Dr. Tina Teague gave the welcome and introductions at 1:00 pm after the meeting was called to order.
 

Dr. James Harper, the representative for Southern Region Agricultural Experiment Stations, opened the meeting by stating that it was good to see a group this size because there would be important information exchanged. People from Experiment Stations, Extension, industry, students, and USDA are here to share information.
 

Dr. Ray Frisbie brought the welcome from Southern Region Extension Service and Colleges of Agriculture. He began by stating that boll weevil eradication was among Extension's highest priorities. He congratulated the eradicated areas on their success and noted that because of their success and the lessons learned from it, we are improving eradication and lowering the cost of programs as we move along.
 

TinaTeague then announced that all informal comments were welcome and everyone should feel free to add their own comments.
 

Boll Weevil Eradication

National Review
 

Bill Grefenstette with the National Review stated that complete eradication in the east and west is needed. The west and south plains have lost acres, the delta is up, and the southeast is up a lot.
 

He continued stating that new boll weevil eradication programs were developing in South Delta, Oklahoma, SW Tennessee, SW New Mexico, and W.Texas. Active programs include South Texas, Texas Rolling Plains, Red River Valley of Louisiana and Arkansas, Mississippi Hills, North Alabama, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Program plans are underway in New Mexico for a program which will eradicate the weevil in New Mexico, thus protecting Arizona and California from re-infestation.
 

1998 has turned out to be a pivotal year. The growers were concerned about low prices for cotton. The acres will be down in most areas. Cotton acres will be up in VA and KS, which are not historically big cotton states. The Farm Bill with reductions in levels of government support for farmers, has produced instability in cotton acreage. This may cause problems in eradication programs in some areas. For instance, in Tennessee, if the acres go down then there will be fewer acres left to pay the costs of the program. Growers are going to want to see program results (monetary) quickly. We need to remind them that this is a long term program. We will very likely be entering a period in which we have 2.5 million acres in eradication. The bigger the program the bigger the risks. The winter of 1997-1998 was conspicuous by its absence, that bodes for a tough 1998 season. Malathion is under review. Time will tell whether we will have malathion in the future. We should not assume we will always have it.
 

We have new zones starting up with new program managers. The Red River Valley program (Louisiana and SW Arkansas) has done a good job and has had a quick and efficient start up.
 

Operations and Management in State/Regional Programs
 

George Mullendore, program director in Mississippi, reported Region I, North Delta, failed one week ago with 59% of the vote positive (must have 66.66% positive vote for passage). The primary reason for failure was concern about money to fund the program with weak cotton prices and the $110/acre cost of the program. The program in Region I was scheduled to begin in the fall of 1999. The program in Region II, the South Delta, started on August 3, and will begin trapping late March to early April, 1998. Half the acres in Mississippi will be involved in eradication during the 1998 calendar year.
 

Tom Plato asked, "How many acres in Region I?"
 

George Mullendore replied, 876,000 was the acreage released by the National Cotton Council for state.
 

Mississippi is part of the Southeast Foundation and the Southeast Boll weevil Eradication Foundation was contracted to run the program. They are fine tuning the numbers of people needed to run the program. There may be increased acreage in the Hill areas of Mississippi.
 

The Mississippi program has gone to bar coded traps. The bar code readers will allow for quick data entry and turn around from raw data to color coded maps.
 

Ron Seward reported West Tennessee will start in August, 1998. The Southeast Foundation will run the program in six and a half counties. Some growers are unhappy with the price, but the program is still due to start this year. We expect an acreage reduction will occur in 1998. The question was asked, "How much?". Seward replied, some 7,800 acres less cotton would be grown in the program area.
 

Bill Grefenstette stated that he heard that if the North Delta did not pass then there would be a no vote in Tennessee and wondered if this was a rumor.
 

Ron Seward reported that their was activity in Tennessee trying to get added support for the program from the state.
 
 

Michael Boyd reported boll weevil eradication activities for Missouri. He said the legislation was complete and they expected to conduct a referendum this fall or next spring. Missouri will be working with the Southeast Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation on their program.
 

Don Johnson, Arkansas, stated that the Red River Valley program is underway in Southwest Arkansas. It covers only 3,000 to 5,000 cotton acres of an estimated 950,000 planted acres in Arkansas. The eradication referendum passed on 550,000 acres (all but the northeastern counties) by 69% and is on hold until eradication begins in the North Delta Mississippi and Northeast Louisiana. Weevil populations in Northeast Arkansas are traditionally lighter than in the areas where eradication passed. The University of Arkansas is evaluating alternative program techniques and financing to achieve eradication in the Northeastern counties. Southeast Arkansas is prepared to start eradication sprays in the fall of 1999 if Northeast Louisiana and the North Delta of Mississippi have made the commitment to start at that time.
 

John Andress reported that the Northeast program has been met with the most negativism due to price in Louisiana. Trying to get the money from the state. If they can get it to under $100/acre for the total program, then it will pass. Acres dropped from 950,000 to 350,000 in last three years. In the Red River Valley it dropped from 73,000 to 50,000 acres.
 

The shrinking cotton industry in Oklahoma and Kansas was discussed. The acres have dropped from 400-500,000 to 250,000 in 1997 and 200,000 in 1998. The Southwest under went a voluntary diapause in the fall of 1997. There was no buffer between Oklahoma and Texas which might be an issue next fall.
 

Kansas had dropped from 27,000 acres to 15,000 last year. A few boll weevils were caught in Kansas. They will enter the fall diapause program with Oklahoma.
 

Jane Pierce, New Mexico, stated that Luna County passed a reperendum two weeks ago and the Mesilla Valley passed two days ago. New Mexico's cotton production is isolated in district areas with large expanses of desert range land in-between. There are marked differences between areas. Eastern New Mexico (20,000 acres of high plains stripper production) has the heaviest boll weevil infestations (up to 600 weevils/trap) and growers are most strongly opposed to an eradication program. The Pecos Valley is not interested in doing anything until West Texas enters some kind of suppression/eradication program. They feel that much of their problem is associated with strong weevil migrations from West Texas in the fall of the year, and they generally have not had damaging weevil populations in-season. In the Pecos Valley the cotton crop is primarily picker production small fields, interspursed with towns. In the Mesilla Valley (Las Cruces to El Paso) all the hot traps are in towns (primarily Las Cruces). Fields are typically small with a number less than .2 acres in size. These tiny fields are typically within towns and many are heavily infested with weevils. The production in these fields is a tax break situation and is somewhat safer from theft than alternative crops such as corn and chile. The Uvas Valley and El Paso are participating with the Mesilla Valley. Luna County (6,000 acres on the Arizona state line) is in good shape. Only 6 weevils were caught there last year and farmers are supportive of a program. There are a few acres in North Luna County which may not enter a program. Hidalgo County had 2,500 acres of cotton in 1997, but will plant no cotton in 1998. Lea County, New Mexico (located next to the Texas High Plains) will be included in the Texas High Plains referendum. The referendum voted on and passed by the Messilla Valley included cotton acreage in the El Paso and Juarez areas. USDA Aphis will assist with the program in Mexico.

Someone asked, how much cotton is grown around Juarez? About 20,000 acres or so.
 

Osama El-Lissy reported for the boll weevil eradication program in Texas. He reported on activities in three active zones. The Southern Rolling Plains will finish in 1998. The Rolling Plains Central, some 615,000 acres operated in 1997 until stopped by legal action. 1998 will be the first full season. The South Texas program started with diapause control sprays in 1996 and 1997. The 1998 program in south Texas will be a season long program. The Texas High Plains consists of four million acres separated into 5 zones. The West High Plains Zone is 800,000, petitioned to the Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation to start 1999. Permean Basin Zone, some 600,000 acres plans to start in 1999. The Caprock Zone, approximately 900,000 acres, has petitioned to start in 1999. The Northwest High Plains Zone, about 950,000 acres, is still not highly infested with boll weevil. They plan a boll weevil diapause control program which will start as soon as possible (in one to two years). The Northeast High Plains Zone, 600,000 acres, has petitioned the Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation to start this year but probably will not start until 1999. The Texas Blacklands has three sub zones, the Southern Blacklands (100,000 acres), the Central Blacklands (less than 100,000 acres) , and the Northern Blacklands (also less than 100,000 acres). The Southern Blacklands wants to start now. They expect a high boll weevil population in 1998. They probably can not get it done because they have not yet passed a referendum. It will take six to seven months just to vote a referendum. 1999 looks to be a jack pot year for eradication in Texas. The zones in the Texas plains are separated by county lines and are difficult to separate. All want to start at once since there is no biological separation.
 

Bill Grefenstette - lost of meetings, BBQ diners, and weight gained.
 

