WE PARTNER WITH YOUR TRUSTED ADVISORS

As agriculture has evolved, the nature of the industry has become more complex and regulated. At Ruder Ware our attorneys act as legal counsel for producers and businesses providing products and services for the agriculture industry, and partner with a client’s current trusted advisors, such as accountants and lenders. Contact us today to see how our team approach yields the best results for your farm or business.

threaten the long-term sustainability of the compounds.

Increasing concern about neonicotinoid resistance in CPB populations and unknown environmental risks posed by this MoA group have elevated the importance of proactive pest management programs that integrate non-neonicotinoid insecticides.

Due to these concerns and developing resistance, many Wisconsin producers have been transitioning from a continuous, at-plant neonicotinoid pest management program to one that incorporates sequences of newer and RR-classified insecticides. Nearly all these alternative insecticides are applied as foliar programs and, by design, are organized in sequences for seasonlong control.

The alternative insecticides belong to different MoA groups (e.g., avermectins, benzoylureas, diamides, METI-inhibitors, meta-diamides, oxadiazines, and spinosyns). Not all the newer active ingredients possess similar efficacy, or a similar pest spectrum of control as do (did) the neonicotinoids.

Additionally, few of these new registrations are sufficiently watersoluble and systemically mobile through the plant xylem tissues, which was a property of the at-plant neonicotinoid insecticides that growers valued.

Over the pest several field research seasons, the University of WisconsinMadison Vegetable Entomology program has researched the potential for new active ingredients to be added to our at-plant arsenal of pest control programs (https://vegento. russell.wisc.edu/field-trials/).

AT-PLANT & FULL SEASON TRIALS

Trials designated as “At-plant” or “Full season” attempt to evaluate the performance of novel MoA compounds and make direct comparisons in terms of performance or level of control against key pests in Wisconsin potato (CPB, potato leafhopper, green peach aphid, potato aphid).

These results are summarized and also available at the Vegetable Entomology publications link (https://vegento.russell.wisc.edu/ publications/), and special reference should be paid to listings designated as Arthropod Management Trials.

Briefly, only a few active ingredients (beyond the current neonicotinoid registrations) remain registered with at-plant use patterns in potato. And some of these registrations are principally focused on control of soil-dwelling insects (wireworms, white grubs, flea beetle larvae) and nematodes.

Among the currently registered atplant uses that formally list CPB as an insect control target on the label are cyantraniliprole (Verimark®), phorate (Thimet® 20G), and the at-plant uses for the neonicotinoid insecticides (clothianidin, imidacloprid, thiamethoxam).

With decades of well-known and documented resistance to the organophosphate class of insecticides (MoA Class 1B ACHE— acetylcholinesterase—inhibitors), our program has discontinued evaluations of phorate as an active ingredient of interest for control of CPB.

The remaining active ingredient and current registration that we continue to evaluate and compare to the at-plant neonicotinoids is FMC’s Verimark® insecticide.

In recent investigations, we observe that at-plant applications (either in-furrow or seed treatment) of Verimark provide comparable CPB control performance when compared with seed and in-furrow uses of the neonicotinoids (Tables 1-3).

Cpb Populations Assessed

Within these summaries, CPB populations were assessed on 10 randomly selected plants in the center of each plot for the following life stages: small larvae (1st-2nd instars), large larvae (3rd-4th instars), and percent defoliation.

a Means followed by same letter code(s) are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α=.05).

b Treatment main effect p-values determined by ANOVA.

CPB counts were performed over seven successive weeks beginning May 31 through July 11, 2022. Because second generation adults emerged in large numbers by July 11, the experiment was concluded at that time.

Considering all treatments were applied at plant, we are presenting CPB counts as cumulative counts to better illustrate the longevity and efficacy of each treatment across the first generation.

Large larvae were first observed on June 21, appearing in large numbers by the following week (June 27), with significant differences between treatments noted.

Both Verimark and Belay applied as either seed or in-furrow treatments performed well against large larvae, with weaker control observed using Admire Pro®, Cruiser®, and Platinum®.

potato leafhopper and colonizing aphid species.

References

Bradford, B. Z., Chapman, S. A., & Groves, R. L. (2022). Evaluation of Several Seed Treatment and InFurrow Programs for First-Generation Colorado Potato Beetle Management on Potato in Wisconsin, 2021. Arthropod Management Tests, 47(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1093/amt/ tsac030.

March 2023

Small larvae hatched and became prevalent in the plots starting June 14. Small larvae counts were among the lowest in the Belay® and Verimark treatments.

R.L. Groves, Badger CommonTater_BadgerBeat

Successful incorporation of these newer RR compounds into appropriate insecticide product sequences and rotations will not only benefit neonicotinoid resistance management of CPB, but also increase the importance of scouting for other common pests, such as a Means followed by same letter code(s) are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α=.05). b Treatment main effect p-values determined by ANOVA.

Bradford, B. Z., Chapman, S. A., & Groves, R. L. (2020). Evaluation of Full-Season Colorado Potato Beetle Management Programs in Wisconsin, 2019. Arthropod Management Tests, 45(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/amt/ tsaa019.