Another Section 18 Season for Folicur

Folicur will receive Section 18 emergency label registration for another growing season, allowing wheat and barley growers in states that apply for the label to use the fungicide for FHB suppression. 

Jim Bloomberg, with Bayer CropScience, the maker of Folicur, says the company is working with the Environmental Protection Agency to resolve questions EPA has about the tebuconazole product before it receives full Section 3 registration. 

Folicur and another experimental Bayer fungicide (JAU 6476, tested under the code AMS 21619) have had the most consistent efficacy against FHB in uniform fungicide and biological control trials conducted under the U.S. Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative, according to plant pathologists Marcia McMullen, North Dakota State University, and Eugene Milus, University of Arkansas.  Milus is current coordinator of this research area of the Initiative, and McMullen before that.

Uniform trials established under the Initiative were first conducted in 1998, evaluating five uniform fungicide treatments on three classes of wheat and spring barley in seven states. The number of cooperating states has since doubled, and methods for applying treatments and recording results have steadily improved. New treatments are tested for at least two years.  The first biological control agents (BCAs) for FHB suppression were included in the uniform trials beginning in 2001.

During its first five years, the uniform fungicide and biocontrol trials have evaluated 10 fungicides provided by six crop protection companies and BCAs from EMBRAPA (Brazil), Cornell, USDA, and Ohio State University.  Reductions in FHB field severity across locations have averaged about 50%, and have been as high as 78% with the best fungicide treatment. However, most of the tested treatments have been eliminated from further consideration because of poor efficacy, tendency to increase DON levels, and/or termination of the product by the crop protection company.

Data generated in the uniform trials have been instrumental for justifying Section 18 registrations for Folicur in several states, and likely will be important for any future registrations, say McMullen and Milus.

--------------------------------------

Blending Barley Would Mitigate DON Losses

Yield reductions and price discounts incurred by producers in North Dakota, Minnesota, and South Dakota from FHB and DON averaged about $45.3 million annually during the years 1998 through 2000, according to an estimate by William Nganje, ag economist at North Dakota State University and Demcey Johnson, formerly at NDSU and now director of the USDA-ERS Small Grains Division, Washington, D.C. Losses are more substantial when secondary economic impacts are considered. For every $1 of scab losses incurred by the producer, $2 in losses are incurred in other areas of rural and state economies.

One way of mitigating these losses is to blend barley with DON and barley without DON. Results from a grain blending model in the economic study by Nganje and Johnson show a sharp decline of DON discounts and losses after blending. The average discount fell from $0.57/bu to $0.17/bu in 1998, $0.48/bu to $0.14/bu in 1999, and $0.38/bu to $0.15/bu in 2000. However, producers may not benefit from blending margins (gains from improved quality less blending costs) because these margins are the primary source of revenue for grain elevators. It should also be noted that the aggregate costs of DON to grain handlers are difficult to estimate because DON is subject to an unusual amount of measurement uncertainty, and penalties for excess DON pose an unusual level of risk.

“Grain blending may reduce the price impacts of FHB, but this is a traditional source of revenue for grain handlers and elevators, and farmers may not benefit from aggregate grain blending activities,” Nganje says.

This study, “Economic Impact of Fusarium Head Blight in Malting Barley: Blending Margins and Firm-Level Risk,” can be found in its entirety online at 128.233.58.173/cafri/searchage.php , web site for Current Agriculture, Food and Resource Issues, journal of the Canadian Agricultural Economics Society.