Roy Parker asked about the Wharton and Lower Rio Grande Valley areas. Seven Counties in the Wharton area were pulled out by the state legislature (political reasons). The Lower Rio Grande Valley passed a recall election and voted the program out. Two and a half million acres in the High Plains were historically weevil free. However, diapause control was voted out last year and now there are lots of weevils. The seven counties in the Wharton area, 180,000 acres, can potentially rejoin boll weevil eradication sooner than the Valley. The acreage in the Lower Rio Grande Valley is now 200,000 - 250,000 acres, maybe less.
 

Aubry Harris addressed the Mississippi Eradication Program. Mississippi will use a trap density of one trap per acre for the first three years then one per ten acres by the end of the third year, the maintenance trapping level. The Mississippi program will employ one trapper for each one thousand acres (one per a thousand traps) for the first part of the program, then one trapper per 3000 acres (300 traps) at the end of the third year (the maintenance phase of the program).

With respect to spray triggers, Aubry deferred to Lanny Brashier. Malathion ULV will be used in the Mississippi program at ten ounces per acre and no other insecticides will be used. There is grower talk about structuring the program such that individual growers could choose materials other than malathion and put those insecticides out at their own expense. Because of logistics this will not be an option. Field unit size for the Mississippi programs is 10,000 acres. There has been talk about using additional tactics. None will be used. Specifically, the use of bait sticks was discussed. At field termination (defoliation and no boll weevil food remaining) sprays will be terminated. Crop destruction credits were implemented last fall. Termination before October 1earned a grower a $5 per acre credit, and after October 1 but before October 15 earned a grower a $3 per acre credit. Termination before February 1 is required. Aubry felt there was questionable value in having a termination requirement as late as February 1. Termination is defined as cutting stalks. For secondary pest control the growers are on their own. They are strongly encouraged to use BT cotton. Section 18 labels for Pirate, Furadan and Confirm have been applied for. Reinfestation is a concern. We changed the name of the Buffer Zone to Transition zone. Growers have been told they would not be in a Transition Zone for an extended period of time. They will be in a Transition Zone for awhile if the North Delta Zone does not pass. Actions associated with the Transition Zone have been left at discretion of Program operations. I am not comfortable or sure of what we will be doing.
 

The question was asked , "If the North Delta does not pass a referendum and start its program, will the South Delta start its program? Will the South Delta start if Northeast Louisiana does not start? I have concerns about the viability of the South Delta eradication effort with buffer zones on 2 sides."
 

Aubry Harris replied, "We will have to have a plan. The situation is not the same as the buffer zone on the Alabama line. I think the river is some help with regards to Louisiana. The main concern is the Hill, South Delta, and North Delta areas.
 

Another major concern in Mississippi is the 100,000 acres of catfish farms with cotton fields adjacent to them. The issue was raised by applications as a problem. Catfish growers are vigilant and have expectations of maintaining a clean industry. This sets the stage for a battle ground since there is zero tolerance for insecticides in fish. We are trying to determine if there is a real problem with Malathion. It is known that fish pick up Malathion but now they are trying to find out how long it stays in the fish. The short term objective is mitigation of the problem with post- harvest intervals."
 

Ray Frisbie asked, "Was cotton not here-to-fore sprayed? What concerns does the catfish industry now have that they have not had in previous years?"
 

Aubry Harris answered, Dow Agrosciences faced this problem with chlorpirifos. Chlorpyrifos residues showed up in catfish. They resolved the problem by curtailing the use of Lorsban on cotton. They did not restrict the use of Lorsban on corn, but cotton was removed from the label in the state of Mississippi. Pyrethroids, methyl parathion, Orthene and Curacron are toxic to catfish, and that also is a problem. Malathion is very safe to fish. Malathion toxicicity to the fish is not the issue. The issue is malathion residues. Dioxin is also a problem. It is a natural contaminant of clay which is used in feed. The problem to resolve, then is there are ponds scattered all over the delta and malathion may show up as a residue in catfish flesh.
 

The question was asked, "Are there any protocols for sampling catfish?"
 

John Andress replied, "We (Louisiana Department of Agriculture) routinely take samples which are run by FDA.
 

Aubry Harris said Mississippi was also taking samples.
 

Chris Bowly asked, "Are they screening for specific categories of pesticides"?

George Mullendore asked, "Have there been any problems detected in Louisiana"?
 

John Andress said, "No, not that I know of."
 

Tina Teague asked, "How much money is saved using the ten ounce rate"?
 

George Mullendore answered, "$3.5 million."
 

Ralph Bagwell said the Red River program sprayed fewer applications at 12 ounces and it was about the same money.
 

Lanny Brashier reported that pin head square trap triggers for the Mississippi program would be 2 weevils/field/week, with higher thresholds used on larger fields. No automatic second spray is planned, but the trigger for a second spraying would be low, 1 weevil/field/week. The following week the triggers would return to 2 weevils/field/week until about first bloom when the trigger would be raised to 5 weevils/field (larger fields, a bit higher). At August 1, the trigger would be reduced again to 2-3 weevils/field/week. Higher trap catch numbers would dictate a closer spray interval. A chart was shown which is used to determine the spray interval based on the field size and weevil trap catch numbers for the field.
 

The Mississippi program operates with several operational guidelines. Overwintered weevil sprays begin at matchhead square stage. If sprays are on for 4-6 hours before a rain, the field will not be re-treated.
 

Eric Villavaso said this needs to be amended. If rains fall in the 24 hour period after application, the field should be retreated as soon as possible. If there is rainfall within 72 hours

the spray interval should be shortened. Applications should be done early in the day.
 

Aubry Harris said by the time the dew is gone the wind has picked up. We initiate spraying with dew on the plants. It does reduce not efficacy if sprays are applied on wet cotton as long as the dew is not dripping off.
 

Bob Jones agreed that if it is not dripping off then it is okay to spray on the dew.
 

Eric Villavaso said the leaves can be wet but if there is moisture dripping off then you are loosing effectiveness.

Bob Jones said ground fogs tend to hang the droplets in the air.
 

Lanny Brashier stated that in the past they just did not spray till the leaf was dry.
 

Ron Seward asked, "Who determines when fields reach the matchhead square stage"?
 

Lanny Brashier said the Field Unit Supervisor.
 

Lanny Brashier continued, concerning re-infestation of an eradicated area. From October to early November we trap one time per week, one trap per ten acres or two traps per field. The reason for this is that if one gets knocked down there is still one up. One per ten acres in reality is closer to one per seven acres. To quality check our trapping we hand infest traps by putting out marked weevils (1/8000 acres). We test the pheromone bait we use. We identify trapped insects within 24 hours of capture. When weevil is found we quickly check it to be sure it is a boll weevil then spray the field(s) as soon as possible. We then place traps in the area of the capture at a density of 1 trap per 100 feet of border or 1 trap per 100 feet of grid. This is done surrounding the positive trap capture out for a radius of 1/4 mile. We continue the grid trapping for one life cycle after the last trap capture. Intensified trapping continues for one full season after the last trap capture.
 

Lanny Brashier commented on the South Carolina outbreak. He reported that there was a delay in dealing with the outbreak because of a failure in trapping. The outbreak took three years and $1 million to correct. It required treatments every 3 to 7 days (more often 3 than 7). Equipment moving out of the area was required to be fumigated. Early stalk destruction was mandatory.
 

Tina Teague asked about the procedure for quality control checks for the pheromone trap baits.
 

Eric Villavaso replied, Gerald McKibben's technician runs quality control.
 

Tom Plato reported that every production run was tested.
 

Bill Greffenstette asked if production runs had been rejected.
 

Tom Plato answered that 2 production runs had been rejected. The reason for rejection was the thickness of the bait.
 

Tina Teague asked if release rates and total pheromone content were tested.
 

Tom Plato said release rate re-runs were not required.
 

Bill Greffenstette said that USDA APHIS no longer provided back up on quality control.
 
 

The question was asked, "Who orders pheromone? Is there quality control activity in all South East Boll Weevil Eradication programs"?
 

Tom Plato said that with Gerald McKibben leaving the lab he did not know who would run quality control analytical work in support of BWE programs. He reported that turn around was slow, but up to now quality control was being assured. Programs are looking for alternative quality control labs.
 

John Andress reported for the Red River Valley Program in Louisiana and Southwest Arkansas. Many of the program features of the South East Program are virtually the same in the Red River Valley Program. We visited both the South East Program and the Texas Program when we were working to put our program together. We borrowed heavily from both programs.
 

