Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Botanical pesticides’ Category

Friday, 15 April 2022 07:46:48

Grahame Jackson posted a new submission ‘Researchers investigate garlic’s hidden powers’

Submission

Researchers investigate garlic’s hidden powers

University of Queensland

Garlic has traditionally been used to ward off evil spirits, but its reputed powers do not stop it from being infected by multiple viruses.

University of Queensland plant virologist Associate Professor John Thomas said garlic was unique, as it was difficult to get virus-free garlic anywhere in the world.

“There can be up to 10 or 12 viruses in infected plants and most garlic plants would have at least six viruses,” Dr Thomas said.

“All Australian commercial garlic varieties have viruses, which doesn’t seem to affect taste or nutrition, but does have an impact on the crop’s yield.”

Understanding that suite of viruses and their impact is the problem Dr Thomas, UQ colleagues Dr Stephen Harper and Associate Professor Andrew Geering, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries’ Dr Kathy Crew and PhD candidate Sari Nurulita, are investigating.

Ms Nurulita’s doctoral study aims to develop reliable virus detection tests and investigate why both superior and inferior garlic plants share the same viral profile.

“Garlic is a vegetatively propagated crop, and once it’s been infected, all the progeny are infected,” Dr Thomas said.

“It’s also possible for the crop to collect more viruses in the field, but not lose any plants.”

He said in previous work led by Dr Harper and funded by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, researchers grew higher performing bulbs among virus-infected garlic crops.

“Through breeding selections over generations, Dr Harper was getting three times the yield from the best selections,” Dr Thomas said.

“However, Ms Nurulita’s work shows these elite garlic selections are still infected by the virus complement and we don’t know why that is occurring.”

Ms Nurulita also investigated the viruses concentrations using next-generation sequencing, and mapped the full genomes of the viruses.

“I did not find any significant differences in the viruses levels and was unable to determine a clear-cut difference between the two different lines of elite and poor performing garlic seed,” Ms Nurulita said.

Dr Thomas said the team had also tried tissue culture propagation to generate virus-free garlic, but without success.

“We think maybe gene silencing is happening naturally in the plant,” he said.

“It may depend on which virus gets the upper hand in a particular clove, or the order they are infected in.

“There are so many different possibilities and it’s not a simple matter.

“But we are going to look at absolute levels of virus to see whether we can determine if gene silencing is responsible.”

Photos are available via DropBox.

Image above left: Sari Nurulita with high and low yielding garlic, which share the same viruses. (C) UQ.

Media: Associate Professor John Thomas, j.thomas2@uq.edu.au, + 61 (0)400 579 449; Margaret Puls, + 61 (0)419 578 356.


Read Full Post »

IAPPS Region X Northeast Asia Regional Center (NEARC)

Present committee members

Dr. Izuru Yamamoto, Senior Advisor

Dr. Noriharu Umetsu, Senior Advisor

Dr. Tsutomu Arie, a representative of the Phytopathological Society of Japan, the chair of Region X

Dr. Tarô Adati, a representative of Japanese Society of Applied Entomology and Zoology

Dr. Hiromitsu Moriyama, a representative of Pesticide Science Society of Japan, the secretary general of Region X

Dr. Rie Miyaura, a representative of The Weed Science Society of Japan

The Phytopathological Society of Japan and Pesticide Science Society of Japan became official partners of IYPH2020 by FAO of UN and Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) of Japan and endeavored to educate the society on plant protection. https://www.maff.go.jp/j/syouan/syokubo/keneki/iyph/iyph_os.html

Annual activities related to IAPPS especially to IPM of plant diseases, insects and weeds, and plant regulation (from April 2020 to March 2021)

The Phytopathological Society of Japan (PSJ)

2020 Kanto District Meeting, Online; Sep 21–22, 2020

2020 Kansai District Meeting, Online; Sep 21–22, 2020

2020 Tohoku District Meeting, Online; Oct 12–14, 2020

2020 Hokkaido District Meeting, Online; Oct 15, 2020

2020 Kyushu District Meeting, Online; Nov 24–26, 2020

2021 Annual Meeting, Online; Mar 17–19, 2021

Japanese Society of Applied Entomology and Zoology (JSAEZ)

