bug 
Brown Marmorated Stink Bug 
Red-Banded Stink Bug
  
Phase out of Temik:

“EPA and Bayer CropScience, the manufacturer, have reached an agreement to end use of the pesticide aldicarb in the United States.” EPA release October 2010
Remaining uses: During the phase-out, aldicarb use may continue on cotton and peanuts with use-rate reductions and rural well setbacks.  

• Registered in 1970
• Production ends by December 31st, 2014
• Distribution and sales end by December 31st, 2016
• Use ends by August 31st, 2018

 Impact in cotton production: 

• early season insects
• nematodes
• **suppression of spider mites

 Update and Comments on Temik Phase-Out:  

A two-week temporary restraining order affecting the production of a key intermediate used in the production of Temik brand aldicarb was issued February 10 by a federal judge in West Virginia. This order was issued in response to a lawsuit brought about by 16 residents who reside near the production plant. This restraining order was later extended until March 28. Bottom line is the supply of Temik for the 2011 season will be limited.

The point I wish to focus on today is the long term impact of the loss of Temik in cotton insect management. We all recognized the role Temik played in early season insect control, particularly thrips. However, in recent years we have learned how to better utilize seed treatments, supplemented with foliar sprays as needed. 

In addition, growers who continued to utilize Temik were often also benefiting from its nematicideal properties. The loss of Temik will leave a major void in nematode management.

Today, I would like to comment on another benefit of Temik – that being spider mite suppression. In the long haul this may be the most significant loss or impact from the phase out of Temik.

As I have commented to growers in our winter production meetings, there is one advantage of being old and that is you have “seen more history”. In my case I can remember what a major problem spider mites were on cotton in the 1950’s and 60’s. I have seen entire fields in the Tennessee Valley region of Alabama completely defoliated prior to maturity due to spider mite damage. No effective foliar controls were available. Beginning about 1970, when Temik entered the market, spider mites became a relative insignificant pest of cotton for about 30 plus years. Beginning with the movement to seed treatments, mites have become a significant player again. Not in all fields or all years. However, when conditions are conducive, mites can be very economic again. Newer products are now available for foliar control but they do not give extended suppression and most are relatively expensive on a per acre basis. I am not sure that we have anything today that has the mite suppression activity of Temik. Therefore, in the long run, the loss of Temik may leave its greatest impact on mite control. Time will tell.

 

Cotton Market Update - Bob Goodman

As I write this last Cotton Economics Update of my career, the Dec 2011 contract is just a tick below 97 cents. Prices for all our commodities are just amazing, and seem to be supported by the fundamentals. However, the only USDA statistic I wish to comment on is the projected 1.9 million bale domestic ending stocks for the 2010-2011 crop. As you know, that number is a record, at least since 1965, and anything older than that doesn’t matter. Last years number was 2.9 and there have never been two consecutive years with less than 3 million bales of carryover. The US cotton fundamentals are in uncharted territory, but on the plus side for once. Having spent most of my career with cotton around 50 cents, this is wonderful. If I had known this was going to happen, I might have stuck around another year. Remember, in 2001 the season average price for cotton received by farmers was 32 cents.


In my last column I parroted the advice of other market commentators who advised farmers to lock in some prices on next year’s product as well as the inputs especially fertilizer and fuel. I just want to add here a comment about a conversation we had here at Auburn, sitting around at coffee break with Ron Smith, Dale Monks, Dennis Delaney, Austin Hagan, and all the crops gang. As you can imagine, we could only squeeze in a few minutes to talk about the crop between sessions on Cam Newton and the coming championship bowl game. But I think two thoughts the specialists had regarding the coming year bear repeating here.

First, obviously prices are good. It will take less cotton to pay for a crop protection product than ever before. The rewards for good crop management have never been higher. Mistakes have never been costlier. You should plan carefully and pay close attention to detail. Just as an example, and not to pick on anyone, but John Fulton, an Agricultural Engineer here, just showed me some data from a cotton conservation tillage / plant population experiment. It was a good idea for an experiment, but the final plant populations were so far from the intended target that the results were perhaps less useful than they might have otherwise been. All I’m saying is that it’s easy to mess up, and some things can’t be fixed. Put yourself in a position to make top yields. Cover the basics; fertility, variety, timeliness, pest control.

Second, there will be opportunities to waste money on this crop. This is never a good idea. I will go out on a limb here in my last column and say that my personal recommendation is that you should not even consider any product without an extensive research pedigree from your own State Land Grant University. If you choose to buy and apply such products, I would offer you the same assessment that Dale Monks commonly offers in these situations: “It doesn’t cost much and it probably won’t hurt your crop”.

Bob Goodman, Retired Cotton Economist, Formerly Auburn University, with thanks for all the help and friendship. I don’t know what I’m going to do next, but I hope to try something where people are glad to see me when I show up. Thus, it will probably not involve agricultural economics.