Operationally, we use spray triggers 2 weevils/ 40 acres, or 5 weevils/100 acres. Our malathion rate is 12 oz/acre by air because that was the rate voted on and passed by our growers. We use 16 oz/acre by ground. Our Field Units are 5,000 to 7,000 acres in the Red River Program because of the spread out nature of cotton plantings down the Red River Valley. We will go to a more efficient Field Unit size of 10,000 acres when we initiate the program in Northeast Louisiana. We deploy one mist blower per Field Unit and 2 highboys for the whole program (one in the north end and one in the south end). Diapause control sprays begin on August 18 and are planned to end on about November 4, but spraying will continue as long as there is green cotton in the field. When defoliants are used and fields "brown out" spraying ceases. After defoliation, if green ends remain in the field they are sprayed once a week with the mist blower until the stalks are destroyed. Most fields receive these treatments. If the fields then green back up, we commence spraying again and may apply as many as 3 sprays. Stalk destruction is mandatory by December 31, but exceptions can be granted if conditions are wet. Farmers are assessed a penalty of $5,000/field for fields in which stalk destruction has not been completed by December 31.
 

This year at pin head square stage we use an automatic application at seventh node followed by a second automatic application seven days later. Then we moved to our triggering approach to spray application decision making.
 

Dick Hardee asked for a definition of the seventh node.
 
 

Ralph Bagwell replied that when the crop reached an average six to seven nodes they initiated treatments. Our suggestions for management of cotton during eradication are aimed at minimizing risks from secondary pests. Important secondary pests that we needed to consider were aphid, budworm, and beet armyworm. Both preventative and curative steps are suggested.
 

The steps which we have suggested are as follows:
 

1. Well maintained and mowed turn row around fields

2. Bt cotton, large %

3. Early maturing non-Bt varieties

4. Fall or spring tillage to reduce caterpillar pest overwintering

5. Recommended fertilizer rates

6. Thrips and aphid control with in-furrow

7. Season-long weed control program

8. Maintain 70-80% prebloom fruit retention

9. Avoid pyrethroid use before July

10. Do not use a pyrethroid alone for tobacco budworm control

11. Initiate tobacco budworm treatments against eggs and one day old larvae on conventional cotton

12. Use pheromone traps to help determine if tobacco budworms are present in an area

13. Be prepared to make multiple applications at a four to five day interval for budworm control on non-Bt

14. Prepared cotton to utilize all available pest control tools...fully registered and section 18 registrations for secondary pest control

15. Terminate ASAP

16. Destroy stalks ASAP
 

Dick Hardee asked if the Louisiana plan had any special suggestions for dealing with bollworm.
 

Ralph Bagwell responded that he hoped it will not be a problem.
 

Tina Teague asked about recommendations for tillage?
 

Ralph Bagwell we suggest spring or fall tillage to impact overwintering tobacco budworms.
 

Aubry Harris asked why Ralph was suggesting a mowed field border?
 

Ralph Bagwell responded that access is part of it. But grass on mowed turn rows is less likely to support pests also.
 

Lanny Brashier asked about the status of Pirate.
 

Ralph Bagwell said we do not know yet.
 

Gene Burris asked Dick Hardee why he was bothered by starting overwintered treatments at the seventh node.
 

Dick Hardee replied that sometimes cotton squares on fourth or fifth node.
 

Osama El-Lissy reported for the Texas program. He reported that the chairman of the Boll weevil Technical Advisory Committee for Texas, Dr. Ray Frisbie, was present and that Dr. Frisbie could respond to questions and fill in information. Detection and survey activities of the Texas programs involve trapping at 1/5 acres away from overwintering, and 1/2.5 acres near overwintering sites. Traps are placed at the edges of fields, inspected weekly and re-baited every 2 weeks. Kill strips are replaced once a month. Ten randomly selected fields are scouted per work unit each week. Work unit size is 12,000 to 15,000 acres in South Texas (ST), about 20,000 acres in the Rolling Plains Central (RPC) and about 40,000 acres in the Southern Rolling Plains (SRP). Diapause control activities are initiated at early open boll stage on 50% of fields. Trapping activities in the diapause control part of the program involve placement and maintenance of one trap/50 acres. Generally spraying would start at early open boll on 50% of fields but, in areas of high weevil pressure, we may start earlier. Treatments are applied weekly until defoliation or the first killing frost. Cultural control activities such as uniform delayed planting and early, thorough stalk destruction have been used to good advantage. Dr. Roy Parker convinced growers of the need to harvest and destroy stalks early. South Texas farmers were able to get the crop out and stalks plowed down 2-3 weeks earlier than normal, thus saving the program $2 million.
 

Bill Grefenstette asked whether if in the cooler weather of late fall the spray interval could have been stretched to longer than 7 days.
 

Osama El-Lissy replied that it had been too warm in recent years to be able to comfortably stretch the spray interval, so we stuck to 7 days.
 

The program in the SRP started in 1994. We are in the last stages of eradication now, so the criteria are different in the SRP than in CRP or ST. From pinhead square stage to first bloom applications are triggered when 2 weevils/40 acre field are caught in traps (at least 8 traps, 1/5 acre away from overwintering sites and 1/2.5 acres near overwintering sites, increased at sides of fields next to overwintering habitat). Mid-season, through first bloom and first open boll, insecticide applications are triggered by the presence of 5-8 weevils per field (40 acres). Secondary pest pressure determines whether the 5 weevil per field trigger or the 8 weevil per field trigger (or something in between) is used. Late season, open boll to defoliation, harvest, killing freeze, or plant condition no longer capable of supporting weevils, the trigger for insecticide application is 2 weevils/ 40 acre field. In order to minimize insecticide input we are considering the location of the weevils in a field. If the weevils are spread across various areas of the field, we spray the whole field, but on larger fields, if weevils are only on one side, we just spray that side of the field. We use the insecticide malathion, ULV Fyfanon, at 12 ounces by air, five feet above the canopy (75 foot swath width using a Cesna, and 90 feet using larger aircraft). Ground applications are made using high clearance sprayers or mist blowers. Using the high clearance equipment, malathion is applied at 16 ounces with 16 ounces of cotton seed oil (CSO). Mist blower applications are made using 16 ounces malathion (no carrier).
 

In 1998 secondary pest precautions will be taken to help growers deal with problem secondary pests. Survey activities for secondary pests are to be conducted in conjunction with the Texas Agricultural Extension Service in the SRP region, and agricultural consultants in the ST region. These survey activities will provide the information about secondary pest infestations. Then, weekly grower meetings (Turn-row Meetings) will be held to communicate the survey information to growers, interpret the secondary pest activity with respect to the crop status and weather, and make suggestions to growers regarding further surveillance and/or insecticide use. In the SRP, Extension will sponsor the Turn-row meetings. In ST, the Boll Weevil Program will sponsor the meetings. The Response Team Approach will be used to deal with fields in which secondary pest infestations are on the increase. When growers see anything out of the ordinary or secondary pest activity is picked up by the surveillance activities, a Eradication Program response team will visit the field and make recommendations.
 

When fields reach treatment levels for secondary pests, the grower is informed of the situation. The grower may treat using Extension approved chemicals and rates. Foundation personnel will observe these applications.

Regarding morning dew and malathion, we treated fields with and without dew and found no difference. Lanny did a similar study that had same results. There is a problem with wind. We treat early morning unless it is raining. If it rains on top of malathion sprays then we retreat.
 

Bill Greffenstette asked if the Texas program had grower compensation for treatments for secondary pests.
 

Osama El-Lissy said that the only compensation in the Texas program was for early plowdown. Last year growers received $2.50/week for each week before the mandatory stalk destruction date stalks are plowed down. This year the stalk destruction incentive will also be used, but we have not decided how funds will be awarded.
 

Someone asked if grower treatment for weevils was an option and how much time was the grower allowed to get the treatment applied before the program would apply malathion.
 

Osama El-Lissy replied that grower treatment with an insecticide of their choice would be allowed as long as the insecticide and rate were approved by Extension for boll weevil control in that season of the year and the application was made within 48 hours of when the program applications were made.
 

Monty Christian asked how much grower option would be exercised?
 

Roy Parker responded that the number of growers choosing to apply an insecticide other than ULV malathion at their own expense will vary by community. A fairly high percent will use the Eradication program's ULV malathion for their overwintered weevil applications. Depending on the circumstances a number of growers may opt to use alternative chemistry in mid-season.
 

Ray Frisbie commented that the first year of in-season applications has proven to be dangerous in terms of risks from secondary pests. There are a lot of unknown factors.
 

Osama El-Lissy although we are planning to monitor for secondary pests, we probably will not monitor all fields, but randomly chosen fields instead (or those under surveillance by either Extension or consultants). We will allow growers to use optional insecticides, but we do not know to what extent they will opt to use alternatives to ULV malathion.
 