65th Annual Meeting, online, March 23-26, 2021

28th Annual Research Meeting of the Japan-ICIPE Association, online, March 25, 2021

Pesticide Science Society of Japan

37rd Study Group Meeting of Special Committee on Bioactivity of Pesticides, online, Sep 18, 2020

40th Symposium of Special Committee on Agricultural Formulation and Application, Yokohama, Kanagawa; Oct 15–16, 2020 (Cancelled due to the spread of COVID-19)

43th Annual Meeting of Special Committee on Pesticide Residue Analysis, online, Nov. 5–6, 2020

46th Annual meeting, Fuchu, Tokyo and Online, March 8–10, 2021

The Weed Science Society of Japan (WSSJ)

2020 Annual Meeting, The Weed Science Society of Kinki, Online; Dec 5, 2020

35th Symposium of Weed Science Society of Japan, Online; Dec 12, 2020

2020 Annual Meeting, Kanto Weed Science Society, Online; Dec 22, 2020

22th Annual Meeting, The Weed Science Society of Tohoku, Japan, Online; Feb 25, 2021

2020 Study Group Meeting of Weed Utilization and Management in Small Scale Farming, Online; Feb 26, 2021

Hono-Kai (means, Meeting who are appreciating agriculture)

35th Hono-Kai Symposium was cancelled due to the epidemic of COVID-19

Japan Biostimulants Association

rd Symposium, Online; Nov 2–30, 2020

Nodai Research Institute

2020-1 Biological Control Group Seminar, Setagaya; Tokyo; Jun 16, 2020 (Cancelled due to the epidemic of COVID-19)

2020-2 Biological Control Group Seminar, online, Nov 13, 2020

2021-1 Biological Control Group Seminar, online, Jun 15, 2021

2021-2 Biological Control Group Seminar, online, Nov 9, 2021

Read Full Post »

The deadliest flower in the insect world is a lifeline to farmers—and the planet

National Geographic

The yellow center of the ‘killer chrysanthemum’ contains a natural toxin that is a powerful insecticide.This flower, the pyrethrum plant, contains a potent chemical that is made into an effective, and environmentally friendly, insecticide. PHOTOGRAPHS BY VITO FUSCO BY JACOB KUSHNER PUBLISHED AUGUST 4, 2021• 15 MIN READ

GILGIL, KENYAThe deadliest flower in the insect world is soft to the touch. Each morning in the hills above Kenya’s Great Rift Valley, the white petals of the pyrethrum plant become laden with dew. To the people who pick them, the flower is utterly harmless. But bugs beware: Its yellow center contains a natural toxin that can kill them in seconds.

Discovered in Persia around 400 B.C., the flower produces an active ingredient, pyrethrin, that can be extracted and used to create natural insecticides that farmers spray on crops to protect them from mites, ants, and aphids without harming anyone’s health. Herders rub pyrethrin ointments on their cattle to repel flies and ticks.

In its most common applications, pyrethrin paralyzes pests by attacking their central nervous systems. “If you spray an insect with pyrethrum, for the first 30 seconds it goes mental, incredibly hyperactive, then it falls to the floor,” explains Ian Shaw, managing director of the pyrethrum producer Kapi Limited.

Simply growingChrysanthemum cinerariifolium near your home may be enough to repel parasite-carrying sand flies, whose bite can spread the skin disease leishmaniasis, which affects nearly one million people globally, including many throughout Kenya. The resulting rash can eat away at people’s faces and become fatal if left untreated.

Pyrethrin has also become a powerful tool in the global fight against mosquito-borne diseases like malaria, a parasite that sickens more than a million people and kills more than 400,000 each year, many of them in Kenya. Manufactured in spiral-shaped discs known as mosquito coils, they emit a shroud of smoke like incense that repels mosquitoes but is harmless to humans.

part of the pyrethrum nursery

The harvesting of the pyrethrum is done once every two weeks, strictly by hand.

Read Full Post »

Management of Fall Armyworm: The IPM Innovation Lab Approach

https://ipmil.cired.vt.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/IPM-IL-FAW-Management.pdf.

