Several reports have been received already about grasshoppers in moderate to high numbers in cotton fields that are in the process of being planted in central Alabama. The presence of grasshoppers is not surprising. But the fact that some fields have predominately adults is surprising. Normally the population is almost all immature at this time of the season. Adults usually occur in late May and June. The significance of the life stage is that adults are much more difficult to control. Acephate (Orthene or generics), chlorpyriphos (Lorsban or generics), Dimilin and others give good control of the immature stage. Much higher labeled rates are required to control adults.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Cotton Planting Progress
Some cotton has been planted in many areas of the state. However, weather extremes have interfered with planting in the past 10 days, too much rainfall in the northern areas and too little in the southern areas. No significant rain fronts have occurred in the Wiregrass (southeastern) area in almost a month.
Cotton planted on April 13 at Prattville, AL, is up to a nice healthy stand with most plants putting out the bud of the first true leaf on April 26.
Cotton planted on April 13 at Prattville, AL, is up to a nice healthy stand with most plants putting out the bud of the first true leaf on April 26.
Cotton Scout School Announced
Three cotton scouting schools will be held in Alabama in early-mid June. They are as follows:
June 8, 2011: Autauga County Extension Office, Autaugaville, AL.
June 9, 2011: Wiregrass Research and Extension Center, Headland, AL.
June 14, 2011: Tennessee Valley Research and Extension Center, Belle Mina, AL.
All sessions will begin at 8:30am and continue until noon. Recertification points will be awarded to those in attendance.
June 8, 2011: Autauga County Extension Office, Autaugaville, AL.
June 9, 2011: Wiregrass Research and Extension Center, Headland, AL.
June 14, 2011: Tennessee Valley Research and Extension Center, Belle Mina, AL.
All sessions will begin at 8:30am and continue until noon. Recertification points will be awarded to those in attendance.
Friday, April 1, 2011
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
A. Plataspid (Kudzu) Bug
B. Brown Marmorated Stink Bug
C. Redbanded Stink Bug
A. Plataspid (Kudzu) Bug
Native to Asia
B. Brown Marmorated Stink Bug
First discovered in Pennsylvania in late 1990s
Invades homes for hibernation sites in the Fall
3. Redbanded Stink Bug
Native to South America (Brazil)
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
A. Plataspid (Kudzu) Bug
B. Brown Marmorated Stink Bug
C. Redbanded Stink Bug
A. Plataspid (Kudzu) Bug
Native to AsiaFirst detected near Athens Georgia in the fall of 2009
Has since spread over much of Georgia, South Carolina and into a few counties in North Carolina and Alabama
Feeds primarily on legumes
Reduced soybean yields by about 20% in 2010 test fields in Georgia
Feeds on stems and leaves
Has high reproductive potential
Can be controlled with pyrethroids and other chemistry
Is a public nuisance problem in fall of the year as they enter homes and buildings to hibernate.
B. Brown Marmorated Stink Bug
First discovered in Pennsylvania in late 1990sNative of Asia
Big problem in specialty crops in mid-Atlantic states (grapes, apples)
Caused 60-90% loss in peaches and apples in 2010
Called Interstate Bug since it spreads by trucks and campers
Has wide host range - feeds on about everything
Have been found in three Alabama counties in late 2010
Has long proboscis so can go through the husk of cornPecans may be huge host in the southeast
Causes more damage per bug on soybeans than green or brown stink bug species
Expect to be economic pest of cotton
Will likely have heavy field edge or border damageInvades homes for hibernation sites in the Fall
3. Redbanded Stink Bug
Native to South America (Brazil)First found in Louisiana in 2000
Observed on soybeans in Baldwin County, Alabama in July 2010
Is sensitive to winter temperatures below 20 degrees F
Has high reproductive potential
Is primarily a legume feeder
Can cause heavy damage to soybeans
Feeds earlier and more aggressively than other stink bug species
More difficult to kill than Southern green stink bug
This concludes Week Five of Cotton Insect Management 2011. The slide show can also be viewed at http://www.aces.edu/anr/crops/documents/CottonInsectManagement2011RonSmith.pdf
Monday, March 14, 2011
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
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
2. Evolution of Bt Cotton - Genes Involved
How do they compare and what is in the future?