Roy Parker remarked that other crop options were limited in much of the South Texas area and growers can not afford to loose a crop. This left the program with little choice but to allow growers to use insecticides other than malathion ULV, in-spite of the logistics headaches involved in making those allowances.
 

Jane Pierce reported the New Mexico situation. She reported that the High Plains area had the largest acreage and the largest boll weevil infestations. She said this area was the least well organized, had no plans for a comprehensive trapping effort and the trapping that was being conducted was voluntary with consultants and farmers running traps. The Pecos Valley has some 22,000 acres of cotton with an average field size of 30 acre/field. An intensive trapping program was conducted from 1995-1997. Economic damage from boll weevil was seen for the first time in 1997 - now growers are interested in some form of suppression/eradication program. Growers who previously did not believe boll weevil to be an important concern in the Pecos Valley are considering overwintered weevil applications. Traps in South Eddy County are running one weevil / trap per week already this spring. Pecos Valley growers are better organized and have instituted a $1/bale assessment on a voluntary basis. The New Mexico Cotton Growers Association was formed to serve as the voice of New Mexico cotton growers to the State legislature, USDA, NMDA, NMSU and other groups which could provide help in dealing with boll weevils. Jane is the point person for the New Mexico Cotton Growers Association. There are no plans for a referendum at this time. At the current time, a referendum would not pass. In the Messilla Valley (Las Cruces area) the referendum did pass. Secondary pests are not the issue they are in other areas because the Mesilla Valley is a diverse agricultural

economy with alfalfa, vegetables, pecans and grain crops as other important components of production. Beneficial insects can be relied on to a greater extent than in some areas because a lower percentage of the agricultural acreage is sprayed. The beneficial insects can therefore move into fields from other crop areas which are not sprayed. An analysis of the role of Bt cotton in this natural enemy dependant system is being done. Secondary pests are comparitively more important in Lea County (High Plains region). A more critical problem in the Mesilla Valley is its mixed urban and agricultural land use pattern. Cotton fields are generally small, but some are less than .1 acres in size. Most of the very small fields are located within towns and cities, and are surrounded by houses, schools, hospitals etc. For these reasons we are interested in alternative bollweevil suppression methods such as use of the parasite, Catolaccus grandis, and the BWACT (boll weevil attract and control tube) systems.
 

A comment was made that USDA - APHIS was investigating a microencapsulated formulation of malathion which may extend the residual activity of malathion to 14 days. This extended residual may be very helpful in reducing the numbers of treatments needed in areas in which urban and agricultural land are in close proximity, such as the Mesilla Valley.
 

Jane Pierce continued her report stating that Luna County was very well organized. She said they would be up and going soon with a trapping program very soon. Any spraying would be based on multiple captures. She did not expect to see weevils captured in Luna County.
 

Charles Allen reported on his experiences working on voluntary grower sponsored boll weevil suppression programs in the Mesilla Valley. The weevil become established in the fall of 1994. A monitoring trap line caught 74 weevils that year spread from Las Cruces down to El Paso. Traps and field observation demonstrated the boll weevil was active again in July and August of 1995. At that time area growers became concerned enough to form a grower organization, the Mesilla Valley Pest Management Association, to do something about the problem. Trap lines run by NMDA and USDA and field inspections indicated that the infestation in July and early August of 1995 was isolated to about 150 acres near San Miguel, NM. An intensive fall diapause control program was run in 1995. Seven malathion treatments were applied to infested fields starting October 3, 1995 and continuing through mid-November (treatments every 8 days). By the time the treatments were begun in early October the infested acreage had expanded to about 1,500 acres. In-spite of treatment the infested acreage enlarged to about 4,000 acres by the time of first frost. At the end of the season 4,761 weevils had been trapped in 800 traps. Trap density was about 1 trap to 3 acres in the hot spot areas and decreased to 1 trap per 25 or 30 acres away from the hot spots. The following spring (spring of 1996) 2,000 traps were deployed with the highest trap density in the 1995 hot spot areas near San Miguel. Trap density was from about 1 trap to 3 acres to about 1 trap to 20 acres. In April and early May, 3 weevils were trapped. No further weevil trap captures occurred until late August. At that time traps started catching weevils in a different part of the valley, around the city of Las Cruces and up the valley from there. Sprays were initiated and four to five sprays were applied to most of the affected acreage. But, because of the difficulties of conducting spraying activities in populated areas (tiny fields, fences, locked gates and proximity to houses) some infested fields did not get treated or were only treated 1-2 times. Fueled largely by the infestation in and around Las Cruces (which was not treated on a regular basis), weevil traps caught 39,778 weevils in the fall of 1996. Since the fall of 1996 there has been no area-wide attempt to control the boll weevil in the Mesilla Valley.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Tools of the Trade - Eradication
 

Osama El-Lissy discussed the tools of the trade and how they are used. The tools include

technology to gather information on where cotton is (field mapping), where insects are (trapping and mapping of trap catches), where trappers have been (personel management), where acreage has been sprayed (aircraft tracking), insecticide storage and delivery, accounting, crop monitoring (phenology and prediction) and information delivery. The Eradication Program generates millions of data points daily. It is essential that you have efficient systems available to process this information. El-Lissy then discussed the hardware and software they use to process information in the Texas programs.
 

John Andress addressed the boll weevil eradication technology used in Louisiana. The Southeast got eradication done without a lot of the technology which is available today. In the Louisiana program technology is used to save money and time. The Louisiana program borrowed strongly from both the Southeast program and the Texas program.The Red River Valley Program stretches for 300 miles Bradley Bottoms in Arkansas to the junction of the Red and Atchafalaya Rivers south of Alexandria, La. Field officers in Shreveport and Alexandria and field unit supervisors gather information from their trap checkers and electronically transfer the data to Baton Rouge. We use technology to monitor heights of airplane, tracking of their location (place in time), marking swaths, tracking operating speeds, and providing other information.
 

The on-board flight system, WAG, provides a total record of the flight including time to turn, time over field, altitude, etc. The on-board equipment records the information onto a small disk. At the end of a day the pilot hands the disk to the field unit supervisor who downloads it to the computer. Then program managers and other interested parties can review flights (in real time), review swath widths, etc. All this information makes good pilots even better. With this system, money is saved because you don't need field flaggers or application monitors.
 

GPS units are used to map fields. The GPS units are mounted in pickup trucks or ATV's. The corners of fields are fixed with this equipment. The data are sent to Baton Rouge where the corrections are made (security scramble of data corrected). Then the maps of fields can be produced. There is commercially available map information software which cross references GPS data and Louisiana and Arkansas streets, roads and waterways. We show our cotton fields as green.
 

When the maps are ready our WAG/SAT Lock generated flight information overlays on the map. Dark green spray on lines and red spray off lines show up on the maps to indicate where on the map insecticides were sprayed. This system provides a good check on pilots and provides an excellent record for defending the program against complaints such as fish kills. The record shows definatively when and where the insecticides were applied. Once a pilot was accused of spraying a school bus. Criminal charges were dropped but he was still sued in a civil court. The system helps resolve these kinds of problems. In addition you get uniform application, good kills, avoid wide swathing problems, feed back is less than one day, and you save a lot of money on salaries (it would take 26 more people to run the Red River Program the old way).
 

We also bar code our traps and use bar code readers to establish the time the trap was read, enter the number of weevils caught, etc. Bar code readers are given to each trap checker (person or unit). The trapper scans the bar code on the trap, reads traps and keys in the number of weevils caught. When he returns to the office he downloads the data to the computer and the data is sent to Baton Rouge. When the field unit supervisor wishes to review the weevil trap data he simply logs his laptop on to the computer at Baton Rouge and prints the reports of the weevils caught. The way we handle the data, we cannot currently map portions of fields to be sprayed, but we will be able to do this at a later time.

We are hiring people as employees, not as contract workers (this is better for us for several reasons and our people don't have to pay self employment taxes). However, we must keep up with hours. We do this with the bar code readers. The employees log-in and log-out on the bar code readers and this is part of the information downloaded to the data management computers.
 

The question was asked about durability of the bar code readers.
 

John Andress replied that the manufacturer reports that you can drop a unit off a four story building or run over it with a pickup truck and it won't break. I imagine we'll get to see about these claims.
 

After we send our data to Baton Rouge vai modem we can store it or pull it up in any format we want.
 

The end result is the technology is a little cheaper than the old way (fewer people on the payroll). It is a lot faster and their is less chance for human error.
 

Osama El-Lissy said the WAG/SAT Lock technology shows the exact path flown by the pilot, where the aircraft was at what time and whether the swath width was 90 or 91 feet at any particular point. On the turn row you can not tell how good the swath widths are, but the equipment can. Our success is in-part due to the improved technology.
 