By:

Sara Hendery

Communications Coordinator

Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Integrated Pest Management

Hendery, Sara saraeh91@vt.edu

Read Full Post »

Science News

NEWSARCHAEOLOGY

The oldest known grass beds from 200,000 years ago included insect repellents

The ancient bed remnants include fossilized grass, bug-repelling ash and aromatic leaves

South Africa’s Border Cave
South Africa’s Border Cave, shown here at its entrance, contains bits and pieces of the oldest known grass bedding, dating to around 200,000 years ago, researchers say.A. KRUGER

Share this:

By Bruce Bower

AUGUST 13, 2020 AT 2:00 PM

People living in southern Africa around 200,000 years ago not only slept on grass bedding but occasionally burned it, apparently to keep from going buggy.

Remnants of the oldest known grass bedding, discovered in South Africa’s Border Cave, lay on the ashes of previously burned bedding, say archaeologist Lyn Wadley of the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg and her colleagues. Ash spread beneath bound bunches of grass may have been used to repel crawling, biting insects, which cannot easily move through fine powder, the researchers report in the Aug. 14 Science. Wadley’s team also found bits of burned wood in the bedding containing fragments of camphor leaves, an aromatic plant that can be used as a bug repellent.

Prior to this new find, the oldest plant bedding — mainly consisting of sedge leaves, ash and aromatic plants likely used to keep insects away — dated to around 77,000 years ago at South Africa’s Sibudu rock-shelter.

At Border Cave, chemical and microscopic analyses of excavated sediment showed that a series of beds had been assembled from grasses, such as Guinea grass and red grass. Guinea grass currently grows at Border Cave’s entrance. Bedding past its prime was likely burned in small fire pits, the researchers suspect. Remains of fire pits were found not far from Border Cave’s former grass beds.

Grass fragments uncovered in South African cave
Preserved grass fragments uncovered in a South African cave, left, are by far the oldest known examples of grass bedding, researchers say. Close-up images of those fragments taken by a scanning electron microscope, such as the one shown at right, helped to narrow down what type of grasses were used for bedding.L. WADLEY

Humans in southern Africa intentionally lit fires by around 1 million years ago (SN: 4/2/12). But Border Cave provides the first evidence that ancient grass bedding was burned on purpose.

Small, sharpened stones were also found among grass and ash remains, suggesting that people occasionally sat on cave bedding while making stone tools.

Questions or comments on this article? E-mail us at feedback@sciencenews.org

CITATIONS

L. Wadley et al. Fire and grass-bedding construction 200 thousand years ago at Border Cave, South Africa. Science. Vol. 369, August 14, 2020, p. 863. doi: 10.1126/science.abc7239.

Bruce Bower

About Bruce Bower

Bruce Bower has written about the behavioral sciences for Science News since 1984. He writes about psychology, anthropology, archaeolo

Read Full Post »

Ghana News Agency

http://www.ghananewsagency.org/science/ghana-to-focus-on-bio-rational-products-for-management-of-faw-131321

fall-armyworm-frontal-MER-563x744

Ghana to focus on bio-rational products for management of FAW

By Belinda Ayamgha, GNA

Accra, April 13, GNA – The Ministry of Food and Agriculture says it has shifted its focus from synthetic insecticides to bio-rational products, for the management of the Fall Armyworm (FAW) infestation, as part of its short, medium and long-term management measures.

The focus on bio-rational products is to ensure minimum pest resistance by the FAW, which is higher with the use of synthetic insecticides.

Dr Mrs Felicia Ansah, Director of Plant Protection and Regulatory Services at MoFA, said this when she briefed Journalists on the current situation of the FAW problem.

She noted that the FAW had come to stay, as it could not be completely eradicated but managed, as in the case of Brazil, which had been managing the FAW infestation for the past 40 years, and was currently one of the biggest exporters of maize.

Ghana had thus modelled its management measures after the Brazilian experience.

These measures, she said, include the deployment of pheromone trap catches in various locations across the country to ascertain the levels of infestation, training of MoFA staff and farmers on scouting, early detection and sustainable management of the pest in the event of an outbreak.

She explained that the best way to manage the infestation on farms was to detect the pests early at the larvae stage, and not when they became full grown moths. That is when they did the most damage to crops.

Other measures being undertaken by the Ministry are the distribution of pesticides to all district offices in the country where farmers can access in FAW infestations, the formation and training of Nnoboa Spraying Teams in farming communities and intensification of public awareness creation for farmers and the general public.

