What Foliar Insecticides Are Recommended for Tobacco in 2017?
El inglés es el idioma de control de esta página. En la medida en que haya algún conflicto entre la traducción al inglés y la traducción, el inglés prevalece.
Al hacer clic en el enlace de traducción se activa un servicio de traducción gratuito para convertir la página al español. Al igual que con cualquier traducción por Internet, la conversión no es sensible al contexto y puede que no traduzca el texto en su significado original. NC State Extension no garantiza la exactitud del texto traducido. Por favor, tenga en cuenta que algunas aplicaciones y/o servicios pueden no funcionar como se espera cuando se traducen.
English is the controlling language of this page. To the extent there is any conflict between the English text and the translation, English controls.
Clicking on the translation link activates a free translation service to convert the page to Spanish. As with any Internet translation, the conversion is not context-sensitive and may not translate the text to its original meaning. NC State Extension does not guarantee the accuracy of the translated text. Please note that some applications and/or services may not function as expected when translated.Collapse ▲
The insecticide toolbox in tobacco has changed significantly during the past year. As many growers and extension personnel are aware, registration for the active ingredient flubendiamide was canceled due to concerns about non target effects on aquatic invertebrates. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed cancellation in March 2016, and following a failed appeal of the cancellation, it went into effect at the end of July.
Flubendiamide was labeled as Belt in tobacco, and marketed by Bayer CropSciences. This cancellation is particularly significant for tobacco because Belt was one of the most commonly used foliar insecticides, applied to a reported 46% of acres grown during 2015. Belt was used so extensively because it was highly effective against tobacco budworm, which are particularly hard to control with insecticides (see Table 2, below). Belt was also effective against hornworms, the most significant post topping foliar pest in tobacco.
Belt was one of two Group 28 insecticides that were registered in tobacco, the other is Coragen, containing the active ingredient chlorantraniliprole, which is still registered. Insecticides with this mode of action act on insect muscle cells and stop insect feeding quickly, but generally have “low” mammalian toxicity (LC50 values of >5000 mg/kg in test animals).
In the absence of Belt, we need to revise our recommendations for tobacco budworm and hornworm control. There are a number of other effective insecticides registered in tobacco. However, there are constraints limiting the utility of a number of these materials.
|Product||Active Ingredient (MOA)||Recommended Rate/Acre||Restricted Use?||Residue Concerns?|
|10 fl oz||Yes||Yes|
|Blackhawk||Spinosad (5)||1.6 oz||No||No|
|Brigade 2EC||Bifenthrin (3A)||2.56 fl oz||Yes||Yes|
|Bt (many formulations)||Bacillus thuringiensis (11A)||Varies by formulation||No||No|
|Coragen (transplant water application)||Chlorantraniliprole (28)||7 fl oz||No||No|
|Coragen (field foliar application)||Chlorantraniliprole (28)||5 fl oz||No||Yes|
|Karate/Warrior||Lambda-cyhalothrin (3A)||0.96 fl oz/2.5 oz||Yes||Yes|
|Orthene||Acephate (1B)||0.25 lb||No||Yes|
The two most significant constraints on Belt alternatives are long pre harvest intervals (Group 3A materials such as Besiege, Brigade, Karate, and Warrior cannot be used after layby) and tobacco purchaser concerns about pesticide residues (see Table 1, last column). Issues of pesticide residues in tobacco are complicated and beyond the control of farmers, so for the purposes of grower recommendations, we try to avoid recommending materials for which purchasers have indicated that they are concerned about residues.
Of course, the most important consideration when recommending an insecticide is efficacy. In order to compare efficacy of Belt alternatives over time, we calculated the average percent control in field efficacy trials, as compared to an untreated control, from 2009 through 2014. You can view the published reports we calculated these values from.
Table 2. Relative efficacy of insecticides against tobacco budworm, 2009-2014. Brigade was not included in trials during this period, but one trial included Capture LFR, a different bifenthrin formulation. Bt, Karate, Warrior, and Orthene were not included in efficacy trials during this time period.
|Product||Rate/Acre||Average Control||Number of Trials|
|Belt||2 fl oz||82%||7|
1.5 to 1.74 oz
|Capture LFR (bifenthrin)||4 fl oz||67%||1|
|Bt (many formulations)||–||–||–|
|Coragen (transplant water application)||7 fl oz||29%||6|
|Coragen (field foliar application)||5 fl oz||82%||12|
Taking into account residue concerns, pre harvest application constraints, and efficacy, Blackhawk,
and perhaps Denim (although it was screened only in a limited number of trials), appears to be essentially the only foliar applied material we can widely recommend for tobacco budworm. Coragen foliar treatments are also highly effective against budworms, but at this time, at least one purchaser has raised concerns about residues. Transplant water applications of Coragen are effective against tobacco budworm only if infestations occur during the period which they are active, 4 to 6 weeks after transplant. This is inconsistently the case in North Carolina, although transplant applications of Coragen have produced higher efficacy in Georgia and South Carolina and may be quite effective against hornworms.
Update, December 22: I just received an update from a Sygenta representative that Denim is no longer being sold for use in tobacco. This means that Blackhawk is currently the only efficacious material without significant residue concerns. Having only one foliar rescue insecticide available for use against key caterpillar pests is problematic from a resistance management scenario.