Bill Greffenstette commented that some of the pictures shown were on a different scale. He asked if the maps shown were the same or different maping packages.
 

John Andress answered that the maps were made with the same technology but were constucted using different scales to accomodate different size field units.
 

James Coppedge asked El-Lissy and Andress to compare SAT lock and WAG technology.
 

John Andress replied comparing the SAT lock, WAG and Zicom (a third, similar technology).

Zicom requires a special unit for down loading. Some of our people did not like it. Zicom corrects its position 2 times per second, requires floppy disk transfer and has differences in manipulation of data. The company that produces the WAG system is very cooperative. The company that produces SAT Lock is much less easy to work with. The SAT Lock people did become more cooperative when we threatened to specify only their competitors products for our program, however.
 

Ron Seward asked why the Red River Program was using the 14 ounce malathion ULV rate.
 

John Andress replied that they were using the 14 ounce rate of malathion because that was the rate that their farmers voted on and passed. He would consider lowering the rate for Boll Weevil Eradication in Northeast Louisiana. However, using a 10 or 12 ounce rate in the Red River Program when the referendum had passed a 14 ounce rate would not be appropriate. Growers voted 93% in favor of the program in the Red River Valley. We have not gotten that kind of response in the Northeast.
 

Tina Teague asked if John Andress expected the pesticide application technology he described to be expanded to other programs and general use by aerial applicators.
 

John Andress replied that people will demand it when they learn what it will do. It will be encouraged by growers, regulatory and for aerial applicators defense from potential lawsuits.
 

George Mullendore stated that these high tech gadgets are becoming the " tools of the trade".

In the past SAT lock or tracking was required but not enforced in the Mississippi programs. From now on the systems will be mandatory in eradication programs in Mississippi.

Traps have been supplied to Mississippi growers since 1992. Data is reported every two weeks and is put on data base. Some are volunteer trappers, some hired. The Southeast Technical Advisory Committee wants data on the east and west sides of the state. We are getting it.

Bar codes are used on traps. Reports are submitted to Mullendore's office. The internet has been used to post trap data since '92-'93.
 

Region I had hired trappers. There were some traps destroyed. Weevils were a problem in some Bt cotton because there were fewer mid-season sprays. We are working with ARS to get help with satellite imaging. Mike Williams reported that five north to south highways were trapped in Mississippi. Traps were set at five mile intervals. Bar codes were used, but they faded out in one week. In 1998, mylar bar codes will be used. Mike reported he liked the Louisianna bar code readers, but price was a problem at $300 each. Trappers download data to MSU.

In 1995, trapcounts were high on the eastern side. In 1997, most of the weevils caught were in the delta. Mississippi will add six east to west lines in 1998. Also, Mississippi will add a grid for bollworm, budworm, and beet armyworm.
 

Osama El-Lissy reported three important data gathering efforts; mapping, trapping and spraying for mapping the Texas programs use GPS (21 satelite). They use DC hand held receivers ($600 each). The brand they are using is Scentmaster with Accupoint Differential Connection hardware. Mapping is a three step process. First we collect latitude/longitude points of fields. Then we download the latitude/longitude information. Finally, maps are constructed. In collecting the latitude/longitude points, three satelites are required to save each point. We download the data to Map Info. The maps are accurate to about one meter.
 

Trap data in the Texas programs is collected through weekly trap checking. Using the bar code reader system, the Field Unit Supervisors know quickly if all trap data has been collected. If it has not, the trapper is sent back to complete the trapping. The data collected is time, trap #, field #, work unit, trap capture, and crop phenology. Quality control is through the trapper. An I.D. card is also a part of the system. Trappers scan their card and record the odometer reading before they start their line. The bar code reader prompts the trapper on what to do. Weevils are counted and bagged. Records are also wiritten on the trap. It takes about 2 minutes to collect data at one trap. Downloading data to the PC's takes about two minutes. In the past, data entry was a 2-3 day process. Now it takes two minutes and treatment decisions can be made quickly.
 

From the downloaded data supervisions can make program decisions based on crop phenology and numbers of weevils. A spray order is written by entering the contractor, plane, pilot, FAA #, insecticide, and date to spray. The program produces all the documents needed for the application. The supervisor then signs the form and sends it with a treatment map to the pilot.

Spray information is also sent to growers, consultants, etc.
 

The application recording system records the flight path in real time and when the spray boom was spraying. It also provides a guidance system to keep the pilot on proper swaths.
 

We also plant weevils randomly in traps for quality control.
 

Business Meeting
 

Ron Seward was elected Secretary 1999- President Elect 2000.
 

Dr. James Coppedge volunteered to handle local arrangements for 1999 if the meeting was held at College Station. USDA facility could be used for the meeting at no cost. His offer was accepted.
 

ARS Research Plans for the Future - Dr. James Coppedge
 

James Coppedge - In the past 1995-96 ARS, APHIS and the National Cotton Council had no consolidated plan ... efforts were fragmented. In July of 1996, a meeting was held to establish research priorities and set a five year plan. In May 1997, another meeting was held at which research priorities were revised and a plan of work was adopted. Boll weevil work efforts were coordinated under the leadership of Dr. Dick Hardee east of the Mississippi and Dr. James Coppedge west of the Mississippi.
 

Texas had the most sy's to apply to boll weevil research. They formed a "Virtual Lab" connecting Weslace and College Station in a programatically connected, coordinated research effort. We will soon have the final version of our five year plan. Next, we need to interpace ARS plans with Universities and other groups. Ray Frisbee suggested the SERA-IEG meeting as a place to coordinate weevil research, avoid redundancies and avoid overlooking important needs.
 

An ARS home page is being developed for boll weevil and also Heliothines.
 

Currently, ARS investment in boll weevil research is : 8-10 SY's in Texas, 5-6 SY's in Mississippi and about 2 SY's elsewhere.
 

The dollar investment of ARS is about $2 million, with perhaps another $2 million being invested by states. This represents some $4 million in investments. With $100-150 million being invested in bollweevil eradication/management, our investment of $4 million is way short of the 10% target investment in research.
 

As Eastern Mississippi becomes quarantined for boll weevil, where do we raise weevils for research?
 

Research Updates
 

Patricia O'Leary moderated the session on research updates.
 

Terry Wagoner reported for USDA at Mississippi State Universtiy. We are doing diapause work. Following retirements, 3 folks working on boll weevil (excluding rearing) 2 SY's. No plans for increasing boll weevil research. A quarantine on weevils will be in place at MSU by late summer.
 

The diapause research has as a goal three questions?

1. When to start spraying?

2. How often to spray?

3. When to stop spraying?

The research has been going nicely. Our work on the seasonal incidence of diapause in Mississippi has resulted in a completed manuscript- it suggests diapause sprays should begin in mid-August. We have looked at the bollweevil life stages which are sensitive to diapause induction. We have done other work on physiological aspects of diapause. In addition, we have investigated how long after diapause has been induced do physical changes in boll weevils occur.

We have looked at the effects of both food (squares or bolls) and temperature on the development of diapause characteristics.
 

The information developed has been used by the Mississippi Boll Weevil Technical Advisory Committee to set up the diapause control portion of their eradication program.
 

How the host plant influences diapause induction is still unclear. We don't understand the relationship.
 

Along with the diapause induction parameters, we are trying to gain an understanding of boll weevil overwintering. Is it in diapause per-se or in post-diapause quiescence? We have a better understanding of "diapause development." It is temperature regulated. We have developed a model to predict "diapause development."
 

Many overwintering boll weevils are in a state of post-diapause quiescence. Not the whole populatioin, though.
 

We measured respiration rates of reproductive, prediapause and diapausing adult weevils with a respirometer. We have no direct measurement of respiration of weevils which are leaving the field, but we have respiration measurements on weevils with fully developed fat bodies and we assume that weevils capable of overwintering would not leave the field until the fat bodies were well developed.
 

We expected to see respiration rates drop when we compared prediapausing weevils to diapausing weevils. We did see the drop in respiration, but not abruptly. The time required for the respiration rate to drop corresponded to the time needed for fat body development.
 

Regarding the question of food, insects fed on bolls took the same amount of time to develop fat bodies as did those fed on squares. The fat bodies of weevils fed on squares were "somewhat enlarged" as compared with the fat bodies of weevils fed on bolls.
 

The weevils became "restless" when the fat body formed.
 

We are modeling the time required to reach maximum fat body formation and the coinciding onset of "restlessness."
 

Other work using the respirometer focused on weevils response to pheromones. We are studying how the respiration of weevils, in various stages of diapause, changes when the weevils are exposed to pheromones.
 

Ray Frisbie asked if the model was applicable in all areas? Was it applicable in South Texas?
 

Terry Wagoner answered that the model applied in all areas on weevils in diapause. In South Texas, some weevils are in diapause, some are not. The model is fundamental to the relationship between fat body development and diapause.
 

Ray Frisbie mentioned the Wilson/Stone/Rummel spring emergence prediction model and suggested that the two models might be used together.
 

Dale Spurgeon commented that photoperiod was not a diapause inducing factor in South Texas.
 

Terry Wagoner said photoperiod plays a key role. Looking at photoperiod per se and its input on diapause induction you get unrealistic results. But, if you look at the change in day length...the rate of change is steeper further north...you get much better results. At Weslaco the day length is short, but the rate of change is flatter. The insect sees and appears to be responding to rate of change.
 

Studying the effect of diet further, we looked at feeding weevils bolls versus leaves in a diapause inducing environment. A group fed on bolls went into diapause. A second group fed for two weeks on leaves, then fed on bolls; virtually all stayed in a reproductive mode. We concluded that when weevils are fed leaves, then bolls, they remain reproductive, ie. diapause induction is overridden.
 

Gerald McKibben reported on boll weevil response to pheromone. He reported Gast weevils did not demostrate much of a response to grandlure in an olfacometer. Diapausing weevils showed no response in the olfactometer.
 

Regarding the question of how weevils find overwintering habitat, (sight, temperature, random movement, olfactory cues). McKibben's group investigated olfactory cues. What attractiveness, if any is there to smells coming from leaf litter? He reported that weevils were attracted to cotton oils. In measuring the distance weevils would crawl towards odor sources, they found two cotton squares most attractive, followed by one bloom, one square, two leaves, and the control was least attractive. Response to the essential oils of other plants were variable. There was no significant response to most plants. Response to willow oak, honey suckle, and red oak were significant, but weak. Both synthetic pheromone components used alone and grandlure provoked strong responses. McKibben got consistently good results in the field on late season weevils. He reports that the materials are commercially available and cheaper than grandlure. However in one day there was no response. The system requires a controled release system and must be checked after it has been in place longer than one day.
 

He measured a weak, but ssignificant response of weevils to the odor from ground trash. Twenty-five compounds from ground trash were identified by gas chromatography. These were representative of green leafy plants. He plans to separate and test each compound.
 

The question was asked about what the levels of these compounds do as leaves decay.
 

Gerald McKibben reported that the odors remained during decomposition.
 

Dale Spurgeon reported that data from Mexican trap sites remote from cotton indicates dispersing, diapausing weevils can be found up to 150 miles down wind and 60 miles cross wind from the fields in which they developed. The dispensing, diapausing weevils had not recently fed.
 

Regarding diapause induction, Spurgeon said that one could not conclude much from the University of Texas juvenile hormone estarase literature.
 

Under diapause inducing light/temperature conditions, Spurgeon's group saw only small differences. In the lab if weevils are given one unpunctured square per day, 90% remain reproductive weevils. In 1997, Spurgeon's group looked at diapause induction. Photoperiod was not a factor; food type and quality was an overwhelming factor.
 

Ray Frisbie suggested that model does not fit with what would be expected from a tropical weevil.
 

Dale Spurgeon replied that it fit hampea and the tropical temperature situations.
 

Dick Hardee asked if Spurgeon had conducted trials on weevils from other US locations.
 

Dale Spurgeon replied, not yet.
 

Lanny Brasheirs asked about what dietary factors induced diapause in South Texas.
 

Dale Spurgeon reported that any "less desirable" food induced diapause. Punctured squares, red squares (anthocyanin), squares with the bracts removed, all gave measureable responses.
 

Dale Spurgeon also noted that it was easier to induce diapause when the sexes were held separate. Also, diapausing or not, males produced sperm and mated all winter long. Even atrophied testes produced sperm. The testes were difficult to find in all the fat globules.
 

Dale Spurgeon suggested that we need to know if differences exist in what factors induce diapause.
 

Ray Frisbie suggested that it may be important to know if differences exist in diapause induction, but also in survivorship.
 

Dale Spurgeon suggested that perhaps diapause, but certainly survivorship was dictated by temperature. He noted the reproductive weevils are unable to slow down respiration. Those weevils that enter diapause by September have little chance of survival.
 

Ray Frisbie noted Slosser and Rummel's work which showed that the best chance for survival was seen in weevils which entered diapause late.
 

Don Johnson provided information on the relationship of overwintering habitat and survival. Greatest weevil numbers were associated with forests. Tree lines and buildings also had good weevil numbers. Lower numbers were associated with ditches, roads, and well sites. The data was from Craighead, Lonoke, and Mississippi Counties in Arkansas. Satellite photography can be used to determine habitat quality for an area.
 

Cold bath studies at various termperatures with no leaves, dry leaves and wet leaves in the cold bath cans were used to study mortality. Moist substrate gave the greatest and quickest mortality. No substrate was intermediate and dry substrate gave the least mortality and slowest mortality. The data suggests that eradication in low weevil areas of North Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee start after a hard wet winter since growers are not willing to spend amounts necessary for conventional eradication approach.
 

Tom Plato asked what percent survival was this year.
 

Don Johnson replied this year 10-12% survival was expected. Not much cold weather was experienced.
 

Gerald McKibben asked about buildings being the best habitat other than forest and if vision might be an important cue.
 

Don Johnson replied that sensory cues were probably key, and probably vision/olfactory cues were most important.
 

Dick Hardee mentioned an "old theory" of weevils flying into buildings, falling down and wintering there.
 

Mike Williams noted that water levels were high in the woods on the delta this year.
 

Don Johnson noted that railroad tracks and buildings were normally on better drained sites.
 

Jane Pierce asked if Don's numbers represented numbers in the habitat or survival.
 

Don Johnson said it was probably a combination of numbers and survival.
 

Jane Pierce asked if traps indicated whether the data was more representative of numbers of overwintering weevils or survival.
 

Don Johnson replied that in the fall, weevils appeared more or less randomly distributed, but in the spring, the traps in good overwintering habitats caught more weevils. He noted that Slosser and Rummel had reported that good habitat is key to highest survival.
 

Don Johnson also reported that border sprays worked well in 1997 in Arkansas.
 

Jane Pierce asked if the weevils associated with town sites were overwintering in structures or in leaf litter.
 

Don Johnson replied that with his data set he could not distinguish whether they overwintered in leaves or structures in town sites. Probably both.
 

Ray Frisbie reported better survival in towns on the south sides of buildings.
 

Others commented about weevils overwintering in towns.
 

Don Johnson said that the ability to estimate mortality and begin eradication following a cold winter would be critical in North Arkansas- lower cost eradication.
 

James Coppedge gave a biological control report. He reported that Ed King, who until recently was working on Catolaccus grandis, was promoted. He does not know what will happen to C. grandis research. Dr. Jim Cate is working with C. grandis in a rearing and practical applications commercial venture. USDA wants to wrap up C. grandis work. USDA APHIS has some rearing in Mission, Texas. The technology has been handed off to the Commercial Firm. Our policy is "been there, done that."
 

Ray Frisbie said that production was needed. Researchers need enough numbers to evaluate in various regions.
 

James Coppedge said that he believed USDA was about through with C. grandis. The availability of C. grandis in the numbers needed for research in the regions will be dependant on the success of the commercial venture. Lots of questions remain about C. grandis. Release techniques, survival after release, storage and artificial rearing media are a few.
 

Pat O'Leary asked how C. grandis was being used in research programs.
 

Jane Pierce responded that she and Joe Ellinton and Bob Staten were working with it, but had limited results to date.
 

Dick Hardee reported on Gretchen Jones' work on Mississippi weevils. They have found pollen from 300 + plant species in the digestive system of boll weevils. He reported that McKibben's work saw similar results.
 

Eric Villavaso asked if the weevils were engorged with pollen.
 

Ray Frisbie reported that in the Valley citrus pollen is often found packing the gut of boll weevil.
 

Dale Spurgeon reported that feeding on dandelion pollen would put boll weevils into a reproductive state...although pollen from plants in the family Compositae are not believed to produce pollen which is particularly nutritive to boll weevil.
 

Tina Teague asked about oak pollen.
 

Ray Frisbie said that oak pollen was the prevalent pollen found in collections of weevils from some areas.
 

James Coppedge mentioned tools for sampling. The Texas lab is using a tractor mounted version of the KISS sampler. The KISS leaf blower samplers are being used for boll weevil sampling on small plants. With it you can sample 1,000 feet in six minutes or one acre in half an hour. It has 40-50% efficiency. The tractor mount is more efficient than the KISS leaf blower sampler.