According to Dr Ansah, Ghana had commenced scouting of natural enemies of the FAW, which once identified, will be reared to help reduce the population of the pests.

“In the long term, only biological control agents, microbial insecticides and botanicals/organic products will be used to manage FAW in Ghana,” she said.

She said a total of 249,054 hectares of maize were affected and sprayed, out of which 234,807 hectares recovered and 14, 247 totally destroyed in the previous season, adding that there was a likelihood for more infestations in the 2018 farming season.

Dr Ansah stressed the need for the media to be circumspect in how they reported issues around the FAW infestation as it had implications for trade.

She urged the media to collaborate with the Ministry to educate farmers on how to manage the FAW.

She said the pockets of FAW infestations being currently experienced in some districts in the Ashanti, Brong-Ahafo, Eastern, Volta and Western Regions had been blown out of proportion as it was a pre-season production infestation.

“We would like you to appreciate that this is a Phytosanitary or Public Plant Health Issue, with trade implications and must be communicated in a professional manner. Media coverage should rather be geared towards improving the knowledge and skills of our farmers,” she said.

GNA

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Neemwebinar

Enter a caption

Read Full Post »

Nepal group.jpg

Please Join Us October 18th for a

WEBINAR: Neem-based Pesticides in IPM

Please click the above link for more information regarding this webinar.

Read Full Post »

Neemwebinar

Read Full Post »

Delta Farm Press

RSS

“In my experience, most people are shocked to discover organic growers do use pest control chemicals – just not chemicals that were developed by people and don’t occur in nature,” writes Dr. Adrianne Massey.

While it may come as a surprise, most writers don’t like getting mail pointing out their mistakes. But every once in a while someone does it in a way that makes you glad they took the time to write.

Adrianne Massey wrote to “correct the commonly held misconception that organic growers don’t use pesticides,” as stated in this space in the May 27 Delta Farm Press. (Dr. Massey is managing director, science and regulatory affairs, Biotechnology Industry Organization.)

“In my experience, most people are shocked to discover organic growers do use pest control chemicals – just not chemicals that were developed by people and don’t occur in nature,” she wrote “Because they are allowed to use ‘natural’ substances, often the toxicity value of the “allowed substances” is significantly greater than synthetic pesticides.”

(Example: They are allowed to use copper sulfate. “So they mislead about conventional ag AND organic ag.”)

Dr. Massey is well acquainted with claims organic producers make about pesticides in conventional agriculture. Much of her time is spent speaking to farm and consumer organizations and answering the GMO-bashing that seems to come from environmental activists on a daily basis.

She began her professional career as a biological sciences faculty member at North Carolina State University and then joined the North Carolina Biotechnology Center where she led the Center’s education, work-force training and public outreach programs. She has co-authored three textbooks on biotechnology and serves as science advisor for the weekly PBS series, Breakthrough.

She sent a link to a list of pest control chemicals approved for use in organic production systems, which can be found on the USDA National Organic Standards website: https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/national-list.

She also sent links to articles: http://n.pr/1jxgJsw and http://bit.ly/1TFEcp1 discussing how misleading claims about no pesticides in organic food can be. In one, “Organic Pesticides: Not an Oxymoron,” which appeared on the NPR website, Maureen Langlois notes how a USDA report that nearly 20 percent of organic lettuce tested positive for pesticides piqued her interest.

Also of interest were her findings approved pesticides including pyrethrin, azadirachtin and spinosads are also considered toxic by EPA.

I don’t mind being told when I’m wrong; I wonder if organic activists feel the same.

Read Full Post »

ipm_in_8_principle_s_large

IPM in (8) principle(s)

August 05, 2015

An ENDURE team of 17 co-authors has just published a review paper on the European Union’s eight principles of Integrated Pest Management (IPM). The paper provides researchers, advisers and farmers with an approach for applying these legal requirements intelligently to promote local innovation while reducing reliance on pesticides and associated risks. The authors hope that interest in this approach may help garner support from European and national policy makers to set incentives promoting IPM extension work, demonstrations, research and implementation.