1996 Bollgard Cry1Ac
2003 Bollgard II Cry1Ac + Cry2Ab
2005 Widestrike Cry1Ac + Cry1F
In Pipeline
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
2. Evolution of Bt Cotton - Genes Involved
How do they compare and what is in the future?
2003 Bollgard II Cry1Ac + Cry2Ab
2005 Widestrike Cry1Ac + Cry1F
In Pipeline
2012? Bayer Twin Link/ Glytol Cry1Ab + Cry2Ae
2012-13? Widestrike Advanced Vip3A + Cry1Ac + Cry1F
2013-14? Bollgard III Vip3A + Cry1Ac + Cry2Ab
Importance of Adding Genes:
1. To provide improved effectiveness across the various caterpillar species. Different genes have strengths on certain species.
2. To manage resistance and preserve the technology.
Have you ever considered the significance if resistance should occur to the Bt gene(s)? We were living on the edge with a single gene.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Cotton Insect Management, 2011
Points for Discussion in Coming Weeks:
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
Low Input System - Conventional vs. Technology
Results from 2010 Season and Conclusions:
Cotton Systems Trial
Wiregrass Research and Extension Center
Headland, AL
Cotton Systems Trial
Prattville Agricultural Research Unit
Prattville, AL
Cotton Systems Trial
E. V. Smith Research and Extension Center
Shorter, AL
Based on the results of these trials, this investigator would conclude that conventional cotton can be grown in Alabama.
However, the economics would vary greatly depending on the weather, severity of the insect season and location.
Furthermore, it would require much expertise in monitoring insect populations and selection of the appropriate chemistry for the target insect species present.
Bottom Line: 2011 may not be the season to cut input costs -- but instead to focus on maximizing yield.
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
Low Input System - Conventional vs. Technology
Results from 2010 Season and Conclusions:
Cotton Systems Trial
Wiregrass Research and Extension Center
Headland, AL
Variety/ Technology | Seed Cost | Technology Cost | Weed Control Cost | Foliar Insect Control Cost* | Yield # Seed Cotton/ac | Cost/lb Seed Cotton |
CT 210 | $10.00 | - | $37.50 | $16.00 | 2,813 | $0.023 |
PHY 440W | $21.97 | $18.00 | $37.50 | $16.00 | 2,789 | $0.034 |
DP 174RF | $23.89 | $36.81 | $31.00 | $16.00 | 2,916 | $0.037 |
DP 121RF | $23.89 | $36.81 | $31.00 | $16.00 | 2,724 | $0.040 |
DP 0912B2RF | $24.90 | $70.00 | $31.00 | $16.00 | 3,230 | $0.044 |
PHY 375 WRF | $23.50 | $65.00 | $31.00 | $16.00 | 3,140 | $0.043 |
ST 5288B2RF | $24.90 | $70.00 | $31.00 | $16.00 | 3,329 | $0.043 |
PHY 485 WRF | $23.50 | $65.00 | $31.00 | $16.00 | 3,110 | $0.044 |
DP 1034 B2RF | $24.90 | $70.00 | $31.00 | $16.00 | 3,041 | $0.047 |
DP 1048 B2RF | $24.90 | $70.00 | $31.00 | $16.00 | 2,784 | $0.051 |
PHY 565 WRF | $23.50 | $65.00 | $31.00 | $16.00 | 2,990 | $0.045 |
DP 0949 B2RF | $24.90 | $70.00 | $31.00 | $16.00 | 2,940 | $0.048 |
50B2RF | $24.90 | $70.00 | $31.00 | $16.00 | 2,633 | $0.054 |
Cotton Systems Trial
Prattville Agricultural Research Unit
Prattville, AL
Variety / Technology | Seed Cost | Technology Cost | Weed Control Cost | Foliar Insect Control Cost* | Yield # Seed Cotton/ac | Cost/lb Seed Cotton |
DP 491 UT | $10.00 | - | $43.60 | $8.00 | 1,710 | $0.036 |
DP 491 Sprayed | $10.00 | - | $43.60 | $16.00 | 1,896 | $0.037 |
DP 174R UT | $23.89 | $36.81 | $32.50 | $8.00 | 2,628 | $0.038 |
DP 174R Sprayed | $23.89 | $36.81 | $32.50 | $16.00 | 2,761 | $0.040 |
PHY 440W UT | $21.97 | $17.99 | $43.60 | $8.00 | 2,301 | $0.040 |
PHY 440W Sprayed | $21.97 | $17.99 | $43.60 | $16.00 | 2,339 | $0.043 |
DP 1050B2RF UT | $24.90 | $70.00 | $32.50 | $8.00 | 2,587 | $0.052 |
DP 1050B2RF Sprayed | $24.90 | $70.00 | $32.50 | $16.00 | 2,501 | $0.057 |
ST 5288 B2RF UT | $24.90 | $70.00 | $32.50 | $8.00 | 2,232 | $0.061 |
ST 5288 B2RF Sprayed | $24.90 | $70.00 | $32.50 | $16.00 | 2,150 | $0.067 |
PHY 375 WRF UT | $23.50 | $65.00 | $32.50 | $8.00 | 2,738 | $0.047 |
PHY 375 WRF Sprayed | $23.50 | $65.00 | $32.50 | $16.00 | 2,503 | $0.055 |
*Includes Application | ||||||
Cotton Systems Trial
E. V. Smith Research and Extension Center
Shorter, AL
Variety/ Technology | Seed Cost | Technology Cost | Weed Control Cost | Foliar Insect Control Cost* | Yield # Seed Cotton/ac | Cost/lb Seed Cotton |
DP 1050B2RF | $24.90 | $70.00 | $43.50 | $8.00 | 1,850 | $0.08 |
DP 174RF | $23.89 | $36.81 | $43.50 | $8.00 | 1,990 | $0.06 |
PHY 440W | $28.22 | $21.11 | $43.50 | $8.00 | 2,067 | $0.05 |
DP 491 | $10.00 | − | $43.50 | $8.00 | 1,854 | $0.07 |
*Includes Application | ||||||
Variety/ Technology | Seed Cost | Technology Cost | Weed Control Cost | Foliar Insect Control Cost* | Yield # Seed Cotton/ac | Cost/lb Seed Cotton |
ST 5288B2RF | $24.90 | $70.00 | $12.00 | $18.00 | 1,922 | $0.06 |
DP 1050B2RF | $24.90 | $70.00 | $12.00 | $18.00 | 2,122 | $0.06 |
DP 0949B2RF | $24.90 | $70.00 | $12.00 | $18.00 | 2,280 | $0.05 |
PHY 565 WRF | $23.50 | $65.00 | $12.00 | $18.00 | 2,167 | $0.06 |
DP 174 RF | $23.89 | $36.81 | $12.00 | $61.00 | 1,963 | $0.07 |
PHY 440 W | $21.97 | $17.99 | $21.00 | $61.00 | 2,018 | $0.04 |
CT 210 | $20.00 | − | $21.00 | $61.00 | 2,155 | $0.05 |
*Includes Application | ||||||
However, the economics would vary greatly depending on the weather, severity of the insect season and location.
Furthermore, it would require much expertise in monitoring insect populations and selection of the appropriate chemistry for the target insect species present.
Bottom Line: 2011 may not be the season to cut input costs -- but instead to focus on maximizing yield.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)