Dale Spurgeon discussed other projects. For mass trapping he commented that 4,000 acres was not big enough. There were problems with canal banks, sugar cane, and mesquite pastures.
 

Dale Spurgeon also reported on trap comparison studies. He and Jimmy Raulston reported that a Trece prototype trap performed better than the Hercon Foundation trap. He reported that the color of the Trece traps was not necessarily more "attractive" but more "arrestive." Weevils are more prone to be stopped by the trap and not make it to the field.
 

Dale Spurgeon reported on field colonization patterns. The assumption that weevils colonized field edges 200 feet from edges was examined at College Station and the Rio Grande Valley. There was not a significant edge effect. He believes that the border spray approach is not compatible with eradication.
 

Dale Spurgeon also reported on the combination of use of very fast cotton varieties, and delayed uniform planting dates (enforced by weather in 1997). This combination produced very low boll weevil numbers.
 

Insecticide Efficacy
 

Ron Seward moderated the session on insecticide efficacy.
 

Chris Bowley of Cheminova reported that sufficient malathion would be available in 1998.
 

Monty Christian, Rhone Poulenc, reported on a large plot fipronyl (Regent) study conducted in 1997. In this study Regent at 2.5 oz/ac (.05 lb ai/ac) +9.5 oz Cotton Seed Oil was compared to Malathion ULV at 12 oz/ac and an untreated check. The study was replicated 3 times. Plot widths were about 210 feet and lengths varied from 1,500 + 1,800 feet. A 50 ft buffer was left between plots. The cotton was the same variety planted on the same day. It was dryland cotton...about one bale/acre in Mitchell County near Colorado City, Texas. This was a cooperative effort involving David Reed, Bob Jones (with leaf bioassays), TDA and USDA.
 

Leaf bioassays were conducted at 0, 2, 4, and 6 days after application. Field data collected were % punctured squares and bolls, beneficials/50 sweeps mean % mortality, etc. (Some drift was noted into untreated check plots).
 

The study showed Regent had somewhat better residual mortality than malathion. There was not much of a chance to evaluate the impact of rainfall. After the fourth treatment, malathion residual surpassed Regent. In general malathion residues dropped off 4-6 days.
 

In the feeding damage data, damage in the check was high and feeding damage in the malathion and Regent plots was similar. Regent plots had low seasonal mean plant bug and stink bug numbers. The average fruit damage was slightly in favor of Regent. Fewer aphids built up in the Regent plots (after the fourth treatment).
 

The effects of the treatments on beneficials was recorded. Overall, Regent had some impact. lady beetles and lacewings were not affected by Regent. Regent was harsh on big eyed bugs. Possible negative effects of Regent against nabids was seen. Both malathion and Regent had severe negative impacts on assasin bugs. Red cross beetles were affected by Regent. Scymnus lady beetles were not affected. Regent suppressed spiders more than malathion.
 

Regarding registration of Regent, Rhone Poulenc expects registration on corn. Fipronyl is currently labeled on dogs and cats for fleas. On rice, fipronyl went all the way through before it was delayed. Rhone Poulenc expects a cotton label in 1999 (conventional application, but have things to work out). There will be a paper on this study in the 1998 Beltwide Proceedings.
 

Roy Parker asked if a ULV label would be coming in 1999? Also, what will the cost be?
 

Monty Christian said probably not. As for cost, we don't know yet.
 

Osama El-Lissy asked what was used for aphid control.
 

Monty Christian replied Bidrin...I think.
 

Roy Parker asked if ULV Regent would be cost competitive with ULV malathion?
 

Monty Christian replied he did not know.
 

Eric Villavaso reported on malathion ULV rate work. In 1995, with Joe Mulrooney, 8, 10, 12, and 16 oz were evaluated. In 1996, 4, 8, and 12 oz all looked good initially, but 4 was lower residual. We compared, in large acreage plots 10, 12 and 16 oz rates of malathion. We used eradication program planes and took leaf samples every day for 6 days. We ran leaf bioassays in petri dishes, one weevil per dish. Mortality was recorded after 24, 48, and 72 hours. The 16 oz rate killed faster, but after 24 hours control was about the same for all 3 rates. Rainfall after application affects the 10 oz rate more than the 16 oz rate. On wild weevils collected from blooms the 16 oz rate mortality was higher 2 hours post treatment but mortality was about the same across the three rates after 8 hours. Rainfall rates as low as .1 to .05 inches began to affect results.
 

Eric Villavaso continued his report with a discussion of mistblower studies. They had 4 replications, with and against the wind. They used spray cards and collected leaves. Leaves were subjected to residue analysis and used in bioassays. Fifty percent mortality should be expected 63 feet from the sprayer in sprays applied with the wind, while fifty percent mortality of weevils occured only 30 feet from sprays applied with the wind.
 

Bob Jones reported on work he and Joe Mulrooney did with oils as carriers/diluents of ULV malathion. The addition of acetone to malation and parafinic oil was required to obtain a satisfactory mixture. Other diluents were also evaluated. In Mulrooneys tests, Orchex 796 and W52908B diluents produced improved rain-fastness of malathion. Without rain no differences in insecticidal performance were seen with malathion, fipronyl or cyfluthrin.
 

Tina Teague reported on her work with seedling bioassays. She used seedling bouquets on which weevils were fed for 7 days. Some were treated, some untreated. The tests were repeated at 2 locations. Temik at 4.5 lb/ac gave good weevil control. This is being evaluated as a way to keep weevils from colonizing the middles of fields early in the season.
 

Ray Frisbie asked how long the control lasts?
 

Dale Spurgeon replied that there was data in the literature on it. He said the early work showed that not much Temik went into fruiting structures.
 

James Coppedge led a discussion on weather condition effects on spraying. He commented that often the choice was to spray in the morning on plants which are wet from dew, or wait for the dew to dry and be limited by wind later in the day. He pointed to some USDA research that showed good initial deposition/control with malathion as long as the dew was not running off the plants. He noted a shorter residual of malathion applied to leaves wet with dew, however.
 

James Coppedge led a discussion on bait sticks. He reported research that indicated that if weevils were held on bait sticks (in full contact, for 5 seconds) mortality was 100%. But, weevils don't sit on bait sticks long, and when they do, they have limited tarsal contact. Additionally, evidence from petri dish tests, where malathion is applied and weevils introduced, indicate weevils avoid malathion.
 

Future work with Patricia Petrantonio and Gary Elzen will evaluate weevil source, age, and food and the affects these factors have on tolerance for malathion.
 

Bill Grefenstette mentioned problems in handling eradication in situations where small fields and urban areas were contiguous (Las Cruces, Memphis). These areas are not accessable by air. There are concerns about using mist blowers in urban areas (though mosquito abatement does it). Ground rigs may be the best option.
 

Bob Jones indicated that irrigated fields and eradication based on ground rigs running through fields were not compatible.
 

Jane Pierce suggested we considered small remote control aircraft or helicopters.
 

Lanny Brashier asked how growers in these areas, Las Cruces, treat their cotton now.
 

Jane Pierce said they treat by air (if they are able) or, in the case of the small fields in towns, they don't treat at all.
 

Ray Frisbie asked how much cotton they make?
 

Jane indicated that they don't make much, but the area is still relatively lightly infested and cotton is still probably the best option for many.
 

Ray asked if Jane thought this could continue?
 

Jane Pierce replied that the town sites were some of the best overwintering sites and the small fields in the town sites were difficult to treat...a situation which might lead to some of these acres going to something other than cotton. There are lots of weevils in some of those fields.
 

Lanny Brashier commented on air assist high clearance sprayers. He said the sprayers were a maintenance problem. He reported that because of the high maintenance his program had taken the air assist units off the spray coupes and replaced them with mist blowers.
 

Bill Grefenstette reported that many people think that if you are able to get sprays out, you are doing OK. In reality, it is very important to get sprays out in small (tiny) droplets...not globs. Rate per acre is not the only important concept.
 

Jimmy Moody commented on the air assist sprayer problems and talked about removing the air assist units from high clearance sprayers and replacing them with mist blowers. The Southeast program has 11-12 of these units and have run spray cards but feel the need for further verification of these sprayers.
 

Lanny Brashier reported good control with mist blowers running every 64 rows.
 

Jimmy Moody said the mist blowers treat 4 times more acres than the air assist sprayers.
 

Bill Grefenstette asked about the tanks on the the high clearance sprayers fitted with mist blowers. Which are used, the highboy tanks or the mist blower tanks?
 
 

Jimmy Moody replied that when mist blowers are mounted on high clearance sprayers they were using the 100 gallon tanks on the mist blowers, not the larger tanks on the high clearance sprayers.
 

Bill Grefenstette said that the last fields to "clean up" were the "high boy" fields. He felt this was critical to eradication.
 

Bob Jones asked if an agricultural engineer had evaluated this system.
 

Jimmy Moore said that operationally a 60 ft. swath width with a mist blower was no different from every row treatment with a high clearance sprayer, but it was much faster.
 

Other Management/Eradication Research
 

Ron Seward moderated the session on alternative practices. He said that there was considerable interest in Arkansas, Missouri and Tennessee in malathion alternatives, reduced rates and other cost savings motivated research. Low budgets are the challenge for eradication in these areas.
 

Aubry Harris spoke about catfish problems which may hinder eradication in the Mississippi delta. If the problem makes traditional eradication technologies unworkable, alternative strategies would be needed. North Tennessee, north Arkansas, Missouri, New Mexico have special needs (low weevil areas and contiguous cotton/urban situations).
 

Alternative approaches are available. They don't have a successful track record (although many claims can be found as to what they will do).
 

In the Mississippi Delta, catfish situation may be considered.
 

Then there is the BWACT. Research continues by Tugwell, Plato and others. The BWACT has quality assurance, use/efficacy, and bioassay concerns.
 

Phillip Tugwell reported on alternative methods studies eradication in NE Arkansas. In this region weevils often move into many of the cotton acres after the last effective boll population is no longer susceptible.
 

End of season management has been studied, using crop cues (COTMAN) to establish the last effective boll population and heat units to determine its maturation we can precisely time crop termination. This allows timely (early) harvest and crop residue destruction. An early application of low rates of finish (for 70 cents) helps eliminate late season food and oviposition punctures.
 

In areas of low infestation, spring and fall trap cropping, bait sticks, in-furrow Temik and pin head square treatments could be employed. Most of the spraying would be done near overwintering habitat (cost reduction). Trap cropping has been demonstrated by Tina Teague and is not difficult with high speed vegetable transplanters. Fall trap crops could be easily produced by shredding and ratooning cotton.Bait sticks are a key strategy in low quality habitat. Temik in-furrow will lower weevil numbers and help eliminate pre-squaring middle of the field colonization. Pin head square treatments early-season can be implemented as border sprays instead of field-wide.
 

We are conducting a ½ mile doughnut experiment surrounded by insecticide treatments to test low density weevil population reduction strategy. A pheromone based approach will be used, "in the doughnut hole".
 

Roy Parker reported on early use of defoliants to remove squares. Prep, Finish and Roundup used. Square removal and regrowth reduction were achieved (to some degree), even after shredding. These cannot be mixed with the defoliant.
 

Tina Teague discussed her trials with these products. Early Finish that meant at .05 lb ai/ac (70 cents) did not cause extensive square loss, but reduced boll weevil oviposition. It also improved the performance of Prep. No yield increase, but early harvest.
 

George Mullendore commented on the affects of the failed referendum in Missisippi Zone 1. He reported that the failure of the vote to pass had no effect on the money dedicated to boll weevil eradication which comes from the Warehouse Tax in Mississippi. Those funds amount to $2-3 million per year for the life of the program.
 

Tom Plato thanked researchers for their work with BWACT. He said he thought it would result in improvements in the technology. He reported the company was exploring alternative toxicants, alternative inert ingredients and improved ways to extend the release of the insecticide.
 

Regarding old product in market chains, Mr. Plato said they removed all 1995, 1996, & 1997 product from distributor's. All product in distribution in 1998 will be new product.
 

He indicated that the new BWACT product is easier to install.
 

Regarding the life of the product, Plato Industries is investigating ways to determine the residual effectiveness of both the insecticide and pheromone.
 

Field use recommendations:

- install BWACT's at planting on 200 ft intervals.

- then replace 30 days later at pin head square.

- then leave in place to harvest.
 

Program cost about $5.00 /ac.
 

A study conducted by Charles Cole showed that installation on the up wind side of fields improved performance by 3-16 x. We have confirmed that having holes in the tubes increased attractancy up to 50%. Overwintered weevil recapture in traps vs BWACT's showed BWACT's were 3.8 x more efficient than traps. We still see good numbers of weevils dead on the ground or in buckets placed under BWACT's and lots of weevils stuck in stickum applied to BWACT's. Comparing weevils in buckets under BWACT's versus caught in Herion scout traps, a good correlation was seen. Among weevils landing on sticks for 30 seconds we saw 100 % mortality. Comparing tubes coated with stickum to traps the tubes stuck 200 weevils/week while the Hardee trap caught 15 weevils/week. We are having success in Argentina & Paraguay in a barrier program to prevent weevils from moving into uninfested areas. In an area that has been infested in Formosa, traps, BWACT's and sprays have practically eliminated boll weevil.
 

Dale Spurgeon reported on several BWACT studies done by his group. He reported that the bait sticks baited with the 60 mg pheromone bait were initially 2-4 x more attractive to weevils than the 10 mg hercon baits. But the BWACT 60 mg pheromone baits quickly lost pheromone. Half the pheromone was gone after one week. After 5 weeks, no pheromone was left.
 

In James Coppedge's lab, when weevils were placed on BWACT's they were killed.
 

In our field tests, weevils lit on the tubes for an average of 9 minutes. Fifty percent of the weevils that lit stayed less than 5 minutes. The longest stay on a BWACT was 84 minutes.
 

Of the weevils that lit on the BWACTs, none died after 4 days and only 2 of 90 died later as compared with 3 of 110 weevils caught in pheromone traps which died.
 

When weevils land on a BWACT, they behave differently than when they land on yellow PVC pipe. On BWACT's they assume a "departure posture." I contend that an assay of the natural response is not the same as forced contact. Forced contact is probably a poor measure of field efficacy.
 

Tom Plato reported that old BWACT's were used in Spurgeon's testing and that the studies needed to be re-run in 1998 with new sticks and alternate toxicants.
 

Dale Spurgeon asked if Mr. Plato knew why the weevils died in the forced contact studies?
 

Tom Plato indicated he did not know.
 

Dale Spurgeon asked if old product was routinely marketed.
 

James Coppedge noted some studies in which weevils were exposed to sticks without pheromone. The weevils moved away from the sticks. Is this repellancy?
 

Aubry Harris reported studies in which weevils were put in plexiglass tubes with a moving air stream carrying pheromone across BWACT pieces to the weevils. Weevils were killed (fumigant action) but did not contact the sticks.
 

Eric Villavaso reported that with the original product with cylfluthrin as a toxicant, they had excellent mortality. With malathion, they did see weevils not dying.
 

Villavaso's group set up natural landings allowed weevils to land and they carefully placed weevils on sticks so that only tarsal contact was made. Weevils don't like to crawl on BWACT's. We noted placing weevils on sticks kills more than when weevils naturally land on sticks.
 

On older sticks weevils tended to stay on the sticks longer.
 

Dale Spurgeon pointed out the need for an appropriate means of assaying weevil mortality.
 

Eric Villavaso said natural populations would be needed to do appropriate assays.
 

Osama El-Lissy asked Eric Villavaso why only one of 10 of the weevils he tested landed on the sticks.
 

Eric Villavaso reported that the weevils were coming out of the green house into the light and appeared to be trying to escape.
 

James Coppedge reported observations on PVC pipes painted the same color with and without malathion. There was a 10 fold difference in number of weevils landing. He suggested that if the insects were not repelled, the BWACT may be more effective.
 

Aubry Harris said that in the wind tunnel studies they conducted non-contact fumigant action killed a lot of weevils.
 

Gerald McKibben reported that his group had seen boll weevils repelled by malathion (and other OP's) and cyflucthrin (and other pyrethroids). He said the mode of action was not insecticide absorbed by the tarsi. It has to do with the oil coating. On good bait sticks weevils which landed on bait sticks and then were captured, died. He suggested that the problem may be a quality control problem. The problem may be a lack of oil on the sticks. Without oil in the sticks there is not much kill.
 

Gerald McKibben suggested assaying the amount of oil in the sticks and the amount of malathion in the sticks.
 

Lanny Brashier reported that the sticks did a good job in the Southeast against light weevil populations, but not against heavy populations.
 

James Coppedge asked Gerald McKibben if they had encountered problems at one time with no oil coming to the surface of sticks.
 

Gerald McKibben reported that they had seen problems in the past with binding of the malathion with the clay thickener.
 

Tom Plato reported that research by Gerald McKibben identified a clay that would not bind Malathion. Plato Industries in now using that clay, at 5 % content in BWACT's.
 

James Coppedge said repellancy has been a problem in past technologies. He said that against screw worm 27 different compounds were tested before one was found that did not repel.
 

Jimmy Moore reported that putting malathion on traps made them less effective.
 

Aubry Harris stated that a concern remained about quality control.
 

The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 noon.
 

**************************.