Rather than searching for a universally applicable silver-bullet solution, the authors argue in favour of a broad approach that takes local specificities into account and allows all farmers to engage in IPM at any point within the continuum. Their vision stems from the realistic acceptance that pesticide-based crop protection is simple and efficient in generating spectacular short-term results. More sustainable alternative strategies will inevitably be more complex and knowledge-intensive in their initial development stage.

The process envisioned therefore requires learning, adaptation, and tweaking of a number of farm management practices. It requires extending the challenge of crop protection to larger spatial and temporal scales, and generating more complex cropping systems better adapted to the local context. It also requires attention to non-technical aspects such as the social environment in which farmers operate, collective learning and farmers’ inclination for step-wise rather than drastic changes.

But the approach is viable, and the authors offer real-life examples of successful experiences with the types of tactics and strategies suggested.

The authors note that 70 years of reliance on chemical protection has led to the development of cropping systems that have become inherently vulnerable to pests. By emphasising Principle 1 on prevention, the authors offer concrete illustrations on how to modify cropping systems to make them more robust in the absence of pesticides. The authors also identify the limits and opportunities associated with Principles 2 to 7 – a logical sequence starting with observation and ending with using chemicals as a last resort. Last but not least, a new slant is given on the question of evaluation (Principle 8) regarding the need for the development of new performance criteria and their routine use among the farming community.

For more information:

Barzman M, Bàrberi P, Birch ANE, Boonekamp P, Dachbrodt-Saaydeh S, Graf B, Hommel B, Jensen JE, Kiss J, Kudsk P, Lamichhane JR, Messéan A, Moonen AC, Ratnadass A, Ricci P, Sarah JL, Sattin M. 2015. Eight principles of integrated pest management. Agronomy for Sustainable Development , online first. doi 10.1007/s13593-015-0327-9. It is available here

ANNEX III of Framework Directive 2009/128/EC

General principles of Integrated Pest Management. For ease of reference, the authors have added shorthand titles to each principle

Principle 1 – Prevention and suppression The prevention and/or suppression of harmful organisms should be achieved or supported among other options especially by:

  • Crop rotation
  • Use of adequate cultivation techniques (e.g. stale seedbed technique, sowing dates and densities, under-sowing, conservation tillage, pruning and direct sowing)
  • Use, where appropriate, of resistant/tolerant cultivars and standard/certified seed and planting material
  • Use of balanced fertilisation, liming and irrigation/drainage practices
  • Preventing the spreading of harmful organisms by hygiene measures (e.g. by regular cleansing of machinery and equipment)
  • Protection and enhancement of important beneficial organisms, e.g. by adequate plant protection measures or the utilisation of ecological infrastructures inside and outside production sites
Principle 2 – Monitoring Harmful organisms must be monitored by adequate methods and tools, where available. Such adequate tools should include observations in the field as well as scientifically sound warning, forecasting and early diagnosis systems, where feasible, as well as the use of advice from professionally qualified advisers.
Principle 3 – Decision-making Based on the results of the monitoring the professional user has to decide whether and when to apply plant protection measures. Robust and scientifically sound threshold values are essential components for decision-making. For harmful organisms, threshold levels defined for the region, specific areas, crops and particular climatic conditions must be taken into account before treatments, where feasible.
Principle 4 – Non-chemical methods Sustainable biological, physical and other non-chemical methods must be preferred to chemical methods if they provide satisfactory pest control.
Principle 5 – Pesticide selection The pesticides applied shall be as specific as possible for the target and shall have the least side effects on human health, non-target organisms and the environment.
Principle 6 – Reduced pesticide use The professional user should keep the use of pesticides and other forms of intervention to levels that are necessary, e.g. by reduced doses, reduced application frequency or partial applications, considering that the level of risk in vegetation is acceptable and they do not increase the risk for development of resistance in populations of harmful organisms.
Principle 7 – Anti-resistance strategies Where the risk of resistance against a plant protection measure is known and where the level of harmful organisms requires repeated application of pesticides to the crops, available anti-resistance strategies should be applied to maintain the effectiveness of the products. This may include the use of multiple pesticides with different modes of action.
Principle 8 – Evaluation Based on the records on the use of pesticides and on the monitoring of harmful organisms the professional user should check the success of the applied plant protection measures.

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »